Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Civil Rights in Nazi Germany

Throughout the period of time where the Nazis had taken over Germany, Nazi soldiers ignored the Civil Rights and went against them ultimately. Civil rights are the rights of citizens to "political and social freedom and equality". Knowing how the Nazi's propaganda showcased how their way of life was "benefiting" the people of Germany, it wasn't surprising when Nazi soldiers would march into houses unannounced and search through people's homes; privacy ceased to exist. A civil right could be the right to vote, once turned to a certain age. The civil rights don't discriminate through race, religion, skin, personality, gender or origin. However, it would be crazy to say that the Nazi's were kindly to Jews. Even more, since the Propaganda posters and the elections stretched the truth, people believed that the searching was just temporary and was just helping the country get rid of the people Germany as a nation could not trust.   


-R  

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

The Treaty of Versailles: Fair or Unfair?

The Treaty of Versailles, was made at the final end of World War I, or as known as the The Great War at the time. On the  28th of June, 1919, the treaty was signed. Coincidentally or purposely, that was the exact date five years ago when assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which was the main cause of why the war started. The Treaty of Versailles was directed at Germany for possibly the reason that a part of the "Big Three" (consisting of David Lloyd Jones, Clemenceau and Woodrow Wilson) wanted Germany to be thrashed. The following treaty states the agreements that Germany had to make after defeat.

"Therefore the treaty contained the following articles:


80. Germany will respect the independence of Austria. 


81. Germany recognizes the complete independence of Czechoslovakia. 


87. Germany recognizes the complete independence of Poland. 


119. Germany surrenders all her rights and titles over her overseas countries. 


159. The German military forces shall be demobilized and reduced not to exceed 100,000 men. 


181. The German navy must not exceed 6 battleships, 6 light cruisers, 12 destroyers, and 12 torpedo boats. No submarines are to be included. 


198. The Armed Forces of Germany must not include any military or naval air forces. 


231. Germany and her Allies accept the responsibility for causing all the loss and damage to the Allied Powers. 


233. Germany will pay for all damages done to the civilian population and property of the Allied Governments. [The figure was later set at $33 billion]. 


428. To guarantee the execution of the Treaty, the German territory situated to the west of the Rhine River will be occupied by Allied troops for fifteen years. 


431. The occupation forces will be withdrawn as soon as Germany complies with the Treaty."
(From Reading One: Treaty of Versailles)

In my opinion, around 60% of it would be fair, but the other 40% wasn't. I do agree from lines 80-119, 231,431 and 428. I do think that respecting and recognizing the independence of Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland, giving back the overseas countries that Germany had taken, and that the troops will go from Germany as soon as the treaty was signed was fair to Germany. On the other hand, I didn't agree with lines 159-198 and 233. The lines 159-198 clearly allows.. "159. The German military forces shall be demobilized and reduced not to exceed 100,000 men. 181. The German navy must not exceed 6
battleships, 6 light cruisers, 12 destroyers, and 12 torpedo boats. No submarines are to be included. 198. The Armed Forces of Germany must not include any military or naval air forces." That's just basically saying that Germany has barely any forces in case of a plot against other countries. However, the treaty should have stated that if Germany needed any troops in the event of an attack by a country, another country should have helped Germany. Though, the case of a country attacking Germany, then when Germany has more forces both Germany and another country turn against the Allied Forces and work together to create another war. That conspiracy would be a perfectly good argument against the thoughts of allowing more troops in case of war though. On line 233, it shows that.. "233. Germany will pay for all damages done to the civilian population and property of the Allied Governments. [The figure was later set at $33 billion]." The thing is that Germany wasn't the ONLY country that took part in the war against the Allied Forces. There was also Austria-Hungry, Bulgaria, and Turkey who took sides with Germany. Why would they only pinpoint this on Germany, when the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was by a Serbian? The answer could either be that Germany was declared the leader of the war, or the possibility that people wanted revenge on Germany. The treaty only lasted around 20 years, and when that time was up, Adolf Hitler had plans already to conquer Europe.



"This is not peace, it is an armistice for twenty years." -Ferdinand Foch






Sources:
Reading One: The Treaty of Versailles




-R

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

So...What are the values of the major world religions?

What are the values of the major world religions? 


To me, it really does depend on what you believe in. All to do with the religion. If your Muslim, Christian, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist; we're not that different because we all believe in values. Personally, I don't really see what is up with war these days. It's like looking at a person and saying "Oh. Someone he might know died in war." It's just not phasing anymore, and I can't see why we're not doing anything. Okay, so maybe we are, but it's not affecting the world. Most of what previous wars has been about religion, and their main disputes are about values. I mean, I know everyone has different values as someone in a religion, or no religion at all, but  making wars about of it, I don't think that's the answer. Some values can be.....

  • Cherish your life
  • Be neutral- choose the "middle path"
  • Treat others the way you want to be treated
  • Help people, whether they're different skin colors or follow different religions
  • Do want you think is right
  • Go to other people for opinions, not direction 
  • Push yourself to achieve the highest you can be
  • Your family's always there, no matter what.
  • Don't harm yourself, because there's probably a chance you'll change something for the better
  • Always have self-confidence in yourself, because in the end, you're the only one who matters
So yea, these are basically what I believe in, sorta. Sometimes I doubt my values, but I know that this would be the same thing that keeps me going through the day. It's the same with religion. Values are how you live your life, if your kind or mean, harsh or soft, caring or inconspicuous. It's what  you believe in, and it's one of the things that no one can tell you to do. It's your own free will. 

-R  

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Positive Attitudes and their Tyranny

 Me. That’s what I believe in. Being me. I know, I know, EXTREMELY cheesy. But, I’m actually being serious. If you were in my position, you would understand. Reading all those stories and listening to what they have to say was sorta inspirational, if you ask me. Unlike them, I’ve never really had anything really hit me, like “BAM! This event is going to make you a better person and enjoy life!” I’ve never been like that, all serious. My life is what you call bipolar. It’s on two sides. Sometimes I single out the good things, sometimes I single out the bad things. It just so happens that when something bad happens, something good comes out of it. But when something good comes, something bad comes out of it. Let’s just say my life, myself, and the whole general idea, well it’s very bipolar. Usually, people like me like to brand things. Like, dislike. Love, hate. Good, bad. Hero, villain. It’s just the way I roll as well. But positive attitudes, someone named Barbara Held changed my mind about them.   This is my take of: Combating the Tyranny of Positive Attitudes.

Barbara Held, a psycho-logist/therapist living in Maine has a little thing against positive attitudes. She believed that positive attitudes are overrated and you should never tell someone to keep one when they feel down. This, I strongly agree. When I heard this, I was having a bad, bad day so obviously I had to agree. No one really likes to be around happy people when they’re sad. It’s just plain depressing. “The problem is this demand for good cheer brings with it a one-two punch for those of us who cannot cope in that way: First you feel bad about whatever’s getting you down, then you feel guilty or defective if you can’t smile and look on the bright side. And I’m not even sure there always is a bright side to look on.” She says, in a recording of her essay. When I heard this, I was hooked. I seriously thought to myself: “Hey! I can relate to this!” And I did. She says so many things, psychological things, and philosophical things. Personally, the average person would shoo this away in disgust. But this is where I’m different. I may be bipolar and hypocritical, but I sure can relate to what people say, and how they say it. It’s not saying that I’m super-duper over achiever, but I like listening to these things.

But for this “This I Believe”, it was on fear. Listening to more of the recording, I learned that she had come down with the flu years ago, and with headaches after. The fear that brought her to this site was presumably the basis of this statement: “He reassured me that I would make a full recovery, but I was left traumatized by the weeks of undiagnosed pain. I really thought I had a brain tumor or schizophrenia. Being a psychologist didn’t help; I was an emotional wreck.” This was her pain. This was her fear. Being mentally ill. As a therapist/psychologist, it doesn’t help at all. You’re always debating what’s the right option, how mentally and physically you are dealing through the fear of being mentally ill. That’s the hardest part. Trying to take decision on what is the best choice for yourself, and on top of all that, the fear of making things worse. She was terrified. She had no one to turn to, except when she asked her psychiatrist-neighbor if she was schizophrenic. The reply she got was: “‘Professor,’ he pronounced, ‘you are a mess, but you are not a mentally ill mess. You are just terrified.’” This all, was true of course. This lightened up her mood a little, but one thing bothered her. She told him that her friends were telling her to lighten up, so he told her to say that, in plain words, “I would love to be cheerful, but right now it’s rough so leave me alone.”  Saying something similar to that helped lift the weight off her shoulders, and released her fear. That person, Aldo Llorente, helped her redeem herself and make her realize the unnecessary fear she had. And that, dear reader, was what made her go against positive attitudes and go on This I believe, so someone like me would eventually find this needle in a haystack. 

-R

Thursday, November 17, 2011

DomiKnow Profile - One less H


In for the last two classes, we have been discussing and experimenting with DomiKnow profiling. I turned out to be slightly different profiles then last year. I have H, and previously i had HH, which mesans a series of different things based on how physically we comunicate to options.  
I think I learn best when I am alone, the door closed and the room silent. I believe this because once, there were two people in my room, and it took me three hours to finish my homework, when I only had a blogpost to do. In a classroom, I think I learn best at the front of the class, at the left side. That's because my left ear is facing the board, so I can listen better and pay more attention. I'd rather have my back toward the back of the classroom, not the front. I think the best way for me to learn is in a quiet class room, where there are no distractions, one person talking, and no music. These things are my strategies that will help my learning. Besides, on the paper that says things about my profile, its says: " Quiet time alone is especially beneficial."I would like my teachers to know that even though I prefer quite places, I can work in places that are noisy, too.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

50 word Summary of Chapters 1 and 2- Theseus

For this blog, we have been assigned to make a 50 word summary of how much we read of a Greek Myth book, weather it's a few chapters or the whole book. In my table group, we have been assigned to read Theseus, who slayed the Minotaur. We did something similar in class, but with 20 words and the story of Daedalus and Icarus.
~

Theseus Summary:
 Aegeus wanted a son, he went to Medea and she put an incantation; the first time Aegeus holds a woman, she'd bear his child. Aethra, the woman he held, gave birth to Theseus. In later years, Theseus, 17, killed Perphetes by picking up and boulder and throwing it at Periphetes.

-50 words-

Yea.. Seems like some pretty lousy stuff, huh? :P

-R 

Monday, August 15, 2011

Bio Poem

Radhika
Who is... enthusiastic, a bit of a nutjob, and fun.
Who is... the sister of Tanya Sharma.
Who loves... oreos, cake, and books.
Who feels... sad, happy, and confused.
Who needs.... her best friend, a puppy to love, and a peaceful world.
Who gives... help to others, time to people at a time of doubt, and tries her best to save the Earth.
Who fears... losing everyone she loves, the world to end in our hands, and things that would risk her life.
Who would like to see... a world without war, a green planet, and everyone happy.
Who shares... advice, opinions, and food (maybe).
Who is.. ambitious, trustworthy, and loyal.
Who is a resident of..... Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Sharma

-R