World War II's change on the definition of war

World War II introduced a new way of fighting and new weapons. The nuclear bomb was introduced and used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Firebombing also occurred. Both of these methods were very effective in the fact that they killed large amounts of people without much of a risk in doing it for the soldiers because most were done by air. This was very sad because many of the killings were used to demonstrate their power and how much destruction they could do so easily. Some who saw these killings that was thought of them as unnecessary considering how much damage was caused. Others saw it as necessary because they thought that they needed to make a statement and assure themselves that the place they bombed or burned would no longer be a threat. World War II had many killings but in large numbers rather than wars of attrition with killings but one by one being shot or killed in the trenches like in WWI. WWII was very traumatizing because having so many people who aren't necessarily directly connected to the war and were innocent civilians were killed. Whole cities were taken out and very few survived. The ones who did survive were traumatized for life because they saw their families and friends and just about everyone around them killed either by the bombs or burned to death. Trauma was a common result from war because it resulted a lot and was more commonly called shell shock in World War I.

Source:

In Class/Ms. Xia

Extra Credit Blog

The role of government in my opinion goes as this; the rich basically pay for the basic needs of the poor. The families that have a low income are taxed less and therefore are not paying the government as much as say, Menlo families. I agree that if people don't pay taxes the economy will fail because the money will not being passed around, yet I do believe (like Cy said in class) that we should be spending money for things that WE want. I do not think that the rich people or families with a high income should be paying for the health of lower class citizens. If they wanted a better job and more money, they should have worked harder in school and gained knowledge while they could. Just like everyone says, Knowledge is Power.

Christmas town to Christmas land

Flag:


Anthem:


National History:

Halloween town was at the top of the world. Everyone knew about Halloween town; they had the best exported items, they had the money to buy anything in the world they wanted, and they even had possession of 4 different holidays (countries). Christmas town was a branch off from Halloween town, they were more peaceful and respectful rather than Halloween town. They didn't like fighting, but they were very patriotic and nationalistic. Over the course of 100 years, Halloween town became very needy and greedy. They started taking things from Christmas town and Easter town more than usual. They never asked or told the towns what they were taking, they would just TAKE. Christmas town was getting tired of being the nice one and decided the rebel. Even though it was going against their way to break the peace, they were being treated unfairly and they did not like that more than anything. Christmas town finally won after a long hard battle and was could finally become their own nation. As a part of their emancipation, they called themselves Christmas land. A new nation deserves a new name. I compared this "becoming a nation" to how USA broke off from Britain. They didn't like how the British were taxing them, so they decided to rebel. Both cases the weaker nation was treated unfairly and in order to be your own nation, you have to govern yourself.

Alliances and Connections

Elle, Kaitlin and I decided to make our nation named Christmas Tree Land. It is in the North Pole so therefore we decided to be allies with Europe, Canada, and Russia. We are very open to new cultures or different people. We have our own traditions but we are open to new options and suggestions because we try to have open views. Europe had part of the Ottoman rule which was very strong for a long time. Europe also had the rising Scandinavian Countries which were very strong and had powerful nationalism. We also have powerful nationalism and we take pride in what we do. We would be alliances with Canada because they are a big country and Russia is as well. The North Pole being relatively empty and weak needs those bigger nations and countries to help us when we need protection.

nationalist

I think that the Taiping Rebellion was nationalist. Connecting it to the Opium Wars will help me prove this. The loss of the first Opium War in 1842, came as a huge blow to China. It was extremely humiliating and caused a lot of people to loose faith in the stability of their country. So then when a bunch of christians started moving into China it basically simmered down to are we going to loose alot of money and land and our religion to westerners? To say that this rebellion was religiously based, would not be including the opium wars that helped fuel the rebellion and the destruction of the stability of the Chinese government . The British helped to create a Civil War that led China to eventually become communist and in solitude for decade.

Nationalism and the Sepoy Rebellion

The Sepoy Rebellion was the First War of Independence in 1857. I was when Indian soldiers rebelled against the British authorities. An event that led directly to the Sepoy Rebellion was when there was a new rifle that came out and it was said to have been covered in a mix of cow and pig fat, both of which are sacred or religiously important to Hindus and Muslims. They found this very offensive and refused to use them. The authorities were not very happy with that decision of theirs and so many were put into jail, publicly humiliated, stripped in public, and sentenced to labor. Later, there was a big jail break which then caused a chain of jail breaks to occur. People heard about them and so many other people escaped. Then they invaded Delhi and replaced the current leader with a previous leader. Afterwards, the people who took part in the escape from the jails were tried and then strapped to and blasted by a cannon. From the document Aftermath of the First war of Independence they said "The Indians called it 'the Devil's Wind.'"

In my other blog I defined nationalism as "Nationalism is a person or groups "loyalty and devotion to a nation" I think that they were doing this out of nationalism because they were fighting back against the people who were selling things that disgraced their culture and religion. They were fighting because they were disrespected and thought of badly and wanted that to stop. The British was rude to the Indians and they called them "barbarians without any culture." (document Factors responsible for unrest amongst Indian masses) I think that their reasons for fighting was for pride in themselves and in their culture and religion. They were fighting for respect because the British disrespected them and the Indians wanted to make that change.

*Just about all Documents in Packet Used (not sure how to cite)

Boer War

The Boer War occurred in 1899 in South Africa. The "Boers" was a name for the Dutch Settlers. The war was the conflict between the British colonial rule and the "boers" or Dutch setters. They were arguing because they were fighting over who got the land and the African people. When war was first declared, the Dutch overpowered and conquered most of the British. But then, the British came back with a harsher response. They burned down many British farms and captured many wives and children and imprisoned them. They also made man africans, that were on the "side" or under control of the Dutch and they imprisoned them as well. They killed tons of these people that were imprisoned because they were not taken care of well enough. Where they were kept was very unsanitary which made living conditions really rough. They ended the war with The Treaty of Vereeniging. They estimate that several thousands of lives were lost, and about almost half of the Boer population.

Researching this made me think about how I would feel if people started a war where I was living and I had to live through it. I have never experienced a war where I have been living but I can imagine it is not very fun. I think it would be terrifying because I could easily walk out of my house going to school and happen to be in the middle of people fighting, and therefore I could easily get injured or worse killed! I think it must have been even weirder for the Africans because the two people who came in and had this war were not even really related or connected very much to the land. In Iraq, the Iraqi are fighting against the US and so it is at least there own people. That doesn't make it any more right but at least there is one familiar side. Not knowing at least one side would make it even harder to go through because then there is double the chances that you will get hurt. Having a familiar side means that they will probably try to avoid killing their own people as much as possible. Seeing that the Africans didn't really benefit from the war, I think that this must have been a dramatic change that they would have loved to avoid, especially considering that innocent people were taken and killed in prison camps.

Citation:

DISCovering World History. 2003. http://find.galegroup.com/gps/retrieve.do?contentSet=GSRC&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2

C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C8%29boer+war%24&sgHitCount

Type=None&inPS=true&sort=Relevance&searchType=BasicSearchForm&tabID

=T001&prodId=IPS&searchId=R1&currentPosition=2&userGroupName=menlo

_schlib&docId=EJ2105240003&docType=GSRC (accessed January 5, 2010).

The Terms nationalism, socialism, feminism, and individualism

Strayer talks about how the "four dimensions of European imperialism confronted these societies." He says "... Finally, Asians and Africans engaged with the culture of modernity...ideas of nationalism, socialism, feminism, and individualism."

Nationalism is a person or groups "loyalty and devotion to a nation" which is like when we put our right hand over our left side of our chest and sing the star spangled banner before certain events. This was a newly accepted idea, as Strayer says, and it was newly established with the Asian and African culture at this time. As was socialism, feminism, and individualism.

Socialism is the idea that things should be part of the community as a whole and not as separated or individual. It goes with the word social which is hanging out with other people and being part of a group. This was a Marx idea as we had learned one of our previous units.

Feminism is the idea that all genders should be equal, men and women should be treated the same. This was not as accepted before because many religions believe or did believe that men are superior. Men being incharge was also what people back then had accepted and didn't really bother to argue with. It was what people were accustomed to and so they went with it.

Individualism is the idea that people's individual thoughts should be allowed or accepted. Many people used to think that having your own idea was somewhat rebellious in a way because it set you apart from others or a group. They thought that you should stick with the beliefs of your religion or culture and anything different made you an outcast. I remember something from World Religions last year and there was something about the caste system and there was a group of people who were the outcasts of society and they were considered lower. It wasn't necessarily because they had separate ideas, it was more because of what the people were taught and used to.

This goes with all of these ideas, that many of these changes were advancements for society and positive changes for the people, and they had previously not been accepted because people don't like dramatic changes. They like to stay "in their comfort zone" and keep things the way they are. That is why these changes occurred now rather than earlier.

Strayer, Robert W. Ways of the World (560-563)

Merriam Webster Dictionary

Britian's colonies in Africa

Since I did not like my reading...I am writing about a perspective of a British official that is in our book. 

In late 125, a British official spoke on what was occurring in Nigeria, "I shall of course go on walloping them until they surrender. It's rather piteous sight watching a village being knocked to pieces and I wish there was some other way, but unfortunately there isn't." 

After reading this quote, the first thing that came to my mind was the "scramble for Africa." Many countries had some colonies somewhere in Africa. This British official really speaks as a typical soldier because they must do what is necessary for the goodness of their country. Breaking down the poor villages is the worst sight, but this soldier comments about how there is no other option to conquer these lands without destruction.