The Balance of Leadership and Citizenship

What was the connection between leadership and citizenship in Ancient Greece?

In Athens, a direct democracy was instituted in society and controlled the foundation of government. This dictates that every single citizen in Greece was consulted and had a strong voice on each decision and actions that was being carried out by the governmental structure. However, there were a large number of qualifications needed in order to have such a strong say in the government of the region. These include financial, age, and gender guidelines which must be met and have minimal leniency by which an individual can become a considered “active” part of the government. This means that all participants in the government had to be considered and declared a citizen. In addition to the guidelines listed above, state qualifications also had a role in determining who would become a part of the leadership organizations and make decisions which would have prominence and effectivity throughout the region. Citizens needed to participate in the military practices and pay certain taxes, as well as abide by a specific set of laws which governed the greater society, in order to be recognized as a citizen. Once granted and earned citizenship, individuals were allowed to and did play a significant role in governing and leading Ancient Greece through history. This meant that realistically, merely free and independent men were allowed to have a say in government and their ultimate lives! This brings up the concept of the struggle to find a balance between leadership and citizenship. Leaders are “supposed” to account for everyone in the region and direct, choose, and live according to the best and recognized interests and benefits; therefore, shouldn’t the governing system have taken everyone, free or not, qualified or unqualified, into account and rule and govern them? If a direct democracy truly calls for an accepted and wide range of citizenships, why was the governmental structure and properties to selective and executive? I believe that it is because of the solid and positive leadership structure instituted in Athens; that the leaders in the region and government used their power and availability to options in order to make a leader-like decision regarding the population as a whole! The leaders and governments thought it was (and it probably was) the best thing for everyone to be ruled and governed by people who were the most experienced, exposed, involved, and overall qualified. As leaders, they were looking out for the population’s best interests, and it was in their favor that they did not have a random and unreasonable individual ruling their lives, therefore making the governmental acceptance process a strenuous and selective one, but only because it was in the interest of the people. The leaders of Ancient Greece proposed and installed a method in society by which they could most effectively and surely direct and develop society into the best possible future and to make their history a good, effectual one. As leaders, it is their job to make decisions like this based solely off of what they believe will allow their governed society to reach their full potential in development and existence, the question is when is it taken a step to far. Citizenship is merely a method utilized by leaders to select the ones best fit for the power position which the government holds; its a valuable tactic, but as the process gets too selective and overwhelmed, societies tend to develop into the opposite form of government where citizenship isn’t even taken into consideration: monarchy/oligarchy, etc. Citizenship is vital in sustaining a balance between the leaders of the people and the people themselves.

The Stasi's Approach to Leadership

When I was watching the beginning of the film in class today, I tried to make the connection between this movie and the overarching concept of government and leadership. In retrospect, the movie ideally captures the essence of leadership and the significant role it plays in all different cultures and civilizations throughout the entire world. Particularly in this sense, though (in my opinion), the film portrays the negative aspect of leadership and how the notion of leaders have the potential to allow its constituents to reach new heights, but to decide whether those extremes are positive or negative is in the eyes of the beholder. In this case, I view the concept of leadership is being used to reach negative heights for greater society, and the leader(s) were doing exactly what a leader should do the opposite of! The Stasi monitored and controlled every single aspect of every individual’s life in their area of jurisdiction in Germany. They would not allow for any discrepancy in society that did not accord with their strict laws, regulations, purposes, and philosophy. The dictionary definition of a leader is: the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country; a person followed by others. As the second part of the definition may be true and apply to the situation at hand in the film, the first concept scarcely satisfies the actions, conditions, and principles of the Stasi. The Stasi were central leaders in society, looked up to, respected, accepted, and evidently a significant role in the daily life of a German citizen. As leaders, they lead, commanded, and regulated German society and civilizations in order to fit the shape which they intended for the country to head in; one which they think is the most beneficial, valuable, and merely, best! Therefore, utilizing their leader-like qualities, advancements, and power, the Stasi grasped Germany by its reigns and took every step necessary to whip the country into shape and force it to fulfill the criteria which was set by the Stasi, and for the Stasi. Ironically, a man once said that government is for the people and of the people. This is exactly the conflicting point to what occurred in Germany; their government (the Stasi) was instituted by the leaders of the country, and merely, for the leaders of the country. As they tried to protect and stabilize the population to reflect the individual/greater benefit to the communist cause, the people agreed to it, but only because they had no other option. The Stasi evidently took their power seat and used it to institute what they thought was best and right for society. But, thinking in terms of what leaders have the potential to do, it can be said that the Stasi did the wrong thing! Instead of focusing on specifically on their jurisdiction, they could use their power and apply it internationally, bringing together other countries (Germany included!) and establishing a wider, more potent power. Additionally, the Stasi could have provided minimal limitations to society, allowing it to prosper and thrive in all potential areas. In other words, use their power to indirectly elect and appoint others to make a country-wide power instead of an individual-based power. If artists, writers, singers, actors, etc. were able to fully express themselves and connect with society on greater, more intimate levels. If this were able to happen as a result of the alternative approach to leadership taken by the Stasi, the country would have the potential to reach even further heights; history has shown that when societies and diversity all culminate into one, combined power, the greatest achievements, successes, failures, and catastrophes occur. By definition, if something changes history, significance and authority is gained; the Stasi did have en effect on history, but it could have had a bigger one if it used leadership to its full, positive, and intended possibilities. In the film, the leaders of society are shutting society down of all actions that are not in accordance with what the leaders themselves abide by. They are leading themselves as well as their followers down on a decline, whereas history has been improved and extremely effected when the leaders as well as the followers work together to change it; the Stasi had the wrong approach to leadership, and consequently, an unfavorable history as well.

Chicago Heat Wave: Individual Meanings

After reading the interview with Eric Klinenberg, the foundation of the history class was a pressing thought in my mind. I continuously thought of how history, and the capacity of historical events is completely dependent on the source at which is receiving and retelling it, making history a total compilation of different individual thoughts, perspectives, and recordings. In the interview, many questions were asked along the lines of how was Chicago during the heat wave, and how did people deal with it, and how many people were immensely effected by such a disaster. His answers were consistently answered in two different parts: both from two contrasting and opposing perspectives. Particularly, in this event, social class and economic standing was a clear contributor to the capacity of the disaster, so her divided up his responses with different recording of people who were emerged in different economic conditions. Consequentially, those in poor economic standing and conditions were extremely more devastated and impacted by the heat wave, whereas the people in the higher class and richer economic conditions saw a less prevalent effects on their lives. The exponential difference between such classes obviously made the disastrous environmental catastrophe escalade to higher heights, as the contrast made developed into a bigger disaster than the nature itself. Regardless, the review of the disaster was drastically different based solely off of the individual who is explaining it. The interviewee told of the large amount of suffering senior citizens who, in retrospect, were not especially wealthy and in such good standing. Therefore, they didn’t have the options and the resources that were available to others, leading to a calamitous ending for such individuals in the lower class. Meanwhile, people in higher economic standing had a much smoother (still rough, but better) and sufficient experience when it comes to the heat wave. With them, they had the money, resources, choices, and fallbacks by which they could utilize in order to accompany and sustain their lives in such a catastrophic time period. The explanations and recordings of the individuals who had more money and options available to them were an improvement to the ones from the poorer levels of society. This difference relates to how we need to approach history by historiography, in opposition to merely accepting and applying the details and information revealed without recognizing potential biases and misconceptions of the truth and actual happenings. The interview of a dispersed individual in the Chicago Heat Wave of 1995 is an ideal example to prove such a point, as it serves as evidence that two descriptions of the same event can (and usually are) significantly different, and cannot be understood and applied to the same extent. We can do two things with the presented contrasting information. One, we can use the difference between the sources to understand important issues, separations, and characteristics of the society at the time, and apply such findings to understand the core of the sources, and answer the question why it is written like it is. Then, we can understand (a little better) the differences and take the firm information that is presented without distractions and misunderstandings from such a source. The Heat Wave interview perfectly demonstrates how history is the analysis of different perspectives of an event, as the heat wave was a completely different scenario all depending on (in this case) the social and economic standing of the individual.

Highlighting the Issues

Are environmental catastrophes and disasters truly environmental?

When reading the Modern World and Chicago Heat Wave of 1995 sections in the textbook, there was one passage which really struck me. In retrospect, environmental disasters grew to such extensive capacities because of the complex and flawed society it was enveloped in, not (entirely) because of its eminence and natural effect on the environment and humanity. Many times, natural disasters have made such an indent on society because of the way society itself was established; the disaster merely highlighted them and in a way, challenged them, to force humanity to see that maybe it is not the best institution and that it must be rethought or abolished completely. Environmental disasters are something that underlines the structure of society and shakes that basis in order for it to regain the “balance” or agreement with nature; humanity must live in accordance with natures law and intents. In the case of Hurricane Katrina and the Chicago Heat Wave, both disasters were unquestionably devastating and horrific for humanity to bear and cope with, but its societal institution made it all the worse for humans as a whole. Both instances highlighted the issues of social and economic class is society, and how equality and a balance between each individual was something considered absurd and outlandish then. With Katrina, the people with the money and the resources had the capability and the availability of options by which they could choose from and decide how to survive and sustain themselves and their loved ones throughout the disaster. This, of course, upset, aggravated, and fueled the individuals in the lower class to revolt and highlight the fact that they had zero options and were completely stuck in the disaster itself and its aftermath. Clearly, this is unfair, unjust, and a sign of the corruptness of social and economic classes in society. As devastating as the Hurricane was environmentally, the true humanitarian disaster came as a result of the inequality of society and the limited options and efforts which were made in an attempt to better the lives of the people who were directly effected by the disaster. Simply, Hurricane Katrina was an environmental disaster which then further prompted humanitarian installations in society to be seen as corrupt, negative, or deficient, which then grew the catastrophe to new proportions, making it the pressing disaster as it was; but, categorizing it merely as a natural disaster is misleading--it was so much more than just an environmental obstacle. In the case of the Chicago Heat Wave of 1995, when reading the interview, it becomes clear that the community of Chicago was greatly divided, and clearly the most prevalent division dealt with economic statuses. At the time, the wealthier side of society immediately utilized their resources to better their situation and improve their living style to better cope with the major issue at hand. But, the ones without the resources, being the poorer class (a great part of the population), senior citizens, etc., took every step needed to obtain any measure which could improve their individual well being and condition. This, then, developed into an entirely new issue of supply and demand, greatly effecting the economy itself, and also destroyed many institution which parts of society heavily relied on, including power sources. As everyone was trying to get everything they could get their hands on in such a desperate time, great commotion and changes underwent throughout society. This, obviously, made dealing with the heat wave even more difficult, and forced the natural disaster to make an exponentially larger impact on society than it was meant to/would have if society was different. Evident in both Hurricane Katrina and the Heat Wave of 1995, environmental disasters have grown to new heights simply because of the flawed humanitarian institutions in society, and the disasters are merely a method by which such foundations are highlighted, and seen to need to be changed in order to improve and better prepare humanity for the next natural disaster or obstacle that we will be confronted with. 

The Cycle of Challenges

Given the results of the Industrial Revolution, how did humanity approach new challenges and obstacles, including war?

The Industrial Revolution dawned a new era of technology and perspective which mankind applied to its everyday life. One key component which enabled humanity to take such a substantial step forward was the progression in the concept and execution of mobility throughout the world. As the world progressed technologically and militarily, people simply became more mobile because there was a pressing need to do so in order to completely defend oneself and be victorious, overall. But, in warfare, the trench system proved mobility at its worst, as it became an inhumanly disgusting place. Since mobility was a key element in approaching and conquering militarily related challenges, the trench system seemed to be a full-proof and efficient plan in order to station and contain the soldiers. Trench warfare was the dominant technology which was utilized throughout World War One. Soldiers would eat, sleep, fight, go to the bathroom, live, and die in these trenches. Obviously, it became quickly overflowed with wastes and was incredibly unsanitary, as an understatement. Rainwater also destroyed the trenches, as excessive rains filled up and overflowed the trenches, drenching everything with water. The combination of water and all other wastes fostered an unavoidable disease and corruption in the trenches, ultimately making them a grave rather than a passage to fighting and therefore living (hopefully). This disease turned into something on the scale comparable to the Black Death, demolishing countless amounts of soldiers and environments. 

The sprouting of new elements to life and technology (eventually warfare) led to mobility, which is presently an enormous credit to how we know so much and plays an inconceivably large role in modern day life. But, the trench warfare disasters and diseases serve as proof to the notion that such developing technologies continue humanity on a deadly path and cycle, going from bad times to good times (as things are being further developed), leading to times which are too good, which are almost impossible to sustain, therefore eventually going back to bad times and restarting the cycle again from there. Essentially, humanity continues to come up with new methods by which it can use to benefit and improve the efficiency, quality, and condition of their lifestyle; not only is technology part of these progressions, but social class, economy, politics, etc. are all results of this cycle, striving for improvement which is realistically impossible to achieve. In other words, humanity has gotten to the point where it has outdone itself, running out of options of things to develop and investigate, therefore drawing too big of a scope for itself to attain. That is why the environment steps in to reset humanity back via methods such as disease or a natural disaster, which forces humanity to rethink, redevelop, and reinstate the ways by which we live that does not set an unattainable goal for itself, allowing it to thrive, relate, and prosper with the surrounding environment. The environment is simply a mechanism which sets humanity on the correct/towards the correct direction that will allow it to reach its full potential to best approach new challenges and obstacles at hand.

The Black Death PAPER

Purpose: To sustain Renaissance/Florentine culture by writing (he is a humanitarian) and documenting the spread, symptoms, and societal effects which the Black Death had on society and culture. The writer was incredibly passionate about having his current living style maintain its prevalence, order, and stability throughout the times following the Black Death, but throughout the passage, he makes it become clear how devastating, changing, and potent this disease was, and that his loved culture was destroyed into pieces as death, devastation, and chaos swept the population.

Argument: To point out the devastation in Florence caused by this disease, in an effort to make people feel sympathetic for his wants and needs, and to improve society as humanity is degrading. He makes his case clearly and powerfully as he describes the several difference approaches which citizens of Florence took to escape, accept, and fight the deadly disease. He also states how there was minimal support that people could use and seek when in need, as society was extremely developed in humanitarian areas of life, yet there was not much medical knowledge and advancements, so people were left with instinct, something which lead many down a poor path.

Presupposition: The writer, writing with a cultural edge, presumes that the readers understand the significance of culture in Florentine society, as well as how all the advancements which were made during the time period allowed humanity to reach new levels, but fall short medically (implying for extensive medical knowledge to be implemented in society following this pandemic). He also did not realize the extreme contrast in Florentine society during the 1300‘s which would develop (somewhat) as a result of this pandemic; not expecting such a drastic change in medical understandings and implications in society over time, the author did not realize how readers, perhaps in Florence today, would view this differently than if it were read a few years after it was written. As the difference presents difficulty to fully understand the importance and relevance of what is being said, the contrast between today and then was not presumed by the author, allowing us today to miss significant points and values which he expresses.

Epistemology: In comparison to the secondary source we read (textbook) about the Black Death, this source provides a much more vivid, emotional, and passionate response, providing more detail, perspective, but also more biased/room for interpretation according to the reader-author relationship. Although, this text does support the drastic effects, changes, and consequences which the disease had on humanity as described in the textbook, but this source focuses in on a specific area geographically and culturally speaking, detailing about the effects as seen by Florentines and humanitarians. From this text, one thing that we learn that is indisputable and cannot be interpreted as different, is the prevalent effect that this disease had on humanity, and how it forced humanity to question its very own humanity, assessing the situation off of a non-human point of view, as something of this proportion had never been thought of our death with before in human history.

Relate: Repeated pattens in both the textbook and this primary source include the progression of how humanity approached, dealt with, and viewed the entire spectrum of the pandemic. But more historically speaking, patterns of the corruptness of mankind, the environment, and culture emerge from both sources, as one can clearly understand that the Black Death was a result of the imbalance and interfered relationship which humans held with the environment as well as one which humans held with themselves and aspects of their lives (such as culture). These patterns of relationships have appeared several times in both readings, emphasizing the significance of the consequence which the disease made on human history and the way mankind moved forward from the first symptom which showed up.

The Industrial Revolution and Humanity's Progression Patterns

How did the Industrial Revolution effect humanity’s relationship with the environment?

The Industrial Revolution changed the path that humanity was on, and accelerated the pace by which humanity grew, developed, and changed. Before this Revolution, people primarily lived and worked on farms which took up a vast amount of space, human labor, and natural resources in society. This strengthen the relationship which humanity had with nature, utilizing and optimizing their natural resources available. But, as times progressed and populations grew, farmers began to move into cities, causing great increases in city populations and resources needed to support such increase. In addition to such increase in population, there was also a pressing need for an increase of factories to produce goods. These factories would mass produce items such as food, clothing, and other goods which were to be distributed across the region. The mass production of such items and the usage natural resources placed a huge stress on the surrounding environment. As the pace of the demand of such resources increased, the ability of the environment to provide the necessary resources. This difference in the pace at which human need for resources quickened, and the environment ability to deliver such resources weakened the relationship which both shared with each other. Naturally, the environment is a much more powerful force than humanity’s ability to affect it. Therefore, humanity and nature much strike some kind of a balance between humanity's demands for natural resources and the environment’s ability to meet those demands. A main consequence is the notion of finite resources: all natural resources which humanity strongly depends on are finite and will eventually run out (e.g. coal). Natural forces teach humans that we must either slow down the rate by which they are using up resources or find alternatives to the resources that are currently relied on in society. Humanity has developed a blind eye and a deaf ear to this important question, as we are unable to face the idea that there are consequences if we do not do so. Considering how dependent and non-resourceful society has been for the past 100 or so years, and it is extremely difficult to make that change; but, when resources such as coal run out in the near future, humanity will face a new challenge along with the environment to fulfill the function which that resource provided for such a massive amount of people for such a massive amount of time.

RESEARCH DAY 2

Boodhoo, Niala. A Look at Rebuilding Haiti's Earthquake-Shattered Economy. United States, Washington: McClatchy - Tribune Information Services, 2010. http://search.proquest.com/docview/458455117?accountid=3360.


This explains that Haiti's economy was based of agriculture, as most of its population gained their profit and life agriculturally. It also states how Haiti will need to rebuild from the industries native to the country, including rum production. Lastly, it converses about how the fact the insurance and coverage is so rare in Haiti, it made the quake ever so more devastating. 




Merten, Kenneth. "Sunday Perspective: Recovery is Slow, but we'Re Working to Rebuild." Oakland Tribune, Jan 16, 2011. http://search.proquest.com/docview/840286719?accountid=3360.


This article explains what and how the United States is playing a role in the re-consecutuive improving economic structure of Haiti as effected by the quake (and before). It tell of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC) that assembles relief and development projects in order to build a bridge between the beneficial US economy and the defective Haitian economy' what governments (mostly US) are doing to help.




Clinton, Bill. "Business can Help Haiti." Business Week no. 4166 (Feb 15, 2010): 84-84.http://search.proquest.com/docview/236800507?accountid=3360;magazine/content/10_07/b4166084349692.htm?chan=magazine+channel_business+views.


This is a quote/speech from Bill Clinton, which states how he believes that this is an opportunity rather than a disaster to redevelop and reestablish Haiti to become a country with solid infrastructure, etc. He suggests that business is the key to relief and to helping Haiti out of the ashes, as the economy will provide opportunity and investments for citizens worldwide to restart an economy which has the potential to better lives in and out of Haiti.




Guha, Krishna. "Rush to Restore Cash Flow to Economy." Financial Times, </span>, 2010.http://search.proquest.com/docview/250248775?accountid=3360.


This article describes how Haiti is simply running out/have run out of cash, causing the economy to be at a total stand still. It speaks of how all banks are shut down, there is little financial aid from governments, industries and plants shut down (textiles, etc.) allowing for no income or payments to other countries--no cah flow. It also tells of what some banks (the World Bank) are trying to do while inputting money as loans and aids to restart cash flow.




Klarreich, Kathie. "Haiti Earthquake Diary: Rebuilding a Sense of Community." The Christian Science Monitor, Jan 22, 2010. http://search.proquest.com/docview/746479718?accountid=3360.


This is notes from an interview with the Haitian Minister of Tourism, now the head of the earthquake damage assessment. He says the Port-au-Prince, the capital of Haiti, has too big of a population than it was made for, and has a lack of the positions needed to be filled in order to have the city fully functioning again--it is the center of Haiti's and much of the Latin American economy. He also explains how there must be a government/leader that will lead the community in a direction where the economy has the potential to rebuild itself.