Adolf Hitler, Proclamation to the German Nation, February 1, 1933

              On February 1^st, 1933, Adolf Hitler stated numerous promises and described his vision for the betterment of Germany. His proclamation noted how, over the past fourteen years, the nation’s political leaders had failed to restore Germany to its former glory. The result, according to Hitler, was “a heap of ruins.” Hitler indicated he deserved the support of the people and believed they should give him four years to rebuild Germany. Following those four years, he would allow the people to judge him. Hitler’s speech was given to restore hope to the people and to rebuild their nationalistic pride. It gave the Germans a trust in Hitler. The hope which had been lost and eluded the German people for so long was now in their grasp. I believe Hitler was well aware of his intentions and used the opportunity to play to the people’s “weaknesses.”

                Hitler stated that the national government “regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.” This statement was subtle and it sounded good to the German people. I believe Hitler knew a statement regarding g faith and family would both calm and inspire the masses. This phrase stood out to me as I guess it would to others. The in congruency of his words and later actions in seeking to eradicate an entire race of people was, obviously, not a Christian concept or value. Hitler went on to add that “the National Government considers its highest mission to be the securing of the right to live and the restoration of freedom to our nation.” While these words sound lofty and beautiful, Hitler obviously ignored them in a short time to come.

                Both of these statements caused me think of the countless number of groups that claim to be Christian yet justify their racist and prejudicial beliefs by suggesting they are supported by the Bible.  In reading the second quote several more times, I began to understand it more.  It appears as though Hitler meant what he said but also had hidden meanings at work in his mind at the same time.  I doubt Hitler experienced a radical change in his thinking from the time of this speech until the time he began exterminating the Jews and other people groups. I simply believe his true self started to slowly unveil.

                In America’s 2008 Presidential election, President Barack Obama’s slogan was “Change.”  On August 19, 2008 he said, “Change doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington.” I want to make it clear that I am not equating Barak Obama with Adolf Hitler, I am merely noting the similarities between the campaign rhetoric of one and nationalistic proclamation of the other.  The aspiring German leader told the people to give him four years and then to decide how well he had done. The same is true for President Obama; he would be elected for four years as president and then America would judge him on the kind of “change” he brought to the nation.  As is usually the case in politics, both politicians blamed the current states of their respective nations on the failures of previous leaders. These are a few similarities I see regarding their conquests for leadership.

                In chapter 26, our text book talks about the 1930’s and the years leading of to the Second World War. In 1929 the Great Depression issued a lot of stress not only on America but on the entire world. Another factor that would lead to WWII was the conflict between Ethiopia and Italy. The Spanish civil war and the invasion of China by Japan would continue to add tension to world affairs. All of this led to Hitler’s proclamation and his increased influence on the German public to lead to WWII.  

A Place Under the Sun

              Germany was one of the last countries in Europe to respond in the race for the Americas and were, consequently, unable to conquer for themselves “…a place in the sun.” The excerpt from Kaiser Wilhelm’s speech to the North German Regatta Association (1901) emphasizes the pride Wilhelm II felt regarding their conquered land. He takes his pride a step further by attempting to inspire fellow Germans to pick up and go to one of the ancient Hanseatic cities.

                At one point in his speech, Wilhelm addresses the pettiness he sees in peoples’ lives but covers his insult by softening his words. He does so by stating they have now learned to look beyond what is by looking to distant shores. This statement strikes me as interesting.  While on the surface it seems harmless, one truly uncovers the rudeness of Wilhelm’s suggestion when they ponder his sentiment. This caused me to think about politicians who say one thing but mean another. In light of this, listeners would be well-served to pay attention and to listen for subtle ideas hidden between the lines.

                In today’s world fewer nations are trying to conquer new lands defeat other nations. However, one can relate this story to the business world or the world’s economy. Wars today aren’t always fought in conventional ways. Increasingly, today’s wars are economic in nature. Countries fight to control the world’s wealth and try to get other nation’s resources.

                The text book talks about how William was the first Emperor of unified German, yet Wilhelm’s speech was given thirteen years after Williams reign. His speech helps define what Germany was like at the time and depicts its political ambitions of the day. Speech to the Northern Germans is an example of their politics and how it evolved from the beginning of the countries unification. The text book gives an idea of the beginning and the Speech continues to describe the transition of Germany.

Friederich Engel: Industrial Manchester

                 In Friederich Engel: Industrial Manchester the main theme was the impact Engels had on conditions regarding the working class. It depicts, for the reader, what the conditions really were and the author described them as, “…so dirty that the inhabitants can pass into and out of the court only by passing through foul pools of stagnant urine and excrement.” This reading tells the story of what it would have been like to experience life in the working class back in 1844.

                I was grasped by the idea of everything being so dirty, “…for even the shops and beer houses hardly take the trouble to exhibit a trifling degree of cleanliness.” The places that today would be kept clean and made to feel inviting so people would visit were dirty. There was little care for cleanliness or, possibly, no leadership to impose guidelines for cleanliness. The ideas and questions these conditions sparked were what changed between then and today. It makes me wonder, was such due to the fast spread of disease, improving science, or did things just evolve over time.

                I see modern parallels with today’s third world countries. I suppose such countries probably desire greater cleanliness, as did the people in 1844, they lack the ability to create a cleaner environment. Similarities between today’s third world countries and Engels’ industrial Manchester include trash in the street, which I have personally witnessed in the city streets of Mexico.  It seems, in some places, such as a way of life has simply become acceptable.

                I believe this reading relates to Chapter Twenty of our class text as it talks about the standard of living during the Industrial Revolution. Our text adds several details explaining the distinctions between the pessimists and the optimists. These two camps argued about the effects of the Industrial Revolution and focused on the concerns surrounding conditions of work and living. The book states, “Worker lost their independence as well as any control whatsoever over products of their labor.” The people also lost their sense of pride and had little or no control over their lives because they had such limited options.

The 12 Articles of the German Peasants

In The 12 Articles of the German Peasants, the main theme and purpose is to edify the common people of the land.  In addition the twelve articles denote what the peasant’s duties are and how they should conduct themselves in certain situations. The writer of the articles is suggesting the common people be given certain rights that are being denied them so a more just society might be established. An example of this is found in the Fifth Article. This article talks about woodcutting. In previous times, a poor man had to pay two “pieces of money” for his wood. The writer suggests this is wrong noting the poor man has the right to get as much wood as he needs from wood not already duly purchased by someone else.

                I found the Eleventh Article very interesting.  I was unfamiliar with the word “heriot,” which means, “A feudal duty or tribute due under English law to a lord on the death of a tenant.” With this understanding, the second half of Article Eleven makes sense. The writer wasn’t talking about thieves who randomly robbed widows and orphans.  Instead, he was describing the practice of many lords who, when one of the tenants died, required the grieving family to pay him a tribute.  This practice was, according to the writer, equal to robbery.

                In trying to identify modern parallels with these twelve articles, I note the efforts of today’s religious leaders who are attempting to right the wrongs they see in our world.  Some of these wrongs include abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, etc.  Their intention, like the advocate of the German peasants, is to educate a culture and, thereby, change its way of thinking.  This, in my opinion, is exactly what the writer of The 12 Article of the German Peasants was attempting to do.

                In regards to our Western Civilization text book, I see it similar to Luther’s ninety-five theses.  Luther was suggesting the problems he saw were in the church.  His writing Against the Thieving, Murderous Hordes of Peasants (1525) bore this out vividly. However, Luther’s writing focused its attack on the peasants, whereas our reading, The 12 Article of the German Peasants, focused its attack on the lords who were mistreating the peasants.

The Journal of Christopher Columbus

In the December 21 & 22 entry of Christopher Columbus’ journal, we read about his voyage and his meetings with the Native Americans. I believe the theme of his journal reflects the kindness he was shown by the Indians. Columbus wrote that the Indians gave whatever they had to give and there was a benevolent spirit among them. The Indians believed the voyagers were sent from heaven and this could have been the reason they bestowed their belongings so freely. The voyagers thought the same about the Indians because of their kindness and unrestricted generosity.

                A phrase that stood out to me was, “no one could believe that there could be such good-hearted people, so free to give, anxious to let the Christians have all they wanted, and, when visitors arrived, running to bring every­thing to them.” The reason this captured me was if such were to happen today, we would respond in the same way as the voyagers, with disbelief. The people were so warm and friendly, yet it didn’t make sense to the voyagers nor does it sometimes to us.

                This phrase caused me to consider just where we as a people have strayed from a sense of kindness and goodwill. According to the movie “Give a Damn,” people in our society believe “it’s cool to talk about the poor but not to talk to the poor.” This strikes me as crazy.  It seems to me that the greatest joy one can experience is found in giving; however, as a nation, and even as a world, we have lost sight of this concept. The idea of giving, in my opinion, shouldn’t be limited to material things as one can offer time, friendship, etc.

                The modern parallels I recognize with this journal entry include the happiness and contentment of the Indian people. Today, I might relate this to the people of Africa. Let’s consider ourselves as the voyagers who have everything - technology, education, wealth, etc.  Conversely, the Africans have little to nothing but continue to find greater joy in life. We, like the voyagers, believe it our job to help them, and this is oftentimes true; however, we at times miss what we could learn from them. In saying this, I believe we can learn from the past (Columbus’ journal) and possibly gain a good outcome.

                In regards to our classroom text, I see a correlation to the reformation led by Martin Luther. Luther, as we know, went against the peasants when they demanded more rights. It seems to me that we have missed crucial moments to succeed in making the right choices due to neglect and even a disregard for human life.  Culture forms us into people who continue to pass this belief on to future generations with, seemingly, no hope for change.  Such will be the case until we, as individuals, become more educated on such subjects.

Anonimalle Chronicle English Peasants' Revolt 1381

              In Anonimalle Chronicle English Peasants' Revolt, we read about the King of England who invites all of the commons to Smithfield. The story tells of the demands the people made of the King. However, these demands did not turn out best for the commons in the end.  The story also describes commons’ revolt and England’s response to the revolt. The king did not end up showing mercy to the revolting commons but, instead, put a bounty on their heads.

                The thought in the story that captured me was the fact the King denied the requests of the commons. They had asked that a fair division be given the commons. They had also asked that all men be declared free. These demands, or requests, seemed to be reasonable but the King refused. The reason this idea, in a sense, stuck out to me was due to the fact that I have been studying cultural context in the bible. This new knowledge prompted me to ask questions regarding the cultural context in England at the time of the story.  Further, it led me to ask how the cultural context of that day related to this situation.

                In addition to the ideas described in the previous paragraph my new learning sparked deeper thoughts as well.  For instance, it impelled me to ask questions the commons were possibly asking regarding the underlying meaning included in their demands. Moreover, this sparked questions regarding the nature of King Richard II.  For instance, what desires and motivations caused him to respond in the ay he did?  Finally, I was prompted to ask what specific events moved both parties to react in the manner in which they did.

                The modern parallels I spotted in the text relate to today’s governments.  A government may profess concern for its people but when those people express frustration with their government the government doesn’t want to hear it.  Most governments will resist public outcry until they are overturned.  The English peasants’ revolt is an example of how many modern rulers or governments still operate today. This reading response reminds us that people often times call for governmental reform but the rulers within that government deny the will of the people.

Urban II's Speech at Clermont

In the first writing of Fulcher of Chartres regarding Urban’s speech, Christian leaders are called to greater diligence in stopping criminal acts in their respective dioceses.  The writer also called on Christians to aid and support their brothers in Christ who were being killed and captured by the Muslims. In the second writing of Robert the Monk regarding Urban’s speech, the writer went into great detail describing some of the crimes being inflicted upon Christians by the Persians.  The writer also emphasized the importance of one’s Christian walk and how to bring worship and honor to God.

                One of the phrases that stood out to me in the first writing was, “and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends.” This sentiment caught me off guard because it contradicts what Christians are taught and believe today.  Today’s Christian message of peace is said to be based upon the teachings of Christ.  Problem is, Fulcher of Chartres claims the same teachings of Christ supported Urban’s call to arms in their day of conflict.  Both camps claim, “Christ commands it.”  I find this very interesting because Urban was speaking of an actual physical war, whereas, we focus more on spiritual warfare today.

                This contradiction sparked the notion that the writer was telling Christians to do the opposite of Christ’s teaching.  In light of this, I considered Luke 6:27-36 where Jesus says, “Love your enemies.” With this command in mind, I began to wonder if Fulcher of Chartres had ever read this passage or, if he had, decided not to take Christ’s words at face value.   I believe this command of Jesus calls Christians to something better, to do good to our enemies even when they wrong us.  I’m not condoning the barbaric activity of the Muslims but, at the same time, I can’t support what the writer wrote because it seems to lack genuine love.

                In looking for modern parallels, I recognize today’s religious teachers, ministers, and Christian ambassadors as those trying to motivate the church to action.  Similarly, the writers in Urban’s day were reporting crimes against Christians in an effort to encourage the church to take action and to inflict justice upon the offenders.  While the church, for the most part, doesn’t call on its members to hate, they do ask for commitment, prayers, donations and time. 

                These two letters relate to the text in that they are the text. The writings are described in the first pages of the ninth chapter. The text book speaks on how Pope Urban II gave a sermon for Christians to “take up their cross.” The people responded by chanting “God wills it.” This, in a sense was the start of the crusades.