"What in a nutshell was the Industrial
Revolution?"
The Industrial Revolution was a revolution which started in Great Britain and then spread to other parts of the Western world. The fancy, new industrial kind of improvements were those that had to do with textiles, machinery in general, transportation, and the like. We see improvements in the cotton industry, roadways, canals, railroads, the metal industry, chemicals, etc. From the Industrial Revolution, we likewise see the ingenuity of the idea of steam power come into play with the invention of the stationary steam engine, which then began taking the place of water and wind power.
The Industrial Revolution was no doubt progress towards the advanced society we have today!
"What was the standard-of-living debate?"
The standard-of-living debate had to do with whether or not life improved during the Industrial Revolution. Was it better for people to go off and work in hazardous conditions in factory jobs than what was offered before, in regards to occupation and life? This is what the standard-of-living debate was.
The answer? Yes. Facts and history show that people were better off for this simple reason: if they were worse off, then nobody would have taken the jobs. Many had two choices: starve or work in the factory. Poverty was to a point nearly beyond our comprehension. Obviously, if the people were going to be worse off, then they wouldn't have taken the jobs!
The standard-of-living debate now isn't really in question, in regard to the above statements. Now it has more to do with when the people started to have a better standard of living, so-to-speak.
The standard-of-living debate certainly has raised some eyebrows throughout the times since the Industrial Revolution, and I hope that this essay has helped to clear the air to some respect.
"What were the different arguments that combined Britain to pave the way for the abolition of slavery in that country's overseas colonies?"
One of the arguments combined with the others was this: that in order to abolish slavery we should first abolish the slave trade. In theory, this would result in fewer slaves coming in from the African continent. This would eventually run slavery into the ground due to the few numbers of slave shipments.
The first anti-slavery society was begun in 1787. In this society they had many plans and arguments that they would use to abolish slavery.
These arguments included the idea of a person's natural rights, the idea of humanitarianism which was used to fight against the brutality in slavery (not necessarily powerful enough to end slavery but rather to encourage rational thought), and economic principles.
It was thought that the slaves were beneficial to the economy, but rather it would be more beneficial for a plantation owner to simply hire help. The slaves would have to be cared for all year round, but hired help would be needed only part of the year. This would alleviate a great deal of cost for the slave owners.
Lastly, I will note that the general thought had been that slavery helped to protect national security. The research of Thomas Clarkson undermined this theory incredibly. Rather than slavery providing valuable training (which would lay the foundation for a navy life in times of war) for sailors who worked on the slave ships, the sailors would just die. That's how horrid the conditions on those ships were. Henceforth, if you were dead, then you obviously couldn't be used on British navy ships in times of war.
The Arguments that led to the abolition of slavery in that country's overseas colonies were vast and
interesting indeed!
Monday, January 25, 2016
Robinson Crusoe: Coins
Robinson Crusoe: "Why did he take the coins off the ship?"
In this work, Robinson Crusoe found himself stranded upon a deserted island where he learns how he shall be successful. If you compare chapter eight with one of the beginning chapters you'll see a drastic difference. In one of these chapters, Crusoe finds money on his wrecked ship, and he takes it. The reason that Crusoe took the money, in my opinion, is this: that Crusoe still wanted the money because it was still fresh in his mind and he was used to collecting it. And likewise, that he saw some possible use for it in the future.
Thanks for reading!
In this work, Robinson Crusoe found himself stranded upon a deserted island where he learns how he shall be successful. If you compare chapter eight with one of the beginning chapters you'll see a drastic difference. In one of these chapters, Crusoe finds money on his wrecked ship, and he takes it. The reason that Crusoe took the money, in my opinion, is this: that Crusoe still wanted the money because it was still fresh in his mind and he was used to collecting it. And likewise, that he saw some possible use for it in the future.
Thanks for reading!
The Kulturkampf and Home Rule for Ireland
"What was the Kulturkampf?"
The Kulturnkampf was a word in German that meant "culture struggle". It referred to a struggle having to do with German power in regards to control over the Catholic church. This included main figures such as Bismark and the Pope. Bismark placed laws of discrimination on the Catholics, and it was not uncommon for Catholics to be arrested, imprisoned or exiled, and for monks and nuns to flat out leave.
Eventually the old pope died, and a new pope who was more willing to negotiate with Bismark came to power. Bismark then sought to bring back the relationship that was once held with the Catholic church. The Kulterkampf was thus erased until not a remnant remained.
"What arguments does Gladstone make in favor of Home Rule for Ireland?"
William Gladstone made several arguments in favor of Home Rule for Ireland. A few of his arguments were that he believed Home Rule would make the Irish economy better, save money for England, and that it was morally right. He also did not approve of violent, revolutionary tactics.
He was ultimately unsuccessful in winning through his arguments
Thanks for reading!
The Kulturnkampf was a word in German that meant "culture struggle". It referred to a struggle having to do with German power in regards to control over the Catholic church. This included main figures such as Bismark and the Pope. Bismark placed laws of discrimination on the Catholics, and it was not uncommon for Catholics to be arrested, imprisoned or exiled, and for monks and nuns to flat out leave.
Eventually the old pope died, and a new pope who was more willing to negotiate with Bismark came to power. Bismark then sought to bring back the relationship that was once held with the Catholic church. The Kulterkampf was thus erased until not a remnant remained.
"What arguments does Gladstone make in favor of Home Rule for Ireland?"
William Gladstone made several arguments in favor of Home Rule for Ireland. A few of his arguments were that he believed Home Rule would make the Irish economy better, save money for England, and that it was morally right. He also did not approve of violent, revolutionary tactics.
He was ultimately unsuccessful in winning through his arguments
Thanks for reading!
Mandeville and Darwinism
"In what way did Mandeville lay the foundation for Darwinism?"
Particular views of Mandeville's lie in the idea of spontaneous order. Hayek defines this spontaneous order in this sentence.
"Society is the product of human action, not human design."
Darwin seems to have applied this aspect to biology. Him doing so resulted in the springing forth from 18th-century Scottish social philosophy (according to Hayek). This keeps on falling back to Mandeville.
Mandeville wrote his Fable of the Bees, and him doing so resulted in it being read and it being used continually over the years to back up different economic (or in Darwins's case, biological) principles. ("...human action, not human design.")
Thanks for reading!
Particular views of Mandeville's lie in the idea of spontaneous order. Hayek defines this spontaneous order in this sentence.
"Society is the product of human action, not human design."
Darwin seems to have applied this aspect to biology. Him doing so resulted in the springing forth from 18th-century Scottish social philosophy (according to Hayek). This keeps on falling back to Mandeville.
Mandeville wrote his Fable of the Bees, and him doing so resulted in it being read and it being used continually over the years to back up different economic (or in Darwins's case, biological) principles. ("...human action, not human design.")
Thanks for reading!
The French Revolution and Napoleon's status with the Church
"What happened (involving the Third Estate) during the meeting of the Estates General that set the French Revolution in motion?"
What happened during the meeting of the Estates General set France into complete and utter chaotic revolution. It started innocently enough. The Third Estate wished to have their votes counted per head instead of per Estate. They likewise wanted to be granted more Estate members so that their vote would be able to actually count. If not, then their votes would simply be outweighed by the other two Estates due to their having more members than the Third Estate. But when their request wasn't granted sufficiently they decided to turn it up a notch. They asked the First and Second Estate to join them in establishing a new constitution for France and they did. They (The Third Estate) declared themselves the people. They would be the people's voice. They would be the people's representative. The Third Estate had declared itself a separate assembly. They were the National Assembly for the nation.
Now, I think that I should make it clear that the Third Estate really had no legal power to do this. Henceforth, a revolution sprung itself into French life and existence. People's heads were spinning
and they wanted more. They wanted change, and they were going to get it in the form of the French Revolution.
"What was the situation of the Church in France after Napoleon came to power?"
The situation of the church in France was on a sort of balance beam after Napoleon came to power. Napoleon saw how alienated the church had become through the course of the French revolution and he knew that this was nonsense. He knew that he would have to reconcile with the Catholic church in one form or another. He reconciled by using the pope and in granting the church different freedoms. Napoleon attempted to regain the church in his favor, but he still wanted them under his thumb. He made it so that bishops would have to be nominated by him and then approved by the pope. Bishops would likewise have to appoint priests from a government approved list. Church lands were not returned, and some of the clergy were angered with these events. But, some viewed it differently. Some viewed it like this. At least the "churches" were being reopened, and at least there wasn't a schism as there had been before.
Like I said, the church in France was on a sort of balance beam. They were still under government control in many ways, but at the same time they were more free than they had previously been.
Thanks for reading my essay, and please let me know if you have any thoughts, corrections, etc. My hope for my blog is to create a place where students, historians, teachers, and anyone else can come and learn. I'm hoping that I can learn from you too, and that you'll help me to make my blog as informational and fun as possible.
What happened during the meeting of the Estates General set France into complete and utter chaotic revolution. It started innocently enough. The Third Estate wished to have their votes counted per head instead of per Estate. They likewise wanted to be granted more Estate members so that their vote would be able to actually count. If not, then their votes would simply be outweighed by the other two Estates due to their having more members than the Third Estate. But when their request wasn't granted sufficiently they decided to turn it up a notch. They asked the First and Second Estate to join them in establishing a new constitution for France and they did. They (The Third Estate) declared themselves the people. They would be the people's voice. They would be the people's representative. The Third Estate had declared itself a separate assembly. They were the National Assembly for the nation.
Now, I think that I should make it clear that the Third Estate really had no legal power to do this. Henceforth, a revolution sprung itself into French life and existence. People's heads were spinning
and they wanted more. They wanted change, and they were going to get it in the form of the French Revolution.
"What was the situation of the Church in France after Napoleon came to power?"
The situation of the church in France was on a sort of balance beam after Napoleon came to power. Napoleon saw how alienated the church had become through the course of the French revolution and he knew that this was nonsense. He knew that he would have to reconcile with the Catholic church in one form or another. He reconciled by using the pope and in granting the church different freedoms. Napoleon attempted to regain the church in his favor, but he still wanted them under his thumb. He made it so that bishops would have to be nominated by him and then approved by the pope. Bishops would likewise have to appoint priests from a government approved list. Church lands were not returned, and some of the clergy were angered with these events. But, some viewed it differently. Some viewed it like this. At least the "churches" were being reopened, and at least there wasn't a schism as there had been before.
Like I said, the church in France was on a sort of balance beam. They were still under government control in many ways, but at the same time they were more free than they had previously been.
Thanks for reading my essay, and please let me know if you have any thoughts, corrections, etc. My hope for my blog is to create a place where students, historians, teachers, and anyone else can come and learn. I'm hoping that I can learn from you too, and that you'll help me to make my blog as informational and fun as possible.
Friedrich Gentz, Edmund Burke, and Mary Wollstonecraft
"How does Friedrich Gentz distinguish between the American and French Revolutions? Do you see the influence of Edmund Burke in his thinking?
Friedrich Gentz distinguishes very particular differences in the American and French Revolutions. He saw the American Revolution as a defensive measure to uphold the rights that they had for over a century. He sees the French Revolution as an offensive measure which tried to pull down French society's fabric and reupholster it.
To answer the question about whether or not I see Edmund Burke's influence in the thinking of Gentz, ultimately yes. I believe that I do see this influence, or at least, I see extreme similarities between these two people's thinking patterns. Burke and Gentz both thought that society is built over time and not simply ripped apart and put together again in a mismatching puzzle piece fashion. Burke had a very conservative thinking process. As stated before, he didn't believe it correct to put together a completely new society in a heartbeat, so to speak. He saw long-standing institutions as being there for a reason. If one existed, for let's say, a thousand years, it's probably a good assumption that there's a reason for this institution being around.
There you have it. Friedrich Gentz, Edmund Burke, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution–distinguished, explained, and pieced together in blog/essay like proportions.
"What points is Mary Wollstonecraft making in the excerpts you read from the beginning of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman? What would she like to see changed in European society?"
In the excerpts I read I found that Mary Wollstonecraft had a deep yearning to see girls educated and given deserving rights of the human species. She likewise thought that women ought to be treated as rational individuals and not simply like alluring objects for a man's short-term fancy.
Allow me to include this excerpt by Mary Wollstonecraft in which she is speaking to the female gender:
"My own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treat them like rational creatures, instead of flattering their fascinating graces, and viewing them as if they were in a state of perpetual childhood, unable to stand alone."
Simply stated, she didn't particularly enjoy women acting like they had no real intelligence.
I conclude then that Mary Wollstonecraft wished to see women educated, respected even of themselves, and being able to stand on their own two feet in a male-dominated European society.
Thanks for reading!
Friedrich Gentz distinguishes very particular differences in the American and French Revolutions. He saw the American Revolution as a defensive measure to uphold the rights that they had for over a century. He sees the French Revolution as an offensive measure which tried to pull down French society's fabric and reupholster it.
To answer the question about whether or not I see Edmund Burke's influence in the thinking of Gentz, ultimately yes. I believe that I do see this influence, or at least, I see extreme similarities between these two people's thinking patterns. Burke and Gentz both thought that society is built over time and not simply ripped apart and put together again in a mismatching puzzle piece fashion. Burke had a very conservative thinking process. As stated before, he didn't believe it correct to put together a completely new society in a heartbeat, so to speak. He saw long-standing institutions as being there for a reason. If one existed, for let's say, a thousand years, it's probably a good assumption that there's a reason for this institution being around.
There you have it. Friedrich Gentz, Edmund Burke, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution–distinguished, explained, and pieced together in blog/essay like proportions.
"What points is Mary Wollstonecraft making in the excerpts you read from the beginning of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman? What would she like to see changed in European society?"
In the excerpts I read I found that Mary Wollstonecraft had a deep yearning to see girls educated and given deserving rights of the human species. She likewise thought that women ought to be treated as rational individuals and not simply like alluring objects for a man's short-term fancy.
Allow me to include this excerpt by Mary Wollstonecraft in which she is speaking to the female gender:
"My own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treat them like rational creatures, instead of flattering their fascinating graces, and viewing them as if they were in a state of perpetual childhood, unable to stand alone."
Simply stated, she didn't particularly enjoy women acting like they had no real intelligence.
I conclude then that Mary Wollstonecraft wished to see women educated, respected even of themselves, and being able to stand on their own two feet in a male-dominated European society.
Thanks for reading!
Friday, January 22, 2016
The Values of Modernism and the Launch of World War I
"What are the values of Modernism that we see reflected across different fields, and how do they represent a departure from neoclassicism and the Enlightenment?"
There is an abundance of values that are reflected in Modernism. They are likely a perfectly painted picture of the opposite of neoclassicism and the Enlightenment in many ways. The values of Modernism departed from neoclassicism in a way that took an approach that might seem more disorderly than those values which were cherished in neoclassicism. The values in this newer age of thinking followed along a path of mixed emotions, lack of truly noticeable centers, nonsense, and a kind of unique beauty.
Paintings in the age of Modernism had a real feel for the artist's depiction of something rather than perhaps its true nature. Those in science were debating that perhaps this universe may be in some ways, unpredictable. Not to mention the music of this time which was rather out of typical order and very unique in its style. These characteristics were very contradictory of those in neoclassicism and the Enlightenment.
I hope that I have adequately demonstrated the departure from neoclassicism and the Enlightenment to the classification we call Modernism!
"What factors contributed to the coming of World War I?"
The factors which contributed the coming of the horrid war of World War I had much to do with the coming of particular wars, alliances, and the like. So many entered into alliances, fought their wars and such that eventually we have a mishmash of fighting which pulled basically the whole world into its clutches. Henceforth, we have the despicable time period which encompassed World War I.
During the time period which led up to World War I, we had alliances between Germany, Austria, and Russia and between Germany, Austria, and Italy! The last straw was the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand who was the successor to the Austrian throne. After horror and contempt for the plotting of particular individuals in the Serbian government, the Austrians decided on an ultimatum. And congratulations which were received by the Serbs by the Russian Pan-Slavists on the front of Serbian nationalism didn't help matters particularly. This ultimatum would have indeed ended independence for the Serbs. Can you guess what happened next? Despite interference from some of the main powers, the two parties along with their allies helped to send the world into a pit of despair that would be dug into the earth from the summer of 1914-1918. World War I had begun.
There is an abundance of values that are reflected in Modernism. They are likely a perfectly painted picture of the opposite of neoclassicism and the Enlightenment in many ways. The values of Modernism departed from neoclassicism in a way that took an approach that might seem more disorderly than those values which were cherished in neoclassicism. The values in this newer age of thinking followed along a path of mixed emotions, lack of truly noticeable centers, nonsense, and a kind of unique beauty.
Paintings in the age of Modernism had a real feel for the artist's depiction of something rather than perhaps its true nature. Those in science were debating that perhaps this universe may be in some ways, unpredictable. Not to mention the music of this time which was rather out of typical order and very unique in its style. These characteristics were very contradictory of those in neoclassicism and the Enlightenment.
I hope that I have adequately demonstrated the departure from neoclassicism and the Enlightenment to the classification we call Modernism!
"What factors contributed to the coming of World War I?"
The factors which contributed the coming of the horrid war of World War I had much to do with the coming of particular wars, alliances, and the like. So many entered into alliances, fought their wars and such that eventually we have a mishmash of fighting which pulled basically the whole world into its clutches. Henceforth, we have the despicable time period which encompassed World War I.
During the time period which led up to World War I, we had alliances between Germany, Austria, and Russia and between Germany, Austria, and Italy! The last straw was the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand who was the successor to the Austrian throne. After horror and contempt for the plotting of particular individuals in the Serbian government, the Austrians decided on an ultimatum. And congratulations which were received by the Serbs by the Russian Pan-Slavists on the front of Serbian nationalism didn't help matters particularly. This ultimatum would have indeed ended independence for the Serbs. Can you guess what happened next? Despite interference from some of the main powers, the two parties along with their allies helped to send the world into a pit of despair that would be dug into the earth from the summer of 1914-1918. World War I had begun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)