The Peak of Sexism

            During the early 19^th century, sexism seems to have reached an all-time high. Now that industrialization has changed how people make, sell, and buy products, women no longer need to knit clothes or cook all that much in the home. Since previously that was seen as their most important, if not only, job, now that it was no longer required women became more of a luxury than anything useful. It was during this time that the “Cult of Domesticity” arose, an idea of what women should always act like that still shows traces in modern day society. This idea held that there should be four ideals that women should represent above all else: piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity. Women were supposed to worship God when men couldn’t (meaning that any woman of any other religion was obviously not a woman), they were supposed to be pure whereas men could potentially give in to their desires, they were supposed to submit to the male in all aspects, and they were supposed to make the home, the “private sphere” a place where men could recuperate from all their work in the rough and cutthroat “public sphere,” a place women were never supposed to see.

            This idea was prominent through the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries, but eventually a few women decided to attempt to prove their equality to men. At the time women could not own property, vote, they were rarely allowed to go out to public areas, they had little claim over their children, and they hardly even had a right to their own bodies. In attempt to gain some of their own rights, some 300 people, 40 of them men, gathered in Seneca Falls, New York to hold the Seneca Falls convention. The end result of the convention was The Declaration of Rights and Sentiments, a document written by the women demanding certain rights that be allowed to them. The document was almost entirely based off of the Declaration of Independence, starting in the same way and using the exact template throughout the rest of it. Among other things, the women demanded the right to vote, to own property even if they are married, to teach and speak in public assemblies, and to generally thought of as man’s equal. This document met extreme amounts of controversy, especially the right to vote. Women were not given suffrage until 1920, 72 years after the Seneca Falls Convention. Only one member of the convention was alive at the time.

            The convention, however, was not exactly completely equal. The only men and women there were white and generally of the middle or upper class. Poor women, black women, Native American women, and women of other nationalities were not given any sort of representation. While in class all these groups were heard from, only white middle and upper class women were allowed to be present at the convention. However, even with every group accounted for, our class came up largely with the same ideas. Our resolutions included demanding to be seen as US citizens and given all the rights there of, to be allowed to vote, and to be given basic freedoms given to man already. However, there were ideals like that of ending slavery that were not seen in the real convention.

            I believe the most important ideal was the ability for women to be seen as equal to men and to be given all the same rights. Without this ability, many of the ideas such as the right to vote and to own property could be denied to women simply based off of sex. Once you destroy the barrier between the sexes in just the law, you can start to allow for more leeway in the ideals of how women should act and eventually even in how women are thought of. While society has accomplished the objectives given by the Seneca Falls Convention in the law, the world is still not completely non-misogynist. There are still many instances of women being paid less than men and being expected to follow the Cult of Domesticity, and a vast majority of the top jobs in the world are held by men, but we have certainly taken a large step in the right direction, and one can only hope that more will follow.

Monroe Doctrine

       Though the US seems to have a more recent history of meddling in business that doesn't exactly affect them, there was one point in time when their policy was the opposite. After the many wars fought in Central and South America to gain freedom, and following the creation of the Principle of Intervention, James Monroe created an idea that later became known as the Monroe Doctrine. In his letter to European leaders, he said that while Europe had the Principle of Intervention, which made it so that any attempt at making a Revolution would be crushed by every country that could get there in time, America would never interfere with wars that don't directly concern them. He also stated that any attempt at retaking the territories in the Western Hemisphere that had recently gained independence would be considered as a threat to their security and treated as such. As can be seen by watching the news just about any day, this is not an idea that America has followed very well.

       The news article below is a satire on America's work against ISIS, a radical Muslim group now threatening the Middle East. The Middle East is nearly half a world away from us, and ISIS is not nearly large enough to threaten anyone not in their direct vicinity. By Monroe's logic, the US ought to stay out of such a war. However, the US has taken a leadership role in the defeating of ISIS. However, in another way the Monroe Doctrine would say that we should help the neighboring countries keep their freedom. So it would make more sense to help neighboring countries with defense without going on offense. There are more than just this one example of Americans not following the Monroe Doctrine, proof that our views are most definitely changing, though for better or worse only time will tell.

Racism in 'Murica

 Race seems to be a factor in just about every news story having to do with any two people of different races. Both today and about as far into the past as we can look. The multitude of Latin American revolutions during the early and mid-19th century are a prime example of such characterization, though back then it did have to do with race more often than not. So too is the more recent case of Ferguson Missouri, essentially the only story to be played on the news for the past several months. However, the question is, how much of these events is actually about race?

On September 16, 1810, Miguel Hidalgo y Castilla, a Mexican revolutionary, read aloud his Grito de Dolores, a call for Mexicans to fight for independence from Spain, and idea which they readily took to. Africans, Americans, and even some white Mexicans (people born in Mexico of Spanish decent) all took up arms against their mother country, albeit for completely different reasons. Hidalgo was the original leader of the revolutionary forces, until he was defeated, and later captured and killed, at Calderón. Many other leaders took his position afterwards. Not much of the early part of the wars was about race, until a new, more liberal government took hold in Spain. The new liberal government promised to help appease all groups in the Mexican Revolution. This included quite possibly giving African slaves more, if not complete, freedom. It was here that race started to come into play.

             Spanish Creoles, the people of Spanish decent born in Mexico, wanted to have just as much power as the people actually born in Spain. However, they had no intention of giving much more freedom to the black Americans and Africans who had fought in the revolution just for this freedom. As such, more and more of the Creoles started fighting in favor of independence. It wasn’t until early 1821, however, that this independence was gained.

            Race can also come a bit into play in American events. Ferguson being a prime example. In August, a white cop was accused of shooting and killing an unarmed black teen. The man was publically denounced by nearly the entire country to the point where, when a jury refused to indict him, riots occurred in Ferguson especially and in many other places all over the country. As stated in this article, many people from other countries took this as proof that racism was still prominent in America.^[1] However, it is not entirely known if race was a factor in this event. Stories have been told from the boy threatening that he had a gun all the way to him being on his hands and knees when it happened. There isn’t a ton of evidence to prove any of these claims. While race may have had a bit to do with the decision of the white cop, however, it is unlikely that it was a pure hate crime. While race does and likely will influence events in America, it isn’t probable that things can go much better. Racism is an idea that has persisted for centuries, and while recently things have gotten significantly better, it is unlikely, or at least will take a long time, for race to every truly become extinct.

[1] "How the Rest of the World Reacted to the Ferguson Verdict." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 25 Nov. 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/11/25/how-the-rest-of-the-world-reacted-to-the-ferguson-verdict/>.

The Ever-Lasting Power Struggle (aka. Europe)

            After Napoleon’s long conquest of Europe, and his subsequent exile, the many countries of Europe were left in turmoil. Napoleon had gotten rid of all titles of nobility and serfdom, and redrawn the borders of Europe so that the entire continent was part of France save England. While the other European powers did eventually manage to defeat him, he had been in power for too long to easily go back to the way things were, and through many of the better things he had done for Europe a good portion of the population preferred Napoleon to just about everything else they had known. After all this upheaval of the entire political, social, and economic structure of Europe, the former European leaders needed an equally radical change to keep the peace and make sure this never happened again. This change was made in the 10 month meeting between some of the most powerful people in Europe known as the Congress of Vienna. However, would they be willing to change their ways now that their power is threatened? In class, we worked in groups acting as the Austrian representative at the meeting, and figured out how he would suggest they proceed. Many of his ideals were the ones chosen for how Europe should be ruled hereafter.

            Many different concepts were utilized by the leaders of Europe in order to ensure that something like this conquest would never happen again. They extended the borders of Prussia and Austria to surround France in order to prepare for any future ideas of expansion, and created a few principles should other countries attempt to create a revolution. One such principle was the Holy Alliance, which stated the now reinstated kings had a divine right to rule their territory, and such any attempt at a revolution against them was not only a treason against the country, but one against God. While England did not take part in this alliance, most of the rest of Europe did, and the idea stood. This was meant to scare people from starting revolutions, stating that it would anger God.

            This was a terrible way to try to quell future rebellions. For one, you need not look past historical evidence. Even after saying that revolutions were against God, people were still perfectly willing to start them. Secondly, how could the people of the Congress of Vienna know how God feels? First of all God may not actually care how humanity rules itself, and secondly there was no way for them to know that God preferred monarchy over everything else. People in power should always be willing to do what is best for those they rule, even if doing so means them losing most or all of that power. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Prince Klemens von Metternich
Portrait of Prince Metternich, Sir Thomas Lawrence, 1815.

 

Napoleon's History

                Napoleon has gained a bit of a bad connotation throughout the course of history. For one, he was never actually that short. As an emperor he was a ton better than many others that have existed, and he was nearly indestructible on the battlefield. His love of micromanaging even had him stand on the same lines as his soldiers and share the same dangers they felt. Much of the bad characteristics associated with him were created from British propaganda, and most of the rest comes from the fact that he called himself an emperor. In truth, Napoleon made many economic, political, and social reforms still present in Europe today, and most of them weren’t all that bad.

            In terms of economics, Napoleon had many ways of making his country richer. For one, he sold America the Louisiana Purchase, which consisted of most of the land France had owned in the Americas, which not only helped America prosper but gave France a good deal of money. He achieved the monumental task of balancing the budget, something that America had hardly managed to do, and established the Bank of France. When he conquered Italy, he took vast amounts of money and used it all for France. While this may not be the best way to achieve economic prosperity, it was at least effective.

            Much of Napoleon’s success was based on politics. The French Directory actually hired him for their own uses, but somehow he managed to turn the idea around them getting all five members to quit. With France under his control he conquered nearly all of Europe, save England, Portugal, and Western Russia. While much of Europe was taken through military might, a lot of it was still politics. He had to have many allies, and somehow he managed to hold his territory, which according to him was all of Europe except England. Being able to hold such a large amount of territory alone is a feat worthy of the history books.

            Perhaps Napoleon’s greatest reforms took place in the social sector. He is often seen as a strict ruler, as he did call himself emperor, but in reality he gave the people a lot more rights than they’d previously had. He gave more citizens the rights to own property and get an education. When he took over Egypt he established the Institute of Egypt, which began the study of ancient Egypt. But perhaps most important of all, he took away the titles of lords, kings, and serfs alike, and put nearly everyone on an equal playing field. While at the time European nobility hated this, seeing as they had all the power, this idea seemed to linger, and much of Europe had kept the idea. While Napoleon’s image has been somewhat destroyed over history, let it not be forgotten that he did more good than bad in his short time ruling the continent. 

Fake Luddite Letter

            Luddites were people in the early 19^th century who fought against the effects that Industrialization had on the population. In England, factory owners would use orphans to do the work in their factories, usually for absolutely no pay. This incredibly cheap labor force created no need for the artisans and merchants who had once held a prominent position in society. The artisans and merchants, who became to Luddites, revolted because they believed that the people working in the factories should have knowledge of their craft and not just be children off the streets, and that they should be paid accordingly. While in America they at least paid the girls working in factories, and they got time off, things were still much the same. What follows is a mock letter from one American factory worker, a young girl, to her cousin explaining what she felt during this time.

Dear Mary,

            These are fearful times indeed. It is with much anxiety that I write you from my mill in Lowell, and try to explain my predicament. Last night, a group of Luddites, I believe they were all skilled weavers, broke into our mill and broke almost 20 machines. We girls were just leaving the room, and a few of the girls actually went with them to help. I had heard talk of striking, but this was the first action anyone had done about it. The wages here aren’t the best but they are enough to get by, and we are fed, decently rested, and kept busy. Many girls this age have next to nothing, so I feel that we should at least be thankful we have this. If the overseers cannot catch the men who did this they will likely blame us, and it is us who would be punished. I do not hate my job here in the mill, but that could easily change if our wages are taken away or we are given less time off, as I am quite tired as it is. I pray that these Luddites may stop, or be caught, so that we may continue our work uninterrupted and maybe more girls will come to appreciate that they are much better off here than a lot of girls out on farms or wherever. I would ask any advice you may give to play my part, as I am new to this and have no clue if saying anything would help us or just hurt my position among the other girls.

Love,

Rebecca

The Downside of the Industrial Revolution

            When people think of the Industrial Revolution, they often think of many of the inventions involved in it. Cars, computers, mass-produced clothing, processed foods, and even things like paper were made possible by this revolution, but such inventions didn’t come without a price. Terrible conditions, hours, food, illness, and accidents were all characteristic of factory work at the time, and in some cases still are today. While these conditions existed in both England and America, England most certainly had it worse. While the English seemed to turn a blind eye, the Americans at least made an attempt to address such issues.

            Many of the inventions in the early Industrial Revolution made transportation and access to goods significantly easier. This access caused a huge population growth. However, England only had limited space, and most of it was already used up. This overpopulation caused people to lose jobs and sometimes houses, and so when factories opened up people were desperate for work, and could be hired at little pay. Orphans, with their population growing as well, were sometimes hired for no pay. Their food was atrocious and innutritious, children could often be beaten, sometimes within an inch of their lives; near non-stop work could cause multiple deformities, such as losing the arches of their feet, and there were several accidents where people could break their neck, be crushed, scalped, or sometimes even deformed so much that they could hardly be identified. Even with the knowledge of all this the English government did nothing to try to stop it, seeing as it was them getting all the money.

            While significantly better than England, America was certainly not exempt from their share of problems. The Lowell experiment, an attempt to create an industrialized town without all the issues found in England, did succeed somewhat in creating better conditions, but the conditions there weren’t the most desirable either. The same population boom that existed in England also happened in America, except that America had the space to support the population. Thus the factories had to make work desirable. They pandered to younger girls, and while they did inflate what work in the factories was actually like it was still better than England. The girls got breaks for lunch, and had time on Sundays and in evenings, and did get paid decent though not amazing wages. When the wages started dropping the factory girls actually went on strike in order to raise them back up. The first time they struck the factory owners were able to hire new girls, but the second time not enough were left, and the factory workers were forced to raise wages. And unlike England, America did have regulations on child labor and working conditions, though they weren’t enforced that strongly. While both England and America had bad working conditions, it was clear that America had a much safer and more humane work setting.