Decleration of the RIghts of the Working and Exploited People

As a Marxist historian it would be assumed that the Russian revolution would be the epidamy for me at least of what a workers revolution should be. However, I am skeptical to call the Russian revolution a true marxist revolution. Part of the reason that I refrain from doing so is the fact that Russia was still in a caste system at the time of the revolution. True Peter the Great had managed to industrialize Russia, but in all truthfulness it still was backwards in comparison to the rest of Europe. Marx describes the rise of the working class like an evolution or a progression. The proletariot will overthrow the bourgeuouse and then will unite in an egalitarian way. However, I am not sure if Marx believed that the working class could overthrow the gentry in a mostly feudal system. Perhaps this is just my own theory that I am purporting to be Marx's. Whatever the case may be I think that it is a pretty good theory.
    Throughout the early part of the second millenia B.C.E. Russia was a land destitute and backwards. For the more part of six hundred years European countries, who for the most part had industrialized, looked at Russia as nothing more than a feudal and despicable place. Russia's nobleman wore beards that were unkempt and thick, a symbol of their place at the top of this caste society. However, in sixteenth century, Peter the Great made revolutionary reforms to industrialize and enlighten his country. Russia soon rose in power and prominance and became one of the economic centers. Although Russia had industrialized, its society was still entrenched by class differences. The cleavage between the rich and poor grew larger and larger until the early part of the twentieth century when a revolution led by V.I. Lenin destroyed the antiquated Russia that was characterized by both decadence, in regard to the royalty and disparity, in regard to the common man. Inspired by the writings of Karl Marx, Lenin promised that this revolt would abolish class structure as the Russian people knew it. As the revolution took full force Lenin designed the Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People to define what the newly formed Soviet Russia would stand for. While
With this in mind I am examining V.I. Lenin's Decleration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People for my European Revolutions class. The document was most likely written before the Red Army gained complete control of Russia. It is likely that V.I. Lenin was had an image in mind of what was going to transpire before his proletariot army gained control of Russia. Without a doubt the document was not difficult for Lenin to write. It probably took him no less than an hour or two to complete the entire document. This is in large part due to the fact that most concepts that Lenin uses are not his. Rather, Lenin Generously borrows the ideals of Karl Marx and adopts it to the people of Russia.
 It is obvious that Lenin's vision of Russia and the spread of communism does not meet with the reality of what actually happened. Part III of the document beings with " Expressing its firm determination to wrest mankind from the clutches of finance capital and imperialism, which have in this most criminal of wars drenched the world in blood, the Constituent Assembly whole-heartedly endorses the policy pursued by Soviet power of denouncing the secret treaties, organising most extensive fraternisation with the workers and peasants of the armies in the war, and achieving at all costs, by revolutionary means, a democratic peace between the nations, without annexations and indemnities and on the basis of the free self-determination of nations." Lenin's idealism is rampant throughout this quote. It was his intention that the working class in a democratic manner would receive communism without question. Communism, in the view of Lenin was not to overthrow seperate countries. Rather those workers within those countries would overthrow the burgeiouse and become united as the working men of the world. However, as history shows this simply was not the case. Had Lenin survived a few more years history may have been completely different. Under Stallin Russia was a very different story. Another issue to bring up from this quote is the fact that the Lenin truly saw the Russian revolution as a revolution. His intention was to make this revolution as a world wide revolution. He saw that the Bulkshevik revolution as merely a stepping stone to the rest of the world.
However, the exact publication date of the manuscript is unknown.

More About South Africa

 The more I learn about the more confused that I am. South Africa is such an enigma to me. I don't know of any nation that has had women be the backbone of a social injustice movement. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing.  Its just a thing that is perplexing. What made it that South Africa could have women really change the resistance in a positive manner when usually they are supportive and helpful but they for the most part are not influential. I know I sound terrible, but that is what I have observed. I may be wrong but with a basic knowledge of history. Part of me wants to abandon my prospectus and talk about what caused the women of South Africa to be so united. its so fascinating.  

Library Excercise

What I learned from the library excercise is that it is not the most efficient thing to do a library search. Libraries are outdated. They will soon be a relic of the past. A relic that will be a popular relic and one that will be used by people everywhere, but a relic nonetheless. its worthless. It took me an entire hour to search for primary sources in the basement of the library. I navigated my computer and searched through books of all sorts. I found stuff that I could use and I found stuff that I will use. However, when it really comes down to it why not search on the internet. There are thousands of sights that have primary sources. It takes a shorter amount of time and for an undergraduate's purposes its not worth searching through all of these documents. It was a healthy tool to learn for the future, but for this paper the majority of my time will be spent on google and the majority of my time will be saved as well.

White Leaders

I'm a little bit weary of the woman in the photo that we learned about today. Not because she is a bad person, but because she is white. I don't get it. I dont get South Africa.  I don't get the why the black liberation movement would be led in part by a white woman. Good for her for doing this and she has a little bit more street credit because she is a woman, but what is she doing leading a black suffrage rebellion? When has a person of another race ever led a deprived race to equality? It doesn't happen in history. Of course there is T.E. Lawrence but all he really accomplished was riding around on some horses in the desert and making promises that he couldn't keep. The fact of the matter is this an unoppressed (yes I know that is not a word) person cannot truly understand what an oppressed person feels. That person can sympathize, but not empathize with that race and as a  result he cannot be a fit leader for a liberation movement. I think that this holds true for class distinctions as well. As a result the russian revolution as successful as it was, was inherently flawed due to the fact that its leader V.I. Lenin did not come from the background of the common man. He was an educated reporter. His family were radicals (his brother being killed for an attempted assasination on Czar Alexander), but I do not believe that he was what Marx and Engeles had in mind when they imagined the workers of the world uniting together to overthrow the bourgeoisie . As a result communism in Russia, began as a flawed institution. 
 So if members come from a privileged class or race what can they do to assist in revolutions and civil rights movements? The answer is they can show members of impoverished races and classes what they need to do in order to obtain that which they want. Marx and Engeles are a good example of this. Both come from privileged backgrounds. It can even be said that both come from bourgeoisie backgrounds. However, the two sympathized with the struggles of the working class and wanted to instruct others on how to make life better.
I think this is pertanent to me. My dream is to teach history in the ghetto's. I will not be leading some liberation movement. That is just what history has taught me. I won't be able to do it. I can try and I hope to try in one measure or another, but when it really comes down to it, I cannot lead a despairing people to freedom. I am the son of a rich doctor. What do I know about suffering? However, I hope to inspire those who I teach to transcend their circumstances and leave their ghettos. If they go to college they can then attempt to lead their people to a better life. 

Linking European Revolutions With South Africa

So I am enrolled in all good History classes this year. This is an amazing feat given the fact that since I transferred to BYU I have had one good History teacher. I am quite excited to continue on in my history journey.
 With this in mind I have decided to take a new approach to many of my classes. I want to be able to link, what I learn in statistics, with what I learn in European Revolutions, to what I learn in this South African History. I am going to go ahead and state that my Utah history will stand apart from my two other History classes. I dare anyone who reads this blog (which is just me) to try and link European Revolutions to the history of Utah. As for South Africa and Utah I guess you could go ahead and state that Apartheid existed in the Church and in South Africa, but that is quite the stretch. Anyway this is my plan from here on out.

Uncle Toms Rebellion

I'm going to be honest I might just switch my paper to a different topic. I am a passionate individual and as a passionate individual I am quick to get upset. There are events that transpire throughout the course of world history that bother me. It is for this reason I am a historian. I like controversy. I like debate. I wish that we had more debate and controversy at brigham young university. unfortunately we are all like minded individuals with the same ambition and the same religion, so it is very infrequent to ever experience any type of debate. As a result many times classes are boring. With this being stated, however, I had a very interesting and motivating debate a few classes ago.
We were discussing the creation of the SANC (south african national congress) in class. This for a time was very interesting. The congress formed in 1902 by well educated black South Africans. Their intention was to establish equal rights through petitioning those who held them captive. They went forth to the king of England and petitioned for their rights. That was in 1914. In 1919 they sent a delegation to versailles. In 1936 the Hertzog Bills were signed and blacks in south Africa lost their rights.
 There is a picture of the delegates to versalles. They are dressed in white attire. The transcript shows that the spoke like whites. Their actions show that they act like whites. As a result they accomplished nothing. Brother Malcom would have called these men the "house negroes" I would call these men "house negroes" They tried to do things the white way and they failed. Why did they fail? Because any impoverished society that has tried to prove that they are "Whiter than the white man" has always failed. While the SANNC dressed in sleek suits and bow ties their brothers lived in huts. I do not huts in a derogatory fashion i mean that as a matter of fact way. How could anyone so impovirished and so discriminated against ever listen to their brothers who were not in their same circumstances? It is impossible to do so.
Change has only come by civil unrest. People are not inspired by the status quo. They have never been inspired by the status quo. They have always been inspired by the thought of their own identity. they have always been inspired by acting by their own race and nationality. Moses did not free the people of israel by telling his people to act like egyptians. No he inspired them by thoughts of a better life. thoughts of their own country and thoughts of their own freedom. he organized the common man and with the help of divine inspiration he set his people free.
Ghandi did not liberate the his people through dressing in the form of a white man. Rather he shed his fine cloaks. denied his status as an elite but inferior to white aristocrat within British governed India, and became one of the masses. He dressed in home spon clothing, which was a sign of Indian Nationalism.
Martin Luther King did not inspire black in the South to be like the white man. he aknolwedged the differences and then created strikes and riots. He inspired the working African American class to rise up and tear down the wall of racism that prevented blacks from gaining equality. He inspired the masses to gain their independance rather than petition from the back of the bus.
What was the result of the SANNC and their approach to equality. South African's who once had their independence lost it. It was a retroactive revolution. As a result it took South Africa thirty years longer than any other industrialized nation to gain equality. That is pathetic.  

Project #1

Well my obsessions with blogs continue to grows. Not only do I have a blog dedicated to my life and to my mission but I have also seen it fit to begin another blog. Professor Hadfield told us that we needed to start a writing journal and I hate my hand writing so I decided to start a blog instead. I'm hoping that it will be an ok thing.
   Today we were told to skim through a book and within ten minutes pick out the historical question that the book was trying to answer, what sources the author used, and what the thesis of the book was. It really sounds like a daunting task and I was anticipating it to be. However, I realized something that I had yet to realize while doing this little exercise. If you read the introduction you will find out the thesis of the book. For instance I discovered that the boy I was reading had this as a thesis. "this book seeks to show the experience of selected groups of ordinary people in Johannessburg within the wider context of the industrial revolution which engulfed the witwaterstrand at the turn of the century." And within five minutes of researching I was able to understand what the book was about. I really wish that I would have put this into practice a while ago. I wonder if my grades would have been better. Looking at the back of the book helped me understand what the author used in regard to citations. From the cover it was easy enough to deduce what the historical question that it answered was. I also learned that this book was written in 1982 which preceeds the post apartheid era. This serves as a double edged sword. On one hand the writer Charles van Onselen will probably provide the opinion of a white historian during the time of apartheid. Based on the name Van Onselen I'd guess he is dutch and would provide the opinions of the dutch during this time. However, Van Onselen's views may be opinionated by apartheid one way or another. A fair or balanced report most likely will not be achieved as a result.