A Brief History of the Mexican War for Independence

A Brief History of Mexican War for Independence

                Hello all, and today we shall journey to the past once again, this time in order to learn about the birth of the Mexican War for Independence, in honor of its 204^th anniversary.

                Once again, we start with 1492 and Christopher Columbus’ voyage from Spain to journey west to find a new route to India. He inadvertently found a “New World” which changed the course of the world. By 1521, Hernán Cortés had conquered the Aztecs with the help of his superior technology, and through the help of various other indigenous tribes that were enemies of the Aztec empire. One notable woman, known most commonly as La Malinche, was his translator in order to accomplish this. La Malinche became Cortés’ lover, and gave birth to his first illegitimate son, Martín Cortés. Martín would be considered by many one of the first Mestizos of the New Spain, and would be nicknamed by some as El Mestizo. Martín would be the first to lead the first rebellion against the Spanish colonial government, along with his half-brothers, to attempt to change the laws that prevented Spanish conquistadores from inheriting their encomiendas. This attempt to change the social order would be one of the underlying factors that contributed to the the Mexican War for Independence.

                Most Latin American countries gained independence from Spanish control in the 1810s because during that time, Spain’s control was weakened because of Napoleon Bonaparte taking over Europe, and placing his brother, Joseph Bonaparte. Because Spain was weakened from fighting Bonaparte, most Latin American countries decided to begin their rebellion. This situation, added with the political issues caused by the casta system would lead Mexico to rebel against Spain.

               

                As I’ve previously the social hierarchy for New Spain would basically have the white Spanish-born Spanish citizens at the top, followed by the Criollos, or the Spanish born in the New World, then Mestizos, the mix of Spanish and indigenous, and lastly would be the indigenous and whatever few black slaves there were in New Spain at the time. Because of the casta order, many Criollos felt that they deserved to be treated the same as Spanish born Spaniards. This sparked a revolution. In 1810, the Conspiracy of Querétaro, a clandestine movement born in the city of Santiago de Querétaro. It is usually taken as the immediate background of the War of Independence of Mexico, since it was this group that started the armed struggle for the emancipation of New Spain with respect to the Crown Spanish. The primary objective of the Conspiracy of Querétaro was be a Governing Board, which took power in the name of Ferdinand VII. Members of the Conspiracy included major leaders in the war, such as: Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, Ignacio Allende, Josefa Ortiz de Dominguez, Mariano Abasolo, and others. ON September 9, 1810 the Conspiracy was discovered by Spanish soldiers, and the plan for independence had to be moved up. Many conspirators were captured and imprisoned, either by confessing to being members of the Conspiracy or not. Because of this, on September 15, Ignacio Perez, mayor of Querétaro sent word to San Miguel, contacting Juan Almada, who went immediately to the town of Dolores in the state of Guanajuato to alert Hidalgo y Costilla, arriving in Dolores on the 16^th at dawn.

Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla after the Grito de Dolores

                Hidalgo y Costilla went to the town church and rang the church bell to alert the townspeople of an important announcement. Now, this event is known as the Grito de Dolores, or the Cry of Dolores, where Hidalgo y Costilla essentially called for a revolution against Spanish control. While the original words used in the cry have been lost to history, many historians can agree that Hidalgo y Costilla spoke of “long live our holy mother Guadalupe, viva Fernando VII, and death to bad government” demonstrating that they were not necessarily fighting against the Spanish, but rather the bad government caused by the Spanish that should be fixed. The Cry is repeated every year on the 16^th of September in remembrance of Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, whom many consider to be the Father of Mexico because of his part in the War for Independence. This tradition was started in 1825 and is performed by the current president of Mexico at the time.

                Now back onto the history of the war. After the Cry, many Criollos and Mestizos formed the bulk of the Mexican Army for the war. A few days after the Cry, without resistance entered San Miguel el Grande and Celaya, where he got even more money and soldiers to fight. He then entered the town of Atotonilco in Prairie Shoal where he took a banner of the Virgen of Guadalupe, and used it in his battles. Hidalgo y Costilla used the banner because the Virgin of Guadalupe, after her appearance on the Tepeyac in the 16^th century helped unify New Spain under the common Catholic religion, since the Virgin appeared as an indigenous woman, and chose to appear to a common indigenous man, Juan Diego, and this symbol would unify the newly formed army to fight together for a common goal. The banner would be Hidalgo y Costilla’s standard, present at every battle until its capture at the Battle of the Bridge of Calderón and taken to Spain as a trophy. On September 24, Allende took Salamanca, where Hidalgo was proclaimed Captain General of the Armies of America and Allende lieutenant general. In this city there was resistance and an attempt to plunder, suffocated by Aldama. On leaving Salamanca, Hidalgo and had fifty thousand men to fight. The Spanish response to this was immediate. The bishop of Michoacán, Manuel Abad y Queipo, excommunicated all insurgents, including Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla and others that were priests on September 27.

                Hidalgo sent Mariano Jiménez, a miner without military training, as an emissary. He asked Allende permission to enter the troops; Allende refused, but Hidalgo y Costilla sent Jiménez on a special mission: to intimidate Juan Antonio Riaño, mayor of the city of Guanajuato, and request the surrender of the city of Guanajuato without violence. Riaño, though a friend of Hidalgo y Costilla, refused because he was a soldier of the Spanish crown, and could not surrender the city. Allende, Almada, and Jiménez divided to take the city. Initially there was little resistance to them taking the city, with many people either joining the army or giving them money and other supplies; however at around eight in the morning shots were fired near the Alhóndiga de Granaditas, the grain storage for the city. During the fight, Riaño told Lieutenant Barceló to climb to the roof to face the possible invasion. Riaño fought in the front lines, which Barceló was against. One of the insurgents saw and recognized Riaño as the mayor of the city, and Riaño was killed trying to defend himself. Barceló, as the second in command, was given command of the Royalist forces, and when it was suggested to him by Riaño’s advisor that surrendering would be a smart decision, he refused saying that first and foremost, he was a soldier and that wars are not won by surrendering. The advisor decided to act, by tying a white handkerchief to a rifle from a fallen solder and waving this flag to show that the Royalist forces would surrender.

                Hidalgo y Costilla, seeing this act, ordered a ceasefire and ordered Allende to go meet with the leader of the Royalist forces in order to negotiate; however, Barceló saw what the advisor was doing and killed the advisor, ordering his forces to continue the attack. Hidalgo y Costilla realized he had been deceived and ordered his men to attack once again. During this time it was difficult for the insurgent forces to enter the Alhondiga and attack the Spanish, so a man by the name of Juan Jose de los Reyes Martinez, a miner known for his strength and by his nickname El Pípila, asked Hidalgo y Costilla for permission to burn the door of the Alhondiga. Hidalgo y Costilla allowed him to do so, and so El Pípila tied a rock to his back and grabbed a torch in order to burn the door. (My mother has always told me that El Pípila was my great great great uncle, more or less)

A statue of El Pípila in Guanajuato, Guanajuato

                The act of burning the door allowed the insurgents to enter the Alhondiga, the insurgents stormed it and killed those that were in it, whether they were civilians or soldiers. They looted and slaughtered those inside, and within days the looting spread to other parts of the city of Guanajuato. Hidalgo y Costilla attempted to keep his men in line, preventing them from dishonoring Riaño’s body and from looting the city anymore. It was because of this event that Hidalgo y Costilla stayed away from most major cities during his time in the war, something that would eventually lead to his downfall.

                So now that we have this basic background for the War for Independence, let’s fast-forward a bit. Allende and Hidalgo y Costilla always had their differences when it came to which city to attack or what route to take, something that came to a head near February 1811. After Hidalgo and Allende agree with Aldama, Abasolo and Rayon, to strip the military in Hacienda lodge, Aguascalientes, on 25 February. At the time the insurgents were preparing to flee to the United States to buy weapons and continue the struggle. Allende received communication from Ignacio Elizondo, an old military revolutionary leader, turned Royalist spy. Elizondo invited the leaders of the insurrection to go to Acatita of Baján , located on the border of Coahuila and Texas , then part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain. This would turn out to be a trap, with Abasolo’s contingent being the first to be captured. Soon afterwards, Allende, his son Indalecio, and Aldama y Jiménez were captured as well, after being offered food. The insurgents refused to be captured and only allowed themselves to be captured after Elizondo killed Allende’s son. After this happened, Hidalgo y Costilla appeared, escorted by a few men, though he was captured as well. These leaders were sent to Chihuahua to await trial, and Elizondo was promoted to colonel in the Royalist Army.

                Allende, Almada, and Jimenez were accused and found guilty of high treason and were executed in May of 1811. Hidalgo y Costilla had two trials, an ecclesiastic trail and a military trial. He was also sentenced to death, and stories say that when he was to be executed by firing squad, he refused to be blindfolded and shot in the back, as was tradition for executing traitors. Instead he took his right hand and pointed to his heart, telling the soldiers to aim for his hand which was over his heart. He was executed July 30, 1811. After the executions of the leaders of the rebellion, their heads were cut from their bodies and hung from the four corners of the Alhondiga in Guanajuato, where the first major looting happened during the war.

                After the death of the major leaders of the rebellion, the rebellion almost ended, but Jose Maria Morelos y Pavon took lead of the remaining rebel soldiers. He would lead the troops for about 4 years, until 1815 when he was also captured and executed. During his time as leader; however, there was a major improvement in creating a legislative and governing body for the new country that was forming. This was instrumental in creating the basis for the Mexican government after the War for Independence ended. After Morelos y Pavon’s death, there were approximately only 200,000 insurgent soldiers, and most were isolated from each other due to geography. It was because of this that the war changed, from being a confrontation between two armies, to a series of guerilla wars fought using the geography of Mexico to their advantage. During this time, there were many leaders, each with approximately 300 to 4000 men, depending on where the insurgents were fighting. It took six more years after Morelos y Pavon’s death to achieve independence in 1821.

                This has been the ending to another adventure through history, though because of the amount of history we went through today, I had to remove some information and condense it. If you are interested at all in learning more, don’t hesitate to read up. As always, I have some final words to you readers, whomever you may be. First off, don’t be afraid to stand up for what you believe in, because you may not be the only one. Don’t settle for less than what you can have. Always put 100% in what you are doing, and never forget that on this planet inhabited by 7.1 billion people, there is only one of you, only one person that thinks, speaks, and acts like you. Never give up your individuality for anything.

Race and Society in Mexico

Race and Society in Mexico

Hello all, and welcome back to this awesome blog, if I do say so myself. Now today we will be tackling a giant problem 500 years in the making.

As always, let’s start with some historical background. Everyone elementary school kid knows the poem “In Fourteen hundred ninety-two/ Columbus sailed the Ocean blue.” The poem is much longer than that and tells the tale of Cristopher Columbus, an Italian sailor that managed to get money from the Spanish crown to try the craziest thing imaginable: sailing west from Spain instead of east to reach India and cut out Portugal from the goods they would get. At this time, Spain recently got rid of the “evil” Moors, the Muslims that had conquered most of the Iberian Peninsula over 700 years prior. Because of this Spain, which at the time was not a unified country but rather many separate kingdoms, needed money. Portugal was freed from the Muslim power much earlier than the kingdoms of Spain, so they were able to take over many trade routes and gain money from said trading, but Spain did not have that luxury. The two main kingdoms of Spain at the time were the kingdoms of Aragon, headed by King Ferdinand II, and of Castile, headed by Queen Isabella I. The two rulers married and as a result were able to unify most of Spain.

Now I’m sure some of you have seen the title and are asking yourselves what Spain and Cristopher Columbus has to do with Mexico, and as always I’m getting there. With the power of the Spanish behind him, Columbus set sail west to find a new route to India. Now to clear some misconceptions, Columbus didn’t sail west to prove the Earth was round because people actually knew that was a fact. Columbus went west to find a shorter path to India, but he bumped into some islands in the Caribbean and believed he had found India, a belief he would hold to his deathbed.

Let’s fast-forward about a good 17 or so years to 1519. This is the year of that the Conquistador Hernán Cortés arrived in Mexico, or at least the Aztec empire and began his conquest. Now to clarify some more misconceptions. The Aztecs, or Nahuatl as their proper name is, did not believe Cortés was Quetzalcoatl, the winged serpent deity of the Nahuas. Any records that indicate this is true were written years after the actual conquest occurred and the Spanish destroyed many records from before their arrival. This is important because if people lose their past, anyone could tell them what they want to hear and this causes people to be easy to control. Within a few generations, Spain and Spanish influence was very important in the colonies, so much so that an entire hierarchical system, castas, were created for this. The Spanish colonizers had a type of motto when it came to their work, “Obedezco pero no cumplo” which translated to English means: “I obey but I do not complete.” This refers to the fact that the colonizers were prevented from having interracial relations with the indigenous people, but still had those relations, either by force or with consent. This is important because this breaks the myth that all Spaniards raped and pillaged the indigenous people upon arrival. While there certainly were some Spaniards that did participate in this “activity” there were many examples of indigenous rulers or chiefs “trading” their daughters to Spaniards in order to move up the social ladder. Because of this interracial relations, a new hierarchical system was created, the casta system. This system had people in different ethnic and racial groups depending on their parentage. For example, a Spaniard born in the New World was called a Criollo and lower on the social ladder, while a Spanish born in Spain was simply called Spanish and was at the top of the ladder. Paintings depicting this hierarchy were commissioned and attempted to demonstrate to the people in Spain that there was order and stability in the colonies where none truly existed.

So this racial based hierarchy was pretty strict, with the “whiter” you were the higher up you “deserved” to be. This is another example of “Obedezco pero no cumplo” in action. While typically racially mixed people were not supposed to be in the upper classes and have money, they were and did, with their skin color appearing whiter in the official records. A mestizo, if talented in an art or intelligent enough to make money and save it, could appear as white at the time of his death and would be acknowledged as such. This idea of whiteness being important and essential to moving up the socio-economic ladder would continue for many years, even after the Mexican War for Independence.

Porfirio Diaz, president and dictator of Mexico, wanted to “modernize” Mexico in the late 19^th century. His attempts of modernization meant making streets and buildings look European and especially French, by widening streets and planting trees near the streets, as well as hiring French architects to build his buildings in a very French style. He also built “official” buildings, such as national theaters and post offices to name a few. These official buildings all had a few things in common with their interior designs: long winding staircases and many arches, these were all European designs and influences. Diaz’s Europhile tendencies expanded past just the ideas of what a “modern” Mexico should look like, but also how Mexicans should look, act, and what their history should be. Much of this revolved around ignoring the present indigenous population and instead focusing on the long dead indigenous, such as the Olmec or Aztec, in order to give Mexico an “exotic” look by focusing on the stories of those dead indigenous in an attempt to demonstrate how unique Mexico was and that being a Mestizo country was not something to be ashamed of. I should note; however, that not all that Diaz did was just to make Mexico appear modern was wrong. He supplied many cities with running water and electricity, and also improved the poor railroad system. These were all helpful to push Mexico out from the rural, agricultural setting it typically had and helped push it to a new modern country. These improvements were not very well done though, with only major cities receiving running water and electricity, and additionally these works were made off of the backs of the poor Mestizo and indigenous populations, where many times they would be paid less than American or other immigrant workers for the same jobs.

You may have noticed that I wrote that Diaz used long dead indigenous people to improve the image of Mexico for the world and that he ignored the present indigenous population. This is demonstrated in Diaz’s personal life as well, since he was a Mestizo at least, having come from a state with a relatively large indigenous population: Oaxaca, the same state that Mexico’s first indigenous president was from, Benito Juarez. Diaz would often wear white make-up powder to appear whiter and “European” when it was clear that he was not European at all. Diaz would use this and other things, such as holding a birthday party for Kaiser Wilhelm in Mexico City for many rich American and European investors that, you guessed it, were white.

Some of you may be wondering where I’m going with this information of Diaz and his Europhile system. Well, this idea that Diaz had of whites and Europeans being naturally superior to the Mestizo and indigenous populations was not an idea that Diaz or any of his cronies came up with, rather this idea was one that the world in general was beginning to accept through the spread of “scientific facts” from scientists and other intellectuals from that time. The science used to explain why whites were superior to any other “race” of people, physically and intellectually by the shape of the body and size of certain body parts.

Diaz’s Europhile tendencies, especially his repression of Mestizo and indigenous population, were what ultimately caused the Mexican Revolution in 1910 when peasants rose up and took arms to remove Diaz and his cronies from power, and to later fight for campesino rights. Fast forwarding a few 10 years or so, and in the 1920s-1930s was the beginning of the Indigenismo movement. The Indigenismo movement was created by the Mexican government in the 1920s to promote indigenous culture and integrate them into the Mexican society without assimilating them. This may sound like a good idea at first glance, but in reality this was done mostly without much indigenous feedback and was done by, once again old white dudes. One problem with the Indigenismo movement was that it forced the indigenous to be clean and educated, thereby removing some indigenous traditions when it came to those areas. In a nutshell, Indigenismo is another form of racism in Mexican society, pushing ideas of what traditions should be and what a “universal” Mexico should look like, with indigenous people being treated like children under the Mexican government, with the government looking after the indigenous and having the government inspect the indigenous populations to make sure that they are following the laws of proper sanitation and education.

Where am I going with this talk of Indigenismo and Porfirio Diaz and the Spanish conquest of Mexico in 1519? Well, all of this is connected because the Spanish ideas of the Casta system hierarchy was continued into the 19^th century with Diaz’s Europhile regime based on pseudoscientific methods to determine the worth of a person, and the Indigenismo movement of the 1920s attempting to honor the living indigenous while forcing them to conform to a specific lifestyle, are methods by which the Mexican government directly and indirectly pushed a certain image of what Mexico and Mexicans should be like.

The trend of whiteness being important for success is very noticeable in Mexican soap operas, called telenovelas or novelas for short. In novelas, until fairly recently, most of the main characters were white or light skinned, usually with light brown or blonde hair, and the darker skinned actors were background extras or servants/housecleaners if they were female. This is a problem because it shows to people that only white and light skinned people can be successful or attractive.

This link shows how children in Mexico view which is better, being light skinned or dark skinned. This demonstrates how in the approximately 500 years after Spain conquered what would eventually be Mexico nothing much has changed in society. http://www.upworthy.com/heres-what-happens-when-you-put-a-few-little-kids-in-a-room-with-2-dolls-in-2-different-colors-aa2-4d?c=reccon1

As always, I remind you all, dear readers, to be unique and individuals and don’t fear being different or an outsider, because it is those that are  brave enough to be different and fight the norm that are the ones that accomplish change.

Cinco de Mayo

Cinco de Mayo

Hello all, and welcome back to A Different Opinion. Today, in honor of this special holiday, Cinco de Mayo, I thought it would be appropriate for us to talk about what Cinco de Mayo is and how this day became a holiday. Keep in mind that this will be an abridged account of the events that led up to the Battle of Puebla and Cinco de Mayo, so feel free to look up more information if this has interested you in the history of this holiday. Let’s get started.

Now before I talk about what Cinco de Mayo is, let’s talk about the historical background to this event.  After the Texas War for Independence, the United States of America wanted to annex Texas and create it into a state. The United States couldn’t annex Texas not only because it would anger Mexico, but because if they did, Texas would be a slave state and that would upset the tense situation in Congress on the topic of slave states. It wasn’t until 1845 that Texas was actually annexed and this led to the Mexican-American War. Mexico claimed that the border between Texas and Mexico was the Rio Nueces while the United States claimed the Rio Grande as the border between Texas and Mexico. This disagreement caused the Mexican-American War because at the time Manifest Destiny was a sentiment shared by many of the politicians at the time. Manifest Destiny was the belief that the United States was destined to expand from coast to coast. President James K. Polk was an advocate for Manifest Destiny and attempted to gain the Oregon territory from the British, but was unable to gain all of it, settling for half.

So how did this lead up to Cinco de Mayo? Well, I’m getting there. President Polk ordered troops to the Rio Grande border in order to tempt Mexico into attacking the troops and giving Polk an excuse to convince Congress to declare war on Mexico for “spilling American blood on American soil” even though that land was disputed. This in turn caused the Mexican-American War. Polk wanted to tempt Mexico into war so that the United States could take the California and other territories.

After fighting for about a year, the United States won the war and Mexico had to give the California territory to the United States, and later Mexico would sell a small strip of land in the Gadsden Purchase. After the Mexican-American War Mexico was broke and the President/dictator at the time, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna decided to sell the small strip of land to the United States so Mexico could have some money; however, Santa Anna spent most of the money and was exiled from Mexico. Let’s fast forward about 15 years. Benito Juarez became President, though Santa Anna would not stay in exile for long. One of Juarez’s first acts as president was to hold off payments to foreign countries. This angered the major creditors of Mexico, France, Great Britain, and Spain. The three countries decided to unite their efforts to get their money from Mexico by signing the Treaty of London in 1861. France, under Emperor Napoleon III, decided that invading Mexico and conquering it would be a better decision than simply taking over Mexico’s ports. Once Great Britain and Spain found out about this, they backed off and withdrew their support.

France decided to appoint Archduke Maximilian I of Austria as emperor of Mexico as a puppet monarch so that Mexico could be properly under French control. Of course Mexico resisted these attempts of the French to control them. French troops were retreating to the coast and Mexican troops saw them and misunderstood the retreat, attacking the French. Mexican troops were pushed back to Acultzingo Pass where the Mexicans were defeated in a skirmish on April 28. The leader of the Mexican troops, General Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín, decided to retreat to the heavily fortified city of Puebla. Here’s where things get better. On May 5, 1862 the leader of the French troops, General Charles de Lorencez, decided to attack the city because he believed that the citizens of Puebla would be friendly to the French. He was wrong. Not only were the citizens of Puebla against the French, but his attack would be useless because of the fortifications of the city. As the French retreated from their final assault, Zaragoza had his cavalry attack them from the right and left while troops concealed along the road pivoted out to flank them badly. By 3 p.m. the daily rains had started, making a slippery quagmire of the battlefield. Lorencez withdrew to distant positions, counting 462 of his men killed against only 83 of the Mexicans. He waited a couple of days for Zaragoza to attack again, but Zaragoza held his ground. Lorencez then completely withdrew to Orizaba.

This battle was a huge morale booster for the Mexicans fighting against the French, and helped delay the French winning the war. Ultimately the French managed to win the war, and Mexico would be under French rule until 1867 when Maximilian was overthrown and executed. The future president/dictator of Mexico, Porfirio Diaz, was fighting in this battle, and began to get national importance because of the role he played. Now that we’ve covered the history of the Battle of Puebla, how important is the anniversary of the battle? On May 9, 1862 President Juarez declared Cinco de Mayo to be a national holiday, and today schools are closed in honor of this day, but most of the celebrations of the Battle of Puebla are mostly centered in the state of Puebla and other regions, not the whole country. Many misconceptions have arisen from the fact that it is a holiday in the United States, such as some people believing Cinco de Mayo to be the Mexican Independence day, which is September 16. In the US Cinco de Mayo is celebrated in an attempt to show Mexican heritage, though many people tend to associate it with Hispanic/Latin heritage. Cinco de Mayo was originally only celebrated by Mexican immigrants or Mexican-Americans in the US during the American Civil War. As my old AP World History teacher used to say, “Americans will celebrate any holiday that lets them get drunk in the middle of the day without looking bad.”

Education

Welcome back. I’m going to assume that you all loved the first blog I made, and couldn’t wait to read another masterpiece. For that I thank you all. Today we will be tackling a topic with (hopefully) less history and more thinking and philosophical discussion: the Education System. And so with that wonderful introduction out of the way, let’s begin.

What is the point of education in the United States? I mean what is the point of going to school for 12 (or 13 if you count kindergarten) years? To get to college and study for 4 or more years for a dumb piece of paper? Society says that we have to do this in order to get a good job and be happy and stuff. There are many problems with this idea because in this age, people can have jobs without leaving the comfort of their homes. I’m not saying that education is wrong, rather that the way education is done is wrong. Anyone can tell you that in school people are told how to do things, without learning about why they do what they do.

In history, for example, students are taught that events happen, but very rarely are the students taught WHY these events happened and their importance. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is an excellent example of this. Time for a quick history lesson. (Yeah, I said there would be less history in this blog. I lied. *evil laugh*). Anyway back to the lesson. In 1914, the Archduke of Austria-Hungary Franz Ferdinand, was assassinated by Serbian rebels. Why was he assassinated? That’s the part most teachers tend to gloss over because they don’t matter. Does anyone want to know? Does it matter? The answer is yes. The reasons for why this happen matter. (Even if you don’t want to know, now you will. Another *evil laugh*). So in order to explain why the Archduke was assassinated, we have to go back about five or six years. In 1908 was the First Balkan War, a war for the Balkans states: Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, and Bulgaria were fighting against the Austria-Hungary Empire to remove it from interfering. Long story short, the Balkan states won, and eventually there was a Second Balkan War few years later. This led to the tension in the Balkan states, which culminated in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and World War I. This is condensing many years and events of history into a couple of short sentences, so please excuse me if there are some thing I didn’t cover.

Now a show of hands, who knew anything about the Balkan Wars? I’m gonna assume no one did. So this is just one small example of what is missing from history that needs to be taught to understand the greater scheme of events. There’s so much background in events of history that simply are not taught in schools because the state standards say that only certain things matter and should be taught. It’s these state standards that prevent actual learning from taking place for the most part. The other problem with the modern education system is that there is less focus on actual learning than on memorization. Now before anyone says anything, I do acknowledge that memorization can be used as a tool for learning, the way it is used in schools is not as a tool bit as a crutch in place of actual learning.

“What do you mean?” some of you may be asking, and for that I congratulate you for asking a question.  What I mean by this is that in some subjects, such as math, science, and to an extent, English memorization is a useful tool in learning, but it should not be used for every subject. I really hope I’m being clear about this. Anyway, if I asked you readers to tell me what the Pythagorean Theorem is or what the quadratic formula is, I’m sure most will be able to recite them, no problem. Now if I asked you to tell my HOW to get the Pythagorean Theorem, or the quadratic formula, then I think that there would be a problem, since most of you are just told what the formula is not how to figure it out on your own. This is my problem with memorization: It takes away from actual learning and teachers expect you to know what things are without proper explanations.

This leads to another issue with the way education is done. There are many teachers out there that do not care much for teaching, teaching just because they couldn’t get another job, or who knows why. Throughout my high school career and beyond there have been many teachers that don’t do good jobs at teaching. (*cough* Moses *cough*) The movie Here Comes the Boom shows this issue with the main character being an apathetic biology teacher, who doesn’t teach and arrives late to class. I love this movie for several reasons, one of which is how the school system is shown to be all about money and little care for students. This is unfortunately true for many public schools in the “ghetto” areas of towns or cities. I believe that passionate teachers are essential for learning and the issue with the system is that there are many teachers that have seniority and tenure, so they can’t be easily fired. (*cough* Moses again *cough*). It’s these teachers that hinder the learning that should be happening in classrooms. I once had that spent most of the time of class on his computer, probably on Facebook or something like that. The other issue with this teacher, that shall remain unnamed, is that he knew most, if not all, of the class didn’t read the textbook or paid attention in class and still gave the class quizzes and tests to see if we were learning (we weren’t, we were talking about stealing penguins and stuff. Yeah I know, I was weird like that). This shows how some teachers don’t teach and still expect students to do work and learn.

So this is another major issue I personally have with the education system: grades. We’ve all been there at some point, struggling to get at least a C- in a class we haven’t been paying any attention to because the teacher is boring, or we don’t care about the class. I believe that grades ultimately don’t determine anything when it comes to proving if anyone has learned anything in a class. Let me elaborate a bit. If I take a class with a teacher that doesn’t care about teaching and gives everyone good grades then that good grade is completely undeserved, whereas if you have a teacher that does care about teaching and makes students work for a good grade (*cough* Tschida *cough*) then that B or C is much more deserved than the student that got an A the easy way. Unless every single last teacher teaches and grades the EXACT same way, which they will never do, grades will ultimately be determined by the teacher’s preference and style. There are so many variables that show what a student’s grade is that ultimately it shows more of what the teacher’s grading style is than anything else.

As you can tell, I have a lot of problems with the education system, so you would think that I wouldn’t want to be a teacher. If you thought that, I’m sorry to say that you are wrong. I feel that I can help teach students and change the education system, but unfortunately there are too many problems and issues that can’t be easily fixed by one young idealistic teacher. Enough about me though, let’s get back to complaining… I mean talking about the problems of education. (*phew* that was a close one*). One major issue that goes hand in hand with grades is of course testing. Now before anyone assumes anything, I am in favor of tests for class, as long as they properly test students on material they were supposed to learn. By this I mean that standardized tests and any other test of that kind should not be used to determine how kids should be placed in classes. I am; however, in favor of tests to show how much students have learned in class, but only if they can really be used to show how much they learned. Multiple choice exams, while easier, are not as helpful when it comes to determining what a student has learned since it’s easy to guess and get an answer right.

It’s things like this that are why I believe that the school system is in need of some major changes. Things like standardized tests and the CAHSEE (if you live in California) are not really useful, except to prove if students are following instructions and “learning” and blah blah blah. These aren’t useful because, once again, THERE IS NO LEARNING HAPPENING! The logic behind the schools is that if students do good on the exams, then it OBVIOUSLY means that kids are learning. (Yeah, I know that I shouldn’t use “good” in place of “well” but who cares. I don’t believe in grammar, but that’s a whole nother discussion.) This makes no sense because if kids are just scoring high scores on standardized exams, but barely passing their classes, then what does that mean? Are standardized tests more important than a grade? If so, why not just give grades based entirely on standardized test scores.

Now here comes my other major issue with schools. There are too many teachers that, as I’ve said, don’t care at all about teaching. Some teachers are like this because they don’t care about teaching, but there are also those that are bad teachers because they may feel that they don’t get enough respect as teachers. I mean public schools don’t get much money and are therefore don’t have the same equipment and books as “rich” schools. The way schools are funded are by property taxes, so the more people pay in property tax the more money the school has to spend on stuff. Now either the federal or state government could pay more money to public schools, then “poorer” schools could be on the same level as the “richer” schools. I realize that I haven’t said much about teachers and respect, but trust me I’m getting there. There are some European countries that pay their teachers based on how their students do in classes, or the pass-fail rate or something like that. That is what we have to do with teachers, treat them with respect and pay them more, more benefits then perhaps more teachers would actually care about teaching or more people would actually want to be a teacher without being criticized about their decisions. (Yeah, I get that a lot and frankly it’s very annoying when people look down at me for my decisions.) Teachers make so much less money than other “professional” jobs, not to mention the amount of respect given to teachers. If you watch the movie Here Comes the Boom, it shows what I mean exactly.

So one major problem I have (yeah I have lots of problems, but I can’t afford a therapist, so I’ll just vent to you guys and gals) is that many people are using iPads or other electronic tablets to teach kids and other young adults. I feel that this is a major problem that should not be used. If you give people iPads in class, they’ll be distracted and they may be stolen and/or missing. Besides if a school can afford 500+ iPads then why not divert some of that money for teachers/faculty or for buying better textbooks and materials. Seriously, it’s not that hard to get better school materials if really want to help the students.

Ok so enough ranting on my part, time to see what you readers (if I have any left at this point) think about education and teachers, and issues like that. What do you think about these issues? How do you think schools should be run? Do you agree with my thoughts?

This has been a Different Opinion. Thank you for your time.

The "Western" World

The “Western” World

How do we define what the Western world is? I believe that we first have to step back and view the world of today. The United States of America is leading the world as one of the major superpowers, though maybe not for long. That; however, is a conversation for another time. Christianity is the religion of the West while anything else is considered foreign and therefore wrong. Muslims are seen and portrayed as in the media as angry terrorists and extremists, threatening to destroy everything “right” with the world. This is, of course, a terrible misunderstanding for the people that suffer this problem.

Enough talk about religion and oppression, let’s get to the root of the issue. In order to talk about that we have to review who the Greeks were. In the 5^th century B.C the Persian Empire was expanding under Cyrus the Great. This led to the Persians taking over Ionia and removing the rulers of Ionia, replacing them with Persian Magistrates. This is just a really brief summary of the beginning events of the Persian War, also known as the Greco-Persian War. In this war, the Persians are seen as the bad guys and the Greeks are the good guys. The Persians practiced Zoroastrianism, a religion that prevented slavery, something was alive and well in the Greek city-states. This is very important to note because the “good” guys were the Greeks, the “symbol” of democracy and justice and slavery isn’t democratic or justified, at least not by modern standards. The Persians are depicted as negative because they are not Greeks or any kind of “Western” civilization.

Slavery in the Greek world was different and meant different things for the types of slaves held. This is a different matter altogether, but do keep in mind that slavery was a thing in the “good” Greek city-states while the “bad” Persians did not have slaves. What does this have to do with the “Western” world and what problems they cause? Well, bear with me because I’m getting there. To those of you still reading, I promise that there will be less history and more thinking coming up. Now that we covered the basics for Greece, let’s talk about how they lived after the Persian War. We all know the Battle of Thermopylae, also known as the Battle of 300. For more info on that, suggest not watching the 300 movie and reading about it instead. Anyway after the Persian War, the Greeks decided to make a group made up of the city-states to protect them in case of another attack or invasion. They called it the Delian League, and the city-states had to provide either troops or money. Athens decided to take some money to rebuild Athens and their Acropolis, the place where their main temples were. In addition to slavery, let’s add embezzlement to the list of qualities the Greeks had. Not to mention the Athenian form of democracy was much different than people would believe. Women weren't considered citizens and were offered little protection under the law.

Yeah, I’ll admit that these were totally different times than today, but these are the roots of democracy and Western Civilization. Oh and by the way, the Greek city-states were at war with each other most of the time because of the fact that they didn’t like each other much. That seems like such a good reason for going to war, now doesn’t it? Ok obligatory sarcasm over. Anyway, this is the legacy the Greeks left us but most people don’t know this, or care about it. It is this ignorance of what the “Western” culture that shows how people don’t care about the past.

On the opposite of this is how the “Western” world doesn’t acknowledge how much the “Eastern” world helped shape it. An example of this goes back to Greece again. (Yeah, I know too much Greece). Anyway there has been a lot of controversy over a book published in the 1980’s called Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization which talks about how Greek origins began in what was considered in those days as Asia Minor and Africa. This is quite interesting since there is knowledge of other cultures and people older than the Greeks being part of their origins; however, Black Athena takes this a step further and says that all of Greek culture was inspired by Asia and/or Africa. Whichever you believe, just know that the Greeks were in fact influenced by some other outside culture.

So is the West the definition of good? Is the East evil? There are no answers here for that, instead I offer the simple question: Why? Why do people think that the East is evil, or at least not as good as the West? There have been so many advances made in the East as in the West. For this I offer another history lesson. (Please bear with me on this, I realize how boring this can be, but it’s totally necessary to understand what I’m gonna say). So in the 11^th century AD the Crusades began, a war waged by the Catholic Church in order to reclaim Jerusalem, the Holy Land, from the evil Muslims. So here’s the problem. Wanting to liberate Jerusalem and its inhabitants from the evil Muslims sounds like a good idea, right? Well what if I said that they did NOT prevent people from practicing their own religions or from visiting the temples there? The Muslims respected the religions of the people living in Jerusalem at the time, mostly Jews and Christians, and allowed them to practice their religions freely.

Once the Christian Crusaders “reconquered” Jerusalem, they did what any other peaceful, good-natured Christians would do. They slaughtered every single last person in Jerusalem because they had been considered “dirty” because of the Muslims. The amount of Jews and Muslims massacred is so large that it is often said that this was the first Holocaust, but enough talk of massacres and killing, it makes me sad. One of the upsides to this massacre was that Western Europeans were reintroduced to so many sciences and mathematics lost to people for centuries after the fall of Rome. (Though not everything from Roman times was lost, but that’s for some other time). This is very important to note because so many people forget that this is true. For example if you hate geometry (and who doesn’t), blame the Muslims for developing the math further. Medicine and astronomy were tools that would help the Europeans in the future. It is all of this that shows that the East is not as evil and lesser as depicted.

Now on the opposite of this is how the Greeks developed many medicinal techniques and tools in their time. (Yeah, I know lots of flip-flopping on my part, but it’s my blog so who cares). Many surgical tools at the time were made of bronze since stainless steel wasn’t a thing yet. They had bronze catheters, which would not sound like fun, along with some other bronze tools for female problems, also not fun. Many modern medical tools that are used these days are basically stainless steel versions of these ancient Greek bronze tools. This just shows that while yes, the “Western” world did have help from other people at some points, there were also things that they did on their own and did well.

So ultimately, did I define what the “Western” World is? Did I say whether it was good or bad? Did I say what was wrong with the world? No, that is for you to figure out on your own. I’m just here to ask the questions because I have as many answers as you do about this, perhaps less. To end off this hopefully entertaining blog, I will say this. Don’t be afraid to be brave, because it’s the brave ones that change the world by not following standards and norms. Be yourself and don’t sit in that boring office all day. (The office is a metaphor for societal constraints by the way). Do what you feel is right without worrying about what others say.