pics i liked :)

Religious Tolerance in the US

its great to have a country that tolerates people of all ethnicity, backgrounds and religions. huge numbers of people escaped their countries because of religious prosecution. between 1815 and 1860, millions of Europeans immigrated to the united states to escape religious prosecution in their origin countries. most of them were Germans and Irish. later on, many Jews escaped from Europe and the soviet union looking to protect their beliefs and in some cases their lives too. The US still stands by the principle of religopus tolerance to this day, however, there have been cases where a religous idntity became a problem and a red flag. the most obvious case is after the attacks of 9-11, the war on Afghanistan and Iraq. many Muslim refugees immigrated or seeked asylum in the united states after the destruction caused by the war. they were treated fairly, however, the patriotic act made seems like no muslim has rights in this country. you can be arrested and interrogated for days or maybe longer without suffecint evidence. you become a suspect just because of your religous idntity. the government justfied this of being a state of war on terrorism..etc but even when the war is long ended, few bad example still surfaces every once in a while. this whole stiuation reminds me of the civil rights movements. it ended with the blacks getting their rightsd and segregation supposedly over, nevertheless, we still hear about many cases of racism and discrimination. the recent shooting of the black kid by the white officer while the facts are still unclear to me but it appears as te civil rights movements did not finish the job. there yet many things to improve and many things to do to achieve the perfect sciety in the united states but the people are doing their best in achieving the perfect c

President Carter's Translator :)

it is important for any administration to have a great leader. a leader that can make moving speeches. it also helps if that aforementioned leader hires a capable translator for when he travels abroad. President carter in 1977 went to Poland for some political talks regarding the whole state of the cold war and some other stuff. he did not have a translator so the state department hired a freelancer called Seymour. he was supposed to be fluent in polish. his expertise was to translate WRITTEN polish into English. apparently he wasn't capable of doing the same thing with the spoken language. During Carter's opening speech, Seymour translated the the English sentence said by Carter, "I have come to learn your opinions and understand your desires for the future." into the Polish, "I desire the Poles carnally." wow, that must have made the polish super confused. it didn't stop their, the translator kept on making mistakes, saying that the president would like to touch or grasp the polish people's private parts. he also stated that Carter left the united states and never to return and ended the speech saying the president thinks their constitution is ridiculous. I can't begin to imagine how the people attending this speech must have felt. he likes us waay too much apparently and now he wants to stay but thinks our constitution is ridiculous. the state department fired the translator and hired another one who was fluent in polish but horrible in English. this one feared to repeat Seymour mistakes so he kept his mouth shut during the president's toast. finally a translator from the polish government stepped in and cleared the misunderstandings. 

individual acts of protesting for the Civil rights movement

The civil rights movements was an iconic event that triggered a wide spread demonstration that led for many groups of people to gain their rights. it did not only benefit Blacks but also other minorities that feels that were treated unjustly. during the 1960's, when the civil rights movements occurred, many individuals became famous for taking actions and setting a bright example for others to follow.
Rosa park is the first icon during this movement. she started it all. she was the trigger that started the whole demonstration. kind of like the guy from Tunisia "Bu Azizi" who burned himself in public in 2010 and ignited the Tunisian revolution that took down the corrupt government of Tunisia. Rosa simply refused to give up her seat for a white man . a simple act that took courage and caused many more to refuse to give up their rights.
another example is Mohammed Ali. he threw his Olympic Gold Medal down the Ohio river in protest for the racism against the blacks and because he was refused service by a whit's restaurant because he is black.
Thurgood Marshall is an important character too. he was a lawyer that fought really hard to end segregation. he won the case "  Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka" which ended the segregation in public schools.
finally, the most iconic person is Martin Luther King Jr. nothing needs to be said about him. he became an icon even outside the continent. his famous speech " I have a Dream" inspires many people all around the world to this day.

God Bless You

i read that during the middle ages, when the black plague spread all across Europe, the phrase " god bless you" became a custom thing to say to whoever sneezes. the reason is that sneezing was a symptom of being infected with the plague. therefore anyone that sneezes is presume to be infected and destined to die. this is why people started using " god bless you" for anyone who sneezes because it meant that he or she is dying. this idea stuck for centuries. when I read in the book about the diseases that swept the colonies in America it reminded me of that time in the middle ages, which wasn't that far. Yellow fever, Cholera, Malaria and other epidemic broke all around the colonies. the difference is that in the middle ages, they opted into saying "god bless you" and that was it. there was no hope and no attempts of treatments while in colonial America some people came up with theories to analyze the diseases and to treat them. Physicians thought that miasmas coming from bad vegetation were the cause. they also thought being touched by dirty hands might be the main culprit. many efforts of quarantine took place to no apparent success. they may not have found a solution, but they sure did an awful lot more than their counterparts in the middle ages.

Primary sources for Civil rights movements

here is a collection of different materials related to the civil rights movements in the 60's

http://crdl.usg.edu/collections/


http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/01/21/the-john-birch-societys-anti-civil-rights-campaign-of-the-1960s-and-its-relevance-today/#


http://sengstackeimages.com/Civil_rights_60s_%26_70s.html







Related post to be added later...

Federalist paper no 10

This paper talks about how to defend or guard against factions. Factions are defined as a group of citizens that share a belief or an interest that is contrary to the rights of others or the whole community. The main question argued in this paper is how dangerous the faction is and how to protect against it or eliminate it. The short answer that Madison gives is that a strong republic would help defend against factions. Madison attacks the diversity of opinions and different interests and accuse it of being the main reason of such disharmony. By adapting a common interest shared among all factions which will create a united republic is the solution to this dilemma. This was Madison’s more realistic method of solving the issue after he rejected another method he himself mentions. He argues that destroying liberty could solve the issue by not give these factions the freedom to express their beliefs and interests but this method is unrealistic and impossible to apply. The people fought for liberty in the first place and to destroy liberty, you have to destroy everything the Americans fought for in the American Revolution. He then argues that a republic is better than pure democracy. He states the difference as the democracy is people votes directly for laws they favor while a republic is where people vote for a person from the elites whom they trust. The elected elites does all the voting for laws on a republic. By doing so, Madison eliminates the vast interest of different faction and the people and gets the community to agree on few personalities who gains control over what the community’s interests are.  The larger the community, the bigger pool of fit people to choose from to lead the country. 

The modern Witch trials

Witch trial

the Zoot Suite

Thanks to john's post, I had the idea of examining modern events and how they overlap with the infamous Salem Witch trials. The idea of blindly convict a human being without sufficient evidence is nothing new. It has been around for centuries and it is still around until these days. The trials itself might differ these days. A modern witch trial could be performed outside of court. Moreover, the sentence can be carried out by the society outside the boundaries of law. Destroying someone's life can be performed literally and virtually. A person might not physically die but his career, marriage, family, livelihood and mentality just might. An example of a modern witch trial is the patriotic act. Anyone suspected of acts of terrorism is sent to Guantanamo bay even without sufficient evidence. The zoot suite riots in the 1940s are also a good example. This type of suite was popular among some parts of the society who happened to be not white. Some people found it to be distasteful and started beating and stripping whoever wears it. The law did nothing to prevent these violent riots. The Holocaust is the most similar instance of the witch trials. Condemning people just based on their identity or looks is the very essence of both the witch trials and the Holocaust. The media these days is vastly similar to a Salem's trials judge. The media has no problem destroying someone's life, dignity, career, reputation and credentials just because the person doesn't agree with them. Most of the time they have no proof that he did anything wrong but rather fake same footage or make a genuine good act appear as a bad deed. Twisting facts and presenting only part of the truth is the 21st century's way of sentencing someone to a life of agony. These were all examples of similar events to the witch trials. They might not be the same but the results are certainly the same.

Media Hypocrisy, all parties' Families should be off limit if they are not involved in the issue 

The colonization of America vs Australia

         

      The colonization of America made me think of Australia. I was wondering if the colonization of Australia had the same scenario as America. They were in fact very similar except there was only one major player that was the English empire. When the English decided to use the Australian land as prisons after the American colonies protested against them, they treated the indigenous people just as bad as they treated the Native American. They hunted them down, chased them off their lands and spread their imported diseases among them. Their population decreased from hundreds of thousand
s to near extinction. They had around three hundred languages that most of them disappeared. Their history vanished and they were forced eventually to adopt the English way life including the language, fashion and being slaves to a white master.  The subtle differences between the Native Australian and the Native American is that at least the natives in America could, at some point, ally themselves with one or more of the major players on the continent. Because there were several armies fighting each other, they sometimes opt to make a temporary peace with the natives since they were of use to them. Sometimes those major powers simply couldn't afford to start another war with the natives. Most of the time, their relationship was based on supply and demand. When the natives were needed, they were treated fairly. However, when their lands became more valuable than they did, they received a harsh treatment. The native Australians never had that luxury but eventually both nations ended up the same.

Native Australians forced to adopt the English life Style

The Enlightenment vs The Great Awakening

The differences between the enlightenment and the great awakening don't stop at the superficial aspects of both. They both influenced completely different demographics. Mostly the elites adopted the enlightenment while the great awakening influenced the more common people.  It rather reminds me of how "Born Again Christian" is a label given to only famous people and powerful personalities like former president Bush, President Carter, Tom Hanks and hilariously Charlie Sheen. The later seems to adopt the title out of some publicity scheme. Nevertheless, I don't know the details but I have never met a person who claims to be a born again Christian and I only heard the term on TV, which made me think it's reserved for famous people. Back at the original comparison, even though both principles are somehow noble and had great concepts that benefits humanity, they still have some flaws. The great awakening breached to have no more slaves and called for freedom and equality while the enlightenment had no problem with owning slaves. The enlightenment sought out the improvement and the perfection of the human society while the great awakening focused more on the revival of religion. The great awakening didn’t pay much attention into science and education but it did help building a better society by freeing slaves and giving women the right to vote and participate in the society. We can observe a similar behavior these days where the higher class focuses more on science and education while the lower class tend to be more religious. However, back then the enlightenment and the awakening seem to complement each other instead of going against each other. Unlike today, where there is a constant debate on whom is right and which is better, Science or religion. Personally, I don’t believe they should be separate and apparently, people shared my view in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Why Tobacco in the Chesapeake Colony

Why Tobacco in the Chesapeake Colony

When I read about the Tobacco plantations in the Chesapeake colony and the amount of indentured servants and slaves it took to work there, I wondered why tobacco? The British valued their Tea so why didn't they just plant tea. When I looked further into the history of Virginia, it turned out that tobacco was not the first plant they tried to grow and benefit from. King James I granted a charter to the Virginia Company of London to bring settlers into Virginia and return a profit. They first tried producing glass, Tar and beer. However, these products required too much labor and work

ing in dangerous conditions. Their safety standards at that time were not top notch to mention they didn't even care about the workers lives anyway. As a result, to this, they lost a huge number of workers and barely made a profit.  that caused them to start farming crops instead. They tried cotton, sugar cane, indigo, plantains, grapes and pomegranates. The Spanish were already growing these crops and making huge profits in the West Indies so it didn't turn out well for the British. Then Pocahontas's husband came along and started growing tobacco imported from Venezuela. It had a better flavor than the native Virginia's tobacco, which commanded a higher price in England. It turned out; Chesapeake was environmentally perfect for growing this kid of tobacco that got very popular in England. Therefore, the industry grew tremendously.  Growing tobacco wasn't only hard on the workers, it was also hard on the land itself. On average, a land is used to grow tobacco for three years then corn for the next three then it had to stay fallow or un-planted for the next twenty. Tobacco plantation was so rough that even the indentured servants eventually stopped working there which caused the owners to bring more slaves.

A tobacco plantation

yaaaay done and done