To End....

And so finally, after all that information i've gathered, I must finalise my focus question. I have thought about narrowing the scope to the enlightenment and modern revolutions, however whilst those are my examples and areas of study, a lot of what I have to say about the impact of these ideas cannot simply be restricted to the enlightenment and to 'modern revolutions'. So I have decided to stick with a broader question, admit that it cannot be answered in 10 minutes, but attempt to do it justice in that time with my case studies and key historians. Here it is:

Examine and evaluate the role of ideas in triggering revolution

So how will I answer this question I hear you ask? Well I will now outline how I shall be doing so.

1. Background & Context - A quick look at the Feudal system and society before the enlightenment (30 seconds)
2. Age of the Enlightenment - A quick look at some of the challenges this age brought to the Feudal system and ruling Kings (30 seconds)
3. Definition of 'Revolution' - Use of specific quotes and look at 'how' and 'why' a revolution occurs - introduction to topic (1 min)
4. Argument outline - French revolution and Chinese revolution (American for fun if Bradbury lets me go overtime). (30 seconds)
5. French revolution - The role of ideas in two different aspects, and a look at Rousseau (3 mins 30 sec)
6. Chinese revolution - The role of ideas in two different aspects, and a look at Sun Yat-sen (3 mins 30 sec)
7. Conclusion & answer to question (1 min) 

I cannot begin to describe how much of a pity it is to cut it that short. But some things must be done. But anyway, this shall be the end of my blog. Wow... i'm getting emotional now. It was fun, it was certainly a journey, and I loved every moment of it. I bid you farewell, adieu adieu! 

And for a final time;

~ VIVA LA REVOLUTION! ~

Credits (bibliography) - for future reference

• Zagorin, P. (1973). Theories of revolution in contemporary historiography. Political Science Quarterly, pp.23--52
• Weriebor, E. (2014). The Colonization of Africa. [online] Exhibitions.nypl.org. Available at: http://exhibitions.nypl.org/africanaage/essay-colonization-of-africa.html [Accessed 27 May. 2014].
• Thomson, D. (1962). Europe since Napoleon. 1st ed. New York: Knopf.
• Spitzer, A. (1957). The revolutionary theories of Louis Auguste Blanqui. 1st ed. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rousseau, J. (1962). Du contrat social. 1st ed. Paris: Editions Garnier Frères.
• Pavao, J., Pavao, P. and Pavao, E. (2014). Causes of the American Revolution. [online] Revolutionary-war.net. Available at: http://www.revolutionary-war.net/causes-of-the-american-revolution.html [Accessed 5 Aug. 2014].
• Mason, K. and Marriner, F. (1982). Revolution!. 1st ed. Sydney: McGraw-Hill.
• Mamdani, M. (2001). When victims become killers. 1st ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
• Let.rug.nl, (2014). Louis Gottschalk And His Causes Of Revolution As A Theory. [online] Available at: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/before-1800/was-the-american-revolution-a-revolution/louis-gottschalk-and-his-causes-of-revolution-as-a-theory.php [Accessed 17 Jun. 2014].
• Let.rug.nl, (2014). Skocpol's Theory Of Revolution. [online] Available at: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/before-1800/was-the-american-revolution-a-revolution/skocpols-theory-of-revolution.php [Accessed 17 Jun. 2014].
• Let.rug.nl, (2014). Seymour Martin Lipset's Outlook At The Question Of The American Revolution. [online] Available at: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/before-1800/was-the-american-revolution-a-revolution/seymour-martin-lipsets-outlook-at-the-question-of-the-american-revolution.php [Accessed 17 Jun. 2014].
•  Let.rug.nl, (2014). Crane Brinton's Theory Of Revolution. [online] Available at: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/before-1800/was-the-american-revolution-a-revolution/crane-brintons-theory-of-revolution.php [Accessed 17 Jun. 2014].
•  Kemerling, G. (2014). Rousseau. [online] Philosophypages.com. Available at: http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/rous.htm [Accessed 27 Jul. 2014].
• Hibbert, C. (1980). The days of the French Revolution. 1st ed. New York: Morrow.
• Halsall, P. (2014). Modern Western Civ. 10: The French Revolution: Origins. [online] Fordham.edu. Available at: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/lect/mod10.html [Accessed 7 Jul. 2014].
• Egs.edu, (2014). Hannah Arendt - Philosopher - Biography. [online] Available at: http://www.egs.edu/library/hannah-arendt/biography/ [Accessed 7 Aug. 2014].
• Cowie, H. (1996). Modern revolutions. 1st ed. Melbourne: Thomas Nelson Australia.
• Chinese Revolution, (2013). The 1911 Xinhai Revolution. [online] Available at: http://alphahistory.com/chineserevolution/xinhai-1911-revolution/ [Accessed 1 Jul. 2014].
• Brinton, C. (1965). The anatomy of revolution. 1st ed. New York: Vintage Books.
• Blackpast.org, (2014). Bahutu Manifesto (1957) | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed. [online] Available at: http://www.blackpast.org/gah/bahutu-manifesto-1957 [Accessed 26 Jun. 2014].
• Betts, R. (2014). Europe in Retropsect: The French Revolution - Phases of the Revolution. [online] Britannia.com. Available at: http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/1/2_2.html [Accessed 7 Jul. 2014].
• Arendt, H. (1963). On revolution. 1st ed. New York: Viking Press.
• 1911 Revolution. (2011). [DVD] China: Zhang Li, Jackie Chan.

Good old Cowie

So finally, and lastly, we'll be looking at simply the age of the enlightenment in relation to what Cowie says about it. I am sure I have spoken about many of these points many times throughout all my blogs so I feel that it would be the most appropriate just to reiterate them through dot points and a few of Cowie's quotes (I still can't get over how useful this book has been).

Medieval Period and the Feudal system

A simplified diagram of the Feudal system

• After the collapse of the Roman Empire, raids and acts of looting and plundering were common. The people were reduced to a state where survival was of highest priority due to the uncertain nature of things --> "In such an atmosphere, the vital relationship between progress and security became evident. If a society lacks security, people can only live at the barest level of subsistence" --> With this fear people sought protection "at any cost"
• Often, with this condition, a supreme leader would offer his or her (rarely 'her') protection to the people in exchange for their loyalty and commonly a 'fief'. The latin term for this particular contract was called a 'feodum', which evolved to describe the kind of society at the time; a Feudal System --> "The Feudal system was thus a product of the condition of insecurity that developed as the Roman Empire crumbled away and the rule of law collapsed."
• In the Feudal system "a condition of vassalage assured obedience" --> The peasants were a vassal to the barons and lords, and the barons and lords were a vassal to the King
• Due to this system of loyalty it generally became accepted that the King ruled by 'divine right' (meaning his power was bestowed upon him by God) --> There were no liberties or freedoms in this society, only one's allegiance to the 'overlord'. 

The Role of the Christian Church

• Many people within the society were illiterate and could not read, nor were permitted to read the bible --> "The priests held the power of communication between ordinary people and God, and could withdraw this right from offenders"
• Having the power of knowledge, the church in this case had the ability to manipulate and in many ways 'control' the minds of people because of their fear of the 'overlords' and those above them --> "Everyone, from powerful Barons to peasants acknowledged the authority of the Church, which controlled the peoples minds and allowed no independence of thought

I think we can see, especially now, why the enlightenment destroyed the Feudal system and the authority of the church. Both in this case were founded upon the fear of the people, and through offering the people what they were so desperate to achieve - protection, they were able to take advantage of and manipulate them. Once this fear was no longer present, as will be seen after the renaissance, enlightenment, age of reason etc, the people began to question the idea of a supreme and omnipotent ruler. 

Features of Modern Society 

• The Renaissance: Sometimes known as the 'revival of learning' stressed the importance of knowledge and human improvement in society. It began to value academia over the Church --> "Concern for learning was now developing in a secular city-dwelling group, a group that had emerged as a result of the practice of investing capital in the search for profit from commercial venues"
• The Age of Discovery: expanded from the desire to learn more about the past into a search for knowledge of other parts of the world - led to imperialism and expansion of empires
• The Reformation: The challenging of the church and its weakening over the new sense of enquiry as a result of the Renaissance. --> "The role of the Church as a leading influence in society was coming under challenge... The long accepted dominance of the papacy was now regarded as an irksome intrusion upon personal rights" --> "Even more significantly, the Reformation provided an example of defiance of long-established authority, a precedent for later revolutions" - The Reformation was hence key in demonstrating to people that they did hold power and were more superior than they were originally made out to be. 
• The Bourgeoise: When the need for protection was coming to an end, people began to spread beyond towns and cities. This eventually resulted in the birth of another class, the middle class --> "As their wealth increased and they became more economically powerful, they naturally wanted a say in how the society was organised and regulated. Under the Feudal system the bourgeoise had no role and no status" - and obviously, the desire for role and status would have had a huge impact on the fate of revolutions
• The Age of Reason: previously people had been told what to practice and what to believe and they did so without question --> "Their capacity to think creatively had been largely negated by the authority of the Church, which claimed the right to interpret the teachings of God." --> Due to the renaissance and reformation people began to believe that they had what was called 'the gift of reason' and therefore no order or church in this case should manipulate what they do or how they think --> "In a great age of intellectual discovery called the enlightenment or the age of reason the leaders... emphasised seeking reasons, criticised existing practices, analysing problems and finding solutions... They wanted the individual to be free from the restraints on thought, religion and commercial enterprise imposed by the church and the monarchy. They wanted a new society based on rational principles rather than tradition"- and hence with such a strong opposition to what was practiced currently in their society, the need for revolution became visible. 
• The Rights of the Individual: this movement looked at the idea that if the authority of the church could be questioned, so could the authority of the monarch. For centuries it was generally accepted by all society that a person would be born within a particular class and would stay there by obligation for all their lives, all the above movements challenged this idea. --> It was posed to the society by many philosophers of the enlightenment that "the true function of government was not to impose laws upon the people but to discover what the laws of nature were and to protect and preserve the natural rights of people"

PHEW! That took a LOT longer than I had anticipated but all of it was extremely relevant and important background context of my topic. And whilst yes, it is 'background context', this particular background is extremely important in establishing where the ideas came from and how they came about. Even more specifically, what the ideas were. In knowing all this it will be much easier to answer my focus question for this Modern presentation. There is now one last step for my modern task: how to answer the question. But until next time.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION

On to 'On Revolution' - Hannah Arendt

My brain hurts. I must admit that this was an amazing and excellent piece but it really is just so much to take in. My focus question has led me to come across more than just history but philosophy of human society based on history. And boy does this book refer back to history. I often got quite confused reading it as it would jump from the writings of Aristotle, to the American revolution, then to the fall of the republic in Rome and then the writings of Rousseau etc etc. It wasn't that messy in terms of the jumping but I think its purpose simply was an overall review of revolutions, and so of course it was necessary to move back and forth between them.

Hannah Arendt - from a 1988 German Stamp

But anyway. It was interesting also to look at who Miss Arendt was herself too. From the looks of things she too was a philosopher (or a political theorist as she claimed was a more appropriate title) who often studied political systems in society and their reliability to the people. On Revolution is one of her many successful novels that she's written on this particular field. It is evident here that she investigates two major revolutions, the French revolution and the American revolution, however comes across as extremely critical of the French one as she claims it was a rather large failure due to the abandonment of some of their goals halfway through. The American revolution on the other hand was a success because they focused on their goals right to the very end. Both of course were interesting and valid claims. Once again I find it so interesting how these philosophical works refer so often to history and have aided me so much in my investigation. It has reminded me that history is not the study of dates as some, what I would consider, fools, to put it, but rather a study of humanity. I digress, but lets move on.

Whilst I certainly love the philosophical debate, i'd like to further look at a number of quotes which I found extremely relevant and very much gave me a summation of my revolution investigation.

"The social question began to play a revolutionary role only when, in the modern age and not before, men began to doubt that poverty is inherent in the human condition, to doubt that the distinction between the few, who through circumstances or strength or fraud had succeeded in liberating themselves from the shackles of poverty, and the labouring poverty-stricken multitude was inevitable and eternal. This doubt, or rather the conviction that life on earth might be blessed with abundance instead of being cursed by scarcity, was prerevolutionary and American in origin; it grew directly out of the American colonial experience... John Adams, more than a decade before the actual outbreak of the American Revolution, could state: 'I always consider the settlement of America as the opening of a grand scheme and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth.'"

I think from this quote it can be understood how much Arendt supported the American revolution. I think it is a big claim to state that the idea grew out of the colonial experience in America, as a lot of other sources would suggest (like the work of Rousseau) that these ideas were brewing in Europe before they did in the American colonies. Whilst it is true that the Americans were first to act upon these ideas, they were certainly not the first to feel and think of them. In terms of what this quote states in terms of thinking patterns I believe is very true and relevant. The realisation obviously that men were not born with social distinctions, but of course this was imposed on them. Having these ideas within society made people discontent and very much angry, and hence why the American revolution (and pretty much all the other major revolutions in history) occurred.

"As to the plot, it was unmistakably the emergence of freedom : in 1793, four years after the outbreak of the French Revolution, at a time when Robespierre could define his rule as the 'despotism of liberty' without fear of being accused of speaking in paradoxes, Condorcet summed up what everybody knew: 'The word "revolutionary" can be applied only to revolutions whose aim is freedom.'"

A second thing i've noticed is that a major theme within Arendt's book is that of freedom and revolutions being specifically a quest for freedom. I feel it's rather risky here challenging a philosopher, but I feel that the concept of freedom needs to be at the core of something a little more tangible. Like democracy or equality. Freedom in itself is much to broad, in fact, freedom in all its essence is simply unachievable. However, having the idea of freedom behind a revolution can certainly mean achieving something, and likely some form of freedom. I think this is important as it highlights that the aim of a revolution is always based off ideas, and hence we find that they have a fundamental and essential role to play within a revolution.

"The old absolute that derived from a God-given authority, thus superseding an earthly order whose ultimate sanction had been the commands of an omnipotent God and whose final source of legitimacy had been the notion of an incarnation of God on earth... the latter part of the task of revolution, to find a new absolute to replace the absolute of divine power, is insoluble because power under the condition of human plurality can never amount to omnipotence, and laws residing on human power can never be absolute."

I think i'm finding that this work tends to be (or attempts to be) particularly persuasive in its message. In this segment Arendt is looking the 'old order' or what it tended to be before the period of revolutions. I suppose you could say that due to the enlightenment religion was questioned, and hence was this divine right of ruling questioned, and hence the people kind of went 'why the **** are you allowed to be above me?'. She then pretty much states that once the revolution is over someone else needed to take this power, but through dividing it the world would unlikely end up with the same issue of some crazy dude declaring supremacy over everyone else. But as we do know, that happens i.e. Stalin, Hitler etc. Why? Well thats a question for another day.

"The very idea of equality as we understand it, namely that every person is born as an equal by the very fact of being born, that equality is a birthright, was utterly unknown prior to the modern age. "

This particular quote is rather self explanatory. It simply stresses that prior to the enlightenment inequality and social segregation and class distinction was simply accepted among society. Which once again explains why once religion was abandoned so was the acceptance of these ideals, and the quest for 'freedom' (as Arendt claims) began.

Overall, this novel was rather interesting. One thing I must make mention of is that along with being an American (or at least partly) herself, Arendt was also stressing the need for a 'council system' in the united states to regain some of the lost revolutionary fervour in the United States. She criticises the French Revolution for being more remembered than the American, as she states "The sad truth of the matter is that the French Revolution, which ended in disaster, has made world history, while the American Revolution, so triumphantly successful, has remained an event of little more than local importance." It may not be true, but suspicions are there that Arendt had a somewhat biased perspective and an alternate purpose to simply stating the truest historical recount and analysis possible. As a philosopher, not a historian it is evident how her motives came through so clearly in the text.

Anyway. Originally this was going to be my last 'information' post but then I remembered how much Cowie had analysed the enlightenment in the beginning of his book on modern revolutions, so I shall be moving onto that momentarily.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION

Revolution in the Americas - The American Revolution (FINALLY!)

The American Revolution that occurred a long time ago,
in a galaxy far, far away (NOT HISTORICALLY
ACCURATE - not in this galaxy anyway...) 

I know i've been promising this one blog for ages, so finally, finally I am going to release this post which has been in the draft stages since forever (not really). I think I said in one of my previous blogs that the American revolution wasn't going to be a major revolution within my presentation. I think its better that it is a part of my introduction and sort of a cause of the ideas and ideologies becoming so strong in Europe. NOTE TO SELF - you need to think of the exact wording of your question, preferably tomorrow would be good.

So apart from Cowie (lets face it, you knew I was going to use him anyway), I have also looked at a website which did a very good job at summing up the revolution. I also watched the patriot which isn't exactly ideal to be referring to in a research task, but it got me in the mood for American Revolution. So hey, whatever you know?
Anyway, I decided it shall be good to do a quick summary of the causes of the American revolution just to sort of get my head around what was happening at the time etc.

Causes of the American Revolution

So this particular information I gathered from this site here. And i'm not writing their names down yet because there is like 3 of them and I won't be referring to them in my project. And so henceforth, I do not need to mention that until the bibliography. This website just gave me an understanding. Anyway here we go:

• Increase in taxes to colonies - Whilst this is the first, I also think this is the most important of all the factors or 'causes'. This was an example of inequality, or the beginnings of it. The British had just finished fighting in the Seven Years War (French and Indian war), and whilst they won, they were low on money due to the fact that they had spent it for war etc. SO. The British (as they always have these sneaky mastermind plans, that's the British for you) decided to tax the colonies without consent. This REALLY REALLY annoyed the colonies, and then there you already have some ideas brewing in terms of discontent from the old regime (aggressive nationalism), oppression from the old regime (leading to liberalism and 'freedom'!) as well as the inequality (which liberalism also covered). It was the beginning of revolt and revolution. BRITAIN YOU MADE THE WRONG MOVE. FOR THE HUNDRED BILLIONTH TIME YOU CAN'T JUST BE A BUM TO EVERYONE!!! 

  

  An Artists depiction of the Boston Tea Party (1774)

• The Boston Tea Party (They had a fight for the right to poourr-tea!) - I think this was one of the most famous events within the American revolution. It was basically when a bunch of colonists raided a ship full of tea in the harbour and threw it all overboard. It was significant as it was pretty much the first time these brewing ideas were put into action to rebel against the oppressive English forces. But these actions had consequences for the colonists...
• The Intolerable Acts - So Britain, being the bums that they were (Led by King George III who was apparently stupid anyway), decided to impose a number of laws onto the colonists to further oppress them and attempt to prevent them from rising up. This included: the closing of the Boston port until they had paid for the damaged tea, putting the government of Massachusetts under British control, and having the colonies provide housing and food etc for British soldiers. There were two more, but I felt these particular ones are the best as they REALLY made the colonists angry and further created that aggressive nationalism, brotherhood of the colonists and hatred towards the British. 

There were quite a few more factors discussed but I felt these three were the most relevant in strengthening those ideologies of nationalism and liberalism within America at the time (the others are more the execution of those ideas). The interesting thing is that some historians may not argue that the American colonies were as influenced by the enlightenment as in some parts of Europe. However, this need to break away from a monarchy, and the feeling that these colonists had, that they were not British, but belonged to the new land, was critical in the outcome of this revolution. In the end it was the distaste for British rule, and the freedom these people longed for due to their oppression, that led them to revolt and overthrow the rule of the British empire. Additionally, it was the lack of freedom, the lack of equality, the lack of liberty and the lack of justice, and many key individuals (Cowie mentions a few) within the enlightenment which promoted the ideas that these things belong to humanity, and that humanity is deserving of them, which enabled the colonists to overthrow the British. 

AND, onto Cowie;

The Revolution in the American Colonies - H.R. Cowie

I don't really want to repeat myself, so i'm just going to touch on a few things that weren't mentioned above. A few good points about the build up to the revolution. 

Political Cartoons! WOO! 

I found 'Mercantilism' an interesting concept that the British had made up (of course you did Britain). It was essentially the idea that there was an unquestioned assumption that British institutions were superior to others (of course you think you are Britain) - It involved strict regulations concerning the shipping of trade only within the British Empire, as they had many colonies, they felt that by doing this they were "denying other nations the opportunity to increase their share in the worlds trade" (BRITAIN YOU GREEDY MONGRELS). Britain also had the lovely idea that the colonies were privileged to be a part of an empire under a concept or mercantilism - I suppose they had their military protection, but at the same time Britain still managed to exploit the colonies in many ways. 

But I think the most interesting part of this, is that law and parliament for America was all the way across the Atlantic ocean, and it was often time consuming for things to travel back and forth (6 months approximately), and so we can see another reason why the anti-British feeling was brewing in America. Cowie finally states "The British ruling classes were incapable of regarding the distant colonists as equals. It was expected that the colonists would simply accept their 'fortunate' status and obey the laws set by the british parliament". Britain Britain Britain.... what will we ever do with you? 

Revolutionary ideas and leaders 

So i'm just going to put this section into dot points. 

• Land was cheap and available within the American colonies "and as a result a more open, independent society had developed". 
• Different form of economy to Britain -> They resented the restrictions Britain imposed as they wished to trade with the French and Dutch - "in this attitude lay the seeds of revolutionary action"
• American colonists believed that they were "entitled to the same rights and privileges as English citizens"
• Paul Revere "stimulated a spirit of protest through the propaganda effect of his cartoons and engravings"
• Many journalists in the early 1770's stressed that the colonies needed to break away from British control

So that was essentially an extended little piece of information or whatever have you as to why the American revolution was successful and how the ideas (and leaders who encouraged the ideas) impacted it. But I think the outside influence from Europe was the most interesting, and relates the most to what I will be discussing in class Thursday week. Cowie states "The spirit and style of the protesting individuals reflected the claims for individual liberty being made in European society in the same period" or hence the enlightenment. This revolution taking place in the American colonies was very much an example of how these ideas of the enlightenment could be taken and how they could work effectively in a society. Thomas Paine was a man who did not arrive in the American colonies until 1774, and in 1776 he published a pamphlet called common sense which encouraged the colonists to fight for full independence. Cowie states that his pamphlet "presented in popular form the natural rights that was later embodied in the Declaration of Independence... painted a rosy picture of a self-sufficient, independent republic that could assure the prosperity and liberty of its citizens... that their liberties could best be secured in a republic, rather than a hereditary monarch". And so, we have an 'outsider' exposed fully to the effects of the enlightenment, coming to the colonies and encouraging a fight for freedom. This obviously built up discontent for Britain and its monarchy and hence people turned to a republican system where they believed that they could have their liberties and freedoms. 

This revolution, the quest for independence, can in many ways be seen as the 'model' for Europe. As an 'experiment' if you will. This revolution proved to them that not only were these utopian ideas of liberalism, equality and democracy desirable, but that they were achievable. This is why the American revolution was so significant to the other revolutions that occur throughout history. Whilst it wasn't the direct overthrow of a monarchy, it strengthened the ideas of the enlightenment within europe and affirmed that they could succeed. 

I found it funny...
It relates to my argument

DONE! Well I feel very accomplished. Now it's only an evaluation of the final book sitting on my shelf called 'on revolution'. I shall sign off for now, and must admit that I enjoyed this post thoroughly, I usually always do. And now for my usual words in the language of the chosen revolution. 

~ LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION ~ 

YEEEHAAWWW! (sorry I had to)

Revolution! - K.J. Mason & F.J. Marriner

Ohkay so i've finally gotten around to looking at the books I borrowed from the library. Or at least one of them anyway. This particular book goes through a number of revolutions including the French and Chinese revolutions that i've been looking at throughout this investigation. It does a fantastic job at firstly defining revolution, then going through the factors of revolution for both the Chinese and French revolutions. And I think with this piece of text, i'm nearly finished formulating my presentation. I will just look at my final piece of text from Hannah Arendt and then finally the American revolution. I have come to the conclusion that I will be using this revolution, merely as part of the context behind the two I will be looking at for the time factors. I would love to have an hour presentation, but no one else wants to hear me ramble on for that long :(

The Meaning of Political Revolution

ANYWAY! To revolution! I must admit this introduction to revolution is my absolute FAVOURITE, for two reasons really. One because half of it involves a quote from Orwell, and secondly, because I think it sums up the meaning of revolution in the best way possible. I think I will include this quote as part of my presentation. Even though it is long and will probably bore half the class to death, I find it an absolutely brilliant quote. Thanks Orwell!

""Throughout recorded time there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle and the Low - the aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are, the aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim - for it is an abiding characteristic of the low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives - is to abolish all distinction and to create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again"
With such words, George Orwell defined the concept of revolution. Of all the forces that have motivated modern history over the last two hundred years - nationalism and socialism, industrialism, imperialism, and the ever-recurring pattern of war and peace - no force has been more constant, particularly in the twentieth century, than the force of revolution"

I think the reason behind this quote having such an impact is that it is so so true. And that it certainly makes a lot of sense. Whilst I must admit that at the point I was up to reading this book I was not in search of a definition, but when I saw this one, and saw how true, and almost passionate it was, I had to include it as a part of my research and as part of the research in this book. After looking at revolution, I find the common theme of humanity wanting a better life, or wanting to be out of struggle. After the enlightenment, the lower classes became discontent with the idea that they were to be the lower class simply because that was the way things should be. They looked to more utopian ideas, things like freedom and equality. As we know, neither of those good qualities or really any good quality can be absolute, but I think it can be said that our modern world today was certainly built upon these ideas, which lead to revolution, which led to change, and these ideas being a part of our existing society. It can be said that these ideas that fuelled the revolutions, are still something that the globe strives for wholistically. But as Orwell mentioned, it is a recurring struggle, and poignantly, none of these ideas can ever be achieved. They can be acted upon, and they can provoke thought, but they can never be achieved because of the human nature.
Now onto the French Revolution.

The French Revolution - The Role of Ideas 

This particular article simply states that the period of enlightenment meant two things to the world; the value and importance of education within a society and also a questioning of the hierarchical structure of the society. This particular pattern of thought challenged the oppression of knowledge and intelligence through class distinctions and the church. Mason and Marriner state that "The age of the Enlightenment aimed to set men free from fear. It believed in rationalism, praising the laws of reason to enable man to discover himself; it believed in naturalism as a substitute for the supernatural and in the progress of man based on reason, knowledge and the natural rights of the individual." Here we find how the enlightenment resulted in the overthrow of the monarchial structure. For so long the position of King was something ordained by 'God' or a higher being, and people in the society with a lack of education were lead to fear God and fear the King, and fear every authority that was above them. When that fear is lifted, the people begin to question why the authorities were above them in the first place. 

A few scholars and philosophers to make note of are:

 - Francois Arouet (Voltaire) - attacked organised christianity and dominant role of the church, aimed to change the intolerance and censorship of ideas which he claimed prevented humanity's progress and ultimately happiness

 - Charles de Montesquieu - examined forms of government and argued that 'the rule of law' was the best form of government, valued the individual liberty over the oppression of despotism. 

 - Jacques Rousseau (well haven't we heard of you before?) - philosophy was both simple and revolutionary, he suggested that the authority of the state rested within the people, that all governments exercise their power by a virtue of contract given to them through the people - essentially, that the people hold the power. 

I think it can be seen, especially from Mr Rousseau, that these ideas would have had a huge impact on the society at the time. Once you tell the people that they hold the power, the are bound to exercise it. And even after the beginnings of revolution in France, the philosophers were still questioning the rights of an individual, the division of power and the freedoms of an individual, and thus, these ideas can be argued to have fuelled the revolution. 

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen
- I know it's small but it's in French too,
so it isn't as if you could read it anyway.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen

This book has also included the very famous document forged at the French National Assembly on the 26th of January 1789. I chose to include it as I felt it clearly reflected the ideas at the beginning of the revolution and the attempt to put them into practice. Obviously, I cannot include the entire document, but I thought it would be useful to include bits and pieces.

"Men are born and remain free and in equal rights. Social distinctions can only be based upon public utility... rights are liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression... The law has the right to forbid only such actions that are injurious to society... Law is the expression of the general will... No man can be accused, arrested, or detained, except in the cases determined by the law and according to the forms it has been prescribed... law ought to establish penalties that are strictly and obviously necessary... Every man being presumed innocent until he has been pronounced guilty... free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man... a general tax is indispensable; it ought to be equally appointed among all the citizens according to their means... property being a sacred and inviolable right, no one can be deprived of it..." 

Throughout this entire quote, the ideas of liberalism, freedom, equality stand as the basis of this document, once again highlighting how much so these ideas had impacted the french revolution to this point.

The Chinese Revolution - The emergence of Chinese nationalism

This is simply a short little segment that comments on the nationalism that came about in the late 1800's and the early 1900's. From reading this, plus the knowledge I have acquired through other sources, I think I can say that there was almost a pre-existing nationalism within China, in the sense that they always saw themselves as superior to other nations around them. With imperialism, as those of you who have read my post on the chinese revolution would know, their sense of superiority was challenged, so much so that feudalism and the monarchy fell apart. Due to the impact of imperialism, with the West basically taking advantage of China, any nationalistic spirit that was formed became particularly aggressive and anti-foreign. And hence we have two factors behind the nationalism - one in an attempt to show China's power and might, the second in attempt to remove the foreign powers lurking within China by making her strong again. Overall, this particular form of nationalism was rather negative and it took some strong liberalist leaders such as Sun Yat-sen to bring together the ideas of nationalism and liberalism to form a revolution, and to form a new China. Whilst the roles of liberalism are not as mentioned in this segment, it is clear that it takes a strong sense of nationalism combined with a strong sense of liberalism to pull the revolution together and make it successful (or unsuccessful initially I suppose). As Gungwu Wang states that nationalists were demanding "that the very nature of chinese civilisation be changed in order to meet the challenge of these outsiders, these foreigners who had come to the shores of China". So whilst imperialism had been a huge factor, when we dig deeper, we find that ideas were still of huge significance as it was the ideas that came from imperialism (nationalism) which had led the country to need revolution as much as it did.


I think after this I pretty much have two more posts to go and I feel very confident already in piecing together this powerpoint and project on revolutions. I know you're all still waiting for the American revolution one but it is coming along! I think these posts take so long though because I have to type it all and think while I type. Thinking about thinking takes a long time!
Even though i'm already so far into this project I find every piece of information I find on revolutions so amazing and brilliant. It is amazing how a single idea can change the course of history forever. It still stuns me that much of the societies, and their political system have been founded upon these revolutionary ideas, this quest of humanity to realise what is right and what is fair to all, versus the human nature. It is remarkable, and astounding! And I certainly think this is why i've had such a passion for history in the first place. It tells us everything we are, we have been and what we are capable of. And in that, there is no better way of knowing humanity, than through history.

~ VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!! ~

Who are you Mr Jean-Jacques Rousseau?

Portrait of Jean-Jacques Rosseau

Ohkay, so i've wanted to know who this guy is for a while now, and after much research, I can't say that i've been disappointed. In fact i've come to the conclusion that I will be using his piece (or an extract of it) called 'Du Contrat Social' (1762) as one of my primary sources for the project. After reading a few things it in many ways has parallels to Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto, but obviously not as much into socialism as Mr Marxy was.

His texts have all been described to be very passionate about liberalism and freedom from oppression. Whilst I have not read his text called the social contract, I have learned the kind of ideas that were promoted in it. In a time of many monarchies, and unequal wealth, Rousseau preached a society that was governed by the 'general will' of the people. This general will is considered to be a collective desire for the welfare of society as a whole and according to Rousseau, "the citizens of a properly-contracted civil society are infallibly guided by the general will, rather than by their conflicting individual self-interests."
I must admit this sounds a little utopian to me. But at the same time it calls for equality, and fraternity. It calls people to believe in working for a society as a whole and not just for themselves. And because of this, it stirred up some opposition who obviously did not want this 'equality' to occur as they liked their little world with all their possessions and didn't exactly want to give it up. Rosseau's book was condemned in Paris and Geneva on the ground of religious heterodoxy, and thus began the tension within the societies at the time.

I have decided to include a few key quotes from Rousseau's book, which certainly helped me understand where the French people were getting their ideas from.

“...in respect of riches, no citizen shall ever be wealthy enough to buy another, and none poor enough to be forced to sell himself.” 

Here Rousseau is clearly alluding to the slavery present within his society at the time. He is reminding the people of a problem within their society and stating that if the people follow his ideas, this slavery will be abolished. Which was a very appealing statement to be making to a bunch of desperate people at the time.

“The greatest enemies of freedom are the extremely rich and the extremely poor, because one is willing to buy it while the other is willing to sell it.” 

Here, Rousseau identifies the issue in the current society and the reasons in the society as to why there is such a lack of freedom and rights for individuals in this time period. Rousseau implies greatly that it is the unequal balance of money in the society which is causing the issues and calls the people to change things.

“In any case, frequent punishments are a sign of weakness or slackness in the government. There is no man so bad that he cannot be made good for something. No man should be put to death, even as an example, if he can be left to live without danger to society... In a well governed state, there are few punishments, not because there are many pardons, but because criminals are rare; it is when a state is in decay that the multitude of crimes is a guarantee of impunity.”  

Rousseau in this case looks at the sometimes unjust punishment within a society and the oppressive nature of the authorities. He attempts to appeal to the people at the time by opposing the execution and punishment of men in a society and stating that it is government weakness and due to a bad and oppressive government, encouraging negative thought to be stimulated surrounding the regime. He then goes on to say that within a society that is governed well, there is little need for crime and hence little need for punishment. Once again he appeals to the people and promotes a society that is utopian, but at the same time desirable, and once he identifies the problem, it is only up to the people to then overthrow the government in an attempt to achieve what Rousseau preached.

“To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man, to surrender the rights of humanity and even its duties.”

This simple quote is playing on the ideas of liberty and promoting them in this particular society. Rousseau stresses that liberty, liberalism is so essential to humanity, as without it humanity has no true rights or duties. He basically states that without liberty, the people will have what they fear, or continue to live in what they fear. Rousseau offers the people a solution, to promote liberty.


Overall, reading Rousseau's work was very interesting and even looking at how passionate the text was and how much it would have appealed to the audience, there is no doubt with this book circling France, and even Europe at the time that the people would not feel a need for change, and liberation. Whilst this is only one piece of many texts that would have encouraged and influenced the people at the time, I must admit that it was a brilliant opportunity to see the kinds of material these people were exposed to, and how these texts that were written by philosophers were not only derivative of the enlightenment and the attitudes people had prior to the French and even American revolutions, but also inspired people at the time to seek change, and ultimately, revolution.

There will be more posts to come, I promise! I know this one is short, but I felt it was necessary before moving on.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!

 

Let's have a panic attack!

I do need to say something. Namely what i've been doing for this entire past week to make NO posts whatsoever. It was VERY VERY VERY VERY busy. VERY busy. And i'm really tired now and I need to make my American revolution post and its coming I swear! Its just that I like to post all of the information in one big chunk and I have not yet completed the post on the American Revolution. I've done a little Cowie overview. Thats it. Though I must admit even that was very informative.

Over the past week, I have found two more books that I really want to get stuck into because even just flicking through them they look like they'll really aid in my question which focuses on the ideologies that drive a revolution. One book is Revolution! by K.J. Mason and F.J. Marriner (1982), which is kind of more a textbook on revolution. It has segments dedicated specifically to the ideas surrounding each of the revolutions it examines. For my research project it includes both the French and Chinese revolutions but no American revolution (How sad :( ). The other book I managed to find is called On Revolution by Hannah Arendt (1963). This is essentially a novel on revolution in general. The factors of revolution and how revolution occurs. I think I shall actually make this novel one of the sources I will analyse.

Another reminder, is this. Which is a very good page outlining Jean-Jacques Rousseau. This guy just keeps coming up everywhere, so I thought it would be good to take a look at him and perhaps I can find a primary source to analyse from it. His ideas and philosophies have been quite responsible for igniting a number of revolutions, so he is therefore, I suppose a very important figure to research.

This week, I MUST post my American revolution post. And I MUST look at, and analyse at least one of the books I have borrowed from the library. I'm making that promise now. Which could potentially be difficult to keep, but i'm hoping that i'll still get there.

On a non panicky note, I have decided that I won't be including a summary of the revolutions i'm investigating, but rather, will jump straight into the ideologies and factors behind them. So there will be some element of assumed knowledge with the revolutions I am investigating. This should certainly enable me to cut down information and fit my entire investigation within the ten minutes i'm allocated (Just a side note, can we have like an afternoon thing where members of the modern class can have like an extended presentation time just for fun? That would be awesome!). So whilst it will still be difficult for me to cut down what I do have, there is some relief in not having to present absolutely everything.

And as always,

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!