Round 3 of the blog in test prep for May. This questions comes from Paper 2, Topic 3,
Origins and development of authoritarian and single-party states.
15. Compare and contrast the treatment of religious groups and minorities in two authoritarian or
single-party states, each chosen from a different region.
Similar to previous blog assignments here are the parameters for posting:
2.4.1 You have a week to craft and write your response for this first round. They should be completed and submitted by 2:00 pm Tuesday, April 1st. No Fooling! You should write one (1) introductory paragraph - thesis with general supporting themes to be expanded on if you were to construct the completed and more fully developed essay. Then outline your comparison for three key points for each leader's rise to power. I will post your initial responses. I will collect the responses and then post them en mass. Submissions after 2 pm will be penalized 10%.
2.4.2 Once the collection has been posted on Tuesday afternoon, you will have the week to reply to one of your peers - first come first serve. You need to offer constructive criticism and one focused meaningful question about their answer for your peer to answer for the final part.
I will post them as soon as I get them. The longer you wait the less likely you will be to get your first reply posted and this part of the assignment completed. The due date for this part will be midnight Tuesday, April 8th. Submissions after midnight will be penalized 10%.
2.4.3 You will need to reply to the question posed by your critic in concise, supported answer - be sure to provide correct MLA formatted citation to your answer. This is due midnight Friday April 11th I will post IB markscheme Friday afternoon and we will go through it for the first part of class Tuesday April 15th. Submissions after midnight will be penalized 10%.
Non-posts will be scored as incomplete, late and 50%
Certain religions and minorities are often prosecuted because of their differences. But single party state regimes often have different treatments of these groups, either extreme or almost non existent. For example, Kim Il Sung and his dynasty have very different views on minorities than Hitler and his regime.
ReplyDeleteKim Il Sung's juche policy called for equality for all, therefore typical minorities such as women and those from specific lineages are not discriminated against, and have the same rights and rules as everyone else. Hitler had very extreme views in terms of minorities, and even created some formerly non-popular prejudices. He made those who had different life styles had to wear a mark to show that they were not part of Hitler's regime and so they could be identified easily. Some of the minorities that were heavily discriminated against were homosexuals, gypsies and communists.
When it came to religious groups, Hitler and Kim were more similar. Due to Kim's personal beliefs, Kim made his country's religious affiliation atheistic. His ideology called for the people to take action and make change themselves, rather than waiting for some higher power to do so. Eventually, his people started worshipping Kim himself as a god figure, and he became the center of their belief system. Those who opposed his authority were executed or sent to interment camps, so in short, those who thoughthe was not the highest power were considered non-supportive of the regime and therefore prosecuted. Hitler publicly supported Christianity as a faith for political reasons, but his personal beliefs were unknown. His prosecution and extreme treatment of the Jews shows his intolerance for specific beliefs and groups of people. He also prosecuted those who did not support him as the ultimate leader of Germany.
Overall, Kim and Hitler had fairly different views on minority and religious groups, but their treatment of those they did not support was very similar.
Hey Meghan!
DeleteYour paragraphs were very structured and really easy to follow. Remember though, this is an introductory paragraph, so although these were structure well and easy to follow, it was a bit long for an introductory paragraph, and was chunked differently than how normal introductory paragraphs are (which might make it harder to follow when writing an actual essay). So maybe make it a little bit shorter and hit only the major points. Your information is really good! But, it might be a little too in-depth for an introductory paragraph.
INTRODUCTION
ReplyDeleteWithin the two single party states found in Germany and Vietnam, the treatment of religious groups was a direct cause of the single-party state beliefs. Hitler led Germany to be a single-party state following Naziism and Ho Chi Minh led Vietnam to be a single-party state following Communism. Germany controlled religious groups much more violently than Vietnam, but in both countries were religious groups under control.
PARAGRAPH 1: Comparisons within religious expression and minorities
-German religious expression was acceptable when supporting Christianity, but very unacceptable for other groups, especially Judaism.
-Vietnam religious expression was never acceptable, but bias was also shown towards Christianity.
-Hitler wished for the superior group (stereotypical blond hair blue eyed Germans; Christians) to be dominant and rule the world. Ho Chi Minh wished for equality for all.
-Both of these leaders' beliefs gave way to their treatment of religious groups
PARAGRAPH 2: Comparisons within control of religious expression and minorities
-In Germany, religious groups were killed or sent to work in concentration camps.
-In Vietnam, religious groups were not treated nearly as violently and control was not nearly as tight.
-While Hitler wanted all minorities to be ousted, Ho Chi Minh was rather unconcerned by them unless they did not follow under his Communist rule. Both leaders used unfair techniques to deal with them.
In any regime, religious groups and minorities must be appropriately identified and. It is then no surprise that both Benito Mussolini, Fascist leader of Italy, and Mao Zedong, Communist leader of China, both felt a need to address this issue. Realizing that Italian Catholics accounted for over ninety-five percent of the population, Mussolini established Catholicism as the state religion, which greatly increased his popularity and began the end of the conflict over Papal States. However, he also persecuted its minority of citizens who belonged to the Jewish faith, increasing his hold over the Italian populace. With support from the Catholic Pope, Mussolini had little to fear from a religious aspect. Oppositely, Zedong opposed all religion in establishing the Communist regime in China. Zedong, however, did not enforce anti-religion policies; instead, he combated the issue by making himself a god through a cult of personality and by enforcing the use of the little red book. It portrayed him as essential to the existence and development of the Chinese population. Ultimately, the two differed greatly in their treatment of religious groups and minority groups. One recognizing the influence of the church, while the other created a new, somewhat religious system that glorified his actions.
ReplyDeleteI like your points. I am slightly confused by the first sentence. And what is the issue that needs to be addressed? (second sentence). Also, you could mention whether these leaders are from single party or authoritarian states. It could help to talk a little more about what these leaders did when opposed and what sort of "treatment" was actually received by the groups. Other than that I think you have a great outline and it would provide great information for a solid paper. Nice job!
DeleteI am a bit confused by the first sentence as well. I'm not entirely sure of what I meant at 1 o'clock in the morning on Tuesday last week, but I think it was simply a failure to proofread my paragraph after I was done typing. This also goes for my poor word choice in the second sentence. Instead of saying that both leaders had to address an issue, it would have been much more indicative to say that both leaders accepted the importance of recognizing religious groups and minorities and determining the appropriate treatment of the described populations.
DeleteI agree that it would have been more beneficial to identify the type of states the leaders developed. It would have also given me a better opportunity to expand in the subsequent paragraphs had I discussed the treatment and policies instituted by each leader, and possibly how both were received.
Thanks, Joe!
Mao Zedong, the leader of the Communist Party of China and the chairman of the People’s Republic of China is one example of a single-party state leader who demonstrated incredibly harsh treatment of minorities and religious groups. When comparing Zedong’s treatment to that of another well-known single-party state leader, Adolf Hitler, many similarities become evident. The Cultural Revolution of China, a movement led by Zedong resulted in not only the loss of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, but the destruction of thousands of monasteries and burning of religious books and palaces. Similarly, Adolf Hitler, who held anti-Semitic views and was locked into the idea of “ethnic cleansing”, was responsible for the killing of roughly six million Jewish people, in addition to the deaths of other members of minority groups such as Gypsies and homosexuals. Although both dictators leading genocides, Zedong actually killed many millions more people that Hitler, setting him apart on the basis of severity of the destruction he caused. Although similar in their treatment of minorities and religious groups, the scope differentiates these two single-party state leaders.
ReplyDeleteHi-
DeleteI think you have an excellent start to an essay here. You would most definitely be able to develop it into a well formatted essay. To improve, I would make sure to highlight the differences of the two leaders and their effects on religious groups and minorities. I would specify who Zedong affected most, especially which religious groups he targeted. Additionally, I would try to use examples of specific events that targeted minorities and religious groups. For example, I would make sure to mention Kristallnacht and how it was one of the first major events that took place targeting Jews in Germany.
Are there any other differences between the two leaders that you would be able to elaborate on?
Marissa
Hi Marissa,
DeleteThose are good ideas for improvements. Here's what I might add in addition to mentioning Kristallnacht.
Mao Zedong was more interested in eliminating any opposition than actually targeting specific religious groups or minorities. But because Zedong wanted to rid Communist China of Western influence, Christian missionaries were expelled. Additionally, Zedong wanted to wean people away from Confucianist thought. He differed, however, from Hitler largely in that Hitler specifically targeted certain religious groups and minorities (such as Jews and Gypsies), while the killing of millions of people in China was more of a result of Zedong's Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. For example, Hitler established concentration camps such as Auschwitz and Dachau with gas chambers and crematoria specifically for the extermination of Jews. Contrastingly, Zedong didn't have the same intent to persecute people in such a harsh way, yet the deaths of millions of people was still a result of his actions.
Gordon, Irving L.. World history. 2nd ed. New York: Amsco School Publications, 1982. Print.
Mao Zedong ruled over the People’s Republic of China (PRC) throughout the 1960s just after Gamal Abdel Nasser’s rule over Egypt in the ‘50s. These two single party state leaders demonstrated some similarities in their treatment of both social and religious minorities. Although both worked for the social equality of women and took advantage of heavy media propaganda to do so, their ideologies for the place of other ethnic minorities in society was very different. Mao mass-murdered millions of minorities in order to create a “better” society while Nasser passed multiple social reforms across Egypt in hopes of sponsoring equality. Both leaders subjected religious minorities to persecution.
ReplyDeleteMao Zedong:
-The Great Leap Forward
-Cultural Revolution brought power to youth and working class
-Marriage Law of 1950: ended prostitution, arranged marriage, abusive treatment of women
-Believed “genuine equality of the sexes” could be achieved and embraced principle of equal pay in workforce.
-Anti-Rightist Campaign: Mass murdered landlords and other “rightists”
Gamal Abdel Nasser:
-Average living standard raised, increased spending on social services
-Made education available and free to lower class and women.
-Women were encouraged to get an education and work to help the economy
-Women allowed to vote after six day war
-Christian Egyptians known as the Copts faced hardship when Nasser took control and declared Egypt an Islamic nation. Many fled to America, Canada, and Western Europe.
I think the major addition to this essay would be going more in-depth as to why they persecuted religions. I think this would bring in interesting ideas about Mao's intolerance with all religion as opposed to (what I'm assuming to be) Nasser's want for a Muslim state. So attempt to answer the question: why and how did the leaders treatment of religious groups differ?
DeleteIn the rise to power, single party state leaders must make a decision concerning how to treat minority groups and the religious people that inhabit their nation. This new precedent will often be followed in years to come, establishing a new paradigm in the treatment of certain people. This is seen in both Kenya and Cuba as Kenyatta and Castro rose to power. Kenyatta used his power to bring the Kikuyu people higher in Kenyan society, by giving them jobs in the government, even creating new positions when needed. Kenyatta treated this minority group well, improving their position in Kenya. Alternatively, Castro created the Committee for Defense of the Revolution (CDR) in order to keep minorities in check, and ensure his rise to power would not be thwarted or contested. The committee used their power to closely monitor minority groups, who were kept in blocks under the CDR. By closely overseeing the activities of these people, Castro and the CDR squandered their freedom, and often punished them for carrying out certain activities. Kenyatta and Castro demonstrate opposite situations in their treatment of minorities, and Kenyatta used his power to improve a group's place in society and Castro used his power to hurt the minorities in Cuban society.
ReplyDeleteI think your choices of single-party states were really great, neither of them were the usual Germany or Italy choices but they were also well known enough for people to follow along. Also, you illustrated a clear difference between the Kenyan and Cuban leaders' approach to minorities. The one critique I would have is to make it a bit clearer about what the structure of your essay is going to be; are you going to outline both states and then compare them? Otherwise I think you have a great essay started! Good job!
Delete
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at the treatment of religious groups and minorities within single party states, a conclusion can be drawn that these religious and minority groups are disregarded and abused in many ways by the leaders of these single party states, as these leaders view these groups as unequal. In Germany, Hitler rose to power with the main goal of establishing the creating the master Aryan Race and he wanted to do so by eradicating various minority groups such as the Jewish population, gypsies, homosexuals and much more. The strong anti-minority sentiments that Nazi Germany held led to great losses within concentration camps during WWII. The effects of an authoritarian regime on minority groups can also be seen by examining the leadership of Mao Zedong, the communist leader of China. The Cultural Revolution that took place during his rule contributed to the many deaths of ethnic groups. For example, the Tibetans and Mongols were ethnic groups that were persecuted along with others. The treatment of minority and religious groups by these leaders is evident and can be further analyzed by examine why these leaders chose to persecute minorities, by looking at the effects of the minorities on the single party states, and by comparing and contrasting the treatment of minority groups by the two leaders.
Why were minorities persecuted
Hitler – Overall goal was to create a master race known as the Aryan Race or those of Germanic descent. In order to do so, he insisted on eradicating various minority groups especially those who were Jewish because Hitler believed that they were the source of various problems in Germany. He essentially felt threatened by all other groups due to varying ideologies.
Mao Zedong – The Cultural Revolution of 1966 led to the persecution of various minority/ethnic groups within China as Zedong wanted to enforce Communism while removing any cultural and traditional Chinese ideologies that could harm the process. Culture was destroyed as Tibetan Monasteries were destroyed and religious books were burned
Effect of minorities on single party states
Germany – For the most part, the minority and religious groups lived peaceful within Europe until Hitler came to power.
China – The Ethnic minority groups wanted to maintain their culture but Zedong didn't want their culture to have influence on the spread of communism
Treatment of minorities
Germany – Minority and religious groups were put into concentration camps and put to death
China – Millions of people were persecuted, tortured and killed
This is very well done, good job! You did it nice and thoroughly and had it separated out and organized. This is a very good outline, all you would need to do for an actual paper is expand a little more, especially on the treatment of the minorities throughout the duration of Hitler and Mao. But this is a really good over view!
DeleteAuthoritarian and single-party states are known for the immeasurable amount of control they maintain over their citizens lives. Some of these areas of control is religion and minorities in which some states handled them with little sympathy and others with more. Famously known for the Holocaust, Nazi Germany chose to handle minorities such as Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies by seeking to eliminate them from society. Party leaders claimed to be restoring the Arian race to its former glory and ridding the society of the minorities responsible for the economic instability experienced by Germany after WWII. Similarly, the Communist Party of China sought to eradicate any religious institutions that did not support their Marxist views. Subsequently, only those religious institutions that supported the Chinese Communist Party were allowed to exist, resulting in "puppet" religious leaders. However, the CCP persecuted these religious institutions by demolishing them publicly instead of in secret like Nazi Germany. Therefore, Nazi Germany and the Communist Party of China both persecuted minorities fiercely the extent to which they released their actions to the public and their reasons for persecution differed.
ReplyDeleteMadison, I think this is a solid introductory paragraph. Here are just a few small things that would strengthen it even more: 1) when you say, "Party leaders claimed to be restoring the Arian race to its former glory and ridding the society of the minorities responsible for the economic instability experienced by Germany after WWII," are you saying minorities actually were responsible for causing economic stability, or is that just in the eyes of the Nazi Party? Either way, how did these minorities bring about economic instability? (Or why did the Nazi Party see it as these minorities causing economic issues?) 2) Do you know specifically what religious groups did not support the Marxist views of the CCP? Adding that detail might be helpful. 3) Just read over your final sentence - I think you may have forgotten a word. Overall, I think this is a great starting paragraph.
DeleteThough separated by decades and miles, the leaders of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Democratic Republic of Congo Zaire were similar in their demand for complete control without the slightest threat to their absolute sovereignty. Kim Jong il and Mobuto Sese Seko were both single party leaders who lead under a strict authoritarian rule. Both Sese Seko and Kim were guilty of stealing millions from their people and leading lavish lives while their people lived in poverty. Both used public executions and fear as a way of controlling their people. However, Sese Seko had to root out the religions in his country, while Kim inherited a predisposed country with a religion towards himself and his family. Their differences in the want for praise were ultimately what made the largest differences in their regimes.
ReplyDelete1. Seso Seko disliked communism and the west/ Kim ruled under the guise of communism and disliked the west
2. Seso Seko sought to ban Christianity/ Kim embraced a cult of personality
3. Seso Seko used a military to keep himself in power and maintain his power/ Kim used an environment of fear and total surveillance to maintain power.
Separate hemispheres do not separate the similarities in thinking between authoritarian regimes. For example, Mao Zedong and Adolf Hitler approached the ways in which they controlled their minority groups very similarly. Under Hitler, the Nuremburg Laws were put into place, taking away citizenship from Jews, as well as the "sterilization" of the country in attempts to create the perfect race; races and religions that were considered inferior or subhuman were eliminated. Under Mao, minorities were given false promises of freedom before Mao switched to autonomy, Stalin's guidelines were followed in terms of how to treat minorities, and the minorities were given limitations to what extent they were allowed to express themselves. So, as it can be seen, both Hitler and Mao desired to suppress the minorities to extreme extents. Though there are many similarities, there are also some differences. As Mao did execute large numbers of minorities in attempts to contain them, it was never to the extent as that of Hitler. Also, Mao allowed the minorities in China more freedoms that in Germany, as they were still citizens, allowed to be in public, had freedom of speech, and some others.
ReplyDeleteI think you included some good examples and comparisons of the two leaders. While you talked about Hitler's treatment of religious groups, you did not really talk about what Mao did. My question for you is...
DeleteHow did Mao treat different religious groups?
Well... Chairman Mao was a very large advocate for Confucianism considering he believed that if the peasants followed this religion, it would give him more justification as to why he should be their leader. He believed that it they became Confucians, and he was a Confucian, this would present himself as a worthy leader to them. All other religions were persecuted, especially the Christians. So, in a way, he can be compared to Hitler as they were both "weeding out" the people they didn't want in their society.
DeleteSingle Party States often have their own views on minorities and religious groups. Depending on the reigning ruler’s background and influence, their views on these types of groups can be from one end of the spectrum to the other. For example, the views of the Single Party rulers of Hitler (Germany) and Hafez al Assad (Syria) contrasted each other in various ways. Hitler had strict views and restrictions for various minorities while Assad tended to believe in a larger freedom of religion and practice.
ReplyDeleteHitler: Views and Treatment of Religious groups and minorities
1. Hitler was against religious practice that was not Christian. The Jews were an easy target to blame all of Germany’s problems on.
2. Hitler was also against different races and minorities such as Gypsies and homosexuals.
3. Hitler took violent action (“ethnic cleansing”) to purge Germany and eventually the world of these minority groups that he didn’t think were as great as the Arian race.
4. Hitler created public discrimination of these groups by forcing them to wear various colors of triangles so they would be publically recognizable. Many were forced to go to death camps.
Hafez al Assad: Views and Treatment of Religious groups and minorities
1. Assad was open to accepting various religious groups. This was because Assad was born into an Alawite family and was subject to discrimination as a child. The political party he belonged to (Baath Party) was more understanding of various religious groups than the political party that had been previously in power before the coup d’état.
2. Assad and the Ba’ath Party imposed a Leftist structure (socialist) on Syria. This means that Assad supported social equality and was against social hierarchy.
3. Opposing groups (such as Islams) didn’t agree with the freedom of religion. They opposed and protested the freedom; this sometimes had to be handled violently to decrease further opposition.
4. Although Assad and Syria was a belligerent nation with lots of internal conflict, Assad himself supported the views of freedom of religion and didn’t discriminate against minorities.
Compare and Contrast:
• Whereas Hitler showed lots of discrimination toward religious groups and minorities such as the homosexuals and Jews, Assad supported religious freedom. Hitler attempted to be successful in his envisions by killing of minority groups. Assad on the other hand tried to gain support from his people by supporting them.
Authoritarian and single party states are most widely known for their amount of control they hold over their citizens, which is very strong. The influence they hold over the citizens lives is very apparent. For example during the Holocaust, Nazi Germany chose to handle minorities such as Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies by seeking to eliminate them from society. Mao Zedong, the leader of the Communist Party of China and the chairman of the People’s Republic of China is one example of a single-party state leader who demonstrated incredibly harsh treatment of minorities and religious groups. He has many similarities to Adolf Hitler.The Cultural Revolution of China, led by Zedong resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, in the end Zedong actually ended up killing more people than Hitler did. Zedong did allow minorities to have more freedoms in China than Hitler did in Germany, such as allowing them to be in pubic, but in the end, both leaders used extreme extents to suppress minorities.
ReplyDeleteHello Hanna,
DeleteFor the most part, the information is there and I could see where you would be able to make comparisons. However, I do think that you were not varied enough, and am concerned that there isn't anywhere to go with this essay. Perhaps you could expand a little upon Mao's "many similarities to Adolf Hitler". I would suggest talking more about the types of policies either leader instituted or the response of the religious groups and minorities to the treatment they received. I think this would make your argument stronger. Other than that, however, I think everything is here and that it just needs to be better organized. Good job!
Mao Zedong of the communist party of China, and Adolf Hitler were two leaders who had a great amount of influence on religious groups during their reign. Adolf Hitler was very demanding of the strong presence of a majority/ superior population of people, and caused for intense discrimination of minority religious groups (Jews). Mao, with the "great leap forward" and the cultural revolution, was also looking to bring out a superior- singular population from the Chinese culture. With the massive man-slaughter of millions of people, single- party state leaders himself and Hitler were all very similar in their history of human disposal. Both leaders show a similar very strong opinion and discrimination towards a specific religious group, which caused lots of oppression towards these groups. When writing an essay on this, the beginning paragraphs could be used to explain the different strategies and viewpoints of these separate leaders, and then continue on to develop ideas, comparisons and differences between them. Both leaders clearly had the desire to express their hatred and desire for suppression against specific minority groups.
ReplyDeleteIn single party state regimes the treatment of religious groups and minorities differ significantly. As leader of Germany, Hitler used his position of power to manipulate the population of Germany to believe that the economic despair that their country was facing after World War I was caused by the large Jewish presence within the nation. This manipulation allowed Hitler to initiate the infamously deadly holocaust that nearly eradicated the Jewish populations of Germany and many of the surrounding countries. In direct contrast Syngman Rhee, the single party state leader of South Korea during the 1950s didn’t concern himself with the welfare of different religions. He was raised Christian, however he was mainly concerned with attempting to unite the Korean peninsula and focused his policies around this goal.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good start. You've done a good job talking about how the leaders managed to convince the public of why their actions were just, but I think you skimmed over what exactly their actions were and what the reasons for goals were. If you elaborate a bit more on those two points, I think that you would answer the prompt much more fully.
DeleteThis sounds like a great topic! The only thing that I was confused about was how you would address the prompt for Rhee. If he was not targeting minorities or religions, I think you still have to somehow incorporate his treatment of minorities. Would this just be that he treated them well? Or were there other groups involved in the uniting of the Korean peninsula? I also thing it would be valuable to find similarities between Hitler and Rhee's rules as well. Overall, nice job!! :)
DeleteYour ideas are good! However, make sure to split this up into more than one paragraph so that it is easy to differentiate between your intro, bodies, and conclusion. I would suggest having a few different bodies, possibly one on each ruler and one comparing them. There are many ways to split it up though, just form it more like an essay (or outline) rather than one paragraph.
ReplyDeleteLeaders of many single-party states wanted to assert total control over their people. One method used by these leaders was to persecute certain religious groups. This scared the people and helped the leader to assert control over the rest of the country. Two examples of this religious persecution came from anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and the persecution of many religious groups, specifically Christianity, in the USSR under Josef Stalin.
ReplyDeleteStalin
• Religion was an obstacle to the construction of the communist society so putting an end to all religion and replacing it with atheism was an ideological goal of the state
• Confiscating church property, ridiculing religion, harassing believers, and propagating atheism in the schools
• Some actions against Orthodox priests and believers along with execution included torture, being sent to prison camps, labor camps or mental hospitals. Many people were also subjected to psychological punishment or torture and mind control experimentation in order to force them give up their religious convictions. During the first five years of Soviet power, the Bolsheviks executed 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and over 1,200 Russian Orthodox priests. Many others were imprisoned or exiled.
• In the Soviet Union, in addition to the methodical closing and destruction of churches, the charitable and social work formerly done by ecclesiastical authorities was taken over by the state. As with all private property, Church owned property was confiscated into public use. The few places of worship left to the Church were legally viewed as state property which the government permitted the church to use.
Hitler
• Hitler needed someone to blame for Germany’s problems so that he would gather support from the people who believed he was rebuilding their nation
• Night of broken glass (Kristallnacht)
• Used the SS to intimidate and round up Jews and other minority groups
• Jews were rounded up and forced to live in ghettos
• Finally, Jews were shipped to concentration and labor camps
• Over 6 million were killed by the end of Hitler’s reign
• Hitler used propaganda against the Jews causing many people to turn their backs on them
Persecution of religious groups helped leaders to gain popularity and power with their people.
Regardless of location, minorities groups have been targeted and prosecuted since the beginning of time. Following the trend, religious and ethnic minorities were abused and killed by leaders of single party states because they believed them to be unequal. This is especially true in Nazi Germany and Communist China, when Aldof Hitler and Mao Zedong, respectively, persecuted the minorities who lived under their rule.
ReplyDeleteHitler’s ultimate goal was to form the master Aryan race, and so proceeded to eradicate minority groups during World War 2. Although Jews were attacked with the most fervor, gypsies, homosexuals, and other minorities were also targeted. During this period of intense anti-Semitism, 6 million Jews were prosecuted. In 1966, Mao Zedong led the Cultural Revolution in China, which led to massive numbers of deaths of ethnic minorities, including Tibetans and Mongols. Following the rules of Marxist Communism, Zedong did not want the cultures of the minorities to have an effect on the spread of Communism. Religious books were burned, and any traditional Chinese culture was suppressed.
In conclusion, both Hitler and Mao tried to destroy the physical presence and culture of minorities to fatal ends. Although they carried out their actions in a similar fashion, their reasons, justifications, and plans were distinctively different.
While Dr. Francois Duvalier of Haiti declared himself to be Anti-Communist in ideals, Pol Pot of Cambodia declared himself to be Communist. Yet, both men approached their ideals through similarly structured totalitarian dictatorships. Not only did they come to power in the same manner, but abused their power in order to expand agricultural success through acts of extreme violence. In both cases, the intelligentsias were the target for destruction and reform. Specifically, Duvalier had a goal of taking the successful mulatto out of power with threats and massacre to create a middle class composed of black farmers and soldiers. Similarly, Pol Pot was attempting to abolish the intelligentsia to expand the agricultural field, but used labor camps and strictly enforced living and feeding conditions to oppress the people and create equality. Although Duvalier brought down the mulatto in Haiti with an anti-communist mentality, the means and results were very similar to those of Pol Pot in Cambodia.
ReplyDelete1. Rise to Power (compare and contrast)
a. Both Leaders: Took advantage of times of political chaos and asserted their power. Both also favored minorities going into the process
b. Dr. Francois Duvalier: Found support in the black farming and military populations
c. Pol Pot: Found support in the Communist party and affiliation with the Khmer Rouge.
2. Type of rule and goals (compare and contrast)
a. Both Leaders: Rules with a totalitarian dictatorship, support from minorities, and used extreme violence as a means to achieve their goals.
b. Dr. Francois Duvalier: Had a goal of overthrowing the Mulatto and creating a middle class for the black farming population.
c. Pol Pot: Had a goal of creating a communist society with an agricultural focus and removing the intelligentsia from society.
favoring minorities, bringing down other minorities, excommunication
3. Results of Efforts (compare and contrast)
a. Both Leaders: Achieved their goals, massacred massive amounts of people, and were not reprimanded for the damage they caused.
b. Dr. Francois Duvalier: Succeeded in creating a middle class
c. Pol Pot: Succeeded in creating an agricultural society with work camps and rations, yet the Communist society was not entirely achieved by definition.
Hafez al-Assad and Adolf Hitler were very much alike in that they were both single party state leaders. Hafez al-Assad ruled Syria while Hitler had control over Germany. However, both of these men had very differing ideas as to how they treated different religious and minority groups. In fact, their thoughts on different religion were so different that it made huge impacts on Hitler’s goals as chancellor of Germany and little to no impact on al-Assad’s goals. One of Hitler’s main goals was to complete a genocide on the whole Jewish religion because he thought that they were infecting the world and that his German race was the best. Al-Assad did not do anything to people who worshiped different religions than him and was fine with whatever people chose to follow.
ReplyDeleteHitler-
• Opposed any religion or group differing from his perfect race.
• Tried to complete a mass genocide of the Jewish population.
• Opposed people like homosexuals, gypsies, and anyone who resisted him
• Used public displays of humiliation and torture to show all the groups he opposed that he meant business.
Al-Assad-
• Accepting to all other religions
• Was a promoter of equality in people
• Anyone who showed discontent toward another religion, he used violence to shut them down to prevent further hate.
Both Mao Zedong and Adolf Hitler were authoritarian leaders during the 20th century. The way that they controlled their respective countries was through the use of power and propaganda to sway peoples mindsets. By doing this both Hitler and Mao were able to persecute and attack different minority groups in their countries. They used propaganda to create a sense of in Hitler's case antisemitism toward the Jews to be able to prosecute and eventually imprison and kill them. Mao also used propaganda to gain the support of his people and be able to murder millions of minorities in China. Both Hitler and Mao believed in a sort of "ethnic cleansing" to make the perfect society and in order to do this they used propaganda and their overall power to take advantage of the people and eventually cause genocide within their countries.
ReplyDeleteJoe- I think propaganda is a really good theme to write your essay about, because you'll be able to (probably) find a lot of information and primary resources and examples of propaganda. It would also be good however to create maybe one or two other sub-categories that you could talk about just to compare the two more. Maybe talking about other examples of how they controlled and persuaded mindset of their counties' people would be helpful.
DeleteHitler and Mao Zedong were two well-known leaders that used very similar techniques in their single party states when dealing with religious groups and minorities. Hitler believed in an ethnic cleansing so that there could be a so called “master race”. His main aim was anti-Semitism which was basically the mass murder of Jewish people in concentration camps. These were very harsh and led to the death of many Jewish people all throughout Europe. Going along with this, he also very quickly killed anyone that opposed his views so that he could have all the power with no opposition. Mao Zedong believed in a very similar concept of ethnic cleansing but his main focus was to eliminate Tibetans. Since he was such a proponent of communism he also got rid of any ideas that were formed before his time so that there was nothing in his way. In terms of religion, Zedong had many religious writings destroyed if they were against his beliefs. One big similarity they both had was their way of getting to power because they used mass propaganda about their treatment of minorities to rise in their perspective countries. So both Hitler and Zedong were very big single party states leaders who used similar harsh techniques when dealing with minorities and religious groups.
ReplyDeleteI love this first paragraph, i feel like you go into as much detail as necessary in a good first paragraph and you give good overview to what sounds like would be a good essay. I wish you would have bullet listed some points which would have helped your argument but other than that it is a very solid paragraph.
DeleteThis essay will compare and contrast the treatment of minorities in the single party states of the People’s Republic of China and the Soviet Union. Mao Zedong ruled the People’s Republic of China from 1949 to 1976 and Joseph Stalin ruled the Soviet Union from 1922 to 1952. During Mao’s rule, groups such as the Mongols and the Tibetans were considered minorities. In general, these groups had a lack of political representation. During the cultural revolution in China, several of these minorities were attacked, and in different ways. Mongols were persecuted, Tibetan monasteries were destroyed, and the Massacre of the Hui Muslims resulted in 1,600 deaths. In the Soviet Union, groups such as Jews, peasants, and people who showed some form of disagreement with the government were considered minorities. Peasants and people against the government were both deported to places such as Siberia, labor camps were created, and executions were held to rid the nation of minorities. Both leaders attempted to remove ideologies from minorities whether it was Islamic teachings in the People’s Republic of China or ideas not in sync with the government in the Soviet Union. In addition, both nations had methods to teach their citizens the correct way to behave in these societies and resulted in thousands of deaths. In conclusion, both the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union had aims to remove any threat of opposition, however not all tactics that were used were alike.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I thought you did a pretty good job of covering the basics in this paragraph. I suppose what I would suggest is to add some more specifics to your examples to make your argument stronger. To start off, were there any other methods besides ethnic-cleansing in the Holocaust used by Nazis to rid the nation of outsiders? Secondly, how did the Communist Party of China attempt to eradicate religious institutions?
ReplyDeleteThe authoritarian state of South Africa during apartheid significantly reduced the rights of the Afrikaner group, and the same thing occurred during the single-party state of Vargas in Brazil. Apartheid reigned in South where the Afrikaner populations were in control of the government Africa from 1948 to 1994. The National Party ruled the government and created legislation for the enforcement of racial segregation. The Afrikaner group, while minority in population represented the vast majority of those holding power in the government. The inhabitants of South Africa were classified into four racial groups: “black”, “white”, “colored”, and “Indian”, and residential areas were divided up and segregated based on this. From 1960 to 1983, 3.5 million non-white South Africans were removed from their homes, and forced into segregated neighborhoods. This treatment went even further in 1970 when non-white political representation was abolished and black people were deprived of citizenship. The government segregated education, medical care, and other public services, often inferior to those of white people. The Authoritarianism of the National Party in South Africa significantly reduced the rights both politically and socially of all those who were not a part of this group. The Vargas Era of Brazil is the period between 1930 and 1945 when the country was under the leadership of Getúlio Dornelles Vargas. Brazil was going through the worldwide Great Depression and Vargas’s strategy of getting out was through economic stimulus. This policy was good for the upper middle class manufacturers and the bourgeoisie, by which he was heavily supported and which lead to major suppression of the middle class. They faced heavy taxes and further economic burdening at a time of already high economic hardships. The Authoritarianism of the lower class reduced their rights and political representation. The authoritarian and single-party states in South Africa and Brazil caused serious repression of the minorities and religious groups.
ReplyDeleteNice examples of two single-party states that discriminated against religious minorities. Can you further elaborate on what the Communist Party of China did to repress the religious minorities? In what ways did they take away their political representation and religious freedom? How was it regulated?
ReplyDeleteI agree. If I elaborate on the Communist Party of China's ways on eradicating religions, that'll help strengthen my stance.
ReplyDelete