2. The French Revolution. Take a hard look at the French Revolution. What do YOU see as its basic causes? Where did it go wrong? Where did it go right? Lasting impacts?

Basic causes of the French Revolution

The basic causes of the French Revolution are quite broad. I will admit from the onset that I in no way have a strong synthesis in putting together all that happened into a set of reasons. The time was very complex and is confusing to study in depth. It sure would be a big job to do graduate level research on this topic! I have narrowed it down to just the ideas that stike me as interesting or that I feel I can at least explain.

Social Injustices in Class Distinction

I believe a common thread running throughout all revolutions is a general dissatisfaction in some area of life in a certain group of people. For the Parisians, there were three estates, or classes of people. The Clergy made up the first estate and the nobles made up the second. They were all tax exempt. Making up the third estate was the rest of society, comprising up to 80% of the entire population. (http://www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/REV/CRISIS.HTM) The third estate was where the government received its money from in the form of taxes, and during the time leading up to the French Revolution, they became increasingly oppressive. Not all of the third estate was poor, and there were various levels of the third estate. The Burgeoisie were sort of the middle class, and some were even as rich as the nobility. As times got harder, especially with food shortages, the third estate, especially the lower classes showed growing dissatisfaction, as they struggled to keep food on the table.

Radical Leaders

The time of the French Revolution was a time of radical ideas. America had won its independence from Britain, and was promoting ideas contrary to the European tradition. Freedom of thought and press, liberty, the rights of man, checks and balances, etc... was a new reality. These ideas had existed as concepts only until the American Revolution.

Maximilien Robespierre was a man like many of his contemporaries at first. A strong nationalist, he grew to power as his life as a public figure became more prominent. He followed the philosophies of a famous nationalist named Rousseau. Over time, Robespierre became a virtual dictator over France as the people rallied behind a man who took control and seemed to have their best interests at mind. But as many dictators, Maximilian used a state of fear to keep people in line. (http://members.aol.com/agentmess/frenchrev/robespierre.html)

He was not a true liberator of men''s consciences, because he tried to control them. He was a fanatical despot, and as he gradually became more ruthless, it came to the point where anyone not embracing nationalism was suspect and put in prison and many were unjustly condemned to death at the guillotine. (Spielvogel) Coincidentally, he too met the same fate as his victims.

Charlotte Corday murdered a man named Marat who was a leader of the Jacobins, a secret society that many of the men responsible for the revolution belonged to. She believed the end justified the means - that Marat was an evil man and by assassinating him, she hoped to help bring to an end the reign of terror. "Despite her valiant efforts, Corday''s attempt to save France was in vain. Instead of ending the reign of Marat, she martyred him. His funeral was an extravagant ceremony and his remains were hysterically worshipped." Even though Corday was not an important figure in the cause of the Revolution, she personifies a type. Many people were tired of the bloodshed and hysteria that had overtaken France, and she was one who had the guts to make a radical decision, to sacrifice her life for the good of the country, instead of taking her turn to be one of the thousands forgotten in the basket at the bottom of the guillotine. (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5154/corday.htm)

Napoleon was not just another radical leader during this time. This time is referred to as the era of Napoleon. He singlehandedly gained dictatorship over France and turned into a military state and set out on a conquest of Europe. He can be likened to Alexander the Great and Hitler. A single man - driven, by who knows what. Willing to gain material wealth and political recognition at the cost of thousands of lives. I''m not quite sure if I understand the reasons Napoleon was so thirsty to expand France''s borders, but probably because France was already at war with a confederation of Russia, Great Britain, and Austria.(Speilvogel). I suspect that once he put down the enemies attacking France, he thought it best to make sure they didn''t keep coming back every couple years by attacking them. Unfortunately, declaring war on all of Europe didn''t give Napoleon much of a chance to concentrate on any one country long enough to completely annihilate it, and they just kept coming back. In the end, France lost all of the military benefits it had gained with Napoleon. (http://www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/REV/NAPOLEAN.HTM)

Where it went wrong

Many will contend that the French Revolution was a complete failure, and I mostly agree. It doesn''t seem to me that the revolution acquired the desired results, and that it backfired on the leaders who started it. What began as an overthrow of the Aristocracy filtered down to the peasants. It is believed that more people from the third estate died from the reign of terror than did the nobles and aristocracy(http://www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/REV/RADICAL.HTM).

Mass bloodshed of innocent civilians

When I think of what it must have been like to live in France during the reign of terror, I think of is the novel 1844 by Orwell and the the Salem witch hunts in Massachuettes. The committee of public safety instituted by Robespierre "demanded the arrest and execution of "anyone who 'either by their conduct, their contacts, their words or their writings, showed themselves to be supporters of tyranny, of federalism, or to be enemies of liberty'" (Doyle, The Oxford History of the French Revolution, Oxford, 1989 p.251). This loose definition could cover almost everyone, and during the years 1793-4 thousands were sent to the guillotine." (http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa081701a.htm)

It is sad yet ironic to me that the very pursuit of liberty was bought at the price of thousands of lives unnecessarily. These people lost their liberty, they didn''t gain anything. It was a huge lie, that liberty could only be bought by killing those in opposition to it. Because after that, how far do you go? Do you only kill those who are fighting against liberty? How about those who are just questioning the whole idea, and what about those who just want the freedom to disagree? Those are the questions the leaders of the revolution had to deal with, and it quickly got out of hand.

Many of the people who helped to start it were the victims of it

Many of the leaders responsible for bringing about the revolution were put to the same death as those they had condemned as enemies of liberty(http://www.self_gov.org/freeman/8908pete.htm). Maximillian Robespierre was one such man. His power became so great that he virtually controlled all of France by fear. "Fear was one of the key elements in Robespierre's Terror, but ... it was this very fear that drove his enemies, giving them courage; after all, they had nothing to lose. The opposition to Robespierre ... included "everyone who felt threatened by him," including...those members of the Assembly who had originally understood that the Terror was necessary so long as France was at war, but no longer necessary now that she was winning" (http://www.loyno.edu/history/journal/1983_4/mcletchie.htm) Several other leaders of the committee of public safety were beheaded with Robespierre including his brother. Jean-Paul Marat was not killed at the hands of the people but Charlotte Corday did what I think would have eventually happened anyway.

Where did it go right?

Feudalism was done away with

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen was a document that was meant to do away with traditional class distinction. No more nobles were to have a control over the common people, and the outlook for France was optimistic. Unfortunately, the guidelines inside of the Declaration were not followed by the tyrants who took control of France. (http://www.self_gov.org/freeman/8908pete.htm) The document itself though closely resembled the Declaration of Independence and even after all of the failures of the revolution, it did succeed in ending the majority of aristocraic privileges enjoyed by the nobles and clergy, although some would argue that the revolutionary leaders enjoyed special feudalistic privileges. I think what happened was that everyone became virtually equal except those select few who called the shots, which would be a much smaller number than before the revolution.

Women sought after equal rights as men, forming a basis for the Woman''s Rights movement today

I see the push for women to be regarded as equal to men as a success, because women today have largely received that freedom that the women of the French revolution wanted, and I wonder if there is a correlation between the women''s movement failure in France and the success of women''s liberation today.

The declaration of the rights of woman and the female citizen as shown in the Speilvogel text is almost taken for granted by people today, because of the widespread female suffrage. The reasoning and arguments the women used for their position are very well thought out. "They agitated ceaselessly for the political and civil rights they felt they deserved, and backed up their demands with well-thought-out logical arguments." (http://www.tcr.org/advpl_6.html)

I believe women today can thank in a large part the women of the late 18th century who were bold enough to stand out and demand a change. Even though they failed, they formed a foundation for the women of the 20th century who fought for the same rights. Their failure might have been only for their generation, because it became a success in ours.

Lasting Impacts

The French Revolution had lasting impacts that rippled down though history for probably at least one hundred years. So might argue that we still today see the impacts of it. I am thinking mainly of the reprocussions of what Napoleon did to Europe. Many of the wars faught after the French Revolution were a result of it. Leaders always had the fear that domestic strifes could end up in another bloody reign of terror, and the spread of French republic ideas throughout Europe must have definately impacted the countries, but probably not as much as America, where the idea of a republic was actually working. Like I stated above, I believe Women's rights movement, even though not granted at that time, had a lasting impact on society and helped to start it up again in the 20th century. We can never fully measure all the real impacts of an act in history, but its affects might even still be felt today.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

4. IMPERIALISM

. Discuss the various explanations for late nineteenth-century imperialism in an analytical manner. Which do you believe is the best explanation? Why?

There is no one answer to the question of why such a fervor of expansion struck Europe in the late 1800's, but a conglomerate of reasons. What was the need to expand? And why such a ``scramble'' for Africa that by 1914, European interest in Africa was so fast that only 2 countries remained independent? (http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/2/2_1.html)

I will only examine a selection of possible reasons for the growth of world empires during the 18th century.

The duty of bringing advanced living to civilization

Rudyard Kipling''s poem "The White Man's Burden" shows the tough decisions that were being made and must be made as the 19th century drew to a close.(http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/kipling/) To what extent should the white people extend their areas of influence? Just because the industrial revolution had brought about increases in technology didn''t mean that living conditions and quality of life had improved to a point where it was truly our ``duty'' to enforce it on others.

"France, Great Britain, and the other colonizers [felt that they] had a duty to bring the benefits of their advanced civilization to the world beyond their geographical limits." Because of the steam engine and the endless production possibilities it provided, Europeans generally viewed themselves as culturally superior in all domains. "As one French cynic put it: the Chinese were supposedly inferior because they had no machine guns or generals ..." Europeans tended to be "arrogant, and, moreover, to assume that in any arrangement of the world they were at the head or in the center." (http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/2/2_1.html)

Social Darwinism helped to provide justification for the takeover of African countries and indoctrinating them with the way of the white people. Propagated by men like Spencer, Bernhardi, and Chamberlain, these ideas swept into almost every branch of life. The idea that war was a setting for the survival of the fittest, Germany''s volkish thought, and world imperialism can all be attributed to Social Darwinism(Speilvogel).

A search for new markets and new profits

Cecil Rhodes was a main propagator of British Imperialism in Africa in the late 19th century. He desired to build a railway from Capetown to Cairo and to get Great Britain as much new territory as possible. Although pursuing profit was not his first goal, he became very rich from the diamond industry and found himself involved in many political achievements. (http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/research/rhodesscholars.html) Rhode''s example showed that for the entrepreneur, there was money to be made in Africa and the rich resources of the land could be assimilated more efficiently with the aid of the steam engine.

The thirst for money and land was so strong that the British and Dutch sacrificed thousands of lives in a fight against each other in Boer war in South Africa. What started as a colonial revolt escalated into a war that was fought and won using guerilla tactics and concentration camps(http://www.pvhs.chico.k12.ca.us/~bsilva/projects/scramble/boer_war.htm).

In a move entirely motivated by profit, King Leopold II of Belgium made treaties with the natives and acquired over 900,000 square miles of Congo land for Belgium... or so he said. (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MODAFRCA/SCRAMBLE.HTM) When a conference was convened in Berlin in 1885 to discuss the dividing up of Africa, Leopold was able to legitimately claim the Congo territory by the treaties he had signed (http://www.pvhs.chico.k12.ca.us/~bsilva/projects/scramble/leopold.htm).

The Congo was full of many resources such as rubber, ivory, copper, diamonds, and gold. "Leopold tried to develop the area enough to be able to export these goods. Major roads built to import supplies and export the resources. Leopold did anything to gain wealth out of these areas including the use of forced labor." (http://www.pvhs.chico.k12.ca.us/~bsilva/projects/scramble/leopold.htm).

The search for new markets and increased riches attributed to the atrocities of the rich taking advantage of the poor. Just as in the industrial revolution, the working and living conditions of many workers were not considered as important as the wealth obtained from their work. I see the thirst for wealth as one of the strongest reasons for Imperialism, because of the willingness to ignore human equality. Even after over 75 years of seeing the horrible treatment of humans from the French Revolution to the Industrial Revolution, the mind-numbing effects of the quest for riches must have dulled men''s consciences from considering the repercussions of their actions.

The 'last step' of capitalism

Just as British occupation of America in the form of colonies improved the homeland''s economy, other countries realized that the establishment of colonies would help to ease the economic pressures at home. "A famous French supporter of empire referred to colonies as the safety valve of the industrial steam engine, without which it would explode. And more than one publicist exclaimed, "No exportation without colonies." (http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/2/2_2.html)

It is true that capitalism fueled the rapid expansion of non-European countries. Some examples of useful technological breakthroughs help explain the success of empire: "in the first instance, new sailing techniques and instruments, the perfection of the ship-located cannon, capable of firing a broadside against other ships and coastal defenses; in the second instance, the steam engine and the machine gun were the generators of imperial power." (http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/2/2_2.html)

Lenin believed that imperialism was a failure of capitalism, a final phase before its destruction. Capitalists though saw imperialism as a way to expand and "assist the industrial system in its search for new markets and, consequently, new profits". Lenin believed that capitalists were required to place their gold overseas if they wished to stay afloat financially, because of the economic burdens of the economy at that time. (http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/2/2_2.html) Lenin might have been right to a large degree but his end thesis was still wrong. Imperialism was not the last step before Capitalism collapsed. It was Communism that failed. If indeed Lenin is right, then there is about a 100 year period between that last stage of capitalism and its ultimate demise. It is true that exploration and the possibilities of new profits in new areas fuel investments in that area. Take for example space exploration. It helped to increase technology at a rapid pace, and is still and I believe always will be an unending frontier of exploration. So if Lenin was right, then the last step of capitalism is imperialism. But what if imperialism today could be classified as the exploration and establishment of new colonization in space? It will probably never happen unless there is a profit to be made in space somehow, but it seems to me that the highest stage of capitalism is one that will never be fully reached.

The need to ``keep up'' with the other countries expansion

Beginning with the industrial revolution in England, all of Europe was discovering the untold benefits of the steam engine and railroad. England was the leader in technology and almost all countries would receive the old generation of technology from England as it moved on. "Nationalism now carried the striking corollary that the state needed to expand, to grow in size as proof of its vitality and as confirmation of its historical destiny"(http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/2/2_2.html).

Differences in technology were gradually flattened as entrepreneurs in France, Belgium, Germany, and Italy started making their own improvements and inventions without first looking to the British. But the Europe and America soon became involved in more than just a race for the newest industrial technology. "As an American senator of the time remarked, the Western world had an acute case of land hunger." (http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/2/2_2.html)

Once England and France had entered into the business of expanding, the other nations had to choose to either follow suite and provide competition or watch their European neighbors overtake all of the pacific islands, Africa, and as much of Asia as they could bite off. It was almost like entering a new market, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, America, Holland, and Germany jumped right on the Imperialism bandwagon and created a huge conglomerate mess for the upcoming World War 1.

Conclusion

Of all the different explanations for 19th Century Imperialism, I have only written on the ones which I felt were the most important or that I could find the most information on to write about. I honestly believe that greed and the quest for wealth is probably the most influential factor influencing imperialism. Capitalism like all of the ``isms'' has weaknesses. Capitalism exploits people''s selfishness, and can get quite nasty without government regulations regarding labor laws, monopolies, etc... It is a common theme throughout history that richest corrupt. I believe the search for wealth at the expense of human lives and morality was the main reason behind slavery, and the mistreatment people during of the industrial revolution and 19th century imperialism. Thankfully today, we have a much better balance between profit earning and exploiting laborers, and with the media and internet, information regarding inhuman treatment of workers can be shared with the world and laws are passed protecting people. Imperialism for the most part has been eliminated, but there are always old squabbles which might never be resolved. The future is still an open book.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

7. Pick an area, a subject in this time period - a subject that you have been "surfing," that interests or intrigues you. Or an area in which you have many impressions or a vivid impression from your surfing and reading. Write your own question and then answer it or integrate your impressions in a thoughtful, analytical or creative manner. Your response must be as full and analytical as any of the other questions on this exam.

Industrial Revolution''s of Europe

The Industrial Revolutions are a subject that the Speilvogel book spent much time with but the web book didn''t, and it is something that interested me very much. So I went to the web in search of more information, pictures, and other writer''s points of view. I used some search engines and came up with some good stuff which I hope will be acceptable. The industrial revolution is something that affected every aspect of life for Europe. Without it, production of various products would have remained much more constant and the capitalistic spirit of competition would have never seen supply and demand operate on such a grand level. Wars would have been fought differently, transportation would still be stuck to the horse and buggy, and farming practices would still be grossly inefficient.

How did society become transformed by these inventions?

With the coming of the steam engine in the late 18th century, "what had heretofore remained constant in daily social existence was now thrust into a state of flux and change."(Webbook http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/1/4_1.html) Society changed from production being a result of individual creativity to a collective group effort in mass production. People were specialized, and this greatly increased the capacity for output of goods as people became more and more skilled at their jobs. Pre-industrial workers were not used to a timed day. Farmers worked by the seasons while weavers and spinners fulfilled quotas. Work could often be completed in two or three hard days work while the rest of the week could involve leisurely activity. With the need to "produce produce produce", thousands of workers were needed to man the machines and to be counted on to stay alert and be on time. The longer a factory remained open, the more it could produce(Speilvogel). A regular working week became a way of life for the majority of Europeans and has stayed that way since. With the invention of the railroad, quick transportation became a reality. By 1850, Britain had 6000 miles of railroad. "If rail travel shrank the country, the telegraph crushed it. It opened in the 1840s and soon went stratospheric - within ten years exchanging telegrams had become part of everyday life. By the mid 1860s London was connected with New York and ten years later messages could be exchanged between London and Bombay in minutes." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/industrialisation/speed_02.shtml) The industrial revolution of the early to mid 19th century is usually considered the first industrial revolution, characterized by iron and coal. From the last quarter of the nineteenth century until WW1, it can be considered the era of the second phase of the industrial revolution characterized by steel electricity, and oil. (Webbook http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/2/1_1.html)

Electricity was powered by water at the beginning. Italy took advantage of its geographical climate, harnessing the power of the rivers, and without coal resources, soon had electricity in every village north of Rome. Electric current ran Italian textile looms and, eventually, automobile factories. As early as 1890 Florence boasted the world's first electric streetcar. (h ttp://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/industrialrev.html) By the early 20th century, electricity was all over power homes, shops, and factories. Thomas Edison''s invention of the lightbulb transformed society. There was a never ending source of light now, and it was much brighter than anything before. To try to describe the effects of the industrial revolution on Europe is something like trying to describe the computer revolution of the last 15 years. Growing up in this time was very similar to our time. The age of tradition and stability was over. The world was in a constant state of change. Everything was new, world economics, industrialization, transportation, and communication changed rapidly at the turn of the century. It was definitely an exciting time to live.

How did it affect people''s thinking?

What brought together diverse mechanisms such as these and composed them into the industrial system were practical men seeking answers to practical needs. (Webbook http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/1/4_1.html) Europe had evolved as all countries had before it, as a country where all wants of society could never be met. With the coming of the industrial revolution, peoples minds became production orientated, because they could only picture an infinitely expanding market, and things that had been luxuries before became common goods. Good clothes, quick transportation, and food became easier to come by and more affordable for the middle class citizens but the majority of factory workers and lower class workers fared no better than they had before.

Was the industrial revolution good for society? How did it affect the different classes of people?

The affects of the revolution on society are mixed. There are many positives and many negatives. "In its early days the industrial process was labor-intensive, requiring large numbers of individuals to both supply and superintend the machines. Such labor had no job security; pay and length of employment were determined by the needs and interests of the entrepreneur or the fluctuations of the market. Frequently, wages were set by that hidden law of "marginal subsistence," with the worker's income barely allowing him to take care of the basic needs of his family--and more than occasionally not reaching that modest goal." (Webbook http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/1/4_1.html)

For the lower class who manned the machines, the industrial revolution only seemed to work them to early deaths. Even though with mass production, prices for almost all goods had dropped, Capitalism was only just beginning to pick up, and many of the evils associated with it had not yet been cut off by government interference. Long hours, child and women labor, the destruction of a true home environment, and the low price of labor kept poor families poor. A fourteen-hour workday, maintained six days a week, was not unusual in the textile factories; and more than a half-hour for refreshment was unheard of. Young children worked at a grueling pace in the mines where their small bodies allowed for rather easy passage and in the textile factories where their nimble fingers could keep pace with the weaving machinery. (Webbook http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/1/4_1.html) The increase of production did have positive affects on the poor though. Blankets and clothes became much more available as the increase in population demanded it. Mothers no longer had to make the clothes for her whole household, which enabled her to do other things equally demanding of her time. Many times this involved working in a factory.

The Agricultural Revolution''s impact on the food supply was simply amazing, especially in Great Britain. "Low-intensity agricultural system based on fishing and fowling was replaced by a high-intensity system based on arable crops." The huge increase in population can be attributed to an increase in the supply of food. In England, population went from 5.7 million in 1750 to 16.6 million in 1850. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/industrialisation/agricultural_revolution_02.shtml)

England and Germany showed a growth rate of something more than one percent annually; at this rate the population would double in about seventy years. In the United States the increase was more than three percent, which might have been disastrous had it not been for a practically empty continent and fabulous natural resources... The general population increase was aided by a greater supply of food made available by the Agricultural Revolution, and by the growth of medical science and public health measures which decreased the death rate and added to the population base. (http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/industrialrev.html)

Why would people be willing to put their money into such a new market?

With the innovation of the steam engine, practical application of steam power spread out. It began as a machine to pump water out of the coal mines, but soon other practical applications soon evolved. With the British push for advancing production techniques and technology, other countries soon feel behind in economic competition. "British success with steam locomotion, however, was enough to encourage the building of railroads in most European countries, often with British capital, equipment, and technicians." (http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/industrialrev.html) As other countries began to realize the tremendous potential of the steam engine, investors flocked to entrepreneurs with their money. "In some instances, commercial banking families that had grown wealthy on the colonial trade of the eighteenth century now turned to manufacturing. In other instances, such banking firms were able to loan money at attractive interest rates below 10 percent and thus induce risk-taking by entrepreneurs beginning new industries." (Webbook http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/1/4_1.html) If there was ever a time for profit to be made, the industrial revolution definitely was it. I would liken it to the modern day .com growth, except that it never collapsed.

Conclusion

The industrial revolution in my mind had more of an impact on the world than the French Revolution, because it is not only a time when new inventions came out that shaped the way we did things, but it was an emergence of a new era for the world economy. I believe that the French Revolution brought ripple effects that could have impacted Europe for over 100 years, but the industrial revolution was the catalyst that has brought us to the technological age we live in today, and it hasn''t just impacted Europe, the industrial revolution spread throughout the whole world.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************