Chapter 24 (Continued)

I admire the more aggressive approach of the women’s liberation movement, but think it was also important to feminism in general to maintain the more traditional political lobbying of the equal rights feminists. I believe that more radical groups serve the purpose of capturing the public’s attention, but the less radical groups tend to change laws and make measurable progress in society. This is not to devalue the importance of the role of some radical groups, only to say that their more conservative counterparts have an easier time working within the system.

From the women’s liberation movement, I especially liked the comparison of patriarchy as a system of domination on the level of race and class. This speaks to the fact that gender was historically not afforded the same importance as race and class in terms of oppression. Gender inequality was widely accepted and the women’s liberation movement suggests that not even many oppressed women were aware of their plight: “Because we live so intimately with our oppressors, we have been kept from seeing our personal suffering as a political condition.”

I found the differing concerns of African American women very interesting and enlightening. To these women, racism and poverty were far more oppressive than patriarchy. They had long worked outside the home, and viewed the family as a secure base. They viewed mainstream Western feminism as “a family quarrel between White women and White men.” This stance gets at the question of which form of oppression is more severe and relevant to one’s circumstances. It is easy to see how racism and poverty would take precedence over patriarchy. This is said not to diminish the importance of the feminist movement, but to bring to light the fact that other forms of oppression may have more severe and immediate consequences for some women.

Feminism in the 20th century was able to “gain international recognition for the view that women’s rights are human rights.” I believe it was highly successful in exposing the many inequities and injustices that women have endured. However, as is the case with other forms of oppression, there is still a long way to go. The text also points out that there are still differing views within feminism, but this should not stop the general progress towards equality.

Chapter 24 Post

Strayer has done an admirable job of keeping the reader informed about the status of women throughout the text. The emergence of patriarchy began with the First Civilizations, and although the extent of male dominance varied among different cultures, the vast majority of women from that time forward suffered at least some degree of oppression.

Strayer often inserted a section concerning gender issues as the text covered the various time periods and cultures of world history. However, at some point it became largely repetitive and depressingly predictable. The update would usually point out some minor progress in gender equality, or what seemed like major progress, only to reveal that progress was subsequently wiped out. A recurring theme in this area was the acceptance of women as more equal when they were needed, only to be “relegated to marginal positions” when their services were no longer needed. A good example of this is when women were needed for labor.

Not until the chapter about the Atlantic revolutions and the beginning of an organized feminist movement was their truly significant progress to report, such as more access to educational opportunities and the right to vote. Even then, Strayer states, “Nowhere did nineteenth-century feminism have really revolutionary consequences. But as an outgrowth of the French and Industrial revolutions, it raised issues that echoed repeatedly and more loudly in the century that followed.”

That brings us to the feminism discussed in Chapter 24. Strayer says, “No expression of the global culture of liberation held a more profound potential for change than feminism.” Western feminism which was largely dormant from the 1920s through the 1950s reemerged with more than the right to vote on their agenda. They were now seeking a higher level of equality with a focus on employment and education.

Chapter 23 Post

Once again, the concept of nationalism plays an extremely important role in history. Decolonization throughout the 20th century was largely driven by nationalism. Strayer states, "never before had the end of empire been so associated with the mobilization of the masses around a nationalist ideology; nor had earlier cases generated a plethora of nation-states." I still find it fascinating that nationalism is a relatively new concept in world history. It is so embedded in today's world, it is hard to imagine a world arranged any differently.

I thought the text pointed out a very important difference between the decolonization of the Americas, and those of Asia and Africa. It says, "they not only asserted political independence but also affirmed the vitality of their cultures, which had been submerged and denigrated during the colonial era." This speaks to a whole other level of nationalism that includes race, ethnicity, language and other unique features of these societies.

I think the text has done a good job of addressing the 'why' in world history. In attempting to explain why decolonization was so rampant during the mid-twentieth century, the text brings up an important concept. Strayer talks about "the notion of 'conjuncture,' the coming together of several separate developments at a particular time." It is really just a fancy way of saying that historical events usually happen for several reasons, as opposed to any one particular reason. This seems like a pretty obvious concept, but I think it is important because many people like to have one clear-cut, simple answer, and that does a disservice to the complexity, interrelatedness, and enormous scope of world history.

Nationalism itself is not a clean and clear-cut concept. Clearly, nationalism had some positive outcomes for many oppressed peoples who gained their independence. However, the idea of defining a nation is an inexact science. Strayer describes these issues: "(nationalist movements) were fragile alliances of conflicting groups and parties representing different classes, ethnic groups, religions, or regions. Beneath the common goal of independence, they struggled with one another over questions of leadership, power, strategy, ideology, and the distribution of material benefits, even as they fought and negotiated with their colonial rulers." It's almost as if there is nationalism within nationalism, and these issues are ongoing and contribute heavily to the problems that still exist in these nations.

Week #7 Post (Chapters 21 & 22)

I thought it was quite interesting that the competing states feature of Europe, which was a driving force in its rise to prominence, was also a significant contributor to its collapse. Strayer states, "Europe's modern transformation and its global ascendancy were certainly not accompanied by a growing unity or stability among its own peoples---quite the opposite."

In the category of "What would have happened if...?," I wonder what would have happened if Italy and Germany had been unified states earlier in history. It seems the fact that their governments were relatively new and unestablished heavily contributed to the receptive environment to a new form of government (fascism) in both countries. Would fascism have been relegated to a footnote in history ("small movements...that had little political impact")? Would WWII have been averted? Would the Holocaust have happened? I realize there were a multitude of factors involved in WWII, but it seems that fascism (in varying forms) was the unifying force behind the Axis powers. As for Japan, Strayer states that, "Like Italy and Germany, Japan had a rather limited experience with democratic politics."

This chapter really drove home the immense influence of nationalism, and its prominent role in both world wars. The extreme nationalism in Germany was especially frightening: "the Nazi Party under Hitler's leadership proclaimed a message of intense German nationalism cast in terms of racial superiority, bitter hatred for Jews as an alien presence..."

The far-ranging and history-altering effects of the Great Depression were also driven home in this chapter. Strayer states, "Much as Europe's worldwide empires had globalized the war, so too its economic linkages globalized the Great Depression." Also, the Great Depression's impact on the politics of many countries, and the backlash towards capitalism and democracy were eye opening. Strayer says, "...people had lost faith in the capacity of liberal democracy and capitalism to create a good society and to protect their interests."

Finally, I especially liked the 'Reflections' piece at the end of the chapter. It talks about how history is generally far too complex and subjective to be summed up by sayings such as, "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it." As a society we like to draw parallels and make issues as clean and black and white as possible. Unfortunately, I believe history is full of gray area. This is not to say that we can't learn valuable lessons from history, just that we need to be cognizant of all aspects of historical events before drawing any conclusions.

Boston Tea Party

This is an interesting article that addresses what Dr. Fitzgerald mentioned in last week's class about the Boston Tea Party. It goes as far as to say that the Tea Act of 1773 was essentially a tax cut, but much like the politics of today, the truth is often secondary to political ideologies and motives.

American subjects or citizens?

On the eve of July 4th, here is an interesting story about Jefferson and an apparently tough habit to break.

Week #6 Post (Chapters 17, 18 & 20)

I especially enjoyed reading about the Atlantic Revolutions. I was unaware of the interrelatedness of the revolutions. First, and most obvious, I did not realize or remember that these revolutions took place in such a short time frame. I had in the past learned about all of these revolutions separately, but the text did a great job of identifying the underlying currents that connected these events.

I found it interesting that the "British colonists were 'republican in their manners...and their government' well before their independence from England." This notion that the American Revolution "was not accompanied by any wholesale social transformation, but rather accelerated the established democratic tendencies of the colonial societies" is enlightening to me. When I learned about the American Revolution in the early 1980s, the focus was more heavily placed on the patriots and their belief that the revolution created "a new order for the ages" and "a new and more noble course." Certainly the American Revolution had a profound impact on much of the world and inspired other revolutions, but the fact that the existing society was already revolutionary is fascinating.

I was especially intrigued by the Haitian Revolution, "the only completely successful slave revolt in world history." I would love to learn more about the aftermath of the revolution, and if there was any way that what was once "the richest colony in the world" could have avoided the instability and poverty that has gripped that country ever since. Strayer mentions that the plantation system was largely destroyed, and that "Haiti became a nation of small-scale farmers producing mostly for their own needs, with a much smaller export sector." That is probably a key point. Haiti would probably have had a hard time trading with other nations after the revolution, as external opposition persisted. Another major obstacle included "its bitter internal divisions of race, color, and class."

On a lighter note, I found it amusing that taxation played a prominent role in the American, French, and Spanish revolutions. It seems that nothing fires up the people capable of starting a revolution (the wealthiest citizens) more than taking money out of their pocket.