Information in the 20th Century is an interesting topic. And I will tell you why.
With the invention of the telephone in the late 19th century, with the transcontinental railroad already established, and with Henry Ford's innovative mass-production of automobiles which began in the early 20th century, information could spread at a once unimaginable pace. People no longer had to ride horses to send letters to each other. Information spread at an alarmingly fast pace, allowing citizens to be informed and aware of political, social and economic events. Information was becoming cheaper and more accessible; people received substantial information everyday with all of these innovations. I'm sure people were ecstatic that they could talk to their friends across the country(or world) by simply picking up some strange device with numbers on it. Or that they could drive to town with ease and speed.
But, WHY, in a century where so many people have access to information, and could actively participate in current events, did characters like Stalin, Zedong, Hitler, and Mussolini rise up and take totalitarian control of their respective nations? Were people just deciding not to respond to these people?
Well, Germany's situation can be partly explained.
After World War I, Germany was forced to take all the blame for the battles and losses that occurred, so the rest of the world incurred a multi million dollar debt on it. Germany was forced to live in desperate poverty for the next few decades, trying to work off an enormous debt. This debt probably made the citizens of Germany feel hopeless, and when a strong leader like Hitler rose, they looked up to his strength.
But in other places like Italy and China, it's hard for me to grasp the idea that people actually supported the totalitarian leaders.
Even when people have access to information, it seems to me they don't fully utilize it as they should.
This reminds me of this era, where many young adults don't take an active role in their government, or in current events.
For example, a couple weeks ago, I asked my friend what she thought of SOPA. She had no idea what I was talking about. Now I'm not saying this person is uneducated(I think quite the contrary), but I simply believe people nowadays don't take advantage of the internet, news, and other technological advances to help them understand current events and the world around them. I believe that is one of the most vital things us citizens of the earth can do to prevent more chaotic rulers like Stalin and Hitler.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Take A Stance!
The 19th Century(long overdue)
It's the time when Darwin formulated his theory on evolution, when the west coast of America was a new frontier to explore, and when Romanticism dominated the minds of men.
But one of the most important event in this century is America's abolition of slavery under the presidency of Lincoln. It is an event well-known by most of America and the rest of the world: there was slavery, Lincoln came to be president, Lincoln ends slavery, South rebels, and Lincoln defeats the Confederate South. There. Done.
Not really.
What about social thought in this time period? And was it really so black and white to Lincoln, the North and the South?
When Lincoln ascended to presidency, the entire nation was in turmoil. He was considered a moderate Republican, and had criticism from both ideological ends of political parties. And although Lincoln is considered one of the greatest heroes of abolitionism, he did not ascend to presidency to end slavery. He ascended to end the split in America between the North and the South.
Lincoln decided he had to either choose between ending slavery or supporting it. He could not follow the example of past presidents and take no stance when it comes to slavery. Avoiding the problem had caused even more chaos, like with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This act, enacted in 1854, held the provisions that the new states, Kansas and Nebraska, were to become either "slave states" or "free states" by popular sovereignty. This means that when the state was populated enough, there would be a vote, and whatever was more popular would become the law for that state.
This led to zealous political party members of both sides rushing to Kansas and Nebraska to be able to get the state to be on their side. Abolitionists and slavery enthusiasts of all kinds rushed to these states, and immediately the tension in these states rose. With such strong opposition all in one state, these political zealots resorted to physical harm. Civil battles broke out in Nebraska, and much more strongly in Kansas. These battles and the resulting chaos became known as "Bleeding Kansas."
All of this bloodshed resulted from presidents who were afraid to take a stance in fear of losing political support. Lincoln was sure to not make that same mistake.
He had to take a stance. And it is lucky for us that he chose to take the morally correct standpoint of anti-slavery.
Lincoln took direct control of the government when the South seceded and became the Confederacy. He used his executive position to imprison anyone who opposed his war on anti-slavery, and used all of his power to fight the South and end their rebellion.
With this full-scale war, many people died on both sides, especially at the Battle of Gettysburg.
With the end of the Battle at Gettysburg, Lincoln made his famous Gettysburg address, reminding everyone to be thankful for what they have. It's interesting to see Lincoln tell people to be thankful at the site where thousands of men died. Did he make those remarks with a bitter and ironic undertone to the battles that happened, or did he really want Americans to find things to be thankful for in this time of war and loss? (I'm going to believe it's the second option)
Either way, Lincoln is one of the most interesting presidents to date, despite his extreme use of executive power to take control. His control and power helped unify America once more.
So it makes me wonder if complete control is a bad thing? Like with SOPA or PIPA. I mean, it is trying to serve in the best interests of the people. It blocks bad things like illegal downloads and torrents so that the people will be paid for their work. However, controlling the internet is not a nation-threatening situation, like the Civil War was.
It's the time when Darwin formulated his theory on evolution, when the west coast of America was a new frontier to explore, and when Romanticism dominated the minds of men.
But one of the most important event in this century is America's abolition of slavery under the presidency of Lincoln. It is an event well-known by most of America and the rest of the world: there was slavery, Lincoln came to be president, Lincoln ends slavery, South rebels, and Lincoln defeats the Confederate South. There. Done.
Not really.
What about social thought in this time period? And was it really so black and white to Lincoln, the North and the South?
When Lincoln ascended to presidency, the entire nation was in turmoil. He was considered a moderate Republican, and had criticism from both ideological ends of political parties. And although Lincoln is considered one of the greatest heroes of abolitionism, he did not ascend to presidency to end slavery. He ascended to end the split in America between the North and the South.
Lincoln decided he had to either choose between ending slavery or supporting it. He could not follow the example of past presidents and take no stance when it comes to slavery. Avoiding the problem had caused even more chaos, like with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This act, enacted in 1854, held the provisions that the new states, Kansas and Nebraska, were to become either "slave states" or "free states" by popular sovereignty. This means that when the state was populated enough, there would be a vote, and whatever was more popular would become the law for that state.
This led to zealous political party members of both sides rushing to Kansas and Nebraska to be able to get the state to be on their side. Abolitionists and slavery enthusiasts of all kinds rushed to these states, and immediately the tension in these states rose. With such strong opposition all in one state, these political zealots resorted to physical harm. Civil battles broke out in Nebraska, and much more strongly in Kansas. These battles and the resulting chaos became known as "Bleeding Kansas."
All of this bloodshed resulted from presidents who were afraid to take a stance in fear of losing political support. Lincoln was sure to not make that same mistake.
He had to take a stance. And it is lucky for us that he chose to take the morally correct standpoint of anti-slavery.
Lincoln took direct control of the government when the South seceded and became the Confederacy. He used his executive position to imprison anyone who opposed his war on anti-slavery, and used all of his power to fight the South and end their rebellion.
With this full-scale war, many people died on both sides, especially at the Battle of Gettysburg.
With the end of the Battle at Gettysburg, Lincoln made his famous Gettysburg address, reminding everyone to be thankful for what they have. It's interesting to see Lincoln tell people to be thankful at the site where thousands of men died. Did he make those remarks with a bitter and ironic undertone to the battles that happened, or did he really want Americans to find things to be thankful for in this time of war and loss? (I'm going to believe it's the second option)
Either way, Lincoln is one of the most interesting presidents to date, despite his extreme use of executive power to take control. His control and power helped unify America once more.
So it makes me wonder if complete control is a bad thing? Like with SOPA or PIPA. I mean, it is trying to serve in the best interests of the people. It blocks bad things like illegal downloads and torrents so that the people will be paid for their work. However, controlling the internet is not a nation-threatening situation, like the Civil War was.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Digitally Civilized, and Grateful
When I think digital, I usually first think of a good DJ duo called Digitalism. They have funky techno beats and warbles that can send anyone (well at least me) into a dancing mood. In fact, when I was a senior in high school, I would listen to their stuff everyday in the car...until my brother got sick of it and forced me to add some variety.
But I'm not here to talk about my musical interests, no matter how digital their name may be.
This class suggests I first take a thought about how I fit into this digital society filled with instant news, art, information, music, and games all in one location. Would I consider myself civilized with all of this intant gratification?
The answer is yes, for sure. Previous to this class, I took Computer Science 124, so I know a bit about C++, code and the micro-architecture of a normal operating system.
Not only that, but also I keep a personal blog, I have a Facebook, I am savvy with Microsoft Word, Excel and Powerpoint, I can work proficiently with Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop, and Story. Needless to say, I am the computer "genius" of the family, and end up helping them from video quality issues to personal preferences.
When it comes to the internet, I can easily find whatever I a looking for, whether it is a video of a new song, a research article, and answers to questions I may have.
Actually, now that I think about it, let's talk about musical interests shall we?
There is so much music online. When you type in "Justin Bieber" into Youtube, hundreds of songs, parodies, and covers of Justin Bieber are available at the click of a mouse. In fact, there are so many artists and DJs out there who are able to become famous by posting their work on the internet. Remember Rebecca Black? There is such a wide variety of music and so many new artists/DJs like Digitalism who were able to grow thanks to the internet.
Think about it. When someone asks you your favorite genre or artist, usually you say "I like pretty much everything," or "There's too much good stuff to decide!" That is because you are offered so many different artists, genres, and songs all over the internet.
Because of all of the internet, music has been able to grow and spread everywhere, and so many more people can participate in making music, videos or anything they want. It's because of the internet that we know about Rebecca Black, Digitalism, or any recent artist for that matter. People have the ability to show what they like to an inexhaustible audience thanks to this digital revolution we are in.
I cannot help but relate this to the 16th century invention of the Gutenberg press. Because of this press, people were able to read such a wider range of articles, philosophies, and religious texts, and become a much more intelligent society. So many more people became researchers and journalists because the Gutenberg press allowed for anyone(of course with the proper skill) to print their stories, observations, ideas, philosophies, and research for everyone to see.
Like the internet today, the Gutenberg press grasped the world's attention and allowed for anyone to learn and publish, creating a society of open discussion and participation.
Thanks to the internet, I know about Digitalism and many more musicians who would have never been seen or heard in this world if the internet was never created.
But I'm not here to talk about my musical interests, no matter how digital their name may be.
This class suggests I first take a thought about how I fit into this digital society filled with instant news, art, information, music, and games all in one location. Would I consider myself civilized with all of this intant gratification?
The answer is yes, for sure. Previous to this class, I took Computer Science 124, so I know a bit about C++, code and the micro-architecture of a normal operating system.
Not only that, but also I keep a personal blog, I have a Facebook, I am savvy with Microsoft Word, Excel and Powerpoint, I can work proficiently with Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop, and Story. Needless to say, I am the computer "genius" of the family, and end up helping them from video quality issues to personal preferences.
When it comes to the internet, I can easily find whatever I a looking for, whether it is a video of a new song, a research article, and answers to questions I may have.
Actually, now that I think about it, let's talk about musical interests shall we?
There is so much music online. When you type in "Justin Bieber" into Youtube, hundreds of songs, parodies, and covers of Justin Bieber are available at the click of a mouse. In fact, there are so many artists and DJs out there who are able to become famous by posting their work on the internet. Remember Rebecca Black? There is such a wide variety of music and so many new artists/DJs like Digitalism who were able to grow thanks to the internet.
Think about it. When someone asks you your favorite genre or artist, usually you say "I like pretty much everything," or "There's too much good stuff to decide!" That is because you are offered so many different artists, genres, and songs all over the internet.
Because of all of the internet, music has been able to grow and spread everywhere, and so many more people can participate in making music, videos or anything they want. It's because of the internet that we know about Rebecca Black, Digitalism, or any recent artist for that matter. People have the ability to show what they like to an inexhaustible audience thanks to this digital revolution we are in.
I cannot help but relate this to the 16th century invention of the Gutenberg press. Because of this press, people were able to read such a wider range of articles, philosophies, and religious texts, and become a much more intelligent society. So many more people became researchers and journalists because the Gutenberg press allowed for anyone(of course with the proper skill) to print their stories, observations, ideas, philosophies, and research for everyone to see.
Like the internet today, the Gutenberg press grasped the world's attention and allowed for anyone to learn and publish, creating a society of open discussion and participation.
Thanks to the internet, I know about Digitalism and many more musicians who would have never been seen or heard in this world if the internet was never created.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Intro: False Hope and Radical Change
Well, I couldn't really say that I started this new blog post of my own free will; this new blog is actually a large-scale assignment from the digital civilization class that I am taking this semester. Using a self-directed learning state of mind, we are supposed to be able to use the technology we have today to make connections all throughout modern history to how we learn in this technologically advanced time.
Basically, once we finish learning about learning habits, philosophies, and the big events all throughout history, I should be able to make a big web diagram making connections to digital concepts and different eras.
Or at least something like that.
Right now I am trying to figure out how I should go about this class; I am assigned to the Cultural Revolution of the 20th Century, and also to the Information digital concept.
Quite honestly, when I think of the 20th Century, I immediately think of my AP US History teacher talking to us about Horatio Alger, the man who wrote novels about poor, yet ambitious young boys who work hard and eventually are able to become financially prosperous through diligent efforts. Through Alger's books, many poor young people were inspired to work hard, believing they could live the lives of Alger's characters. My teacher also told me about the first edition books being sold for a staggering $10(in the very early 20th Century) because the book had embroidered gold and leather binding on it.
But my focus isn't on Horatio Alger, or even on America for that matter. I am supposed to become a master of the 20th century Cultural Revolution in China of 1966, which revolved around Zedong leading a faction of communists to overthrow the capitalistic and traditional regime, ending old Chinese traditions, and marking a new social era for the people of China.
Previous to this Cultural Revolution, the old capitalistic regime had failed to industrialize the country in an unsuccessful attempt to turn farming territory into factories for steel production, and the majority of Chinese were becoming impoverished and angry. And that is when the revolution began to come into motion.
Only into the precursor of the Cultural Revolution, I wonder if the Chinese people would have reacted differently if they had a Horatio Alger of their own to give the poor people hope. Alger stressed the ideas of good honest work and cunning being the best ways to become happy and financially stable, not a struggle for political power. Would the Chinese have become placated due to fictitious stories of poor boys becoming rich? Even though Alger did sell his books for huge sums of money, and even if his stories spread false hope to the poor of American society, his stories were loved by many, and were influential throughout the entire nation.
Perhaps all the Chinese needed was some figure to tell them that they could become prosperous through hard and honest work in the form of a novel. I'll make sure to give you my answer by the time I finish studying up on the cultural revolution.
-Eden Johnson
Basically, once we finish learning about learning habits, philosophies, and the big events all throughout history, I should be able to make a big web diagram making connections to digital concepts and different eras.
 |
| Not Digital Civilization, but a diagram nonetheless |
Or at least something like that.
Right now I am trying to figure out how I should go about this class; I am assigned to the Cultural Revolution of the 20th Century, and also to the Information digital concept.
Quite honestly, when I think of the 20th Century, I immediately think of my AP US History teacher talking to us about Horatio Alger, the man who wrote novels about poor, yet ambitious young boys who work hard and eventually are able to become financially prosperous through diligent efforts. Through Alger's books, many poor young people were inspired to work hard, believing they could live the lives of Alger's characters. My teacher also told me about the first edition books being sold for a staggering $10(in the very early 20th Century) because the book had embroidered gold and leather binding on it.
But my focus isn't on Horatio Alger, or even on America for that matter. I am supposed to become a master of the 20th century Cultural Revolution in China of 1966, which revolved around Zedong leading a faction of communists to overthrow the capitalistic and traditional regime, ending old Chinese traditions, and marking a new social era for the people of China.
 |
| A Poster Supporting Mao Zedong |
Previous to this Cultural Revolution, the old capitalistic regime had failed to industrialize the country in an unsuccessful attempt to turn farming territory into factories for steel production, and the majority of Chinese were becoming impoverished and angry. And that is when the revolution began to come into motion.
Only into the precursor of the Cultural Revolution, I wonder if the Chinese people would have reacted differently if they had a Horatio Alger of their own to give the poor people hope. Alger stressed the ideas of good honest work and cunning being the best ways to become happy and financially stable, not a struggle for political power. Would the Chinese have become placated due to fictitious stories of poor boys becoming rich? Even though Alger did sell his books for huge sums of money, and even if his stories spread false hope to the poor of American society, his stories were loved by many, and were influential throughout the entire nation.
Perhaps all the Chinese needed was some figure to tell them that they could become prosperous through hard and honest work in the form of a novel. I'll make sure to give you my answer by the time I finish studying up on the cultural revolution.
-Eden Johnson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)