Gorbachev's Failed Goal

When Gorbachev took over the Soviet Union in 1988, he wanted to save communism.  He noticed that the Communist party was struggling as it became less and less cohesive with the needs of the USSR.  Trying to restore the dignity of his party, he enacted various reforms.  "Perestroika" was the enacting of economic reforms to save the economy after Brezhnev failed to create economic success.  He also started "glasnost", which gave the people more freedoms, such as freedom of speech.  However, as he tried to use these domestic reforms in Russia to save the USSR, they backfired.  The results were the opposite of what he desired.  While he attempted to restore communism, he destroyed it.  More freedoms meant more opposition because the people were less afraid to strike out against the government.  In Poland,  Lech Walesa, a leader in Poland, began a movement for allied labor strikers called Solidarity.  As Solidarity flourished in Poland, Gorbachev's power became undermined.  Walesa won elections.  Soon, other opposition groups rose up in the other countries in the USSR and Gorbachev lost control.  The Berlin Wall collapsed in November 1989.  Although Gorbachev tried to save his own party, his reforms did the opposite- but saving the power of the people in the process.  Without Gorbachev, the freedom of the people of the USSR never would have been achieved.

Khomeini and his Role in Modern Islamic Fundamentalism

An interpretation of Khomeini

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

In the inflammatory statement above taken from the book Holy Terror: Inside the World of Islamic Terrorism (1987) by Amir Taheri,

Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran expresses his true viewpoint on Islamic fundamentalism and its need to be spread through violence.  As we as a nation reflect on the death of Al Queda leader Osama Bin Laden, Khomeini and his position came to mind.  When he took over in 1979 as the leader of the Iranian Revolution, the Islamic fundamentalist and nationalist movement he led spread far beyond the borders of Iran.  His position, policies, and religious conservatism fomented the spread of Islamic terrorism in the name of jihad that our world lives in today.  He began to incite this movement by encouraging anti-Western, specifically U.S.A-directed sentiments amongst the population of Iran.  In a 1979 speech, Khomeini issued a verbal attack on the United States, declaring it to be “the Great Satan” and the reason for all evil in the world.  Although his hatred for the United States originally derived from our alliance with the abhorred shah, he continued to speak out against the United States, fostering the motivation for Hostage Crisis in November of 1979.  Whether his intentions of hatred had shifted from anger with our alliance to hatred of religious and cultural differences, I do not know.  Yet when on November 4, 1979 when Iranian students seized the U.S. Embassy, Khomeini gave his mark of approval to the movement.  He encouraged this act of blatant hostility and violence to the U.S.A., indirectly fostering the terrorism and widespread hatred against the U.S. of years to come. 

        Furthermore, the fact that he created a theocracy in place of a secular government supports that he instituted the first Islamic fundamentalist and nationalist widespread movement of our times and thereby starting a worldwide movement of fanatic, intransigent Islam that jihad is built upon.  His rule controlled not only the political aspects of the country but also the religious, which gave him more authority and power.  He united the country under his religious cause.  Komitehs, young thugs set on fulfilling Khomeini’s goal of a perfect Islamic nation, roamed the streets officiating and harassing individuals who defied Islamic law.  As Khomeini ushered in this new relationship where state was church, other countries in the Middle East took note. Islamic nationalism surged across the Middle East as a result of his radical movement.  He was the first of our times to put total power in the hands of clerics. 

      By doing such things, Khomeini sparked nationwide and regionwide support for die-hard religious conservatism, similar almost to the Islamic holy war of the eighth century.  He certainly supported jihad and violence as well, as he stated that  “Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors!”  His support for violence against western or any non-Islamic culture like Israel continued within his new Iran, after his death as well.  Iran was and is a huge supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist groups that project their hatred particularly at nearby Israel.  They have funded them for over twenty years.  The fact that modern Iran is founded on Khomeini’s principles could lead one to believe that Khomeini indeed was himself a supporter of terrorism.  His role in current terrorism is something to be debated. 

      Reflecting on the quote above, what role do you think Khomeini had or has in terrorism and jihad today, in light of Bin Laden’s recent death? Do you think would support terrorism, if he declared that the sword was needed to spread Islam? 

image source: http://setad.org/

Propaganda and Its Influence: Mao and Stalin

        

   

     

      In Mao’s China, propaganda greatly contributed to his public image as a ruler and also a godlike figure. As we were introduced to various pictures displaying severely exaggerated images of idyllic Chinese life, I thought of the propaganda that Russian dictator Joseph Stalin used to control and deceive the nation from the true political situation at hand.  Although for the most part the secrets that Stalin hid from the citizens, which were heavily replaced by idealistic pro-Stalin propaganda, were more severe than Mao’s secrets, both dictators utilized the same techniques to lead their followers under the false pretenses that all was beyond perfect in their respective nations.  In both cases, propaganda could be said to be the saving grace of both leaders.  Stalin and Mao each hid the problems in their countries, replacing them with posters declaring that all was flourishing and pleasant, politically and socially.  While famine flooded Russia, and oppressed citizens all around the countryside in the camps were dying more and more every day, Stalin kept it secret.  Instead, to boost his public image, he issued propaganda supporting him.  This propaganda, along with the cult of personality, made an idol out of Stalin, naming him as the reason for all good things in the world.  He even went so far as to create his approved line of art.  Soviet art, as it is called now, included images of Stalin standing in a utopian setting with young children, which made the citizens imagine him as a nurturing, kind leader when in fact thousands of men, women and children were starving and dying from the effects of his land collectivization labor camp program.  Mao, when his attempts to industrialize in the Great Leap Forward failed and mass famine and poverty struck China, instead issued posters with images depicting smiling, happy women participating in the industrialization.  Like Stalin, he also used the cult of personality, through propaganda prasing himself as China’s ‘savior’.  Extreme idolatry was used to depict Mao, including many images of him with a sun around his head, similar to a godlike radiating light.  Propaganda, I believe, was the thing that saved both dictators.  Even when everything was not running smoothly, the propaganda that they created made everyone believe that things were perfect.  By instilling such ideas that were so contradictory to the truth, they kept the people under their iron grips.  By making the people believe that they were their ‘saviors’ per se through propaganda, the people were inclined not to question them.  Since the people believed that Mao and Stalin were perfect, they never fought back.  And therefore, since the people never fought back, Stalin and Mao were able to rule for such long periods of time without anyone calling them into question.  

Gandhi and Satygraha-Failed Cause or Hopeless Cause?

 

In 1947, as the Partition of India ravaged the infant nation of India, it seemed as though Gandhi's mission of achieving a peaceful India free from British rule had failed.  India was now divided into India and Pakistan, religious dissent finally overruling the cause of unity.   But as Gandhi and his followers tried to settle with the fact that their plan of achieving peace and unity through satyagraha had failed, one could wonder if their hopes to attain such a goal were hopeless from the start.  Between the religious tension between the Muslims and the Hindus and the accompanying political strife that resulted, the tensions involved with Britain, and everything else, India was at a vulnerable place.  To campaign for peaceful unity was almost unrealistic, and doomed.  Why would such a struggling, overwrought populace be willing for a peaceful campaign?  It is true that violence is the easiest route, then.  India needed a quick and simple way to gain independence, and Gandhi’s way just wasn’t quick enough.  He didn’t allow for the Partition, and didn’t fully take into account the demands that Muslims had made, and their intentions to follow through as well.  With such religious tension that ended up literally dividing India, it was impossible to achieve an easy, peaceful transition.  Sometimes, violence is necessary.  The utopian view that Gandhi idolized could work, yes, but not in the situation that India was in.  Ultimately, the violence and death that finally resulted was inevitable. Like water furiously bubbling and boiling underneath a pot cover, the cover could not just be quickly removed without expecting steam to arise. The giant pot cover of Britain suppressed the people of India. Not only was the water stuck under the pot, it was boiling inside the pot.  After the pot cover was lifted off, an explosion occurred rather predictably.  Therefore, unfortunately, Gandhi’s hopes for a peaceful transition were impossible.  With the religious and political tension in India and the transition from suppression to freedom, violence, sadly, was inevitable.

image source: the40yearplan.com

The Historical Patterns Displayed in the Russian Revolution of 1905

After reading about the Russian Revolution of 1905, I was struck by the similarities between that revolution and both the American Revolution and the French Revolution.   The French Revolution, the American Revolution, and the Russian Revolution all involved challenges with distant and somewhat incapable governments.    The American colonists of the 1770s made peaceful yet direct efforts with the English king and Parliament overseas to communicate their desires for actual representation through petitioning.  After they were repeatedly ignored, the Americans issued one last treaty, the Olive Branch Petition, proclaiming their loyalty to Great Britain in an 

 effort to refrain from war.  After King George of England disregarded that treaty as well, the colonies declared war on Britain.  Clearly, One of the major contributing factors of the conflict between England and the American colonies was the lack of communication between the two throughout the period of British rule. Both physical and virtual distance played a part in the conflict, because the British government adapted an "out of sight, out of mind" policy to some degree while ruling them. The distance also created separation between the king and his people, disturbing national unity. Because of the distance between America and England, the king perhaps did not feel threatened by the colonists and assumed that he could continually ignore their pleas without conflict; thus, a feeling of virtual distance as well from the monarch was apparent in the colonies and contributed to the drive for revolution.

In the French Revolution as well, distance and division between the wealthy class of nobility and government officials and the poor third estate created contention among the people.  As the poor citizens of France were struggling to make ends meet with rising bread prices and economic crisis, the rich insisted upon living in complete opulence without regard to the plight of the poor.  War crisis as well played a significant part: with peasants uprising in the country to avoid drafts, chaos ensued.  However, like King George of England, King Louis XVI of France failed to meet his people’s needs, which added to the distance between the king and his people.  This total disconnect between the stark reality of the poor and the blind decadence of the powerful and rich served as a motivational factor for the ‘levée en masse’ of the oppressed as they united against their negligent king.

 

And in Russia, too, a definite distance between the king and his people was apparent. National unity was already damaged after the crushing defeat of Russia by Japan in the war.  The defeat on the battlefield was reflected in the defeated attitudes of the Russian people after the war.  The fact that Russia had been defeated in the war not only lowered the citizens’ confidence and pride in their nation, but as a result also lowered their confidence in their king, Tsar Nicholas II, as well.  Morale was low, and people looked to the tsar as a leader to boost their spirits.  His distance from the people added to his incompetence.  The lack of unity and defeated attitude of the populace and royalty as well made the nation more susceptible to a revolution, and sure enough, one took place.  The Russian citizens, like the American colonists, wanted to express their desires for a more modern representative government through petition.  On January 9, 1905, some citizens peacefully marched to the tsar’s Winter Palace in St. Petersburg to petition the king.  The tsar and his ministers had an army waiting for the protesters when they arrived. As the citizens were marching peacefully, the Russian soldiers opened fire on the innocent citizens and shot 92 people.  Several more were injured.  As a result of that infamous day now called Bloody Sunday, the people that were unsure about revolution now had more interest.   Angered from the deaths of innocent people, they projected their anger towards the tsar. This example of the government turning on its own people and subsequently stirring others to revolt is reminiscent of the Boston Massacre of the American Revolution.  In it, the British Army opened fire on (supposedly) innocent Bostonians. Although not as large-scale of a massacre per se, the people that had not seen a reason to combat the British now could have a reason. Like the Russian Revolution, the outcome of the Boston Massacre motivated reluctant revolutionaries to fight harder. The deaths of their fellow citizens moved them.  Although these revolutions were all different, they were similar in ways.  All three dealt with incompetent leaders that distanced themselves from their citizens and thus gave them the opportunity to revolt.  The time of national weakness (under an incompetent, useless leader) made a revolution more able to happen.  The consequences after and during a time of war were clearly important as well.  Therefore, although these revolutions were each different in their own way, some similarities can be expressed between them.  One could say that history does indeed tend to repeat itself!

image sources: wikipedia

emersonkent.com

"Work Hard, Get Ahead?" The Validity of Samuel Smiles' "Self-Help" Then and Now

In 1859 during the Industrial Revolution, the Scottish writer Samuel Smiles published his book, Self-Help, that was an instant success.  His motivational and inspiring words appealed to many people across the social spectrum.  Yet, were his words that essentially stated "heaven helps those who help themselves" valid at that time for poor people?  In my opinion, yes.  Although there were certainly difficult challenges facing the average factory worker in the heat of the Industrial Revolution, one could still find opportunities to advance oneself in the working world.  Even a down-on-his-luck factory worker who believed that every force was pitted against him had the chance to succeed if he truly was willing to work and to take the risks that would bring him to advancement. Certainly, in those times especially, it could seem that all the forces were pitted against his success.  But if he took advantage of all his opportunities and concentrated his energy into efforts to get ahead, his determination would not go unnoticed.  He would then be recognized for his hard work with financial rewards and advancement.  Our society has a tendency to award and recognize those who work hard.
Thus, success in those times for the poor was not impossible;  I believe it was determined by the drive of the person wanting to succeed. 

In both our modern world and Smile's world in the Industrial Revolution, a strong drive to succeed is the ultimate determinant of personal success in life.  At a certain point, one cannot victimize oneself with self-pity, no matter how difficult one's circumstances.  There are certain differences between those who succeed and those who do not.  Some see opportunity in a challenge and rise to meet it.  Others are overwhelmed by the seemingly insurmountable odds against them and give in to self-pity and fear. Successful people have a resiliency and will to to better their lot in life.  They will do whatever it takes to thrive.  Essentially, it is my belief that the toughest times and circumstances distinguish the strong from the weak.  Without a doubt, everyone wants to succeed, but the mark between those who actually do succeed and those who just want to is taking the risks that are necessary. Yes, few do rise above unfortunate circumstances and it could seem that success is impossible. It only seems this way because people can get defeated by the odds against them.  Work ethic and persistence will bring people above these odds, and they will succeed.



Samuel Smiles picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Smiles
self- help picture : http://www.butler-bowdon.com/selfhelp

The Slaves of the Haitian Revolution and Their Choice of Violence

Before the dawn of the Haitian Revolution,  the slaves of Saint-Domingue had long been oppressed by the largely unjust and brutal plantation owners who controlled them.  Slaves were unduly beaten for seemingly petty reasons and forced to live in constant suppression.  The average African slave died within three years of being imported to Saint-Domingue because of the inhumane and unreasonable conditions in which they were forced to live.  After years of the slaves continuing this vicious cycle, the seeds of rebellion were at last sown among the slave community.  As the stirrings of revolt spread, the slaves chose to initiate their first movement of revolution using violent means.   They attacked their masters, burned their plantations, and devastated crops,   essentially  returning the thoughtless actions of cruelty that had been doled out to them in the past by their masters. One could say that the violent course of action that they chose could be justified by the fact that they were slaves, and thus their cries of oppression would most likely not be heard through peaceful means.  So was there a possible way to achieve their freedom without the violence involved?  Was violence inevitable?  In these circumstances, their use of violence was justifiable.  In the society of Saint-Domingue, there was a very great difference in not only education, but also lifestyle and economics.  There was a total disconnect between the very wealthy plantation owners and the destitute slaves from whom they made a profit.  It was this disconnect between the two groups that perhaps led the slaves to seek violence in order to obtain their liberty.  Since the wealthy plantation owners did not look upon the slaves as equals, the two groups would not be able to rationalize peacefully about the prospect of freedom for slaves.  The slaves' sentiments would most likely be ignored.  Perhaps freed blacks and the colored elite could negotiate with the white elite, but even they had slaves of their own.  Thus, since the slaves were not in a position to negotiate with their oppressors as equals, violence was the only course in which they could be recognized.  In most cases, peaceful arrangement would be preferred, but since the slaves were so oppressed and downtrodden, violence was the only way that they could gain power over their masters and succeed in their mission of liberty.  As we learned, it was only after the slaves instilled fear in their masters through violence that they gained power and control.  Therefore, violence in the slaves' case, was inevitable in order for them to gain their independence.

Some questions to think about: But was there an alternative to violence? In general, is violence usually the inevitable route? Was there anything the slaves could have done to promote a more peaceful revolution?

First picture : blackpast.org
Second Picture -formaementis.wordpress.com
 Third Picture -latinamericanstudies.org