Home stretch here, folks, and not a bad week for reading.
You have three primary sources from the reader for this week: Mohandas Ghandi (p. 295), George Kennan's The Long Telegram (p. 326), and Isabel & David Crook (p.340). They are all on the longer side, but I think all of these have really important content. Hopefully, you'll be able to see the impact of the things we discuss in the coming classes in some of the events today.
Because this week is half October, half November, I'll make you guys a deal: I'll count the activity, if you complete it, toward EITHER October or November. So, if you didn't do a post in October, now's your chance. If you want to get November's out of the way, it would work for that too.
You'll get your map quizzes back in section, as well as an update on your participation grades going into the last few weeks of the semester.
THINGS TO THINK ABOUT FOR SECTION:
1) Ghandi writes about satyagraha - what is it, and what are some examples that he provides throughout the letter? Why use it as a method of rebelling against the colonial government? Why write to Lord Irwin to announce his next proposed Salt March? What wrongs does he accuse the colonial government of committing?
2) Kennan is attempting to explain to the US State Department the mindset of the post-WWII Communist regime in the Soviet Union (Russia). How does he describe Soviet policy? How does it feel about the West? What are its goals, according to Kennan? What should the US do in response? Does it sound like he's describing Communism fairly?
3) The Crooks were in China during the struggle between the KMT (the Chinese Nationalist Government) and the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) for control of the country. How do the Crooks describe land ownership prior to Communist intervention? What changes did the Communists make, and how did it affect the peasants? What was the main problem the villagers had with Fu Gao-lin? What do these accusations and the subsequent punishments show about the villagers attitudes toward inequality?
ACTIVITY - due by 11:59pm on Wednesday, 10/31 if you choose to complete it
Pick ONE of the above THREE questions and answer it in the comments. It may be easier to wait until after lecture on Wednesday so you have some more context, but feel free to do so sooner if you prefer.
Stay safe with the wind & see everyone on Thursday!
Also: if any of you are considering seeing a movie, Argo is very good. It depicts a portion of the events of the Iranian Revolution (albeit a small part and from an American perspective), which is also the topic of Persepolis. I've embedded the trailer below.
You have three primary sources from the reader for this week: Mohandas Ghandi (p. 295), George Kennan's The Long Telegram (p. 326), and Isabel & David Crook (p.340). They are all on the longer side, but I think all of these have really important content. Hopefully, you'll be able to see the impact of the things we discuss in the coming classes in some of the events today.
Because this week is half October, half November, I'll make you guys a deal: I'll count the activity, if you complete it, toward EITHER October or November. So, if you didn't do a post in October, now's your chance. If you want to get November's out of the way, it would work for that too.
You'll get your map quizzes back in section, as well as an update on your participation grades going into the last few weeks of the semester.
THINGS TO THINK ABOUT FOR SECTION:
1) Ghandi writes about satyagraha - what is it, and what are some examples that he provides throughout the letter? Why use it as a method of rebelling against the colonial government? Why write to Lord Irwin to announce his next proposed Salt March? What wrongs does he accuse the colonial government of committing?
2) Kennan is attempting to explain to the US State Department the mindset of the post-WWII Communist regime in the Soviet Union (Russia). How does he describe Soviet policy? How does it feel about the West? What are its goals, according to Kennan? What should the US do in response? Does it sound like he's describing Communism fairly?
3) The Crooks were in China during the struggle between the KMT (the Chinese Nationalist Government) and the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) for control of the country. How do the Crooks describe land ownership prior to Communist intervention? What changes did the Communists make, and how did it affect the peasants? What was the main problem the villagers had with Fu Gao-lin? What do these accusations and the subsequent punishments show about the villagers attitudes toward inequality?
ACTIVITY - due by 11:59pm on Wednesday, 10/31 if you choose to complete it
Pick ONE of the above THREE questions and answer it in the comments. It may be easier to wait until after lecture on Wednesday so you have some more context, but feel free to do so sooner if you prefer.
Stay safe with the wind & see everyone on Thursday!
Also: if any of you are considering seeing a movie, Argo is very good. It depicts a portion of the events of the Iranian Revolution (albeit a small part and from an American perspective), which is also the topic of Persepolis. I've embedded the trailer below.
Kennan states that soviet policy and capitalist policy can not co-exist, they will constantly remain at conflict and thus at war. Also shows Soviet policy as a propagandist machine feeding the people with ideas that show capitalist nations are always to blame for wars, both within themselves(other capitalist nations) and with socialist nations. But as Kennan states, the majority of the actual people are peaceful and not in objection to the outside world, "eager above all to live in peace and enjoy fruits of their own labor."
ReplyDeleteKennan states that the reason why Marxism and socialist thought has thrived so much in this area is because of a fear of external powers being so much more stronger. They are able to harness this fear to almost centralize their government even though it is truthfully a very weak system. Some of the goals as stated by Kennan, are to begin to advance it's power and control over neighboring countries and weaker ones as they seek to separate themselves from the global system and achieve autarchy.
He also gives reasons as to how the US should respond. They should keep a tight reign on communist parties in other countries, especially how they interact with various national associations susceptible to penetration like labor unions, and youth leagues. They will as well need to pay particular attention to colonized areas where the people are dependent on western powers. The Soviets will use propaganda to expose the weaknesses of western colonial powers and thus take over with communist ideas and ideals. To respond to all of this the US must educate the public of the current situation of the Russians, keep our own society healthy and appealing to live in, help give other nations security and guidance rather then freedoms and responsibilities, and have confidence in what they are doing or they may too fall into the same situation.
From what I read Kennan seems to give a fair assessment of the situation, not placing the blame on the people who are no different then the rest of the world, but rather on certain corrupted leading individuals and ideals. This is as well written from an American so their may definitely may be more bias in all of this than I realize.
Sam Meyung(Please use for Oct.)
I like the Ghandi one in that he proposes Civil Disobedience is a driving force behind changing power. It is a non-violent way to say "I give you no authority over me".
ReplyDelete"satyagraha" is non-violent protest, which included civil disobedience practices. By spinning their own yarn and not buying from the government (as was law) and by going on treks to collect their own salt (also against law) they simply said "we give you no authority over us" and disobeyed the colonial government.
By responding with violence, which the Indian people were already on the receiving end of, the people would only inflame the issue. Violence is employed and the both sides look like monsters, but a man beating up someone putting up no resistance looks like the monster and the beaten man looks in the right. This protest brings about attention to the things that the protesters disagree with much better than violence. Violence can be disagreement over just about anything; by collecting salt the protesters showed that they had a problem with THAT instead of taking up arms and showing the general "they're pissed about SOMETHING". As this was world news as well it showed to other colonial powers and places in the world. Martin Luther King Jr. took inspiration from this.
Ghandi accused the government of lying to the people (cited 3 flyers) in order to justify the tax money it took and also of allowing the lower-file members of it's lawkeepers to violently respond to the people. Simple protests could lead to deaths or beatings. He directly states that the tax on salt should be removed as the government doesn't even harvest good salt.
John B
(Thurs 10:20)
Land ownership primarily went to landlords in the area and as well as landlords living in other villages, and rich peasants. The remaining land of about 218 acres, was split among 373 families. The less wealthy peasants did not have access to own very much land, if any. The communists made changes so that the poorer peasants were free from taxation. The fear of having their land taken away by wealthy landowners was also expelled because landlords and rich peasants held one-sixth less of the land they had in the past. A new class emerged, known as the “new middle peasants.” The main problem with Fu Gao-lin was that he created a string of wrecked marriages in the village for business purposes alone. I am slightly confused as to what the punishments show about the villagers attitudes toward inequality.
ReplyDeleteKusum R. 11:30 Thursday
ReplyDeleteSatyagraha is a practice of non violent protest adovated by Mohandas Gandhi.Through the letter he talks about his march for salt without having to pay for the tax. He also mentions to Lord Irwin about the violence and assaults that his officials have inflicted upon the villagers. He used this method of rebellion because he says, "the only way to conquer violence is through non-violence pure and undefiled." By suffereing the violence and not acting against the colonial government will get people attention and show that whatever the colonial government were doing were very wrong by bringing them the bad attention. He announced the second march that he was doing to the Lord because he wanted the British to recognize his self determination to bring political change and to challenge the British colonialism.
Gandhi's letter to Lord Irwin about his march perfectly demonstrates his methods of satyagraha, or Civil Disobedience. It stresses that non-violent protest is the best way to end violent regimes. His biggest example is the private production of salt that circumvents the government monopoly. It is a good way to protest the government because it sheds light on all of the injustices the government imposes on the colony as well as saving life by not fighting. Also, by through non-violence, the rest of the world is more likely to choose the side of the protestors because they are peaceful and only sticking up for what they believe is right. By writing to Lord Irwin, Gandhi places all of the control of the conflict into Lord Irwin's hands and forces him to make a decision. Therefore, if there happens to be a violent backlash, it appears to be unprovoked. Gandhi accuses the government of wrongful imprisonment, physical beatings, shootings, burning crops and raiding markets, as well as writing falsehoods about Gandhi and the situation in India.
ReplyDeleteMichael Constans, Thurs. 11:30
Prior to Communist intervention, most of the land in Ten Mile Inn was owned by a very small percentage of wealthy households and some rich peasants. There were 40 families who just had enough to get bu and some extra. The rest of the land (218 acres) was split among 373 families. It is crazy how little they owned. The communists introduced a proportionate taxation system, in which only the richest 30% of the people were taxed. This system attempted to lessen the cycle of peasant debt. This also resulted in the new class of the "new middle peasants."Former landlords and rich peasants held only one-sixth the land they had in the past. Fu Gao-Lin had an affair with the wife of another villager, one with lower economic, physical, and political standing. The people were appalled at this situation, and at the fact that he ruined other marriages for business reasons. He was made to divorce his second wife, and paind many compensations for his actions. The people of the village had a hatred for inequality which had been prevalent for years in the village. Anyone who was taken advantage of was sympathized with.
ReplyDeleteIn this passage, Ghandi writes about Satygraha, which is a non violent protest that he practiced to reach political change. A few examples of this that the people practiced were spinning their own yarn, and marching to collect their own salt. They used this method of rebelling because they didn't want to provoke any unwanted violence. He explains that "the only way to conquer violence is through non-violence pure and undefiled." Ghandi chose to write to Lord Irwin because this issue has provoked universal protest and civil disobedience, so he is giving him a warning that if he doesn't remove the salt tax he will march to collect salt. Ghandi then accuses the Colonial Government of taxing unfairly to the people.
ReplyDeleteThe Krooks describe land ownership before the Communist intervention as living in "dire circumstances" (p. 340). Peasants died in times of famine and landlords grew richer with the foreclosures. The communists introduced a new taxation system that saved 70 percent of people from paying taxes. This account portrays the communists are wonderful people who helped their country. The peasants complaints with Fu consisted of his infidelity, affair with a married woman and his ruining of good marriages for business success. He also occupied households unwelcome to further his business success. After being mistreated for so long, the villagers had no tolerance for this inequality and made adequate punishments for his crimes.
ReplyDeleteSatyagraha is a nonviolent protest. Ghandi arranged a satyagraha in the form of a Salt March where he and seventy eight others marched to the sea to collect their own salt and not pay taxes. He also talks of a vegetable market that will not sell to officials. Nonviolent protests get attention and get points across without giving in to the violence that the government has already begun, essentially hopefully without any one being harmed. Ghandi writes to Lord Irwin as a threat it seems. He tells Irwin how they can be stopped, what they want and why they are marching. The letter presses Lord Irwin to understand their meaning and know that they will not stop unless arrested in front of everyone or killed in front of everyone. Ghandi accuses the government of breaking bones, taking national flags and tormenting people to get them to obey the laws. He also accuses them of lying to the people, raiding markets and burning fields.
ReplyDeleteJocossa
Satyagraha could be defined as nonviolent resistance towards a group or policy. Gandhi and his followers practiced satyagraha in 1928 at Bardoli, and plan to again at Dharasana. Another example of satyaghara can be seen in the raid of a vegetable market in Gujarat. The owners of shops were persecuted, but "submitted without retaliation". Gandhi believes in this method of protesting because according to him, "the only way to conquer violence is through non-violence." Along with this description, Gandhi writes Lord Irwin about the many wrongdoings and false statements made by the government. He provides examples of how each statement made by the "Collector's Office" is far from the truth. This passage is powerful because it promotes change through nonviolence, especially during a very violent era.
ReplyDeleteLucas Chaney (Thurs. 10:20)
Satyagraha is a form of non violent protest that Gandhi used against the British colonial government in India to try and persuade them against what he thought to be unjust rule like the salt tax. He shows Satyagraha by organizing a protest against the salt tax by walking 240 miles to the ocean so he and his followers could collect salt and not have to pay the tax. He uses this method because it is a way to get things done without having to be destructive or hurt others as well as it shows a greater message. It shows that they are better people for not resorting to violence shown by this quote, "If you say, as you have said, that the civil disobedience must end in violence, history will pronounce the verdict that the British Government, not bearing to understand nonviolence, goaded human nature to violence which it could understand and deal with." He writes because he wants the British government to be completely aware of how he thinks about them and what they are doing, he wants them to know that they are wrong and that they are not going to stop him from trying to bring change. All this is brought about by what Gandhi feels are injustices by the British colonial government some of which include, an unjust miscalculated salt tax, lying to the people about the tax as well as about other types of resources or skills like spinning, and about how money is lied about and spent inefficiently.
ReplyDeleteLindsey Chuha
The Crooks described the land ownership as there was 700 acres of land for about 1,400 people. 120 acres was owned by 8 households of landlords, 90 acres owned by other landlords, the upper-middle class had enough to get along, and the rest of the land, 218 acres was split between 373 families. The Communists came in and changed the taxing among the wealthy and poor. The poor was not forced to pay taxes. This resulted in the "new middle class." The main problem villagers had with Fu Gao-lin was that he was a homewrecker, and was causing people to get divorces to help him with his business tactics. These people are against inequality, they feel that one should have to walk a mile in someone elses shoes to see some of the difficulties they have to face.
ReplyDeleteIn the reading, The Second Letter to Lord Irwin, Ghandi describes his concept of satyagraha. This is simply non violent protesting in hopes to achieve political change, specifically dealing with the salt tax by the British government. He conducted the "salt march" in which he and many of his followers walked 240 miles to the ocean to collect salt without tax. This is a rebellion against the tax imposed by the colonial government. He disagrees with colonial government and the way they take over their colonies, so this is his way of nonviolently fighting against them. This civil disobedience brings attention to the wrongs of the colonial government to all that hear and see their protests. He sent this letter to Lord Irwin warn him of the second march. He was trying to instigate change and thought by warning the government they would perhaps make a change rather then go through more public scrutiny that was a result of the first march. He accuses the colonial government of three big lies. Telling their people that the monopoly is helping them, that they are supplying villages with good spinning equipment and lastly that the government is spending their money beneficially.
ReplyDelete- Caitlin Higgins
Satyagraha is explained by Ghandi as the practice of nonviolent protest in order to fight the violent aggression practiced by the British raj. The Salt Act was a law passed in 1882 in India that allowed government monopoly over salt collection and distribution. This act allowed the British government to control taxation of salt in India, taxation that was completely unnecessary. In response to this act, Ghandi was able to make the Salt Act a target of Satyagraha in 1930, organizing a 240 mile trek to Dandi, Gujarat in order to collect salt tax free. This example of Civil Disobedience gained a huge following and media coverage worldwide. This method of rebelling was effective against the colonial government, as Ghandi states, “The greater the repression and lawlessness on the part of the authority, the greater should be the suffering courted by the victims”(298). When the British government asserted their authority unfairly on civil protesters, it would always negatively affect the global view of Britain and place those practicing Satyagraha in the role of harmless victim. Yes, these men were breaking the law, but the laws that they were breaking had been unfairly placed upon them by a government that never should have been ruling there in the first place. Ghandi is writing to Lord Irwin with one purpose in mind. He is trying to stop the violence that the British raj was practicing on the people by using the immense strength that Satyagraha had gained from the last Salt March.
ReplyDeleteSatyagraha was Ghandi's form of protesting in a non-violent manner. He hoped that it would achieve change, particularly a tax the British government imposed on salt. He organized a march to the ocean to get salt without paying the tax that he saw as unfair. He disagreed with the tax and with the way the British had colonized his country and a march was his way of fighting back without actual fighting, because he believed it would be more powerful that way. He further accused the British of lying to their people and raiding a vegetable market.
ReplyDeleteSatyagraha is a political practice that is not violent and is to encourage a political change in the people. His first example is the salt march. Instead of rebelling and starting any issues, he and his followers simply went for the salt on their own (240 miles) and retrieved what they thought was rightfully theirs without a tax.
ReplyDeleteThis is used as a method for rebelling because Gandhi does not believe in violence to get what he and his people want. He believes in being kind and treating others well and thinks violence would just cause issues that aren't needed.
I think he wrote to Lord Irwin because even though he was technically breaking the law by taking the salt without tax, he felt that it was a little more acceptable since he established why he did it ahead of time. He also thought that by telling Lord Irwin his reasoning, he may come to some sort of agreement about it and understand both sides of the issue.
He says that the government does not understand non-violence. He thinks that his actions may be better for his people but that the government will not understand it because it's being handled somewhat reasonably. He wants to handle the issue sans violence but doesn't think the British government is capable.
-Kaily Cunningham-
Vicki F. 11:30
ReplyDelete*How do the Crooks describe land ownership prior to Communist intervention?: 70% of the people lived in the most dire circumstances. For every 10 people in the village there was only one animal to eat. Many families had to share a leg. The poorest 373 families all shared 218 acres of land.
*What changes did the Communists make, and how did it affect the peasants?: The organized the peasants to defend themselves. The poor and middle class peasants rallied most around it. Only the richest 30% of people had to pay taxes. A new class of "middle-class" peasants was formed
*What was the main problem the villagers had with Fu Gao-lin?: His divorce and remarriage
*What do these accusations and the subsequent punishments show about the villagers attitudes toward inequality?: Said he should be separated from his second wife and do work for the soldiers families. It showed they just wanted him to feel the emotional impact of his actions. He made people's lives difficult so they wanted to make his life difficult.
2) How does he describe Soviet policy? How does it feel about the West? What are its goals, according to Kennan? What should the US do in response? Does it sound like he's describing Communism fairly?
ReplyDeleteIn the text,George didn't seem treating Communism fairly. He described Soviet policy as a shabby and and faulty political system which gradually corroded Russia to be recessive and declined. He also labeled that people in Russia, especially Russia rulers, felt cowed in interchanging feedbacks with western countries. Because Russia still treated western countries as it's enemy, the country kept showing uneasiness in communicating or asking a help to western countries. George said, in order to stimulate harmony between Soviet union and western countries, U.S should be gentle and attempt the country itself to offer a hand to Russia.
Satyagraha is the form of political protest that Gandhi utilized to combat British rule - it takes a completely nonviolent approach to creating political change. The main instance of satyagraha that Gandhi mentions in this letter is his plans for a march on Dharasana, to collect salt from the ocean there without paying the required salt tax. He also mentions other peaceful protests as well, including one on Bardoli. On the contrary, he accuses the British government of using violence and corruption to retain power. He recounts brutal attacks and instances of physical assault on citizens, talks about the burning of paddy fields and raids on vegetable markets, and also cites several lies that the British have been spreading through their propaganda pamphlets, as well as other unfair "inactivities." Gandhi however, did not think these methods were effective, and chose to utilize satyagraha instead because he believed it to be more powerful. He says, "the only way to conquer violence is through non-violence pure and undefiled." In this instance though, I believe that he was writing to Lord Irwin because he was hoping that the British ruler would actually succumb to their requests and nullify the salt tax. He told the ruler that if the tax were removed, they would cancel the march, but if not - the march would continue as scheduled. In keeping with the ideals of satyagraha, I believe that he wanted to avoid all action as much as possible, and so wanted to cancel the raid if possible, to avoid the potential injury and destruction of more Indian resistors. He wanted to give the British an opportunity to act with civility, but he also wanted them to know that they were not afraid to march themselves. Ultimately, he wanted the tax nullified, and saw asking for it to be so as a peaceful means to accomplish that end.
ReplyDeleteKennan describes the soviet policy as one of defensive tactics and quasi-isolationism. The soviets feel that capitalist nations cannot coexist peacefully with capitalist ones. They (the governing) feel that one must essentially destroy the other and so decide the world economic state. As such the soviet government seeks to spread socialism as far as possible, with as little resistance as possible. This means promising defense and stability to surrounding countries rocked by the recent war and are suffering economically and/or are fearing for their safety (especially from the new world powers). Outside of these socialist states the U.S.S.R. will have no economic or social interaction with the west and will work to actively impede and destroy its influence with the final goal of a world socialist system. though Kennan sites the flexibility in the soviet foreign policy involving resistance (if significant resistance is encountered they can and will withdraw), he notes the likelihood of the invasion of nearby valuable territories such as Iran. Kennan suggests that in order to combat the soviet aggression and defend itself from this “Parasite,” America must first focus on educating the public in the reality of the Soviet socioeconomic state. That is, many common people do not necessarily agree with government views, they are adhering to them for the sake of unity (essentially a sense of pride, safety, and strength). As such the political state is fragile and is only supported by the military (which is inferior in power) and the economic system is just as fragile. Next Kennan promotes resolution of American problems and nationalism as to heighten the status with which it is viewed in the world. Finally he urges providing assistance to those countries desperate for protection and economic stability before they can be helped by the Soviets as to contain the spread of socialism. Kennan takes a noticeable bias in his descriptions though, referring to commoners of Eastern Europe, specifically those vulnerable to soviet influence and (willful) absorption with such derogations as “backward.” He also holds a notable lack of intimidation when it comes the soviet state, saying fear of the soviets could be dramatically decreased if people knew the reality of it, The reality in his mind being one of little concern (competition), a power with which America could easily contend with given the right policy adjustments.
ReplyDeleteLogan Rasnick
Kennan describes Soviet policy solely concerned with the validation of the communist system. It seems from Kennan's perspective, that most issues dealing with the USSR are dealt with in a propagandist way that was intended to win over the mindset of the Soviet people AND to sell the communist system to other nations that were rebuilding after World War 2. The USSR was not a big fan of the capitalist West. Kennan mentioned a Stalin quote where he mentioned that eventually the two centers of commerce would be a capitalist nation and a communist nation and that the two systems simply could not coexist. With this mindset, the USSR's goals were to first to establish communist governments in surrounding countries and down the road usurp capitalist governments worldwide by sparking revolutions from within (not necessarily all at once take down the U.S. but first establish communist regimes in colonies in efforts to limit U.S. resources so as to weaken major capitalist economies.) Kennan proposes a few solutions to the Soviet problem including: containment of communism in particular educating our own people about what a communist lifestyle is like, and maybe even more important is keeping the capitalist system healthy and thriving so other countries can find the capitalist system more appealing. I don't think Kennan was describing the general system of communism as much as he was describing the Soviet angle on communism. Communism and capitalism could, in a perfect world, coexist. I believe Kennan understood what communism/marxism was and understood that in theory it could only work with a perfect leader. I trust Kennan more so than anyone else in the time period. He was in Moscow and saw firsthand what Soviet communism was like. Sure he was biased toward capitalism but I'm sure he observed livelihoods of citizens and how much better everything would be with a capitalist system.
ReplyDeleteBlair Lehmkuhl
October please
Prior to the Communist intervention, the land was owned by a small portion of the population, the wealthy landowners and rich peasants. This group gained from the losses, such as foreclosures, of the much larger peasant group. Famine was a major problem that affected mainly the poor peasants. With the arrival of the Communist group, the suffering of the peasants was lessened as they introduced a taxation that rather than taxing the poor taxed the wealthy whom had money to spare. The peasants were able to own a bit of land, allowing them to escape the debt cycle and become more self-sufficient. Fu Gao-lin had ruined his own marriage and many others in the pursuit of business and personal gain. He invaded business and homes without permission and treated people much like the pre-Communist landowners had treated the poor peasants. The villagers decided his punishment for his misdoings, clearly showing their hatred of inequality and their drive for justice.
ReplyDelete(Please count as October!)
Kennan first explains how Stalin viewed the future of the world in 1927, when he spoke to Americans about how there would be a great divide of ideologies in the world; one of capitalism, and one of socialism. The Soviets say capitalism and socialism are prone to conflicts, and that capitalism causes most wars as it is, but Kennan points out that the USSR has a great propaganda machine that blinds its people.
ReplyDeleteHe describes the Soviet view of the world as a long standing insecurity of the Russians regarding the advancement of the West. “For Russian rulers have invariably sensed that their rule was relatively archaic in form, fragile and artificial in its psychological foundation, unable to stand comparison or contact with political systems of western countries.” Their insecurity and fear of the outside world meshed well with the solutions and philosophy that Marxism proposed. Kennan also states that the Bolshevik leaders did not know how to rule outside of a dictatorship.
Kennan says that the Soviets wish to create autarchy over its land and nearby land, as well as to create an environment in failing western states and bodies that is favorable to socialism Their conviction that the two worlds cannot exist together is dangerous for the U.S., but Kennan says that if the U.S. “has sufficient force and makes clear his readiness to use it, he rarely has to do so.” Kennan says that the American people should be educated about the Russian situation. He says that U.S. domestic policy and the health of our society should be strong, to counter the “disease” that is communism. He says that the U.S. must reassure other countries of the rewards of capitalism and democracy and that their security can be guaranteed with these things. Finally he says the U.S. should cling to its world views and concepts to stay strong.
It sounds to me that he is describing communism as a form of government that is attached to the Russian world view and way of life. He comments on how they have sacrificed ethical values in the name of Marxism, attaching a negative connotation to communism as a whole, instead of the fact that Russian leaders use it as a mechanism to keep power over their people.
Kennan in “The Long Telegraph”, described the Soviet policy as a “non-co-exist-able” threat rather exposed to the capitalism, more specifically, the western countries. The West was an entity clustering more competent, more powerful and highly organized societies, but also a strong presence of anti-communistic power in the understanding of the Soviet policy. Hence, the Soviet rulers expressed “insecurity” towards the existence of this great power. “In course of the future development of international revolution there will emerge two centers of world significance: a socialist center, drawing… a capitalist center… Battle between these two centers of command of world economy will decide the fate of capitalism and of communism in the entire world. ” (P. 327) By borrowing the quote from Stalin, Kennan clarified the attitude of the rulers in Russia as an embodiment of Soviet society. It is interesting enough that Kennan pointed out that to most of the people under the policy looked forward to in peace and resent wars, and the “insecurity” annoyed the rulers mainly. As the rulers of the Soviet policy instilled the people that the western countries were the sculptors for the wars, they set up goals to unify neighbor countries in order to pursue autarchy. Kennan was particularly worried about the situation that the attempt of the Soviet policy to unify the power of colonial and dependent peoples will weaken the administration of the western countries over the colonies. In order to keep the situation from happening, the U.S. should prevent the communist parties from contacting the potential “customers”, such as labor unions, women’s organizations and youth leagues, who would possibly interact with the penetration of the Soviet policy. Also, the U.S. should provide necessary “guidance” and “security” to these neighbor nations of Russia in advance.
ReplyDeleteKennan’s idea was unavoidably based on the American standard and not without a sense of “Orientalism” talked about by Edward Said, but it was a correct diplomatic strategy anyway.
Gandhi was an advocate for nonviolent protest (Satyagraha) and wrote this letter explaining to Lord Irwin that he planned to lead a protest against the Salt tax. Gandhi’s message of great political change through peaceful protest is clearly inspirational, but also strategic. Obviously Lord Irwin wasn’t going to lift the Salt Act just because Gandhi wrote him a nice letter, so why did Gandhi write it? To raise awareness of this injustice and to motivate people to join his protest. Gandhi points out many of the injustices in this letter but takes the moral high ground and says he will not fight violence with violence. What a great way to get people on your side!
ReplyDeleteLee Sutton-Ramspeck
He describes the Soviet Policy as being against U.S. goals and not for supporting a World Bank or the International Monetary Fund. He's talking about the Soviet Union Government, not the people. The people are weak and scared, not exactly FOR communism but communism is forced upon them by Government officials. Russia was a peasant country before the elite forced communism on them. He says that the Soviet leaders believe there are two worlds, a socialist (communist) world, and a capitalist world and the two worlds will not likely coexist and battling will decide whose idea is superior. Kennan says that "efforts will be made to advance official limits of Soviet power"..."Soviet policy will be directed toward weakening of power and influence and contacts of advanced western nations". "Soviet policy will really be dominated by pursuit of autarchy". Kennan states that the Soviet Union wants to dominate areas with communism such as labor unions, youth leagues, womens organizations, racial societies, religious societies, social organizations, cultural groups, liberal magazines, publishing houses etc. in a secret underground fashion. "Liberal opinion in western countries will be mobilized to weaken colonial policies" -- not sure what this means? Does this mean that Soviet Union will use the westernized liberal ideals to destroy colonial policy? He wants the U.S. to not stand down to the Soviet union and he says that if the U.S. does stand up for themselves and not back down (resistance) then the Soviets will not be able to continue to fight because they are undoubtedly the weaker force. He wants the U.S. to educate the public about the Russian situation, to improve the U.S. society by improving self-confidence, discipline, morality, and community spirit of its' own people, and create a picture for other countries of the world they would like to see as the U.S. being positive and constructive, to make other countries develop similar political processes. He also thinks the U.S. should have courage and self confidence to cling to their own methods of human society...aka never becoming like the Soviets and accept or adapt to communism in any way.
ReplyDeleteI don't really know if he's describing communism fairly, from what I've read in Persepolis and what we've learned in class it seems as though communism is making things more balanced and fair for the very poor, to get the people at the top 1% to pay more of the taxes and help get the very poor out of debt and out of paying higher taxes... it's a way of making things more balanced and equal but in this story he is saying that the Soviet Union peasants are not for communism in their country and the Government is, so this is confusing to me.