Monthly Archives: April 2015

Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples

Posted on by

The United Nation’s “Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” was a document released December 14, 1960. The document essentially declares that all people residing in all countries deserve specific rights:

1: Exploiting and dominating humans is against their given rights and in order for world-peace, there should not be any human exploitation.

2: Every person has their right to think freely in terms of politics, economics, social and cultural.

3: Education, politics, social and economics should prepare people.

4: All armed actions and harmful repressions will stop immediately.

5: Countries with repressive leaders will be liberated in order to obtain peace.

6:Disrupting any attempts of peace is unacceptable.

7: All states in UN will uphold this declaration and most of the UN’s documents.

Che Guevara

Posted on by

Ernesto “Che” Guevara is best known for being a somewhat symbolic figure for the Cuban Revolution in the 1950’s. Today he is often seen on t-shirts as a sign of rebellion. In his address to the United Nations in 1964, his “Colonialism is Doomed” speech, he spoke about his distrust of Colonialism. He found that colonialism limited peace with, “Peaceful coexistence cannot be limited to the powerful countries if we want to ensure world peace.” Forced compliance did not necessarily mean peace, it meant submission. He was influenced by his travels throughout South America when he was younger as a medical student. He saw poverty, hunger and disease in these countries that influenced his ideas and desire for revolution.

Jawaharlal Nehru

Posted on by

In order to progress India’s society, Jawaharlal Nehru analyzed the different forms of government around the world, specifically Marxism and Capitalism. Nehru admits that violence is present in both forms of government, but Marxism appealed more to Nehru because of the lesser amount of violence. Due to this appeal, India ended up adopting a Marxist form of government and adopting five year plans similar to that of Russia. Nehru believed that because India was such an underdeveloped nation, Marxism was the only way it could progress and succeed in the world because of the careful amounts of planning put into this kind of government. Interesting to note is the fact that after completing their first five year plan, India decided to stay neutral and stay out of foreign countries affairs. They chose this path because they believe the less countries interact and interfere with each other, the more likely it is that a peaceful outcome will occur.

Che Guevara, “Colonialism is Doomed”

Posted on by

Che Guevara was an Argentinian doctor turned Cuban revolutionary and spokesperson whose popularity peaked after the Cuban Revolution of 1959. He became an ally to the Castros, and often spoke out against several American policies. In his speech to the UN in 1964, Colonialism is Doomed, he referenced colonialism as “complacent” and stated, “But imperialism, particularly United States imperialism, has tried to make the world believe that peaceful coexistence is the exclusive right of the great powers on earth.” He referenced the Soviet Union and China as threats to the US and alluded to the bullish ways of NATO and the Turkish government, which he believed eliminated hope for peaceful coexistence.

Summary of Marxism, Capitalism, and non-Alignment

Posted on by

Jawaharlal Nehru was India’s first Prime Minister after India had gained its independence in 1947 ((Nehru. Marxism, Capitalism, and non-Aligment. Modern History Sourcebook)). When he was writing, India was trying to find a from of government that would help them develop quickly. Nehru saw the violence in both Marxism and Capitalism but saw Marxism being much less violent and how it was only violent to gain peace for the people. In the end, India took a form of Marxism as their from of government and used Five Year Plans to develop. It was not the only one with success with the Five Year Plan. Many countries in Asia took on plans similar to that of India and were experience great economic growth just like India. After seeing Egypt and Hungary have a fall though, India decided it would stay out of other countries affairs not only to help themselves but the world. Nehru though that letting a country figure out its own problem would help Asian countries understand each other. India would be friendly to all countries, and this would bring about world peace.

Nehru: Marxism, Capitalism, and Non-Alignment

Posted on by

Author: Jawaharlal Nehru joined the Indian National Congress and Mahatma Gandhi’s independence movement in 1919. After the British withdrew, Nehru became the first prime minister of independent India. In 1928, he became the president of the Indian National Congress. [1]

Context: This period in Indian history was a time of repression by the British government and increasing nationalist activity. Nehru joined the Indian National Congress, one of India’s major two political parties. Mahatma Gandhi was the party leader, and he advocated for change and independence from the British. Nehru went to prison several times where he studied Marxism.

Language: Nehru’s language is fairly simple, making it easy to understand. He describes his journey to his acceptance of socialism and communism.

Audience: This came from his autobiography, so his audience was the general public. Anyone who wanted to and had access to it could read it. He probably thought that those interested in Indian politics, Marxism, and capitalism would read it.

Intent: His intention was to describe how he came to be involved in Marxism, capitalism, and the politics of India. He wants people to understand the differences in violence between Soviet Russia and the rest of the world. Russia had progressed following Lenin. He also describes how the Central Asia had made great steps backward while Russia had made great strides.

Message: He wanted to convey the results of Lenin and Soviet Russia. He also wanted to describe the progress happening for India and the great economic development. He was happy that India was progressing because previously, India had faced much turmoil.

How do you think current Indian politicians would react to Nehru’s praise of socialism and communism?

Intervention of the United States and the Soviet Union

Posted on by

The documentary on the Afghanistan and Soviet Union war stated that the cause of the war was completely due to the United States and the Soviet Union. Throughout the documentary the enemy was revealed to be the Soviet Union, it was said that the cause of the war was due to their unnecessary intervention, but this opinion cannot fully be relied on because of its bias and because it is in the point of view of the United States.

The documentary also blames Afghanistan’s current problems with its own people solely on the United States and the Soviet Union; it blames the two countries for providing weapons that were used to fight against people of their own country. This brings up the question of, what if the United States hadn’t had intervened in this civil war? Would’ve conditions still have been the same or would it have decreased the amount of casualties during and after Soviet Union intervention? What would’ve happened if the U.S. hadn’t encouraged the rebels to continue their cause?

It also mentions that the Soviet Union tried very hard to conceal the events in Afghanistan from its people. The Soviet Union covered up the war by depicting soldiers building schools and not contributing to any type of combat. They also tried very hard to cover up the number of casualties and “invalids” that returned back from Afghanistan. Why would’ve the Soviet Union tried so hard to do this and why was it so important to cover up the truth?

We want rights, and we want rights NOW.

Posted on by

NOW’s statement of purpose provides a holistic argument for why women should join the workforce, and gain equal rights. It was written at the time of the founding of the National Organization for Women, in response to the lack of execution of anti-discrimination laws. Its intention is to explain the core concepts on which NOW was founded, and explain what they are taking issue with.

I’m impressed with the level of consideration, and the distinctively different approaches to appealing to their audience, using arguments such as “WE BELIEVE that it is as essential for every girl to be educated to her full potential of human ability as it is for every boy-with the knowledge that such education is the key to effective participation in today’s economy and that, for a girl as for boy, education can only be serious where there is expectation that it be used in society.” Which depends on some level of sympathy, compared to ” the overwhelming majority-75%-are in routine clerical, sales, or factory jobs, or they are household workers, cleaning women, hospital attendants. About two-thirds of Negro women workers are in the lowest paid service occupations. Working women are becoming increasingl-not less-concentrated on the bottom of the job ladder. As a consequence full-time women workers today earn on the average only 60% of what men earn, and that wage gap has been increasing over the past twenty-five years in every major industry group. In 1964, of all women with a yearly income, 89% earned under $5,000 a year; half of all full-time year round women workers earned less than $3,690; only 1.4% of full- time year round women workers had an annual income of $10,000 or more.” (I apologize for the long quote) Explaining the impact women have on the economy, this kind of argument will be compelling to a different kind of person than the previous.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_for_Women

NOW and Women’s Rights

Posted on by

During the World Wars, there was an influx, unlike any other time in recent history, of female workers. Since most men, both in Europe and America were off fighting the wars, women were needed to work the factories in order to provide weapons, clothes, and other provisions. It was during this time that women proved that they could take on “traditional” male roles and fulfill them successfully. However, after the wars ended, and the men returned, the women were encouraged to take on the role of the housewife once again.

One could say that this enhanced the tension between the sexes, and is manifest in NOW’s Statement of Purpose: “…we do not accept the traditional assumption that a woman has to choose between marriage and motherhood, on the one hand, and serious participation in industry or the professions on the other. We question the present expectation that all normal women will retire from job or profession for 10 or 15 years, to devote their full time to raising children, only to reenter the job market at a relatively minor level.”

Though the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made discrimination in the workplace illegal, it had hardly helped the woman’s cause. Most women had limited job, education, and pay prospects, despite the fact that most of the gender norms of society no longer applied to the modern world (such as the need for muscle to do work). Now that women had experience and a possible chance to level the gap between the sexes, an engine was needed to push the cause forward.

 

 

Women and abortion in Soviet Society

Posted on by

In the article “Revolution and the Family”, Wendy Goldman discussed the ideas of abortion and women in the Soviet Union.  She discussed how women in the Soviet Union, believed and even acted on using abortion in their lives.  She argued that abortion was used more often with women who were in comfortable positions, such as being married, than women who were unmarried, jobless, or young.  To prove her argument, she looked at influences in Soviet society that helped women in stable conditions make such decisions.

So why did Soviet women, the married and stable ones, decide to use abortion?  Wendy Goldman noted that the use of abortion was evident from the mid 1920s until the prohibition of abortion in 1936.  During this time, Goldman noted that abortion was a result of two important aspects.  First, she noted that during the 1920s, there had been the problem of overcrowding of children in Soviet homes.((Wendy Goldman, “Revolution and the Family” in The Stalin Revolution: Foundations of the Totalitarian Era. 4th edition. Edited by Robert V Daniels.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1994. 163))  This can be contributed to two factors.  First, the devastating effects of World War I and the Russian Civil War left many children parentless, thus creating influxes of adopted children throughout homes.  Second, Goldman pointed to the idea of Stalins policies that everyone works, both men and women.  Thus, opportunities in the workforce and the military opened up for women, allowing them to leave the home.  Wendy Goldman noted that the number of women entering the workforce between 1930 and 1931 “in heavy industry leaped suddenly from 22 percent to 42 percent.” (((Wendy Goldman, “Revolution and the Family” in The Stalin Revolution: Foundations of the Totalitarian Era. 4th edition. Edited by Robert V Daniels.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1994. 164)) As a result of the rapid jump in the number of women entering the workforce, women who were in stable conditions tended to abort their children because because of the strain pregnancy and taking care of children were on the women.

Considering Wendy Goldmans piece on abortion, do you think that this was true among all ethnic groups?  Or do you think it was only true among ethnic Russians?