Over the Top

Tagging onto JED's post, I'd have to agree that the military tactics in WWI seemed utterly ridiculous. In fact, they seemed "over the top." Ever obsessed with etymology, I wondered if there was perhaps a connection between the colloquial phrase and the battle term in which men were supposed to haul themselves out of 6-8 foot deep trenches and run headfirst at the enemy. Unsurprisingly, there was.

To quote from this webpage:

Meaning: To an excessive degree; beyond reasonable or acceptable limits.

Origin: In the First World War the phrase was used by the British to describe the infantry emerging from the safety of their trenches to attack the enemy across open ground....More recently, with allusion back to the WWI usage, the phrase has come to describe excessive or foolhardy actions."

Excessive of foolhardy indeed! The "over the top" tactic utilized in the trench warfare during WW I makes little sense to me. In theory, sure it could work, but after the first few thousand soldiers died, shouldn't the generals have caught on? It's hard to fathom exactly what their reasoning may have been, actually impossible for me. But, to borrow Jonathan's expression, foot soldiers certainly composed "an army of lions." While I'll hold my judgment on the leaders being "sheep," I can't help but think back to the clip of the movie we watched in class today. The men, in the trenches, the generals sitting far away from the attack trench saying something to the effect of:

Person 1: "The village is heavily armed with machine guns."
Person 2: "They're a good regiment. They'll get through."

No wonder troops eventually became demoralized. If they were dying, being picked off by machine guns and flying shrapnel, was it only because they weren't good enough?

There was something oddly captivating about the short clips we watched. Despite the constant explosions and black smoke flying up, despite the minutes of watching men lying low in their trench, it was the moment when the clock hit 9 (I think?) and it was time to go "over the top." 50 yards to 1 mile is what Western Civilizations said. That distance filled with barb wire, with no shelter, just one long armorless sprint towards your enemy. Now, that's over the top.

Freud, Fred, and other things

While attempting to figure out how to summarize the extraordinarily brief last week of class, I came across a series of posts made by Andra (here and here) and Danielle (here and here). They both talk about Freud (and Nietsche), but more specifically in how each interacted with his epoch.

Danielle specifically mentions, "Overall, both Freud, Nietzsche, and all the rebellious artists provoked the minds of lots of lower, middle, and upper class people; however, "millions undoubtedly went about the business of life untroubled by the implications of evolutionary theory, content to believe as they had believed before" (857)," also considering that, "We are all influenced by the present, but also by the past."

Andra, posting before Danielle, had only examined the implications of the present time on Freud, but had done so admirably.

To their conversation, I add the following:
-Specifically when talking about Nietsche and religion, Andra felt that, " Nietzsche and a lot of the critics of Christianity today hold this idea that the religion consists of only bible-hugging, born-again, fundamentalists." While I think that some people today do hold this view (erroneously), it perhaps held a grain more of truth when Nietzsche wrote. While not being "bible-hugging" or "born-again", certainly at that time religion was an integral part of life. While today many of us belong to no particular faith, I feel like in the past most people subscribed to some form of theology.

-Danielle is correct when she argued that our past affects us as well as our present. This also caused me to think of a questioned posed in class this week. Did Freud have to come after Darwin? It's a lot like the infamous Chicken/Egg question, but I feel like this one might have a more conclusive answer. For me, yes, Darwin rightly preceded Freud. Darwin revealed that we are not in control of our evolution (physical form), which, should someone have told me this, I might reply, "Well, I still have my mind!" To this, Freud would heartily chortle and slowly say, "No...." perhaps while stroking his beard thoughtfully. The acknowledgment that man is slave to primitive impulses acted to deepen the blow already inflicted. If Freud had made his claim earlier than Darwin, I doubt it would have had such a grave impact, since, after all, why would man (being the Crown of Creation) have this violent, sexual urges?

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?