New war, Old Tactics

During World War One, each country faced massive amounts of casualties due to the new aged weapons that WWI was fought with. But can these weapons take all the blame of the thousands of casualties each day during the trench fighting? I believe that they aren't the main cause of the death toll that each country suffered because each country was using out dated war fighting tactics where these new weapons could deal the most damage.
Before WWI the most effective battle field tactic that was used was the charge. The charge was used to break through the enemies defensive front. Because the charge was so successful through out history as a way to win a battle, the generals of WWI still thought that they could gain ground on the battle field by doing this. The only thing that the generals were not ready for were the new advancements in weaponry that were first used in WWI.
New weapons like the machine gun, the tank, and poison gas were first deployed in WWI with no real defense mechanisms in place, besides the trenches, that could prevent them from inflicting massive casualties on the enemy. These new weapons would mow down charging enemies because each country didn't know any better tactic then the charge.
After WWI each country realized that the glorious days of the final charge had ended and new military tactics needed to be created to deal with the new technologies of warfare. WWI was so devastating because of the lack of defensive knowledge against these new weapons. If the generals during the time of WWI had realized how devastating the charge was for their troops, the war would have been fought very differently and each country would not see tens of thousands of causalities every day.

The Search for Perfection in the Governments of the World

After reading the Communist Manifesto, I can only agree with Marx and Engles on one thing and that is the fact that all revolutions and changes in the governments of the world have been from a struggle between the oppresed and the opressors. Being in this history class, all of us have seen many examples of these revolutions in Europe. We have seen many different types of governments from kings and dictators to communism and all of these governments have seen revolutions trying to make everyone more equal than they were before the revolution. This has rasied the question for me of which type of government is the best for its people.
Being an American, I want to say that democratic form of government is the best form of government for everyone. But, after thinking more about this I realized that eventhough I think that a democracy is the best form of government, there has been a revolution in The United States exactly like the ones we have read about in class. Our revolution of the oppressed trying to overthrow the oprresors was the Civil War.
This got me thinking because in every history class I have always been taught that Democracy was the best form of government where everyone is created equal. I never questioned that it was while I was in school until now. Realizing that Democracy isn't perfect has shown me that there will always be tension between the oppresed and the opressors. I now believe that there will always be revolutions throughout history because of change and differing opinions.
I now think that there is no perfect form of government. People will always want change and a better life for themselves. The two most recent forms of government, Communism and Democracy both were thought to be the solution for the struggles between the oppresors and the opressed and have both seen problems. Communism tried to get rid of class struggles while democracy tries to give everyone their own voice because we are all inherently created equal. Both of these "perfect" forms of government have seen their own type of revolutions, Communism the oppresed won and in Democracy the oppresors succesfully ended the revolution.
In conclusion, people will always want change. The world isn't a perfect place and people will always try to make the world, and their lives a better place for them and the ones that will follow them. Nothing will ever be perfect, but perfection is still being sought after. The search for the perfect form of government will always cause revolutions and at the end of these the world will seem to be a better place until the oppresed want change once again.

Does Equiano's birth place really mean anything?

Today in class we discussed the repercussions on if Equiano was really from North Carolina, would it affect his credibility on his views of slavery. We discussed these repercussions in great length in class and by the end of it I feel like a finally made a decision. I believe that Equiano is still a credible source on the affects slavery had on the African people but, I believe that if he was really born in North Carolina is is no longer a primary source.

If Equiano was really born in North Carolina it does take a lot away from his work because readers now might think that he is a liar. I believe that his doesn't necessarily take everything away from his credibility. Equiano was a well educated African man in a time where there were none and if there were none of the Africans were willing to speak out against slavery. I think that his tiny lie was for a greater good to help get his point across. Equiano was willing to risk a lot to write about the ill affects that slavery had on the African people to help them achieve a better life.

I think that not saying that the world should end slavery also makes Equiano more credible. If Equiano gave an ultimatum that the world should end slavery tomorrow, every reader at that time would just throw his book away. Slavery was a big part of the world's economy and work force during the time of Equiano and the world wasn't in the right place to end it right then. By not giving an ultimatum, Uquiano, gets more people to listen to his theories on how to fix slavery and ultimatley end it. Equiano was really smart in not giving this ultimatum and the first strides in human rights began to start.

In the end I believe that if Equiano was really born in North Carolina it only takes a little away from his work. The readers can call him a liar but, his point still gets across that all humans are created equal. By lying about his orgins, Equiano, only becomes a secondary source instead of a primary one. But, at the time of his writings, people would only listen to a primary source. I believe this is why he lied. Now, it doesn't matter where Equiano is from, his message is the only thing that is studied. By not being a primary source Equiano's credability is only discredited a little in the end. This small lie in the whole sceme of things doesn't mean anything. People should only pay attention to his message, not his personal background.