Monday, February 2, 2009
Week Consensus
I would have to say that at the end of the week, the most common thread throughout class would have to have been the different ways in which revolution affected Europe. Granted, this is a very large heading, but I think that its vagueness is an indicator to it’s vastness and complicatedness. On one hand you had successful revolutions, like Germany, Italy, or Greece. On the other hand you have failed ones, like Poland or the different sects in the Austria Empire. This combined with the varying factors of economic dissatisfaction and nationalistic sentiment, along with the context of the current ruler and his ability to deal with these revolutions, made for setting the revolutions in certain categories difficult, if not impossible. To further the complexity, all this had to be combined with growing industrialization and dates, which seemed to create a haze around everything occurring in Europe, making it hard to see what exactly happened when in comparison with other events, which would have required a unearthly amount of note taking. In the end, I think the lesson I learned the most about both chapters was that Europe is very fond of revolutions, and that these revolutions always have involve some sort of combination of economic, political, and cultural aspects. I don’t it’s unfair to just see this period of history as a tumultuous period involving nation building, industrialization, and reform, and nothing more in depth than that. This might not sit well with some of the history fanatics, but I think the entire period is way too confusing to be deemed anything else.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
On one hand you had successful revolutions, like Germany, Italy, or Greece… I don’t it’s unfair to just see this period of history as a tumultuous period involving nation building, industrialization, and reform, and nothing more in depth than that. This might not sit well with some of the history fanatics, but I think the entire period is way too confusing to be deemed anything else.
ReplyDeletehttp://tyblogmeh.blogspot.com/2009/02/week-consensus.html
Why do you consider the unification of Italy and Germany to be revolutions? What criteria are you using for defining a revolution? As for the confusedness, perhaps some timelines of the period upto 1848 might help some….
1830: http://www.fsmitha.com/time19-3.htm, & remember that Poland revolts 1831, Mazzini forms Young Italy in 1831
1848: http://www.pvhs.chico.k12.ca.us/~bsilva/projects/revs/1848time.html
The transformation of English people working on a subplots under the control of a large landowner to the factory worker who was under an equally oppressive boss is simple a change in location and title.
http://tyblogmeh.blogspot.com/2009/02/russias-problem-is-patter.html
But is this really the case? After all, the serfs did change the dynamic in Russia—moving from the country to the cities—they will be the basis of revolution in 1917. Does this count for something? Sure, the subjective experience of workers is roughly equivalent to a serf/farmhand, but what of the overall
Historical picture? In any case—the emphasis on class antagonism sounds vaguely Marxist to my ears? What say you?
… helped create what would become one of the greatest powers in Europe. Bismarck had to utilize this nationalism in very specific ways, using both wars with France and Austria as perfect opportunities to strengthen national feelings. As if over night, the German nation arose from the Rhineland and would forever have a place in history. But, all this incredible circumstance has to be understood within the context that early Germany, which consisted of separated states, was already an economic force. Bismarck should be handed a medal for his skills, but he was also provided the perfect broken nation to unite.
http://tyblogmeh.blogspot.com/2009/02/germanys-unification.html
In economic terms, Germany was the greatest power in Europe, surpassing Britain by 1913 in many categories of economic activity (there are reasons why it took, Britain, France, Italy, Russia, and the USA to subdue her in 1914-1918). Could you go into a little detail about the last claim—what was Germany’s economic shape? Germany was late to industrialize in comparison with England, and 1815 is no real point to argue Germany will be great, I think, so what do you have in mind? The Zollverein? Work ethic? Something else?
Although it is true that a majority of the nation has lived in America for at least two generations (arbitrary amount of time, but I am not sure how many generations defines an immigrant family versus a native one),
http://tyblogmeh.blogspot.com/2009/01/response-3.html
http://tyblogmeh.blogspot.com/2009/01/usa-is-number-one.html
In my case, I am a first generation immigrant. My son is a native born American. Research shows that seconf generation folks have completely assimilated US expectations, including birthrate—down from 3+ for 1st generation, down to 1.9 kids per couple—the norm in US.
So, what makes the USA a nation—diversity? Acceptance of tat diversity?
The other reason why nationalism failed was the inherent problem in nationalism. People began to break themselves down into smaller and more specific groups, which kept populations that might have had a chance at nationalism from ever truly coming together. This could be seen with Slav’s, who, once decidedly put into a Slav category, divided into smaller and more specific Slavic cultures, which meant that each group got weaker. Nationalism is a double edged sword, a destructive and constructive force.
http://tyblogmeh.blogspot.com/2009/01/nationalism.html
This is an interesting claim. By implication, you seem to be saying that the Slav’s needed to stick together, to form a creditable nation that could withstand the blows of places like Austria Hungary. The only observation I want to offer here is that, this would seem to suggest that all the Slavs should go under the big umbrella of the Slav nation, say, under a Russian umbrella? But that was the problem—Russian aggression and expansionism at others’ expense—i.e., the Poles. So should they just suck it up, in the name of greater pan-slav solidarity? I can see the Poles going for that ….
Instinct generates the universal interests because instinctually all humans are the same. Every human searches for food when they are hungry, an action that is instinctual and universal.
http://tyblogmeh.blogspot.com/2009/01/in-response-to-this.html
Interesting claim—there are some, like our former President who think that the quest for freedom is such an instinctual and universal. How would you answer him from your Hobbesian viewpoint?