Embedded Files
Dana Edwards 02/20/07
European History- Mr. Newsome
Imperialism
In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, imperialism proved to be a negative force. Not only was its immediate impact on society horrifying and violent, but also its long-term influence was inherently detrimental. Imperialist policies instigated by several European powers succeeded in exploiting and abusing numerous peoples. Furthermore, the values forcefully instilled into the imperialized peoples corrupted their societies far beyond repair. Lastly, the force of imperialism set the tone for conflicts to arise between races. Imperialism, as it existed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, hindered the progress of humanity.
Many societies, especially those of the Africans and Native Americans, were abused due to imperialist policies. In the hundreds of years following Columbus’s discovery of the new world, various European nations began exploring and claiming territory in the two newfound continents of North and South America, along with Africa. The explorers and early settlers excessively mistreated the natives that they encountered. In the case of America, the early pioneers stripped the Native Americans of their land, and the once diverse spectrum of Native American tribes began diminishing. In addition, the Europeans brought with them many diseases, such as syphilis, that plagued the susceptible Native Americans with the deadly foreign maladies. To support their growing colonies, countries such as Britain and Spain exploited African peoples. The Africans served as slaves in North America from the seventeenth century until the nineteenth century. They were brought over from Africa on ships, on a journey known as the Middle Passage. The passage was the height of inhumanity that was part of the slave trade. Hundreds of slaves were crammed in the dungeons of a small ship, chained together, for the duration of the voyage. Often it took many months. There was no fresh air, and the slaves could not move; they were forced to exist in a vat of stink and disease. Most died, and those who survived the arduous journey had equally grim futures awaiting them. Life as a slave in the United States was brutal. They were essentially workhorses, brought over simply to power the industries of the enterprising nation. Some picked cotton; some worked in factories, but all were treated horrendously. The men were whipped and the women raped, a way that the slave owners further disgraced the already sullen people. They stripped them of their pride, and forced them in to conditions that no human should have to endure. If it were not for the ideals of imperialism, the immoderate mistreatment of Africans and Native Americans would not have taken place.
In addition to the atrocious physical and mental burdens the native peoples were forced to endure, their unique cultures were corrupted with European values such as greed and money. Before the imperialization of Africa, for instance, the Africans had rich, developed cultures. They worked together well as a community, in fact they held some of the best-functioning examples of communal societies. Everyone had his or her own place in the group, and trading took place to acquire goods. When the Europeans arrived on the African shores, they brought with them their capitalistic principles. African cultures were plagued with the greed that ensues from a money-driven society. In addition, guns were introduced to the peoples, furthering the intensity of the chaotic upheavals that resulted in avaricious, violent African societies. The cultures of the natives of North America were similarly tainted. When the Europeans arrived, they brought the idea of land ownership, opposing Native American beliefs of being at harmony with nature and the earth, rather that in control of it. Furthermore, the Europeans introduced alcohol into Native American society. The liquor did not fair well with the natives, who were highly susceptible to addiction. As is evident, the cultures of the Africans and Native Americans were irreparably damaged.
It seems inevitable that abused and imperialized peoples would hold strong grudges against the powers controlling them. This is exactly what took place as a result of imperialism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The unfair treatment of the Africans and Native Americans essentially started a trend of racism. It set the tone for conflicts to arise between the white Europeans and the black Africans they enslaved. For, even after slavery was abolished following the Civil War, racism persisted. Many racist groups emerged, such as the Klu Klux Klan, which severely discriminated against and lynched blacks. Up until the 1950’s and 1960’s, the treatment of African-Americans as second-class citizens continued. Still today, African-Americans face discrimination and social stigmas. This unequal treatment among different races is a disgrace to the ideals the United States was founded on, that all men were created equal. The unjust treatment and persistence of racism and inequality are largely off shoots of imperialism and the mindset it created.
Imperialism caused many inhumane acts to befall the native peoples of Africa and the Americas. The Africans were enslaved and the Native Americans stripped of their land and killed. Their cultures were destroyed and replaced with capitalistic European ideals. Today, many African societies are conducted in accordance with these values, while their original communal societies are gone. Lastly, the imperialization of Africa and Native America started a trend of racism that is still prevalent today. Imperialism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and the ensuing actions that nations took in the name of imperialism, caused great harm to cultures worldwide, and resulted in inhumane treatment of fellow human beings.
Dana Edwards 04/19/07
European History- Mr. Newsome
Marx and Lenin
Two great figures of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Karl Marx, an avid German philosopher, political theorist, and creator of the influential Communist Manifesto, and Vladimir Lenin, powerful leader of the Bolshevik party, both contributed to the Russian Revolution. Neither was more important than the other in triggering the revolts, upheavals, and civil war that defined Russia from 1917-1921. Marx, with his visionary thinking and ultra-leftist views, provided the idea behind the revolution, the very spark that set the workers onto rebellion. Lenin, upon crossing Marx’s texts in his studies, was similarly inspired; he became an active revolutionary in the growing socialist movement, and later went on to head the Russian Communist Party, which triumphed in 1920, placing him as leader of the new Soviet Union. Both men played a part in the great uprisings of Russian workers and the emergence of Russian communism, Marx through his appealing revolutionary principles, and Lenin through his practical application of these ideals. Neither man alone could have caused revolution; for only when Marx’s ideas fused with Lenin’s charismatic and commanding leadership did success ensue.
Karl Marx influenced the Russian Revolution through his radical texts, urging the proletariat to rise up and rebel. Before 1917, Russia’s peasants endured horrible conditions and treatments as the nation’s working class. They were very strong in numbers, representing the vast majority of Russia’s population, however, uneducated as they were, they lacked the sophistication necessary for a successful revolution. They needed the unifying principles of a great thinker. This turned out to be Marx, whose communist ideas galvanized the suffering masses into rapid political action. Marx, in his Communist Manifesto, called for equality among social classes, advocating the redistribution of land from the rich to the poor. This appealed greatly to the peasants, who had long been denied the basic right of land ownership by the upper classes of the oppressive Romanov monarchy. Marx’s text told peasants that they had “nothing to lose but their chains”, that they should rise up and rebel. Such words had great power when applied to the downtrodden masses of Russia’s peasants and workers. However, this could only be accomplished with the help of Lenin, who made the peasants aware of Marxist ideas. They held strikes against the factories they worked in, their protests increased, eventually leading to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty in 1917, and marking the end of tsarist autocracy in Russia.
Lenin rallied peasants and, as head of the Bolsheviks, caused the defeat of the unpopular Provisional Government, gaining him support as emerging leader of the Soviet Union. He made Marx’s communist ideas accessible to the uneducated peasants by using revolutionary slogans, such as “Bread, peace, land”. The slogans impacted the workers greatly, and with Lenin’s devoted leadership, they brought down the Provisional Government, which had been installed after the end of the Romanov monarchy and failed to please the masses. They saw Lenin as a great figure who did what was best for them. He was very much against World War I, which was proving quite disastrous to Russia and, once again, very unpopular among the lower classes, who fueled the bloody war. He convinced the Bolshevik party to accept harsh peace terms in exiting the war. Despite the nation’s great loss of land, including Finland, that came with swift withdrawal from the Eastern Front, Russia’s retreat from World War I gained him further support among the lower classes. After the Provisional Government was destroyed, civil war between the communist “reds” and the opposing “white” army took place until 1920, when Lenin triumphed as head of the Communist Party, and became leader of the new Soviet Union. As head of the communist nation, he realized that Marx’s ideals, which the party had long been based on, were too idealistic to work in government. He brought back many dictatorial aspects of the previous Romanov monarchy, implementing the death penalty and restricting freedom of press. Despite his return to prior oppressive policies, he was a great leader, and was surely, in part, responsible for the revolution.
The interaction of Marx’s ideals with Lenin’s practical leadership made the Russian Revolution inevitable. Without the German philosopher’s ideas, nothing would have taken place. The peasants, though upset and oppressed, did not know what was best for them, and required the Marxist principles of equality for a successful revolt. However, without Lenin’s guidance, organization, and leadership, the rebellions would have been anarchic. Furthermore, the peasants wouldn’t have even been aware of Marxism without the aid of Lenin, whose revolutionary slogans enthralled the workers and inspired them to rebel against officials, go on strike, and fight for their rights. Lenin encountered Marx’s ideas when studying in his younger years. They stimulated him, caused him to join the socialist movement. He pondered Marx’s writings, and formed his own socialist values based on Marxism. There truly was an interaction between the two men, though they never actually met, and it was this that caused the revolution.
Marx’s ideas, put forth in the Communist Manifesto, sparked rebellions worldwide. They appealed to the proletariat, who, in their great numbers, were capable of rising up against officials. However, without the guidance of a great leader, Marx’s ideas would have been useless. Such was the case with the Russian Revolution, when Lenin, a charming and powerful political figure, caused the downfall of the Provisional Government and the victory of the Bolshevik party. Similar communist revolutions took place all around the globe, including China, where Mao Zedong applied Marx’s communist principles to appeal to the peasants. In all cases, the leaders took Marxist ideas and molded them to their own countries’ needs. This interaction is key for a successful revolution to take place; there must be present the appealing ideas of a thinker and theorist, and the empirical guidance of a great leader. Marx the thinker, and Lenin the leader, together caused the Russian Revolution.
Dana Edwards 05/08/07
European History- Mr. Newsome
Triumph of the Will
In Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf, he outlined the key aspects of effective propaganda. “The art of propaganda lies precisely therein, that, comprehending the great masses’ world of emotions and imagination, it finds the way, in a psychologically correct form, to the attention and, further, to the hearts of the great masses.” Hitler believed that for propaganda to succeed, it should appeal to the sentimentality of people, and not to their intellect. His film, Triumph of the Will, potently employed these tactics. Released in a time when the world was suffering through a great depression, it captivated the German public, provided the desperate people with hope, direction, and unity, and ingrained in them an unbending devotion for the Nazi party and its leader, Hitler. Its success as propaganda can be attributed to a few of its ingenious features, those which the director of the film, Leni Riefenstahl, placed under much scrutiny and premeditation; she, along with Hitler and his cohorts, wanted the film to have as large an impact as possible on the German public. It did, and was later recognized as the greatest propaganda film of all time. It was excessively dramatic, both in its striking visuals and its powerful soundtrack, surely appealing to the emotions of the film’s audience. In addition, Triumph of the Will glorified support of the Nazi party through its images of countless swastikas and its scenes of excited, cheering crowds and thousands of assembled Sturmabteilung (SA) troops, the chief military organization of the Nazis. Lastly, it established Hitler as a strong, sturdy, almost God-like figure, whose promising words enthralled his followers.
Triumph of the Will’s sights and music were incredibly dramatic. In the first scene, black-and-white views of dark sky and impressive cloud formations, with passionate opera in the background, set the tone for the film. The shot then panned to Hitler’s airplane flying in the sky above Nuremberg, and looked down below to the great masses of fervent Nazi followers awaiting his landing, showing the shadow of the plane as it passed swiftly over the people. As Hitler’s motorcade advanced down the street lined with eager supporters, triumphant trumpets sounded. These are examples of the many feelings the film evoked, each dictated by the mood of the music playing. Along with the majestic, almost religious feel accompanied by the opera in the beginning of the film, and the jubilance as the trumpets played while Hitler made his way past his admirers, there were other styles of music throughout, and hence different moods in the film. When it went on to show the thousands of tents and barracks of a Hitler Youth Encampment, with cheerful boys enjoying their morning, shaving, wrestling, playfully fighting, and devotedly working, jolly German singing played in the background. There were scenes of torchlit SA parades accompanied by low, imposing music. The film’s depictions of night rallies, in particular, did an excellent job of appealing to the emotions of the film’s audience, with incredible scenes of innumerable Nazi devotees marching and assembling in dark, powerful settings. Although Triumph of the Will’s over-dramatization seemed excessive, it effectively appealed to the German public and followed closely the guidelines for propaganda that Hitler originally laid out in Mein Kampf. Other aspects of the film did the same to comply with Hitler’s initial ideas of successful propaganda.
The repeated images of swastikas throughout the film, along with other Nazi images and assemblages, made support of the party seem widespread and noble. Hitler, in Mein Kampf, described how propaganda must “restrict itself to very few points and impress these by slogans, until even the last person is able to bring to mind what is meant by such a word”. Though Triumph of the Will did not utilize a particular slogan, it made great use of the Nazi symbol, the swastika, to the effect that, (as Hitler indicated), everyone could recall the image and its meaning. Swastikas were present in almost every scene of the film; they were flaunted by both SA troops and common people, and hung from every building. Triumph of the Will showed people draping swastika flags from their windows as soon as they woke up- welcoming in the new day by showing their allegiance to the Nazi party and their Fuhrer. It showed excited children craning their necks to catch a glimpse of Hitler, used subtle filming techniques to amplify the numbers of supporters visible in Nazi rallies, and displayed the extravagant joyousness of the boys in a Hitler Youth Encampment. These tactics of the film were, in essence, glorified forms of peer pressure. The German public, upon viewing the film, felt a connection to their countrymen engrossed with Nazism. They felt proud, unified, and obligated by their nation and their fellow people to join the movement, to show their support for the Nazis. In addition, the film displayed the organization and intimidating numbers of the SA troops. They all wore brown, Nazi uniforms, bore swastika-laden flags, stood in precise formation, and marched in unison. Such a structured army furthered the German people’s belief in the Nazi party.
Triumph of the Will depicted Hitler as a distinctive, powerful figure, a great leader for the proud German people. Both his manner and his words contributed to his distinguished image. Even things as seemingly inconsequential as facial expressions played a part. His visage was stout and glaring. The Germans appreciated seeing their leader as a strong individual, and in the film, Hitler’s every action emitted an air of competence and sturdiness. When speaking, he stood far back from the microphone; he did not need it, so powerful was his voice. He had a distinguished look; his mustache, in particular, became one of his well-known unique traits. The German people respected him for it; they saw him as being on a higher level than themselves-almost a god- and gods were allowed to sport odd styles of facial hair and retain individuality. In addition, Hitler used choice words in his speeches. In one such address that he gave during Triumph of the Will, he spoke of how the new generation, Hitler’s generation, would have “neither class nor caste”. This proved an appealing concept to the young Germans, who grew up during great economic disaster and class repression following the end of World War I. They wanted to fight back; they wanted to once again become the most powerful people in the world, to live in a great nation. In the film, Hitler reflected and amplified these desires of his people, “We will be strong, stable, never to collapse, able to endure anything”. Triumph of the Will showed that Hitler wanted to bring back a Bismarckian sense of nationalism and German superiority that his countrymen so desperately yearned for.
Triumph of the Will succeeded as propaganda. As described in Mein Kampf, it appealed to the emotions of its audience; its intellectual level was lowered to befit the masses. It was dramatic, sometimes even theatrical, its excesses proving to captivate the audience. The exaggerations were so extreme that the film could be said to be untruthful. Hitler justified this concept of lying in Mein Kampf, reasoning that it was necessary, in fact effective, to tell great lies to the common people. Throughout the film, this concept was applied. Triumph of the Will, though released in a time of worldwide depression, showed prosperous young men with plentiful food, frying sausages and serving from a large vat of soup, enjoying themselves immensely and working devotedly. Hitler was right in believing that a great lie as such would be effective propaganda, for the images proved hopeful and promising to the public. The film showed Germans infatuated by and devoted to Hitler and the Nazis; this, along with the great numbers of swastikas ever-present on the screen, made the audience of the film comfortable with Nazism, and eager to support the cause that every other German was already supporting. Lastly, its powerful depiction of Hitler was highly effectual in gaining the rising tyrant support. When the film was released in 1934, it expedited Hitler’s rise to power, and readied his people for great war and genocide that were soon to come.
Google Sites
Report abuse