Monthly Archives: April 2014

Serfdom and American Slavery

Posted on by

There are interesting parallels between Russian serfdom and the form of slavery found in the Americas. During the 16th and 17th centuries, Russian serfdom changed dramatically. The beginning of the 16th century brought economic prosperity to Russia, but from the 1560’s into the early 1600’s Russia was struck by many brutal periods of chaos that combined to cause large reforms in serfdom. These reforms drastically restricted the movement of the serfs and turned serfs from peasants into property.

In the second half of the 16th century, Russia was affected by regime changes, instability, revolts, foreign interventions, crop failure and famine, and a government that didn’t have the strength or organization to provide for or protect the peasantry. The combination of these factors led to a steep decline in living conditions and prosperity for the peasants. Many of the peasants became slaves or criminals, but the majority packed up and left their homes to try and find better living conditions. The mass migrations of agricultural workers caused a great strain on the nation as a whole, as it could barely support the needs of the population.

Serfdom in Russia had become necessary due to the lack of labor and the Russian government instituted laws that rapidly took away the remaining freedom of the serfs. Slavery in the American colonies was used because of a lack of sufficient population for the necessary agricultural work. Both American slavery and Russian serfdom were used to compensate for an insufficient population of agricultural workers, but they also were similarly maintained by the respective governments for a time. The American government allowed slaves to be owned by specific people or households that typically required them to be stationary and work on farms and orchards, and the Russian government created laws that prevented serfs from leaving the land that they worked.

Russian serfdom and American slavery had some key similarities. Primarily, the usage of slaves/serfs to perform agricultural work, rather than work in secondary or tertiary industries. The main difference between them comes from the necessity of their existence. Slavery in the Americas was important because of economic reasons, but serfdom in Russia was necessary at the time in order to keep the nation functioning and stable.

The Genocide Convention

Posted on by

Three points

1. The Genocide Convention regards a genocide as a illegal movement. It includes not only actual homicides but also attempted homicide and violence.

2. The Genocide Convention defines the concrete trial system. People who committed this convention can be judged by ICC or domestic courts.

3. This convention plays a quite significant role to prevent people from repeating a massacre, which was conducted by Nazi Germany during the second world war .

Two questions

1. How much did this convention actually contribute to the protection of human right in Europe?

2. Did this convention enhance the right of minority group such as Jewish people?

Obeservation

This content of Genocide Convention defines punishable acts in detail . The article three includes five kinds of punishable acts. One of them prohibits people from suggesting any plan of massacres.  Therefore, people can be punished even if they do not actually kill people. From this idea, I felt the strong will of countries to prevent the cruel acts in advance.

 

Survival in Auschwitz

Posted on by
  1. Primo Levi was an Italian Jew born in Turin, Italy, in 1919. At age twenty-four, he was part of a political resistance group that was caught by the fascist militia. When interrogated, he disclosed that he was a Jewish Italian citizen rather than explaining his political affiliation because he feared torture and certain death. He was sent to a vast detention camp in Fossoli, near Modena.
  2. After SS troops inspected the detention camp, they announced the deportation of all Jews. The SS troops sent the Jews to a work camp near Auschwitz called Monowitz. Here, Levi is reduced to a number and experiences the severe horrors of the Holocaust: extreme starvation, fatigue, illness, uncertainty, and terror.
  3. Levi remained at the work camp until January 1945. The SS troops knew that a Russian bombing was imminent and decided to take all of the “healthy” prisoners on a death march to the next camp. Levi, who had caught scarlet fever, was left behind. The bombings caused the Germans to flee the camp. Levi, along with other prisoners, managed to survive the bombings and ultimately escape the deserted camp.

Questions:

Even though Levi believed he would have been executed for announcing his political resistance, would he had fared better had he not disclosed his religion to the fascist militia?

How is Levi able to refuse to consent to his treatment by the SS troops? How is he able to keep a clear mind and possess the will to survive against all odds?

Observation:

I find it most interesting how lucky Levi was during his imprisonment in the work camp. He was not only sent to the infirmary after a foot injury, which meant forty days free of work, but he only got ill once, contracting scarlet fever right before the death march, and he survived the bombings by the Russian allies. Statistically, Levi was one of the very few that survived from his original group.

Genocide: Definitely Not Allowed

Posted on by

Interesting Points:

– The definition of Genocide is all encompassing. Even if there are just nine or ten people in a religious cult the conspiracy to wipe them out would be defined as Genocide. I guess I find it interesting that this term doesn’t just apply to large numbers of people – it has to do with any sized group.

– If it is possible, the offenders will be tried in a state judicial system, instead of an international war crimes tribunal. I was under the impression that all trials as serious as these would be on an international level.

– The ratification process extends for quite a long period of time. It is not over in one day with countries voting “yay” or “nay”. The process begins on 9 December 1948 and goes up until 31 December 1949 – over one year long.

Questions:

– I understand that people had never seen controlled killings like the Holocaust before, but don’t you think the countries of the world should’ve had legislation in place before any of this happened in the first place?

– Why would any country NOT ratify this legislation. Some African countries may have wanted to stay away from it so they could continue their use of “crowd control” (Rwanda), but denying the bill is just begging to be scorned by the international community.

Observation:

– The convention would cease to exist if the number of countries went below sixteen. I have no idea why they would include this stipulation as I would want to keep the legislation in effect even if there was only one country holding onto it.

 

Russian Serfdom and American Slavery

Posted on by

As an American Studies major, I found Peter Kolchin’s The Origin and Consolidation of Unfree Labor to be absolutely fascinating. Kolchin’s purpose in the introduction we read is to delineate the similarities and differences between the causes and realities of Russian serfdom and American slavery. Kolchin begins by detailing the origins of Russian serfdom. Serfs originally had freedom to move around the country; however, in the sixteenth and seventeenth century this right was restricted and eventually abolished because serf migration caused too much disruption and therefore decreased the amount of agricultural labor being performed. In America at the end of the seventeenth/beginning of the eighteenth century, Africans brought through the slave trade replaced English indentured servants as the main source of labor. Because slaves worked for life and reproduced, they were more economically beneficial than indentured servants, who only worked for several years, whose children were not automatically enslaved, and who therefore always had to be replaced.

Kolchin then provides a discussion of why slavery occurred, arguing that, at least in Russia and America, a surplus of land and a small amount of laborers led land owners to force people into working for them. Kolchin finally cites the two main differences between American slavery and Russian serfdom: first, American slaves were “aliens,” of a different nationality, race, and religion to their masters, while Russian serfs were almost always the same nationality and had similar customs; and second, American slaves did all of their work for their masters, paying them nothing and receiving some sustenance in return, whereas Russian serfs paid their Lords rent, worked part-time for their them and part-time cultivating their own land.

I thought that Kolchin’s point on Russian serfs not being racially different from their Lords to be very interesting. He explains that, while many Americans imagined a United States without blacks, Russia depended upon its outsiders, defining them not as outsiders, but as “the people.” Still, as serfdom continued over centuries, the class lines hardened between noble and serf, so that “nobleman and peasant seemed as different from each other as white and black, European and African” (Kolchin 45). This implies that the distinction between the serf and the noble came to be considered as innate, and not merely a consequence of who owned the land. To me, this section brings up the question of race. “Race” was socially constructed to justify the maltreatment of certain individuals who looked different–based on skin color, eye shape, etc.–from others. I wonder if Russian serfs were ever thought to be a different “race” from the nobles (similar to how Africans were a different “race” from Europeans) as a justification for the enslavement. Or, was race simply not as much of an “issue” in Russia as it was in America?

 

Hitler-Stalin Pact

Posted on by

Thee Points:

1. The first section of the document The non-confidential pieces Show that the pact was not necessarily an alliance, but as a promise to stay neutral (hence the name non-aggression pact)

2. The Second part of the document takes into account territorial agreements.  This heavily alludes to the collusion of Russia and Germany and their ‘alliance’ and their support for one another in starting a new war.

3.The time the pact was signed, August 23rd 1939 is extremely close to the beginning of the war (about 8 days).  This could mean that the pact was the only thing standing in the way of Germany and its invasion of Poland.

Questions:  Why do you think that Germany signed this document so late/ close to the beginning of the war?  Why do you think the Germans would ultimately end up breaking the pact when they invaded Russia.

Observation:  I find in incredibly ironic that the champion of Fascism, Germany and the champion of Communism/Socialism, Russia, despite being opposite political ideologies, were able to create a pact of non-aggression.

Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech and Stalin’s Response

Posted on by

Main Points:
1. Churchill acknowledged that the Soviet Union did not want war, they wanted “the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.” It is important to note that neither the west nor the Soviet Union wanted another war. It would preposterous to think that any state involved so heavily in World War II would actively seek war with a superpower less than a year after the conclusion of the war in Europe. It is very easy to see how a state would want to assert its power and influence in Europe so soon after the end of the war however, which is exactly what started the Cold War.
2. Churchill also mentioned the balance of power in his speech. He recalled how no one wanted to match or check Germany’s military buildup and fascism in the early 1930’s, and how World War II might have easily been avoided if Germany had been kept in check instead of being allowed to gain strength and momentum. Churchill said that the balance of power could easily be maintained in such a way that it would keep the Soviet Union in check if “the population of the English-speaking Commonwealth be added to that of the United States, with all that such cooperation implies in the air, on the sea, all over the globe, and in science and in industry, and in moral force, there will be no quivering, precarious balance of power to offer its temptation to ambition or adventure.”
3. In his response to Churchill, Stalin compared the west to Hitler and his racial theory, possibly confusing Churchill’s mention of the English-speaking Commonwealth with a declaration of English speakers as a dominant race. Churchill also compared the Soviet Union to Hitler’s Germany in his speech when he mentioned the balance of power. Stalin also conflated Churchill’s emphasis on freedom and democracy with a desire to take over Europe as Hitler did. Churchill clearly emphasized these principles in his speech as the ultimate goal in Europe, not domination by English speakers.

Questions:
1. How could Stalin accuse Churchill of being a collaborator with fascism, when Stalin backed the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939? Did that not make Stalin a collaborator with fascism?
2. How true are Churchill’s claims that he rose the alarm about Hitler’s Germany gaining power and why did no one listen to him?

Observation:
It is interesting that Stalin would point the finger at the west and compare their ideology to Hitler’s racial theory when he was guilty of killing millions of his own people and facilitating Hitler’s early success with the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

Black & Grey

Posted on by

The Slavophiles and Westernizers were both “reformist” intellectuals who, on different ideological avenues, envisioned changes for the future of Russia that would progress the state to new plateaus. The Slavophiles were upperclassmen who expressed a fundamental vision of integration, peace, and harmony among men (Riasanovsky 362). They were strict followers of the Russian Orthodox Church and believed it was their mission to help the church reclaim power it had lost. A notable Slav – Constantine Aksakov – described the Slavophiles as a “moral choir” (363). The Slavs were Russian romantics who attempted to tie in their romantic ideals with reason. Slavophiles could be considered peacekeeping anarchists because they stressed free will and free thought, and although they didn’t like the presence of the government they recognized the importance of having a governmental institution in place to keep the peace.

The Westernizers, although also reformists in nature were antithetical to the Slavs in many other aspects. While the Slavophiles were fairly organized and concentrated in their mission of peace and harmony throughout Russian society the Westernizers had diverse and often unclear goals for their reformations. Unlike the Slavophiles, the Westernizers didn’t lean on religion and quite frankly didn’t support religious ideologies to nearly the same degree as the Slavs. It is important to note that the roots of the Westernizers’ differing views probably comes from the fact that the Westernizers came from a variety of different social classes, while the Slavophiles were basically all upper-class citizens. The Westernizers also seemingly had varying degrees of their beliefs in comparison to the Slavophiles, what I mean by this is, some Westernizers simply wanted to promote their ideas of free-will and anti religion while extremist Westernizers wanted to do away with the church and government entirely, a complete redo of the system. Westernizers’ views and goals also changed because they spanned a great period of time in Russian history. For example, Alexander Herzen and Michael Bakunin, two Westernizer authors lived past the reign of Nicholas I (Riasanovsky 365). In other words, these two authors lived through a shifting dynamic of Russian politics, so their goals (in their writing) had to have changed over this time period. Ironically, both of these writers apparently left Russia during their later years, leaving their final marks on Russian society.

Winston Churchill and “The Iron Curtain”

Posted on by

3 Points

1 – The U.S. is at its peak of power and now has a great responsibility to determine the future. One must feel a strong sense of duty and it is necessary to have constancy of mind, persistency, and the simplicity of decision making in determining the future of the English-speaking population.

2 – The fact about the current situation in Europe is that an “iron curtain” has fallen across the continent and the cities behind it are under the Soviet influence and control of Moscow. The safety of our world lies in the future unification of Europe.

3 – Communism presents a threat and challenge to the Christian civilization, however, the idea of another war is repulsing and the the English speaking people have the power to save the future. What the Soviets want are the positive outcomes of winning a war and expansion of their power, control and beliefs.

2 Questions

1 – Do you think Churchill makes a valid point when he says about WWII: “there was never a war in history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe”?

2 – How does Stalin respond to Churchill’s speech and who does he compare him and his “English racial theory” to?

1 Observation

During the time that Churchill spoke of the dangers of the Soviet power and the iron curtain, many people in the west still viewed the Soviet Union as an ally coming out of WWII.

Stalin’s Speech at a Meeting of Voters of The Stalin Electoral District

Posted on by

Three Points:

1. Stalin started his speech with the discussion of the nature of the two world wars, that the first world war was mainly a result of rising capitalism countries’ demand for redistribution of  “sphere of influence” and that the second world war was one of anti-fascism and liberation.

2. He then brought up the point that the second world war served as a test of the Soviet Union in many ways. Constructed as a multi-national union, Soviet Union succeeded in muting the sceptic who doubted if the multi-nation political institution could survive. Soviet Union’s winning of the war also solidified the power of communism.

3. The latter part of the speech focused on the future development of Soviet Union by the next five-year plan. With the heavy industry developing first than light industry and collective agriculture instead of capitalist one, the Soviet Communist party aimed to restore the productivity to pre-war level at a relatively short time and with high efficiency.

Two Questions:

1. If the pre-war five-year plans were focusing on heavy industry as a preparation for the war, why did Stalin and the communist party still focus on heavy industry after the war? It was a quicker route for the GDP to go up but not for the overall living standard of people.

2. It seems that collectivism works quite efficiently towards a collective goal, usually a expanding one (politically or economically). But it lacks the ability to recover once it crashed (Germany, Soviet Union, even Japan during the bubble burst in the 1990s). Do you agree that eventually it is individualism that propel the society forward? Meaning, should people eventually increase their own productivity solely based on personal goal instead of a collective one?

One Observation:

The planned economic policy works against the “natural” development of industrialization by developing heavy industry first. In a time when there is no war, heavy manufacture can result in excess capacity since no one will be using the products once they are made. Stalin described a prospective future in terms of national productivity, but how this prosperity turns into individual’s life is not clear. Nevertheless, Stalin succeeded in winning votes by his plan for the country.