My Philosophy on Education

Education is a concept that is mentioned a lot but not very often thought about in depth. What does my education actually mean? What am I supposed to get out of education? Why do I go to school every day? These are questions that we should ask ourselves. Why do we lead the lives we lead?

As an american teenager, it is required by law that I attend school each day and earn a basic education. I spend 7.5 hours in school, 5 days a week, approximately 180 days for 13 years of my life. But these numbers are not the important thing, this is just showing how the majority of a child's/ teenager's life is spent at school. 

     When I was 5 years old, my mom would drop me off every day for school and I would always cry because I didn't want to be there. One day after I continuously cried for 3 hours my mom was forced to come pick me up. That day, when she picked me up, she said something I'll never forget. She told me "You can choose to be happy, or you can choose to be unhappy, but life's going to be a whole lot easier if you choose to be happy." 

   This has become my life philosophy. I apply this to every aspect of my life, including school and my education. I have come to enjoy school and becoming educated, as it is my life right now and why hate something that is unavoidable? 

     For me, Happiness is not just an occasional feeling, it is a goal to be accomplished through hard work and by giving everything my all. In school, I have learned throughout the years that it will not benefit me to go searching for the maximum points possible, it is not the grade that is important, it's what I take away from the assignment or class. Therefore, I have and never will be simply a hoop jumper, because when you jump through the hoop you do not gain anything. This is similar to any sport, you do not practice to score a goal every time, you practice to improve your skills, and when you miss a goal, you learn from the experience. 

   

     With this class, I have taken away much more than I dreamed a history class could present. Before, I approached history as "our past", I tried to find it interesting, but to me history was all just a bunch of dead people and events in the past. I never considered how history effected my life today. Until now. I am finding myself to be "searching for truth" in many other situations that I have never second guessed before. For example, September 11th, was it Al Quaida? Was it our own government? I am now considering many different aspects of one even before coming to a conlclusion. I have learned not only about the events of the past, but about our current nation, and how to draw my own truths from the sea of facts.

    One of my weaknesses is my reading skills; I often spend too much time on the small details and not enough on finding the big picture. By devoting myself to improving, my reading speed and comprehension has increased significantly with help from the reading strategies suggested when reading 40 pages of a history textbook. I try to be a scholar, not just a hoop-jumper. I do not do the assignments to get them done, I do them to learn and improve upon my weaknesses. If I know that I have a weakness in a particular area, such as reading, I will consciously try to improve. 

I found that I liked being able to assess myself on the tests and quizzes, not because I could give myself the score I wanted, but because I knew what I was thinking. If I had written something completely random, and I truly did not know the answer, I could mark it down, not getting points for it. I think I was generally pretty hard on myself because I'd rather loose points for something and actually think it through to learn it, than just change an answer to gain points. Also I liked self-assessing because hearing what the answer should be and comparing it to my own is a lot more valuable to me than just getting an answer marked wrong and not knowing the correct answer.
 Overall I try to be a scholar and know that everything happens for a purpose, if I get a low grade on a test, it's not the points that matter, it's the knowledge I gain from it. Education is one of the things in life that is priceless and yet we have complete control over it, so why wouldn't we take advantage of it?

A Mirror Image: Comparing two wars

The Cold War and The War on Terror are extremely similar. A great way to see the similarities is by looking at the political cartoons for each war.

In August of 1964 The Gulf of Tonkin incident happened, where allegedly Northern Vietnamese torpedo boats had attacked an American destroyer, the U.S.S. Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin. This event outraged the U.S. and resulted in congress passing the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which gave President Johnson the authority to declare war on any country trying to spread communism. 

 This event was incredibly similar to the Iraq war resolution. Before the Iraq war resolution, president Bush declared that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In response, through the Iraq war resolution, Congress granted Bush the power to declare war on any country trying to spread terrorism. 


Although these cartoons are depicting the War on Terror, they can be used just as well to describe the Cold War. Both the War on Terror and the Cold war were begun by the U.S. lacking a good reason with evidence that we really need to fight a war. Terrorism like Communism are both non-tangible ideas, you cannot fight a war against either one. Also we fought both the wars in civilian areas searching for the Vietcong in Southern Vietnam and Al-Qaida in Iraq. Many civilian's homes were searched through and destroyed due to the search and destroy tactics employed in both wars.

What many people do not consider is the home front during both wars. The situation in both the Cold War and The War on Terror is identical. During the cold war there was a lot of McCarthyism and Communist trials. People don't realize that this sort of thinking still occurs today. There are many ongoing trials searching for terrorists that belong to the Al-Qaida group. Airport security has become impeccable very thorough due to the September 11th attack. Like the communist trials, if airport workers suspect anything about you, they can give you a full pat down or have you walk through an x-ray machine to make sure you are not a terrorist. 

The Government MUST be involved.

The debate over the role of government in our personal lives is currently essential in the success of our nation's economy. In order to assess what we should really do about this issue, we have to look at our history. 

This debate has been going on for hundreds of years; it goes back to the debate between Alexander Hamilton who believed in a strong central government that is involved in people's lives, and Thomas Jefferson who believed in personal rights and that the government should not get involved. 

For quite a while our nation had a government that supported Jeffersonian ideals, the general public believed it was not the government's place to step in to their daily lives in order to help. This mindset changed around 1929 when The Great Depression slapped America in the face. As with any slap, America was woken up. Can our government actually help us? Do they need to get involved? Is it possible to recover without their interference? These were some of the questions being asked; but what other evidence did the people need? President Herbert Hoover had already prooven that passively watching a nation suffer was not going to allow the economy to recover. This issue was bigger than the people; they could not simply repair the nation on their own. The government NEEDED to get involved.

President Roosevelt recognized the problems of the nation and stepped up to the plate. FDR created the New Deal which made many government programs such as the FDIC,the SEC and the Social Security System. These were obviously helpful as they are still around and active today. Although not all of FDR's programs helped the nation, at least he saw the issues facing the people and tried to help. With FDR's presidency came a whole new era in America's society and government. An era in which the government is not simply a passive organization "by the people"; rather the government is an active organization "For the people".

So looking at our history, economically, how much should the government be involved today?

Currently our nation is facing many economic struggles, similar to, but not quite as dire as the Great Depression. So how can we learn from our history?

The main thing we need to take away from FDR's New Deal policies and the effects they had, is that there are always going to be unintended consequences from government interference, but we should not let them get in our way. The government's involvement is completely necessary in order for this nation to thrive. 

The Obama administration is doing many things to try to pull the nation out of this economic hole such as creating jobs and lowering specific taxes. Many of these reforms take place in the schools, on the highways, and in big business, but what we really need is a completely new field. 

If I were Obama, I would invest in alternative energy technology. This would not only create jobs for many Americans (scientists, engineers, construction workers, etc.) but it would also put money into an innovative field that is only growing in necessity. Oil is not going to be around forever, and the sooner we can transition into alternative sources, the less dependent we will be on foreign oil sources, which would allow our economy to grow.

Considering our history in the Great Depression, and our current economic situation, the government of the United States needs to be very much involved in our daily lives. 

My Time Machine

      It's hard in this crazy, fast-paced life to take time and reflect on other people's lifestyles and cultures. We are constantly changing and developing as a nation and America even ten years ago was a significantly different place. If I was givin the opportunity to go back in time and I could go anywhere, I would go to West Berlin in March of 1949. This was an extremely chaotic yet interesting time in European history.

          Going back a little to better understand the terms leading up to this exilerating period, in 1948, the United States, Great Britain, and France had all agreed to reunify their divisions of Germany making it a stronger nation. The Soviet Union was furious with the UN for allowing reunification and in response, Stalin decided to hold West Berlin hostage. He believed that by cutting off all highway, food, and water traffic from West Berlin, the Western nations would be forced to either give up the reunification of Germany idea, or surrender their part of Berlin. This seemed to be an extremely bleak time in history, but stepping in and acting as their knight in shining armour the United States and Great Britain started the Berlin Airlift. This was their attempt at breaking the blockade and saving these people, although the Soviets did not let down. America and Britain flew planes into Berlin landing every few minutes with food, water, fuel, medicine, supplies and even Christmas presents. This airlift, to me, sounds pretty exciting. Running outside to the sound of planes flying in bringing supplies and even little surprises or gifts. I think it would be incredible to experience this event, but that is not the main reason I chose this period.  

Berlin, in this time was a very hostile environment since it was so controversial. The main reason I would go back to this time, would be to witness the Berlin Wall falling in November of 1989. The elation and happiness of everyone would be incredible. People finally felt free and safe for the first time in their life. There was celebration for weeks on end and the whole mood of the city completely changed. 

So Although at the beginning, around 1949 when the city was still being held hostage, it may not have been a very glorious or fun time in history but it was an extremely important part of Germany's history and the reunification in 1989 would be all worth it. 

The Treaty of Versailles: an atomic bomb waiting to detonate

       Woodrow Wilson originally went into the "Great War" with a specific purpose, "To make the world safe for democracy." even though he had originally said to stay out of foreign affairs. After the war, at the conference at Versailles Palace, Wilson presented his fourteen points in order to create world peace. Wilson was a driven president who wanted change in the world, and for this to be the war to end all future wars. While his fourteen points seemed pretty reasonable, they only took into consideration America's view of the war. Wilson never considered how the other Allied powers viewed the end of the war or what consequences they wanted.Take Wilson's second point for example, it called for freedom of the seas. This sounds like it would benefit everyone, but in actuality it only really helped Great Britain and the U.S. since it would basically give Great Britain control of the seas since they have the largest navy in the world. Also considering they took away Germany's navy it was even worse. The Fourth point as well calling for equal trade and the removal of economic barriers to trade, would greatly benefit the U.S. while hurting other smaller, less industrialized countries. Since the United States was one of the biggest trade countries in the world, Wilson's fourth point would allow U.S. goods to be sent into smaller countries markets, basically replacing the countries markets with American goods and the countries would be driven into even deeper into poverty forced to buy foreign goods. This was not favorable to countries such as France, since they were not as big of a trade nation as the U.S. or Great Britain. Furthermore, although Wilson presented a few valid points (the first point, prohibiting secret treaties among nations, the seventh point, freeing Belgium and allowing them to prosper without foreign troops present), He did not consider other countries' views of the war and how they would respond leading to the fourteen points being quickly denied in the Conference at Versailles
      The main objectives of the European leaders were to just make Germany pay. Through land, money and an almost non-existent military, and the guilt of the war they forced Germany to pay. Holding the versailles conference in class really helped show us how frustrating and selfish it was. Each country was only thinking about themselves and what they wanted and not even considering the moral choice. If i were an American or German for that matter after the Treaty of Versailles was signed I would be outraged. As an American citizen, I would be furious with Wilson. How could our own president (Who leads a nation based on liberty and freedom) agree to such unfair terms for Germany?! Even though Germany sunk our ships, threatened our land, and invaded many other countries during the war, the terms Germany was subjected to were completely ridiculous and I do not understand how the leaders of 4 different nations could agree to such harsh punishments. Also if they were good leaders, they would have considered the consequences of severely punishing a powerful nation such as Germany. If any of the leaders had thought about how their country would respond if they were subjected to the same harsh conditions, The Treaty of Versailles may have been revised. You cannot put the weight of an entire world war on one country and not expect them to rebel. World War II was a direct consequence of the Treaty of Versailles and not avoidable after the Treaty was signed and sent to Germany. It was a major mistake on the part of each of the leaders present at the conference to sign the treaty.

Walking with Softer Footprints: Imperialism

I created this chart to organize the major events within the imperialistic period at the turn of the 20th century. As I pointed out in many of the situations, I believe The United States was right to go in and help, but I definitely don't think they should have treated the people so poorly. I do not believe we should have become an imperialist nation.


Imperialism, as defined by the Merriam- Webster dictionary is:

the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

I believe that we should extend our resources to those countries in need, for example Haiti or Japan, when they should fall upon dire times. We should not however, invade other countries just because we can. Bringing a "better government" is not always the best solution because eventually it turns out in war or more enemies. If we can reform our ways, of taking control of foreign nations, i.e. Iraq/ Afghanistan , then we may be able to avoid future wars and therefore start to pull out of the major debt caused by the war.

While reading an article about the United States' foreign affairs, I came across a quote that really stuck out to me:
“The U.S. cannot shrug off the burden of global leadership, at least not without catastrophic cost to the entire world, but it can exercise its power more wisely than it did in Iraq over the past year.”
          -Max Boot, Los Angeles Times
As I was discussing earlier, the United States must be involved with other nations, but if we can learn when to interfere and when to let a nation figure it out on their own, we would be a lot better off. Our whole involvement in Iraq went on for way too many years stirring up unnecessary enemies in the middle east. Hopefully we can learn from Iraq, and withdraw from Afghanistan leaving less scars than we found them with.

Imperialism

I found this video very interesting. Remembering to take this information/ opinion with a grain of salt, I must say that Howard Zinn provided a few points that I would have to agree with. A few quotes in particular really stuck out to me:


"What at first had seemed like a purely passive foreign policy in the decade leading up to the first world war, now appeared as a succession of violent interventions"
This quote stuck out to me, as in class we've been discussing these specific events that began America's imperialistic reign (Cuba, the Phillippeans, Panama, Hawaii, Peurto Rico, etc.) and this seems to aum up my opinion pretty well. These countries or areas like Cuba and the Phillippeans that we were trying to "protect" were simply turning into a messy wreck. I realize that this was a very good move economically for the United States', but we did not have to treat the native peoples with such brutality and disrespect.

American Policy in Asia: "It was not the invasion of South Korea in the North that prompted U.S. intervention, but the desire of the United States to have a firm foothold on the continent of Asia"

This points out how, even if we do not always see the clear reason for becoming involved in a war or invading a certain area, being an extremely powerful world power, we always have an ulterior motive. In this specific case, we just wanted to be present in Asia for economical benefits.

"The ruthless attacks of September 11th derived from the fierce hatred of U.S. expansion in the Middle East and elsewhere"
Although this is one person's view of the causes of a major terrorist attack, this quote provides glaring evidence for the prominent existence of modern U.S. Imperialism.

"Spreading liberty around the world is the calling of our time"
-George W. Bush (2nd Inaguaral Address)
Just found this an interesting point to ponder, that our previous president would go into office with this sating clearly promoting imperialism.





Interesting contrast to the Howard Zinn take on Imperialism. I also really like how this ties back to Manifest Destiny.