AP European History

FRIDAY TRIP IS ON: Details below

2009-05-20T14:46:00.000-04:00

You made $400. Congratulations
We each need $10 plus lunch money.
I'll treat those of you without funds to lunch and/or trip money. Let me know.
Please don't choose not to come due to lack of funds.

Bus leaves at 9 am. I need you guys to be outside the Main office by 8:45.
Our tour starts at 10:30am.

We come back by 2:15pm (I had it moved up from 1:30pm due to the overwhelming academic demands of the museum tour...)

What else? Leftovers are in my classroom. Stop by anytime and I'll pack the rest for the trip.

If I'm missing anything else, e-mail me at fisik@csd.k12.nh.us
isikdag

Gorbachev

2009-04-16T10:50:00.004-04:00

Personally, I feel kind of ambiguous about Gorbachev. I think that the book didn't go into enough detail about him to really pass a judgement, yet I also noted a certain tilt to his actions. When the book mentioned that Gorbachev was a political manuevering genius, I would say that it was understating things. Considering that Gorbachev was allowing free criticism of Soviet policies (thus inciting discontent and possibly revolt as people realize how many share their opinions), it is impressive how long he held power for. Neither the old gaurd nor the revolutionists who wanted to do away with Communism were happy with his policies. Gorbachev walked a middle ground that really just made everyone angry with him, yet he managed to hold power long enough to dismantle communism. Whether or not that was his intention, his uncanny ability to keep all parties hoping for change while playing to his own agenda served him well.

2009-04-12T18:20:00.001-04:00

I think this is a news item.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/09/content_11158647.htm

Harvard University’s Project on Cold War Studies website

2009-04-03T17:34:00.000-04:00

THis is Harvard University’s Project on Cold War Studies website.
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/

Compare the contrast the Soviet regime with the Italian and German regimes.

2009-03-26T18:56:00.003-04:00

Compare the contrast the Soviet regime with the Italian and German regimes.

I think it's pretty funny to look at the Soviet, Italian, and German dictatorships without checking myself for pro-democracy indoctrination and go "wow, they had tons in common, they were all so evil! I wonder why they didn't get along!?" But, with that aside, while the Soviet, German, and Italian regimes all had their similarities (attempt at total control), they were greatly different. In Soviet Russia, totalitarian dictatorship was a means to an end, an unhappy stepping stone on the way to proletariat (or peasant, whatever it was in Russia) self-governance and popular control of national industry. In both Germany and Italy totalitarianism was the end. Both regimes accepted (in their minds) that, in order to live to the fullest, the popular "sheep" had to be dominated by a few wolves, and thus decided on totalitarianism till the bitter end. Even there, however, the German and Italian regimes had inherent differences because, as Fascist governments, they were based intensely on nationalism. And since the manifestation of nationalism is radically different from country to country, the regimes themselves stood for different things.

Compare the political responses to the Great Depression in the U.S., Britain, France and Germany.

2009-03-22T17:41:00.002-04:00

Both the United States and Britain stuck to the system of parliamentary representation and democracy and even France went along with the idea of republic. In all three countries, socialist idea advanced rapidly, and indeed socialists led the countries for a period of time. In the end, however, they were all sticking to their basic structure of the political system. In Germany, on the other hand, people were desperate of a leader who would order and "solve" the problems for them. They were so desperate that they were willing to sacrifice some liberty and other "isms."

Anna Akhmatova, Requiem

2009-03-15T11:09:00.002-04:00

Requiem was a banned cycle of poems written at the time of Stalin's Great Terror, during the endless months she spent waiting outside the St. Petersburg prison for news of her son's fate.

I threw myself at the hangman's feet,

You are my son, my horror.

Everything's mixed up for me forever,

And who is a man and who a beast

Will never now be clear ...

…

That was when the ones who smiled

Were the dead, glad to be at rest.

And like a useless appendage, Leningrad

Swung from its prisons.

…

The late Dante would have
created a tenth circle of hell

—Anna Akhmatova, Requiem, 1937

More information: http://www.uvm.edu/~sgutman/Akhmatova.htm

Why didn't liberalism take root in Russia between 1815 and 1917?

2009-03-13T15:56:00.002-04:00

It was almost impossible for Russia to have any type of liberal movement because of the tsar and multiple communist movements taking place. The government was very extreme and most “liberal” movements or strikes were forced to be eliminated. Russia did at one point (I think that this was when Alexander I was tsar) seem to try and blend both autocracy and liberalism, but obviously this didn’t work as the Dumas were overpowered. The government just didn’t work for a liberal movement even though one tried to take place.

FRENCH LABOR PARTY MAY OBEY LENIN (New York Times Article, 1920)

2009-03-10T18:19:00.002-04:00

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9904E2D6163CE533A25757C1A9649D946195D6CF

Could WWI have been avoided?

2009-03-09T09:09:00.003-04:00

I think WWI could only have been avoided in the sense that everything in history could have been avoided if the humans involved had been able to better control their various animalistic/emotional urges. The problem with the events leading up to WWI is that a lot of the friction between nations was not just coming from the individual dislike of each of the rulers, but the nationalistic disdain that involved every member of each society. As competition in the industrialized west got harsher and the race for empire became more desperate, the both the effects of this economic scramble and the feelings of the investors, capitalists, and politicians involved trickled down to the masses. The pride in country, etc etc etc that founded a "we're on top" mantra (in the case of the English), a "we should be on top" (in the case of the Germans) and a "They may be on top but we're posh" (in the case of the French)was something easily manipulated by politicans as a way to further their empire. I think WWI was unavoidable as the culmination of all those national frictions.

What if the U.S. had not entered the war?

2009-03-08T13:43:00.003-04:00

Simple. If the U.S. had not entered the war then WWI would have dragged on for a couple more years until finally either Britian or Germany was starved out and could no longer support itself for war. The destruction would have even more terrible and the casualties still more astronomical. It is possible that the influenza pandemic would have caused even more trouble with the soldiers had they still been fighting trench warfare in 1919. I also feel that if the U.S. never entered the war that Germany would have succeeded in taking Paris (since the Brits and French had grown so weak) and woulod therefore have won the war. As it was the German Army was only 37 miles to Paris at the moment the Americans joined the War. With a German victory the Versailles Treaty would have been completely in their favor and they would gain numerous territory across the globe as well as demand extremely unreasonable indemnities of the Allies (exactly the opposite of what the Allies did to Germany in the actual Versailles Treaty) All-in-all, without American support the Brits and the French would have fallen to the German/Central Alliance and suffered the exact way the Germans did when they didn't win.

Could WWI have been avoided?

2009-03-07T15:04:00.002-05:00

I do not think that WWI could have been prevented. Europe had a bit of a war mentality, so naturally a war would have started and at the time there was so much going on (a lot of new technology, odd alliances…), so it was a matter of time before a war started. I think that the assassination of Ferdinand set off the time bomb and was a good excuse to start war and it just happened to be in 1914. I think it could have started earlier, but there wasn't really enough reason.

Why did the U.S. not enter the war?

2009-03-05T21:40:00.002-05:00

One main reason that the United States took so long to enter the war was that it really wasn't clear which side we belonged on. A significant percentage of the population were first or second generation immigrants, and therefore still felt some sort of loyalty to their country of origin. So opinions on the war varied-of course those of German descent or origin were often in sympathy with Germany's plight. Those of Irish descent or origin were usually anti-British...but not necessarily pro-German. American idealism sided more with the British and French, but they had allied with the Russians. There was also a wave of pro-English feeling throughout the country at the time, and the U.S. had been producing war material for the Allies. The United States took so long to enter the war because the population was not clearly for one side or the other. The U.S. did not get involved until it was clear which side we belonged.

Why did political and territorial domination of colonial areas become necessary for the European powers?

2009-03-03T19:42:00.002-05:00

Wow. I think that after reading Cote's view on this I can only hope to back it up since he really did answer the question well. I think that the main reason had to have been for expansion of certain countries and people. Populations were growing and as Cote said it wasn't just a two or three person game anymore. Everywhere in Europe many more than just a few countries were flourishing. Seeing as taking over colonial territories was relatively cheap in comparison to the other options, it's no wonder that it became a habit for these countries. They needed to expand their land, their economy, and their people. And the difference between that imperialism and the imperialism of the earlier centuries was that religion was no longer the motivation for colonization. This was about the race for power and success.

Russia, Japan, and China

2009-03-03T18:11:00.002-05:00

What occurred during the Russo-Japanese War was basically just a prelude to how each country was to behave politically for the next century. First off Russia. I feel really bad for Russia during this section. I mean their government is already on extremely weak foundations and this war just hits them like a Richter topping earthquake. This war led partially to the end of the tsarist rule and the revolutions of 1905 and 1917. The russians were pissed off at their incapable leader who lost to non-Europeans.. of all the catastrophes! Its one thing to lose a war, its another to be flat out destroyed and its another to be flat out destroyed by an "inferior" race. It was pretty much a fork stuck in russia, they're done. It had just the opposite effect on Japan, however. For the first time in history a European power was defeated by a un-European nation. They felt unstoppable and after their great victory with the Portsmouth treaty its understandable. The only thing about Japan is that after the destruction of Russia their attention became much more focused on China (Manchuria). Even though I feel bad for Russia I have to admit that China had it worse. Their land was being chopped away in chunks, they had random foreign businesses inside their country that they could gain no profit from, their Summer Palace was burned to the ground, and on top of all that their country was run amuck with bandits and convicts. China was pissed and upset as Japan just kept prodding and prodding.... the terrible actions that occurred in Manchuria in the years prior to WWII were the result of this frustration and excited jabbing.

Why did political and territorial domination of colonial areas become necessary for the European powers?

2009-03-02T18:43:00.011-05:00

For a few reasons. The high standards of living acquired over the years by the West, especially during the industrial growth of the 19th century, made many people want more things. . . more tasteful, popular, and expensive things. It was during the second half of the 19th century that workers were drinking coffee and tea in the morning, a sure sign of class raise. This 19th century rise was accompanied by another rise in population, not to mention more child-conscious parents. This high class style of thinking was felt in different ways throughout all of Europe. To put it metaphorically:

The 19th and early 20th century world was a garden of growing flowers. For a while there had just been two or three flowers getting all the sunlight, Britain, France and the Dutch. Now the flower of Germany had grown and it's stem was big and strong; it wanted the sunlight just like all the other flowers. As I said before, the leaves on these flowers were hungrier and more numerous, and only the flowers that got the most light from the colonial sun got to grow tall enough to become one of the Great Flowers, a title of significant honor and repute throughout the garden. Aside from Germany, Japan's Flower was growing taller, ever since the American Rain Storm, which had once been in the sky shining on Britain, had fell down on it and helped it bloom. The garden was growing higher and wider than it had ever grown before, because every plant needed cheap and ethnically inferior sunlight to quench the maw of its leaves.

How did Europeans define civilization? Do you agree? Do you have an alternative definition?

2009-02-15T22:47:00.003-05:00

On this subject I really feel like I must agree with what Sam is saying as well as the comment Hanjae gave. I think that because the Europeans were ahead of the curve compared other countries in terms of the "modern" society, they used this idea to set the standard for what a true civilization actually was. This of course seems and was unfair to other countries such as Japan and many others, so no I definetely do not agree with how they defined civilization. If I were to give my input on what I think civilization is, I think that the best definition I could give would be generally any group or community of people who are characterized by the customs and settlements that involve and relate them. This may seem sort of general but I think that is the important thing to remember; that maybe the Europeans overcomplicated what they thought civilization was and it should be defined in a much more simpler and general way.

How did Europeans define civilization? Do you agree? Do you have an alternative definition?

2009-02-11T16:22:00.002-05:00

Europeans considered only those cultures that were similar to theirs to be "civilized". European countries, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia were the only ones who received "civilized" status in the eyes of Europe. I disagree with their definition. European civilization is not the only form of civilization, and Europeans did not alot any respect for other cultures. The Japanese, for example, had a highly organized and structured society. However, Europeans considered countries like Japan to be "backward". In my opinion, civilization is better defined as any kind of structured society.

What if the 1848 Revolutions succeeded?

2009-02-09T00:00:00.002-05:00

Well we all know that France was the first to revolt, (no surprise) and had the revolt been successful we would have no model to base modern dictators off of, that is Napolean III being classified as the first modern dictator. With out N.III France would have made a weal attempt at a liberal and democratic government and upon their success the rest of Europe would have fought harder for their independence with the nationalist spirit raging. France would have ultimitely failed and recolted again, whether the Parisians were revolting against the rest of France or vice versa it most likely would be happening in succession for the next several years until a strong leader or dictator socialist came around. If France had succeeded it most likely would have granted help to the Balkans and the Romania/Serbia/Moravia areas and they might have won their independence, not just autonomy which is periodically revoked and regained. If they had won their total independence then there would have been no nationalist to kill the Archduke of Austria and no WWI. If Germany had succeeded then also there would have been less complaining from the Volksgeistists about how Germany was a scattered collection of people thanks to the Treaty of Westphalia and the other treaties and there would have been no nationalist movement under Kaiser Wilhelm because that would have already been achieved presumably, so the Germans would not have been so hot to attack and conquer if there still was a WWI. There also would have been a great power vacuum becasue Prussia would have been strengthened by all the German states if Frederick would have accepted the Frankfurt assemblies offer, but then there would have been one great last war where Austria rose against Prussia only to be utterly crushed once and for all and to become a satelite to Prussia.

What kinds of comparisons can you draw between secessionists in North America and nationalists in Europe?

2009-02-08T16:07:00.003-05:00

The secessionists in North America and the nationalists in Europe actually shared quite a few desires and motivations. But for the fact that we (as US citizens) view the South's secession from the Union with a nationalistic surprise, the South's movement for independence is no different from the various entities of Germany in 1848, trying to make it their own way in Europe. Around the time of the civil war, the United States as a nation state (the one we all love dearly today) did not exist as strongly as the individual political, economical, and cultural interests of the various states. The South had a system of life that was very different from the North because of the virtually free labor-based plantations. As the North continued to gain diversity from the various immigrants, the South had very few free workers, since none could hope to compete with slave labor. The South developed the independent cultural identity that fired up all the nationalistic urges in Europe, and they acted on those interests by seceding from the Union.

What if the Frankfurt Assembly had succeeded?

2009-02-03T18:17:00.002-05:00

If the Frankfurt Assembly had succeeded then Germany would have formed a democratic, liberal, self-governing, and federally unified "empire". Friderick William IV would've been named the first emperor of Germany, which would have been a territorial combination of the smaller states plus Prussia. There are a couple extreme scenarios for the effect of this accomplishment. The first is, of course, is the antagonistical view. In this view all of friedericks worst fears would have been realized: Because he imposed himself by force on the lesser states they will gain a feeling of nationalism/ revolution and revolt against him, Austria may declare war on the newly formed state in the hopes of taking over, and/or he may have been disowned from the Hohenzollern because of his willingness to accept a position of a constitutionally limited and revolutionary representative position. These would lead to anarchy, the collapse of the empire, and possibly even the end of the hopes for a unified germany. On the other hand, however, is a brighter outlook. The Frankfurt Assembly tag-teaming with emperor William could have led to a peaceful and very liberal conscientious regime. Maybe a success story comparable to that of America, in which all the different nationalities could be treated as equally and justly. All would depend on the actions of the radicals.

Was the 1848 revolution in Paris a proletarian revolution?

2009-02-01T19:20:00.002-05:00

Marx himself and Marxist historians argue the 1848 revolution in Paris was a proletarian revolution. Was it? Was there a working class movement in France in 1848?

I would say that the 1848 revolution in France was definitely a proletarian revolution, but it was not the global proletarian coup de etat or the working classes easy take-over of centralized management. The 1848 revolution was, after all, a class war to an extent, and when the working men and women take up arms against their bourgeoisie oppressors, I would certainly say that there is a proletarian uprising. As to a working class movement, there were definitely elements within the rebellious factions that were fighting/rioting with a pro-working class agenda, but I think that in the end, any working class movement was mainly in the minds of the rank and file of the revolution. As always, it was primarily the laborers that did the fighting but the professionals and intellectuals that did most of the deliberating afterwards. The initial radicalism of the revolution got watered down after the overly-romantic period wore off, and once again the business of actually writing a constitution that provides liberty, justice, and happiness proved to be a little difficult.

Stinky History

2009-01-29T11:37:00.001-05:00

Stinky History
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012804071.html?tid=informbox

Towards the end of the article on the trade war we apparently declared on the French cheese that I love but can't really afford anymore.

: “ …However Roquefort got its start, the people of ROQUEFORT-SUR-SOULZON( a village of 600 souls in a remote part of southern France) have been making it for a long time. They were granted a monopoly on producing the cheese by King Charles VI in 1411. In 1666, the parliament in Toulouse granted Roquefort a "controlled designation of origin," which made it illegal for other communities to claim they were producing it… A decree from the prime minister in 2001 reviewed in excruciating detail how Roquefort must be produced to retain its distinction, including boundaries for the ewes' grazing grounds…”

Apparently even Napoleon let them be probably because “... A piece of Parmesan or Roquefort cheese closed his meals. ...” (Napoleon from the Tuileries to St. Helena: Personal Recollections by Louis Étienne Saint Denis, 1922

Assess the Chartist movement: good/bad; effective/ineffective etc.

2009-01-27T21:52:00.002-05:00

I am amazed by tha fact that over 3 million people signed one petition. It's also impressive how much the Chartists managed to not get themselves killed, hung, or massacred. I can see where they're coming from now. I used to think things like socialism were ridiculous, but now that I know about the life these people led, I would probably be one of the first to sign that list. So yes, I do believe their cause was justified and I'm starting to feel very lucky to live in America where everyone can vote and the government is happy to pass new laws when they are wanted. ALthough their cause was justified, as the book pointed out, they were going down the wrong road, the Chartists couldn;t get anything done because the few people in Parliament were protecting their private interests, not the interests of the people. It was when they started fighting fire with fire that they got stuff done. The labor unions proved more effective than government action, but I think government action was a nobler way to go than violence or revolution.

One thing I noticed, as did the book: England always looked for Perliamentary reform to adjust the government, whereas France looked toward revolution each time it wanted change. This must be because there were two different govs. Imagine what this must've meant for success as a country; a fluid, changable government is a vital necessity if you want to get ahead as a nation.

Peterloo Massacres and Six Acts

2009-01-25T21:05:00.004-05:00

What happened, was after the wars had ended England faced a depression along with reactionist policies. The Corn Laws raised farm tariffs sky high to ward off too much importation of agricultural products to Britain during the "Flood". This made consumers angry. They organized in a field in Manchester and were shot at for the same reason that people get shot whenever they gather and are shot at, fear. This Peterloo "massacre" (as these events are often called) provoked the Six Acts which took away a number of the constitutional freedoms of the U.S. like the right of search and seizure, freedom to gather, and freedom of speech. These were all reactions to the flood of revolution throughout Europe at the time; governments were terrified of a mini-French revolution occurring on their turf. They were busy putting up "dikes" to stop the "flood". (the dutch were okay though, they had been doing this for years and were already well prepared)
:)

What was so "revolutionary" about the Industrial Revolution?

2009-01-25T17:07:00.003-05:00

Today, we measure a country's progress and value to the world economy in general in part by its level of industrialization, because in today's world it is very difficult for a nation to ensure the quality of life for its citizens that an industrialized country can provide. The Industrial Revolution itself was not revolutionary in the sense of BAM! Modern Progress! but more in the sense that it was a breaking out (albeit over time) from the older, accepted modes of production to the mechanized version which moved the world further down the path of consumptive leisure (meaning that we spend our leisure time using things others produce as opposed to finding something free to do), which is a necessary part of a capitalistic world. The dramatic change occurred when the world moved away from domestic production to making things with machines. Which, considering the moral dilemmas managers must have faced (or at least been presented with by established institutions), was pretty revolutionary.

2009-01-23T16:45:00.004-05:00

Here is a comment I decided to make into a post:

I would like to make it clear that in my opinion, nationalism, used in a strictly national and military sense, has NOT been around for that long. It was only Louis XIV who created a national army for France. He was around in the 17th century, just two hundred years before Napoleon. It was a new thing that had not been going on until then. Before that people fought out of duty, fear, anger, pride, or to protect themselves, and of course to make money. When it comes to the spread of patriotism, there was no printing press before 1439. There were no salons, no reading cultures, no ideas spreading like wild fire, other than perhaps religious ones since the church was so well established and interconnected. It was a very isolated and personal existence as the majority of lives were agriculturally based.

As to nationalism as a whole, if there was any nationalism it was probably not national, but, manor-, town-, city-, state- or city-state-wide. You see Europe, had only come along as an Entity around the 13 or 1400s and the individual nations of Europe began forming as united political bodies from about then on. It seemed that as these nations grew stronger and more populated so too did the wars they fought; growing larger and more complex as nations ganged up on one another. People were much more concerned about heaven than they were about their nation during the middle ages. The New Monarchies that made these rough political boundaries into a Spain, a Britain, and a France. You can't really get fired up about nationalism until you have a nation to get fired up about.

Granted, Germany, around the time of Napoleon was not really a "nation" per se, but it wanted to be one, and it talked about being one, and it did so in the hopes that it would be it's own nation, and it fought for that image.

The city of Concord today has as much population as some of the major cities in the 16th and 17th centuries. The city of New York had as many people as some nations. People and their ideas have been spread out for a while.

I think that living in a small world today we forget how big the world used to be and how young we really are as a civilized race or even as a species.

What was so "revolutionary" about the "Industrial Revolution"?

2009-01-22T21:38:00.006-05:00

Well for one, it got the people to revolve around the cities. I think that the Industrial Revolution was just as revolutionary as the French Revolution. Both took place in Europe and both involved bad conditions for poor peopleI think it was (like these young lads) more like an "Industrial Spiral" since there were still farmers and home industries just less and added a number of new factories. I think the Industrial Revolution was caused by the American and French Revolutions. The increased unity in Britain and an unsettled population sparked new ideas. I guess a revolution is just a major change or readjustment, kind of like the scientific revolution, the greatest spiritual adjustment in history.

What was so "revolutionary" about the "Industrial Revolution"?

2009-01-20T15:25:00.002-05:00

The effects of the Industrial Revolution are still felt immensely in today's society. Perhaps the most revolutionary change in social structure that occured during the rev. was the growth of cities. In Britain by 1850, what had previously been a predominantly rural population had now grown and moved to cities, resulting in 31 cities with over 50,000 people. This urbanization soon spread with industrialism. Life changed dramatically for many-small farmers could no longer make a living doing what they were doing. Many had little choice but to move to the cities. There were many things "revolutionary" about the Industrial Revolution...industrialism itself was extremely revolutionary...urbanization is just a major one.

why england not france?

2009-01-20T14:48:00.002-05:00

from what i have read, France was simply not in shape to handle an industrial revolution. While Napoleon ruled, nobody cared too much about the technology and new methods of business that had been jumping around. people in France were more concerned about their driven ruler whom I'm sure kept the male population down while having such an enormous army. England on the other hand wasn't run by one man either. they had been quietly building strength for a while as Napoleon drew all the attention. England was also run by more of the industrial folk. they had history in business and now they had the means of government to support their ideas. They used government power to support the movement and pave a road that was easy to walk for the people in the working world. The last reason i think England was in a better position then France was simply because of their foreign affairs. England has always been a power over seas in foreign territories and when Napoleon drew all the attention into Europe, England was able to claim land like it was new. Not to mention their exceptional navy could protect it with ease.

Napoleon's Empire V. Earlier Universal Monarchy bids (late)

2009-01-15T18:44:00.004-05:00

Think back to Spain and France's earlier attempts at a universal monarchy. How do they compare to Napoleon's Grand Empire?

I think the key difference between the earlier bids for European supremacy and Napoleon's empire are in the fact that much of Napoleon's empire consisted of allied states that were not completely under the French heel. Granted, Napoleon could force all the countries within the empire (not counting Russia as a part of the empire) to act/not act, but much of the states that Napoleon had conquered were still allowed some semblance of self-government. I think a large reason that Napoleon was so able to control such a portion of Europe (i.e. most of it) was because he left this illusion of some self-government. It may have been the state of politics in his age, but for whatever the reason, strong political figures in many countries (tied, in essence, to whatever bit of Volksgeist the country had) were left with some power. I believe that this "delegation" of power, versus the earlier attempts at total control/domination, made Napoleon's empire more stable. The way I see it, the larger the area controlled, the greater the diversity of the population. With population diversity comes a differentiation of desires, and it is desires the deviate from the intentions of authority that cause problems. Napoleon was able to spread his control out across leaders who identified with their countries, where the earlier French and Habsburg reaches did not.

Page 434: "Industrialism vs. capitalism" Do you agree with Palmer's analysis? What does his analysis imply about the "Cold War"

2009-01-15T17:29:00.004-05:00

The communistic approach to industry doesn't work very well. It is from capitalism that industry arose and thrived in, so of course it is capitalism that industry works best in, nothing has changed in industrialism's opinion of life in capitalism, a fish does not suddenly decide that he can no longer live in the sea, hop onto land and live a long, happy, and fulfilled life. In my opinion industrialism in communism was like a fish out of water. One of the biggest reasons industrialism worked so well was because of the competition. Who in the heck wanted to work in the horrible conditions of factory unless that was the only way to make a better happier life for themselves and to get what they desired. It is for themselves that people work hardest. Even in modern day America, it is the image of a wealthy, successful, and easy living human that drives so many people to work hard. Communism, as practiced during the cold war, severely omitted opportunity in its rule book, although it tried to replace this with terror, censorship (or lies, but there were lies in America as well) and a cult of personality, but the truth of the matter is, happy workers make good workers. I don't hate to quote Machiavelli (but I know that everyone else does) yet the U.S.S.R. is a perfect example of how the ways that governments do act is the same way that Machiavelli described, whether successful or not. People "will offer you their blood, property, life and children . . . when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you." The point I'm trying to make (and perhaps the same point that Machiavelli was trying to make) is that people as a whole are, when it comes down to the wire, are going to act more for self-benefit than for the benefit of others. This is, as a whole, not counting individuals. Stalin used terror to get people to work in the dismal factories, and combined fear with a forced (and false) love. Without self-worth OR RELIGION people seemed to lose that certain vibrancy, no wonder so many were trying to leave! It was slave labor, people want to be working for themselves and for their families who they are deeply and emotionally connected with.
With capitaism if people want money (even with small wages) they work, but they do not have to work so there is less restriction; although they are probably not going to quit their jobs they still can, for as we all know there is not much of a life without any money in society. In communism you have to work and you don't get anywhere and you can't control whether what your working for (which is in this case your nation) is getting anywhere. In communism if you decide to work (and you always decide whether at gun point or not) you see no results because you can only control yourself while working to improve an entire nation. In capitalism if you decide to work you make money and you have the opportunity to use it (however little it may be) in whichever way you choose; you improve yourself but you also improve your nation. In capitalism if you don't work you live on the street or out in the woods; you'll probably die but it's not definite. In communism if you don't work you get executed, not probably, you're dead. Not to mention in communism you have no religion and you see (or hear about) tens of innocent people killed everyday. This provides for some extreme depression because everything is beyond your control, and humans were not meant to live beyond there own control! It was a lack of opportunity in communism, plus terror, and atheism that made its members not work as hard as the workers in capitalism. Yet perhaps more important was the fact that Russia was in tatters and had to start from scratch after the revolution whereas the west had a relatively strong head start and had not much loss of security since it didn't have to change its whole system of government. The fact that Russians had nothing to lose caused them to agree to anything that would get them fed. This did not mean that they were any less unhappy about there dismal conditions, its obvious they were unhappy, that's why they fled to the west, that's why they didn't produce as much (although the American head start and money proved more decisive than happiness), and that's why when they fought they were more afraid of their home than the enemy, they were happy to live under enemy capture if they got fed. It is the same reason why free trade works better than mercantilism, it is natural, and communism is not natural, in the wild an animal's number one goal in life is to keep on living and bettering themselves, number two is others, and many times they act on the behalf of others to feel good about themselves. But when you are acting on the behalf of a government that is killing your friends and family, you do not feel very good about yourself. At least God is perfect, Stalin was as far from God as any idol could be and wouldn;t allow people to worship God. A life under communist Russia proved quite meaningless except for endless slave devotion to the painting of some evil old man. But my main point is opportunity, communists lacked the opportunity of a better life, they lost the fundamental pursuit of happiness. That is why they had to cover themselves up so much, people do not want to work in a factory to better an already extremely wealthy government in one store when they can work across the street for cash they can keep and get something for their efforts. People only volunteer for a reward other than cash, like knowledge or experience and unhappy people are less enthusiastic to help others. Communism is based on helping others and Russian communism made people unhappy. On top of that it put unhappy people in an unhappy place and expected great results. Looks like their expectations were a bit high.

Why in England and not in France?

2009-01-15T14:25:00.002-05:00

The industrialization started in ENgland first for several reasons.
First of all, England's parliamentary gov. was in the hand of merchants and land owners. Therefore, these profit-chasing people were able to back their object with laws such as the enclosure act. Also, the social structure of England, which had a large middle class that had enough purchsing power, was more apt to the industrializing than that of France. England's naval dominance, as well as its ever-expanding colonies and markets further encouraged merchants to take more experimental measures... oh no fire drill

Comparing France and Spain to Napoleon in respect to Universal Monarchy

2009-01-11T22:30:00.002-05:00

The monarchs of France and Spain focused too much on simply uniting people for the sake of uniting them. Napoleon seperated himself from the average monarch by having one of the most successful military careers of all time. If your nation is able to march an army across Europe then the people will be proud of that and proud to be a French person. This feeling of nationalism was what was missing from previous attempts of universal monarchy.

Napoleon: Enlightened or not?

2009-01-11T19:55:00.002-05:00

It's hard to answer this question since others have already said pretty much what I wanted to but I guess I will just try to further explain why Napoleon was in fact enlightened. One must put into perspective what it was like to be him. He felt like he could do great things for his country, all of Europe, and what lead to his demise, himself. He wasn't all for himself and that is apparent in the reforms that he constituted throughout France and Europe. However, Napoleon was ambitious for himself and saw that he could do great things. That is where his fault came in. He just went too far in his idea of basically taking over Europe. People weren't going to let that happen. Now, when one looks at the good things that he did do there can be much enlightenment to be seen. Napoleon abolished feudalism in France, something that no other despot could do or even tried to do. He promoted religious toleration with great success. Most importantly, he abolished slavery in France. if this can't be seen as enlightened I don't know what can. As seen in the last DBQ that was done about slavery, many of the people opposed to slavery were enlightened scholars. Napoleon held these values as well. There is no question that Bonaparte went too far in his dream of expansion, but to say that he wasn't enlightened is just plain ridiculous.

Napolean as an Enlightened Despot

2009-01-09T20:52:00.001-05:00

I think Napolean was an enlightened despot especially due to his government reforms. He established constitutional monarchies in his HRE territories, and he himself set up reforms and a constitution that let the people think they had the power with the voting they could do. He got rid of any kind of bias in the legal systems against classes. Everything was now "jobs open to talent" and the aristocracy now had no special priveledges. The declaration of the Rights of Man was incorporated in Napolean's reforms and people were equal no matter how well off you were. Slavery was abolished in the French colonies, evidence of his enlightened principles of humanity and equality. As a despot he naturally wanted to help mankind, and therefore he liberated other people on his conquering campaigns to free them to enlightened principles as well. IF he hadn't been an egomaniac and overstretched his armies and campaigns he probably could have successfully kept france together and held his salelite territories. All in all his principles were good and he did progress France to an enlightened state that was more sensitive to the rights and equality of man. Even though it was a bloody part of French History, the Revolution and the Napoleanic period was one of the best things that happened to France to put in on an even playing field republic wise with Britain.

Think back to Spain’s and France’s earlier efforts to establish a universal monarchy. Compare them to Napoleon’s Grand Empire.

2009-01-09T17:07:00.002-05:00

Well, obviously neither Spain nor France under the Sun King came as close as Napoleon did to attaining universal monarchy. But, I think one of the big problems for anybody that tries to take over all of Europe is England. Not only did the Brits resist all three of these attempts but also (though just barely) the attempts of Hitler during the 20th century. It's almost as if the Island of Britain is just as strong as the island of Europe (well. . . if Asia weren't there at least, even still Europe is a peninsula). I've been thinking about this for the past couple of weeks. This little fighter has remained undefeated throughout history where invasion is concerned. Perhaps the sea is more a barrier than we'd like to imagine. Wasn't one of the reasons for Constantinople's strength was the fact that it was surronded on three sides by water and by one on desert. It's the same deal with the U.S; if we weren't stronger than Mexico, Canada, or the Indians we might've had a lot more trouble maintaining our independence. I mean look at D-Day even with that gigantic operation we barely made it though. The sea is an excellent shooting range for "sitting ducks" like ships and disboarding soldiers. Not to mention the problem of the British Navy which was the best Navy of the world in its day. Considering the Brits were surrounded by water it's no wonder they behaved so effectively in it. It's been hard throughout history for a foreign power to maintain control over a colony that hates it. "you'd have to put a redcoat behind every tree" in the case of the American War for Independence. People (as a whole) aren't things you can just get, they will never all agree to an unwanted rule for long, especially when they have armed forces, unity, and a developed civilization. Infact, perhaps it is the human trait of wanting to be free that prevented universal monarchy from coming to pass. One of the biggest reasons, other than the superiority of the French army, for Napoleon's successful take over of The Continent was the fact that people welcomed the revolutionary ways he brought with him. They were getting something they wanted too (kind of). Had Napoleon been simply a foreign brute like Atilla the Hun or something he probably wouldn't have been so succesful because brute force only lasts for so long and once it's gone a leader has nothing to protect him other than his people's opinion of him. Had Louis and Charles been more well liked (and had had larger more unified armies) perhaps they would have gotten farther in their conquests than they did.

Miscellaneous

2009-01-08T20:33:00.003-05:00

So I know this isn't exactly a post topic but a comment Rob posted on one of my earlier posts got me thinking. I want to see what everyone thinks about this. Feel free to disagree its an open ended thing. Could Napoleon be blamed for WWII? I know there were many other factors than Hitler involved in WWII so this is mainly going to be focused on the European theatre. Here's what I think. Napoleon tried to unify Europe. He tried to make it all the same, same metric system, same republic, same flag, same customs, same dress, in other words a uniform europe was a better Europe. This is where Nationalism came into play. The different nations began to see the beauty of their old and independent cultures. Thus Germany became more "unified" as the peoples felt a more patriotic emotion towards their homeland. This nationalistic view would be passed on for a few generations until the man we all know as Adolf Hitler was born. He was raised with this pride and loyalty to his beloved nation. When he was a teen he saw the devastation of WWI and when his fellow german brothers needed someone to blame for their pain and suffering, Hitler, as we all know, blamed those foreigners, the "not true germans", the Jews... the story continues on from there. But all I'm saying is that if Hitler had not been raised with such a dedication to his country would he have been compelled to do all he did?

Napoleon: Enlightened or not?

2009-01-07T12:48:00.003-05:00

OK, so this is a new post as well as a response to Sam's post and the comments people made on it.
If we define a enlightened despot as a ruler who has absolute power, but also rules with the ideas of the Enlightenment, then Napoleon was enlightened. He applied many of the Enlightenment's ideas while he ruled France. As Elise has already pointed out, he ended feudalism in France, going a step beyond enlightened despots such as Catherine and Frederick the Great. Napoleon supported scientific research and thought it was "the essential, rational foundation of modern knowledge" (pg. 410). Religious toleration was also a part of Napoleon's empire. Perhaps the greatest indicator of Napoleon's enlightenment is his belief that all men are created equal and want the same things. This is exhibited in his "careers open to talent" policy. If I remember correctly, we decided as a class that Joseph II of Austria was our most enlightened despot. He and Napoleon seem to have reformed the same things in their respective countries i.e. abolishing feudalism and religious toleration. To me, it seems that Napoleon's greatest mistake was the fact that he overreached himself. His ideas were good ones, but as Sam has already said, he tried to apply them everywhere using his military. Had he limited himself to France, he would have stayed in power much longer. Our book states that Napoleon: "carried over the rationalist and universalist outlook of the Age of Enlightenment" (pg. 406), "spoke endlessly of the enlightenment of the age" (pg. 410), and "may be thought of as the last and most eminent of the enlightened despots" (pg. 389).

Lasting Legacies

2009-01-04T18:46:00.004-05:00

The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Empire left many lasting legacies. It showed how the new Republic enabled a nation to exercise power more effectively than the traditional monarchy. Also it gave the modern world new methods of political organization and authoritarian rule. But most importantly, it left the legacy of nationalism. Without the Frenchman's national loyalty and patriotism Napoleon's army would not have been nearly as successful. Not only that but it proved to all the other nations what can be accomplished when a military force has something they're willing to die for... as opposed to the uneagerness of an army with nothing to fight for. Nationalism is something that the U.S. has always had since the formation of our beloved country but keep in mind that in the German melting pot of different cultures and provinces they had no idea of a love for the state. Thanks to the French Revolution, however, they gained a love for their country that became extremely apparent in WWII and that continues to this day.

Napoleon: Enlightened or not?

2009-01-04T16:18:00.003-05:00

There is no doubt that Napoleon was an intelligent man. He was an excellent military leader. Napoleon's fall was that his entire empire was based on military supremacy. As Hanjae said, some countries agreed to French rule for short-term benefit, but the people's loyalty belonged to their own countries, not to Napoleon and the French. Napoleon didn't realize that he couldn't simply use force to keep his empire together. In my opinion Napoleon was not enlightened. His greatest strength was his military, but quite frankly he didn't have very much else going for him.

Rest of Europe vs. France

2009-01-02T17:01:00.003-05:00

Coalition after coalition fails and it takes until page 422 (Section 51) for the rest of Europe to get their act together and form a coalition to “restore the balance of power.” (review Section 17 if you don’t remember “balance of power) Besides the invasion of Russia, what else do you think contributed to the formation of this coalition.

From the start, the Napoleonic Empire had a potential to be fragile for its dominance was mostly due to its military power alone. Coalitions, however, kept failing because each state had conflicts among them and was willing to make peace with France for short-term benefits.
The grievances, however, remained and the enforced Continental System mounted the already increasing hostility to the French Empire. Also, ironically, the enlightened ideas that Napoleon had spread boosted the development of nationalism and romanticism.
Therefore, the states were readier than ever to work together by the time Napoleon invaded Russia. Once Napoleon's Grand Army was gone, they finally merged together to defeat the French.

Euro History in the Comics

2008-12-21T20:47:00.008-05:00

Salon Response

2008-12-11T20:50:00.002-05:00

I (Erica) thought that the “Smile of Reason” documentary was very good. I think that the Enlightenment era was almost a continuation of the Renaissance, a grand finale. This documentary was focused on Voltaire (who I studied) and I thought that the narrator described Voltaire’s character really well. I think that his “Smile of Reason” said something like,” Isn’t this obvious?” Most of his works are common sense (like-hmm I know this...) but they are also quite profound so in that sense they are philosophical and impacting to the reader.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

2008-12-08T03:52:00.000-05:00

I, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, was born in Frankfurt-on-the-Main, Germany on the fine morning of 28^th of August 1749. I grew up there in a large house with my younger sister, Cornelia, my mother and father. At the age of sixteen I left my home to study law in Leipzig. During that time I honestly hardly studied law at all. Instead I spent all of my time in poetry classes. Seeing how this didn’t improve my understanding of law I was forced to return to my beautiful home in Frankfurt on Stag-Ditch road. Yes, that’s correct, although I never could find stags or ditches anywhere. After only a short period there my father became made angry about my dedication to literature and I was forced to leave. I left and decided to travel the wonderful country of Germany. In 1774 at the age of 25 I wrote the book that would bring make me famous world wide, The Sorrows of Young Werther. Brilliantly written if I do say so myself. Shortly after I was invited by Carl August the Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach himself to come and live with him in Weimar. How could I refuse? This is the place, I have a feeling, I would spend the rest of my life. I also have a good feeling that I will be remembed by all of mankind as one of the key figures of German literature and the movement of Weimar Classicism.

In Response to the Salon

2008-12-07T23:09:00.003-05:00

As a writer and consumer of satire I really enjoyed conversing with Jonathan Swift and found his piece A Modest Proposal to be inspiring and effective. I was surprised at how many deists were present. Being a deist myself I was happy to be in good company however I would have liked to had an arguement with a firm believer in some form of religion. At one point I was in a group with Catherine the Great and I found it interesting that she was such a firm supporter of feminism yet by ruling through monarchy she demonstrated that people were not equal and that she saw herself as being on a higher plane than her subjects. I am strongly against monarchies and dictatorships. I enjoyed the salon and found it very interesting.
- Sincerely
Thomas Paine

On the Salon

2008-12-07T21:33:00.003-05:00

As a ruler that hardly ever leaves her great country, Russia, I am pleased to say that I am fascinated with the Salon atmosphere, a most pleasant surpirse contrast to my courts. Many thanks to Madam Isikdag and most factual presence to arbitrate in the discussions. Her blunt facts and reminders really helped to spark some interesting points. I would have to say, I really admire Mary Wollstonecraft. Her ideas on the advancement of women really inspired me, and while I am already an advocate for women in my country, it is nice to know another women goes as far. Mr. Adam Smith had some really enlightening principals on economy, and many thanks to Mr. Rousseau to help us keep the salon entertained. I rather think that society is good to raise children in... coming from the man who never properly raised children himself. Quite interesting points on the natural way of things though. Many thanks to Voltaire and his(and hers) reasonings about life in general, and judging the monarchs, (Frederick and myself.)
Catherine the Great

Salon response

2008-12-07T11:49:00.005-05:00

In regards to the Salon and many conversations that I had, I must say that it was quite impressive with some people's views while others disapointed me. I wish to say thanks to all who attended and a big thank you to my friendn Voltaire for making an appearance despite the fact that we have had a sort of falling out with each other. I knew that neither of us would let a tiny inconvenience between the both of us get in the way of our ongoing friendship. He has truly come into his own with his inspirational talks of tolerance for religion, a strong belief of mine that i hold close. I wish to talk to him again, and hopefully rekindle our friendship. For those of you who believe that i look for more than a friend in this man, you are mistaken. Persih the thought!! I have never and will never be more than a friend to this man. On the subject of others that I conversed with, I was interested with Catherine the Great. She proved to know what she was talking about when talking of politics. She seemed to be quite the strong willed woman, as did Mary Wollstonecraft. her feminist ideals, although of no matter to me, were not my cup of tea, but she seemed like a lovely lady. I would like to thank all for attending the Salon and giving me a chance to meet you in person.

Sincerely,
Frederick the Great

Response to Salon

2008-12-06T21:47:00.004-05:00

I have to say that our intellectual gathering was very lively and impressive. And I thank for our hostess Ms. Isikdag. Now, there are some individuals that I especially had some meaningful conversations.
Mr. Swift I was impressed with your sense of humor. I assume though, many people must have been enraged by your writings. I think the free trade can make Ireland(oops) more opulent.
Mr. Kant I enjoyed our conversation. I think we can bring “good” to each other by pursuing our own interest since the invisible hand will guide us.
Mr. Frederick the Great, I saw your effort to make Prussia economically competent. I believe, however, the free trade will eventually benefit your country more than the strict economic system that you have now.
I also express my compassion toward those who have suffered from the censorship.
I sincerely wish that we can have another opportunity to have intellectual conversations.

A clarification on my (Rousseau's) opinion on the benefits of the arts and sciences (and censureship... as it's turned out)

2008-12-05T16:06:00.006-05:00

I know that I was vague and unsure on my opinion of the arts and sciences and their role in the development of mankind. I believe that since neither the advancements in the arts nor in the sciences have improved the morality of mankind at all. In fact, I hold that they are responsible for a kind of moral decay among men (and women). This stems from my belief that men in the state of nature are the closest to being in the "natural order" than in any other state. I believe (unlike Hobbes) that immorality and vice are brought on by a corrupt or flawed social system, and that men were better off in a rustic and rudimentary existence than they are now (morally that is). The way I see it, science and art has caused idleness among men, and idleness leads to discontent, vice, and immorality. When man lives a rustic and simple life idleness is discouraged; so in that the simple life is a means to an end. Man has become detached from the natural goodness and morality that he has in a simple state of nature. He has become too concerned with things, like the development of art and science, that do not include moral improvement in their study and advancement. Arts and sciences have taken mans focus off the importance of morals and overly concerned him in the subject of knowledge. However I do not wish, nor do I consider it possible, to eradicate the arts and sciences from the world. Rather, since they are here to stay they offer a distraction to keep immoral people busy and out of trouble. Now, I understand that this view is quite contrary to the popular opinion of todays world. Yet, as I've said in my Discourse I am not out to impress or to please my contemporaries. Instead I am seeking to express my own opinion and criticism of today's society in the hopes that the open minded public will accept my views no matter how different they appear. However, I am assured that my hopes are unrealistic since my books have already burned and censured.

Alas, there's the same government that is so dependent on the absolute agreement of its people that it doesn't realize how enslaved it has become in its reliance. As you can see, man is a slave to his own desire for power and his "unnatural" ability to attain so much of it (like a child who gets whatever he wants from his parents) he has made such power one of his needs and must do immoral and unnecessary (as the same child throws a tantrum when his desires aren't met) things to maintain it. This is why I believe in a government in which the General Will of the people is the sovereign ruler of everyone- not just a small group of "representatives", as if one person could effectively represent the combined wills of hundreds. It is not the agreement between the people of the State and the people the state rules, but rather a social contract in which all people give up their own "natural liberty" of individual will, and opt to obey the general will to benefit themselves and the community as a whole. In this way a man continues to protect himself, but now gains the support and protection of the social contract law that allows him and his people to preserve themselves where without such law they would not be able to. All this is explained in my The Social Contract which explains my opinion on proper government.

Réponse de salon

2008-12-05T15:21:00.002-05:00

After attending the salon I had made a number of new friends and caught up with some old ones. I saw my old friend Denis Diderot who talked to me about his belief that everyone is created equal and they choose to live their lives a certain way. I mostly agreed since I am well aware of all the different ways people live their lives. This is why I believe it is best for children to learn for themselves what is right and what is wrong instead of being forced to by their parents; in my book Emile I discuss this. Mary Wollstonecraft someone who I'd never met partook in mine and Diderot's conversation with her thoughts on society's control over women. In her opinion, women only seem inferior because society tells them that they are and they are led to believe it is the truth. I agreed. This is another example of how today's societies take away the natural freedoms of people. If women weren't told who they were and how they should act perhaps they'd discover that really they are just as capable as men. Perhaps we'd be better off weren't people so intent on maintaining power over as many people as they can; enslaving them. People forget that freedom means relying on yourself first and only relying on others for the things that you need, which I describe in my The Social Contract.

Salon Response

2008-12-04T22:56:00.002-05:00

In advance of reflecting upon the recent gathering of personages, I must first express my gratitude to our hostess, Lady Isikdag, who so graciously provided sustenance.
I found the discussion to be most lively, and the company to be impressive. Some presences seemed to fill the room with their expanse of thought (and indeed, Voltaire seemed much more that one man in person). I enjoyed most keenly my discussions with Mr.s Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Pain, and their opinions on ethical guidelines with which to conduct one's life were most interesting, even if they were not in alignment with my own. On a further note, I found my discussion of a free global market with Mr. Adam Smith to contain many intriguing prospects. In total, I found the Salon to be an intellectual explosion of ideas, and occasionally humor. That silly Rousseau and his abandoned children!
Many Thanks for an Excellent Discussion,
Immanuel Kant

Salon

2008-12-04T21:59:00.003-05:00

As i leave the Salon, I am thinking about the women i just met. Mary Wollstonecraft is an exceptional women whose ideas were dazzling. Of course she was similar to mine however gave a new side. I, being Denis Diderot, believe all people are created equal and God certainly created us but we choose our own destiny. As I conversed with Mary, she enlightened me on many things. I always wondered why women were so insignificant in contributing to society. i honestly felt that they believed their only purpose in life was to please and entertain, and they chose that. This of course is preposterous because God created them equal to men, but i did truly believe this prior to my meeting with Ms. Wollstonecraft. She told me then women definitely had the mental capacity and the want to get educated and be able to contribute to such things as Salons, but most women did not choose to be illiterate, they simply had to be otherwise they wouldn't be accepted into society. they wouldn't fit in. She told me many women who did not attend salons criticized the women who did as entertainers of the men. I found her views quite interesting and hope to see her there again soon.

VOLTAIRE

2008-12-04T21:00:00.002-05:00

Bonjour, my name is voltaire. i was born on November 21st 1694 as Francois Marie Arouet to a rather overbearing father. I was born in france, and lived there for a while untill after some rather satirical remarks against some high placed officials in france i spent some time in jail. after i was released i left paris and over the years visited england, geniva and many other places. I beleve in equallity. Man should always be lisend to and his opinions taken into reason, even when you don't agree with him. i am not only a writer of thoughts, i have written many plays as well, Oedipe, Artemire, Mariamne,L'Indiscret, Brutus, Eriphile, Zaire, Les Originaux, and many more. One of my personnall faveoret works is The Philosophical dictionary. In it i reccount one of my thoughts where i was met by a ginie who tok me to a barren waistland and showed me the bones of many a restricted soul. persons from all around the word who where punished for their beliefs. I also spoke with many an enlightend man who had been punshed for their beleifs as well. This meditation period solidifyed my faith as a theist. i was a key mind in the Enlightenment (no surprise there) and my suprior intellect and thoughts on... well, everything. i directed many a king and queen in their govermental plans. Genius... me in a nutshell.

Salon

2008-12-04T20:08:00.002-05:00

To all fellow Salon attendees,

I, Benjamin Franklin, wish to thank you all for a wonderful afternoon of enlightening conversation and delicious food. But mostly I wished to express my gratitude toward the fabulous company. I spent most of my time discussing with Voltaire, Lady Catherine, Ms. Mary, as well as Rousseu and even Immanuel Kant. From these powerful men and women I learned much about their viewpoints on the American Revolution, Deism/Religious tolerance, and politics. Lady Catherine and I nearly got into a fight over the proper form of government. She claims it to be absolutionist which is an absolute atrocity! If it hadn't been for Ms. Mary I probably would've poured a bucket of that amazing iced tea all over her exquisite gown. Nevertheless I found that I tended to agree with mainly everyone during our deeply informative discussions on religion and the American Revolution. The consensus appeared to me that the belief in religious toleration was abundant throughout most of Europe's enlightened thinkers. I found Kant's take on virtues to be quite astonishing, however. The way he perceived accepted statements as moral laws just bewildered me. As for our humble rebellion, many if not all the Saloners that I encountered were in great favor of it. Some argued that it didn't show the proper respect towards the government which it should have (like Burke, you silly fool) but mostly they were proud of the Americans and their desire to be free and equal and have a ruler who is for the people and by the people. All-in-all, I wish to thank the host for her hospitality, the guests for their open-mindedness, and (although one should eat to live and not live to eat) the food, for being so tasty! :)

Thomas Paine

2008-12-02T22:54:00.003-05:00

I am Thomas Paine not to be confused with the popular rapper T-Pain. I was born on January 29th 1737 in Britain but I moved to the New World in 1774. Perfect timing to affect politics in the region. My pamphlet Common Sense was published on January 10th 1776. I used printing presses to produce 100,000 copies which is how many I sold that year. I produced the pamphlet anonymously. It was treason. I had to keep it on the DL (Down Low, as in undercover), I didn't want to get hanged or burnt, that would be bad. Many of my pieces were controversial. I wrote a book titled the Age or Reason. I am a Deist and I believe the church sways weak minded individuals and tries to control them. My book the Age of Reason discusses these ideas of mine and as you can imagine this made many people pretty angry. I also affected the French Revolution but they threw me in jail. I was jailed from 1793 to 1794 in Paris. I was actually a member of the French National Convention even though I did not speak French. I returned to America in 1802 when Thomas Jefferson invited me back.

Benjamin Franklin

2008-12-01T00:03:00.005-05:00

We the People of Mrs. Isikdags's Salon, in order to form a more eloquent setting, add wisdom to the discussion, and provide a fun yet provacative atmosphere, do ordain and establish that none other than the infamous, light-hearted and multi-talented Benjamin Franklin shall be attending the Salon on the 3rd day of December in the year of our Lord two-thousand and eight.

My name is Benjamin Franklin. I was born in the beautiful city of Boston on the seventeeth day of January in the year 1706. I ran away to Pennsylvania all alone when I was 17 because I could no longer take the beatings I was taking at the hand of my brother in Boston. I am happy to say that the move paid off, and that it was in Philadelphia where the majority of my accomplishments took place. Over my long life I had many great achievements. Some I am most proud of include my publishing of the Richard's Almanack in 1733, my founding of the first public library, and of course my signing of both the Declaration of Independence and the new U.S. Constititution. Besides my civil and political commitments I also enjoyed dwelling in the great excitement that is science, and as a result of this wonderful ferver I invented the Franklin Stove (which is still in use today), swimming fins and bifocals just to name a few.

Contrary to what you may believe I did not write either the Declaration nor the Constitution. Even though Tommy likes to tease me and say that the only reason why I wasn't given the job to procure the wonderful documents (since it was basically my ideas that it included) was because I would have thrown in too many jokes and anecdotes amongst the rebellious and independence babble. I have to admit, though, that he's probably right. I am known throughout the colonies as a fun and, since the death of my dear wife, flirtatious man. If you ever read that Richard's Almanack it includes my best collection of thought-provoking as well as dastardly humorous one liners like "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." (There's some other stuff in there as well of course). In France, because of this great sense of humour and quick wit, I was most popular among the ladies.. and I mean who can blame 'em? Funny, it was actually due to this great popularity that enabled me to convince France to sign the Treaty of Alliance with the Americans in 1778. Anywho, I believe in a loving God, although, not necessarily in a particular religion, they all work. However, I do stand firm in the belief that a democracy is the best type of government out there, it gives people a voice, treats men as equal, and checks and balances the wise and passionate ruler known as the President.

My life was full of ups and downs, great accomplishments and great electric shocks (stupid kite), but all in all it is a life I am immensely proud of. It is a life that earned 20,000 spectators at my funeral when I passed at the age of 84 in the year 1790. It is a life that saw immense improvemtns in everyday living. And it is a life that saw and helped create the birth of a new nation.

Frederick the Great of Prussia

2008-11-30T23:32:00.004-05:00

Hello,

The name I go by is Frederick the Great, Prussia. As you can tell from my picture I am extremely good looking. Anyway I was born in 1712 in Berlin of the Hohenzollern dynasty. As a child I was given tutors by my father in which to only teach me certain subjects, ruling anything to do with art and music. However, my mother managed to sneak in certain teachings about music and art. When my father found out he locked me up in a dungeon for months and fired all of my tutors. He then proceeded to making me watch one of my friends be beheaded in front of me. (He was quite the kidder) In 1740 when my father passed away I took the thrown as King of Prussia and Elector of Brandenburg. I knew immediately what had to be done and fast. I quickly began developing the military extensively, seeing that for my nation to become a force to be reckoned with it would have to be respected, and the army could accomplish that for me. With this developing military I helped to further develop the Prussian economy, bringing in the wealt that we so desired and needed. I have been known as being a tolerant ruler of religions so long as the people conducting them are truly good people. I have also been quoted as saying that "may there be Turks or Pagans, we shall build mosques and churches". My love of music has never left my sight. I am more than proficient at the flute and have composed over 100 sonatas that are still being played in this day and time. I have written one famous work by the name of "On the Forms of Government" which states my view on what a good government requires to be fully functional. If anyone still wonders why I have been given the title, Frederick "the Great" just look at everything that I have done for my country. I increased our sea power, made Prussia a world power in record time, developed a system of government for which will spread through Europe like wildfire, and have never let the unimportant differences in life distract me from the truly main things tht I need to focus on. I am the ultimate ruler and as you can see I have the evidence to prove it.

Immanuel Kant

2008-11-30T22:21:00.006-05:00

Greetings,

I am Immanuel Kant, esteemed philosopher hailing from the Prussian City of Konigsberg. In my lifetime, I wrote such works on reasoning, religion, and ethics as Lectures on Ethics, Critique of Practical Reason, Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone, and Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals. With the thoughts contained within these writings, I have been a key influence on most philosophical movements since my time. The latter writing, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, is a statement that can be summed up in my ethical theory. My ethics of human behavior are based off of the principle of the categorical imperative, a rule that human action must satisfy in order to be ethical and thus “good”. Human actions should be first and foremost designed to promote the good and happiness of others and themselves, but the imperative can be considered an ethical law that must be followed. The end is not so important as the means, for how can anyone be good if not through good intentions? My ethical theories have been used, in conjunction with Utilitarianism and the theories other select thinkers (Ross), as guidelines for ethical decisions in medical situations.
I have spent all my life in my home city, as I have never been an overly “healthy’ individual. But the thinking and reflection I have performed I would deem most adequate to a healthy mind. In example, I would consider myself a deist in the sense that I have concluded that a God must exist. For, even if you can scientifically trace effect and cause back to the origin of the universe, where did this original cause stem from? The only conclusion can be the presence of some higher power, a good and benevolent God. I do not care what God is like, only that there is a higher power that drives and judges human actions. If there is no God, the intentions of society would be without guidance, without a moral compass, and ultimate cause would have no origin. I must, therefore, believe in the existence of a deity.
On that note, I must say that I look forward to making the acquaintance of you, my esteemed colleagues, and engaging in enlightening conversation on other pivotal topics.

Immanuel Kant

Edmund Burke

2008-11-30T22:04:00.003-05:00

I am Edmund Burke. I was born on January 12th of 1929 in Dublin, Ireland. I'm pretty sure I'm going to die on July 9th of 1797, but what do I know? My father, Richard, was a lawyer. My mother raised me and my fourteen siblings, although not very well seeing as only four of us lived past the age of fifteen. When I was twelve my older brother and I were sent to Ballitore Academy. I studied there for four years under Abraham Shackelton. Master Shackelton was a quaker, and did much to teach me religious tolerance. In 1744, at the age of 16, I began attending Trinity College in Dublin. I studied the classics, logic, rhetoric, composition, moral philosphy, history, and physics in my four years at Trinity. I learned much in the ways of Oratory. After graduating from Trinity I enrolled at Middle Temple in London. My father pushed me to this, as he wanted me to become a lawyer like himself. Law did not interest me much, however, and I did little to apply myself to my studies. My father was not pleased by this, and withdrew my living allowances in 1756. It was then that I published my two most renound works, " A Vindiction of Natuarl Society" and "An Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sbulime and Beautiful". In 1757 I married the daughter of my physician, Jane Nugent. My first son, Richard, was born in 1758; another child was born soon after but died in infancy. At this time my main source of income came from the editorial work I did for the "Annual Register". I worked anonymously for the journal until 1791. In 1765, after coming to the attention of various local political figures, I was given a secretarial position in the office of the Prime Minister, Lord Rockingham. In that same year I was elected into the House of Commons. Many tried to keep me out of Parliment because of my humble status, and background; a lot of guys hated on my Irish accent. Others called me "the brain of the whigs" and considered me to be quite skilled in rhetoric and oratory. While in Parliment I tried to convince the government not to tax the American Colonies because I felt that a succesion from England by the colonies would be a detrimental. I also sought freedom and liberties for Irish Roman Catholics. Though I am a Protestant, I felt no people should be oppressed as the catholics of Ireland were. I also warned of the dangers of the French Revolution. I feared that anti government sentiments might cross to England and endanger the strength of the state. I stood for trust in government, and equality in all men. I was called "the father of modern conservatist thought" and was an unmatched orator on any podium or in any office.

Jonathan Swift

2008-11-30T21:44:00.003-05:00

My name is Jonathan Swift, I was born November 30th (happy birthday to me) 1667 in Dublin Ireland. I am one Ireland's greatest novelist, satirist, and pamphleteer. I was enrolled at Trinity college in 1689. I worked under Sir William Temple in England loyally until his death in 1699. In 1704 my first two satires were published. The first being A Tale of A Tub, and the other one was titled The Battle of the Books. I was a firm believer in the Church of England. From 1699 to 1710 I worked at multiple different Church Posts. Until 1709 I endorsed the Whig Party but once the party fell I switched over in supporting the Tories. In 1720I moved back to Ireland where I lived the rest of my life. In 1720 I became active in Ireland's Political Affairs and wrote Pamphlets regarding the Issues. A famous Pamphlet of mine is called Drapiers Letters. This pamphlet made me a hero among the people of my land. My most famous work is Gulliver's Travels which I wrote in 1726. It was about a man who traveled to obscure places throughout the world. From 1736- until I imagine I die in 1745, I picked up Poetry. I diversified my writings and became a poet and wrote the Versus of Death. Many find that I am clinically insane, however, I think there is another reason why I have Deafness and Nauesa and Pain daily.

(Later on it was established that I in fact had Meniere's Syndrome,. A disease found in the Inner Ear)

2008-11-30T21:31:00.000-05:00

Voltaire

2008-11-30T21:28:00.007-05:00

My name is Francois-Marie Arouet. I was born on November 21st, 1694 in Paris. I went to a Jesuit school, where I received my education. When I was 16, I befriended some aristocrats in Paris and used my wittiness to entertain Parisian society. Unfortunately, my satirical attitude offended the French government and I was imprisoned for eleven months. While in prison, I wrote my first major play, Oedipus, and also adopted my pen name, Voltaire. A pen name would protect me from the government. After insulting Chevalier De Rohan, a nobleman, I was forced to choose between imprisonment and exile. I chose exile and moved to England for three years between 1726 and 1729. I was driven to read John Locke’s philosophy and also was very interested in Newton’s math and science. I later wrote a book praising English customs, but mostly John Locke. I am not an atheist, though many historians will argue that I am. I strongly believe that God exists, though in reason, not religion. In A Treatise on Toleration, I say that we should regard all men as our brothers; Virtue is Better than Science. I also think that individual freedom is important. I died in France in 1778. Someone stole my remains 36 years later and left them in a garbage heap.

Voltaire

2008-11-30T21:19:00.003-05:00

My name is Francois-Marie Arouet, but most know me as Voltaire. I way born in 1694 in Paris and will most likely die around 1778. I am a French Enlightenment author, critic, essayist, historian, and philosopher. When I was a young man, I ended up attending a Jesuit College where I acquired many ideas and feelings of rebellion. These feelings led me to write satirical works, even in a time of strict censorship. The Catholic Church put me in jail for my extreme political, religious, and philosophical works. It was in jail that I adopted my pen name, Voltaire (an anagram of AROVET LI, the Latin spelling of my surname). From jail I wrote two of my most famous works, Henriade (celebrating the life of Henry IV), and a successful tragedy called Oedipe. I was basically exiled from France and will live in England, Germany, and Italy for most of my life. I will not allowed to enter France until I am basically on my deathbed, when I am welcomed into Paris as a hero. I am able to continue my work by living in bordering locations of France. Some of the plays, comedies and tragedies I’ve written include Brutus, Zaire, Erphile, Mahomet, Meope, and Semiramis. I also wrote Elements de la philosophie de Newton, The Age of Louis XIV, Micromegas, Candide, Treatise on Tolerance, L’Ingenu, and La Princesse de Babylone. The literature I wrote in the form of a series of letters, known as the letters philosophiques, are by far my most influential yet. They covered many issues like religion, trade, politics, government, art and philosophy. These letters were very strong representations of the society I live in and the Enlightenment. My main concern and contribution to mankind related to religious toleration and to find justice for those victims of persecution. Organized religion, in my opinion is not vital for mankind. That being said, I think religious toleration is the only way to go. Churches like the Catholic church had low toleration. I am a skeptic of the Bible, and I believe it will even disappear from the face of the Earth in 100 years or so. I believe God was invented by people to create the “higher power” they need in order to function. I argue that the best form of government would be a constitutional monarchy. An enlightened person should rule the people, allowing the equality, fair taxes, and personal freedoms. Under these guidelines, all people would have equal opportunities. I denounce supernaturalism, religion and the power of the clergy, according to my studies, for the ability of human progress. When in Italy, I studied sciences and wrote many essays on Newton. I admire him for his ability to bind all scientific findings and rules to one universal law.

Denis Diderot

2008-11-30T17:28:00.001-05:00

My name is Denis Diderot. I was born on October 15th, 1713 in Langres, France. I grew up in an avid bourgeoisie household, and my father being a very strict religious man through me into the Jesuit Boarding school. Thanks to my smarts I excelled as a student and was thought of as brilliant. I aced everything. I became a writer after trying to become a preacher which I loathed, and failing to become a lawyer. My father rarely talked to me at that point. The one thing most people know me for is the Encyclopédie. I was selected as the general editor for the project and spent the next 26 years devoting my genius, and writing talents into publishing the 10 volume encyclopedia. My goal in creating the Encyclopédie was to assemble the knowledge scattered across the earth so everyone can have access and discover what man was made to be. Other works I am known for is my book Philosophical Thoughts, and Letters on the Blind. I play a huge role in the progress of mankind because my Encyclopedia spreads, teaches, and connects cultures and all of mankind in ways nothing else has before. It is based on science and fact, not religion. I was exposed to new technology and crafts when I was editing it and now the people who possess my 10 volumes can have that same experience. I most relate my self to René Descartes. He and I are both true philosophers. I agreed with Descartes in that the world was created by God but is based on fact and science, and everything on earth is sustained by a force that is distinct from all physical forces but life is self-determined. Censorship has caught up to me in my life. In my book Philosophical Thoughts, I wrote with a controversial voice. I was beginning to move away from my father’s wishes and was becoming an atheist… one of the first. The church saw it as a threat and used their power to put me in prison for 3 months. After that I didn’t publish any more of my writings (my daughter did after I died). It is definitely important to see and experience other parts of the world and other cultures. This is how I wrote my Encyclopédie, traveling and experiencing what other people have perfected and using more productive ways as substitute for yours. You learn much more from other cultures than you do from your own. I do not believe there is a god. A person who should rule over others should be smart, skilled in many fields and should use his power for the greater good. I have done what can be to promote human knowledge. Spreading and sharing knowledge is the best tool to maximizing progress to man. I like French music and I am a fan of Rousseau.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

2008-11-30T07:42:00.002-05:00

My name is also, remarkably, Jean Jacques Rousseau. My early life was a troubled one. My mother died shortly after i was born due to birth complications. Throughout my childhood I received an informal education from my father. I learned to read and write, and a little bit of history, and I learned a lot about the Calvinist faith. When I was 13 my father got into a spot of trouble, and I was sent to live with an uncle. For several years I was apprenticed as a notary and then an engraver, but I left Geneva after three years. In Italy I received work and board from a French Baroness, who also happened to be a Catholic. Under her influence I converted to Catholicism, thus losing my citizenship of Geneva. In 1742, thinking I could establish myself with my new musical notation system, I left for Paris. There I befriended Denis Diderot, and when he was arrested and imprisoned for his writing, I realized how society corrupts humanity. This is when my real lifes work began. I believed in the natural goodness of humanity.
I developed strong ideas on education and on society. In Emile, translated to "On Education", I laid out how education would be most successful. The aim of education is to learn how to live righteously. The Social Contract outlines my ideas on society. Every person should have certain individual liberties. Both of these works were very controversial, and burned by governments. Catholic educators in France burned Emile, while in Geneva the Calvinist government did the same to The Social Contract. I fled persecution after my house was stoned, and took refuge with friend and fellow philosopher David Hume. For the rest of my life I was extremely paranoid of conspiracies against me. I lived the last years of my life under the patronage of two Frenchmen. In 1778, I died.

Adam Smith

2008-11-29T22:13:00.006-05:00

I was born in 1723 in Scotland as the son of Adam Smith and Margaret Douglas. My father had died before I was born, so I was raised by my mother. I attended Glasglow and Oxford universities and became a professor of moral philosophy at Glasgow in 1752. After lecturing for a couple of years, I published The Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759. In the book, I argued that the human communication depends on sympathy between “agent and spectator.” But what I truly focused on was economy.

I believe that the impulse of self-interest work toward the public welfare in economy. I even wrote a book about it: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. A person “neither intends to promote the publick interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it… he intends only his own gain.” If each person chases his own interest, the general welfare of the society fosters as a whole. Free trade system is essential in this context for the maximum development of wealth; trades enable exchange of variety of goods. It is the “invisible hand” that regulate the market system and satisfied the economic needs.

The theory I developed is SO good that it will be still studied three hundred years later. How do I know? No comment.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

2008-11-29T18:44:00.005-05:00

My mother gave birth to me on the 28th of June, 1712 in Geneva Switzerland. My mother died 9 days after I was born, and my father raised me on his own. I liked music when I was younger and I wrote an opera or two in my younger years. I never was very good at anything but I was strong enough to make it through on my own. I struggled off and on with women of pleasure and fortune much to my surprise and dismay. I discovered my talent and infinite passion for writing when I entered an essay writing contest for Dijon Academy. This essay (which won the contest) set me off on my writing career. I wrote a novel which became the pleasure of rich and poor alike called La Nouvelle Héloïse a masterpiece, of which I am quite proud, comparable to (but most probably better than) Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. With my new found talent I laid unto the world my thoughts on life. With L'Émile ou de l'éducation and Du contrat social I set forth my greatest maxims, that society is responsible for the banes of man and that life in the state of nature with mans natural liberties is better than the enslaving society of today. The first (this is me!) being a treatise on childhood education (although I never kept mine) and the second a piece on the necessary "social contract" of government that transforms primal man into a moral and reasonable human being (if gone about properly). Unfortunately the public was not ready for such genius and many barbaric authorities condemned and burned them. I had many friends who helped me along (many of whom I distrusted and/or deserted) like Diderot, David Hume, the Prince de Conti, and Étienne Condillac. In my old age I wrote an autobiography of sorts called Confessions. My life's work may have been called contradictory by later readers but I like the description different much better.

Why did the refutation of the Ptolemaic system by Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo and others raise uncomfortable questions about theology?

2008-11-29T18:01:00.002-05:00

The Ptolemaic system was the belief that all the celestial bodies (the sun, moon, planets, stars, etc.) revolved around the earth in what were called spheres and that each was represented by an orb (a planet). The farthest out sphere was that of heaven, and as such, somewhat marked heaven as a place on the galactic map. With the discoveries of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo observational evidence was given to support the theory that the earth and all other "heavenly orbs" were in fact revolving around the sun (helio-centricity). This claim, were it to replace the one of Ptolemy, would go to disprove the idea of heaven as a place. It would almost be as if the church were "losing it's rights" to heaven. Furthermore the idea that earth were the center of the universe stands to reason with the bibles human-centered account of time. Finally, since these discoveries were scientific it would go to disprove the highly scholastic claims of theologians. All in all, the church was not happy with these ideas (mainly out of fear for its own safety) and thus labeled them as herecy.

Mary Wollstonecraft

2008-11-28T17:27:00.006-05:00

I was born on April 27, 1759 in Hoxton, England. I spent most of my life living in London, but also traveled to France, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. My most famous work is A Vindication of the Rights of Women, but I am also known for Thoughts on the Education of Daughters, and A Vindication on the Rights of Men. This was a direct rebuttal to Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. The subject I wrote most on was education reform, particularly for women, but for men as well. I believed that women were considered inferior to men because they were taught to please instead of having a real education. I advocated Bacon's inductive method and thought that women should learn using this method as well. The best was to make observations was to travel and learn form experience. The first editions of many of my works were published anonymously and my name was only added to the title page in subsequent editions. In A Vindication of the Rights of Women, I cited the ideas of Rousseau and agreed with some, but disliked how he did not extend his ideas to women. I was married only once, but had a daughter from a previous affair named Fanny. While married, my husband William Godwin and I lived in separate, but adjoining residences so that we could retain our independence. Our only daughter, Mary, would one day grow up to write Frankenstein. I am often considered to be the first feminist.

Catherine the Great

2008-11-28T14:26:00.002-05:00

Catherine was born May 2, 1729 as Sophie Friederike Auguste von Anhalt-Zerbst of Prussia. She married Peter of Russia August 21, 1745, (not Peter the Great) to stengthen ties between Prussia and Russia against Austria. When Peter's Aunt, tsarina Elizabeth I died, Peter assumes crown, and after a very short reign Catherine overthrows her husband with her lover Grigory Orlov, and his brothers, all prominent ranks in the Russian Army. Catherine ascends the throne in July of 1762 and dies in 1796. In her reign she successfully manages to worsen the conditions of serfdom while strengthening the government. She sets up a constitution for the people and takes away the state service act. Russai, Austria, and Prussia all gain new lands through the partition of Poland, and Catherine pushes for every piece of land she can get. She sells off crown lands and beats back the Ottoman Turks and aquires a large portion of land in the Black Sea Region. She increases trade through the new ports on the black sea, and manages to modernize Russia through enlightement and modern ideals. She attracted great enlightenment men and philosophers to her courts such as Voltaire, Arouet, and Diderot. She is a known intellectual and publishes a few books on ideal Russia government among other subjects. She believes that in order for a country to be strong, it needs a very large population, and Catherine therefore encoureages immigrants to come to her country and settle. She had at least 12 known lovers, and 3 children. Her eldest, a son ascended to throne upon her death in 1796. Her second, a daughter died at age 2. Her last was also a son.

How would you describe a scientific view of the world in the seventeenth century? What beliefs did many Europeans hold in the seventeenth century

2008-11-23T20:20:00.005-05:00

Scientific outlook in the 17th century was pretty complicated. I think most people knew their lives could be easier but nobody had the spare time from their outrageous work lives, and nobody could really interact about these types of things freely. Because a lot of the new theories were invading the beliefs of the church it was seen as sin full. many people knew this however everyone promoted it. science made their lives easier. Technological advancements were the largest promoter for science in the 17th. only because it helped people do what they do, it freed up more time for everyone. But the astronomy part of it was risky. new advancements led to better means of discovering space. the new ideas discovered however went against both ancient knowledge and religion. thus creating a very skeptical outlook on it.

How did the Newto reinforce confidence in human powers?nian system

2008-11-23T14:26:00.003-05:00

Newton wanted a world where people weren't using religion as the reasoning for why something natural happens or exists. He wanted people to use the reasoning of which they were given to find a solid concrete reason that actually made sense to everyone and could be proven. I think this is the main thing that reinforced the "common people's" confidence in their own powers, their ability top reason. They had already realized through humanism that they could use their own individual powers to decide on certain things instead of relying on the word of GOD every time they needed an answer; Newton just showed them how they could put these powers of reasoning and knowledge to a good cause. This wasn't Newton's main goal. His goal was truly for science not for the people, although it could be quite possible that he had known what effects this would have on humans' idea of their abilities.

In what ways were Locke’s ideas about private property and human liberty contradictory?

2008-11-21T22:06:00.005-05:00

While Locke promoted the idea of human liberty, he also supported the slavery. How was that possible? Human liberty, in Locke's view, only applied to the human beings who were rational, or were able to become rational through education. African Americans, who were believed to be inferior than the others, therefore could be denied fundamental human rights. African American slaves were only properties different from other "able" human beings, and since the right of private property was ought to be fulfilled, the enslavement was justified.

What beliefs did many Europeans hold in the seventeenth century that contradicted a scientific outlook?

2008-11-19T12:22:00.002-05:00

There were many beliefs held by Euopeans during the 17th century that contradicted a scientific outlook. One of those was the strongly-held belief that the heavens were perfect. Until the development of Galileo's telescope no one had a reason to believe that the moon was in fact covered in craters formed by passing comets. Plus as more and more disoveries were made regarding the movement of the planets and the magnitude of the universe those that held faith in the beautiful crystalline spheres or the existance of Heaven began to become worried. Suddenly some of Christianity's deepest beliefs were in question. The heavens were the realm of God, the place of saints, so how could it be imperfect? Where was heaven if not in the stars? Many of these discoveries made by Galileo and others therefore shook the Chrisitian community and when more and more evidence came to call it true those that couldn't stand to let their deep faith be called untrue decided instead to call the great astronomers heretics and blasphemers and their work false. This religious faith was the most intense/ prominent contradiction to the scientific outlook during the 17th century.

Bacon or Descartes? Deductive method or the inductive method?

2008-11-17T19:58:00.002-05:00

I think Bacon and Descartes are equally important. Descartes was important because he decided that he existed and related thought to the universe and how relative thoughts are in a bigger picture. Bacon depicted information and conclusions as obvious and unnecessary: conclusions should only be based on fact and experience. Descartes also was very religious and that was important because it was science and the belief in God that influenced his experiments and reason. And inductive method...this is based again on truth and experience... and I think that that was what Bacon was trying to get across from the beginning.

The Practical Ramifications of Science During Newton's Time

2008-11-16T23:06:00.002-05:00

During Newton's time science was finally figuring out the rules of the Universe and Earth. Gravity was described, the laws of motion were written, light was being figured out, and the solar system and our place in the Universe was being defined. All of these things led to many devices that helped Europe in its expansion and control over a good part of the globe. With gravity and the laws of motion artillery and guns could be made more accurate through math and physics. Optics helped discover new lands through the use of eye pieces as well as peer into outer space with primitive telescopes.

Ptolemaic system vs. Copernicus, Galileo, and Kelper

2008-11-16T18:28:00.002-05:00

The Ptolemaic system was first thought up in the 2nd century a.d. by the Greek scientist Ptolemy. His theory was that earth was the center if the system and that everything else orbited around earth in sphere of incresing perfection. After the last ring was Heaven, the most perfect, and Christians accepted this because it gave a good explanation of Heaven. Then in the 16th and 17th centuries a few scientists question this theory, mainly Copernicus. The Copernican theory said that the sun was the center of the universe and that the earth and the other celestial bodies moved around it. There was no realm for heaven, and basically it was right because it was preved by math to be more accurate than the Ptolemaic system. Kelper and Galileo expanded on the principle math and refined the theory. Now that it was proven that the Ptolemaic system was wrong, and there was no longer a physical place for heaven, the church and christians all over Europe were confused and had no idea what to believe. Several rejected the theory, and the church made Galileo recant his theories and beliefs of the new Copernican system. Christians were frightened of this new belief about the universe, and the French scientist Pascal himself a devout Christian was deeply troubled by this knowlege. If God and heaven could no longer be explained by the exestence of the realm beyond which man could somewhat see, then how did they know he even existed at all? While almost all scientists of the time were Christian and kept their faith in God, they felt they had to explain their world through science and math. Unfortunately theology was forced to change dramatically along with the ground breaking advances in science.

Cartesian dualism

2008-11-16T17:52:00.003-05:00

Descartes' philosophy, Cartesian dualism, is based around the creation of two different realities in the universe. These two different realities are thinking substance and extended substance. Thinking substance is everything inside the mind, while extended substance is everything outside the mind. Descartes recognized the importance of mathematics in the world around him. To him, everything in the physical half of the universe (extended substance) could be interpreted through formulas and equations. This philosophy is an example of the biggest difference between Bacon and Descartes, which is Descartes' use of mathematics.

acon or Descartes? Deductive method or the inductive method?

2008-11-15T19:06:00.002-05:00

Both Bacon and Descartes were important in opening a new era of science. With the advent of both scientists, deductive method was replaced by inductive method. Bacon especially supported inductive reasoning and empiricism. He believed that abstract ideas should be drawn from concrete observations and experiments. Bacon failed to understand the importance of math, but Descartes solved this problem. He believed that nature could be reduced to mathematical form and paved the way to more simple, systematic science.

William v. Peter the great.

2008-11-13T23:20:00.002-05:00

I think Peter the great was the better of the two. only because he completely modernized Russia. he did, in one lifetime, what took most of Europe a few century's to figure out. now, granted, he learned allot from the french and the more sophisticated of the empires. but he built Russia into a super power that lasted. Prussia was strong yes, and revolutionized organized warfare. but their strength was short lived. where as Russia carried on.

Which monarch was more important –Peter the Great or Frederick Wilhelm?

2008-11-13T13:42:00.003-05:00

Peter the Great was more important then Fredrick. For one, Prussia did not last as long Russia and was not as powerful as Russia became. Before Peter the Great Russia was not a superpower and was essentially isolated from the rest of Europe. It was having problems with it's leaders and was in need of somebody powerful. Peter, who had lived in Europe throughout his life had a fascination of ship building. During his rule he saved Russian economy by taxing people particulary the lower class. He also replaced the Duma with a Senate that eventually was productive. All in all Peter the Great made Russia competition with all of hte other Powerful European nations.

Rob

Service mentality in Russia and Prussia

2008-11-11T20:45:00.003-05:00

Both the Prussian kings and Peter the Great tried to create a service nobility and a service mentality. Why? How successful were they in achieving their goals?

First off, I think the attempt to create a service nobility is merely part of the main movement towards a service mentality in a country. A service mentality (as the name suggests) makes it easier for the government to rule. Any military, in order to be successful, must be an efficient decision-making machine, where any decision made above is followed immediately and without question by those below. This makes for very effective legislation and a general malleability of society. The Prussian kings and Peter the Great undoubtedly saw a service mentality among the populace as the easiest path to their view of world rule, and thus pursued it. As to how successful they were, both parties were able to make the military (and service) a key part of society. But, it is very difficult, without an enormous amount of influence and control, to create a completely tiered society, be it because people are too widely spread or resistant factions. The best the Prussian kings and Pete were able to do was the make military service the respectable thing to do.

On President Dmitry Medvedev

2008-11-11T16:20:00.002-05:00

The president of Russia gave a very lengthy speech to his people on November 5, the day after Obama's election to Office. Here are some key points I found in his speech that pertain to what we just covered in section 26:

-There is a new senate for the president, and it is named the State Duma.
-Georgia apparently attacked Russian peacekeepers.. (The tartars are still giving Russia trouble in this day and age)
-The president aknowleges the countries policies to become a state without people, since it prevailed in centuries before, and hopes to reverse that.
-The president says he is trying to get representation for all his people in the Duma, especially since some officials that represented at least 5 million people were not elected in...
-He apparently is still working on modernizing Russia as has some plans in place to expand the technology and connection to the outside world.
-He would like to expand the terms of Duma reps and his term to that of 5 or 6 years.
-Several laws have apparently been signed to reduce corruption in the government bodies, (he never goes over how this would be enforced, except for by appropriate disciplinary action.)
-He is pro-immigrant, like Peter the Great, but they must conform to Russia's social standards if they are to be allowed citizenship.
-He wants to employ drastic educational standards and reforms, along with finding talented children and using their talents and abilites to further Russia's modernization processes.
-He also believes the world, and the European Nations plus America specifically are testing Russia and are bullying him.
-He would like to get the government more involved in trade and idustry for regulation and government support.

The President overall resembles Peter the Great in his attitudes towards modernizing and reforming Russia and the legal systems, he also wants to 1 up the global competition and become an independent and self relying country. He is strengthening the armies with missles and states that it is merely for defense against the larger nations. Also his reforms of government sound good enough, but I have a feeling it will give his administration strength over the smaller parties which he wants to give power to so that they can weaken and 'counter balance' the larger parties.

Which monarch was more important –Peter the Great or Frederick Wilhelm?

2008-11-10T08:48:00.004-05:00

First of all, which Frederick Wilhelm? The Great Elector of Brandenburg or King Frederick Wilhelm I of Prussia? It's not going to change my answer, I was just confused. Anyway. I think that Peter the Great was more important because his actions set Russia on it's course through 1917. Before his reign, Russia was more Asian than European. He brought the culture and government of France and the economic policies of England to Russia. He encouraged mercantilism and conquered important territories for Russia. He made Russia European. I think though, that he influenced the history of Russia more strongly through his government. He got rid of the duma (which was useless anyway) and made himself an absolute ruler. He made it so the tsar had the power to choose a successor that was not his firstborn son. Most importantly, I think, all of his reforms excluded the peasants. The serfs were like the African slaves of the Americas. Through this exclusion of the serfs, they became wary of any type of central authority. The serfs became more oppressed during his reign while the nobility became more powerful. It was this imbalance between classes that led to things like the Russian Revolution of 1917. Without Peter the Great's reforms, major historical events like that would not have happened.
P.S. I'm really sorry if this is confusing. I was kind of just rambling.

Using maps, compare Europe in 1648 and in 1748:why did they lose, why were they weak, and what happened to Poland?

2008-11-10T06:56:00.004-05:00

In 1648 the 3 large states of the Holy Roman Empire, Kingdom of Poland, and the Ottoman Empire all lost a lot of territory. The Holy Roman Empire lost its lands in small chunks at the Peace of Westphalia at the end of the 30 years war. The peace also disintegrated the HRE into small nation-states and therfore they were more easily convinced to join other well off nations a little at a time. For the HRE Prussia was the major gainer, slowly Prussia inherited parts of the HRE and connected them through their new stronger monarchy due to the army. The Kingdom of Poland slowly shrank while the King struggled to keep his lords under control, as well as his diverse people. Peter the Great of Russia ended up getting Poland and the Lithuania area with new and strong Kingdom of Russia. The Ottoman Empire was slowly beaten back and out of Europe as the Emperor of the Ottomans struggled to keep his people united also. Christians and Muslims had their own laws, and cuture was kept, making them even more diverse. All the warring took their tolls, and the Ottmans did not fight with the vigor they once had, and the Austrian Habsburgs with their newly strengthened monarchy were able to beat them back into SE Europe.

Potosi now

2008-11-09T19:13:00.000-05:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3740134.stm

"Which monarch was more important –Peter the Great or Frederick Wilhelm?"

2008-11-09T18:54:00.004-05:00

Peter the Great changed the country of Russia drastically, for better or for worse. His determination to westernize Russia entered into many aspects of life for the Russian people. He even banned some Russian customs, such as simply having a beard, and repeatedly attempted to make Russia more European. The creation of St. Petersburg is a very significant event in that it moved Russia's lean from Asia to Europe. Peter created a new Russian army, and took control of the Russian Orthodox Church. Although both very important monarchs, Peter the Great made a much larger impact on his country and Europe as a whole.

Which monarch was more important –Peter the Great or Frederick Wilhelm?

2008-11-09T17:40:00.002-05:00

I personally think that Fredrick Wilhelm was more important in respect to his country. Austria before him was almost struggling. The Turks were literally knocking on the door and they had to rely on their allies to fend them off. Fredrick's talents in military were his biggest strength. Since Austria at the time had next to nothing overseas and relied mainly on what goods they produced from withing their country, they had no foreign power. At this point in Europe an Army both in number and skill was absolutely vital if you wanted any power as a country. Fredrick created a skilled army that was also enormous... ranging near 7 million. Although he never got to use such a force, his predecessor Frederick II used it to claim Silesia which was a great population builder and provided more resources in which to gain profit. I truly think that Frederick Wilhelm was an excellent leader and ended up being more important to his country than Peter the Great.

To what degree and in what ways was Peter the Great successful in westernizing Russia?

2008-11-09T17:18:00.003-05:00

Peter the Great did westernize Russia by building factories and mills to supply his army and initially improve the defense of his country but he overlooked something. Yes, he did accomplish a great deal towards the creation and strengthening of the national state of landlords and merchants. But he completely ignored the condition of peasants who at that time had become immersed in serfdom. Westernizing Russia had caused serfdom to multiply across the country. Peasants may not have been a huge concern of Peter's but they were still apart of his country and therefore depended on him.

Both the Prussian kings and Peter the Great tried to create a service nobility and a service mentality. Why? How successful were they in achieving it?

2008-11-09T17:15:00.002-05:00

It's tough to say that this idea of a service nobility and mentality was a complete failure or complete success because it just wasn't. I think that it established both countries as a threat to other countrie, which is what these three rulers were aiming for; to put their countries on the map. They wanted it to be known that they weren't going to be pushed around by anybody else, and knew that putting emphasis on their armies and sea power was the way to do that. I think that, although not completely, this idea of "militarism" was therefore pretty successful in achieving what they wanted. I think that mainly this can be proved through the beginning and growth of Prussia. In the book it seems like at first, Prussia wasn't weak but was unorganized and in need of reform. Frederick William was basically waiting for this chance and, as I said before, made sure to focus on the army. He didn't just increase their training, but also got the townspeople involved with it as well, something that hadn't really been done before. He convinced the nobles and landed gentry to serve in the army by allowing them to hold peasants under Hereditary Subjection. With this new amount of people, the army became part of life in this country. through William's reign (1713-1740) as king the army grew from about 40,000 to 83,000 people, a huge and abvious change. Do I think that maybe this much emphasis on the army could have gone past its mark; yes I do think this, but for what this theory was created for it got the job done.

To what degree and in what ways was Peter the Great successful in westernizing Russia?

2008-11-07T21:20:00.001-05:00

Peter was successful because he had a lot of examples which he used in westernizing Russia. Russia was behind compared to the rest of Europe and while traveling through Europe, he had been influenced by the artists, kings, scientists and took the ideas of modern Europe and wove them into the westernization of Russia. He held high standards for people of power. Education was emphasized, and the military was educated in both math and science. This helped the naval officers better navigate which ultimately made the country’s military stronger.

To what extent did this era create the world’s first global economy?

2008-11-06T22:09:00.002-05:00

The late 1700s and early 1800s was the basis to the beginnings of a global economy because everyone was involved and everyone owned someone or something else. with the exception of perhaps Austria, all of the superpowers in Europe began to draw away from business inside their country and push towards business that had inporting and exporting. this took place immedeatly after Europe had a craze of conquering foreign lands. Once they got the land, first they enslaved their people and farmed their lands for whatever was profitable, then brought it back and traded amungst the continent. then this process evolved into a universal trade market (East India) and eventually, once territories became more absolute (mainly after Westphalia) slaves were brought to other lands to do work for the lazy Europeans. So as you can see through the confusing words covorting in front of you... sick word... that this was a time that certainly was global. ranging from the far reaches of china and asia to the east coast of North Ameriaca and most of South America not only land and people were conquered but business was set up to accomidate the world.

How Peter the Great Westernized Russia

2008-11-04T22:53:00.002-05:00

Peter the great gained power in 1689. He was annoyed with his country and wanted to make it a larger contender in the world. Peter wanted to make Russia more like Western Europe and so he toured Europe in search of ideas to incorporate into his country. He met engineers, kings, scientists, and ship builders and returned to his country with new ideas. He was so dedicated to modernizing his country that he hung 1200 elite army corps who did not want to westernize Russia. Peter also moved the capital of Russia to a new city named after himself called St. Petersburg. Peter increased his country's wealth and the strength of his armed forces.

What made Robert Walpole such an effective politician/prime minister?

2008-11-03T16:55:00.010-05:00

So I was responding to Brittany's post, when I realized that my comment was long enough to become a post of it's own. But alas! When I looked there was no corresponding prompt to be found! Then I thought, "Gee , wouldn't this just be a great opportunity to create my own prompt!" So that's what I did.

Robert Walpole was one cool fellow. He had a knack for predicting the future; he seemed to have a developed understanding of how things done today will play out in the long run. Walpole saw the importance of the South Sea and East India Companies and the Bank of England--which gave Britain it's remarkable spending power through the National Debt system--even with all the problems they'd caused with the "bubble burst" of the 1720's. France on the other hand, failed to recognize this and in an act of frustration dissolved the valuable national bank that John Law had installed. Furthermore, Walpole had warned of the South Sea Companies eminent failure from the beginning. Walpole also skilled at not disturbing political hornets' nests and gaining allies. He kept land taxes down, thus convincing the Tory squires to join with the Whigs and causing the Jacobites to subside. During the calm, the Parliament had time to develop. Walpole always made sure to keep a majority in the issues he dealt with and to get rid of opposition; he piecemeal gave himself a greater say in matters. He was able to effectively introduce his innovative cabinet government which laid the grounds for the modern day executive branch. The cabinet in addition to the preexisting representative body strengthened Parliament greatly. He also kept taxes down by avoiding war as often as possible. All in all, Walpole did Britain a lot of good.

What factors most likely account for the West gaining global ascendancy?

2008-11-02T20:29:00.002-05:00

I think the most important factor in Europe's dominant global influence is the deep-seated desire for progress found so strongly in Europe. Other nations had no lack of technological, cultural, and moral progress, but Europeans always seem to be the first on the list when it comes to perfecting guns, making better slaver ships, and trying to find more ways to make themselves money. Maybe it’s not a need for progress, maybe its some kind of genetic desire for laziness, an innate disposition towards anything that makes their life easier. The Incas and the Maya, from what I have seen, had thriving civilizations that did not move towards new ways to avoid doing something themselves, whether by paying someone else to do it or finding a way to make it happen at the push of a button. Whatever this underlying feeling was, it was what drove Western merchants and patriots to other continents. Once there they attempted to westernize the area to make them compatible with the flow of money and ideas. And thus, through force and corruption, the Western way became the worldly way.

Which had a greater impact in setting the political stages for the rest of the century –the War of Austrian Succession or the Seven Years’ War?

2008-11-02T20:05:00.003-05:00

The Seven Years' War was much more decisive, politically speaking, than the War of the Austrian Succession. First of all, the two were really more like one war with a little break in between, in which the alliances were changed (Diplomatic Revolution). That being said, the Seven Years' War was in some ways a continuation of the War of the Austrian Succession; the Habsburgs vs. Prussia and the French vs. Britain. However, unlike the first war, the Seven Years' was, considering where the battles were fought, more of a global war. In America (the U.S.), the French gave up their claims to the British and the Spanish opening up new opportunities for expansion economically and culturally . In India both the French and particularly the British became increasingly involved with politics. Also, Prussia displayed its formidable military strength proving itself as a nation and as more than a match for the Habsburgs. Russia reared its head in the war. All in all, the over all strength and influence of the British empire became more important and a new player was added to the game with the affirmation of Prussia (opposing the Habsburgs and creating the "dualism of Germany").

Was the eighteenth century, overall, a reasonably good time to live?

2008-11-02T20:01:00.002-05:00

Generally speaking, life in eighteenth century Europe improved for those who were already living well, and got worse for those who already had it bad. Obviously, the wealthy noble class, the land owners, and aristocrats lived very well. The bourgeois' life tended to improve as well, although it was previously a solid lifestyle, for the line between bourgeois and nobility was no longer as clear. The stories of Thomas Pitt and Jean-Joseph Laborde exemplify this. As for the peasants and laboring class, quality of life lessened. In eastern Europe, a return of serfdom took away many peasants' liberties. Occasionally however, one who was poor would get lucky, and rise up through the social ranks. Opportunity existed moreso than previously.

How did the diplomatic revolution of the 1750s prove decisive in European history?

2008-11-02T12:56:00.000-05:00

The diplomatic revolution “broke” old alignments that had been ongoing throughout European history. The alliances formed as a result of the Seven Years’ War were unexpected, as France and Austria had been enemies for a long time. Prussia and Britain, who were also unexpected allies, allied. This would be cause for later conflicts.

What caused the great financial scandals of the 1720s?

2008-11-01T15:01:00.002-04:00

We all know of the Bubbles in England and France, and how it started out 1714-15. This great Bubble scandal started out as a few companies established by Scottish man named John Law. He personally financed the South Sea Company for England, and the Mississippi Company for France. While they created the monopoly over all other companies, he also established the national Bank of France and assumed all government debt through it. Many people invested in these seemingly profitable companies, and they were doing good for a few years. The companies were buying selling and trading the stock with good margins that kept increasing. Then John Law's credit and financing failed with such collassal stock prices, and while he fled, people lost entire life savings in failed companies. After this incident, the French company and all French assests in the company such as the Orleans company which was absorbed by it, and the French Bank were ruined and the country never recovered their credit. The French people refused to help the government and for another century the French people remained wary of government credit. In England however, the scandal played out and was fixed, Under teh direction of Robert Walpole the English people accepted the responsibility of bailing the gvernment out and several large independent corporations gave loans and bought bonds from the government and recovered and saved the bank of England and the credit of the government.