Why Were Convict Women Always Seen as More Problematic to the Social Order than Convict Men - Assignment Example

Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : Final History Examination Assessment Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2010 Assessment 1 - Minor Essay (25%) How and why were convict women always seen as more problematic to the social order than convict men? Convict men were permitted the use of convict women. The men reportedly lived by plunder and were evidently violent to women to accord themselves the satisfaction they desired for their lust. Women feared disease and were more often than not complaining about the mistreatment. The ensuing dispute about sexuality and promiscuity, reproductive and productive labour, autonomy and oppression, pointed not only to matters that concerned authorities of the colonial eras in relation to convict women, but more so highlights many of the key themes that have given a distinct dimension to the history of convict women. The controversial scandal existing at Emu Plains brought the conclusion to some historians that the convict women were trapped in whoredom and could not escape it. There is no argument what so ever about women being in a vulnerable and exposed position (Saunders & Evans 1992). Approximately 160,000 convicts ferried during the period of transportation to Australia from Britain falling between 1788 and 1868 only a mere twenty five thousands were women. The transportation of convicts reached its peak in the period between 1820s and 1840s. All the convicts were sentenced for either life sentence or seven years in prison. As it can be seen the convict women were few in number and there was an appeal for more to be shipped in. Consequently the women had some sense of being treated as special. Most of the women were accused for play and laughter-chanting, playing tricks and dancing, any activity geared towards undermining the exercise of power. Play and laughter within the context of this culture at this time carried out by women was viewed as impolite and a total undermining of power. Among the children, for instance, sulking portrayed by girls in orphan schools was a form of withdrawal that was almost impossible to punish (Margaret, et al. 1988). One of the humiliating punished directed towards convict women was that head shaving. Hair was important to the feminine identity of a convict woman. Men had to place their children in orphan schools after the mothers had fled. The concern about the ‘wondering mother’, the ‘abandoning mother’ and the orphan all point out to an existing uneasiness as far as gender order is concerned. The ‘wandering kind of life’ was usually conflated together with freedom of choice particularly in sexuality, but as opposed to men who depicted envy, pity and fear, on the side of women, the feelings that were brought about were invariably resentment and anger. The motherhood perceptions especially carried feelings of contradiction and ambiguity at the same time. Where as on one side the female convicts were advised to reproduce, in the emerging free population they were immensely despised. Whereas not all the analysts have come up with damning opinion concerning convict women, the factors of disturbance and chaos were majorly recognized as elements making up their behavior (Alford 1984). It has been asserted that the journey concerning convict women was very corrupting to a point of being viewed as demoralizing. Their conduct with criminals for a record period of eight months greatly degraded them and the probability of any convict woman arriving at her final intended destination not debauched in accordance to this particular view was very little. Although there existed some promiscuity women and men paired up as the voyage got underway. Women resisted any form of surveillance in many ways. Their resistance comprised of quarrelling, being boisterous, and utilization of improper language. This made them to be more troublesome than men since the men had not perfected this kind of behavior. The men were restricted without hope with their iron chains (Daniels & Murnane 1980). Women on the other hand were allowed to move freely on the decks. The purpose of keeping the women free on the deck for almost the whole day was to make them have buoyant spirits and remain in total good health throughout the journey. There number was small and all kind of measures were taken to ensure that they reach their destination. The movement of convict men was limited to five hours and they were allowed out in groups or from 75 to 50. Women challenged demarcations that usually circumscribed their behavior in different manner to that of men. The women more so made use of mutinous language. Women protest were felt within different dimensions as opposed to those of men and the physical freedom accorded to them, permitted them to make use of these options of rebellion. Before the take off of ‘John Bull’ women overlooked the food that was served to them. They discarded oatmeal which had been boiled together with sugar and water for breakfast. They complained bitterly about provisions in spite of them stealing a bag of bread and scattering them all over the decks. The authority found this grievance as being unwarranted. More so physical attacks and quarrels were the order of the day. Some of the women fought to a point of killing one another before the governing authority intervened. Some concluded that transportation of was irrational and brutal way targeted at improving the character of prisoners. Free women also, it was noted, behaved in the same manner as the convict showing a continuation of a character that was prevalent since time immemorial in the indigenous traditional society (Daniels & Murnane 1980). The women convict were just depicted what they were in real sense without acting or exaggeration. Some surgeons on board who believed or harbored the belief that women would be reformed through formal guidance were protective and chivalrous towards them. Women who behaved well were protected from their fellow convicts shielding them of any verbal or physical abuse. The men were unlucky and were thought to be more dangerous than the woman that is why their freedom was greatly curtailed. In some instances men were pointed out as being the source of provocation for women making them to behave badly. It was discovered later on that convict women could get around these relationship. The deficit of convict women in Australia made the shipment of others to be made. Other convict were to be brought from different parts of the world to Australia. Consequently it can be deduced that the women convict got their pride from being treated special and hence they became more troublesome (Margaret 1988). Assessment 2 - Historiographic exercise Question nine The origins and end of the Cold War The name Cold War refers to a period of immense conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States after the Second World War. After the Second World War the Soviet Union and the United States become the two leading powers in Europe, the Soviet Union occupied effectively the Eastern Europe countries whereas the United States playing the role of the liberator of Western Europe countries. Britain acted as underwriter and creditor. The Soviet Union and the United States in collaboration with Britain and France formed occupation zones and a four-power control framework. During the conferences convened at Potsdam and Yalta Britain and the two superpowers tried to give a definition framework for Europe post war settlement. Nevertheless, emergence of serious differences was observed during the time of Potsdam conference concerning the future development of Eastern Europe and German. The two conferences also brought a discussion concerning the Far East and specifically the Soviet Union during the war against Japan (Painter, 1999) The emergence of East-West division began by 1947. According to the West, the Soviets established in Eastern Europe puppet communist regimes and undermining democracy. In German the Soviet Union was crippling her wealth as it created an exclusive influence in its zone of occupation. The Soviets justified their action in Eastern Europe because it established broadly based governments which were anti-Fascist governments which were friendly towards the Soviet Union. Emergence of other conflicts aggrieved an already worse situation. The two states began to attack each other in ideological terms. The Soviet Union accused the United States as being out to destroy communism whereas the United States saw the Soviet Union as targeting to undermine liberal democracy in the United States itself and the Western Europe (Jean-Jacques 2009). The Cold War commencing in 1947 onwards was characterized by the crisis of Berlin Blockade of 1948-9, the Korean War in 1950, the occupying of Hungary by the Soviet Military, the Berlin pressure by the Soviet in 1958 that resulted in the Berlin Wall crisis that occurred in 1951, and the crisis instigated by Cuba Missile in 1962. At this time the American had taken on a new role of being the leader of the West. They assisted the economy of states in the West Europe by means of Marshal Plan of 1947. They allied themselves formally to an emergence of an alliance comprising of states in Western Europe stipulated in the North Atlantic treaty that was signed in 1949, were in the forefront in the establishment of the Germany Federal Republic resulting from the three Western occupation zones in the year 1949 and the beginning of 1950s they worked towards the rearming of these specific states and the subsequent membership of NATO that took place in 1955 (Painter 1999). The Soviet Union had thereon proclaimed its occupation zones in Germany as the Democratic Republic of German by the year 1949; it went ahead with establishment of a formal alliance with its partners in the Eastern part of Europe through the Treaty Organization of Warsaw Pact. The American in Asia a peace treaty and an alliance with Japan in 1951 and 1952 and ended up bringing other states on board that included Thailand, New Zealand, Philippines and Australia, using a series of alliances, while on the other hand the Soviet Union completed an alliance with China in the year 1950. The war happening in Korea was concluded 1953 but in another scenario Americans eventually became deeply involved in a war that was more complicated in Vietnam in which it gave its support to the Republic of Vietnam opposing the Vietnam Democratic Republic which was supported by China and the Soviet Union (Fitzpatrick 2000). Rearming and the development of weapons of long range with which they could strike each others homeland were the policies which were being pursued by the two sides during this time period. Crisis relations improved after the Cuban Missile. The concluding of normalization of the situation in Europe, especially the Agreement on Quadripartite concerning Berlin that occurred in 1971, the agreement s which gave entry to the United Nations of the two German states, the Helsinki Accords that were agreed upon by the Co-operation in the Europe and the Conference on security peace treaty in the year 1975 which apparently marked a tacit peace treaty that concluded both the Cold War and the Second World War (Kaiser 1987). This also saw the conclusion of agreements limiting the race for nuclear arms. Conflict involving the superpowers continued to rage on even through the period of détente, especially in other areas of rivalry that included the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and South Africa. Nevertheless, the improving relationship between China and the United States which was the effort of Secretary of State Kissinger and President Richard Nixon, and Chou En-Lai, compounded with the détente between the Soviet Union and United States and the relationship that was worsening between China and the Soviet Union, gave a new dimension to the relationship between the two superpowers during the 1970s. The Cold War in its original form had died away by the mid-1970s. The race for arms between the West and the East was characterized of a typical ‘action-reaction’ model accompanying international conflict in which either side reacted to an earlier move by the other side (Penglase 1989). The explanation of the cause of the conflict is more complicated and has got several categories of explanation can be cited. In the first place some experts have argued that the Cold War occurred basically as an outcome of destruction of the power of German that resulted in a ‘power vacuum’ in central Europe and the bipolar balance of power between the Soviet Union. From this point of view, the Cold War was conservatively an immense power conflict in which rivalry on ideological terms was vitally secondary and the structural constraint of bipolarity was crucial in dividing the two sides greatly. The second explanation emphasizes the American argue for a return much more reduced international role following the Second World War. Nevertheless having embarked on disengaging and disarming from Europe, the Americans were forced by the Soviet Union expansion in Eastern Europe up a more active and unrequested role in Europe in order to counter the Soviet power. Another version centers on the American capitalist power to exploit communism and expand American influence in the Middle East, Far East and Europe (Vladislav 1996). Assessment 3 - Tutorial Presentation (25%) Imperialism Imperialism is the maintenance and creation of unequal territorial, cultural and economic relationship particularly between states and usually in the term of an empire, based on subordination and domination. It is perceived to be the exercise of control of a number or one country by a more dominant nation. This control may be economical or both and shows some degree of dependence in the subordinate nations. It is a high stage of capitalism. Imperialism was encouraged by monopolizing the external trade dealings of the subordinate nation. The imperial power usually obtains raw materials from the subordinate nation and sells to that particular nation finished goods that have been manufactured by the dominant nation. This will always be usual be followed by discouragement of development of any manufacturing industries which may in turn compete with its the industries at home. Americans have long perceived themselves as anti-imperial crusaders (Vladimir 1999). The American nation was founded in revolt against the British Empire. During the 20th century the rhetoric self-determination overwhelmed the discussion of American foreign affairs policy. The United States branded itself as being in opposition of imperialism policies of other nations. In the American context relates to the domination of one society as opposed to the expressed will of the subjects or the people. Imperialism can be manifested into two different forms which include informal and formal forms. In a formal imperialism case as portrayed by the British exercise of rule over the 13 American colonies in 18th century; a dominate foreign state takes over the management of the day to day social, economic and political affairs in another separate land. On the contrary, informal empire is concerned with a more indirect organization, in which case a foreign state works by means of local intermediaries to manage the affairs of a distant society (Magdoff 2008). In the beginning of 19th century India, as an illustration, authorities of the Britain lobbied for favourable arrangements concerning trade with native monarchs as opposed to bearing the full costs that are accompanied by the exercise of a direct imperial control. Close study of the two types of imperialism has prompted many scholars to come to the conclusion that, in spite of assumptions that are perceived popularly, Imperialism in general terms refers to American history. To be specific, the years coming after the civil war indicate adequate evidence of the expansion of American military, political, cultural, and economic control over foreign societies. The period after 1865 is distinguished from previous periods, when the Republic was still young was still struggling for its expansion and survival over contiguous territory that it incorporated rapidly into constitutional structures of the United States of America. Imperialism refers to something different from continental expansion. It is concerned with subordination of distant societies that is permanent, contrary to their reorganization as states with equal standings within a single nation (Social Studies School Service 2007). America transferred its federal structure of governing all over the North American continent prior to the civil war. Following that watershed, a strong powerful United States of America took over domination in distant lands, whose subjects were not given equal representation as far as governance was concerned. By the commencement of 20th century the United States of America had acquired a large empire that was informal and smaller in size but also formal empire on the other hand. Imperialism was never applied in its modern form until later on in the 19th century. Proceeding this time it was normally called the aggression of Napoleon Bonaparte. That does not imply in real sense it cannot be used in retrospective manner to give a description of the growth and origins of the British Empire in Hanoverian and Stuart times, for instance, but universally is to refer to these as ‘colonization’. It took a wider meaning usually referring to acquisition of territories and extends to cover power and influence exercised (Thucydides, Henry & Thomas 2008). Economic imperialism for instance refers to the process by which an economy extends financial control over others. Missionaries usually attributed the imperial success of Britain to the will of God. At the base of imperialism lay phenomenal expansion of Britain after her industrial revolution. That availed to her world-large material interests which were to be secured. In 19000, at its height imperialism took on a domestic character. Britons discarded the old fashioned Napoleonic gimmickry and took full pride in their imperialism. All major political parties including the Labour party sprouted with imperialist wings (Social Studies School Service 2007). Secretary of state William Seward immediately after and during the Civil War acknowledged that the United States of America needed to acquire an oversea empire to safe guard future prosperity and peace. North-South conflict wound would heal only with a promise for overseas benefits for all the sections of the country. Informal United States of America expansion into foreign markets-particularly the Caribbean-providing industrialists and farmers with access to resources and consumers. At that period the United States economy had commenced to use mechanized agriculture, railway transport and factory manufacturing, huge overseas became necessary for prosperity. The Americans were depending on assured access to international market and this consequently required the expansion across Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. The secretary of state embarked on highway to Asia. He negotiated a treaty ensuring American business accessibility to the island kingdom of Hawaii. This was successfully used as a stepping stone to Japan and China. When the United States of America met resistance its expansion in Asia after the civil war, the government subsequently employed military and diplomatic pressures. In the year 1866 prior to the Japanese government excluding itself to foreign trade, America got together with other imperial powers, that is: the Dutch, the French and the British in compelling the island country over the objections of native interests. A naval war ship was dispatched to take part in naval exercise at the coast of Japan (Vladimir 1999). In China diplomacy was applied as opposed to the use of force. In a treaty signed in 1868 the United States was given the right for accessibility of demarcated coastal areas, including other rights that comprised of the construction of telegraphs and railroads enabling the exposing of the interior land of Japan. The United States in return permitted thousands of Chinese labourers to get across the pacific. This arrangement provided American companies with affordable pool of workers at the same time alleviating the problem of overpopulation in China. American imperialism was part of a larger international competition. France, Russia and Britain, and later on Japan and Germany were all in a competition for control in Africa, Asia and any other available open space. The United States used its military prowess to force out Spanish Empire out of Philippines and Cuba (Reynolds 1994). Assessment 4 - Short Essay (25%) What does Hobbes mean by 'natural law' and how does it enable humans to move from the state of nature to the civil condition? Natural laws are the moral standards that control behavior, to some extend, objectivity obtained from the nature of the world and the nature of human beings. The form of nature is ‘natural’ in one particular sense only. Hobbes asserts that political authority is normally natural, that is, in the natural state human beings are without government, which is an artificial authority created by man. Hobbes continues to explain that the exceptionally authority that naturally exists in human beings is that authority that is exercised by a mother over a child. This is crucial for keeping the child out of harm. In adult human beings the case or scenario is not the same. Hobbes admitted that each one of us may be stronger than others. He concedes with the fact that some are precariously cunning while others are fools. It is nearly invariably true that each human being has the capability of killing one another (Lane & Howard 1994). In the case that human beings have not put up any form of government they are by default compelled to live in Hobbes’s description of state of nature and it is these natural laws that enable human beings to move from state of nature to civil conditions. According to Hobbes state of nature could occur at any time, for instance, if the police and army refused to carry out their functions for the government. Should the existing authority be undermined the society is always at the brink of lapsing back into the state of nature. In Hobbes perspective the right of nature can be simply be defined (Harry 2009). Devoid of civil society we have a right to ensure in all efforts that we foresee our own self-preservation. The worst that could occur to any individual is violent death in the hands of others. If we possess any rights at all, these rights have been accorded to us by nature and one fundamentally of them is the prevention of violent death. In the form of nature no one is in a state to successfully define what is meant by good judgment. To the war that pits one man against another consequently nothing is unjust (Francis, et al 2000). According to readers interpretation see the state of nature could be a much nicer place if we had to see human beings possessing some basic moral obligations. This is primitive unless people are ready to share moral ideas including individual judgment as opposed to only general principles. Different ways exist of interpreting Hobbes’s perspective of lack of moral constraint concerning the state of nature. The obstacle is not lack of moral ideas rather than judgments and moral ideas differ to a great extend. Numerous of Hobbesian conflict are concerned about or dwell on political ideals or religious ideas (Alford 1984). Hobbes believes that human beings reasoning can come up with some eternal principles to control and govern their conduct. These principles are separate from whatever instruction that is moral that can be obtained from religion or God. In another perspective are laws made available by nature as opposed to being revealed by God. Hobbes does not think that the available natural laws provide any jurisdiction in any manner to criticize or disobey the real laws instituted or enacted by any government. Out of the laws of nature that he sets, the first two are the ones which are politically crucial. The first law talks about every man endeavoring peace so long as he possess hope of getting it and in case he does not get it, that he might seek out and utilize all assistance and upper hand brought about by war. Whatever Hobbes is trying to tackle is the transformation from the state of nature the state of civil society. In his description of the second law it appears that human beings should all put down weapons, surrender the right of nature and unanimously permit a sovereign who will give instruction about what is allowed and consequently give punishment if not obeyed. This generates a lot of disagreement and confusion. Hobbes says that there exists scarce commonwealth in a civil world whose commencements can in a conscience be justified. Governments have been imposed on people by fraud and force and not by unanimous agreement (Perrott 1983). Hobbes reasoning translates to defending every existing government that possesses adequate power to ensure peace among its subjects. This is contrary to a mere a mythical government that has been brought into being by a peaceful contract from a state of nature. His fundamentally assertion is that we should act in a manner to suggest that we had voluntary entered into such a contract with everybody else living in the society except the sovereign authority. The subjects have a right to fight back is the sovereign authority embark on an agenda of eliminating everyone. The natural law sets the stage for the creation of the civil society or condition. They will only exist where there is no sovereign authority (Backhouse 1997). Bibliography Alford,K., (1984), Production or Reproduction? An economic history of women in Australia, 1788-1850, Oxford, M.Quartly. Backhouse, R., (1997), Methodology of Economics, History of British Economic Thought Series, Vol.2, Routledge, Backhouse Publisher. Daniels, K & Murnane, M. (1980), Colonial Chaplain's view (1807): Uphill All The Way: A Documentary History of Women in Australia, Brisbane. Francis,Y.E, et al, (2000),The Economic journal, The quarterly journal of the Royal Economic Society, Vol.2, Michigan, Basil Blackwell publisher. Fitzpatrick, S., (2000), Russia’s Twentieth Century in History and Historiography, Australian Journal of Politics and History, 46(3), 378-387. Harry I.P.R, (2009), Dictionary of Political Economy, California, Macmillan Publisher and co. Jean-Jacques, R., (2009), The Political Writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau, Biblio-Bazaar, LLC, Edition-reprint Publisher. Kaiser, D. ed, (1987), The Worker's Revolution in Russia, 1917, Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Lane, A & Howard,T., (1994),The Rise and Fall of the Grand Alliance, Basingstoke, Macmillan. Margaret, C., et al., (1988), 200 Australian Women, Sydney, M.Quartly. Magdoff, H., (2008), Imperialism: from the colonial age to the present, Michigan, Monthly Review Press. Painter, S.D., (1999), The Cold War: An International History, London: Routledge, pp.4-30. Perrott, M., (1983), A Tolerable Good Success. Economic Opportunities in New South Wales, c.1788-1828, Sydney, M.Quartly. Penglase, B., (1989), That illiterate freight of misery? Journal of Royal Australian Historical Association, 75, II. Reynolds, D., (1994), The Origins of the Cold War in Europe, New Haven, Yale University Press. Saunders, K & Evans, R., (1992), Bending the Bars: Convict Women and the State, Gender Relations in Australia: domination and negotiation, Sydney. M.Quartly. Social Studies School Service, (2007), Imperialism: Analyzing visual primary sources: World history series, Michigan, Social Studies. Thucydides, Henry, D. & Thomas, A., (2008), The history of the Peloponnesian war: Harper's new classical library, Virginia, Harper publisher. Vladislav, M. Z., (1996), Inside the Kremlin's Cold War, Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Vladimir, I.L., (1999), Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism: Resistance Marxist library, Virginia, Resistance Books. Read More