Author: Aiden Herman

Over the course of the book Putin Country, identity is brought up more than a few times. Afterall it had been years since it was last seen as Russia. With this new identity comes a need for many changes around what it meant to be a Russian. The last paragraph of chapter 18 also brings up an analogy of a meteor crash and its similarity to the affects Russia has felt. If the idea that a new Russia is to be found from the ruins of the old, could this just be a long process that they are expecting to happen overnight? Or is it the methods in which the founding of a new identity occurred that are the cause for such unrest.

On page 103, Bendit speaks of his view of the unrest his movement would provide. He thinks the unrest is a good thing and allows for man to speak in a free manor. I liked the idea of this because it provided the public to think and get behind something that they truly believe in. But does this plan truly end this way 100% of the time or is some form of anarchy and civil unrest a likely outcome with limited leadership. Would viewpoints end up fighting each other than rallying and unifying behind a singular cause.

Covering oneself was a traditional practice within Algerian culture for women. This was until the colonists arrived and began a campaign of unveiling. It gave a seeming sense of confidence, as described on page 52 of Frantz Fanon’s book, but did not come without judgement of those around them. The weaponization of the veil and transportation of weaponry gave rise to a whole new meaning of this tradition. Resistance to this by the women meant self-actualization but does this resistance to materialization gain ground in the battle for equality? Or were these women always going to be scrutinized based on resistance to traditional values?

The introduction of Simone de Beauvoir’s talks of the individual opportunity that women seek if they truly want to be seen as their own person. She brings up the idea that a woman is not born into the stereotype but molded into what history expects a woman to be. While change is hard and many studies suggest that we are still not equal, she suggests that the process starts with a mindset. So I raise the question that if the peoples mindsets are historically set in the wrong place, would that be more of a hinderance of change over a man expressing his superiority?

Churchill gave his Iron Curtin speech not long after the end of World War two and Not long before the beginning of the Cold War. He mentions the power hungry countries that lust for control and “the fruits of war” (Churchill, web). I find it interesting to think about the perspective at which he speaks. He talks as we do in class, from one perspective. He advises based on the democratic ideals which he believes in but allows no room for variance. While democracy is good from our point of view as well as his, is a world without variance a totally good thing? Could he be wrong in saying that the prevention of war is based on the expansion of freedom to people and the spread of democracy?

Throughout the stories of torture and mistreatment that Levi tells, he speaks a lot on dehumanization and resourcefulness. When one can get away with something as little as stuffing their jackets with toilet paper when it is cold, they do. But how much does chance or luck play into the overall scheme? Could the chance of being not fatally injured during a job be considered luck? Does the chance of being seen as unfit and being put to death also be considered luck?

After the stock market crash of 1929, the worlds hardships grew. A lack of jobs, production, and consumption were issues that needed to be dealt with. The one system that seemed to do the trick was Marxism. Stalin said that his successful communistic plans “cannot be regarded as an accident”( Mazower 121). Was this system truly what could have shortened the depression and made a large impact on economies quickly?

On page 217 of “What I Saw?”, he says that the people laid down everything for Germany and they gave them nothing in return but punishment. He speaks of the book burnings and the writers that refused to be a part of the Reich’s corps of writers. But he mainly talks about the parts of the lives of the forgotten inhabitants of Berlin and that life goes on for them. I think this gives a more humanistic view of the people of Germany but with the numbers that they have, could a spark of changed that peace? Could one or a few standing their ground, like the writers who were never published because of their morals, have led to a different outcome or would these efforts be squashed by the overwhelming power of the Reich?

“A Room of One’s Own” explains many aspects of what is wrong with men in the time period that it is set. A lot of wrongdoings, misrepresentations, and abuse are mentioned. I would like to play devils advocate on this part and talk of bias. While I know that these problems undeniably existed and some on the levels described, was the writers point of view glorifying the actuality of events? Were/are all men truly as bad as described?

In Lenin’s speech, he speaks of the electrification of Russia and the opportunities it presents as a “stronghold of enlightenment”. He says that his plans for electrification will be constantly “improved, elaborated, perfected, and modified”. In the current state of Russia and its government in the late 1910’s, could this claim be fulfilled as he says it will be?