The Evolution of Technology-Social Media and Social Change

 In today’s age, we are surrounded by technology. Whether we know it or not, technology in the modern world has evolved from simple tools to the center of our culture. It can be seen in everything from everyday appliances such as a toaster to revolutionary medical advancements like robots who can perform surgeries. Despite all of this, one form of technology has dominated and controlled popular culture for the last decade, social media. Social media are defined as “computer-mediated tools that allow people to create, share or exchange information, ideas, and pictures/videos in virtual communities and networks” (Wikipedia), or in other words, are a place where people can express themselves in a world separate from their real one. This includes sites such as twitter, Instagram, google+, pintrest, vine, tumblr, and facebook, where users constantly log onto check their profiles, post new ideas or photos, explore new trends, and connect with people from all over the world. For us teenagers especially, social media has become big part of our everyday lives and adolescent culture. However, in recent years, social media has evolved from simply a form of enjoyment to a medium of social change. Things like the Twitter Revolution with hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter, #BringBackOurGirls, and #JeSuisCharlie show that people are using social media as a way to express their opinions and protest things that are happening in the world. And with the ability to communicate these opinions to social media users from all over the world, social media activists are able to spread their ideas to millions of people in a matter of seconds, as seen in this Twitter heat map of the hashtags #BlackLivesMatter, #ICantBreathe, and #HandsUpDontShoot (http://srogers.cartodb.com/viz/3ecef0b4-7cae-11e4-8bbb-0e9d821ea90d/embed_map ). All of this shows that in today’s modern age, technology has become such a cultural center that it has become the new form of social protest, it unites people from all different places and allows them not only to escape the world they live in, but also to change it.

Fire with Fire?

Throughout my historical studies career, one question has remained to be a consistent source of controversy, the question of whether it’s okay to fight fire with fire, or in other words, is it okay fight violence with violence? The form of militant rebellion can be seen in almost any conflict throughout history, where people use force to fight against their oppressors. In fact, it is human nature to tend to use violence as a mean to get what you want, whether it’s freedom from oppression or the savings from a bank. In most cases, I believe that fighting violence with violence is not the answer, and that there are many peaceful alternatives to achieving your goal. However in some cases, the use of fighting force with force can be justified. For example, during the 1960s a new civil rights movement popped up in America, a movement that contradicted the non-violent mission of MLK and instead advocated for black minorities across the country to band together and fight back against white oppressors. They called themselves the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, and they used force to help oppressed black communities defend themselves from police and government brutality. Additionally, the Black Panther Party also helped build up their communities through charity acts like food drives, health clinics, and childcare. The Black Panther Party was one of the first revolutionary movements in America that used militancy to defend the rights of the oppressed, because using force and violence was what the situation called for in order to defend the black citizens. Therefore, I believe that the use of force of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was justified because the violence was required in order to defend the lives and liberties of the members of the black minority. 

The Origin of the Cold War

In American studies class this week we have been analyzing the many arguments for the origin of the Cold War between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Some have said that it originated from the opposition between capitalism and socialism, or the threat of the two powers in possession of nuclear weapons, but I believe that the Cold War originated from the want of both the US and USSR to be the new international superpower. Throughout the 20th century, a handful of countries who possessed advanced technology and ambitious political leaders contended for a position of power over other nations by waging world wars and creating alliances. The conclusion of the second world war left these previous contenders of worldwide dominance, mainly the nations of Germany, Japan, England, and France, in both economic and national turmoil, seriously delaying the continuation of their rise to power. This left only two contenders left in the race for worldwide influence- the US and USSR. They had been shady allies during world war 2, but now that the war was over any trust or reliability they had between them vanished and the two nations became enemies in the pursuit for power. They then based this rivalry off of the opposing ideals of capitalism or socialism, or the threat they posed for each other being the only two nations currently in possession of the atomic bomb, but really I think that this was all a facade for the fact that they both wanted power and saw the other as an obstacle in their way to obtaining it.

The Impact of the Espionage and Sedition Acts

During the past few weeks of American Studies class we have been putting quite a lot of emphasis on the espionage and sedition acts and the affect they had on the expression of free speech and the overall freedom of citizens in America during the early 1900s. The original purpose of the espionage and sedition acts were to safeguard national security and opinion in the tension of the first world war, but instead these laws made the government able to restrict free speech and freedom of expression. Firstly, the espionage act of 1917 made it illegal for any U.S. citizen to interfere negatively with the American government or military, making it very difficult to oppose unwanted actions of the military during the war. Furthermore, the addition of the sedition act in 1918 made it illegal for any U.S. citizen to publicly oppose or rebel against the American government/military. In other words, the government now prohibited the free expression of beliefs that it did not deem safe or beneficial to national security. This expelled the first amendment of the Constitution regarding the right of every citizen to freedom of speech and created a controversy on the righteousness of the American government because the U.S. was now able to prosecute anyone that they disagreed with. In the period of the espionage and sedition acts, the government prosecuted many socialists, anarchists, communists and other people of radical beliefs, preventing the possibility of America evolving or changing into something other than the America that the government wanted.
My interpretation of the espionage and the sedition acts and their application shed the American government in a very negative light, but personally, I think that it is justified because with the enactment of these acts I think the government plainly abused their power and restricted people from benefiting from one of the supposed core American beliefs: freedom.