Revolution in Asia - Chinese (Xinhai) Revolution

Firstly, this is a big revolution to cover, for a number of reasons. One, I could look at the first revolution, but both the communist and Xinhai revolutions are quite connected, two, because the factors for revolution can date back to 270 years prior to the actual revolution and three, because the factors are huge areas of study in themselves. I must consider how on earth i'm actually going to present three revolutions, and discuss their factors IN TEN MINUTES! (Pattern of current thought: wiuvcbwhibaiuycbwiyfbic2biwqfbiyv4cbiy!!!!!!). Anyway, i've done a large amount of research on this one revolution and must admit that it has been particularly interesting. My information has come from three major sources Alpha History's page on the 1911 Xinhai revolution, H.R Cowie's chapter on 'European Imperialism in China and the first chinese revolution' in his book I have mentioned in previous blogs, and a little embellishment from the film 1911 Revolution, which proved to be a decently accurate depiction of the revolution (and a brilliant movie might I say, I do recommend!).

Alpha History - The 1911 Xinhai revolution

This page was used majorly to give me a general idea as to what exactly occurred with the 1911 revolution, what it was about and who overthrew who etc etc. Similar to many other revolutions, the Xinhai revolution was the overthrow of the chinese monarchy that had been in place for centuries prior. This was the Qing (Ching) dynasty, which was said to be gravely weakened through the humiliation China suffered throughout the 1800's and early 1900's. 

As an outline to what happened, the boxer rebellion prior to 1911 (which was a movement that seeked to destroy western and christian influence by targeting western 'messiahs' and chinese christian converts - it resulted in brutal slaughter of both these christian people from the chinese rebels and also slaughter then of these rebels from the european powers seeking revenge) had led to the Boxer protocol, which meant that the Qing now owed large reparations to the alliance of european powers as they were all annoyed that their people had died. This sum of money was so large that it would not have been paid off until 1940, should the Qing government had remained in power. The Qing was now greatly in debt and unable to produce what it needed for its country and then people got angry and decided to remove this totalitarian monarchial power that they'd had and believed in for thousands of years. 

This article goes on to address the failing monarchy as a reason or factor for revolution, claiming it occurred as a result of the dispute regarding the ownership of a railway, which isn't at all false. But what it failed to address, is that unlike any previous rebellion, the Qing were not overthrown and replaced with another family who ruled with the same system of government, but for the first time in all of China's history, there was an overthrow and a quest for a Chinese republic. The question that needs to be asked in this case is 'why?'.

Art depicting the struggle between republican and Qing
forces in 1911

Apart from this, the article does a very good job at examining the trigger for this revolution (I do detest the point that the 'cause' was a railway dispute, this was another trigger, the 'cause' occurred many years before). The following is what the article claims to be the 'catalyst' for revolution: "The catalyst for revolution was a Qing decision to nationalise two privately-owned railways in central China, to help fund the government’s Boxer Protocol reparations. When this nationalisation was announced in May 1911 it created a firestorm of protest, particularly in Sichuan province, where a large number of businessmen had invested their own money in the railway. Facing considerable losses, these investors created the Railway Protection Movement, which organised strikes and protests in Chengdu, the Sichuan capital." The Qing government fearing the loss of power, then went and formed counter revolutionary groups, but these were filled with soldiers and officers who had secretly joined literature groups and met regularly to discuss political literature, they had connected and been conversing with these radical revolutionaries. The Wuchang regiment eventually mutinied, declaring Hubei (the province in which they were situated) a republican province. This then sparked a revolutionary 'fever' in many other provinces, and they too began to rebel. 

Historian Michael Dillon, who was quoted in this article, makes an important point by stating “The Qing government was overthrown, not by a single rebellion but by a decentralised movement that devolved power to the provinces. However it proved extremely difficult to replace it with a government that was acceptable to all the provinces and regional economic and political interests that had been involved in the struggle to bring down the Manchus. Support for a constitutional monarchy had ebbed away and there was broad agreement among political activists that China needed a republican government – but there was no common understanding of what that would involve in practice, how it should be implemented and, of more immediate importance, who should be in power.” 

This suggests that one of the largest and most important key factors of this revolution was the inadequacy of the Qing government. Secondly, it provides a reason as to why this revolution can be considered almost unsuccessful - whilst the republicans claimed power, China, previously a unified power for many years, found itself split once again, until the communist revolution in 1949. 

These five points at the end of the article provide a good summary of the revolution:

1. The 1911 Revolution was a spontaneous nationwide rebellion that erupted across China in the last weeks of 1911. 
2. The catalyst for this revolution was the Railway Protection Movement that emerged in Sichuan in mid-1911. 
3. New Army units were mobilised in Hubei but more than 2,000 soldiers were republican and potentially revolutionary. 
4. Incidents in October led to a mutiny in Wuchang, where these soldiers took the city and formed a rebel government. 
5. Dissatisfaction with the Qing and the success of the Wuchang uprising inspired rebellions in a multitude of cities and regions around China. By the end of 1911 the nation was in chaos and republicans had formed a nationalist government in Nanjing, led by Sun Yixian – however the Qing remained. 

I must admit I am writing this prior to looking at all three sources, and I must simply add here to the end, that an abdication of Puyi (the two year old emperor at the time), was eventually forced and President Yuan took over, in hope of reuniting china - The exact opposite was a result. 

Historical Film - 1911 Revolution

I obviously can't take a great deal of information from this source, but I cannot deny that it aided so much my understanding of the chinese revolution, and I must admit, that it was in particular the end of this film that triggered some thought regarding the nature of revolution. 

"Today you ask me, what does revolution mean? Perhaps people will ask the same question, centuries later. Qiu Jin, our Tongmenghui member, who was killed in Shaoxing said, Revolution will provide all children a peaceful and gentle world. Lin Juemin, one of the martyrs of Huanghuanang, wrote to his wife: Revolution seeks eternal happiness for everyone in the world. I believe the revolution enables a republican system to reach the people. People will understand we'll fight whoever dares support the monarchy. Revolution enables factories, banks, railroads, mines owned by Chinese to benefit the people. Revolution enables our Chinese race to become strong, no longer bullied by others. We will no longer be slaves. Revolution can take place anywhere, anytime, in any heart, forever, forever, no longer afraid of foreign powers, ridding the country of feudalism and royalty. No one will be impoverished, and the Chinese people can stand tall in the east. This is the meaning of revolution." 

Now, what needs to be considered here, is that this was a film created to commemorate the revolution in 1911 (it was made in 2011, as part of the centenary celebration), and so therefore, it doesn't exactly explore its failings beyond the rise of the President Yuan and the abdication of Puyi, the Qing emperor. However the end explores a number of points regarding the purpose of this particular revolution, and at the very least, what the revolution was 'meant to' achieve. 

It also highlights one of the factors touched on in the Alpha History article, and explored thoroughly in Cowie's book. This was the need for revolution and the effect the European imperialist powers had on China, furthermore, its push to industrialise with the external influence of Europe and the Americas bringing forth to China, ideas of democracy and republicanism, where ideas of feudalism and monarchy were accepted within government. 

I have posted below the video of the trailer for the movie. The entire movie is also on youtube, but lacking english subtitles. 

European Imperialism in China and the First Chinese Revolution - H.R. Cowie

I must admit that this was the most helpful in looking at the factors of revolution. In fact the first half of the chapter explicitly explains the cause of this revolution which can be dated back to the rise of the Qing dynasty, almost 270 years prior to the revolution. It cannot be denied that the catalyst for this revolution was indeed European Imperialism (yes, Europe are at it again...). Of course it wasn't imperialism in itself that caused a revolution as it was not the imperialist powers the revolutionaries sought to overthrow, but it was the driving force that weakened the Qing dynasty through two things:

- Western Political Ideas

- Western Military and Trade Influence

Now, as Cowie states, the Manchu (Qing) dynasty were from the north, or Manchuria. And henceforth, already, they were seen as foreigners, imposing a foreign rule. Here already, we find that the foundations in which this dynasty came to power was significantly weak. The Manchu had to find means to promote their rule as righteous and legitimate, they even renamed the dynasty 'Qing' which means pure or clear, to further impose this legitimacy. Cowie states "When Chinese civilisation was forced, through its military weaknesses, to yield so many humiliating concessions to the West, doubts grew about the authority of the Qing", and so therefore, whilst the power was already somewhat weak through its foundation, natural rebellion and overthrow of this dynasty would simply lead to another dynasty in its place, as what had occurred many times in Chinese history. However, from this, it can be argued that European influence, European Imperialism of China, was what led this country to so strongly believe, that not only did it need an overthrow of power, but it needed a revolution, and a different form of government - A republic. 

Western Military and Trade influence

I will begin with this component of imperialism as it was probably a big instigator of political ideas as well as the revolution. Overall, this military influence proved the idea that the Qing dynasty was weak and unable to rule China, and essentially led to its collapse. I also think this map in Cowie's book is very relevant in determining why the Chinese had such a distaste for the European powers. 

I mean, EXCUSE you Britain!? How would you like it if I took a big CHUNK out of you like that? And France, just take the entire bottom of China why don't you!? I think the worst part here is that none of these 'claims' were never officially 'claimed'. In the sense that colonies were never established, only trading ports, and Europe took control of these areas in ways where they could gain all the advantages of trade but were not responsible for the welfare of the Chinese people. I think that was rather RUDE of them. Apologies, I digress and will now proceed to comment on a number of factors and events which led to this particular issue, and I will attempt to be as brief as possible.

Political Cartoon - From left to right you have Britain,
Germany,  Russia,  France and Japan. Then you have
what appears to be China in the background doing
the whole 'WHAT THE HELL!?' pose (I would be like
that too China...), simply, it does a good job at
summarising European imperialism in China.
(I love political cartoons!) 

- Primarily due to an Inferior military: Untouched for thousands of years, whilst an advanced race in ancient times, had since failed to advance and industrialise with the rest of Europe, as Cowie states "In a series of bitter experiences, the Chinese discovered that they lacked the technology to resist the demands of European powers... the Chinese people, acting on the conviction that their ruling dynasty could no longer resist the foreign intrusions, staged a revolution and proclaimed a republic ... carried hopes ... Chinese people could be independent of foreign domination and free to devise their own system of government"

- The Opium Wars (1839-42 and 1856-60): The port of Guangzhou was the first concession of permitted trade with the Europeans, which inevitably led to disaster. The Chinese here believed they had the power to control the 'foreign devils' and trading was good for the first few years where Europe mainly purchased from China (goods such as silk and tea), yet China, hoping to prevent European influence did not purchase from the Europeans - until they began to offer opium. Opium was not legally permitted to be imported, but however was still bought and spread across China. This led to Chinese authorities asking Britian to remove their supplies, which resulted in a scramble, which resulted in a death, which resulted in two British frigates, without warning, blowing up two chinese boats (what the hell Britain!?), which then finally, resulted in the opium wars. Because of China's weak naval power, Britain carried this battle all the way up into ports along the Yangzi river. In short countries kept attacking China and they kept losing military power. Cowie states "The chinese were grossly humiliated by these European and American intrusions. Exposed by their relative military weakness in contrast with the industrially powerful European nations, the Chinese had been forced to agree to treaties that stressed their inferiority."

- Japanese War with China (1894-95): Here the Japanese destroyed all of what was left of the Chinese navy and China was forced to sign the Treaty of Shimonoseki, which meant China had to pay a huge indemnity to Japan (they had to borrow from European powers to do this), they had to recognise independence of Korea, concede Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands to Japan and grant Japan access to trading ports. Cowie states "The total powerlessness of the Manchu regime was now revealed". 

- The Boxer Rebellion: As the intrusions of european powers in China grew, so did the resentment towards them, and particular anger was directed towards Christian missionaries. The boxer rebellion was essentially an uprising against European missionaries and the Chinese Christian converts, Cixi (the Dowager Empress at the time), was found to be secretly encouraging this movement as she believed it would repel the European 'intruders'. However it did not work and China ended up with the 'Boxer Protocol' (and a bunch of slaughtered rebels as a form of revenge from the European powers), which were more heavy financial reparations imposed on the Chinese. Cowie concludes that "The officials of the Qing dynasty, propped up by western powers survived until 1912, but they carried the shame of persistent humiliation. Through their refusal to implement systematic reforms of Chinese society they kept China weak in the face of Western challenge, allowed the Middle Kingdom to become a pawn to European imperialism, and virtually ensured their own eventual overthrow through revolution"

Western Political ideas 

Whilst the influence of the European imperialist powers inflicted damage militarily, and reduced the amount of power the Qing dynasty had over Europe, it also did something else. Whilst the above paragraphs are more concerned with the fact that the factor of imperialism weakened the government in place, this paragraph in terms of 'political ideas' suggests that not only did this imperialism bring superior military, which was able to oppress the Chinese, but it also brought with it ideas regarding different political system, and ideas of democracy and republicanism, that the Chinese had not heard of before. It could be said that this was a driving factor behind the revolution being a revolution and not a rebellion. 

A number of instances had occurred in Chinese history where there has been a rebellion and a replacement of one dynasty with another, but there were no changes made to the methodologies of ruling. These new ideas that imperialism had brought to China were crucial to the outcome of the Xinhai revolution. 

Sun Yatsen, who becomes the first president of China is a prime example of the implementation of these ideas. He had not lived in China since he was 12 and through living overseas, he became educated in the western ways and experienced western principles of liberalism and democracy. And henceforth, he brought to China these ideas of republicanism. Not only did he bring these ideas to China, but also many other Chinese men who had received western education. 

The Taiping rebellion was an example where the western influence could be seen in Chinese rebellion, this was for the fact that it showed reliance on Western influences in that it was vaguely based on Protestant Christian teachings. Interestingly, it is said that "Leaders of modern-day Communist China acknowledge the Taiping rebellion as a prelude to their regime, not for its christian associations, but because of its anti-western policy and its programmes for land reform and the redistribution of wealth to ensure the elimination of inequality". And so here we find that imperialism, and the western powers have influenced ways of thinking amongst the Chinese, once again, crucial to the revolution. 

There were still a number of points that Cowie made in regard to the revolution. Like the Russian revolution, there was a monarchy that existed that was unwilling to concede its power to the people, and unwilling to change to suit the kind of government that China did need at this time. So here we can probably conclude that it was a combination of poor leadership of the Qing dynasty, Chinese discontent for the negative effects imperialism suffered from the European powers, and the new and refreshing ideas of liberalism and democracy brought from the west that instigated, and led to the Xinghai revolution of 1911. 

Wow I spent a lot of time on that post! Good thing is, that all my research for china is now completed, obviously i'll still be looking at historians who will look at this particular Chinese revolution and evaluate it as a revolution, and the factors for revolution etc. Now just for three other revolutions.

~ 革命万岁 ~

Revolution in Africa - Rwandan (Hutu) Revolution

As I had predicted, about a post or two ago, there have been quite a few revolutions within Africa, very much as a result of the impact of colonialism and imperialism. I am quite glad now actually as the intial research I did regarding imperialism has become somewhat relevant to my investigation. Imperialism is big, there isn't usually a modern history topic that you can't link it to.

After some research regarding the many African revolutions that took place, including the Algerian revolution, the three Egyptian revolutions and Somali revolutions (which seem to be the most prominent), I've come to the conclusion that it will be best for me to investigate the Rwandan revolution (or the Hutu revolution) as it is pretty much the prelude to the Rwandan genocide which is fairly well known, and fairly well written about. I've already found plenty of books on it and hopefully some more when I visit the state library on friday. I've checked through a few books and whilst they tend to focus on the genocide, there are still great portions of information, providing the context behind this 'crime against humanity', which of course is, the Rwandan revolution.

I found this revolution particularly interesting as alluded to above, the political system and the society that came from this 'revolution' resulted in genocide and civil war a few years later. Not only this but it is argued that this particular revolution didn't really enforce much change. Mahmood Mamdani in his book When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda states that "While the Hutu revolution of 1959-1962 had managed to transform the state, its impact on society had been superficial". I felt this quote was extremely important here as its basically saying that formally, there was a change in leaders and a change in the ethnic group that ran the country, there was little transformation in the social change that had occurred in the sense that there was still an 'inferior' race being exploited. Whilst it was indeed the case that there was a shift in power and a different race of people obtained this power, society was not that much different, and so does this then constitute a 'revolution'. A chronology of Rwanda's history is pasted below:

The revolution in Rwanda was not the usual revolution either. Rwanda prior to 1959 was under control by the Belgians (yeah they had part of Rwanda too, they were also notably good at exploiting and being nasty to the natives, then again a lot of Europeans tended to do that...), however there was a system of monarchy where Belgians had the ultimate power, but those who officially exercised the power were the Rwandans. However, the bigger issue is that there were two 'races' of people in Rwanda, the Tutsi's and the Hutu's. The Belgians handed power to the Tutsi's and basically hailed them as the superior race because of their skin colour, and allowed for even graver exploitation of the Hutu's, making them slaves etc. But, you know, being Europeans, the Belgians thought they'd make things worse by formally segregating the two races, setting up the foundation of the 'Rwandan Genocide. This occurred in 1935 when the Belgians handed out identity cards labelling each individual 'Tutsi', 'Hutu', 'Twa' or 'Naturalised'. This formal segregation caused a lot of issues and could be considered a factor influencing this particular revolution.

A postage stamp featuring Grégoire
Kayibanda - celebration of Rwanda's
independence and republic

The revolution occurred essentially when the Hutu got really annoyed with being at 'the bottom', so decided they'd upturn the entire thing by throwing a revolution, removing Beligian control and wreaking revenge on the Tutsi, or at least some kind of 'revenge'. After much struggle, the Hutu gained control of Rwanda, a number of points however should be made from this.

• The most prominent figure of this revolution was Grégoire Kayibanda who was the first elected president of Rwanda - He replaced the Tutsi monarchy with a republican form of government, and asserted Hutu power (another pro Hutu figure to look into may be Joseph Gitera)
• The Tutsi monarchy were expecting to gain full control after being given independence from the Belgians, seeing that the Hutu were growing in force and numbers, they too were pushing for independence - this is a rather interesting point as both powers were pushing for independence, however what seemed to distinguish the two was that the Hutu were fighting for a republic, and the Tutsi were fighting for a monarchy 
• In 1957 the Bahutu manifesto was completed, a document written by Hutu scholars which formally label the Hutu and the Tutsi as two separate races, it also encouraged the transfer of Tutsi power to the Hutu - here we have a formal text, a piece of writing that played an active role in this revolution. 

Whilst I am unsure i'll be able to find many historians commenting collectively on this revolution in comparison with other more prominent revolutions such as the French or American revolution, it does offer an example, where there was an interesting shift of power in the sense that not only was it an overthrow of monarchy, but also a bid for independence from the Belgians. I hope to do further research, more so into the factors of this revolution, but am glad that I have made a decision regarding which revolution to choose. 

I am silly...

Ohkay, so I wasn't so smart and I had a cup of coffee to make sure I could finish all my work this evening and now I've found that I can't even really go to sleep. And then I started thinking about history and stuff and was like 'oh I might as well post what I'm thinking, because this is good stuff'. So I just downloaded the blogger app (which is actually quite good for shortish posts like these, but it doesn't have spell check so let's hope my brain isn't to Englished out). I will now proceed to relay my plans for the holidays and the remainder of the week.

I've decided that before jumping into historians and their POV on a number of revolutions I shall investigate and get my head around the revolutions I intend on investigating the historiography of. So! As part of my fun holiday winter plan, I shall be snuggled up in blankets watching movies and reading books on these revolutions. Each revolution will have a day allocated to them, or at least a good chunk of that day (I need to get through game of thrones as well). After I know a decent amount about each of these revolutions, I will then look into the historians perspectives on these revolutions as hopefully then I'll know what they're on about. 

As my revolutions, I've chosen the first Chinese revolution, the American revolution, the French Revolution, and I'm  thinking about one of the Egyptian revolutions, I will just have to make sure I have enough sources available. I like the idea of Egyptian history because you learn about ancient Egypt and then don't really hear much about it again; apart from some of the past news (apparently there is still conflict over there, but obviously, that will not be the revolution I am looking at). 

Whilst unfortunately my drama task has taken up a good portion of working time this week, this upcoming Friday, I will be traveling to the state library to aquire sources (my goodness autocorrect just changed that to spices... No autocorrect, I ain't doing some medieval spice trading, I'm german, I trade sausages... Well... More kind of steal them aggressively but anyway - I mean no harm, I am making fun of my culture - - I am also kidding, I don't steal sausages, my family actually don't really eat many, actually yes they do...). Wow that was a big lot of brackets. 

I've just noticed that my post doesn't have much historical content. So I will announce this random history fact: 

Did you know that during ww1 British tanks were categorised into 'males' and 'females'? The male tanks had cannons and the female tanks had heavy machine guns. 

What an interesting fact. I don't even know if it's true, but then again;

"There is no truth in history, only perspective" 

Overall, I am here to say that I know what I am doing! I am excited for it and I can't wait to post some actual content that I can present.

VIVE LA REVOLUTION! 

POUR JE SUIS LA REVOLUTION! 

Ideas! Ideas! Ideas!

After speaking with Mr Bradbury this lesson i've been able to work out a specific direction I can take regarding my revolution topic, which is good because broad research without a purpose can make me rather frustrated. After previously looking at Crane Brinton I had the idea that I could look at the theories behind revolution rather than just a number of revolutions that I will be comparing. Obviously, I will still be comparing revolutions, but comparing them in terms of what they are and the factors that have contributed to either their success or failure. As mentioned in my previous post, I think it will also be interesting to look at what distinguishes a rebellion from a revolution, I think that could even become, somewhat, what my question will ultimately be. So far I have found a number of historians and revolutions I could potentially use.

Historians

• Crane Brinton - The Anatomy of Revolution 
• H. R. Cowie - Modern revolutions, their character and influence (YAY COWIE)
• Theda Skocpol - States and social revolutions
• Louis Auguste Blanqui
• Perez Zagorin - Theories of Revolution in Contemporary Historiography

These are the five I am going to begin with, in terms of my research. They'll probably begin to change once I get into it, but they're a good bunch to start with. Zagorin (as mentioned above), also names a few scholars who have considered theories regarding revolution including Plato and Aristotle. So far my historians are just handpicked, not randomly, but the first couple I could find. It would be brilliant to have a historian from each particular era to perhaps demonstrate how the ideas regarding revolution and the distinguishing features of a 'revolution' (which separate it from a rebellion or a revolt), have changed over time. 

Of course, i'll also investigate these ideas through looking at four major revolutions and attempting to link these ideas with literal revolutions that have taken place. Here i'll investigate the factors for revolution and then see how they measure up to the ideas that the historians have documented.
My revolutions will be the following:

The America's - The American Revolution

So far i've found a good source regarding this topic, and it is the 'following'. I must admit, I don't know that much regarding the American revolution (most of my information has come from a little game I like to call 'assassins creed'). Pretty much all I know is that Britain was being a stinky poo bum and wanting to have all the land in the world, so when America decided it didn't want any more of Britain's bull****, it wanted to declare independence. But then Britain, being all greedy as it was decided to have a war over some land that wasn't even theirs in the first place (It wasn't entirely the colonists either, but that's another story...). THEN, the colonists decided to be all smart and they threw a bunch of Britain's tea in the water. 

That's all I got. So it will obviously be a good idea to research this topic, since it is very much a 'major revolution', and an important one too. 

Asia - The Chinese Revolution

I'm going to come out here and say I know pretty much nothing. All I know is that it was an overthrow of the Emperor (or the man that was in charge) and then the implementation of some communist party that isn't really that much communist (what are you doing to me china!?). But I think I will enjoy learning some asian history as I really don't know that much at all. It will be good for me. 

Europe - The French Revolution (probably)

The French revolution is cool and I also know some good background on it. It was quite similar to the Russian revolution in the sense that there was a monarchy that was rather oblivious to the struggles that were being endured by the peasants and the lower class peoples (or the third estate), and as a result, well, in simple terms they got cranky and decided they'd had enough and overthrew the monarchy (and chopped off their heads). OH I REMEMBER A GOOD MEME ABOUT THAT! I put it to the side. Look. I like it, its like a crossover between batman and the French revolution, anything that does that is pretty cool. Funnily enough, whilst there's supposed to be humour behind the meme, it's an interesting thought regarding the French having a revolution and then 'losing their heads', or having a revolution and erupting into chaos, before setting down again into an order that wasn't overly different from the previous one. And it poses the question; what was it all for? If a revolution is supposed to be a 'change' in the established order, or if it is supposed to be beneficial in a sense, then how is the French revolution considered to be one? This will be quite interesting to research. 

Africa - (not entirely sure)

Africa have had a lot of wars and rebellions. Of that I am sure. Somewhere they must have had revolutions. I mean, as it can even be seen in my previous research on imperialism, all these countries were once dominated by European powers, and now pretty much all of them are free. It will be interesting to see if there was ever any 'revolutions' or struggles to gain this independence. Either way, however, it will be interesting. 

Overall, I think this is a pretty good start to my research and what will be my question eventually. I am extremely excited to get into the research for these topics! VIVA LA REVOLUTION! 

Crane Brinton's Theory of Revolution

Historian Clarence Crane Brinton

It's been a while since my last post. I blame that on the fact that i've been extremely busy with assessment tasks and our latest history debate (that we won yesterday afternoon, WOO!), however I must admit I am glad to be back on track with my research. After I had decided to look at revolutions in general I thought it would be interesting to investigate Crane Brinton's theory of revolution, outlined and explored in his novel 'The Anatomy of Revolution' (I would like to possibly purchase this book). After initial research it seems that Brinton attempts to explain a revolution like a fever, in which the society would initially show symptoms, endure the fever (or revolution), and then reach some state of 'okness' (yes I just created a word). I call this state of 'okness' because Cowie states that a revolution can be a '180 degree revolution' - meaning that there is a complete reversal in both social and political ideals, or a '360 degree revolution' - meaning that the revolution has very much resulted in a society significantly similar to the one prior to the revolution. The fact that a 'revolution' can take on completely different results is quite interesting in itself. Brinton's theory explores a number of factors for revolution and the factors that are a result of a revolution. They are as follows:

Crane Brinton's Fever Chart of Revolution

Factors for Revolution

1. People from all social classes are discontented.
2. People feel restless and held down by unacceptable restrictions in society, religion, the economy or
the government.
3. People are hopeful about the future, but they are being forced to accept less than they had hoped
for.
4. People are beginning to think of themselves as belonging to a social class, and there is a growing
bitterness between social classes.
5. The social classes closest to one another are the most hostile.
6. The scholars and thinkers give up on the way their society operates.
7. The government does not respond to the needs of its society.
8. The leaders of the government and the ruling class begin to doubt themselves. Some join with the
opposition groups.
9. The government is unable to get enough support from any group to save itself.
10. The government cannot organise its finances correctly and is either going bankrupt or trying to tax
heavily and unjustly.

Results of Revolution

1. Impossible demands made of government which, if granted, would mean its end. 
2. Unsuccessful government attempts to suppress revolutionaries.
3. Revolutionaries gain power and seem united.
4. Once in power, revolutionaries begin to quarrel among themselves, and unity begins to dissolve.
5. The moderates gain the leadership but fail to satisfy those who insist on further changes.
6. Power is gained by progressively more radical groups until finally a lunatic fringe gains almost
complete control.
7. A strong man emerges and assumes great power.
8. The extremists try to create a "heaven on earth" by introducing their whole program and by
punishing all their opponents.
9. A period of terror occurs.
10. Moderate groups regain power. The revolution is over.


I think that a good idea for my project would be to investigate Crane Brinton's theory and then attempt to apply it to three or four different revolutions. In order to look at this I would first have to find a way to distinguish revolutions and rebellions. Cowie states that the difference between the two is that a revolution always has a dramatic change in ideology or society at the time (it was a little more specific than that, but I forgot my book... so I will need to do a proper analysis once I am reunited with Cowie). I think it would be interesting to look at a number of revolutions and see how many of these factors can be applied to the revolution, and if the revolution indeed works like a 'fever' as Crane Brinton theorised.

It's Time for a Revolution!

Imperialism is difficult to do. I've come to discover such things through my investigation. I think the biggest problem is that the concept is so broad, and can include so many different things that it becomes difficult to condense the investigation to a good focus question that can be answered in the period of 10 minutes (I would love the entire hour of the lesson, but such things cannot be fairly done).

This has led to a complete revolution of ideas!
I have now chosen to explore the concept of a revolution. It was actually what I had previously wanted to do, but felt uneasy doing it as the last two topics were based on case studies regarding revolution (I also thought Mr Bradbury had said it wasn't wise to do it, but now he's decided he said no such thing. I can't remember the truth of the situation to be honest, but anyway, what matters now is that I can do the concept of revolution).

I thought it would be wise to focus my studies around the factors of success within a revolution. This idea was very much inspired from an old history debating topic 'That leadership is the key factor in the success of a revolution'. I obviously (and unfortunately) won't be arguing that either side is the case, but will be reflecting on the multiple factors within a revolution and from there determining how important each of them are in causing a revolution to take place, and then the level of success from this revolution.

There are a number of factors that many historians discuss as being critical or of significance to the revolution taking place. These generally involve positive or negative forms of leadership, social and economic conditions and the need for change.

Over the next two weeks I am to research a number of historians who will have different viewpoints on the factors of revolution and then compare them together using four case studies.
For the case studies, I am thinking two political revolutions and two economic revolutions. Two I definitely want to include are the French and Industrial revolutions. 

Europe's Imperialist Powers

I really should be doing my ancient assignment due this friday, but I was once again sidetracked when my research started to mention the spanish influence in Peru (I am researching the Inca civilisation as part of my Ancient history task, in the midst of looking for historians and sources i've come across the whole Spanish influence, since they were the first country who took interest in the place, anyway). I think i'll just have do deal with the fact that the influence of imperialism is almost everywhere, which is why I thought it would be such a great topic to research.

Since becoming sidetracked from history with other not-being-assessed-on-yet history, I researched three other imperialist powers apart from Spain. This included Britain, Germany and France.

The Imperialist Power of Britian

Yes, we're talking about the British Empire. One of the only countries to conquer a big good chunk of every continent. Even Antarctica. Britain would be a fun imperialist power to research, but they've really been known for being everywhere so it would be of significant difficulty to then narrow down my results to a singular, or even a few singular countries. 

This map shows the extent of their empire. 

Looking at this map actually reminded me of a little joke I found a while back. 

I mean look at the little guy, isn't he cute? 

It's obviously a biased perspective, but looking at the map above, one cannot say it is entirely false. 

It truly was an "Empire on which the sun never sets". And I suppose a really good question to ask then, would be, is that a good thing? 

And if it is good, to what extent is it good? 

I think if I do stick with imperialism, that will be the kind of focus question I will move towards, especially since looking at the British Empire now, well... its a lot smaller. So you'd have to question, is that because people realised the so called 'exploitation' of other countries was a terrible thing, or that times had changed to the point where imperialism was no longer needed as the individual countries had reached a point of independence? Oh the things one must ponder. 

The Imperialist Power of France

I must admit that looking at France as an imperialist power would be quite interesting since unlike Britain, it wasn't a big growth and then decline, but rather a fluctuation of different territories (France got around, but it liked to focus on a particular area for a while.) I also found this map of France's empire. You can see with the different shades of blue, the fluctuation in territories. 

Now, the good thing with doing France as an imperialist power means that I could focus on the territories it held over a specific time period. For example, I could do the Napoleonic Empire (WOO!), which would actually give me the ability to focus on a concept but also speak about Napoleon Bonaparte. The thing with France is that they always had an interesting looking empire. So yes, i'm definitely thinking about looking at their imperialist influence. 

The Imperialist Power of Germany

I think this Empire says enough for itself. 

Though, in the defence of Germany, they were a bunch of states which weren't completely united until after the Franco-Prussian war which ended in 1870. That also meant that they didn't begin building imperialist power until that time, so they were a little late in their quest for territories (clearly). 

But yet again, whilst researching this topic, Bismark has come up once again. 

If I was to do Germany as an imperialist power, I would definitely focus on Bismark and his policies, however, since they were so late to build up this imperialism, I don't think I would focus on 'the German Empire', rather an entire continent, like Africa, in which they would be included. 

The Imperialist Power of Spain

Spain has always fascinated me. They had a huge influence in South and Latin America, and an even bigger influence on the native peoples of those places. Whilst basically all those countries have now declared independence, doing readings on the actual initial conquering of Latin and South America, the Inca's, Aztecs etc were actually quite welcoming to the Spanish (this story goes a while back, but they essentially believed that the Spanish were gods, and treated them accordingly). But any who, their empire looked a bit like this:

As you can see, a very significant influence on the Americas. Doing research on the Spanish influence in the Americas could be an ideal topic as there is an automatic scope placed on it and I am rather interested to learn more about the ways in which the spanish interacted with the native people in the Americas.

Overall, whilst I do understand that I still haven't actually started to focus on a specific area, I feel that putting these ideas down and then contemplating them will help me in finally choosing what I wish to do. At this point, none of the ideas i've suggested to myself really make it for me as a topic of interest, I really hope whilst wallowing in this research, I find a good focus area that I feel passionate about.

Unfortunately, I'm still looking. Fortunately, it's only been three days, and I still have a good long while.