How did the Holocaust Come to Be?

  Anti-Semitism has been around for a long time, much longer than World War II. the Nazi party picked up this anti-Semitism and began to blame the problems of Germany on the Jews. Germany had just lost World War I and was in shambles. They lost so much afterwards and when someone like Adolf Hitler came to vie for power he was welcome. One of the first things he did was give the people someone to blame for their problems. They took onto it like never before. Although it would seem like all of Germany held this view, given the carnage that occurred, but really only a small part of Germany held this view. Many were able to support the idea of "the Jews" being at fault, but more like a broader sense than actual violence against the Jewish people. There were enough people who hated the Jewish people within the party for the Holocaust to happen.

    One explanation for how the Holocaust was allowed to happen was fear. It's one of the more popular reasons. They tried to say they were too scared to disobey the Nazi party, but it was never proven that there were any punishments for refusing to kill the Jews. When it came to people protesting about just the Jews they didn't really have anything happen to them. Really the people who knew about the situation just ignored them. It wasn't considered a priority to them.

    Another reason shown was that they had something to gain from what happened to the Jews. All the valuables the Jewish people had to leave behind was now open for the German people. They also had more land and jobs available for them. People are willing to overlook anything in the face of their own greed. In recent years historians learned that there were public auctions for the sudden increase in treasures.

    Probably the strongest reason for the Holocaust to happen was the deference of authority. People did not want to diverge from the group and also wanted to please the people in charge. They wanted to conform and when they committed atrocious acts were then able to rationalize their actions to themselves. This way they did not see their actions as very bad, but something that might even be necessary.

Hopefully nothing like this ever happens again.

works cited

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, www.ushmm.org/learn/introduction-to-the-holocaust/ethical-leaders/background/causes-and-motivations.

WWII: 'Night' Life

How anyone thinks Eliezer faked and dramatized parts of his story in order to popularize the Holocaust and make money is beyond me. Reading Eliezer Wiesel’s account of his experience in the WWII Holocaust through his novel, Night, has opened my eyes to the pain and suffering that truly went on at this period. The speed at which the isolation and condemnation of Jews happened was incredible. The pinnacle point of a boys life happens during his teenage years. In the prime of Elie’s teenage years his life changed dramatically. Just finding the basis on who he wanted to be and finding the work he wanted to do through his faith is tragic as it was all taken from him. Not only was his striped of the only things he knew in life, but it was replaced with hell. Entering Auschwitz for the first time, the imagery in which he described the smell of burning flesh and the condition in which he saw humanity broken, he had already died to himself.  

Night incapsulates the story of an insider in the Holocaust, an important view many tend look over as it is not a popular view to be shared. The importance of this rare story come from the root of why we study history in the first place. History, or rather the mistakes of history, should never be repeated. Although the Holocaust is not the only case of mass genocide, it is one of the biggest. The book harped on an individual’s experience, one that wasn’t easy to write about. The Holocaust should be seen as an educational tool to critique current and future society and government. The government choices that led up to Eliezer’s life through the Holocaust should be ones that generations now should take seriously. Linking the smallest decisions of previous and modern society, this book is worth reading and studying as it calls attention to a life modern times does not want to face. 

Denial

The film, Denial, is about an admired writer and historian that must present historical truth to prove the Holocaust actually occurred in attempt to avoid a law suit of libel against well known Holocaust denier, David Irving.

In 1996, a historian, Deborah Lipstadt was pursued in the UK courts because David Irving was directly referred to as a falsifier of history in her book Denying the Holocaust. In the film, Irving is suing for libel or defamation of his name. In the case of a libel suit, the plaintiff must call for proof that the claims are in fact true. In this case, Deborah would have to prove that the Holocaust actually took place in order to free herself of the charges.

This case is specifically unique in the fact that Deborah makes it through the trial without testifying herself, unlike David who acted as his own council throughout the trial. They explain that in testifying herself, her defense will take away from the actual case which is to prove that the Holocaust did exist and that Irving is a denier. Along with that no living Holocaust survivors were called to testify to save them the embarrassment and humiliation in facing Irving. Would this have made a difference? Finally there is no jury involved in the final decision. There is only one judge to make the important verdict.

The most memorable scenes in my opinion were the images used to let viewers see the piles of shoes and exhibits of all the misery that people had to suffer through during the times of the Holocaust. Using the imagery of misery really, in my opinion showcased everything at stake in the trial. It was a way that the audience could really connect. There are still Holocaust deniers in today's society. One could argue that this film is even more important now than ever. I urge everyone to if not watch, look into this case. 

Citations:

Bradshaw, Peter. “Denial Review – Overwhelmingly Relevant Assertion of Truth.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 26 Jan. 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/jan/26/denial-review-holocaust-rachel-weisz

Wloszczyna, Suzan. "Denial Movie Review & Film Summary (2016) / Roger Ebert." RogerEbert.com, 30. Sept. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/denial-2016.

Hitler's Road to Power

Some may think of Adolf Hitler as being an evil leader of Germany, which I'm not saying isn't true, but there was much more to him than just that. The way in which Hitler rose to power was an interesting one. Adolf Hitler was born in Austria on April 20th, 1889, and his 130th birthday just passed but isn't exactly celebrated the way a normal birthday would...if you know, you know. What a lot of people don't know is that Hitler served in World War I as "dispatch runner, taking messages back and forth from the command staff in the read to the fighting units near the battlefield" ("Adolf Hitler"). He was unlike any soldier and would often use watercolors and paint what he saw in war, and he never complained about the conditions or food. It wasn't until 1916 that he was wounded during the Battle of the Somme and was hospitalized. While in recovery, this is when his hatred first arose. 

Hitler travelled around Berlin and saw a variety of "anti-war sentiment among German civilians" and blamed the Jews for all of this ("Adolf Hitler"). A few years following this, Hitler joined the German Workers' Party in Munich in 1919. Although Hitler was not impressed with the condition of this Party, he was intrigued by the fact that it would be more than just a political party and would become a movement. Hitler started to gain power in this Party and changed the name to the National Socialist German Workers' Party, Nazi for short. With Hitler in charge, the Nazi Party had about 3,000 members by 1920, and he was officially named leader in 1921. The Nazi Party mastered mass propaganda and Hitler would deliver speeches that caused uprisings from his audience. In 1923, Hitler organized an armed uprising in Munich, the Beer Hall Putsch, but failed because of the poor planning and led to Hitler's arrest.

While serving his short prison term, Hitler wrote the book Mein Kampf, which was published in 1925. This book highlighted the fact that the Germans were the "master race" and needed to be protected against Jews and Slavs. In 1929 to 1930, Hitler and the Nazis came to power while the Great Depression was occurring. Hitler took this opportunity to gain support of the Nazi Party and by 1932, Hitler ran for president of Germany and was elected chancellor in 1933. Once Adolf Hitler was in office, the Nazi concentration camps were opened and the Jews were at risk. In 1934, Hitler became fuhrer of Germany, leading to the Germans and Russians occupying Poland in 1939. This is when the Holocaust came into full swing and the Jews' lives were at stake. Three million Jews were under Nazi control by 1939 and were forced into concentration camps. 

The Holocaust is known as one of the biggest, if not the biggest, genocide throughout history. About six million Jews were killed during the Holocaust, all while under the rule of Adolf Hitler. In 1945, Hitler commits suicide, leaving no real justice to be served. Many see Adolf Hitler as the most despicable leader in all of history, and this may be true, but he grew up like any other normal kid. Hitler caused millions of unjustifiable deaths and the power went straight to his head. It is hard to imagine what it would've been like to live in Germany while Hitler was ruling, either bowing down to a horrible leader or fearing for your life every single day. 

"Adolf Hitler." World History Project, worldhistoryproject.org/topics/adolf-hitler/page/1. Accessed 22 Apr. 2019.

Bullock, Allan, et al. "Adolf Hitler ." Encyclopedia Britannica, 16 Apr. 2019, www.britannica.com/biography/Adolf-Hitler. 

Engelhart, Katie. "The Return of Hitler." Maclean's, 21 Apr. 2010, www.macleans.ca/news/world/the-return-of-hitler/. 

Lawrence of Arabia: The Story Behind a Hero of World War I

The 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia, is a film that depicts the experiences of British Colonel T.E. Lawrence in the Arab Uprisings of the first world war. The film itself covers Lawrence’s time as a British Officer in the Arabian Peninsula; and his involvement as leader of the Arab revolt against the Turkish army, and the delegator of the Arab National Council. The film tries to portray Lawrence's heroic/courageous deeds, while also showing the psychological affects that the war would burden on him.

While the film itself is based of the story of T.E. Lawrence, it is better understood to be a depiction of the book Seven Pillars of Wisdom, by T.E. Lawrence. The film, as well as the book, can be seen as more of Lawrence’s personal depiction of the events that happened on the Arabian Peninsula than a true historical record of what took place. Historians debate whether or not the accuracy of all elements of Lawrence’s accounts, saying that he may have embellished aspects of the story to be more favorable towards himself. Besides Lawrence’s possible reconstruction of events, the film makers would also take liberty in making slight changes of the events of the story to better fit how they wanted to represent it. 

 The film also does a decent job of representing the historical subtleties of the story. They did a good job in matching clothing, equipment, etc. to those of the time period. They did however fail to be historically correct with some of the historical gear of the time. One of the most glaring inaccuracies was the weaponry within the film. These include: the Turkish army using an American 1919 browning machine gun (during a battle in 1918), the rebels only using British SMLE Enfield rifles (even before being resupplied by the British), and T.E. Lawrence using a British Webley revolver (when in fact he carried an American Colt 1911 handgun). While these inaccuracies are minor in the overall scheme of the film, they do take away from the immersion for those who know/catch these mistakes.

 The film does an overall good job at capturing the essence of the story Lawrence of Arabia. While being produced in the 1960s, the film has aged very well. While some select scenes in the film struggle due to the technology of the time, most of the it is very well filmed. It is a truly amazing how well they were able to achieve the visuals they were without more modern technology.

Work Cited

Anderson, Scott. “The True Story of Lawrence of Arabia.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 1 July 2014, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-lawrence-arabia-180951857/.

Dud, Mrs. “Lawrence of Arabia: Hollywood Fact or Fiction?” Dr Dud's Dicta, 30 July 2015, drdudsdicta.com/2014/08/09/lawrence-of-arabia-hollywood-fact-or-fiction/.

Hoffman, George. “T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) and the M1911 » Sight M1911.” Sight M1911 RSS, sightm1911.com/lib/history/telawrence.htm.

Stejskal, James. “The Arab Revolt and the Guns of Lawrence of Arabia.” American Rifleman, 23 Nov. 2018, www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2018/11/23/the-arab-revolt-and-the-guns-of-lawrence-of-arabia/.

Woolf, Christopher. “Is Peter O'Toole's Lawrence of Arabia Fact or Fiction?” Public Radio International, 16 Dec. 2013, www.pri.org/stories/2013-12-16/peter-otooles-lawrence-arabia-fact-or-fiction.

The Treaty of Versailles

The Treaty of Versailles was written in January of 1919 in Paris, influenced by seventy delegates from twenty-seven nations who met to work out a peace treaty that laid out the terms of the postwar settlement with Germany. Although there were representatives from twenty-seven different nations, the treaty was said to mainly be influenced by the big three; the United States, Great Britain, and France.

U.S. president Woodrow Wilson brought ideals from his previous peace proposal, the Fourteen Points, along with the idea of a League of Nations, and the principles of national self-determination each for different purposes. Wilson believed the Fourteen Points, which called for open diplomacy, a reduction in armaments, and freedom of commerce and trade would be successful in bringing unselfish peace among the nations instead of providing punishment for Germany. Insisting on a League of Nations to protect member states from aggression and prevent future wars was important to Wilson for setting a peace standard, although it ended up being to weak to achieve its grand purpose. Wilson's final idea of a national self-determination notion was to allow the people to freely choose their own government through the process of democratic vote. The majority rule would determine the winner of the election. Self-determination also stated they could live free from external involvement in states defined by borders.

Although these were all seen as peaceful resolutions France wanted revenge, economic and financial retribution, and long lasting security from Germany. This took up many discussions between the big three with the main issue being that France wanted a buffer state between them and Germany. This would entail permanent demilitarization of Germany. After being deadlocked with little to no hope of moving forward France finally agreed to compromise and give up the idea of a buffer state in return for French military rule of the region for the next fifteen years along with a defense pact with the United States and Great Britain.

In conclusion, Wilson was the main voice behind the peace initiative, many of his ideas were put down by the majority. One of the most controversial clauses of the treaty that Wilson opposed of was the war guilt clause. The war guilt clause declared that Germany was responsible for the war and had to pay their due reward equal to all civilian damages caused by the fight. The Treaty ultimately stated new German boundaries and assigned liability for reparations. Some claim that this treaty, due to the direct harshness toward Germany, led to WWII. Thoughts?

Citations:

Pruitt, Sarah. “How the Treaty of Versailles and German Guilt Led to World War II.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 29 June 2018, www.history.com/news/treaty-of-versailles-world-war-ii-german-guilt-effects.
https://www.history.com/news/treaty-of-versailles-world-war-ii-german-guilt-effects

"Fourteen Points" History.com, A&E Television Networks, 16 Nov. 2009, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/wilson-delivers-fourteen-points-speech.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/wilson-delivers-fourteen-points-speech

Vladimir Lenin and Ethnic Minorities

Vladimir Lenin is one of the more complex figures in Russian History. In some Communist and Socialist circles, Lenin is venerated as a hero and given almost Saint-like attributes, while to many other people he was a bloodthirsty dictator who drove innocent people from their homes and established an oppressive regime that lasted for more than 60 years. There were many praiseworthy things to be said about Vladimir Lenin including his skills as an orator, his advocacy for the participation of women in politics, and his own personal ascetic lifestyle.

 However, it is abundantly clear that most material praising Lenin has emerged from Russia, and has inevitably been influenced by Soviet Propaganda, while some of the more unsavory opinions about Lenin were influenced by Western perceptions of the later Stalin regime. To truly understand Lenin we have to create a balanced narrative composed of both Eastern and Western Sources. In order to undergo such an endeavor, I have had to make use of online translating services (google translate) because I am not fluent or proficient in any of the Languages that were spoken in the Soviet Union or its client states. While some would attempt to paint a broad picture of Lenin as either a hero-figure or an evil dictator, such sweeping moralizations are outside of the context of this blog and its focus on ethnic minorities in the aftermath of the Russian Civil War.

The most revealing thing in my investigation of the Lenin regime was my research into Lenin's policy towards ethnic minorities. Following the Russian Civil War Lenin cracked down on minority groups that supported the White Army (the faction supporting the Russian Provisional Government which Lenin overthrew with the support of the popular Petrograd Soviet). This is especially apparent in the case of the Cossacks, a semi-nomadic Slavic group that lived in the Pontic Steppe (the flat grassy region of Southeastern Ukraine and the Caucasian part of Russia). The Cossacks had historically been granted autonomy in exchange for service in the Tsarist Army as cavalrymen. This agreement was beneficial to both parties, and in nearly every war the Russian Empire faced, the Cossacks fulfilled their end of the bargain.

                                         an exaggerated depiction of Cossacks in traditional garb

To the Soviet Government under Lenin however, the Cossacks were a problematic group because they fought in the White Army, had ties to the Orthodox Church, and in many cases were monarchist (even though some had been in the Red Army). In 1919, just two years after his establishment as dictator Lenin ordered massive reprisals against the Cossacks. Cossack political leaders were arrested and executed, Cossack churches were destroyed, and as many as ten thousand Cossacks were slaughtered in a matter of weeks. Unfortunately, much of the Cossack identity was lost following Decossackization because they had not traditionally been a record-keeping society.

"Conduct merciless mass terror" - Sergey Ivanovich Syrtsov

                                          The siege of the City of Bukhara under Communist forces

Such accounts were not limited to the Cossacks as many other groups also experienced repression under Lenin's rule including the Kalmyk people (distant cousins of the Mongols), and the inhabitants of Russias central Asian colonies. The Kalmyks had an arrangement with the Imperial Government that was similar to that of the Cossacks, and as a result, many of them were targeted by the Kremlin, and as many as 20,000 Kalmyks were forcibly relocated to frigid and inhospitable places in remote Siberia. In Central Asia the Soviet Government attempted to enforce the policy of State Atheism among the Muslim majority inhabitants in the region, along with the abolishment of Sharia Law, leading to a continuation of the revolt that had at first been directed against the Tsarist Government.

In conclusion, it is clear that many of Stalin's more infamous policies were predicated by the policies of Lenin, and it is also clear that we cannot understand the great tragedies of the 20th century without understanding the groundwork that was laid here. Many characters in history are in shades of grey, and Lenin certainly fits the bill considering his seemingly contradictory attitudes towards women and working-class Russians on one hand, and ethnic minorities on the other hand.

Sources:

https://yustysya.livejournal.com/30958.html#cutid1 (This source is in Russian (google translate))

 https://web.archive.org/web/20091210025518/http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/presspr/pressreleases/cossacks.htm  Dr.Shane O'Rorke

http://www.persee.fr/doc/cmr_1252-6576_1997_num_38_1_2486 
(introduction in French for an English language source)

http://www.sonin.mn/blog/Munkhbayar/21142 (This source is in Mongolian(google translate))

Robespierre and Lenin: The Dos and Donts of Revolution

Occurring more than a century apart, the French Revolution and Russian Revolution of 1917 have more in common than you might initially assume. Their commonalities may be most apparent in the grass roots of the revolutions themselves. As we well know, the origins of the French revolution, while definitely orchestrated by decades of the ruling elite’s power abuses, were combusted by the socioeconomic state of France’s impoverished peasantry (M625). The stark, survival conditions, as well as the multitude of complaints and suggestions lobbied by various working factions (i.e. cahiers for the French National Assembly), was closely mimicked in the political climate of pre-revolution Russia. Even the outcry for greater representation and democracy resulting in the formation of the Russian Duma, an incredibly disempowered version of parliament, mimes the function of France’s third estate prior to the initiation of the French Revolution (M622, M769). While many additional factors played into the respective revolutions, up to and including the exploding Socialist platform of the late 19^th and 20^th centuries, it can be evidenced that the social unrest required to fuel the movements emerged from mutual roots.

Distinctions arise primarily as a direct result of the leadership requisite to run either revolution. Robespierre for the French; Lenin for the Russians. Traditionally, as seen with Robespierre, the leadership of a revolution, though channeled through an empowered group of elites within the movement, was still functioning akin to a democracy (M849). They did not cut out the voice of the French people driving the revolution, and the party was far from being above public influence. There was some limited variety to the factions operating within France’s revolutionary movement’s principles. This tolerance obviously had its limits, as the French Terror can attest; nevertheless, compared to Lenin’s conception of the Bolshevik leadership, the French Revolution would have been seemingly democratic.

Vladimir Lenin entertained vastly different views on the management of a revolution, and he employed these policies from the start. The Russian Revolution of 1917 is considered novel to the proceeding revolutions because foundationally, Lenin formed a super-concentrated, highly elite and devoted leadership of intellectuals and full-time revolutionaries to run the movement (M849). This pure, focused leadership of the revolution would ensure that it remained true to the core tenets of socialism, and later communism, with little to no debate or delay. Like Robespierre and his contemporaries, Lenin’s early years in power would be characterized by a period of intense violence and oppression in the name of progress, the “Red Terror” (M854). Lenin also masterfully harnessed the energies of the Russian people to his reforms, perhaps even more effectively than the French, with the seizing of nobilities’ properties and factories (M851). However, rather than allow the slow dissolution of his revolutionary movement and power as occurred in France, Lenin continued the trend of his Bolshevik leadership style by pushing Russia towards the one-party state model (M852). This allowed for the rapid spread of socialist/communist reform while simultaneously rooting the focused, authoritarian administration that would characterize Russian politics for decades.

There are many similarities between the French and Russian Revolutions, but the most interesting comparisons lie in their differences. They might emerge from similar conditions, yet their courses diverged immensely after their initial successes. The French Revolution, while by no means devoid of blood or intolerance, was one more embodied, perhaps, in national discovery. It was a metamorphosis experienced by everyone, not the least among them Robespierre who led and fell to its blade. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was less a discovery and more a well-executed strike. The Russia which arose from that turmoil and the years of the “Red Terror” was one with little deviation from Lenin’s initial vision, and its cool efficiency would linger well beyond its birth.

Vera Figner: A Woman With Fight

Vera Figner was born in Khristoforovka, Russia in July of 1852. She is most widely known for her actions and leadership role in the Russian Revolutionary Populist Movement. Figner had hopes to pursue education in medicine, but Russia would not allow her to do so. She then moved to Zurich in 1872 to attend school. While she was in school, she kept a close eye on the feminist and populist movements that were going on back in Russia. In 1876, Figner dropped out of school to return home and join the revolutionary movements. Figner joined a group called, "People's Will," and this group focused on eliminating absolutism by assassinating political officials. On March 1, 1881, they did just that, by taking out Tsar Alexander II. Many arrests followed the assassination, leaving Figner as the only remaining original leader of the group.

Figner was later arrested in 1883 while trying to rebuild the People's Will group. A trial was held in the September of 1884 and Figner was the only arrested member allowed to speak during the trial. In her speech, Figner talks about the events that pushed her towards revolutionary activities, "They are logically and closely bound up with my whole previous life" (Moodle).  She focuses heavily on the thought of whether her life could have gone any other way and every time ends with the same answer, no. The speech that was given in front of the court proves the dedication and devotion Figner had towards the cause and her actions. This shows a true revolutionist who will stand for their beliefs until the last minute. Figner initially received the death penalty, but that sentence was later dropped to life in prison at the Schlusselberg Fortress. After serving twenty years, she was released in 1904.

Vera Figner was a voice for the less fortunate and aimed to help and educate the poor. She wished to break the false truth that so many peasants believed: that the tsar was their protector. In 1915 when she returned to Russia, she dedicated the rest of her life to writing and produced many accounts on the Russian Revolution and biographies on several of her comrades. These published works along with her memoir, are the reasons the name Vera Figner is taught in history classes today.





Sources:


Moodle Document: "Vera Figner - Revolutionary Activities in Russia.pdf (page 1 - 13)


"Vera Finger." Brooklyn Museum. Brooklyn, New York. https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/eascfa/dinner_party/heritage_floor/vera_figner


"Vera Nikolayevna Figner." The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. 2019. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vera-Nikolayevna-Figner

Suffrage for All

      Sisters of suffrage, without one, would the other have survived? The United Kingdom and the United States women fought eerily similar, within the same time period, for their right to vote. Their hopes for social peace and equal rights was what drove them to, sometimes, extreme measures in their fight. It is often debated that without one, would the other have made it? United Kingdom women were granted their limited suffrage in 1918, two years before United States women, but they had to continue fighting for 10 more years to gain universal suffrage. In the United States, women were granted full suffrage in the beginning. The fights played off each other quite a bit, showing many similarities, but there were big differences. This may explain why women in the United Kingdom had to fight longer for full suffrage.

      Within the United Kingdom suffrage was based on property, as well as, gender. This meant that they wanted to extend the vote to propertied women since non-propertied working-class men were still excluded from the vote. In the long run, in order to do this, they ended up first having to fight for the exclusion against men to be abolished. Once they had done that, two main suffrage groups were built. The National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) who were coined the “suffragists” and the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), termed the “suffragettes”. The WSPU was vastly different from any groups in the US, using militant campaigning by chaining themselves to fences, burning down buildings, and causing disturbances within public meetings.

      In the United States, the fight was against suffrage along with racism. Granting suffrage to all women, meant having to grant the right to vote not only to men of color but women as well. While some agreed with this, many did not. This meant, that instead of fighting the federal government, they went state by state instead, allowing them to overlook this. The

level of militancy in the United States did not compare to that of the UK. They performed more peaceful campaigning with mass demonstrations, picketing, and pageantry.

      Both countries experienced social unrest before WWI. It was also thought that bringing women out of their “natural” social spheres was wrong. With everything working against them though, the women pushed through, gaining their rights in similar ways. While they may have not had direct contact with each other during these reforms, they played off of each other, quite well. I do believe that without the other, there would have been a longer and harder fight. The symbol of women’s freedom still stands tall as a symbolic issue, that leads women to still fight for their rights in both countries today.

Citations:

http://ap.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/politics-reform/essays/sisters-suffrage-british-and-american-women-fight-for-vote

https://www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/articles/the-campaign-for-womens-suffrage-an-introduction

White Superiority: A View With Some Serious Blinders

The general idea that whites were the superior race had been around long before the late 1800's, but around this time period, that idea was amplified and turned into a responsibility. What began in Europe as imperialism, eventually morphed into the larger concept of, a "civilizing mission." The beliefs behind this concept were that Westerners could, and should, civilize the primitive non-white peoples. The common view was that white Europeans had the obligation to govern and convert all savages to superior European models. What truly fueled this movement though, was the sense of responsibility that white individuals felt towards the "savages." It was their duty to protect and help shape those who could not do so for themselves in the hopes that one day the savages would be able to self govern based on a Western democracy. The justification for this movement came from the "intention" to protect natives from tribal warfare and from more indecent forms of exploitation by white settlers and business men.

European woman also played a major role in the civilizing mission. As we heard in class, the instinct of these woman to help can be categorized as "maternal imperialism." Woman felt the empathetic need to help and therefore took up positions such as teachers, colonial missionaries, nurses, and some even accompanied their husbands overseas. The thought was that if white woman were present in the colonies, they might be able to prevent "race-mixing," which was very common with European men. If they could eliminate the production of half-legitimate whites, then it would be easier to convert everyone to the superior white ideology.

Soon after the "civilizing mission" had made its way through the borders of Europe, it found itself spreading to the Americans. Exactly like the Europeans, "Americans believed that their civilization had reached unprecedented heights and that they had unique benefits to bestow on supposedly less advanced people." (McKay 813)
The white man believed his burden was that he was too superior and had a Godly responsibility to share that superiority of cultures, traditions, and lifestyles with those considered less.

When in actually the white man's burden is the blinders he maintains when viewing those of a different race.

Sources Used:   

 McKay, John P., et al. A History of Western Society. (page 813) Bedford/St. Martins, 2017.

Orientalism: Why in the World Were These Peoples Grouped Together

Westerners shared a sense of superiority over everyone else. although, they had a strange fascination with them as if they were a new, discovered, different species. A term used by an English scholar by the name of Edward Said. He used it in a way to describe the European fascination with the middle east, Asia, and North Africa in the nineteenth century. Together they are described as the Orient. Western civilization's view on the orient was definitely stereotypical and racist. The sad thing is, is that they had vastly different cultures from each other, yet they weren't really thought of as separate.

It was described especially for the colonies they had because the people in the colonies did look different than them. They must have thought that since they looked different on the outside then they were different on the inside. It also showed how they thought westerners were definitely very ignorant because they described them as unable of understanding the orient without putting in the stereotype they have. They were thought to be uncultured by western society but most never bothered to learn the cultures of the different countries. They thought of the other non-western countries being more savage, and even primitive, and have continued to today. Westernized society is still see as superior and better. Racism is still a big issue. The idea that the west is white, so they are better, is still seen. the view of us versus them is definitely still clearly seen. The middle east is still seen as bad and evil. Many think that all Muslims are terrorists and that they are here to harm us, the west. Not all think this way but many think Christianity is better and Islamic and paganism, seen as non-western civilization is bad.

When I was younger when I though of the word orient my mind went to the Chinese. I didn't realize that the term was used to describe basically all non-western countries. I didn't really know until I read the passage in the McKay book actually. It's weird how people think they can just lump unrelated things and cultures together. People from the middle east are very different to people in Asia. Arabs are different than Indians. They really should not be all described as the orient. The Disney Corporation has been having this problem with the movie Aladdin. They seem to be having a lot of trouble finding the right actors and actresses for the live action. For some reason they can't find Arabs to cast for the movie. Hollywood doesn't seem to have many Arabs that are mainstreamed and popular and they haven't really looked elsewhere. I think they said the actor for the character Aladdin is actually Indian and people are upset about it.

I think an important thing to take away from this topic and this term is that these cultures struggled because they were all put in one group and they had an awful stereotype from the Western people, and putting people into groups does so much harm and doesn't help anyone.

works cited

McKay, John P., et al. A History of Western Society. Bedford/St. Martins, 2017

Gaillot, Ann-Derrick. “Disney's Biggest Problem Isn't Casting, It's Racism.” The Outline, The Outline, 13 July 2017, theoutline.com/post/1909/disney-aladdin-remake-casting-racism?zd=2&zi=idmhrtff.

Victoria and Abdul

Who doesn't love to hear a juicy story about the Queen of England and one of her servants? The movie "Victoria and Abdul" is just the drama-filled story you were looking for. This film was based off a true story and was also based off the book that was written by Shrabani Basu, who actually discovered the diary of Abdul Karim. This drama/comedy film itself was written by Lee Hall and was directed by Stephen Frears. The film's budget was $21 million, but they made $65.4 million in the box office, and even had a Golden Globe nomination. "Victoria and Abdul" was released on September 22nd, 2017.

In this film, Queen Victoria was having her 50th anniversary Golden Jubilee, which celebrated her 50 years as ruler of the British Empire in 1887. She also adopted the title of Empress of India in 1876, so when she had this celebration, there had to be "representatives" of India. Two men from India were ordered to bring the Queen a gift from India, which was a ceremonial coin. One of the men from India, Abdul Karim, was told to not make eye contact with the Queen, but of course, he didn't follow that rule. As soon as Queen Victoria and Abdul made eye contact, it was an immediate connection, but not in a romantic way. They soon grew a close friendship, and Queen Victoria asked Abdul to be her teacher. Abdul taught Queen Victoria daily Urdu lessons and in return, she gave him gifts. The royal family was frustrated with Queen Victoria's actions and resented her relationship with Abdul Karim, but that never stopped her.

"Victoria and Abdul" was a very historically correct movie and this is because of Shrabani Basu. After Queen Victoria died in 1901, her children burned all of her letters to Abdul Karim. It wasn't until Shrabani Basu discovered Karim's diary that the true facts came out. This film focuses on not only the 63 year reign of Queen Victoria, but about how the royal family resented anybody that wasn't in their circle. When Queen Victoria brought Abdul Karim into her life in an almost permanent way, the royal family was enraged since they were on different social statuses. During this time, Queen Victoria's family was seen as very prejudice and racist, so Victoria was seen as a very defiant person.

Overall, this film follows history pretty closely, despite the little exaggerations to make the movie more entertaining to the audience. This was a drama, but it also had a comedic sense to it, so it made it even more enjoyable to watch. It was interesting to see how Queen Victoria's family reacted to her decision to bring Abdul Karim in as her teacher and friend, since during this time it was frowned upon to bring a lower social class person into the inner circle. This film made an incredible amount in box office, and for it to be a historically correct movie, I give it all my props. I highly recommend watching "Victoria and Abdul", and honestly would rate this movie about a 9 out of 10.


Hunt, Kristin. "The True Story of Victoria and Abdul: The Friendship that Scandalized England." Smithsonian, 20 Sept. 2017, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/victoria-and-abdul-friendship-scandalized-england-180964959/. 

"Victoria and Abdul (2017)." History Vs. Hollywood, www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/victoria-and-abdul/. Accessed 6 Mar. 2019.

Wloszczyna, Susan. "Victoria & Abdul." Roger Ebert, 22 Sept. 2017, www.rogerebert.com/reviews/victoria-and-abdul-2017.