Revising Social Norms: The Women's Rights Movement

In many instances, the social norms Americans believed in just 200 years ago severely contrast with the ones we follow today. The role of women in the 1800’s is one of these instances. During those times, properties of the “ideal woman” differed greatly in comparison to the “modern woman.”

Catherine Lavender, author of “Notes on The Cult of Domesticity and True Womanhood,” clearly states the four ideal traits that would be expected of a woman in the 19th century. Piety is having a reverence and practice in God and religion. A woman was believed to have a natural tendency to practice religion, as it was the perfect thing to occupy her in her environment, the home. Purity, in terms of maintaining one’s virginity, was a crucial part of defining a woman. Virginity was seen as a special power than a woman had, one that she must protect, because if it were to get into the wrong hands, she would be seen as a dreg to society. Submissiveness, pertaining to the relationship of marriage was a guideline followed by many women in the 1800’s. A woman was passive and obedient, much like that of a loyal pet. She needed someone to be her “master,” someone who could she could depend on. Most importantly, domesticity was almost mandatory for every woman to live by. It was the duty for women to maintain the house, that was their domain. This went without question, as it was seen as blatantly obvious that a woman was to work within the house. This leads into the ideology of The Cult of Domesticity. As it would seem, The Cult of Domesticity states that in the average middle class home, the woman would take care of the house and children, and providing companionship to their husbands. The house is also considered to be the “Private Sphere,” a place free of any temptation, violence or trouble, the perfect place for a woman.

A convention held in Seneca Falls, New York, was held in order to reevaluate this norms and create a more equal environment for women in society. Men and women from all parts of the country would attend this convention to draft reforms to achieve this task. A result of this was the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments. Much like the Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments listed previous problems with women’s rights, and proposed solutions to them. The Declaration of Rights and Sentiments gave women the opportunity to have more freedom to live by their own accord. Women's suffrage was also an important for woman to attain, as they felt it would they would not have true equality unless they were granted the right to vote. Although Seneca Falls was a momentous breakthrough for women’s rights. The minority groups were still misrepresented, if represented at all. In a class simulation similar to the proceedings at Seneca Falls, these minority groups were also represented, and were able to demands their own reforms. In the group I was assigned to represent, women of New Mexico were even more so poorly treated than their white counterparts. These women suffered incredibly poor wages, and were not necessarily considered American citizens. The class formed a new Declaration of Rights and Sentiments, this time including the minority groups not represented in the actual convention. While some of the class’ resolutions remained the same as the actual ones, some differed. For example, in the class’ set of resolutions, the push to abolish slavery, and consider all minority groups as American citizens were some of the most popular on the list. Those that were remained the same on both lists were along the lines of male and female equality, and giving women the freedom to operate and think for themselves.

In my personal opinion, I believe that the most important resolution formed at Seneca Falls, as well as being discussed in class, is the idea that all previous expectations for women were not to be credited as valid anymore. I find that this is the most important step for women's rights, as it takes the ideals that created problems for women, and destroys them. This essentially gives society a clean slate to work with in terms of forming new social norms, especially taking into account that women will now be allowed to have their input. I also believe that society has improved vastly on creating an equal environment for both men and women. I would like to think it would be a fair statement in saying that men have as much respect for women as women do for men in today’s society, while some 200 years ago, this certainly was not the case.

Foreign Policy

The Monroe Doctrine set a standard for US foreign policies that’s core values are still being followed by today. In modern times, three concepts have been widely accepted and adopted in American government. These concepts include non-intervention, non-colonization and separate spheres of influence. These concepts are commonly known as the three lasting principles, and while modern America may not adopt all three, a majority of these concepts are still worked into modern foreign policies.

ISIS or ISIL are an extremist Islamic terrorist organization with substantial control of Iraq and the Levant, a region in the Middle East consisting of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. ISIS has gained worldwide attention as multiple terrorist attacks beginning in the summer of this year have made the group a serious threat. A New York Times article entitled, “The Slippery Slope Begins” discusses the potential change in foreign policies aimed at ISIS. President Obama has stated that he does not want to deploy US ground troops in ISIS territory, but is committed to stopping the organization. This decision may have been influenced by the recent withdrawal of troops from Iraq. However, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has different views. HE believes that, if need be, troops should be deployed to aid Iraqi forces in eliminating ISIS forces. The article states that although President Obama does not appear to be changing his policies for ISIS, General Dempsey’s suggestion of military action make it all the more important that congress vote rationally on handling ISIS.

If the United States were to follow all three of the lasting principles, all of their current policies would stay the same. The concept of separate spheres of influence indicates that the US should stay out of ISIS territory, and that ISIS should stay out of the US. Currently, this is what is happening, as President Obama does not one to deploy forces into ISIS ground. The concept of non-colonization indicates that the US should not take political power or dominance over ISIS or the region that they control. The concept of non-intervention indicates that the US should not intervene in ISIS affairs unless they are directly affected. The US also currently follows these standards as they are not making an effort to control the ISIS situation.

Although almost being 200 years old, the Monroe Doctrine still seems to have modern day implications. The three lasting principles have been essential building blocks to the United States’ foreign policies. This shows just how important  and influential the Monroe Doctrine is, whether it’s assistance is needed in the 19th century, or in modern times.

"The Slippery Slope Begins." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Sept. 2014. Web. 4 Dec. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/opinion/is-us-policy-on-fighting-isis-already-changing.html>.

Unification by Identity

In history race and identity have played a major role in society. Even in modern times race and identity have influenced politics and nations greatly. This blog post will address two situations, in the past and the present in which race and identity have had a major presence in society.

The revolutions of Gran Colombia proved that a wide diversity of people can band together and fight in unity as one nation. Simon Bolivar was Venezuelan by birth and was a key leader in the liberation of Gran Colombia. Originally, Gran Colombia was entirely controlled by the Spanish. Bolivar gained support by his belief that all of the revolutionaries were all united by being South American, despite coming from different ethnicities or races. The push for independence is Bolivar leading a revolt into Caracas, losing and regaining control of the capital city several times. During this endeavor, the Manifesto de Cartagena is authored, further strengthening the South American commonality among the rebels, and the end goal of driving Spain out of Gran Colombia. Eventually, Bolivar gives up on securing Caracas and instead devises a surprise attack on Bogota. After crossing the Orinoco River and traversing the Andes Mountains, Bolivar;s troops fall upon unsuspecting Spanish forces. On August 7, 1819, a victory in Boyaca grants Bolivar control of Bogotá.  Soon after, the Republica de Colombia is formed. A few crucial victories expand the Republica de Colombia into modern day Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela. Bolivar was able to lead these successful revolts because he was able to gain such a strong following. He united people not based on their race, but as their similar nationality as a South American. This is what enabled Bolivar to lead a dominant and successful revolt against the Spanish, and form the Republica de Colombia.

Whether its constant coverage may cause people to grow weary at it’s mentioning, it is without a doubt that the incidents in Ferguson Missouri show how in modern times race can influence a nation. Yamiche Alcindor, author for USA Today, wrote an article entitled “Ferguson Struggles to Grasp why Protests Turned Violent.” Protests and outrage came from Ferguson Missouri after Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed a young Michael Brown, presumed to be a case of racial profiling. These protest turned violent after Wilson was not indicted for his actions. The African American community has used the death of Michael Brown to advocate for equality among the races, whether it be by peaceful or violent means. The protests are not limited to Ferguson, as towns and cities nationwide are advocating for racial equality. However, and Ferguson, once peaceful protests have turned destructive, as businesses are being burned and looted, and police forces are battling violent protesters. I personally believe that while racism is widely discouraged in America, there seems to be invisible racial divides that are not often recognized. I would assume that a majority of the African American community would immediately be on the side of Michael Brown just because of their ethnicity, just as supporters of Darren Wilson would be primarily white. Without any racial influence, I believe that Darren Wilson should not have been indicted, but I also believe that Michael Brown should not have been killed. And I in no way support violent protesting. Different races have different biases which may lead to drastic actions, such as the killing of Michael Brown, or peaceful protests turned violent.

In both Gran Colombia and Ferguson, it is clear that race and identity have heavily impacted society. Race and identity will always be relevant in society, and should not be discouraged our ignored.

Alcindor, Yamiche. "Ferguson Struggles to Grasp Why Protests Turned Violent." USA Today. Gannett, 1 Dec. 2014. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.

Balancing Out Europe

Political power and status have always been an exceptionally valuable asset to society. Power can be spread across a nation or be placed in the hands of a single person. But what happens when people of high status have their power threatened? This is the essential question discussed in class while on the topic of the Congress of Vienna. Upon the fall of Napoleon’s empire, diplomats from all of Europe would congregate in Vienna, Austria in order to solve many issues that had arisen after the French conquest. In class, we took the role of Klemens von Metternich, Prince of Austria, and made several decisions in order to rebuild Europe in the best way possible. Out of three choices, we were to select one that would best resolve issues such as redrawing the map of Europe, establishing a new French government and preparing for future alliances. The following explains how the decisions made by Metternich utilized specific concepts in order to eliminate threats to their power.

Congress of Vienna. Digital image. Emerson Kent. N.p., n.d. Web.

The concept of balance of power was used by Metternich and the diplomats of the Congress of Vienna to eliminate France as a potential threat to their power. The balance of power is the idea that the security of a nation is increased when power is distributed evenly among nations so one cannot overpower another. When addressing the issue of recreating the map of France, the Congress of Vienna decided to distribute power to the the nations of Europe in order to suppress France from continuing any form of future domination. This was the solution that our group selected in the class activity as well. The French empire was reduced to its borders before the time of Napoleon. Prussia was granted more territory surrounding France in order to create a strong border around France. The Netherlands was also created to border the remaining part of France. Both Austria and Prussia were given additional territory to compensate for their losses during Napoleon's conquest. The goal of this redistribution of land was to balance the power among many of the European nations to prevent any possible attempts of French expansion in the future. The Congress of Vienna was successfully able to eliminate any threats to their power by utilizing the concept of balance of power.

I personally believe that the decision made by the Congress of Vienna was appropriate for the situation. Around the fall of Napoleon’s conquest, France was still considered a major threat for a possible resurgence of conquest and expansion. Bordering France with strong countries such as Prussia and the Netherlands would make it near impossible for France to take control of Europe again. France was not reduced to anything smaller than it was before Napoleon’s conquest. The Congress of Vienna did not use emotional bias when deciding on Europe’s new borders. France was not punished after Napoleon’s, they were simply reset to what they were before any conflict. Countries that were subject to severe difficulties were granted extra land as a condolence. This decision is justified because these nations had to endure unnecessary hardship and deserve some sort of payoff. In the case of the redrawing Europe's borders, diplomats were not required to sacrifice some of their power to come to a final solution. The powerful should be willing to give up some of their authority if it is for the cause of the nation. A person in power is typically a leader of a group of people, like a nation. This person should be willing to do what it takes in order to make a situation optimal for his or her followers. To conclude, the Congress of Vienna took the right steps in redistributing land among European nations while utilizing the concept of balance of power to make their decisions.

A Little Man Impacting a Massive Continent

Napoleon Bonaparte was an incredibly powerful military and political leader. He managed to expand his country of France to encapsulate most of Europe. Under his control, he would change Europe’s political, social and economic policies and standards. Napoleon’s would not only impact Europe, but it’s citizens as well. These changes would improve the lives of those coming from any social class living under the ever expanding French rule. Napoleon’s influence would benefit French and set a new standard for Europe for the future.

One of Napoleon’s major contributions to Europe was eliminating the aristocratic upper class. Churches were no longer allowed to abuse their special privileges, and both the nobility and serfdom were meshed into one social class. A meritocracy was also established, and those who were truly skilled at their craft were rewarded. This was far more beneficial to society than the previously established aristocracy. Those who were willing to work for their success were finally able to do so. No longer would a European citizen be determined at birth to be rich or poor. More citizens were able to own property and receive an education. Napoleon drastically improved the standard of living and social system in Europe.

Napoleon Bonaparte
Image Via: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/

Not only would Napoleon change the lives of many of the European citizens, but he would also impact the political and economic systems as well. As aforementioned, Napoleon would eliminate the aristocracy and implement a meritocracy in place of it. Public works programs were in progress, and roads and canals were being constructed to better France and Europe. Napoleon established the Institute of Egypt, which would begin the study of ancient Egypt. The economy was reinvigorated as prices were controlled, trade barriers were removed, markets were stimulated and new industry was highly encouraged. With the social class being more evenly balanced, the improvements from both economical and political standpoints were easily adapted to.

Napoleon made positive impacts on France during his time in power. At the time of Napoleon’s reign, A majority of Europe was under French control. As time went on and countries were re established, Napoleon’s influence and tactics were adopted. Not only were the political, social and economic systems impacted in France, but in most of Europe as well.

How Candy Can Represent Capitalism, Socialism and Communism

As a way to simulate three of the most popular economic systems used worldwide, we performed an activity that would produce the same results. Starbursts were used to represent money. While most were given three starbursts, a small amount of people received ten. This is to account for the small upper class and the larger middle and lower classes. For about fifteen minutes, we were allowed to play rock paper scissors with fellow classmates. The winner would receive one of the losers starbursts. This is to represent individual monetary gain in loss. In a capitalistic economy, the government does not regulate trade and industry. Everyone in the class was allowed to choose whether they wanted to gamble their starbursts, or keep the ones they had. Some of those who had ten starbursts in the beginning ended up with less, while some of those who started with three ended up with more. At the end of this trading period, Ms. Bailey collected everyone's starbursts, and redistributed them equally among the class. This is to represent government control of economic activity in socialism. After this the class was given one more opportunity to gamble their starbursts again. Unlike the previous time, only a few students were willing to play again. This portion of the activity was to represent communism. Most students were fine with having the same amount as everyone else, and economic competition was very weak. The activity gave a very clear and realistic representation of capitalism, socialism and communism.

Some time after we performed the activity, a Socratic seminar was held to discuss what was learned in the process of the activity. I personally did not choose to participate in the seminar, instead I took notes during the discussion. I found some of my fellow classmates opinions very interesting. It became obvious that the turn from capitalism to socialism aggravated a lot of people. Both Kyle and Julienne discussed how it was frustrating to work to gain such a large amount of starbursts, just to lose it in the end. I also noticed that many people recognize that competition plays a huge role in an economy. Ryan had mentioned that humans are innately selfish, and in the end we care about ourselves first and others second. Troy said that no matter what the situation, everyone tries to find a way to win. This was represented in the activity when some people stole starbursts from others. While this might not be considered ethical, it is a perfect example of how some people were only concerned with the amount of starbursts they could gain. Ryan also said that a socialist economy is better for the poor because in a capitalist society, it is very difficult for a poor person to become rich. While I find this to be true, I still believe that a capitalist economy is better overall because it focuses around the idea that competition can drive an economy.

Karl Marx and Adam Smith proposed two different solutions to the same problem. Both men created ways to aid the lower class in society. Marx believed that the people would do anything to destroy the barrier between the proletariats and the bourgeoisie. To start, people would transform their capitalist government into a socialist government in order to make the circumstances fairer. From here, the people would self mediate themselves to the point where a government was no longer needed. In this scenario, social classes would no longer exist, as everyone would be economically equal. Adam Smith believed in the theory of the “Invisible Hand.”This concept states that the consumer would be driven to purchase from a business who provides the best and cheapest product. This creates competition among business owners, as they are trying to sell the best product for the lowest price. The drive that consumer have to purchase from a business that offers the best product is recognized as the invisible hand. Each proposals to aid the poor have their own pros and cons, however in the end they theoretically accomplish the same goal.

While I think that capitalism is the best way to run an economy, I do feel that there are ways it can be improved. One of the major problems with capitalism i that there is often a clear divide between the upper class and the lower classes. While the rich are constantly making a large sum of money, the poor can never gain enough money to move into the middle and upper classes. A solution to this would be taxing individuals based on income. If an individual has a high income, they should be taxed more than someone who has a low income. While everyone is still paying taxes, the rich are able to cover for the poor, as it doesn't affect their overall wealth. The poor would be able to save money and be able to better their lives, get better jobs and move up the social hierarchy. I feel that competition is a crucial part to any economic success. This coupled with my own ideas on taxing could make for an improved form of capitalism that accommodates for the lower class as well.

Industrialization vs. The Luddites

While the technological progression during the Industrial Revolution implemented many positive changes during the time, there were some were not as accepting of the movement.  The Luddites were a group of very skilled workers who created high quality products. With the introduction of machines and factories, work that was normally done by man was now being done by machine. The Luddites did not like the concept of industrialization and technological progression. They feared that in time, machines and factories would do the work they do, and that they would become unemployed because of this. In retaliation to this, the Luddites destroyed these machines, and in severe cases, burned down factories. However, the Luddites did not destroy any machine or factory they saw. Most Luddites were very experienced in working with machines. They attacked factories that wanted to use machines to produce high quality product at the cheapest possible cost. These factories were what were putting the Luddites in danger. Instead of requiring a skilled worker to produce a high quality product for good pay, factories could hire low wage workers to maintain a machine that could produce a product of the same quality. The Luddites felt that they needed to prevent industrialization in order to keep their jobs.

An image depicting two Luddites destroying a machine.
Via: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/FrameBreaking-1812.jpg

The following is a mock primary source letter intended to show the views and opinions of those living during the time of the Luddite protests.

Dear Cousin,

I am writing to you to address the recent activities of the Luddites. If you are not already aware, the Luddites are a group of expert craftsmen who are against the concept of industrialization. They see the machines and factories as potential threats. If machinery can do the same work they do for less of a cost, the Luddites will lose their jobs. As a rather experienced weaver, I have to applaud the Luddite’s endeavors. I believe that these machines are replacing human labor. Since industrialization has become popular, I haven’t had nearly as much work as I used to. I even received a wage cut because the factories were producing the same products I was for less money. If this continues, myself and many others will be out of a job. I have decided to join the Luddite cause. The Luddites are preventing any means of technological progression. If I want to keep my job, I have to join them. They are fighting for a lot of skilled workers to keep their jobs, an I support them for that. In a few days, a group of fellow Luddites are planning to break into a factory during the night and smash all of its machines. I think I am going to go with them. I will update you on the result of the riot in my next letter. Until then, I will continue to support the Luddite cause.

Your Cousin,

John