On Freud (and Le Bon)

While reading JED's post on Freud, I found myself thinking back to Western Civ during sophomore year. Then, when I reached the second paragraph, Jonathan supplied the name which I had been troubling myself to remember. Le Bon

I agree that there's a flaw in Freud's attempt to say that the actions of a group can be taken as proof of an individual's nature, disregarding the effect of a crowd/mob mentality. However, what interested me was trying to apply Freud's theories of the id, ego, and superego to the situations of the Huns, Mongols, Crusades, or World War I. If he argues that these atrocities exemplify the violent, aggressive nature of humans, then they would be succumbing to their ids? Did the ego or superego even exist in these situations? Certainly, they're not things that have evolved, since he considers the recent world war along with more ancient history. Could the crowd/herd effect in fact act to empower the id? Could it weaken the ego? If in fact, suddenly everyone around you is raping/pillaging/plundering, doesn't this make it immediately more socially acceptable to do the same?

The Rise of the Newsies

It was interesting that while reading about the rise of newspapers in the 19th century, I could also go online and read about how the SF Chronicle could be closing (article here). A further connection? William Randolph Hearst, mentioned in Western Civilizations as a "commercial publisher[]....[who] hastened to serve the new reading public" started The Hearst Corp. which controls the Chronicle today.

I couldn't help but examine the similarities and differences between now and then, in regards to literacy and mass media outlets. As the issue of how to "save" the newspaper is fast becoming critical, much of the debate focuses upon how to continue to earn revenue. As mentioned in the book, "Advertisements drastically lowered the costs of the mass-market newspapers, enabling even workers to purchase one or two newspapers a day" (858). Advertising has since driven the newspaper industry, the gasoline which allows the car to continue driving. To extend the metaphor further, now it appears as though the gasoline/oil reserves are no longer effective. What will be the hybrid or green technology for the newspaper though?

A Russian Debate

Ah, the joys of debating!

I was finally able to put to use my previous knowledge of the Bolsheviks (courtesy of Russian Literature with Scott) in a constructive way. After reading Charlie's blog post which (I feel) accurately portrays the debate that went on during 3rd period, I have arrived at much the same conclusion. It was sort of inevitable that the Bolsheviks would win the debate, though I do have much respect for the Octoberists. More importantly, their paramount task of attempting to convince us that the Tsar would magically surrender his power made me think about a conversation we had a few weeks ago while talking about Italian nationalism, specifically, when talking about Garibaldi ceding power to the king in order to unify Italy. This is an example of a man surrendering power, even though he was not a "conservative absolutist ruler giving up power voluntarily to a liberal or socialist public." I still thought of him, while debating.

Similarly, as of late I've been thinking about communism and so-called "communist" countries which, somehow, have fallen by the wayside into despotism. Cuba. North Korea. China. All have moved away from traditional Marxist communism and I must wonder why. What changed? Wasn't the original intent of communism to give the government to the people? To give everything to the people? I think it's ironic that in removing capitalism (and the absolutist rulers) which stood in the way of the glorious communism, the very revolutionaries who sought to overthrow the system instead have managed to establish their very own dictatorships.

Tradition!

Interestingly, when titling this blog post, I instantly thought of "Fiddler on the Roof". I planned on starting off with "Although my title is completely anachronistic", but when I Googled the musical, 'lo and behold, "Fiddler on the Roof is set in the small Jewish village of Anatevka, Russia, in 1905" (source here). How apt.

Both last night's reading and the debate today in class caused me to think a lot about tradition. Danielle's blog post questioned why a Tsar (Alexander II, III, or Nicholas II) didn't try to stave off revolution with reform. My admittedly weak answer is: tradition.

Specifically the book says, "Alexander II claimed his people had been nurtured on mystical piety for centuries and would be utterly lost without a strong autocratic system" (Western Civilizations, 844). I would agree with this. I see no other reason for the lack of reform and enhanced repressive tactics, than tradition. Russia had, more or less, always been governed by a single great leader (think Catherine or Peter the Great). Any previous time there had been stirrings of revolution (Decembrist Revolt), the autocrat had managed to put down the rebels. Why should this instance in the early 1900's have looked any different to the Tsar? Why would he have thought to reform or try a new tactic other than enhancing his level of control? Perhaps he did not realize the extent of popular discontent, or did not recognize that the people saw the loss of the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) as a sign of his own weakness. In any case, Tsar Nicholas II elected to maintain tradition, and look where it got him.

Ironically, a similar situation was paralleled among the peasants. As we learned in class, they'd always thought of the Tsar as a father-like figure, to whom they could air their grievances and expect nominal change. Bloody Sunday in 1905 was a slap in the face. It broke the news that the Tsar was not their father, would not listen to them, and would not be swayed by 200,000 peasants protesting in St. Petersburg. Traditional beliefs had once again been misleading; however, for the peasants this violent wake-up call was not the end. This was really only the beginning.

Suffrage Movement

Piggybacking on a series of posts (1, 2, and 3).

Specifically: "Despite the seemingly monotony of such a life, women embraced their role, believing that being a good wife and mother was an honorable task whose successful completion was the mark of an elevated character." (here)

And: "Women during the 19th century remained very content with their Victorian roles, seeing themselves as the “angel in the house” securing – through the proper education of their children – the morality of future generations." (here)

I think it would be difficult to generalize and say that women "embraced" their role. I think that yes, they remained subservient, perhaps not out of pure unadulterated joy, but rather because that was expected. Previous discussion of the woman's role in society had always been conducted by men (think about the Reformation/Counter Reformation). The instances in which woman had stood up for themselves had been in a strictly religious realm (e.g. convents) which differed from the political arena.

During the 19th century I do not believe that women "remained very content with their Victorian roles"; I think that they simply were yet to become aware that they could change their situations. With the rise of machines during the second Industrial Revolution, the demands for new workers (in factories and healthcare etc.), women were called out of their homes. Their families needed food (though this had previously also been the case during the first IR) and employers were hiring women. Work was the spark to light the fuse of the suffragette movement. It acted as the "buy in" (think about poker) in the game of mass politics. Women worked. Men worked. (Most) men could vote. Why not women too?

2¢ of this week: imperialism

I figured I should try to jump on the train that is: Nate's response to Nick's summary which commented on Danielle's summary in a sort of response to Elizabeth's original post.

What specifically caught my attention was Danielle's comment about, "all of the empires ready to spread their wings and fairy dust all over the world (Britain, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, the USA, etc...)." Slightly humorous, it definitely mirrored my feelings about imperialism as we've been talking about it all week. What made Britain's way "right"? Or France "better"? Or Germany more "civilized"? This "fairy dust" while perhaps seeming magical to the folks back home, had absolutely horrific effects on the imperialized nations, cultures, and peoples. I cannot even fathom the level of hypocrisy which European countries (PLUS the USA) exhibited during this time period. While marching down to Africa or India or China or wherever proclaiming, "We just want to help the poor [insert non-white "uncivilized" people here]!" they carried machine guns, political agendas, and an unquenchable thirst for diamonds, rubber, gold, and cheap labor.

Unsurprisingly, when one of the two goals (civilizing or self-strengthening) had to go away, it was always the former. Concentration Camps during the Boer War? It's for the good of the natives! Forced labor? We freed them from slavery! Imperialism, for "Westerners", was not about helping others; it was about helping themselves.

I think about Iraq, I think about Vietnam, I think about Israel/Palestine, and I wonder what the US is really doing.

Race and Imperialism

In reading about imperialism in Africa and Asia, I thought about how racism might have played a role. After the comparisons made last unit between serfdom and slavery, I specifically recalled Bacon's Rebellion in 1676 (more information here). Last year we learned about the rebellion and its after effects, one of them being a switch from indentured servitude to slavery. Although the rebellion included both groups of people, it became clear to colonists that it was much harder to oppress people who were of the same color, who spoke the same language. It was easier for servants to organize among themselves, but it also was a constant reminder to colonists that they were essentially enslaving their own "kind."

I bring up Bacon's Rebellion because it, perhaps unconsciously, involved race. Imperialism used race (or at least culture) as a justification. One need only point to Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" in which he calls the indigenous people, "Your new-caught sullen peoples,/ Half devil and half child." To begin with, "Your" is a possessive, obviously indicating some kind of ownership. "Caught" similarly indicates ownership, but also animalizes the people to some degree. You "catch" squirrels and small rodents. You don't "catch" people. "Half devil and half child" kind of speaks for itself.

I wonder, though, if, hypothetically the native Congolese or Egyptians or Chinese or Indians had looked similar to the imperializers, would there have been more dispute over imperialism? Would it have been harder to preach the "civilizing mission" propaganda to European civilians?

In this article, the author, Rodney D. Coates, points out how the race influences how "Race and color symbolism [emerge] in public discourse." It can be summed up in his assertion, " I would prefer to tell a white lie than a black one, be a white witch than a black one, practice white magic rather than black magic, be washed as white as snow than be as black as sin, and live in a white house with a white picket fence." He argues that "white" always connotes goodness, while black, yellow, red, and brown "are associated with being bad or evil." This, he says, "reflects a hierarchy of race in our society."

I'd be curious to know if this hierarchy of race was already intact during this second phase of imperialism or if it was indeed created at this point.

Imperialism

After learning about imperialism for the...third or fourth time...in my tenure at UHS I feel like I should be a professional on the matter. The reading explains surprisingly it well (Thanks, Coffin & Stacey). Essentially one power wishes to extend its sphere of influence (and bread basket, including "bread" of the coal, oil, and riches variety). In its pursuit of this task, it, inevitably, must go and crush ("save" or "help") other civilizations.

For a clearer, less subjective definition I shall simply quote class:
Since I left my binder at school, this will be inserted tomorrow.

Two things I got out of the reading were:

1. Lenin/Russia/Marxism. One of the things we (essentially) all agreed upon at the beginning of the year in MEH was that we shared a desire to learn more about Russia. After sliding through a few generations of Russian Literature with Scott Laughlin last semester I was pleased (if anyone can be pleased to read about Lenin) to find Lenin tucked into the reading. I'd never really considered Russian expansionism. I realize that in light of the recent Georgian conflict this makes me sound extremely uninformed, but I never really connected the Russian expansionism with the concept/time-period described in Kipling's "The White Man's Burden." Additionally, the connections between Marx's theory on the imminent self-destruction of capitalism were especially nice.

2. We're all being deluded by our governments. Honestly, it's not that I haven't realized this before, but be it the discussion in class or the reading's references to "self-image" (Western Civilizations, Coffin & Stacey, 792), I left school today feeling more...cynical. It kind of made me reflect on image and how we see ourselves today. For the most part, I love democracy. I was raised to love democracy, and unless a life-changing event occurs, I will most likely raise democracy-loving children. This doesn't, however, mean that I think everyone, like those poor, impoverished Iraqis, absolutely need a democracy. I look at other functioning forms of government, like Britain's constitutional monarchy, and see nothing inferior to what we have. Once again, I found myself returning to question nationalism, that pesky frenemy. This time, harnessed by the government, hitched to the wagon of imperialism, look what happened.

Making Connections (sort of)

Sitting down to write this blog post, I'm having a difficult time remembering what we covered in class this week. This worries me; however my notes tell me that we dabbled in such topics as: The Crimean War, Expansionism, and How to Make a Nation 101. From here I shall spring.

All three of the aforementioned topics are connected. So you're trying to unify, but you have internal problems...what better way to divert attention and encourage nationalism than a war? So that might be a reason to try to expand (not neglecting a generous acquisition of resources if you took say, Lorraine or something like the Prussians wanted). But of course, then expansion leads to a perceived upset in the balance of powers. While you, as a country (Russia), might be saying, "But it's (The Crimean Peninsula) only a little bit of land!", the rest of Europe glowers at you. Should you choose to press forward, then a war might erupt. Alliances you might have counted on could putter out (damn you Austrians) and you're left high and dry against the combined forces of both the established European powers and the unestablished but ambitious Piedmont-Sardinia.

I don't think it's an incredibly insightful comment to say that "Wow, everything's connected!" but nonetheless it's the one I'm making.

When examining the causal relationships between war, expansionism, and creating a nation I believe the following:
-Expansionism always causes war. Someone must have lived on/owned the land that you are so intent on taking.
-Creating a nation sometimes requires war(ring). Inevitably, people (like Metternich) will be archly opposed to the unification of your nation (in his case, Germany).
-Creating a nation sometimes requires expansionism. For the previously mentioned assertion that by expanding and therefore waging a war, a nation can further unify its citizens.

War lends identity to people. Rather than a conglomeration of several minority groups and religions, all of a sudden you're all insert nation's name heres.

I will acknowledge, however, the power of war to divide a nation as well, citing the past decade or so as an example.