{"content":{"sharePage":{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"12289423","dateCreated":"1242870944","smartDate":"May 20, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"karanramchandani","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/karanramchandani","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1235100476\/karanramchandani-lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/cyridgewgh08.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/12289423"},"dateDigested":1532385292,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Week 4-5 of 6th Six Weeks Blog","description":"Colonization had many lasting economic, political, and social effects on Africa. Who is more to blame for Africa's problems today, the Europeans who colonized the region or the current African governments?
\n
\nAlthough both played a significant role in Africa's current unfavorable situation, the colonial rule affected the region more than the current African government due to the fact that so many European powers colonized this area, thus creating a need\/want\/desire for land, which equaled wealth, which resulted in more power. Although most African nations gained independence from this European rule by the 1980's, artificially drawn borders and the repressive regimes which came to power often exacerbated ethnic divisions and fostered political instability.
\n
\nAs for the government, although they are not intervening in the hostile\/violent situations as much as they should, the only mishaps they have been a cause of would be perhaps the temporary stop of external aid for the nation, and the shunning of HIV\/AIDS as well as its tribe\/nation members who have this sickness.
\n
\nIf Africa was never colonized by European nations, then they would have never had to deal with the aspect of separation\/borders, and instead of resulting in conflict and hot zones, there would have been a sense of unity and wholesome within different cultural tribes.
\n
\nIn conclusion, I personally feel that the European colonization of Africa is more to blame for the currently seen situation\/issues in Africa - not the African government.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"12329755","body":"I think Jeremy is right that the Europeans are the main reason for the problems in Africa. They started the colonization and are responsible for the social, economic, and political conflicts in the country. As Jeremy stated, the countries in Africa have many struggles after gaining independence from another country. Africa still hasn't made it through that yet. When the Europeans started the slave trade in Africa, they hurt the continent in many ways, including economically because they didnt have as many workers, plus AIDS has spread, decreasing the labor force even more. While the African government is responsible for not educating the people, the Europeans first damaged the potential work force by taking the strongest as slaves. However, there are many problems withing the country today as well. It will take time to sort out the differences that have socially hurt Africa, such as the borders drawn without African input at the Berlin Conference, which once again is a problem created by the Europeans. As a result, i believe that even though the current African government and the Europeans have both caused many problems to the continent, it is mainly the Europeans who caused the most problems.","dateCreated":"1242960969","smartDate":"May 21, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"2EmS","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/2EmS","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"12329839","body":"I agree with Jeremy, however, how long is it before African Nations stop blaming Europeans for their problems and actually take step in revitalizing their nation. Anybody can just sit there and lay blame, but it's about time they actually take steps in making changes. The African people need to stop senselessly committing acts of terror against their own people. Honestly, why would you do it. Why can't the rebel groups actually help Africa instead of creating problems for Africa. They need to stand down and work with the government to change it for the people, instead of harming people hoping the government changes. That's the problem Africa faces right now. There are too many independent groups trying to control the nations. What they need is to create a common interest group such as the EU, stabilizing the economy, and creating a stronger trade bloc. Other nations can finally recognize Africa as a world power and not as a world problem when their nation stabilizes. However, I disagree with Jeremy's point in that time will fix the problems in Africa. You can have all the time in the world, and nothing will change if nobody takes charge and unite the nations together for the betterment of Africa. When terror against the people finally end, then Africa can worry about infrastructure. I mean, what's the point of infrastructure if you migrate every day to avoid terror, hide 3\/4 of your day to avoid the LDR, and cry yourself to sleep praying that tomorrow nothing will happen to you. Human needs come before anything, and that's what Africa needs to address.","dateCreated":"1242961160","smartDate":"May 21, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"Tri_Nguyen","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Tri_Nguyen","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"12336881","body":"I agree with tri, why would any race want to hurt one of their own kind. that is just a stupid thing to do. This is the huge problem right now, so to me you have to blame africa's government for these problems. Even though i am saying that the african government needs to stop these groups from their killing rampage, there is no simple way of doing it. The african government is scared of theses groups, they have went up against them before and many government officials have been killed. So its easy for me to sit here and say this is on africa, and africa needs to stop them, But really africa needs help on stopping these maniacs. After these problems are resolved there needs to be numerous laws passed to prevent tem from happenng again. =0","dateCreated":"1242997919","smartDate":"May 22, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"st3vi3182","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/st3vi3182","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1235426713\/st3vi3182-lg.jpg"}},{"id":"12351893","body":"Africa's problem's today can be soley blamed on the ethnic conflicts that are scattered amongst Africa's borders, and these poorly set up borders are to be blamed on the colonizing Europeans. I disagree with Stevie on the point that this is Africa's fault, but I agree with his point that they do need help. "By 1980, most African countries achieved independence from European colonial powers. Yet artificially drawn borders and the repressive regimes which came to power often exacerbated ethnic divisions and fostered political instability."(source 1) This statement shows how these problems are just recently developing, along with their governments, who haven't had the time to stabilize their rule. Opposing groups to these governments include "two central African militias that most Americans have never heard of: the Lord's Resistance Army, or LRA, and the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, known as the FDLR." (source 2). Another problem is that the world is not informed, and without information they will not act. Overall, Africa's problems today can be blamed on the colonizing Europeans, who took what they needed and didn't stay to set up governments, economies, or social boundries, all of which Africa really needs.","dateCreated":"1243034846","smartDate":"May 22, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"cameron3smith","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/cameron3smith","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"12353331","body":"It seems the Europeans have a lot to answer for, eh? (Im pretending to be Canadian)To bad we cant just mass raise the dudes from the dead and try them for crimes agianst humanity then kill them agian. In the crisis guide thingy it shows the conflict and the political map, closly looking at both of them you will notice that almost every border that has different Europeans as the "owners" has really big problems...Uganda, Rwanda, D.R.C., Morraco, Liberia, Somalia, Ethiopia etc. Its rather obvious that the Europeans had somthing to do with it. Is it the Europeans fault? Who knows? Certianly looks like it and most of the evidence seems to point that way but what about those who say: "So what it sucks? Deal with it!"? Me I dont really care but I have to say it seems that Europeans are at fault and those who disagree can take it up with the next person. Im bored. Have fun people.","dateCreated":"1243041379","smartDate":"May 22, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"kenny333","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/kenny333","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"12354857","body":"I agree with Kenny, well at least I think I do. European colonization is to blame for all of Africa's problems. The economy cannot grow in most Africa countries because they have no resources. They are forced to become one-commodity countries and an economy cannot grow with only one resource. The major problem being is that if the resource's price suddenly goes down, the economy plummets along with it. The AIDS pandemic directly relates to the economy also, there being little education and treatment over it. It's simple as this, if the economy suffers, the country can't afford to educate it's people, and if people aren't informed over the prevention of AIDS, it's just going to spread around more and more. The ethnic conflict is also to blame on Europeans. Tribes all across Africa are fighting over land control and innocent people are getting hurt in the process. Europe made the land borders with no consideration of this. All and all, it's safe to say that Europe is to blame for the problems of Africa.","dateCreated":"1243048835","smartDate":"May 22, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"terryluong","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/terryluong","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"12355527","body":"I do agree with terry on the points that he brought up saying Europe is to blame for the current problems in africa. However, I cannot agree that the majority of the blame goes to the Europeans. In my opinion, there is not one side to blame any more than the other.
\n
\nEuropean colonization did leave Africa in shambles. Africa's resources had been used and their was no stable government that they had to lead them. These effects were clearly long term. The Europeans left Africa and left them with huge problems that have seemingly been unsolvable.
\n
\nBefore we completely starts bashing the Europeans, the current African government is at major fault too. Granted they weren't left with much after the Europeans left, but it seems their efforts for overcoming these problems have been minimal. The government must take steps on huge issues that are faced such as disease, education, economy, stable leadership, conflicts\/wars, etc. All of these issues require a lot of work so that they can be put to rest. The colonization ended a long time ago and instead of looking at what has taken place, they need to work towards fixing the major problems they have.
\n
\nIn conclusion, I decided that both parties are to blame for the problems in Africa, just for different reasons.","dateCreated":"1243056365","smartDate":"May 22, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"Baba_Q","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Baba_Q","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"12358197","body":"I agree with Sheheryaar that both parties are to blame for the problems in Africa. However, I think that the African Government is now the one responsible for coming up with solutions. We can all agree that European Colonization had a disaterous effect on Africa, and left the continent with a variety of long term conflicts that will be hard to overcome. But now it is Africa's duty to find solutions. I agree that the government must act to face issues at hand such as AIDS, the economy, and terrorism. To tackle these problems the government must engage the people, and encourage them to leave behind old ways. The first step in ending these struggles is to educate the people. If the Africans continue to attach stigmas or ignore problems, they will never be solved.
\n
\n
\nI would also like to point out that though the rest of the world can't be blamed for the problems in Africa, we have done little to help. Although there are some charities and humanatarian aid, for the most part the world has turned a blind eye to Africa. We have let the conflict continue when it is in our best intrest economically, weather for oil, diamonds, or other natural resources.
\n
\nIn conclusion, I think many people have contributed to the problems in Africa, but today Africa's problems are the Africans.","dateCreated":"1243091242","smartDate":"May 23, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"BeccaGuilfoyle","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/BeccaGuilfoyle","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"12364855","body":" I agree with Becca and Baba that both sides are indeed at fault, but as time goes on the Africans themselves become more and more guilty.
\n Thanks to ethnic divisions and power struggles, Africa is known today as the war-zone of the world. Genocide, starvation, village burnings, terrorism, rape, and child brutalization are becoming increasingly prevalent as the world turns a blind eye to it all. But who is truly at fault for all this? Is it the Europeans, who have long relinquished their sovereign rule? Or is it the Africans, whose inequities and lack of structure have led to mass mayhem?
\n Rebel forces such as the LRA and FDLR have been responsible for repulsive and atrocious human rights abuses, such as child abductions, amputations, mass rape, and sex slavery. With thousands of civilian casualties and millions of people being displaced from their homes, it's easy to see that the Europeans can't possibly be directly responsible for these problems.
\n In conclusion, until African governments can learn to crush these rebel militias and establish structure and order in their countries, there will continue to be problems in Africa far into the future. Therefore, Africans are responsible for Africa's problems today.","dateCreated":"1243140602","smartDate":"May 23, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"45msdsd","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/45msdsd","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"12376981","body":"I agree with Elias that both sides are to blame because the colonization of Africa started them off with a bad start but as time progresses the Africans are given opportunity to improve as a country but do not take action. They continue to allow themselves to fall into a pit of disease and poverty rather than seeking out foreign aid. Africa being a very ethnically diverse country has many issues with the borders set by the Europeans. This has caused ethnic cleansing, genocide, and terrorism to be an everyday occurrence in many regions of the country. The African government has often been found to even join in on the terrorism and has also refused to let in foreign aid.
\n
\nThe fact that Africa is a one commodity country has put a huge strain on the economy. The majority of the things they need must be imported but since the country is in such poverty they go without. They need to create more ways to stimulate the economy by creating more products to produce.
\n
\nThe government of Africa needs to be better established and must not join in on terrorism. They need to seek foreign aid for the safety of their nation and create aids awareness programs that are factual.
\n
\nIn conclusion if Europeans hadn't colonized Africa they could possibly be in a better state at the moment but the current government has had many opportunities to get out of the hole they are in but they have only dug themselves deeper. Until the country realizes they will need to create alliances and receive foreign aid they will continue on the path they have created, they will continue on the struggle with terrorism, genocide, and poverty.","dateCreated":"1243223855","smartDate":"May 24, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"sarahdye","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/sarahdye","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"12396701","body":"I agree that both sides have combined to create this problem, but I blame Africa's government more because of the fact that they haven't taken any drasticchanges to try to fix their problems.
\n
\nThe government needs to get away from being a one commodity country. The fact that this is possible and the government doesn't realize it is one reason that I blame them and not so much Europe. The government needs to start educating the African population to become aware of the problems and start building solutions to the problems.
\n
\nIn conclusion, I do agree that the Europeans left Africa with hard times, but I blame the African government for the continent still being in the condition it is in.","dateCreated":"1243302282","smartDate":"May 25, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"dzarosky","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/dzarosky","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"12503613","body":"It seems to me that both are at the blame for Africas current state.
\n
\nFor the colonizers, they left the economic and political status of these countries in ruins. Politically they abandoned the countries leaving them with nothing to get started on their government and also nothing to sustain the governments they have. Economically they left no ivestment capital and left the area in poverty.
\n
\nI do believe it is more the fault of the current governments. It seems that India in the same situation, is now one of the worlds super powers, although the British left the country in better conditions than they did Africa. I do believe that after all this time the government has had more than enough time to rebuild their situation and prove to be a world power including the minerals and natural resources that these coutries have.","dateCreated":"1243602065","smartDate":"May 29, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"AlexLemaire","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/AlexLemaire","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1234757076\/AlexLemaire-lg.jpg"}}],"more":5}]},{"id":"8843560","dateCreated":"1233616095","smartDate":"Feb 2, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"quyvu1109","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/quyvu1109","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/cyridgewgh08.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/8843560"},"dateDigested":1532385294,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Week 2-3 of 4th Six Week Blog","description":"To me, curing diseases like cancer and AIDS is more important than having a job in a developing nation. Having a job in a developing nation only benefits you and your family, while curing cancer and AIDS benefits thousands or hundreds of thousand of people. For example, if you get a job you might only be able to buy a few more things for your family or pay off a few debts. But if you can cure diseases like cancer of AIDS you can help many people in Africa and many more around the world. Sometimes the right thing isn't easy to do, but the good of the world overshadows the good of a family.
\n
\nPersonally, I think family always come first, but if I really do care about my family then I would choose to reduce global warming. If I chose to increase my family\u2019s standard of living I would only help my family for right now, but if I choose to reduce global warming I can help my family now and later. It might be ok for us now, but if we don\u2019t start reducing global warming our children\u2019s children will have to pay the price for our mistake. For example, we\u2019re only seeing a little of the effect of global warming now and it\u2019s only going to get worst if we don\u2019t do something about it. If you really want to help your family then choosing to reduce global warming would be the right choice.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"8884980","body":"In my opinion, curing disease like cancer or AIDS are far more important than having a job in a developing nation. Having a job in a developing nation would only benefit oneself and one's family. Finding the cure for such common illnesses would benefit others and save millions of lives.
\n
\nAt the moment, my family's financial status is decent, therefore reducing global warmimng would be of greater importance. Global warming is an issue that is rapidly changing our world. Reducing global warming would effect the generations to come. I would want my great-great-great-great grandchildren to see a polar bear someday.","dateCreated":"1233709052","smartDate":"Feb 3, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"gracegracehaha","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/gracegracehaha","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8885314","body":"I think curing diseases like cancer and AIDS is more than a job in a developing nation. The reason I think curing such diseases is because many people die daily from the diseases. Someone could have a great job in a developing nation but may die the next day because of AIDS or cancer. Also, someone working in a developing nation may have a family member who passed away from a incurable disease and suffer so much from grief that they would lose their job. Also, some of these diseases are spreadable. If a disease such as AIDS is spread everywhere throughout a nation, there may not be much of a country left within 10 - 15 years.
\n
\nI also think reducing global warming is more important than increasing your family's standard of living. I think trying to improve your family's standard of living to be selfish. I believe that global warming is more important because someone has to fight against it, and if you don't, then your children and their children will have to, and some of the effects of global warming may harm them. I don't think having a high standard of living really matters when the air outside your house can be deadly or make you sick.","dateCreated":"1233709562","smartDate":"Feb 3, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"Jeremy_P","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Jeremy_P","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8886434","body":"I agree with Jeremy that curing diseases like cancer or AIDS in a developing nation is more important than having a job. Like everyone else has said, a job can only provide for ones self and famliy while a vaccine or cure can save millions of lives.
\n
\nI also agree with Jeremy that reducing global warming is more important than helping your family increase its standard of living. Although everyone wants to provide for their family, contributing to protecting the enviorenment is more important. Even if your family is important now, you have to help protect the generations to come by decreasing global warming.","dateCreated":"1233711347","smartDate":"Feb 3, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"BeccaGuilfoyle","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/BeccaGuilfoyle","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8887902","body":"I personally think that having a job in a developing nation is more important than curing disease. I agree with Tri in that a developing nation needs to become developed before it starts to research diseases.So essentially, you will either have a poor country with sick people, or a rich country with sick people because people without jobs won't have the money to cure anybody.
\n
\nI would rather help my family increase it's standard of living than try to reduce global warming. I think that even if large groups of people work together for the global warming cause, they couldn't stop all the sources of the problem. Because of this, I would choose not to waste my individual effort.","dateCreated":"1233713914","smartDate":"Feb 3, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"dzarosky","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/dzarosky","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8888546","body":"[Lauren R. Delos Reyes]
\n
\n1. In a situation where I live in a developing nation, I would choose a job over curing diseases as hard as the decision is. First all, if I found the cure, our economy would decline due to the jobs that would be not needed any longer due to the cure and then we would have many more unemployed people. The competition for jobs would now also increase with now able people. Second, paying for the cure could be expensive so we have a possiblity of ending up a nation with high unemployment rate, maybe even more sickly people, and our GDP dwindling. Third, getting food on the table and providing my family with shelter and a bed would be my top priority.
\n
\n2. Reducing global warming is more important than increasing my own family's standard of living. Pollution is getting worse as we speak, entering our water sources and the very air we breathe. People are getting ill from it and dying. Like how in London, as an effect of the Industrial Revolution, the air was thick with all the gas the factories had produced and people were actual dying from it. No one is going to benefit from improving their standard of living because they're lives and future are at stake, there is nowhere to escape as we continue disregarding the well-being of our planet.","dateCreated":"1233715150","smartDate":"Feb 3, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"cornellzoology","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/cornellzoology","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8889736","body":"1. In agreement with Lauren, I also think that having a job while living in a developing nation is a higher priority than curing disease. Although curing diseases such as AIDS and cancer are more abundant in developing nations one of the main reasons is due to the lack of skill to help with these diseases. While what those nations need most is for someone to march in and cure them, that is not going to happen and someone without the proper knowledge and training spending their live looking for a cure is basically a lost cause. Also while finding the cure for disease would save many peoples lives not being able to afford to put food on the table would lose many more.
\n
\n2. If the standard of living I was enduring was to the point where it was putting my family and I at risk of death I would put increasing my standard of living first. If I was living comfortably, as I am now, I would turn my immediate focus to global warming. Global warming is one of our biggest concerns yet we someone seem to contribute to it with almost everything we do. Driving to and from work, the factories that make your clothes, using hairspray with aerosol, these daily things are the main causes to global warming. While we cant eliminate it we could decrease the rapid rate of it. While increasing your standard of living helps you for short term, not taking care of global warming from pollution can kill thousands of people like it once did in London.","dateCreated":"1233717416","smartDate":"Feb 3, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"sarahdye","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/sarahdye","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8891670","body":"1) I agree with Sarah. Having a job in a developing country is far more important than curing diseases, because every citizen having a job is an important building block on the road to finding a cure. A developing nation does not have the funds or properly educated scientists to engage in such an endeavor. Don't get me wrong, curing cancer and AIDS is definitely important, but until the nation can become developed, jobs will still be a higher priority. For example, why should nations like Africa waste their time and money on a cure for AIDS when they clearly do not have a stable economy yet?
\n
\n2) The answer to this question is completely dependent on the situation of your family. If your economic situation is so bad that you are forced to suffer the same living conditions as the poor in Mexico, you should definitely let your family's standard of living come first. If you are living comfortably, then it makes sense to focus on the issue of global warming. For example, your family could dramatically reduce its carbon footprint by biking or walking instead of driving, using less aerosol containing products, and planting trees regularly. Although your standard of living is a problem that will affect you in the short-term, global warming is a problem that will come back to haunt you if you choose to neglect it.","dateCreated":"1233723799","smartDate":"Feb 3, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"45msdsd","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/45msdsd","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8932330","body":"1.I disagree with Elias. I believe curing a major disease that kill millions of people is more beneficial than having a mediocre 10 cent an hour job. I believe finding a forever lasting cure is better than having a temporary job at a crap factory.
\n
\n2.I believe trying to save the world by stopping global warming would be a waste of time. The effects won't kill anyone until our generation is long gone and our latter generations will die from global warming, but we won't ever get to know them. I feel living in the present and helping your family is better than helping people you don't know years and years from know.","dateCreated":"1233840264","smartDate":"Feb 5, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"terryluong","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/terryluong","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8933868","body":"Curing diseases like cancer & AIDS will benifit the world, while having a job in a developing nation will benifit your family, or at most, the company you are working for. Millions of people suffer from these diseases, and no one suffers from you having a job in a developing nation.
\n
\n
\nOnce again, in this situation, you can only help your family or you could save the planet. I think this one is your personal choice, it depends on if your family has hard times because that would really affect your decision.","dateCreated":"1233843350","smartDate":"Feb 5, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"cameron3smith","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/cameron3smith","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8954390","body":"I think that curing diseases like cancer or AIDS is more important than having a job because having a job is more greedy on my part to just think of myself and not about everyone else. If i had the choice to suffer a little bit without a job while preventing millions of other people from dying as opposed to having an ok life and letting everyone else with cancer suffer because i was being selfish than i would certainly choose helping the people who have life-ending diseases.It is not a guaranteed thing that if we research we will find a cure but i think it is worth a shot if we can end devastating diseases like cancer and AIDS that not only affect developing nations but the entire world.
\n
\n
\nI think that global warming will continually progress no matter what we try to do to stop it people always say that we can completely stop global warming if we all participate. But that means stopping EVERY possible form of global warming and anything that contributes to it. This also means every single person on earth would have to participate which everyone knows is not going to happen. Global warming is not a matter of IF its going to affect earth and the people who live on it it's WHEN. Therefore i think providing for my family now is more important than trying to stop the inevitable. People are going to suffer from global warming no matter what we do so take care of the people you know and love now instead of those who you dont even know.","dateCreated":"1233869088","smartDate":"Feb 5, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"ricky_flores101010","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/ricky_flores101010","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8955194","body":"[Jacob Flores]
\nI definetely think finding a cure for AIDS and cancer is more important than having a job. Because first of all, you cant have a job if your dead! So i think we should focus on finding those cures first and THEN after wehave found them we can worry about finding people jobs. Also because giving people jobs will only raise there incomes but finding a cure will actually save lives.
\n
\nI partially agree with my brother on this topic because i do think that global warming will continue to progress no matter what. I also think that we should focus more on what is going on now than what will happen but i do not think we should completely give up on reducing global warming. Of course we need to focus more on a higher of standard of living but i also think there is still hope to reduce global warming.","dateCreated":"1233870421","smartDate":"Feb 5, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"ricky_flores101010","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/ricky_flores101010","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"9073646","body":"Personally I think curing cancer and AIDS should be a higher priority than having a job in a developing nation. After all we can't give jobs to those who are dead. After we find the cure, then we should start worrying about all the people that need jobs...if you think about it you can survive living without a job if you know how to administrate your money, if you can't then you're possobly screwed but it'd be your own fault. Now if you had cancer...might as well go lie in a tombstone, because there's NO CURE.
\n
\nThis completely depends on the status of your family, but if we were in a good condition...I think I would go with global warming. I agree with Ricky why should we try and stop what no matter what we do will continue happening. Why try to stop the inevitable? But if we can't stop it why not slow it down? At least so it won't affect us or our future family...protect those who are and one day will be connected to us.","dateCreated":"1234240322","smartDate":"Feb 9, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"chelsey9701","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/chelsey9701","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1222206084\/chelsey9701-lg.jpg"}}],"more":8}]},{"id":"8087385","dateCreated":"1231128994","smartDate":"Jan 4, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"Baba_Q","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Baba_Q","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/cyridgewgh08.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/8087385"},"dateDigested":1532385295,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Stalin Blog","description":"I don't think that Joseph Stalin was good for Russia. I feel that what he was able to do for the country was brilliant. He made Russia a great superpower in the world. He was a very wise man i thought that did do wonders for Russia. However, he had to kill several fellow Russians in the process. He did a great job in leading the country to new heights, but i feel that there could have been a way for him to succeed differently. I am sure that Russia could have been succesful without Stalin having to kill a number of fellow Russians. His killing of the people from his very own country showed me that he was not overall good for the country. There could've been a better way to make Russia succeed in a much better manner which would not have killed many Russians.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"8087597","body":"The deaths of Millions is inexcusable. However, what Joseph Stalin did was good for Russia. He wiped out what weakness that the people of Russia clinged to. He wiped out the belief that there were powers higher than he was. That caused people to believe what he did or said was beneficial to the motherland to their grave. Russia had lacked a leader who could establish itself as a world power since the Czars. Stalin did what his predecessors couldn't. In that way, that's what made him beneficial to Russia. We wouldn't see Russia the way we see it today if it wasn't for Stalin. Russia would have no respect of any country, and could possibly have been wiped out by Germany in Nazi's invasion.","dateCreated":"1231130243","smartDate":"Jan 4, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"Tri_Nguyen","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Tri_Nguyen","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8102727","body":"Stalin's ultimate objective was to make a stronger Russia, and he believed that the use of force would make that happen. Stalin used propaganda to make the people believe his tactics were completely beneficial. Russia was in a very vulnerable state without a proper leader and they took in Stalin in hopes to restore their weak condition. Some of Stalin's benefits to Russia included the making of economic plans such as the five year plan which was based on the mechanization of farms and agriculture. Stalin also unified regions of Russia. Although Stalin was successful in making a stronger Russia, it came at a costly expense. Many systems suffered because of Stalin's actions. The education and health systems were in complete turmoil because of the purging and Stalin left an atmosphere of fear. Stalin's inability to care for the citizens led to the murder of millions of his own people. Stalin was both beneficial and detrimental for Russia. His tyrannical ways made a more industrialized and strong Russia, but also a more feared Russia.","dateCreated":"1231195286","smartDate":"Jan 5, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"gracegracehaha","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/gracegracehaha","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8104041","body":"Joseph Stalin, a man with all the brain, all the power, but none of the morals. He put Russia so far ahead of what their original potential seemed due to his rapid industrialization thanks to his communist wrath. Stalin may indeed have had good intentions in mind for he wanted to ultimatly strengthen Russia but his personal want to rule, his need to rule lead to purges that killed millions of people who he saw as "against communism". In agreeance with Grace Stalin was both beneficial and dentrimental for Russia. He allowed the country to move forward but caused the citizens to move backward. He cause economic depressions in the government and the people and caused social hell for all citizens. People were without jobs and had next to no freedoms along with the major risk of death under Stalin. In conclusion I believe Stalin cannot be labeled as "good" or "bad" for Russia but will go down in History for his overall impact of Russia as a whole.","dateCreated":"1231198629","smartDate":"Jan 5, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"sarahdye","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/sarahdye","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8107037","body":"Joseph Stalin was a good thing for Russia but he wasn't nice to the people. If he hadn't been the leader of Russia, however, he may not have made them a world superpower. He definately helped industrialize Russia, but at a high cost. Since trying to industrialize quickly is costly, he ran the country out of money. Plus, he was the cause of death for millions of people. Even though he had alot of flaws, i still believe that he was good for Russia because they now have alot more power. He made Russia a very strong country, but at the cost of lives and money.","dateCreated":"1231206083","smartDate":"Jan 5, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"2EmS","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/2EmS","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8107179","body":"As people have previously stated, Stalin did create a country that was revered for its power and industrialization. However the purpose of government is to lead its people. And although Stalin guided the nation into becoming one of the world\u2019s superpowers, he did so through the fear and intimidation of Russians. Stalin\u2019s ideas of creating utopia were clouded by his want for raw and complete power. There is nothing new or revolutionary about Stalin\u2019s concept of subduing people into becoming his followers or his use of brute force. Stalin simply did this on a much grander scale than the leaders that came before him. And in effect, hurt vastly more people through his totalitarian ways. Stalin\u2019s use of collective farms, the creation of the secret police, and manipulation of the Russian people caused famine, poverty, fear, and an oppressed people. These are not the makings of a good leader, and cannot be compensated by the acquirement of world power and influence. Strength alone cannot make a country great; it can only corrupt the minds of people into thinking so. In conclusion, I think Stalin exploited, undermined, intimidated and controlled his people in an attempt to create power and industrialization. Even though I see Sarah\u2019s point and understand her logic. I don\u2019t agree with her. I would label Stalin as \u201cbad.\u201d","dateCreated":"1231206313","smartDate":"Jan 5, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"BeccaGuilfoyle","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/BeccaGuilfoyle","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8109263","body":"Stalin's Russia is a country under communism that is established on fear, poverty, and the threat of being killed. Although many citizens were killed, either through war, famine, or by Stalin's actions, Russia as a whole was made better by Stalin's actions. As a leader, you have to make tough decisions that have negative and positive effects, and that is what Stalin did, he made a tough decision that would better Russia as a country, even though people died in the process. Yes, Stalin did kill many citizens for unjust reasons, but his 5 year plan did succeed in bettering Russia. Stalin made bad decisions when it came to Russia's economy, which led to the weakening of Russia's communist reign. I disgree with Becca, Stalin was good for Russia because he made it into a superpower, even though not all of his choices had positive effects, Russia might not be a country today if it wasn't for Stalin.","dateCreated":"1231211461","smartDate":"Jan 5, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"cameron3smith","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/cameron3smith","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8109467","body":"Stalin did good for Russia by making it one of biggest superpowers in the world, but to acheive what he did, millions of innocent people died during his reign. Stalin may have made Russia a big, respectable country, but he left the Russian people in such bad conditions, it would've been better to leave them alone and let them slowly build up the country. Stalin took no consideration to his people and wanted Russia to become a great country at an even greater expense. He spent all of Russias available funds to industrialize; causing Russia to be become great in debt and a low morale. Overall, Stalins achievements were greatly outweighed by his mistakes and his peoples deaths. The goal of a government is to have the country be in good economic, political, and social standings, and you cannot complete one and disregard another; like how Stalin tried making Russia a super power, but millions of inoccent people died in the process.","dateCreated":"1231212178","smartDate":"Jan 5, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"terryluong","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/terryluong","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8109473","body":"I agree with Cameron because Stalin was good for Russia because he created a strong form of government by intimidating the citizens and through fear. He did kill alot of people but because of the communist government he made Russia a very powerful country for some time. He could have made better decisions when it came to the amount of people he deported and liquidated but i think in the long run it helped Russia. There were other, better ways to help the country but this was probably one of the fastest and most succesful because of how fast industrialization happened and that was the way Stalin chose to do it. When it comes to the people of Russia it was bad for them but the country political was stable.","dateCreated":"1231212201","smartDate":"Jan 5, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"ricky_flores101010","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/ricky_flores101010","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8109899","body":"I disagree with both Cameron and Ricky if only on the grounds of Stalin created a strong government. Because of the mass murdering and the various purges within the ranks of the government Stalin made sure no idea or thought could come in or out without his knowledge. Stalin however is only one man he can not run a entire country using his powers of intellect alone. Thus he creates a weak government that will only stand if he or someone with his idolagy is in power which is why after he dies and his "sevile" assistants come in to divide the power the country falls into a even deeper depression then when he was around. The idea that you can sacrifce a few million to save to push forth the rest of the country into industrialzaion is for those with to much time on their hands to debate though I will say that you kill to many people your country wont be a country anymore.Though that is somthing that can only be connected to this situation and is unable to fit as a across-the-board-statement. I'm bored so that should be it.","dateCreated":"1231213648","smartDate":"Jan 5, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"kenny333","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/kenny333","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8110315","body":"(Jacob Flores)
\nI disagree with Kenny but i do agree with Cameron and Ricky because i beleive Stalin DID create a strong government. Of course the killing of those millions of people is horrible and unneccesary but i beleive without Stalin, Russia would still have the weak and unstable government it once had. Not only because of how he created a stronger government but also because how fast he did it. I think his 5 year plan worked more efficiently than what any other leader could have done for this country. So at the time, i do not think Stalin was the best leader for Russia, but in the long run he made it a stronger and more stable country.","dateCreated":"1231214964","smartDate":"Jan 5, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"ricky_flores101010","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/ricky_flores101010","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8110817","body":"I agree with Jacob because to be able to make a country strong in 5 year is an incredible thing for anyone to achieve. But at the same time I think that the 5 year plan was not the best way to strengthen the country because it cost millions of lives to be sacrificed. Stalin could've used a different plan to strengthen the country even if it takes longer than 5 years. A little bit more time was a lot better than killing millions of innocent people. I think that Stalin was a good leader for Russia even though his way of strengthening it was bad. Stalin was a wise man and I think that if he had put more thought and willing to let his plan take more time, he could've think of a better plan than the 5 year plan. So I do think that Stalin was good for Russia, but I think that his plan was bad for Russia.","dateCreated":"1231218513","smartDate":"Jan 5, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"quyvu1109","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/quyvu1109","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"8111065","body":"Although quy was in agreement with jacob and previously mentioned contributing statements, i feel that Stalin's approach of Industrialization at all costs was something Stalin held true to every meaning of the phrase, whether those costs be time, money, lives, jobs, and the ability to be a contestant within the world's higher powers. Although his 5-year plan is impressive, the lengths at which this idea was expanded to reach ended up hurting them in the long run rather than benefiting them. For instance, when lifting weights, its better to use lighter weight and do the work-out correctly, rather than using more weight and doing the work-out incorrectly, which would lead to more future physical pain. This is a fairly closely related idea to which Stalin's plan revolved around, he was careless about the future "pain", and tried to make a run for the touchdown way to fast before "breaking down the defense". Personally, i feel that although his plans for Russia were in it's best interest, the lengths at which he reached to make this plan evident were brought on too fast and had a negative outcome rather than the beneficial one he hoped for...therefore, simply based on personal opinion and how i see Stalin's efforts and truth of outcome, i say that he was bad for Russia, in the sense that he could have been good for them if he had only taken it slow and at a constant rate, rather than trying to jump off the increasing charts dealing with industrializing at all costs, etc.","dateCreated":"1231221011","smartDate":"Jan 5, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"karanramchandani","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/karanramchandani","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1235100476\/karanramchandani-lg.jpg"}}],"more":1}]}],"more":false},"comments":[]},"http":{"code":200,"status":"OK"},"redirectUrl":null,"javascript":null,"notices":{"warning":[],"error":[],"info":[],"success":[]}}