"The pleasure of hating....makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands." -William Hazlitt, "On the Pleasure of Hating"
I often like nothing better than finding a connection between classes. In this case, the above quote arose from a personal essay that Non-Fiction was assigned to read. It automatically made me think about the making of nations, as discussed in Chapter 21 of Western Civilizations as well as Mazzini's "The Duties of Man".
Incredibly idealistic in tone, "The Duties of Man" left me feeling empowered. This is our duty. This is what remains to be done. Now, let's gitterdun. At the same time however, like Declan thoughtfully brought up, nationalism obviously acts as an exclusionary force.
William Hazlitt also shares this view. While loving your country is a wonderful thing, sometimes it can become part of a slippery slope. While I think we're all perfectly capable of distancing ourselves from national fervor and being 100% in agreement with everything our nation does (especially in respect to foreign policy), I feel like the average citizen or revolutionary during the mid-19th century might not have the liberty of being so well-informed.
Thus, I wonder if nationalism, while leading to fraternity and passion, also contributed to warfare during that time. In the Crimean War? How exactly did nationalism rear its head? Was it all positive?
January 29, 2009
January 26, 2009
Bismarck: Machiavelli Lover
As I was reading about Bismarck last night, I couldn't help but think that he reminded me of someone. Then, I read zak p's blog post and all became clear.
I completely agree that Bismarck "ruled" with Machiavellian principles at the root of his decisions. Thinking back to the lion/fox metaphor that were talking about last semester, it is clear that Bismarck completely fulfilled these criterion. As a lion, he didn't shy away from war, encouraging change through "Iron and Blood." As a fox he successfully manipulated competing nations (Austria, Denmark, and France) to move against one another, almost like playing a game of tic-tac-toe. At the same time, he also worked to appeal to the working-class man, always trying to appear as though he was working for the underdog (as briefly discussed in class).
The more I read, the more respect I gained, but also lost, for him. On one hand, his political mind is unparalleled (at least when compared with previous rulers we have learned about this year). Yes, many before him ruled with great authority, but none was so clearly manipulative. On the other hand, I could not help but think, who on earth would do such things? Falsifying documents, breaking agreements...
And then I thought about the Zimmerman Telegram, another case in which (although not falsified) a document played a key role a nation's declaration of war.
Similarly, in class today, many of us (yours truly included), delved into wily ways. While many of us forgot about public opinion, Bismarck obviously had thought that out, fulfilling a Machiavellian expectation. Setting aside the matter of dressing up Prussians as Austrians and launching "defensive" against the "aggressors," why did we all turn to deception? Was it just spitting back out the textbook? Could the Prussian/Austrian/French(/Danish) conflicts have been resolved in a way other than war?
I completely agree that Bismarck "ruled" with Machiavellian principles at the root of his decisions. Thinking back to the lion/fox metaphor that were talking about last semester, it is clear that Bismarck completely fulfilled these criterion. As a lion, he didn't shy away from war, encouraging change through "Iron and Blood." As a fox he successfully manipulated competing nations (Austria, Denmark, and France) to move against one another, almost like playing a game of tic-tac-toe. At the same time, he also worked to appeal to the working-class man, always trying to appear as though he was working for the underdog (as briefly discussed in class).
The more I read, the more respect I gained, but also lost, for him. On one hand, his political mind is unparalleled (at least when compared with previous rulers we have learned about this year). Yes, many before him ruled with great authority, but none was so clearly manipulative. On the other hand, I could not help but think, who on earth would do such things? Falsifying documents, breaking agreements...
And then I thought about the Zimmerman Telegram, another case in which (although not falsified) a document played a key role a nation's declaration of war.
Similarly, in class today, many of us (yours truly included), delved into wily ways. While many of us forgot about public opinion, Bismarck obviously had thought that out, fulfilling a Machiavellian expectation. Setting aside the matter of dressing up Prussians as Austrians and launching "defensive" against the "aggressors," why did we all turn to deception? Was it just spitting back out the textbook? Could the Prussian/Austrian/French(/Danish) conflicts have been resolved in a way other than war?
January 25, 2009
Nationalism: The Process
I feel like the theme this week in MEH was nationalism. Although revolution and 1848 were the stage on which the theme was invoked, the reading consistently discussed nationalism, specifically the ways it changed over the years and its effects on revolutionary (or reforming) efforts.
Charlie was adept enough to point out the wandering (and contradictory) nature of my last blog post. Since then I've reflected on it and decided that he's completely correct. As I was writing, I was simultaneously consulting the textbook and hence I believe that my point of view changed depending on the section of the book I was reading. The post was written previous to any class discussion on nationalism had taken place, which I think only further enriched my thoughts on the matter.
Probably the most interesting thing we did in class was debate the matter of the U.S.A. as a nation. Reading other blogs, I was particularly interested in what DK and DLemma had to say on the matter.
We adopt the notion of legitimacy practiced by the Concert of Europe, i.e. the notion that "if we say it's legit., then it's legit." Essentially, nationhood is a product of (1) the desire of the people to be a nation and (2) arcane and arbitrary exclusivity. You can't be a nation and let everyone in. -DK
Nationalism- helped unify groups of people that identified themselves as "German" or "Italian," but it also broke apart people from different ethnicities that were living in the same nation and therefore a tangled mess of alliances was created. -DLemma
I'd agree with both of them, and trying to reflect upon the matter of the U.S.A. as a nation, I must consider an issue they both bring up: ethnicity.
As DK notes, to create a nation, people must desire one. As DLemma says, a nation helps to unify, but it also helps to break apart. I feel, though, that creating a nation doesn't necessarily have to "break apart people" or create "a tangled mess of alliances." While this undisputedly happened in Europe during the mid-19th century, the U.S.A. was different. While Europe was struggling to unify many groups of people who had all lived on the land for years (like Israel/Palestine perhaps), the United States was created almost solely by the overwhelming majority of Caucasian immigrants. The indigenous people were entirely excluded from the process.
Now though, it's as if the process is happening in reverse. Italy started divided and now is united. The USA, arguably, started united and now is...divided (?). As Lollotte brought up in class, as globalization comes more and more into play, with the identity of the U.S.A. as an almost entirely Caucasian country definitely ceasing to exist, are we still a nation? With these different groups of people (much like the minority populations in Germany and Austria-Hungary), can we/do we manage to hold it together?
Charlie was adept enough to point out the wandering (and contradictory) nature of my last blog post. Since then I've reflected on it and decided that he's completely correct. As I was writing, I was simultaneously consulting the textbook and hence I believe that my point of view changed depending on the section of the book I was reading. The post was written previous to any class discussion on nationalism had taken place, which I think only further enriched my thoughts on the matter.
Probably the most interesting thing we did in class was debate the matter of the U.S.A. as a nation. Reading other blogs, I was particularly interested in what DK and DLemma had to say on the matter.
We adopt the notion of legitimacy practiced by the Concert of Europe, i.e. the notion that "if we say it's legit., then it's legit." Essentially, nationhood is a product of (1) the desire of the people to be a nation and (2) arcane and arbitrary exclusivity. You can't be a nation and let everyone in. -DK
Nationalism- helped unify groups of people that identified themselves as "German" or "Italian," but it also broke apart people from different ethnicities that were living in the same nation and therefore a tangled mess of alliances was created. -DLemma
I'd agree with both of them, and trying to reflect upon the matter of the U.S.A. as a nation, I must consider an issue they both bring up: ethnicity.
As DK notes, to create a nation, people must desire one. As DLemma says, a nation helps to unify, but it also helps to break apart. I feel, though, that creating a nation doesn't necessarily have to "break apart people" or create "a tangled mess of alliances." While this undisputedly happened in Europe during the mid-19th century, the U.S.A. was different. While Europe was struggling to unify many groups of people who had all lived on the land for years (like Israel/Palestine perhaps), the United States was created almost solely by the overwhelming majority of Caucasian immigrants. The indigenous people were entirely excluded from the process.
Now though, it's as if the process is happening in reverse. Italy started divided and now is united. The USA, arguably, started united and now is...divided (?). As Lollotte brought up in class, as globalization comes more and more into play, with the identity of the U.S.A. as an almost entirely Caucasian country definitely ceasing to exist, are we still a nation? With these different groups of people (much like the minority populations in Germany and Austria-Hungary), can we/do we manage to hold it together?
January 21, 2009
Power of (to?) the People
Nationalism is not something learned. Pledging allegiance to a piece of fabric cannot possibly create nationalism, nor can being encouraged to "take a more active role in civil service" (Western Civilizations, Coffin & Stacey, 746). Nationalism, instead, comes from the people.
In the case of Prussia in the early 19th century, with reforms aiming to "revive 'patriotism and national honor and independence,'" the interference of the government in the domain of the citizen did not bode well. Encouraging nationalism in your country's people does not automatically boost the popularity of a regime. In fact, this is exemplified in the 1840's when Prussians rose up against the government, criticizing the lack of political freedom.
Similarly, Tsar Nicholas attempted to manipulate nationalism to curry favor among the people. This, however, had a definite downside, as it meant alienating the people who were not pro-Slav. Nationalism is only a stage on which other issues come to play. Yes there were empires, but within these empires existed minorities (the book would like you to read "liabilities to autocratic control"). In this sense, ruling a country could not be taken as a cookie-cutter process. All citizens were not the same, nor had the same wants. Even beyond the racial/ethnic divisions, there were also political divisions, complete with subgroups.
Popular rebellion is difficult to control, but often can be effective should the rebels pull their act together in a cohesive argument. In the case of Frederick William in 1848, the strength of the Prussian revolutionaries bullied the king into capitulating
And with popular rebellion often comes a sense of nationalism ("the sense of belonging to a community that shares historical, geographic, cultural, or political traditions" [Ibid.,745]). When fighting for a common goal (should the goal indeed be common, at least in the greatest sense), a certain camaraderie arises among the individuals. However, even this can be held back by the aforementioned divisions, be them political or ethnic.
What rebels need to be successful is a clear focus, a singular thing around which to orient their fight, and an integral part in determining this goal. For Hungarians, this was Lajos Kossuth, who played an integral part in strengthening the popular rebellion by adding the forces of some lower aristocracy.
In the case of Prussia in the early 19th century, with reforms aiming to "revive 'patriotism and national honor and independence,'" the interference of the government in the domain of the citizen did not bode well. Encouraging nationalism in your country's people does not automatically boost the popularity of a regime. In fact, this is exemplified in the 1840's when Prussians rose up against the government, criticizing the lack of political freedom.
Similarly, Tsar Nicholas attempted to manipulate nationalism to curry favor among the people. This, however, had a definite downside, as it meant alienating the people who were not pro-Slav. Nationalism is only a stage on which other issues come to play. Yes there were empires, but within these empires existed minorities (the book would like you to read "liabilities to autocratic control"). In this sense, ruling a country could not be taken as a cookie-cutter process. All citizens were not the same, nor had the same wants. Even beyond the racial/ethnic divisions, there were also political divisions, complete with subgroups.
Popular rebellion is difficult to control, but often can be effective should the rebels pull their act together in a cohesive argument. In the case of Frederick William in 1848, the strength of the Prussian revolutionaries bullied the king into capitulating
And with popular rebellion often comes a sense of nationalism ("the sense of belonging to a community that shares historical, geographic, cultural, or political traditions" [Ibid.,745]). When fighting for a common goal (should the goal indeed be common, at least in the greatest sense), a certain camaraderie arises among the individuals. However, even this can be held back by the aforementioned divisions, be them political or ethnic.
What rebels need to be successful is a clear focus, a singular thing around which to orient their fight, and an integral part in determining this goal. For Hungarians, this was Lajos Kossuth, who played an integral part in strengthening the popular rebellion by adding the forces of some lower aristocracy.
Britain, France, and French Kings: 732-742
In the year and a half since Western Civ, I had conveniently forgotten that Liberty Leading the People was not a depiction of the French Revolution of the 1790's, but rather of the revolutions of 1830. This is slightly embarrassing because on the whole I'd like to think more highly of my memory.
Aside from this striking revelation, the reading did little to inspire any sort of excited spark in me. What I did notice however, follows:
-On Abdication: Both Charles X (ruled 1824-1830)and his successor, Louis Philippe (1830-1848) abdicated. What was this motivated by? I thought about other French rulers who had also abdicated and their possible motivations (saving their lives, etc., etc.), but my intuition (maybe hearkening back to Metternich) directed me towards peace. While obviously the abdications of two rulers in quick succession cannot be explained by a mere desire for harmony, in combination with fear for life and scarily passionate, nationalistic citizens, certainly would do it.
-On Britain and France's "revolutions": Obviously, and as she probably proudly proclaims, Britain never went through an outright revolution. France, oh, the ever volatile France, obviously did...in fact they went through a couple. Slow change versus stuttering change. What truly was accomplished with warfare? Probably very little. Since in saying this I am not trying to be pro-British or anti-revolution, I shall point out the following. The Chartist Petition obviously became a thing around which Brits could organize themselves, something they could become passionate about, and even consider dying for; however, even within the classification of "Chartist," several subgroups undermined any real unity. Conversely, in France, (coincidentally seen in Delacroix's painting), the revolutions seemed to be a fountain spouting nationalism, no matter how crushed or oppressed it might have been.
Aside from this striking revelation, the reading did little to inspire any sort of excited spark in me. What I did notice however, follows:
-On Abdication: Both Charles X (ruled 1824-1830)and his successor, Louis Philippe (1830-1848) abdicated. What was this motivated by? I thought about other French rulers who had also abdicated and their possible motivations (saving their lives, etc., etc.), but my intuition (maybe hearkening back to Metternich) directed me towards peace. While obviously the abdications of two rulers in quick succession cannot be explained by a mere desire for harmony, in combination with fear for life and scarily passionate, nationalistic citizens, certainly would do it.
-On Britain and France's "revolutions": Obviously, and as she probably proudly proclaims, Britain never went through an outright revolution. France, oh, the ever volatile France, obviously did...in fact they went through a couple. Slow change versus stuttering change. What truly was accomplished with warfare? Probably very little. Since in saying this I am not trying to be pro-British or anti-revolution, I shall point out the following. The Chartist Petition obviously became a thing around which Brits could organize themselves, something they could become passionate about, and even consider dying for; however, even within the classification of "Chartist," several subgroups undermined any real unity. Conversely, in France, (coincidentally seen in Delacroix's painting), the revolutions seemed to be a fountain spouting nationalism, no matter how crushed or oppressed it might have been.
January 15, 2009
RE: a response to my prior post
Considering this post.
"Or, if you are just going to school and getting good grades so that you may get into a good college and for no other reason, why attend school at all or pay for a school as expensive at UHS? Why not take that money and go skiing and to baseball games now?"
"I just think it is interesting that we all seem to want to be happy but think that the only way to be happy is to make a lot of money, even if you are miserable while doing it, so that we can have a few weeks vacation every year to actually be happy."
---------------------------
While reading this response to my previous post, I thought of the movie "The Great Debaters" in which a character says, "We do what we have to do so we can do what we want to do."
Considering this, I find it quite effective in representing my view of things. As my mother liked to remind me when I was little, "Well, sometimes we have to do things we don't like to." This conversation would normally take place within the context of me refusing to practice viola or eat tuna fish or something completely useless since I never was especially good at viola or very fond of mayonnaise.
Striving for something (like the bigger, capitalized End) does not mean that one rushes through life, "just going to school and getting good grades" in order to advance to the next step. It doesn't mean that there's no pleasure or happiness derived from going to UHS. Obviously there is, otherwise I would be in a different schooling situation. Having a greater End merely adjusts the perspective with which one might approach the alienation we feel sometimes (often, according to a rough poll in our class) as students doing seemingly pointless work.
The End isn't necessarily money either. Everyone has their personal end and yes for some maybe it's wealth, but I think that most people are grounded enough to see the larger picture. While eventually a large portion of us won't have the "perfect job," I doubt that any early 19th century worker truly felt impassioned by their factory work. We all would like to do any number of seemingly frivolous, but nonetheless personally important things like watch "The City," but sometimes we can't. Sometimes food had to be put on the table and clothing on the back. The End is an ideal.
And while skiing and baseball games are great, they're a sort of temporary happiness. Sure if you buy season passes or tickets, then the happiness is prolonged somewhat, but most people cannot go through life without facing circumstances that force them into labor of some sort. Why not have at least some semblance of control over your career so you don't end up completely loathing your job? School, no matter how great and amazing or stressful and inane it may seem at times, is a sort of cushion so we don't all end up selling ShamWows (though I'm sure he really enjoys his job and went through some sort of unpleasant schooling to get it). If your life goal is to sell ShamWows, then that's great. I'm sure that the training for it isn't particularly interesting, but if once you snap on the headset and polo then that's your End, congratulations.
For the rest of us, maybe it's not so simple. It's like this:
Child: Mommy, mommy! I want to become a rockstar.
Mother: Wow, Johnny, that's so exciting! What instrument?
Child: All of them!
And just in case Johnny can't manage to become a one-man mega band, Johnny also goes to school and decides he likes science class because he gets to blow things up.
The ShamWow Commercial
"Or, if you are just going to school and getting good grades so that you may get into a good college and for no other reason, why attend school at all or pay for a school as expensive at UHS? Why not take that money and go skiing and to baseball games now?"
"I just think it is interesting that we all seem to want to be happy but think that the only way to be happy is to make a lot of money, even if you are miserable while doing it, so that we can have a few weeks vacation every year to actually be happy."
---------------------------
While reading this response to my previous post, I thought of the movie "The Great Debaters" in which a character says, "We do what we have to do so we can do what we want to do."
Considering this, I find it quite effective in representing my view of things. As my mother liked to remind me when I was little, "Well, sometimes we have to do things we don't like to." This conversation would normally take place within the context of me refusing to practice viola or eat tuna fish or something completely useless since I never was especially good at viola or very fond of mayonnaise.
Striving for something (like the bigger, capitalized End) does not mean that one rushes through life, "just going to school and getting good grades" in order to advance to the next step. It doesn't mean that there's no pleasure or happiness derived from going to UHS. Obviously there is, otherwise I would be in a different schooling situation. Having a greater End merely adjusts the perspective with which one might approach the alienation we feel sometimes (often, according to a rough poll in our class) as students doing seemingly pointless work.
The End isn't necessarily money either. Everyone has their personal end and yes for some maybe it's wealth, but I think that most people are grounded enough to see the larger picture. While eventually a large portion of us won't have the "perfect job," I doubt that any early 19th century worker truly felt impassioned by their factory work. We all would like to do any number of seemingly frivolous, but nonetheless personally important things like watch "The City," but sometimes we can't. Sometimes food had to be put on the table and clothing on the back. The End is an ideal.
And while skiing and baseball games are great, they're a sort of temporary happiness. Sure if you buy season passes or tickets, then the happiness is prolonged somewhat, but most people cannot go through life without facing circumstances that force them into labor of some sort. Why not have at least some semblance of control over your career so you don't end up completely loathing your job? School, no matter how great and amazing or stressful and inane it may seem at times, is a sort of cushion so we don't all end up selling ShamWows (though I'm sure he really enjoys his job and went through some sort of unpleasant schooling to get it). If your life goal is to sell ShamWows, then that's great. I'm sure that the training for it isn't particularly interesting, but if once you snap on the headset and polo then that's your End, congratulations.
For the rest of us, maybe it's not so simple. It's like this:
Child: Mommy, mommy! I want to become a rockstar.
Mother: Wow, Johnny, that's so exciting! What instrument?
Child: All of them!
And just in case Johnny can't manage to become a one-man mega band, Johnny also goes to school and decides he likes science class because he gets to blow things up.
The ShamWow Commercial
RE: On Marx's Estranged Labor
Regarding this post.
"When work is seen as a means to an end, the workers labor will seize to be Marx’s “forced” labor but instead be voluntary labor, as the worker imagines his labor helping fulfill his vision of a better life. Thus, a society that encourages mobility is a society that liberates the worker from the pains of estrangement and alienation."
Interestingly, this topic was also addressed in my class, but in a seemingly contradictory way. Perhaps the problems lies in the phrase "means to an end." When brought up, it instantly reminded me of last semester and Immanuel Kant (though this was not particularly helpful), and in turn the paragraphs we wrote about his categorical imperative. The more I thought about the paragraph the more I was reminded of the complexities that arise when considering a situation, and hence, I arrived at the following conclusion: Treating work as a means to an end might free the worker from alienation; however, it is quite dependent on what end a worker can see.
Attitude is everything. In class, the following question was proposed: When was the last time you did anything without caring what anyone thought?
The class thought long an hard, but personally, I felt confused. What does it mean to "not care"? Does asking for people's approval count? I considered high school, specifically the past year or so in which work seemed to exponentially speed up. As assignments flew by and I completed each one with less thought and/or personal attachment, did I feel more alienated? What was my end? To some (though hopefully not too many) the answer might be simple: college. But what about beyond that?
After considering the matter over the past day, I have decided that there are ends and then there are Ends, meaning the things that really count. College is a end, uncapitalized, while Happiness (for me and most people I'd imagine), is a big End. We work, go through school, complete homework as means most of the time. High School has been, at least some of the time, a means. College too will be a means to an extent, but when thinking about this greater End which is still fairly vague in my mind, I feel less alienated by my work.
While I have responded to the pertinent post in a most indirect manner, I would like to address one more quote. "Thus, a society that encourages mobility is a society that liberates the worker from the pains of estrangement and alienation." This is something I agree with (and what I have spent this post trying to personalize and legitimize). In my case I would phrase it like this: A society that fosters limitless possibility is a society which frees a person from alienation.
With the tools of imagination and a fair bit of optimism (depending on circumstance), we have the power to free ourselves.
"When work is seen as a means to an end, the workers labor will seize to be Marx’s “forced” labor but instead be voluntary labor, as the worker imagines his labor helping fulfill his vision of a better life. Thus, a society that encourages mobility is a society that liberates the worker from the pains of estrangement and alienation."
Interestingly, this topic was also addressed in my class, but in a seemingly contradictory way. Perhaps the problems lies in the phrase "means to an end." When brought up, it instantly reminded me of last semester and Immanuel Kant (though this was not particularly helpful), and in turn the paragraphs we wrote about his categorical imperative. The more I thought about the paragraph the more I was reminded of the complexities that arise when considering a situation, and hence, I arrived at the following conclusion: Treating work as a means to an end might free the worker from alienation; however, it is quite dependent on what end a worker can see.
Attitude is everything. In class, the following question was proposed: When was the last time you did anything without caring what anyone thought?
The class thought long an hard, but personally, I felt confused. What does it mean to "not care"? Does asking for people's approval count? I considered high school, specifically the past year or so in which work seemed to exponentially speed up. As assignments flew by and I completed each one with less thought and/or personal attachment, did I feel more alienated? What was my end? To some (though hopefully not too many) the answer might be simple: college. But what about beyond that?
After considering the matter over the past day, I have decided that there are ends and then there are Ends, meaning the things that really count. College is a end, uncapitalized, while Happiness (for me and most people I'd imagine), is a big End. We work, go through school, complete homework as means most of the time. High School has been, at least some of the time, a means. College too will be a means to an extent, but when thinking about this greater End which is still fairly vague in my mind, I feel less alienated by my work.
While I have responded to the pertinent post in a most indirect manner, I would like to address one more quote. "Thus, a society that encourages mobility is a society that liberates the worker from the pains of estrangement and alienation." This is something I agree with (and what I have spent this post trying to personalize and legitimize). In my case I would phrase it like this: A society that fosters limitless possibility is a society which frees a person from alienation.
With the tools of imagination and a fair bit of optimism (depending on circumstance), we have the power to free ourselves.
January 12, 2009
RE: Back to the Future
In response to this post.
I don’t know whether this emphasis on peace is simply a reaction to the tumultuous time immediately beforehand and part of an attempt to rebuild Europe, or whether the function of war in the eyes of monarchs has changed and at this time the possible unifying effect and gains of territory and wealth are not worth the damage done...
Probably a little bit of both. After coming off this long stretch of warfare, peace seemed like a very good idea and monarchs were more reluctant to go to war.
I think the important thing to focus on would be Napoleon's legacy in international relations. Keeping in mind that the Napoleonic wars ripped apart Europe and devastated populations of peasants, with the increasing importance of the common people, I feel like Coffin (for once), while perhaps simplifying the issue, did represent it accurately. Additionally, I think that the Napoleonic wars and French Revolution left bloody scars which definitely acted as a added motivation, if not desperation, for peace and stability. Monarchs who had been attacked and ousted because of Napoleon had a great desire to be legitimized, thus solidifying their power, and therefore would make sacrifices should they be necessary.
Addressing the second point of a possible change in monarchs' perception of warfare: I noticed something similar while doing the reading. It seemed like war became used more as a tool, a means to a specific, calculated end. Cost versus benefit definitely came to my mind, especially seen in the Balkan conflicts. Again this resonates with the emergence of alliances. "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you." A "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" type of scenario. It seems like countries no longer marched off on strictly territorial disputes, but rather looked for greater reasons (e.g. religion) that would stir them to fight.
I don’t know whether this emphasis on peace is simply a reaction to the tumultuous time immediately beforehand and part of an attempt to rebuild Europe, or whether the function of war in the eyes of monarchs has changed and at this time the possible unifying effect and gains of territory and wealth are not worth the damage done...
Probably a little bit of both. After coming off this long stretch of warfare, peace seemed like a very good idea and monarchs were more reluctant to go to war.
I think the important thing to focus on would be Napoleon's legacy in international relations. Keeping in mind that the Napoleonic wars ripped apart Europe and devastated populations of peasants, with the increasing importance of the common people, I feel like Coffin (for once), while perhaps simplifying the issue, did represent it accurately. Additionally, I think that the Napoleonic wars and French Revolution left bloody scars which definitely acted as a added motivation, if not desperation, for peace and stability. Monarchs who had been attacked and ousted because of Napoleon had a great desire to be legitimized, thus solidifying their power, and therefore would make sacrifices should they be necessary.
Addressing the second point of a possible change in monarchs' perception of warfare: I noticed something similar while doing the reading. It seemed like war became used more as a tool, a means to a specific, calculated end. Cost versus benefit definitely came to my mind, especially seen in the Balkan conflicts. Again this resonates with the emergence of alliances. "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you." A "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" type of scenario. It seems like countries no longer marched off on strictly territorial disputes, but rather looked for greater reasons (e.g. religion) that would stir them to fight.
Too Legit to Quit
How often does the phrase "that's legit" come up in conversation day to day? In my experience, a whole lot more than anyone would realize, or desire. As a guilty party who often partakes in using "hella legit," I was especially struck by, what seems to me to be, the obsession which people in the early 19th century had with legitimacy.
If legitimacy is considered the main source of stability, then referencing prior history, wouldn't a "legitimate" king like Louis XVI have a stable, wonderfully prosperous rule? Even though this is a gross oversimplification of what we've learned was a highly complex issue, I think that it was rather idealistic of Conservative diplomats to believe that legitimacy alone would possibly assure peace in Europe.
It is for this reason that Western Civilizations then mentions the three sub-pillars of Conservatism's plan for harmony: monarchy, aristocracy, and the Church. I couldn't help but consider if these still hold true.
Monarchy: In a way? This is highly debatable. "Monarch" could be replaced in some cases by "President" or any other centralized power; however, it also carries the connotation of unchecked power by birthright.
Aristocracy: Power in the hands of few? It exists, but does it lead to stability? It kind of reminds me of a teachers/students situation. Teachers have the power and make the important decisions. Students tolerate it because they are suppressed. It works, it's fairly subtle, but let's face it, the students aren't happy! Should the students be given, say...a way in which to resist, then obviously there would be a huge problem.
Church: This perhaps is the most solid. The Church, or more generally, Religion still plays a huge role in dictating morals and ethics. If doubtful, one need only reference the ongoing fight for gay rights. But is it a "mainstay[] of social and political order" (Western Civilizations, 718)? Probably not. Within smaller, homogeneous communities religion can be quite the solidifying force; however, as one zooms outward and considers a more diverse landscape, religion transforms into dividing force.
The Conservatives may have considered their ideology "hella legit," but in a modern context, it seems to lack credibility.
If legitimacy is considered the main source of stability, then referencing prior history, wouldn't a "legitimate" king like Louis XVI have a stable, wonderfully prosperous rule? Even though this is a gross oversimplification of what we've learned was a highly complex issue, I think that it was rather idealistic of Conservative diplomats to believe that legitimacy alone would possibly assure peace in Europe.
It is for this reason that Western Civilizations then mentions the three sub-pillars of Conservatism's plan for harmony: monarchy, aristocracy, and the Church. I couldn't help but consider if these still hold true.
Monarchy: In a way? This is highly debatable. "Monarch" could be replaced in some cases by "President" or any other centralized power; however, it also carries the connotation of unchecked power by birthright.
Aristocracy: Power in the hands of few? It exists, but does it lead to stability? It kind of reminds me of a teachers/students situation. Teachers have the power and make the important decisions. Students tolerate it because they are suppressed. It works, it's fairly subtle, but let's face it, the students aren't happy! Should the students be given, say...a way in which to resist, then obviously there would be a huge problem.
Church: This perhaps is the most solid. The Church, or more generally, Religion still plays a huge role in dictating morals and ethics. If doubtful, one need only reference the ongoing fight for gay rights. But is it a "mainstay[] of social and political order" (Western Civilizations, 718)? Probably not. Within smaller, homogeneous communities religion can be quite the solidifying force; however, as one zooms outward and considers a more diverse landscape, religion transforms into dividing force.
The Conservatives may have considered their ideology "hella legit," but in a modern context, it seems to lack credibility.
January 11, 2009
After the War Came
While doing the reading at my dining room table, I decided that it would be entirely appropriate to listen to The Decemberists. Unfortunately it seems that zero to none of their lyrics fit in with what the reading detailed, with the exception of "When the War Came," which says:
A terrible autonomy,
Is grafted onto you and me,
Our trust put in the government,
They told their lies are heaven sent,
'Til the war came.
The lyrics bring up the idea of the Divine Right of Kings, a principle which was pushed aside by Metternich and the Congress of Vienna. Rather than getting power from god, a ruler was legitimized by "international treaties, support, and a series of guarantees" (Western Civilizations, Coffin and Stacey, 712). Even though the Decembrists came into being in 1825 years after the Congress of Vienna (1814), the Decemberists (band), forgiving the anachronism, seem to address the more positive side of revolution and war. The "terrible autonomy" is easily enough viewed as any autocratic power which was overthrown because of the uprisings in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. But everything changed when "the war came."
The legacies of the revolutions (in thought, government, etc.) can be seen in their prolonged impact on society. As Western Civilizations addresses on the opening page of Chapter 20, as much as Metternich wished to reintroduce the same sort of political stability as before, changes in how people viewed themselves and their places within the cultural context made restoration impossible.
Peace would have to be found in a different way.
As international relations quickly became a game of alliances and subtle (or not so subtle) threats like the Monroe Doctrine, the way peace was established similarly changed. Manipulation and opportunism came to the front of the game. Seen in the Balkan conflicts of the 1820's, the desire for peace did not preclude gain. Sacrifice, in the sense of power and esteem, was not necessary.
Is grafted onto you and me,
Our trust put in the government,
They told their lies are heaven sent,
'Til the war came.
The lyrics bring up the idea of the Divine Right of Kings, a principle which was pushed aside by Metternich and the Congress of Vienna. Rather than getting power from god, a ruler was legitimized by "international treaties, support, and a series of guarantees" (Western Civilizations, Coffin and Stacey, 712). Even though the Decembrists came into being in 1825 years after the Congress of Vienna (1814), the Decemberists (band), forgiving the anachronism, seem to address the more positive side of revolution and war. The "terrible autonomy" is easily enough viewed as any autocratic power which was overthrown because of the uprisings in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. But everything changed when "the war came."
The legacies of the revolutions (in thought, government, etc.) can be seen in their prolonged impact on society. As Western Civilizations addresses on the opening page of Chapter 20, as much as Metternich wished to reintroduce the same sort of political stability as before, changes in how people viewed themselves and their places within the cultural context made restoration impossible.
Peace would have to be found in a different way.
As international relations quickly became a game of alliances and subtle (or not so subtle) threats like the Monroe Doctrine, the way peace was established similarly changed. Manipulation and opportunism came to the front of the game. Seen in the Balkan conflicts of the 1820's, the desire for peace did not preclude gain. Sacrifice, in the sense of power and esteem, was not necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
