Dehumanization occurs when those who are robbed of their humanity and those who rob others of their humanity through violence, oppression, and injustice. An example of this would be the division of social classes. The upper class could be defined as the oppressor with the status of power, wealth, and knowledge contrasted to the lower class or the oppressed. The lower classes lack power and wealth but are capable of obtaining knowledge through learning. Only once that the oppressed are conscious of their position in society of being dehumanized can they understand their circumstance and fight for freedom.
This was introduced by the Labour party, who Lewis argues have taken on the idea of ‘social investment in children’ seriously and have realised family forms are changing. The Labour party have introduced a number of laws, attempting to strengthen the family unit. They were mainly concerned on helping the social and economic position of women, for example, marital rape was made illegal in 1991 by the Labour party. The rights of children have also been improved by the labour party due to the children’s act of 1989. New right thinkers however; believe that these laws undermine the traditional male dominance in families, but many believe these new policies for women and children strengthen the family rather than weaken it.
My reaction to this chapter is one that is mildly surprised. I found it interesting that “escape was easier than rebellion,” (Zinn 46). Apparently, the air was heavily charged with rumor of rebellion and revolt (something I think would work well for an espionage novel). I thought it was interesting how the white workers really put their heart and soul into getting a better life. This chapter made me start to see another side of the multifaceted history of the United States, one that wasn’t focused on equality for African Americans or women, but one that was focused on equality among common men.
“While the Industrial Revolution had both positive and negative effects on society and the economy, the positive effects outweighed the negative.” The Industrial Revolution came to organize and provide much more benefits than harm in many ways and while change overall has both positive and negative effects the positives definitely outweighed the negative. Before the industrial revolution everything was much harder. Let’s take a look at various aspects that found to have more good than bad. Although one may view the fencing of the land owned by villagers and townspeople as an abuse, the reality was that at the time it was something needed. This had a much more positive effect because while the villagers lost land the enclosure resulted in efficient farming that produced more food.
One reason why the opponents of the Tsars were more successful than those of the Communists was the fact that, under the Tsars, opposition attained a legal status. It can be argued that the implementation of the Zemstvos under Alexander II paved the way for the full legalisation of opposition, as this allowed the spawning of political ideas. However, under Nicholas II this was more prevalent, as the October Manifesto allowed for the full legalisation of opposition through the implementation of the Dumas. Though the Dumas acted as unsuccessful opposition to the Tsar – as he declared the Fundamental Laws almost immediately after the Dumas came into existence – this was important as it allowed the opposition groups to burgeon. Unlike the regimes of both Alexander II and III, political discussion was allowed, and as such it developed more so than at any other time in the period.
The troops would have felt let down as well, so therefore wanted reform and supported Mussolinis violence tactic. This also links in with the north south divide as the troops would be in the south and it hadnt industrialised as much as the north causeing a huge divide socially and economically. This demobalisation of the troops would have threated the higer classes as the troops could easily over power them for the land. Obviously the 5 million troops would have supported Mussolini and therefore caused a growth in his support. Another reason for Mussolinis success was the weakness of the political system.
There are many cases in which the Tsar’s position and the government’s position are genuinely threatened such as the mass demonstrations leading to many strikes which had the potential of economic failure. On the other hand there are also cases where they are not seriously threatened the mutinies of the armed services for example did not carry on after the war. The revolutionary’s aims had no intentions to threaten the position of the Tsar or his government however some people could argue that it did because of the misinterpretations of their demands. The Tsar and his government faced three main opponents the industrial workers, peasants and the reformist middle class. The fact that peasantry took part in the 1905 revolution (also known as Bloody Sunday)shows that the suspicions of the peasants changing were true and to the Tsar and his government this could have appeared to be a threat because they always feared peasantry development, the Tsar and the Empress especially.
I will be arguing that the achievement of the Attlee Government were remarkable. The sources which I’ll be using show the impact that the Attlee Government had on Britain. From my own knowledge and also the sources, I can show that the achievements of Attlee Government were remarkable as it helped the people of Britain live much better lives. On the contrary it can also show that the achievements weren’t remarkable as it had created many problems for the country. Source 4 is suggesting that since the Attlee government had come into power sorted out many problems in Britain.
This view is largely accredited because Pitt came into office in a difficult time but events around him seemed to benefit him rather well. Britain was entering the industrial revolution at the time, industry rose up and trade would boom due to expansion of the industries at home and abroad, the advancements of technology meant that Britain was going through a natural change that arguably Pitt was able to captain through leading to better fortunes. The natural opposition from the Whig party against the king led by Charles Fox meant that Pitt naturally had the Kings support against any opposition which could be thrown at him, the king would back him up. The American Revolution and his lack of connection to it meant that he was seen as a new politician not one of the previously failed governments who’s lack of control and rule in a situation. And lastly the regency crisis of 1788 meant that Pitt could use this to gain favour with the king and gather support from his own party and draw it away from the opposition.
Between 1906 and 1914, the liberal government took steps in the provisions of welfare policies in a bid to help the impoverished people of Britain. These steps indicated a move away from the non-intervention policy known as ‘laissez faire’ to a more ‘collectivist’ approach. The changes which took place signalled a huge change in attitude; the poor were no longer condemned, but were accepted as unfortunate but equal citizens, whose rights had to be acknowledged. The reforms aimed to help the young, old, unemployed and sick, as it was clear that these groups were more likely to endure poverty. Winston Churchill summed the nature of the liberal welfare reforms, ‘If we see a drowning man we do not drag him to the shore.