In summary...

                This research project, for me at least, is not coming to an end. Though this will be my final post on this blog, I will continue to research and learn why many people have little or no faith in the people who govern us, and the effects that this distrust has on the people of a nation and the world as a whole. I’ve decided to use my last post to give a general summary of the things I’ve learned as well as an analysis of the things I thought might be true but wanted more factual evidence than I had in the beginning to base my theory off of. I will also include a conclusion of my thoughts on the subject at the end of the post and how my final analysis relates to our modern world.

                I learned several specific factors to distrust in government as I was reading documentation of historical rebellions and revolutions, many of which fall into a small group of categories that I will describe in the paragraph below. It was interesting to read the similarities and the subtle differences in revolutions that have come and gone, suggesting that since the beginning of recorded human history there have been people who have believed in humanity’s rights as a whole. I can say that for the most part, the rights of all people is the main reason that there have been revolutions in our past and will continue to be revolutions until the end of days. There have been many contributing aspects in each specific situation for why people would need to fight for these rights in different times in history, though the goal has generally always been to improve the lives of the citizens of a country and citizens of the world. In the interest of avoiding redundancy and staying on topic, if you’d like to read more about these specific similarities and differences, read some of my other posts or, better yet, do a little research of your own.

                I wouldn’t say I learned all that much in regards to how distrust in public officials comes to be. For the most part, my research supported my initial hypotheses; that people distrust their government based on the conquering of native lands by unwanted invaders, in the case of the native people not having faith in their conquerors; the deprivation of basic human rights, including but not limited to freedom of religion, implementing exclusive restrictions on minority groups instead of a society as a whole, freedom of speech and self-expression, equal opportunity for all citizens to improve their lives through hard work, and protection of these rights and others by their government; and an oppressive economic disparity between the citizens of a country and those who control the politics in that country. I think people like to believe that many of these issues are confined to our past and are no longer relevant in our modern, progressive world. I would argue that these factors are widely prevalent in modern society and that there are several political revolutions in progress based on these factors even as I type this post.

                The final piece of my research that I’d like to point out is the effects that people’s distrust in government has on the people of a nation. As you can probably tell from my words above, you can probably tell that one of the most discernible effects is political revolution, in which a myriad of human lives have been lost. There is also an aftermath to any revolution, in which a nation may be surrounded in political discourse for an indeterminate period of time after the mutinied leaders are out of power. The alternative to revolution, peaceful or otherwise, is the perennial suffering that those without power must endure if they choose not to act against their oppressors. In either case, anguish is apparent and seemingly inescapable.

                In my safe little corner of the world, in which I have a job, a car that I pay for, a roof over my head that I pay for, and an education that I will be paying for in my coming years, I really don’t have much to complain about as far as my personal economic and political situation goes, and I am truly thankful for the opportunities that have been provided for me, and those that I earned through hard work and dedication. This doesn’t negate the fact that since I can remember I have seen unspeakable tragedies passed off as “just the way it is”, and have only become increasingly disgusted with the “way it is” as I’ve grown older and learned more about our world. People are dying from hunger, untreated disease, weather conditions that can’t be avoided without shelter, and unjust wars, every second of every day. If you think this problem only exists in third world countries, go to downtown Portland and tell me the detriments of “greed is good” aren’t alive and well. People do a lot to help each other with no inhibitions regarding borders or nationality, and this is true throughout humanity; however the fact that people are dying from the lack of fundamental human needs while 46% of the world’s wealth is being controlled by 1% of the population, while an inconceivable amount of said wealth supports politicians, suggests that there is something incontrovertibly corrupt at play in our world today.

The sun never set, nor did it ever rise: The British Empire in India

It was true; the sun never set on the British Empire, geographically speaking. However, metaphorically speaking, the sun never seemed to rise over its Indian colonies, and the aftermath of British rule in India still plays a role in the politics of the region to this day. What started as a collection of merchants from the British East Indies Company looking for “quiet trade” was eventually expanded into a full-blown political state controlled by Great Britain, after British armies and their native Indian, British-trained allies defeated the French in the Seven Years’ War. These victories sparked a period of economic exploitation by the merchants of the British East Indies Company. When the company came close to bankruptcy due to lack of management, Great Britain began sending representatives to govern the territory and oversee the company’s proceedings. Some of these governors were interested in learning about and preserving the native culture and allowed natives to hold office in their government, while others abolished the culturally-sensitive policies put in place by their predecessors and opted for a British-controlled state. This created a large gap in the economic classes, with the British in the higher class and the Indians in the lower class.

                Eventually tension grew between the British settlers who respected the culture of the Indians and those who were devoted to bringing the British customs to the Indians, and in effect, so did tensions between the Indians and the British as a whole. Modern technology of the times being brought into India, which contrasted with the slower, more traditional pace of the economy, as well as Christian missionaries clashing with the Hindu and Muslim populations created more unrest. This unrest culminated in the Great India Mutiny in 1857. The rebellion was put down by the British, and resulted in the queen assuming direct control over most of India, and the eventual disbanding of the British East Indies Company. The queen also indirectly controlled much of India through princes who implemented British policies in their kingdoms.  During this period, British companies and schools helped to boost the economy, and the government ran fairly efficiently. However, these institutions further widened the gap between the classes, and Indians were beginning to work for their independence.

                There were several movements advocating for Indian independence during this time, one of which was a Muslim led movement who feared their voices would not be heard in a largely Hindu state. This realization led to a political issue which still exists in India and the surrounding region today, as Muslim and Hindu populations clashed over the land and politics of India.

                During World War I and World War II, Indian recruits in the British military boosted their forces to such an extent that the British were obliged to promise eventual independence for India, with rights to the citizens and economic advantages being provided on the way to independence. In 1920, Mahatma Gandhi emerged as a leading promoter of Indian independence and peaceful civil disobedience to achieve his goal. For fear of their imperialist policies being frowned upon in the international stage, the British were forced to give in to Gandhi and the Indian National Congress, which he led from 1920 until his death. After World War II, the British relinquished their control of India, but this left the question of whether or not there would be a separate state that would be composed of a primarily Muslim population or if the whole region would be left without borders separating the two religious groups. Eventually a plan was formed to create a separate Muslim state in the north, but disagreements between these groups still play a major role in the politics of the region and threaten the stability of the nation.

                Had the British never taken an economically and politically advantageous position in the region, one might wonder if these problems would still exist between the factions of the native populations. In theory, with practice living together and governing themselves instead of having their decisions made by a foreign super power for hundreds of years, some might argue that a peaceful solution could have been reached long ago. Once again, the treatment of native populations as lower class citizens and the governing body of a region making decisions for groups that they have no involvement in create distrust and unrest in the region. There have been generations of Indians who must deal with the issues that may have been solved long ago had the interests of an imperial state not been considered more important than their own, on top of the fact that, as with many other places on earth, the majority of the population still faces economic turmoil and a lack of aid to their suffering. Rather than working together to create a peaceful solution, they first had to find a way to expel their conquerors simply to regain their land and start again from scratch, which can only be summarized as time that needn’t have been wasted if the British nobility wouldn’t have been so narcissistic to think that their way of life is the best way of life.

Trouble in Tibet

                People everywhere have a lack of faith in those who govern them, whether their leader is from the same part of the planet or not. Imperialism doesn’t always take place across the globe, often times it’s quite the opposite. Most times in history when a territory is taken over it’s by another group of people neighboring the territory, not by a foreign superpower eager for global domination. This was certainly the case in Tibet in the 1950’s, when the People’s Republic of China took over Tibet and annexed it as a part of China. Not surprisingly, this didn’t go over very well with the natives, and their unrest culminated in the failed Lhasa uprising of 1959. Since then, there have been countless protests, freedom marches, and international debates as to what the solution for a peaceful Tibet could be. At the forefront of most of these debates is the Dalai Lama, a native of Tibet and a global symbol for peace.

                As with most imperial conquests, the incentives boil down to the economics of the situation. Tibet has an overwhelming plethora of underutilized natural resources, as well as countless square miles of space for urban development. However, many of the natives in Tibet live by humble means, and the thought of skyscrapers filled with outsiders looking to take advantage of their land is less than appealing. Not to mention the basic human rights that the natives have been robbed of, including the right to practice religion and the right to speak freely. The political police are always present as a violent, oppressive force not to be questioned, as the consequences can often mean death to offenders. The police are kept incredibly busy, as there seems to always be a lingering chance of rebellion. I don’t think it would come as a shock to anyone why Tibet is in such turmoil if they knew the circumstances Tibetans faced.

                So what can we learn from their seemingly perpetual strife? The stripping away of rights is one reoccurring factor. One thing is certain; whenever a group of people feels a strong connection to the land in which they live and that land is taken over or invaded, there will always be conflict. It seems that a peaceful resolution is nearly impossible to bring about when the desire for capital gains and the desire to preserve ancient cultural customs clash in one territory. People are compelled to act in their own self-interest, and I can’t think of a single instance in human history when the interests of a conquered people is taken into account, and they have certainly never been held in a higher regard than the interests of those doing the conquering. Would you trust someone who was forcing you out of a place that you considered sacred, simply for their own personal gain? I didn’t think so.

Bibliography:

The Sun Behind the Clouds: Tibet's Struggle for Freedom. Dir. Tenzing Sonam and Ritu Sarin. Perf. The Dalai Lama, Tenzin Tsundue. Arch Communications, White Crane Films, 2010. Documentary.

Close to Home: The Mexican Revolution

      I’d like to jump ahead a couple thousand years from the Romans and take a look at a more modern example of cultural and political upheaval. The Mexican Revolution, which took place from 1910 into the 1920’s, was the first major national revolution of the 20^th century. Its beginnings were rooted in a meticulously orchestrated uprising of peasants in Mexico, led by Pascual Orozco and Francisco “Pancho” Villa in the north and Emiliano Zapata in the south, and was inspired by individuals who questioned the President at the time, Porfirio Díaz.

The main goal of the revolution was to acquire land rights for the working poor; the people working the fields to produce the crops that the land owners capitalized on. The slogan “La tierra es para el que la trabaja”, or “the land is for those who work it”, was an expertly phrased rallying cry for the majority of the population who worked their whole lives and still struggled to get by. It seems that a pattern is emerging; people don’t like when they know that those who have power who are supposed to be using that power to work for human rights and to create methods for aiding their citizens who are in need are also those who are taking advantage of the people who are suffering. It seems so simple, and yet for thousands of years there has been loss and bloodshed due to the fact that there are people who never have to work a day in their life who live like kings and people who work every day of their lives and live in destitution, or don’t live. Many revolutions in history have been fought over this common theme, and the Mexican revolution was no different.

Yet the Mexican revolution also bears a warning in how the next president of Mexico was chosen after Díaz was overthrown. After Díaz resigned and left the country, 2 of the next 3 Presidents were assassinated, and the third also fled the country. When a revolution turns violent, there is no stopping retaliation from your opposition. Díaz left the country in 1911, yet the violence didn’t for another decade or more. I’m not saying that voicing your opinion through force is never necessary; if your people are dying due to oppressive political regimes, at that point a violent revolution would be considered self-defense in my mind. However, in this case as in many cases, violence is often reciprocated, and though people would often die for their revolution, I believe that a just cause should only ever result in violence when all other alternatives have been exhausted. I’m not saying the revolutionaries of Mexico did anything wrong, as I’m sure the wealthy land owners knew there was a general distaste for the aristocratic class. I just thought it was interesting to point out that even though there was a new, democratically elected leader there was not peace, and considerable social and political change sometimes can take a while for people to understand. Not to mention there will always be the ancestry of those whom a revolution overthrew that will harbor resentment.

Other than the moral debate regarding when to cross the line from protesting to rebelling and considering the implications of crossing that line, what can we learn from the Mexican revolution? Well, as I thought I would come to notice, the pattern of class warfare leading to revolution is beginning to show. This usually only occurs when the majority of people are in the underclass, but generally speaking that is the case. I’ve also concluded that when people are given a position of power based on their actions prior to acquiring the position and what they said they would do while they hold it often contradict what they actually do while they have the job. This was the case of Venustiano Carranza, who was elected president after taking part in the revolution. However, he was a wealthy landowner who supported the revolution, and for some reason when he took office his actions didn’t align with the new Constitution of Mexico. This led to his assassination, but also inspired curiosity and perplexity as to what changed from the time he was elected to the time he was killed. Was there a genuine lack of ability on his end to surmount the old system and design a satisfying new system, or was there a genuine lack of desire and will? I suppose I will continue to wonder, but one thing is for sure; history has taught us that a leader will almost certainly disappoint at least half of the population they are leading, and sometimes they will disappoint a much larger percentage when they don’t seem to stand for the principles that they were elected because of.

Bibliography

"The Mexican Revolution: November 20th, 1910 | EDSITEment." The Mexican Revolution: November 20th, 1910 | EDSITEment. Edsitement!, n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2013.

Endless Comparisons: The Romans

                If you've ever taken a history class, I’m sure you have it burned into your brain as much as I do that the only way to learn from our past is to study it and learn. It seems so simple, but this notion needed to be said this bluntly to get the point across to many of us. The United States is often compared to many great and not so great civilizations, but none as often as we are compared to the Romans. This comparison is often made for a good reason; we are incredibly similar to the Romans in many ways and most people would agree that we’d like to keep ourselves from suffering the same fate as they did.

The Romans had the earliest form of a modern democracy; the Roman Republic had an incredibly complex system of checks and balances and public forums for people to voice their opinions, while the Roman Empire had a less complicated system that seemed to feign democracy, instead favoring a more monarch-style, though the Emperor still had councils of advisors. The Senate in both the republic and the empire were deemed to be an advisory council to the magistrates and the emperors, respectively. In the Republic, the senators were from aristocratic families, and there were other councils made up of ordinary citizens to allow their voices to be heard. In the Roman Empire, the Senators were publicly elected. They weren't allowed to make laws, but they had many other critical duties to keep in mind. For example, the Senate’s “advice” was taken most of the time by the magistrates, and since they were the group in charge of foreign policy in a republic that progressed into an imperialist machine, they were often consulted when war was the matter. If this sounds familiar, it’s because our Senate also has the power to declare war, though we gave it to them explicitly in our Constitution instead of the Senate gaining the power over time.

Though the system of checks and balances in the Roman Republic was complex and well thought out, its main flaw was separating the citizens into classes and giving them a place in politics based on their class. People who were wealthy seemed to control politics, even though they claimed to take the advice from all citizens. This caused a great deal of disharmony among the classes. There were also laws against non-citizens obtaining certain rights as well as restrictions for becoming a Roman citizen, and even if you were a citizen sometimes people were denied what we now consider basic rights. As an example, though women were allowed to become citizens, they could neither vote nor own property. Women were still fighting for these rights in our country less than a decade ago, and with the recent repeal of several key aspects of the voting rights act, people worry that they may have to fight for these rights again soon.

Is it narcissistic to compare ourselves to one of the most notorious and famous civilizations of all time? Perhaps it is. However, the fact that there are so many comparisons to be made, only a few of which have been stated here, somewhat justifies this comparison of two world super powers. What can we do to avoid being overthrown by a rival? Theodore Roosevelt would say to speak softly and carry a big stick, but I would argue we also must have some compassion in our pocket and to allow our voices to be heard, not recreated by a politician.

Bibliography

Fagan, Garrett G. "An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers and Their Families." Roman Emperors. Pennsylvania State University, 17 May 2006. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.

Focus...

When I was told that for my first college class I would have no tests and no essays, I got pretty excited. Upon being told that most of the writing we were going to be doing for a Writing 121 class was going to be on a blog on a subject of our own choosing, I got even more excited. Then the reality hit me that I had no experience choosing a topic for my writing that would lead me to make a compelling point, and my excitement quickly turned to familiar school-related anxiety.

From the beginning, I knew one thing about my topic: I wanted it to be bigger than myself and my interests. If you like blues music, nature, and skateboarding, add me on Facebook. This, unlike the aforementioned private personal profile, is posted publicly on the internet for the whole world to read if they so choose. I didn’t want yet another reason for the world to think that all of the youth of today are self-absorbed and ignorant. Though I don’t consider myself either of these things, I felt I didn’t know enough about the world, and isn’t that what college is all about? I don’t say this to insult anyone who chose to write their topic on a specific interest instead of social issues, scientific breakthroughs, or historic events; meaningful metacognition and philosophic epiphanies can be manifested through any medium, as long as you’re thinking.

To choose my topic I began thinking about all the things I had been hearing lately, whether it be from various forms of media or through conversation with other people. I've been noticing a discomfort in the balance of power between ordinary citizens and the public officials that we have elected; a disdain for those given authority even though we were the ones who allowed them to be put into that position. Whether it's because they have let us down in what we thought would be accomplished by electing them or they had a different agenda in mind that we fear might actually be set into motion. Whatever the case may be, people are worried.

What happens when people in a democracy lose trust and faith in the people they elect? Or even worse, what happens when people find fault in a leader who wasn't elected but rather forced their way into a position of power, or never trusted this person in their public quest for personal gain in the first place? In essence, I'm wondering how people are affected when a sense of distrust in the governing bodies of a nation comes about, especially when a way of life is forced upon a group of people by someone whom they never wanted to have that much control over their lives. I could begin answering this question in too many different ways to, so where do I begin?

How does it impact people when they are given a leader that they do not have faith in? What about when they lose faith in someone that they once decided would be the best person for the job? Do they lose their sense of community and nationality, or can they still have trust in their neighbors and just question those people that they don't know? Will people being given a leader that they don't want cause them to have a general sense of weary towards mankind as a whole, or will they find people who hold the same values to the same degree of importance as they do just to reassure themselves that they aren't the only ones? What about when they are right in fearing their leader, or rather conqueror or dictator, when their rights and freedoms are stripped away and their cultures begin to slowly fade? It seems that my question has only raised infinitely more questions, ones that might be answered by imaginary scenarios and how people think they would react, but could be answered much more thoroughly by looking at history and the very real effects of people who had lack of faith in their leaders, with or without good reason. History provides many fine examples of the tragic and, alternatively, inspiring situations that can result when a large percentage of people are governed by someone they don't believe in. So again I ask where to begin?

I've decided that in each post on this blog, I will focus on a different place on earth and time in history, including modern times, when the people's distrust in their governing bodies was in obvious display and in full force. With each post, I'll describe the conflict and the causes that it arose from and examine them to find some sort of parallels in my life.

As an 18 year old Caucasian American male, I have experienced little to no political strife or unjust persecution in my life thus far. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised by someone questioning my choice in topic. Why would someone who has never been personally subjugated to persecution, or even any relative degree of unfairness, by the government be so concerned with people who have? Simply put, I hope to maintain this status as a free thinking individual. By looking at the ways that others have gained this right is a good way to learn how to keep myself from one day losing it.

On top of wanting to maintain my rights to think and question, I’d like to discover a little more about what causes people like me to be so skeptical when someone tells us something, especially when it comes from someone that we really don’t have any reason to trust, like politicians for example. I don’t believe most people when they tell me what the weather will be like on any given day, much less whether or not there are weapons of mass destruction in the hands of people who intend to use them against me. And most of the time, I personally know the people who I ask about the weather.

I don’t mean to pick on any particular politician in our country; I like to believe that at least half of them were hopeful college students hoping to make a difference in the world for the better at one point or another, based on whatever morals they had at the time. However, the fact that for the most part they identify with one of two parties causes me to find fault in the political system in our country today, and really how it’s been since the beginning of our nation. Certainly each politician’s personal views are more specific than the labels “democrat” and “republican” can communicate. Sure these labels can make voting a less stressful task for some; they vote for the person who identifies with the same party as they do. However, I believe that voting shouldn’t be a stressful task in the first place. I’d much rather take the time to learn about the person I cast my vote for and make sure that we feel the same about as many issues as possible than have to fight against whoever we elect if every American adult went into the voting booth with no clue what any of the issues were, or even what the parties stood for. This is why I have trouble placing my trust in any politician who doesn’t recognize this fault, not to mention the seemingly justified opinion that the bipartisan system seems to create stagnation in our government, especially in Congress.

Up until now this sounds an awful lot like an opinion-based, idealistic and pessimistic rant. Though that sort of writing can be entertaining and often times effectively drive home your point, I like to think that my opinions are based in fact, at least the ones I share with a public audience in a forum that is based in education. To demonstrate this I’d like to share a few statistics that give my ideas a little credibility.

Let’s start out with the “leader of the free world”, our current president Barack Obama. I wasn’t incredibly surprised to find out that his most recent approval rating is just 43%, while 51% disapprove and the remaining 6% either were undecided or didn’t respond. If we compare this to our former president, George W. Bush, we find that in this time in 2005, which means he was in office the same amount of time into his presidency that Barack Obama is currently into his, we find that his approval rating was 39%, with 57% disapproving and 3% failing to respond definitively or at all. These numbers were just as expected. Yes, they have debatably the hardest job in the world, but if your work was approved only 43 or 39 percent of the time, you’d be fired. Now some might say that people will disapprove of a president that isn’t part of their political party 10 out of 10 times, but even still that leaves a large group of people who disapprove of their president even when their political affiliations are the same. So should these people be concerned about the fact that over half the population of our country disapproves of them, and if they aren’t is there anything we can do about it? I’d say yes and yes, but will leave it at that in order to avoid more opinions about what I think could be done. I’ll get back to the numbers.

The statistics I found shocking were those relating to the highest legislative body in our country, the U.S. Senate. Currently, our senate has an astonishing 5% approval rate, with an 83% disapproval rating. Upon further investigation, I was a little less surprised by these numbers when I found out how little Congress actually does. From 1999 to 2010, a total of 2657 total bills were passed by Congress. This number seems high, but considering it averages out to be about 5% of the total bills, it doesn’t seem like they are doing much for us to approve of.

I think most Americans would agree that our public officials should be working together for the good of the citizens of our nation and the world, especially those who can’t help themselves, as long as these citizens don’t believe that harming others is going to bring them any fortune. I believe that eventually the goal would to be having the government play little to no role in our lives, allowing the citizens of the world to rationally and peacefully solve our differences, as if the government is our parents and we are children waiting to grow up. However, some people will always be corrupt, and so having some system there to put these people in check is for the greater good. Instead, what I see in our government is people split into two groups arguing amongst themselves over issues that are only pertinent to a percentage of people. Yes, these issues should be resolved, but not by arguing about the morals behind the issues from two different sides while not actually working toward a mutually beneficial solution. A football game has teams; a nation should be united if anything worthwhile is going to be accomplished. For all of these reasons, I’ve chosen to examine what happens when people lose trust in those who govern them, for it seems that we are moving closer and closer to the possibility of history repeating itself as a greater percentage of Americans come to realize that our government is not doing what it should be.

As a final thought on the state of our current political situation and, in effect, the final thought of this entry of my blog, we cannot claim to be the moral standard and the greatest country on earth at the same time; a truly great and moral nation would understand that we individually, and therefore we as a whole, are part virtue and part vice. Our nationalistic ego is much too large for us to be anywhere close to the greatest nation on earth, for it keeps us blind to the possibility of expanding our virtues and eliminating the vices. Any nation that believes it is the greatest nation on earth is in reality far from it.

Bibliography

Peters, Gerhard. "Presidential Popularity Over Time." Presidential Popularity Over Time. The American Presidency Project, n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.

Tauberer, Joshua. "Kill Bill: How Many Bills Are There? How Many Are Enacted? : GovTrack.us Blog." GovTrackus Blog RSS. GovTrack.us, 4 Aug. 2011. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.

Richinick, Michelle. "Congress Approval Rating Plummets To 5%." MSNBC. MSNBC, 9 Oct. 2013. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.