When reading history books I tend to find myself dozing off into the world of my own creative imagination. While history books are designed to be factual, specific, and generally a timeline of events, they are usually everything BUT creative in terms of intrigue and excitement. At least in my experience. King Leopold's Ghost does not follow this generalization. This may be the first historically accurate book I have read that has held my interest from day one. This may be because the book is focused on analyzing the psychological effects of conquest and colonization on rulers and explorers, or maybe because the book seems more like a fictional adventure novel than a historical account.
This book accurately and uniquely allows the reader to step into that time period and understand why the people who invaded the Congo did what they did, and shows us how screwed up they were from a mental standpoint. This book illustrated to me that with exploration not only comes financial wealth, but wealth in mental insanity and instability as well. King Leopold would be considered in modern terms an Egotistic, narcissistic, tyrannical ignorant ruler. His exploration and conquest within this book is not highlighted by the rewards he reaped, but by the mental toll and corruption placed within him and his "regime". The atrocities committed by him were great, and their attempted "justification" is in a way established within this book through the assessment of King Leopold's psyche.
It is made clear in the book that rulers of that time were often forced to fulfill a moral or physical obligation to their family and kingdom. Readers of this book are well aware that Leopold's upbringing played a significant part in his "downfall" as a ruler. Every ruler has the potential to be successful and powerful, but Leopold instead succumbed to his greed and desire to prove himself to his family. Throughout the entire book his moral corruption and blindness is illuminated and the different personalities and moral conflicts of other characters such as Stanley or Sheppard are highlighted as well. This book not only accounts for a large part of history in the sense of "what was accomplished and written down for generations to learn about" but also the "forgotten things". The things that people should remember about history but aren't given the chance to. Rarely does a book allow the reader to enter the minds of its subjects and in a way give the subjects a chance to "rationalize or justify" their actions.
Through this book it is made clear that rulers often have ulterior motives than just doing "what is right by the people". In our own country as well as foreign countries, currently and in past history, greed, hunger for power, and desire for conquest and famous recognition runs rampant within a leadership role. Leaders often bear a psychological toll and decay as a result of their exploits. Whether their legacy is remembered in history, their conquests or their achievements, rarely is their state of psychological stability noted. This book opened my eyes to the knowledge that there is a whole other side to history that often goes un-acknowledged. While understanding the psychology and reasoning behind the decisions of Leopold and the other subjects of the book has helped me to understand their real motives, it does not justify their actions in any way shape or form. The account of this book allows the reader to understand exactly HOW some of these men were able to commit or witness the atrocities produced in the Congo and WHY the men did what they did. It takes important characters in history and changes them from "characters" to relatable (or at least understandable and analyzable) people.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Sunday, February 10, 2013
The Response of Western Nations Q. 6
Do you think that Western nations, such as Great Britain, France, Germany, and the U.S. should respond differently to atrocities around the world today? Should they have done more? Why?
I think these particular questions are difficult to answer. I think that the United States, as a whole, should play less of the role of "global peace-keeper". Over the years we have received the unspoken title of world policeman as a nation. While in past times we have been in a position of power and wealth, currently, our nation is broken. Our economy has rapidly declined over the past 10 years and we have countless problems on our own soil. While there are atrocities taking place all over the world, it is not solely the job of the United States to protect against and end these atrocities. As for other Western nations such as Great Britain, France and Germany, they should be taking greater efforts to protect against global atrocities on soil they own or occupy. Part of being a world power is taking responsibility for one's people and protecting those who are unable to protect themselves. Like Alberto mentioned in his blog post, if countries such as Great Britain, France and Germany want to take responsibility for the land they own in different countries, then they need to step up their efforts to protect against atrocities against their people. There are of course examples in history where Western nations were unable to protect against atrocities in their own motherland. For example, taken from the Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide by Leslie Alan Horvitz, the Oradour-Sur-Glane massacre took place in France during WWII and the French were powerless to stop it. The Oradour massacre was the worst atrocity to take place on French Soil. The Massacre took place 10 days after D-Day, before French Soil was re-taken by France and the Allied Armed Forces. In summary of the Oradour events, the French town of Tulle was recognized for killing and mutilating the bodies of 62 Nazi Soldiers who had surrendered themselves to the resistance. The SS commanding officer of that section of France found out about the massacre of Nazi soldiers and with the help of the mayor, destroyed the entire town. French men were hanged, an approximation of 500 French citizens were killed in Tulle as the response of the SS officer. Had Great Britain or the United States tried to intervene in this situation, the massacre could have been stopped. The atrocity committed by the German Officer and his followers did not take place over a day, but over the period of a week or more. Whether or not Great Britain or the US were able to step in does not matter, the question is whether they should have or not. I think that it is incredibly difficult to judge the level of commitment Western Nations have to other countries or territory. I think that if a nation has the power to aid those victim of atrocity then they should. But it is not our job, or our nations job, to dictate how another country should respond to a global crisis. Each atrocity has its own specific details, moral conflict, and question of who should step in and when. It is challenging to label how a country should respond to individual and unique situations.
This is an image of a building in Oradour-Sur-Glane after the Nazi massacre and destruction. Atrocities will never stop occurring, sometimes they are unstoppable, but whenever Western nations are in a position to provide aid they should.
I think these particular questions are difficult to answer. I think that the United States, as a whole, should play less of the role of "global peace-keeper". Over the years we have received the unspoken title of world policeman as a nation. While in past times we have been in a position of power and wealth, currently, our nation is broken. Our economy has rapidly declined over the past 10 years and we have countless problems on our own soil. While there are atrocities taking place all over the world, it is not solely the job of the United States to protect against and end these atrocities. As for other Western nations such as Great Britain, France and Germany, they should be taking greater efforts to protect against global atrocities on soil they own or occupy. Part of being a world power is taking responsibility for one's people and protecting those who are unable to protect themselves. Like Alberto mentioned in his blog post, if countries such as Great Britain, France and Germany want to take responsibility for the land they own in different countries, then they need to step up their efforts to protect against atrocities against their people. There are of course examples in history where Western nations were unable to protect against atrocities in their own motherland. For example, taken from the Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide by Leslie Alan Horvitz, the Oradour-Sur-Glane massacre took place in France during WWII and the French were powerless to stop it. The Oradour massacre was the worst atrocity to take place on French Soil. The Massacre took place 10 days after D-Day, before French Soil was re-taken by France and the Allied Armed Forces. In summary of the Oradour events, the French town of Tulle was recognized for killing and mutilating the bodies of 62 Nazi Soldiers who had surrendered themselves to the resistance. The SS commanding officer of that section of France found out about the massacre of Nazi soldiers and with the help of the mayor, destroyed the entire town. French men were hanged, an approximation of 500 French citizens were killed in Tulle as the response of the SS officer. Had Great Britain or the United States tried to intervene in this situation, the massacre could have been stopped. The atrocity committed by the German Officer and his followers did not take place over a day, but over the period of a week or more. Whether or not Great Britain or the US were able to step in does not matter, the question is whether they should have or not. I think that it is incredibly difficult to judge the level of commitment Western Nations have to other countries or territory. I think that if a nation has the power to aid those victim of atrocity then they should. But it is not our job, or our nations job, to dictate how another country should respond to a global crisis. Each atrocity has its own specific details, moral conflict, and question of who should step in and when. It is challenging to label how a country should respond to individual and unique situations.
This is an image of a building in Oradour-Sur-Glane after the Nazi massacre and destruction. Atrocities will never stop occurring, sometimes they are unstoppable, but whenever Western nations are in a position to provide aid they should. Friday, February 1, 2013
Senior Project Paper
I think that main thing that I did well in my Senior Paper was that I clearly explained each of the different programming languages. I described them, in easy-to-read text, and their different functions. Without understanding the basic history of the languages and what they are used for, it's difficult to understand the point of my paper, to compare and research the three languages I chose. Just like any mathematical subject, programming isn't that difficult to understand. Once the basic math behind the langauges is explained, the languages are fairly straightforward to describe. Learning them is an entirely different paper focus altogther. I did learn Python for my project, but desrcribing how to use Python and how to program with it was a challenge I encountered. If I could go back and make changes to my paper I would have gone more in depth on how the uses of the languages vary. I described the uses but I didn't go into great detail on how the uses vary. I guess that how the uses vary can be fairly strightforward but I think it would have been more informative for my reader to have the variations in uses actually written out.
Responding to Mrs. G's research questions
1. My topic is researching Nuclear Energy, specifically Nuclear Fission, and discussing whether it seems like a good source of energy or bad source of energy. I will evalulate its benefits and negatives by researching its affect on the environment, people, scientists and renewable energy.
2. The most useful thing I have come across in my paper is a sub-page of a UC Davis website called ChemWiki. It completely explains the science behind Nuclear Fission in "reader-friendly" terms. Meaning it isn't a website written by some rambling Nuclear Physisicst, it is created by scientists who know how to write to their readers liking.
3. Based off of the current amount of research I have completed. I think that it would be wise in the best interest of America and other countries to explore Nuclear Energy. As long as we can provide for safe plants, completely eliminate the possibility of a nuclear meltdown, or the mis-use of Nuclear Power, then it would be the cleanest most powerful form of renewable energy we could harness.
4. The one benefit of the topic I have chosen is that although it can be confusing, once I clearly explain the science behind what Nuclear Fission is, how the energy is discovered, and how the reactions are created, the rest of my paper will be understood easily. The only confusing part about Nuclear Energy is the science. For Example, Uranium is the main element that Nuclear Energy is derived from. Uranium is a heavy radioactive element. Uranium occurs in MOST rock forms, and is found just as commonly in the Earth's crust as tin. As found on World Nuclear Organizations website "Like other elements, uranium occurs in several slightly differing forms known as 'isotopes'. These isotopes differ from each other in the number of uncharged particles (neutrons) in the nucleus. Natural uranium as found in the Earth's crust is a mixture largely of two isotopes: uranium-238 (U-238), accounting for 99.3% and uranium-235 (U-235) about 0.7%. The isotope U-235 is important because under certain conditions it can readily be split, yielding a lot of energy. It is therefore said to be 'fissile' and we use the expression 'nuclear fission'." This basic science makes it clear for the reader to understand why Uranium, a base radioactive element, can produce Nuclear Energy.
5. One piece of research I came across that was new to me was the fact that when properly stored and taken care of Nuclear Energy is exponentially cleaner and better for the environment then coal or fossil fuels. This discovery sparked my interest because I immediately questioned why we haven't already switched over to Nuclear Energy completely.
2. The most useful thing I have come across in my paper is a sub-page of a UC Davis website called ChemWiki. It completely explains the science behind Nuclear Fission in "reader-friendly" terms. Meaning it isn't a website written by some rambling Nuclear Physisicst, it is created by scientists who know how to write to their readers liking.
3. Based off of the current amount of research I have completed. I think that it would be wise in the best interest of America and other countries to explore Nuclear Energy. As long as we can provide for safe plants, completely eliminate the possibility of a nuclear meltdown, or the mis-use of Nuclear Power, then it would be the cleanest most powerful form of renewable energy we could harness.
4. The one benefit of the topic I have chosen is that although it can be confusing, once I clearly explain the science behind what Nuclear Fission is, how the energy is discovered, and how the reactions are created, the rest of my paper will be understood easily. The only confusing part about Nuclear Energy is the science. For Example, Uranium is the main element that Nuclear Energy is derived from. Uranium is a heavy radioactive element. Uranium occurs in MOST rock forms, and is found just as commonly in the Earth's crust as tin. As found on World Nuclear Organizations website "Like other elements, uranium occurs in several slightly differing forms known as 'isotopes'. These isotopes differ from each other in the number of uncharged particles (neutrons) in the nucleus. Natural uranium as found in the Earth's crust is a mixture largely of two isotopes: uranium-238 (U-238), accounting for 99.3% and uranium-235 (U-235) about 0.7%. The isotope U-235 is important because under certain conditions it can readily be split, yielding a lot of energy. It is therefore said to be 'fissile' and we use the expression 'nuclear fission'." This basic science makes it clear for the reader to understand why Uranium, a base radioactive element, can produce Nuclear Energy.
5. One piece of research I came across that was new to me was the fact that when properly stored and taken care of Nuclear Energy is exponentially cleaner and better for the environment then coal or fossil fuels. This discovery sparked my interest because I immediately questioned why we haven't already switched over to Nuclear Energy completely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)