Boer War

While reading a Gale Database article on the Boer wars, I got the impression that the British were in conflict with the Dutch, because of a strong ambition to become rich. The British first took complete control over the Transvaal in the southern tip of Africa, and then went on to follow the Dutch to the Orange Free State. The British were very ambitious, and didn't care at all that the lands of the Orange Free State were already occupied by the Dutch. They just wanted the rich lands and had no consideration for the Native Africans nor the Dutch. The Dutch were just looking for farmlands, and unfortunately their farmlands also were these mineral and gold packed lands that the British wanted. The Lands obviously belonged to the Dutch because they were there first after the natives, but since the British had a very solid army, the Dutch couldn't do much about the British. If it is true that the Dutch couldn't do much about the British, then why were these Boer wars very bloody?

British vs Dutch

In class today I found out numerous differences between the British and the Dutch. The British were so much more advanced and powerful compared to the Dutch or so it seems since Britain won all the wars between them two. The Dutch never had a very early "Golden Age" so their army wasn't as well equipped as the British when it came to fighting in 1899.
The Dutch started to settle in South Africa at first because there was very nice land to farm with. Instead of calling themselves the Dutch, they were named the Boers and spoke Afrikan. The British heard there was gold, rubber, diamonds, etc in the southern part of South Africa. Those materials in the 1890s were considered very valuable and it was rare. The Dutch gave them the land they had been settling on so they found land more towards the middle of South Africa. However, the resources they had been looking for were located near the "Boers." Hence the name of the war was called the Boer War. In the end, British took over and the "Boers" were transported to another part of the country.

Sir Thomas Johnstone Lipton (Lipton Tea)

Sir Thomas Johnstone (!850-1931) Lipton was a British merchant who started as a small tea seller, and led the great Lipton Tea to a worldwide advancement and enjoyment. Thomas spent some years in the United States and returned to his hometown Glasgow and owned his own small grocery store. He was so dedicated even in his small business that he became a millionaire at the age of thirty. Thomas began thinking about how the public can easily enjoy all the foods in his store, but the tea's were very expensive and not everyone could afford them. His concern led him to make a very tasty tea called Lipton Tea which became popular throughout and is still complimented by people today.

Treaty of Nanjing (Opium War)

The treaty of Nanjing was signed on August 29, 1842. It marked the end of the opium war between the Qing Empire and the British Empire. The treaty heavily favored the British because of the fact that the British had won the won by the end. The British would obtain 21 million dollars when the treaty was signed and would gain another 15 million in the next three years. They would also gain control of numerous ports and cities in China including Hong Kong. The Chinese gained almost nothing from this treaty but it was the only way they could obtain peace. This picture shows the signing of the treaty.

Picture from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nanjingtreaty.jpg

Info from

http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/History/hits?docNum=BT3403700875&tab=4&locID=menlo_schlib&nav=1&origSearch=false&hdb=ALL&t=RK&s=1&r=d&items=0&secondary=false&o=&sortOrder=RE&n=10&l=dE&sgPhrase=false&c=1&tabMap=5&bucket=psm&SU=Treaty+of+Nanjing

Crystal Palace

The Great Exhibition of 1851 took place in the beautiful Crystal Palace, which located at the time, was in the heart of London. People from all over the world came to either show off their invention or come to look at all the prized possessions. The Crystal Palace held more than 12,800 square feet for all of the famous inventors to show off their masterpiece. In addition, the Crystal Palace was later used for numerous more events than just the first world fair ever to be done.

Citation of picture- http://www.ursusbooks.com/thumbnail.php?img=./itemimages/123543a.jpg&maxwidth=700

Isabella Bird

The book that Isabella Bird wrote Six Months in the Sandwich Islands, this book gave readers vivid pictures of the geology and also it introduced them to a new culture. This book talked about Isabella's journey in Hawaii, she climbed to the tops of volcanoes and visited the rain forests. The book gave a deeper understanding to the cultural which is essential. I mentioned in my last blog that the idea of Europeans being superior than other races was an idea that was held very highly in the Western. However Isabella was able to go against this idea because she had the experiance. She traveled to these places like Hawaii and learned about the people and their culture. There was more to them than Europeans saw and she was able to see it. Isabella didn't start the idea of all humans from different races are equal but she was one of many who set this idea in motion. Along with this her books uncovered places and "worlds" that they didn't know of. In Africa the Westerners colonized them but here she saw them in their natural life styles, she allowed the people to be themselves which uncovered these "barbarians" for what they really were.

Levin, Ruth. "Splendid Possibilities: Isabella Bird Visits Hawai'i in 1874." OAH Magazine of History. JSTOR. < search="yes&term=" term="Isabella&list=" searchuri="%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3DIsabella%2BBird%26f0%3Dall%26c0%3DAND%26q1%3D%26f1%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26q2%3D%26f2%3Dall%26c2%3DAND%26q3%3D%26f3%3Dall%26wc%3Don%26Search%3DSearch%26ar%3Don%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26la%3D%26jo%3D%26dc.History%3DHistory&item=" ttl="264&returnArticleService="> (Dec 2, 2009).

Tells of Atrocity in Belgian Congo

In the reading (599-600) it talks about the outrages being widely publicized in Europe. So I thought I would look for one of those articles, and I found one. It is from the New York Times in 1909. It talks about a little 2 year old boy from Congo, and how important he was and how everyone on the ship wanted to shake his hand. It also sort of shows how long it took people to hear about what was happening around the world because we now know that by 1908 Leopold's reign of terror was already over.

Here is the Link.

Electricity

The first history of electricity can be traced back all the way to the Egyptian times, in the form of electric fish. Egyptian texts referred to them as "Thunderer of the Nile" as they were the "protector" of the other fish. These fish can also be traced back to the Greeks and Romans, as there were reports of the catfish and torpedo rays delivering a numbing electric shock.

Electricity was a mere curiosity that scientists someday hoped that they may be able to study and research, until the seventeenth century. English physician William Gilbert did a close study of electricity by rubbing amber together which showed the Loadstone effect. Further work was done by others following this, one of the others being Benjamin Franklin. He even sold his own possessions to fund money for his research. Franklin attached a key to the bottom of a wet kite, and flew the kite in a heavy thunderstorm. Sparks went from the key to the back of his hand, which proved that electricity was very much in nature.

Luis Galvani proved that with bioelectricity, electricity was the medium that the nerve cells used to send signals to the muscle. Batteries were invented later on, which were a much more reliable source than the electrostatic machines that were previously used. Electricity use turned from a mere curiosity into a large source of requirement in our society today. All of this was found from here.

Hundred Days and After

Today in class we learned about Napoleon, and I decided to do some research on after the return of Napoleon. What did he leave behind that was well known? How did he leave France. I found an article that explained everything to me, Napoleon. When Napoleon returned from Elba, he came to a cheering crowd. Louise XVIII fled France leaving the alliances disputing. However as we all know he only took over for a hundred days. When he left, he left the ever popular Napoleonic Code. Which is partly in use today in France, it also served as model to other governments. Also, later on there was a new law that said no state was allowed to have to much power. They wanted these territories to have about equal power that way not one state would become powerful. This created France into a more diplomatic rule. As you can see, Napoleon did influence the modern day with the Napoleonic Code but there were other things that influenced themselves.

Re: Carson

Well Carson, touché.

I now see your point and I do agree with that the AR was a trendsetter for the FR. one point I would like to argue is that the Americans had help from multiple different countries like the French, Spain, and Holland. All three of these countries gave the Americans weapons, money and technology to fuel their victory. I think without the help of these 3 countries, the Americans would have never been able to defeat the British. On the other hand, France didn’t have any help form any other countries and had multiple armies take advantage of the fact that France was in a revolution. I think that with the aid of some of Frances allies, this transition of governments would have been more cleaner, and smoother. Using bloodshed and violence was the only way that the French could send a message to the hierarchy of France that they were not going to tolerate being bossed around any more. They were able to get their point across through extreme violence, they were able to successfully remove the hierarchy form France and clean out the class system that kept millions of French people under poor circumstances. This was shown when the French people began to call each other citizen instead of monsieur and master.

American Revolution vs. French Revolution

The American Revolution was based upon the fact that the British were taxing them without their consent on items like tea, paper and stamps. America felt like the British had no general presence in America, aside from the negative policies, which drained American resources. This caused a large revolt, because America felt completely separated from Britain, and wanted to secede from the empire. Britain was infuriated with this idea, and sent soldiers quell the uprising. This then led to events such as the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, and then the Declaration of Independence.

The French helped America with their revolution, which then led to bankruptcy. This bankruptcy caused Louis XVI to tax the 2nd and 3rd Estates. The Bourgeoisie and peasants felt poorly represented, and demanded a National Assembly. Louis XVI had this assembly, but once he head that the 3rd Estate was pushing for a more Democratic nation, he locked the 100 representatives outside, forcing them to meet in a tennis court. Thus causing the very heart of the French Revolution. And it was this sort of uprising that triggered both the French and American revolutions. It was due to the royal's ignorance that the whole structure collapsed. As my favorite comedian, Eddie Izzard says it: "The French structure during it's revolution slowly collapsed, like a flan in the cupboard." And so it did. But in the end, the French were left with little, while America was totally revamped and ready to rebuild. And one crucial point that separates the French revolution from the American, is the fact that for the French, they dug their own grave. They didn't need to help America, but they did. And so this whole turn of events came to be.

Significant People In The French Revolution

There were many people who had a big impact of the French Revolution. The people I am researching a little more will be Rousseau, Napoleon, and King Louis XVI. We talked about Rousseau in class and talked about his ideas. He was the one who thought that the wealthy should be taxed because they had what they needed and "needed" which was more like wanted extra indulgences. Unlike the poorer people or the 3rd estate, they did not have what they needed like food. Flour was very expensive because the prices had been raised and so it was hard for people to find things to eat. Rousseau had the idea that people later attempted in hopes of success, which meant that the 3rd estate people would agree and vote for the tax on the 1st estate with the King. Napoleon was the man who supposedly "tamed" the Revolution according to our textbook. He preserved many rights including the rights of civilians, the rights to Religion, and equality rights. He also helped to establish the French Empire which tried to spread the main ideas of the revolution. Napoleon wanted to spread their ideas from the revolution to other places because he thought that they were successful and he wanted other places to be able to benefit from them like the French did. King Louis XVI, whom we talked about in class, was the King at the time. He called the Estates General to institute a law that enables them to tax the 1st estate. Then the 3rd estate forced him to sign the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. He later tried to escape and sneak out with his family to Austria but he was caught just before and was then imprisoned in Paris. That was when the people felt betrayed and that caused the relationship between the people and him to fade and fall apart. Then, it just went down hill from there for King Louis XVI.

Social Contract Theory and Presentation Feedback

Hi,

Tomorrow in class (or as soon as time opens up in the class schedule), I will be giving a presentation on Social Contract Theory (as advocated for by Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke). I know we've already moved onto the French Revolution, but I haven't gotten a chance to talk about these philosophers yet, and since I didn't get a chance to do my previous presentation until Friday, this presentation ended up getting pushed up to this week.

Also, I wanted to get some feedback from you guys about my presentations. Do you think it is excessive for me to be doing 1-2 presentations per week in class? Do you find them interesting? Would you rather have the class time be spent with Ms. Xia discussing more directly relevant material (such as things that will be on the test)? Should I post video blogs on Youtube instead of in-class presentations? How can I improve my presentations as a whole? Feel free just to leave a comment on this blog post. I won't be offended if you think my presentations are boring, or a waste of time, but at least if you are going to comment then take the time to put some thought into what you have to say.

Thanks,

-Cy

Response to Elle's, "Muslims, Christians, and the Ottoman Empire."

Elle, a few comments on your investigation.

You began by asserting that Islam (specifically the Ottoman Empire) and Christianity became more strict and responsible as time passed. However, you provided no evidence to support your claim. Instead, you quickly moved on to discussing Columbus' explorations of the New World, and the harshness of devshirmes; neither of which relates at all to the development of responsibility or strictness in Christian or Muslim civilizations.

In fact, I would consider the kidnapping of young children to be an irresponsible act, yet it continued for roughly half of Ottoman history. The devshirme system only fell out of practice in the 17th century because these positions were only available to slaves, and those who were already at the upper echelon of society wanted to maintain political control within their own families (instead of giving away positions of power to slaves). Therefore, the Devshirme system fell apart due to a thirst for worsening the imbalance of power, not because the Ottomans strived to become a more responsible society.

Also, I find it difficult to accept your notion that an entity can become more responsible and strict simultaneously. When one becomes more responsible, strictness loses its purpose because they are sensible enough to make wise decisions. This concept is analogous to raising a child; as it grows up you don’t need to have as many rules for it, because it becomes more and more capable of taking care of itself.

Lastly, if you have evidence supporting the claim that the Ottoman Empire or Christianity (although due to its widespread nature and diversity, it could prove difficult to pinpoint its specific characteristics) became more strict and/or responsible as it developed through modern history, I’d love to hear it.