Hello and welcome to the Western Civ. 12:15 web discussion board. For a complete description of the expectations I have for this part of the course, take a look at the syllabus guidelines, located at (http://facweb.furman.edu/~bensonlloyd/11sylw03.htm). I am a big fan of how this format promotes reflective thinking, participation by all members of the class (regardless of how active or quiet they are in the classroom), and thoughtful refinement of ideas through experiment and exchange.

In the spirit of "submit a short description of yourself," here are some things about me: I was born in Ithaca, New York. My mother is from Raleigh, North Carolina, and my father was born and raised in Olney, Maryland. I did my undergraduate and graduate work at the University of Virginia, and have been teaching at Furman since 1990. Briefly characterized, I am Furman's Civil War Era historian. I went to Gettysburg for the first time at age eight and have been back there two dozen times since. In hockey I root for the Capitals and in football for the Paladins, the 'Hoos, and the Redskins. I enjoy watching but am agnostic about baseball, lacrosse, tennis, golf, wrastling, and racin'. I smile politely when my colleague Dr. Granieri goes on about the Buffalo Bills. On T.V. I watch Law and Order, CSPAN, the History Channel and the Simpsons. My CD playlist for this week has included Dave Matthews, Domenico Scarlatti, Patty Loveless, Richie Stearns, Boston City Limits, Nickelback, and B.B. King. I swim, bike, and run. I read three to five different newspapers a day and subscribe to a dozen magazines of various genres. I have been married since graduate school and have one son. I have four brothers, two dogs, and two cats. In humor I tend to favor puns and irony. I am almost always enthusiastic about my job and this class. I usually don't get enough sleep during the academic year. I think most people, (including me) should take more risks.

Well I guess I am the first to jump on the bandwagon and post a message. Well, I am from Nashville, TN and have lived there since birth. I went to Brentwood Academy and played football, basketball, ran track, and cross country. I am a freshman here. I enjoying skiing and just relaxing. I live in Vol country but am a Alabama fan. I spend most of my summer break in Panama City Beach, FL. I am looking at majoring in Political Science. I live in Poteat Base. Furman was my first choice in college selection. I have really enjoyed my time at Furman thus far, and hope it continues to be all that I expect it to be.

I'm a sophomore and a frad on chiles 100. I have loved living on a freshmen hall again! I was born and raised in Bristol, TN... unless you're a racing fan you probably don't know that is! It's on the border of TN and VA, and people get excited when they can go downtown and stand with one foot in each state. (yeah, so, Bristol is pretty exciting) My parents are originally from Birmingham, and I have a brother, Justin, who is our special fifth-year senior at Furman, majoring in computer science. I also have an 11-year-old golden retriever, Murphy, and a calico cat, Patches. I'm probably going to major in biology, but I don't know what I'm going to do after that. I don't really watch tv, but I love to download music (I just got an mp3 player for Christmas!), talk on IM, and make stuff, like scrapbooks or other random things. My favorite thing to do is ride my horse Blinky, but he lives in Bristol! He's a 15.3h thoroughbred and the sweetest ever. I have been riding since 2nd grade. I played soccer in high school and play on the club team here. I run about 3 miles everyday during the week, and I swam in high school but don't get much of a chance to because of the weird pool hours here. I like people that can say, "oh, I never thought of it that way before," without getting too defensive or stuck on their own opinions, and in the same way, I like people that make me think about things differently or in a new light.

Hey! Well, I am a freshman and I live on Poteat 200. So far I am really enjoying Furman. I grew up in Cleveland, Tn. which is about 15 miles from Chattanooga. I have a sister in grad. school and a brother, a senior in high school. Right now I am planning on majoring in Business and then maybe going to Law school. We'll see. I love anything that involves being outside. I love playing soccer and softball. My favorite bands are Dave Matthews and OAR. I guess that is about all.

I'm a freshman and I live on Blackwell 300. I'm from Annapolis, MD, near D.C. At home I live with my parents and older sister who is a junior at Denision University in Granville, OH. I have two dogs, a black lab and a mutt, and two horses, an Arabian and a Thoroughbred. Horseback riding is my biggest passion. I've been riding since I was 5 and competing anywhere I could since I was 7. I had my horse at a barn in Greenville for the first term, but he has been sick, so he's back in MD now to recover. I used to play field hockey, lacrosse, and basketball before too many knee injuries stopped me. I'm thinking about majoring in Biology to go on to vet school, but I'm not sure. Ice hockey is my second passion (after riding horses), and if I could play, I would. Unfortunately I have to settle for watching it on TV religiously and going to games whenever possible. I love listening to music and going to concerts. My favorite bands are Dave Matthews and U2.

Hi! I'm a freshman living on Chiles 300. I am from Concord, NC, which is just north of Charlotte. I have a sister, Hillary, who is a freshman in high school and a cat named Friz Kies. At present I am thinking about being a business/Spanish double major, but that could very well change. In high school I was very invovled in music (mostly piano and flute) and I attempted to play sports (softball, field hockey, and swimming). I will listen to most music, but I especially like Dave Matthews. My best talent is singing the presidents of the United States. I absolutely love everything about Furman and am so happy to be here!

I was born and raised in the small town of Vero Beach, FL. While this town is an excellent place for a relaxing vacation, it is a VERY boring place to grow up. It is affectionately refered to as "Zero Beach". I hope to eventually live in a big city. I would love to eventually end up in San Diego, CA. I am a sophmore and an RA on Chiles 100, a freshman hall. I love living on the hall and helping the girls with the adjustment to college. I am an elemetary education major. I want to be a second grade teacher and then possibly a high school guidence councilor. I have a 22 year old sister who is a senior at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, NY. She is a musical theatre major. My father is a eye doctor and my mom was a special education teacher.

Hey everyone! My name is Lauren Kiser and I am a sophomore here, and a RAR on Chiles 200. I am from Pawleys Island, SC - no one's probably heard of it, but it's right outside of Myrtle Beach! I live there with my parents and my little brother who is a junior in high school. I am a History major, but I also want to get certified in secondary education so that I can teach on a high school level when I graduate. Music is my passion; I'm a member of the Furman Singers and also the historian for this year (which means I get to spend all my free time scrapbooking). I love to read (which is apparently good for this course!) but I don't watch too much TV...only Days of Our Lives because my roommate tapes it religiously! I'm also a big Pittsburgh Penguins and Steelers fan for anyone who's keeping up with the playoffs!

Hey everyone! I'm a sophomore and live on Townes 200. I'm from a very small town 30 mins south of Furman called Williamston. So, I'm pretty much a local. I can't wait to leave SC! When at home, I live with my mother and my 7 month old yellow lab, Molly. I have a brother who's 22 and lives with my father. I declared psychology/premed as my major last year, but I may be changing to Biology. I'm thinking of obtaining a dual degree from Furman and MUSC in nursing. I'd like to go on to earn my masters and become a nurse practitioner in neonatology. Otherwise, I'll be applying to med school next year and specializing in pediatric psychiatry. At Furman, I am involved with Women's Chorale and my sorority. My roommate and I don't have a TV in our room, but when one is available I like to watch TLC and Discovery, not to mention mindless other shows. I'm not a sports fan and I was never athletically inclined. I stick to my studying and singing. I enjoy almost all types of music. I also enjoy reading for leisure, which is hard to find time for here at good ol' FU.

Edited by author 01-06-2003 04:37 PM
Hey! I am a sophomore from Chapel Hill, NC, and a serious Tar Heel basketball fan. This year I live on a freshmen hall (Ramsay 200 - they're great!) as the RAR. I am a studio art major interested in graphic design. I don't want to work in advertising, so I'd like to design CD cases and book jackets or make greeting cards for Hallmark. I love roller hockey, drawing, kickboxing, dancing, singing, and baking pies. My roommate and I celebrate West Wing Wednesday as a weekly holiday. In terms of music, right now I am loving the new Dixie Chicks, Nickel Creek's old album, James Taylor Live, Lisa Loeb's "Cake & Pie" and a Mary Chapin Carpenter tape I found cleaning out my car.

Hi, I'm a junior from Travelers Rest, SC. I live about 5 minutes out of the back gate at North Village. I used to live here on campus but the campus life here has gotten boring over the past 3 years. Now I live back at my house in ole TR. I played baseball here my freshman year but the academics took all of my time away from that. I enjoy being outdoors, going camping and hiking with my friends. My brother and my girlfriend will be attending Furman next year. I can't wait.

Hey Guys! I am from a western Chicago surburb, called Naperville IL, and glad to go to school in a place where the temperature is currenly above freezing. I am planning to major in health and excercise science, and my dream is to become an athletic trainer for a pro sports team. However, if I am lucky, I will probably end up as a physical therapist somewhere. My family consists of my parents and my 19 year old brother who goes to the Universitiy of Colorado in Boulder, studying archiecture. The one thing that I love to do most in my spare time is play tennis and I love to travel and learn about different lifestyles. Well, I guess that is me in a nut shell, thanks for reading.

Hello! I am a junior biology major from Belton, SC (about 45 minutes away from Greenville). Because my hometown is so close to Furman, I do go home a lot to see my parents and my younger sister, who is a freshman at Wofford this year. I am a fourth generation Paladin, so my family includes some serious Furman fans! I currently work on campus for the CLP office and the biology department. I hope to go to MUSC and enroll in their pharmacy program after I graduate next year. I really enjoy running and any form of exercise. I began hiking this summer, but I have only hiked local trails in the upstate of SC. I also enjoy reading and listening to a variety of music.

Hey, I'm Shannon, a freshman on Poteat 200. I'm from Signal Mtn., TN which is right in Chattanooga, but I was born in Shreveport, LA. I live with my parents,my two brothers,and my dog Duke. I don't know what I'm going to major in but I'm thinking History and being a secondary teacher. Anyways I love tennis, backpacking, cooking, singing in the Women's Chorale, prank-calling, and football (I love the Packers!). I like all types of music especially bluegrass and 80s. I enjoy traveling, and I would love to live in Australia later on in life.

Hey, my name is Robert Riley. I am a junior pre-med BioChem. major from Knoxville, TN. This, of course, means I am a huge UT fan. At present, I plan on attending med school in a year or so provided the MCATs are good to me. I spend a large chunk of my free time doing Young Life at Greenville High school. I also love to run, fly fish, mountain bike, backpack.

Hey Y'all...My name is Stefanie Ritter. I'm from Myrtle Beach, SC and I'm a freshman here at Furman. So far, I love it. My dorm is Blackwell 300, which is the best hall ever. As for my future plans, I really have no clue about what I want to major in...my interests range from pre-med to history to International Business. I've even thought about working for the government, like in the CIA. Like most of y'all, my interests include music, hiking, swimming, and really just meeting new people. Music is especially my passion. I don't really care what type. Right now, I'm really diggin' Jack Johnson, Pat McGee Band and of course Cowboy Mouth. And by the way, I have heard of Pawley's Island. Anyways, I'll see y'all around in class :-)

My name is Mike Overby and I am from Cary, NC (right outside of Raleigh). I was born in New Jersey, so it makes sense to me why Cary is an acronym for Central Area of Relocated Yankees. I am a Political Science and Spanish double major, with a possible Concentration in Latin American Studies. Two of my uncles attended Furman, so I have a little bit of family history here. To continue the music topic, I honestly will listen to anything that is being played at the moment, except country or death metal. Beyond that, whatever floats your boat works for me. My high school did not in the least give me the history education I need for my major, or for basic living in America, for that matter. So I hope that this class will help me improve... it certainly can't hurt.

Hi. I am a junior biology major from Augusta, GA. I am currently undecided as to my future career and has resulted in the two GER's I am taking this term while I sort out my life. I work at that -oh so trendy- underground coffee shop downtown a few nights a week and it provides a unique and much needed environment away from Furman as well as pays (or helps to pay) my bills. I read/write a lot and I am on a JD Salinger kick as of late. And, (along with the majority of furman folk) I enjoy running, lifting weights, and that sort of thing. I have an older brother, Matt, who graduated last year and presently is nearbye undertaking his first real job. I have also received a pathetic spattering of history education during my high school career so I am in for a challenging, yet hopefully enriching adventure this term.

Hey guys, name's Dirk Jansson and I'm from Alpharetta, Georgia (ATL suburb). I'm looking to hopefully major in business. I'm really into all sports, and have played most of them since I was very young. I write music, and am currently working on a debut album for a new branch of the Arista record company. I generally write soft rock, with a little pop. And I REALLY REALLY enjoy learning about Western Civ.! Guess I'll see you guys in class.

Hi y'all!! I'm Sarah Pannell. I'm a sophmore from Atlanta (yes, I actually do live in Atlanta (not one of the many suburbs) as has my family since about the Cival War- so I'm pretty much an Atlantan through and through). I'm a FRAD on Chiles 3- we have the best hall ever- I love still being a freshmen hall!! Besides that, I'm a pretty typical Furman student- I love sports, running and hanging out with people. Sports are definatly one of my passions (I've tried just about everyone I could at some point or another), but my favorite, by far, is riding. I own a wonderful grey throughbred named True Grits (Grits for short), who lives just off campus in Travler's Rest. I'm also trying out Rugby this term- one sport I haven't played, so I figure I should try it out, too. Hmm, I think that's about it for me. I'm excited for the term!

Hi!! I am a freshman music education major from Charleston, SC (good 'ole Chucktown!)and am loving Furman so far. Though the weather change has been a big adjustment (back at home I used to say that it should never get below 50 degrees F ANYWHERE at ANY TIME!!), it has been a welcome change from beach to mountains, and I enjoyed my first "real" fall with the changing colors of the leaves. Being a music major, I should probably say that I live at the music building, but actually I am on Poteat 200, where I am in one of the 2 triples left on campus. I enjoy taking part in Furman Singers and FUtones (Furman's only coed a capella group!) and spending time with my Furman friends, as well as getting lost in Greenville! At home I live with my parents and brothers who are 13 and 15 (yeah, so it was almost good to get away from all those raging hormones!) where my dad is the owner of a small practice of Preservation Architecture, which is why we live in Charleston (the rest of my fam lives in Nashville, TN)--there are always rich people there who want to restore an old historical house! I'm not usually a big history fanatic, but with all of Dr. Benson's enthusiasm for the course, I'm sure I will enjoy it very much---as a couple of you have mentioned, I haven't had the best of teachers for history in high school, which I'm sure positively correlates to my lack of enthusiasm towards the subject in general. Anyway, I'm looking forward to getting to know y'all and having an intense term of Western Civ!

Edited by author 01-06-2003 08:40 PM
Hey Y'all! I'm Julia Charles, a freshman living on Chiles 2. I spent the first half of my life in New York City, and the other half in Raleigh, NC, so I don't know if I'm a Yankee or a Southerner! My parents are both from SC though, so I guess I'm Southern by blood. Like several other people in the class, I ride horses. I have a 15.2 Thoroughbred named Subtlety (around the barn we call him Gray Boy) that I show on a Hunter circuit. He had to stay at home, and I miss him a lot! I also have a Golden Retreiver named Lacey and a cat named Kit Kat. As anyone who sees my room can tell, I adore the color pink (the brighter, the better!) I am a Psychology major and I want to work in Public Health. My high school Western Civ class never made it past the year 0, so I'm hoping to get a fresh start in this class!

Well...I'm not too sure whether we have to post anything on the article we read about the Enlightenment, but I'll go ahead and make some comments. When I first read the material, I thought about the cliche saying "think outside of the box." To me, that phrase summarizes the tendency of an enlightened person to be an independent thinker. When you are "enlightened," you have that epiphany and realize that you should not take everything at face value and believe it. Therefore, one must question everything, to discern one's own beliefs.
At the same time though, there is a time and place to argue. In the quest for truth, those who are enlightened often come into conflict and disagreement with the everyday norm; however, like the article was saying, one must be careful where and how you argue. The scholar, due to his free will, can civily argue, and voice his opinions to the public, freely. However, the clergyman, because he takes orders within a bureaucratic society, cannot voice his own opinions to the congregation, because of his responsibility as the clergyman. He must follow the guidelines issued to him by the bishops and such. However, there is always the case of Martin Luther, who in turn broke away from the established church to become "enlightened."
One last thought, I agree with the part in the article about how people, by their very nature, tend to lean towards enlightenment when they are oppressed. This is because the need to think of "revolutionary" ideas is more paramount to gain access to their freedoms. Thus, the paradox last quoted is true.

Hi! My name is Dustin Ousley, and I am a senior music education major. I live 30 minutes south of Greenville in Fountain Inn (home of Peg Leg Bates...our big claim to fame) and I am a choir director at John Calvin Presbyterian Church about five miles from here in Berea. I love acting, singing, bowling, tennis, and watching wrestling...well, since I have come to Furman I have kinda lost track of the wrestling storylines now, but I still find it entertaining. I have always been "not so good" at history, but I have been assured by several people that my interest will be piqued this term...sorry if I spelled piqued wrong. Happy term guys!

Hi! I'm a freshman from a very rural town of less than 100 people called New Zion, South Carolina. I'm an only child, so I have a number of what I like to call "only child syndromes", but I try to conceal them whenever possible. At this moment, like Leah, I'm a music major who's considering psychology or history as a second major. Leah, I know how you feel, I call my room on McGlothlin 200 my second home. I spend a lot of time over at the music building either practicing, preparing for theory, or rehearsing with the band. Honestly, I wouldn't have it any other way because I love music and playing the flute. So, of course I love most types of music, except country and heavy metal, but occassionally a catchy country song will get stuck in my head and I'll grow to love it. I love history and I'm looking forward to not only learning more about history, but learning how to think analytically about it.

Hey! I'm a freshman living in Blackwell 200. Like Shannon, I am from Shreveport, Louisiana (only I still live there). and my major is HES (Health and Exercise Science). I really enjoy alot of sports (especially tennis, swimming, and biking) and I love the outdoors. My life here at Furman stays pretty busy with studying, club swimming and lacrosse, class, and fun. See you all in class!!

The theme of survival, as mentioned in our lecture, jumped out at me as I read Kant's essay. I agree with his argument in the seventh paragraph that an individual should be allowed to resist change but not prevent others from evolving in their beliefs. Additionally, I took his connection of this idea to religion: "working to the disadvantage of posterity," to mean that to support an unchanging church lessens both the church's chances of survival and its congregants' relevance in their society. If enlightenment is indeed becoming an independent thinker, as characterized by Ms. Ritter, then it follows that a stagnant organization, no matter how perfectly relevant its ideas are at its conception, would eventually either have to evolve or be left behind. I believe that a group or society that discourages questioning is indeed at odds with the idea of an age of enlightenment.

While I was reading this article and the statements about the “guardians” who provide the instruction, I kept thinking about certain teachers in high school that would give information but not allow the student to think through the topic rationally. Everyone just accepted their information as right and did not bother to argue or really understand. In my high school biology class, I took mindless notes the whole year without ever questioning the source of the information or rationally thinking through any of the processes. Many students are not independent thinkers and, as Stefanie said, do not dare to “think outside the box” either from fear of being wrong or going against the teacher’s views. Therefore, I believe we are still in need of improvement, and I agree with the idea in the tenth paragraph, that we are living in an age of enlightenment, not an enlightened age. There is always room for improvement. And as I consider becoming a secondary teacher, Kant’s ideas about “guardians” who pin down their information on students interests me. This article presents a challenge for me to become a person who would somehow allow students to explore their own minds and rationality while guiding them through their education.

Hi my name is Sam Tooker. I am a freshman from Woodstock, GA, one of the numerous suburbs of Atlanta. I live over on Poteat 100, and thus far I have been having a great time at school. In high school I did a lot of sports. I played soccer in the fall, wrestled, and ran track and the spring. Outside of working out and going to parties I do not really do all that much. I do intramurals, and I like to watch T.V. and sleep. I sure do love to sleep. I do not really know what I want to major in or become once I am out of college. I never really worked at all in high school, so being here at Furman is a big change. I’m still not good at the whole studying thing yet, but I am working on it. That is all from me, I sure do hope this class doesn’t beat me up too bad.

Shannon, I agree with you in the correlation between enlightenment and students in schools. I didn't have a very enriching high school experience, and as an education student here I have heard over and over the difference one person can make by letting students, especially small children, develop on their own instead of following the examples of everyone else. This also can tie in with the discussion we had in class about what makes a leader. In the third paragraph, Kant points out that many guardians tie their students down and make them believe that to think outside the box would be dangerous, and that prohibits enlightened thinking. I also noticed the theme of survival that Linda pointed out, but the thing that first popped out at me was the connection to community that we also discussed in the class lecture. In the seventh paragraph, Kant talked about the difference between public and private enlightenment and the societal norms that must be upheld by "guardians" even if they have some different ideas. It seems to me that the survival of institutions (churches, ect) are based upon each individual and their influence on the community as a whole. If the "guardian" of an institution does not evolve and get new ideas on his own, he can not help and encourage others to think for themselves and evolve, and then everything would come to a screeching halt. It reminds me of the saying that "A group is only as good as the slowest person in it". If one member of a community, especially one in a leadership position, is not open to new ideas or even their own ideas, it slows everyone's progress down and leads to issues with the survival of the community.

When thinking about enlightenment, I tend to relate the acquisition of free thinking to advancement in technology and knowledge. It is said that in 1899 the U.S. Commissioner of Patents, Charles H. Duell, made the statement that "Everything that can be invented has been invented." Life today would be amazingly different if no one had ever challenged this idea. Without moving forward in thought and action, society would fail to progress and as Linda stated, would eventually be left behind. In his essay, Kant warns the reader of the dangers of never questioning the beliefs of others and urges him to think for himself and share his newfound knowledge.

Life is so much easier if you just "go with the flow." To challenge an established system or truth is to risk rejection or belittlement. Many people therefore go through life without questioning anything that is thrown at them, in school, religion, and general questions of life. To comment and elaborate on Addie's quote from Charles H. Duell, many people may believe that all truths and all systems have been established already, so why need to question them further? After all, they have already taken thousands of years to perfect, why worry about them any more? The world is forever changing, and knowledge is continually expanding and broadening. For an IB Theory of Knowledge course I took in High School, I had to write an essay about the statement "A belief is what we accept as truth." We were instructed to either support or refute the statement. In my research I came upon philosophers and found some interesting paths of thought. For instance, Betrand Russell (with whom I do not really agree) says that "we cannot accept anything as the absolute truth..." Like I said, I do not completely agree, but it brings up an interesting point to ponder. Maybe we should question everything around us. The philosopher Rene' Descartes, however, struck a chord with me and clarified my view of the topic. He embraces doubt, and believes that this doubt leads to certainty. So there you go. To arrive at one's personal truth, he must doubt everyone and everything around him. So, he says, do yourself a favor and enlighten yourself! Thus, I must conclude by tying in the first line of Kant's essay: "Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage." Just think about it. (By the way, I accepted and supported the statement).

The pinacle of enlightenment seems to be the ability to think for oneself. I personally find great irony in the fact that it seems one must undergo many years of studying under great minds in order to do so. All the way through freshman year of high school, it seems like all we were expected to do was memorize information and spit it back out on a test. Then, all of a sudden, teachers expected us to reflect on what it actually meant, and draw conclusions based on that reflection. Kant talks about this, and how it is necessary for one to break out of their comfort zone and the methods by which they have been taught in order to discover real, personal truths. These truths are the product of thinking for oneself, and the ultimate goal of enlightenment.

Edited by author 01-07-2003 11:23 AM
Good morning. I am a sophomore out of Detroit MI, and this is the first history course I've taken in several years. Understanding events in a chronological perspective from the countries that witnessed such events has been a concept that's captured my interest for some time, and this course promises to hold information of just that nature. I can't say I'm actually looking forward to the group project, but I'm not dreading them either. Have a good day.

The Enlightenment was a time when people stopped relying on what was told to them, and began examining the world around them based on their personal feelings, thoughts, and experiences. This period in history which came after the Reformation made people question the credibility of the clergymen, the people that they trusted because of long-standing tradition. The clergymen were guided not always by their religious fervor, but more by the desire to maintain their position in society which was facilitated by the fact that people believed them without any questions. Enlightened monarchs during this time, such as Frederick, often made decisions such as allowing religious freedom for their own personal reasons. By allowing religious freedom he didn’t alienate any particular religious group. It was feasible for him to grant religious freedom because he had no religious affiliation. As human beings, it is our right and our obligation to question the voracity and motives of the person that makes any given statement. In an enlightened age all people in leadership positions such as teachers, clergymen, and politicians would encourage their subordinates to not simply accept what they say as the absolute truth but think for themselves and question things that they don‘t agree with. Human nature makes reaching a truly enlightened age very difficult because in the minds of most people questioning authority undermines the authority figure and the institution that he or she represents.

With all the talk in the essay of the freedom to think for oneself on the isssue of religion, I am reminded of the reason that I have religion in my own life. I am Christian simply because my parents are, and they took me to church every sunday of my childhood. Preached to week after week about the works of God and his son, there is no wonder I took it to be the truth and I believed what they taught me because that is all I knew. As I grew older, I had my own "enlightenment," and decided that the ideas that were enscribed in my head during my more dependent years were simply the interpretation of one group. I saw that there were other people who took beliefs different from mine to be their own truths, and saw how their beliefs seemed feasable as well. Therefore, how could I take that one idea to be the sole truth. At this point in my life, my preachers words are still the ones that I live my life by, but college is a time to explore new ideas, and it is my goal to investigate the ideas different from my own. It is then that I will come to my own conclusion of religion and what it means to me.

"'Do not argue!' The officer says:'Do not argue but drill!' The tax collector: 'Do not argue but pay!' The cleric:'Do not argue but believe!'" While contemplating the various aspects of enlightenment, I first react to the fact that society most of the time acts not through independent thinking, but from what it has been taught. One of the most prominent issues relating to this idea that exists today is our religion. We were raised to beleive a certain way without researching all denominations and without questioning our own faith. I remember when I first questioned my faith. Can you beleive it took me years to even consider different ideas? I am amazed that I allowed myself to be absorbed in just this one belief. I agree with Kant as he explains that "'we do live in an age of enlightenment'" although we do not live in an "'enlightened age.'" Kant's arguement stirs up emotions in my opinion. The reader begins to feel used as if he has been brainwashed by the teachings of his society. I know that while reading this I also began to question why I have the opinions that I do. Questioning our beliefs, I think, is common. However, Kant allows us to think about why society believes the way it does. Kant shares this knowledge to display the jeopardy within society.

One of the first things that jumped out at me in this article was the quote "If I have a book which understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I need not think, if I can only pay - others will easily undertake the irksome work for me." As we discussed in class yesterday, we don't have to know who grew our food or who made our clothes, unlike the Dutchmen in the picture we viewed. However, because we don't know how to grow our own food or make our own clothes (in most cases anyway), we are still dependent on someone else, thus a victim of the "laziness and cowardice" mentioned by Kant which prevents us from stepping out on our own. In response to Leah's mention of Bertrand Russell's quote,"We cannot accept anything as the absolute truth," I tend to agree with this statement. If we accept anything as the absolute truth, there is no room for growth. Many instances of this phenomenon have been noted in the field of science especially. If no one had questioned something like the geocentric model of the solar system, because it was accepted as the truth, the course of science would have been changed dramatically.

I, like Kate, found the quote about how we trust others to understand for us very powerful. How often have I listened to others opinions instead of figuring out my own? I think only in the past few years have I really begun to ask what my opinions are, so I enjoyed this article because it points to the importance of forming one's own opinions. We each have been blessed with a mind to think with, yet so often we choose to not use it and simply believe what the majority believes.

Though I do agree "enlightenment" in one's religious or everyday comes from thinking for yourself. I believe it is only to a certain extent. I have often found by listening to others opinions and thoughts on issues, it helps me to fully understand and become "enlightened" on that particular subject or perhaps even trigger my own unique thought on the same subject. All in all I did enjoy the article, and like Sarah, I appreciated the emphasis on "forming one's own opinion". I just think it is interesting to keep in mind that being influenced is not always a negative thing.

Releasing oneself from his "self-incurred tutelage", as stated by Kant, presents itself to me as one of the most difficult tasks for us as humans to conquer. As several have stated before, most have been raised according to certain rules and have been taught to remain submissive to certain authorities (whether in school, government, or religious associations). As Kant also states, it is by laziness and cowardice - perhaps our tendency to remain in habit and comfort - that we have such a difficult battle releasing ourselves from tutelage. I do agree with others in saying that it is a gradual and individual process towards enlightenment. Additionally, I agree with Erin in saying that it is not always negative to take others opinions and arguments into consideration. But, there is a difference between acknowledging others stances on a subject and critcally anazlying them and letting them influence you without such an inquiry.

I'm a day late on the message board because I just added today, so bear with me trying to catch up. I'm a first year, living on chiles 200, and kickin' it with the other carolina girls. I was born in Louisville, KY but was raised in Bristol, VA (the other side of Lauren Fincher's hometown!). I enjoy playing soccer, snowboarding, riding my horse, and doing anything that seems interesting. I have a brother in his junior year here at Furman, as well. As far as what I want to do with the rest of my life...I have no clue. Hopefully I will find enlightenment somewhere along the way.

As Kate also discussed, I think a relevant point in the article was the idea of, "I need not think, I only pay, others will easily undertake the irksome work for me." We are in so many ways dependent on those around us, trusting them to serve us what we ask for or to give us accurate information. We don't even think about it because it is natural and in most cases the easiest way to go. We don't really like to go out of our comfort zone or challenge ourselves - that takes time and effort. But, that is exactly what is required to acheive enlightenment. I also agree with what Kate said: that if we accept something as absolute truth, there is no room for growth. This occurs often however, because it is often the easiest thing to do. But when this does not happen and we begin to ask questions, this is a step towards enlightment and revolution. I also liked what Kimberly said about authority figures. They are authorities because we trust in them to provide us with what we need. It is sometimes very hard for us question what they put forth, whether it is out of respect for their position or simply that we regard that they are more knowledgable and stop there. But, as Socrates once said, "the unexamined life is not worth living." Asking questions is the best way to truly personalize your opinions, have the best understanding, and become enlightened.

Much of Kant's essay makes sense, and is easily applied to democratic thought, which in turn has helped America develop into the powerful nation that it is. However, we cannot apply Kant and his message on enlightenment to all of humanity without being somewhat ethnocentric - if we assume that because it works for us, it is best for 'them', we are being unfair to other leadership/government styles. For example, Kant says in paragraph seven that "the public use of one's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men." In China and other Asian countries, the common governmental style is a dictatorship where the public is not "free" to disagree and use reason in a revolutionary manner. At the same time, Buddhism is a strong force in Asia, encouraging the public to find enlightenment within themselves and in the life around them. Would Buddhist followers agree that arguing over governmental woes was the best way for the public to attain enlightenment? Probably not. In fact, they would likely argue further (with the additional support of the government) that foreign policy and various legislation/rules are not appropriate topics for the public - not because the public should be "shut out from everything," but rather because they are poorly informed and too easily swayed. Enlightenment and progress are great things. But to say that Kant's method of democratic freedom is the only way to attain that enlightenment is an unfair attack on other theories. Keep in mind that these non-democratic, unfree Chinese brought the world such new, enlightened inventions such as paper, gunpowder, the printing press, and the compass...

hey everyone - i know this is a little late, but I just joined the class today. Sorry to interrupt the flow of the discussion here, but I thought I would introduce myself and get caught up. I am a freshman and live in Blackwell. I am from Charleston, SC (actually Mt. Pleasant if anyone has heard of it...). I love it there. I have a fifteen year old sister and we get along really well. Unlike most of you guys I do not have any pets. Most of my family is allergic to cats and dogs and basically everything. When I came here I was planning to major in computer science and psychology but right now I am leaning towards computer science. I played alot of basketball all through school until i quit my senior year. I am doing intramural basketball with some girls from my hall this term - i am really excited because I love basketball. alright, well, that's all i have to say. I need to catch up on all the west civ homework and stuff that i missed yesterday. See yall tomorrow :)

Hey, my name is Adam Buchanan. Sorry to interrupt the discussion about Kant's essay but I have been having computer troubles and need to make make my post that tells you about me that we were supposed to have done already. I was born in Birmingham, Alabama but spent most of my childhood in Tampa, Fl. I still have a soft spot for the Auburn Tigers though. I am a freshman living on Blackwell base. An army ROTC scholarship is paying for my education here and I really like Furman so far. I like to run and go to the beach (especially Clearwater and Anna Maria Island). I also consider myself a drummer, though I don't play in a band. Please proceed with the discussion again. Thanks

Yeah I just joined the class today too. My name is obviously Corey Perkins.... hints the Corey Perkins pasted beside my message(Gambrell 200). Im from Murfreesboro, TN, which is right under Nashville. This is my first year at Furman and I am semi-enjoying it. I have one sister named Lauren who graduated from Furman last year and shes 22. Public education in TN isn't that great, thus high school was extremely fun. My mother just got hitched over the break so that's pretty exciting. Everyone in my family, which does include me, is a bigtime Vol fan( Even though we lost to Maryland 30-3). My favorite musicians are The Rolling Stones, Led Zepplin, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Willie Nelson, Bob Dylan, Clapton, and probably a few others. I enjoy playing guitar, sleeping, and watching seinfeld. Last but not least, I'm majoring in the wonderful field of undeclared.

Throughout our upbringing, we have been shaped and molded into believing almost everything that we are taught or have read. Some of the greatest philosophers, such as Plato and Socrates, have been taught and been the ones to teach. As expected, they too have followers that convey the same teachings that they were taught. Because of this unwavering and rather conventional method of learning, we have been trained to rely on others for "enlightenment." By stepping away from the confines of what you have been taught, enlightenment is experienced by using what you already comprehend and by branching off to consider an entirely new perspective. Whether it is religion, science, or philosophy, enlightenment is about innovation and improvement. As Kant explained, it is difficult “to work…out of the life under tutelage,” and walk away from what we have always known and trusted to be true. However, we can’t necessarily spend the rest of our days sitting on the couch, watching Who Wants to be a Millionaire, expecting others to do the thinking for us. Enlightenment is something that an individual can only accomplish on his own account. No one can make us think “outside the box” but there needs to be a drive to reach that point of revelation.

I thought that this article had a substantial relevance to what we covered today in class. Today, we talked on the topic of the Israelites influence or lack of to our society as a whole and to us personally. Kant is telling us that we need to form our own opinions and not be static and gullible. We need not to believe everyone’s every word. I think that if Kant were to study the Jews, he would disagree with there way of life. The Jewish religion is strict in more ways than just worship. They have strict food laws and strict cleansing laws… Is it Kosher or not? I think that as the years progressed, the followers of the Jewish tradition began to reach a state of enlightenment. They began to pick and choose as to which laws and axioms to follow as they worship God. Worshiping God is the ultimate goal, not worrying about what to eat and how to present oneself. Those people broke away from the status ‘quo’ and thought for themselves. I think that progressing to enlightenment brings a time of change. And with change, one can release oneself from one’s “self-incurred tutelage.” Thus bringing on more self-made opinions.

Immanuel Kant's proposal for enlightenment and independent thinking is certainly rousing and has undoubtedly been a motivating essay for many of the great, innovative thinkers of recent history. However, one has to ask if modern societies will ever reach "an enlightened age" that Kant mentions in paragraph ten. Previous postings have given examples ranging from school to church in which man's thought is still under the direction of some leader or authority. These patterns will likely continue for years to come. ALthough civilization has made great progress since Kant wrote this essay in 1784, man is still inhibited by the "laziness and cowardice" that Kant believed characterized men of his time. Kant's ideas sound good on paper, but their actual application will not produce the desired results, for a truly enlightened society is an impossibility.

Edited by author 01-07-2003 10:22 PM
I agree with Sally in that things we are brought up around are generally taken without question such as church. Kant speaks of stepping back from distractions and things which one does everyday without thinking about or questioning like once again, going to church. In this aspect, I feel that it is imparitive for everyone to look into other religions, philosophies, and ways of thinking to see if what you were brought up in is what you truly believe. Hopefully the questions such as, " Do I truly believe this or is this completely a product of my enviroment ?" will arise upon thought. This is where one form of enlightenment can begin. Thinking beyond our surrounding enviroment is a positive process not everyone will go through. For to some, ignorance IS bliss, and many do not wish to go through a process leading to or leaning toward enlightenment. Kant should recognize that many people enjoy and desire to stay in their comfortable state of complacency .

I agree with Lauren's statement that if we never question the world around us that there is no room for growth. I believe that it is the fear of the unknow that leads us to these immediate and blind acceptance of supposed truths. It is exactly this ignorance that allowed such things as the Holocaust to occur. No one quesitoned the information given to them and naively accepted it as fact.

I believe that the proposal in Molly's statment that a completely enlightened society is impossible is very accurate. "Laziness and cowardice" has for a long time, and will arguably continue to inhibit growth as far as one's own reason goes. As Kant's optimism highlights the progress of an evolution into an enlightened age, the modern man is still generally driven by direction and encouragement from outside sources. As long as there is no tolerance of descent by the government, one will always be affected by other reason than one's own, ...or in this case, force.

Tutelage....what a great word. However, I do not think cowardice and laziness are really the whole picture here. I love to hear all of the eager young minds in the class talk of freedom and release from these words, but lets get serious. Many of these responses are merely puffed up, sheltered visions. The truth is that most of us will do absolutely nothing to change any of this. So, the question arrises that there must be something else to this whole matter.

Tutelage....what a great word. However, I do not think cowardice and laziness are really the whole picture here. I love to hear all of the eager young minds in the class talk of freedom and release from these words, but lets get serious. The truth is that most of us will do absolutely nothing to change any of this. So, the question arrises that there must be something else to this whole matter.....
I think the whole ruler and masses analogy works great for many of the societies we study, including our own. We have learned that it is much easier for someone else to do our thinking for us. But I also think this process of enlightenment can and must be applied to Furman students ( as well with scholars in general). Here at Furman, we can take the route of just learning what is on the syllabus and getting out. In fact, we are greatly rewarded for it. We must strive for more though. We must strive to not only learn these things, but to challenge them with our own thoughts. We must remember how to learn again instead of how to regurgitate. This, of course, can only happen if Furman professors allow it to. Unfortunately, some of them are more worried about tenure than idealistic students.
The religious aspect of this article opens a whole different subject, but I think we need to look at what we attack before we say things that may not be totally true. It is very true that most Furman students were raised in a Christian family or what not, but lets take a look at what Christainity is and then at these childhoods. Lets take a look at things for what they are and not what Americans have basterdized them into (can I say that...I hope so).
This was long....sorry, but I think it makes for great discussion.

I agree with Molly in that true and utter enlightentment of a society must be an impossibility. Like Dirk said, laziness and cowardice, in other words inescapable facets of human nature, will always be with us. By the very nature of the human social animal, some individuals are naturally inclined to be followers, and this proclivity is inherently opposed to enlightenment. If we imagine a hypothetical person who is content to merely accept what he or she has been told, there must surely be some impetus from the person's environment that can convince that person to start using his or her own noggin to reason through life. But I say that it is impossible for every single person in a society to be nudged into breaking free from self-imposed tutelage. Just like the rest of the animal kingdom, the human species has a certain variance within its social structure that will always exist.

Now for the part I should have done yesterday:
My name is Robby Hendry, and I'm a junior biology and philosophy double major. I'm a military brat so I've lived in about a dozen different places and at this point I truly consider Furman to be "where I'm from". I like outdoorsy stuff like hiking and backpacking, and I'm involved in Furman's Environmental Action Group. Come to our meetings Wednesday nights at 8:00 pm in the John's Hall Lobby, starting next week! (when else will I be able to squeeze in such a shameless plug?)

Edited by author 01-08-2003 12:58 AM
I'm going to switch gears and talk about what we read on feudalism and the manorial society. One of the most poignant issues that comes to mind while reading the article concerns the futility of the serfs' condition within the feudal system. Because they are tied to the land, they cannot move up in the hierarchial view of society...much like the Caste system in India. This plight of the serfs is illustrated within countless movies; like in Cinderella where society expects that she cannot marry the prince because of her class. Again, it frustrates me to think that your ancestry directly impacts your class placement. I guess this is my "western" thinking, as I believe in the ability of an individual for self-improvement. Much like what we talked about in class today, concerning the influence of the Greeks.
Also, another poignant issue within the idea of feudalism is the idea that the serfs are slaves. I agree with the article in making the distinction between slavery and serfdom, as in paragraph four. However, a large part of me believes that serfdom is a form of "de facto" slavery. The serfs are tied to the land. They lack freedom; they can't even travel without consulting their particular lord or vassel. Even worse, in respect to slavery, serfs are worth less to the lords. To clarify, masters cared about their slaves in the sense that they owned them; therefore, if the slaves died, it cost them money. However, in the feudal system, the lord does not really loose anything if the serf dies...except that he may need to contract more workers. I know this is a minor digression, but I feel passionately about the poor conditions of the serfs.
As for the discussion on the Enlightenment, and specifically in respect to Dirk's comments and many of my other classmates, I agree that people as a whole, greatly rely on the opinions of others. Again, I even asked people about this topic to make sure I was saying something relatively analytical. Therefore, I think another aspect that hinders the process of Enlightenment is a lack of confidence in self. One must believe that his original ideas have worth.

Edited by author 01-08-2003 10:07 AM
I will have to aggree with Stephanie on the issue that serfdom appears as another form of slavery. It is almost disheartening to think that the nobility care so little about the serfs that their only interests lie on their profits and on cheap labor. These serfs are willing to give up their lives of freedom, simply to gain military protection from the powerful landowners or even to settle a dispute. Though not a positive one, these articles do paint a vivid picture of how the class system was so prevelent in those days, and in the centuries to follow. In fact, the system was "not reversed in eastern Europe until the 19th century". It surprises me that such a seemingly unjust system could last so many years.

Kant’s essay seems idealistic and a bit unrealistic. There will always be control placed on the people by some form of government, religious institution, etc. It seems Kant wants the people to stop relying on each other. Part of the beauty of humans in comparison to other animal species is their ability to work together to create (and destroy) on an enormous scale. I agree that men should have the courage to speak their minds when they have something important to say, but Kant seems to say that no free thinker would go along with an organization which holds power over that person. These organizations would not have power in the first place had a group of people (maybe not the majority) not gotten together and agreed on a set of principles to base their institution on.

Kant's essay seems to bring up important points that are true for whichever time, decade, or generation mankind inhabits. He claims that enlightenment comes once we free ourselves from the bondage of "self-incurred tutelage." The is true even in our everyday lives. Man has to think on his own, develop his own set of beliefs and doctrines. One needs to ask questions and explore other ideas. At the time Kant wrote this essay people were breaks lose of their chains and establishing ideas of their own. Philosophy was being explored, religion was being questioned, and information was becoming readily accessible. Kant's is most definately correct in saying that man needs to tolerate failure as a stepping-stone for later success. We need to learn from our mistakes and make leaps on our own, maybe then we can become truely enlightened.

Edited by author 01-08-2003 03:21 PM
Kant's statement paraphrased that man can work out of a barbaric state as long as he is not held to it hints at the theme of the hope and promise inherent in the human condition. This theme is optimistic in nature in saying that man will think for himself if given the chance, a statement we would all like to believe. I dont think it is fair to say, as Robert Riley posted, that we will do nothing to change the fact that we are being told what to think. We are hardly in an oppresive regime (where Kant says enlightment type thinking thrives) so who knows what our minds are capable of in certain circumstances? The kind of enlightenment Kant describes does not refer to the enlightenment pursued by the twelve fold path of buddism or knowing how to invent paper or a compass like the Chinese as Mike Overby seemed to allude to, but rather how to think thoughts on your own no matter what people tell you to think regardless if it in a democracy or in a monarchy or dictatorship.

The manorial and feudal system obviously go against a lot of what we as Westerners believe. All sorts of freedoms were taken from people in varrying degrees, depending on one's place in the heirarchy. But, a system for protection was necessary during that time of barbarian invasions, civil unrest, etc. I think the flaw was not in the system itelf necessarily, but in the abuses levied by those in power. There were obvious liberties taken by those higher up on those below them. Many of these were unjust, such as the marchet. As a whole though, I think the feudal and manorial systems were just products of necessity and it was the people that abused these systems that turned them into the pictures we have of them now.

The manorial and feudal systems were extremely harsh to those in the position of slaves and peasants, but their Lords would provide them with safety in a time of barbarian invasions and struggle for survival. The Lords could have treated their subjects better and given them more respect, but they provided them once again with safety in dangerous times. If I were in the position of a slave, I would much rather work all day than go outside our community to face the barbarians, or the outsiders, who were looking to destroy those involved in civilization. Since we as current americans live our so called civilized life, it is more challenging to understand the brutal and real concepts of the ancient world. Is it so bad to think one would have to work or their lives to be taken, or is it cruel and unjust that the peasants were treated as dirt. Yes the Lords could have been easier on their subjects, but overall i feel these systems were the appropiate way to run and protect your community

I have to agree with Corey. I am in no way trying to advicating returning to this system and I don't know if I would go as far as to call them the "appropriate" way to deal with the situation, but I don't find them un-understandable. These people were scared of outside attacks and in ideal conditions, this system was not "bad or wrong." Two parties were initially exchanging protection for labor, and this in itself does not seem unjust. However, a problem occured when the serfs were not able to break away from this system.
   Though we see so much of this society as unimaginable, I see many connections to our society. Even in our "modernized society" where we believe in "every man's ability to reach sucess if he only works hard enough," we have thousands who are "chronically poor." There are AMERCIANS who are trying hard to make a living and still never making it past the poverty line, and if they do it is just barely so. We like to think the ideas of a feudal society are so far behind us, but I'd challenge you to visit a low income neighborhood where the families are tied to their debt and essentially unable to leave, they have no choice but to pay the inflated rents and fall deeper and deeper into debt. I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but it is something to think about...

Glossary for J. C. Davis, Oliver Cromwell

(A more printer-friendly version can be found at:
(http://fc.furman.edu/~lloyd%20benson/CromwellGlossary.htm))

Excerpted and adapted from John Cannon, ed., The Oxford Companion to British History (N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1997)

NOTE: You may find it helpful to look at the textbook's section on Charles I and the English Civil Wars before you read much further in Oliver Cromwell.

Agreement of the People (1647)
Proposal from the New Model Army's (mostly) lower ranks, calling for Parliament to be apportioned according to population rather than landholding or taxes, for the house of Commons to be supreme, and the right to vote for M.P.s to be given to broader range of citizens. The Agreement was a key document of the Leveller movement. It was opposed by Cromwell and Ireton.

Arminianism
A theological movement opposed to Calvinist Protestant doctrines of predestination. Arminians believed that God gave human beings the gift of free will so that they could choose either salvation or damnation. Much of the orthodox "High Church" establishment of the Church of England, and especially Archbishop William Laud held Arminian beliefs. Opponents of King Charles I viewed Arminianism as a dangerous reversion to the beliefs of Catholicism.

Bishop's Wars / Scottish Prayerbook Wars
A series of wars between England and the Scottish Presbyterians. The wars were provoked in 1637 by Charles I's demands that the Scottish Presbyterians adopt the English Book of Common Prayer (which contained a standardized ritual form for church services and provided for a Bishop-based authority structure in the church). The expenses of this war and some skillful negotiations between the Presbyterians and Charles I's enemies forced Charles I to recall Parliament after an eleven year(!) suspension.

Eastern Association
A military association of Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Herfordshire, Essex, and eventually Lincolnshire counties, in the east of England, an area heavily populated by Calvinists, Puritans and other religious reformers of various flavors. The Eastern Association was the most powerful and successful of the "Parliamentary" armies fighting against Charles I after 1642. In 1645, following the conflict between Manchester and Cromwell it was transformed in to an important component of the New Model Army.

Ecclesiastical property
Church property. This refers specifically to property under the control of the Church of England.

Eleven Years of Personal Rule / Tyranny
Charles I suspended Parliament in 1629 in a conflict over taxation. In the eleven year span from 1629 to 1640 he ruled without Parliament. To fund the state he turned to income that had been paid directly to the King in person, including the infamous ship money. When the Bishop's Wars of 1637-40 drained the treasury he was forced to recall Parliament in order to avoid bankruptcy.

Episcopacy
The leaders of the Church of England, who were bishops and archbishops. Derived from the Latin word for Bishop. Closely associated with the Royalist cause.

Fairfax, Sir Thomas
Considered the best commander among Parliamentary forces. He became commander-in-chief of the Parliamentary armies in 1645. Unhappy with the Commonwealth and the Protectorate of Cromwell, he would help with the restoration of monarchy in 1660.

Fifth Monarchists
Extreme Protestant millinarians, emerging circa 1649. They interpreted the four beasts in Daniel's dream (Dan. 7) as the four great empires of the ancient world. The fourth, the Roman, had been overthrown by the Catholic Church, alias the Antichrist, or the Beast in Revelation (Rev. 11-20). The Fifth Monarchy was to be led by Christ's saints for a thousand years before his return to Earth for the final judgment. Rejecting earthly and materialistic forms of "carnal" government, they strongly opposed Cromwell and his associates.

Grand Remonstrance (1641)
A long bill of indictment against the corruptions of the regime of Charles I, attributing them to the king's "Popish" (i.e. Catholic) advisors. It mandated by law that the king could only have those advisors who had the approval of parliament. Bitterly resisted by Charles I as a theft of his rights and authority.

Hampden, John
One of the most important and determined opponents of Charles I. Hampden became famous for opposing the ship money taxation Charles I sought to impose to pay for the Bishop's Wars. Although reluctant to provoke an open breach with the king in 1640-41, he became an ardent Parliamentarian and was killed in 1643 while fighting against the Royalist forces.

Heads of Proposals (1647)
Moderate proposal of 1647 meant to serve as a settlement of the first Civil War. It called for retention of the monarchy and the episcopacy, leaving the bishops still in control of the Church of England. Religious toleration would be guaranteed, and Parliament would retain control of the militia. These were summarily rejected by Charles I.

Humble Petition and Advice (1657)
The second written constitution of Cromwell's Protectorate, formulated in 1657. It initially established Cromwell as a king, but he refused to accept the crown and forced Parliament to preserve his authority under his previous title of Lord Protector. The Humble Petition gave Parliament the exclusive right of removing its own members, gave it control over the appointment and removal of the Lord Protector's counselors, and it strengthened the established church.

Independents
Parliamentary faction that called for an independent congregational structure of church governance rather than a Presbyterian or Episcopal (bishop-based) system. The Conflict between Independents and Presbyterians among the Parliamentary side was one factor contributing to Charles I's decision to restart the Civil Wars in 1648.

Instrument of Government (1653)
The first written constitution of Cromwell's Protectorate. It established his authority as Lord Protector. Developed by the same people who had produced the Heads of Proposals, it originally was designed to establish a limited monarchy. Under the Instrument of Government the Lord Protector would govern with the advice of a council selected by Parliament. Under the Instrument, Parliament would be elected and apportioned according to voters with certain minimum property-holdings.

Ireton, Henry
A cavalry officer in the Parliamentary armies who became one of Cromwell's most trusted lieutenants and then his son-in-law. Ireton was one of the architects of the moderate Heads of Proposals. Despite some quarrels with Cromwell he remained a loyal associate. Ireton was a regicide who signed King Charles's death warrant in 1649. He died in 1650 after returning from Cromwell's Irish campaign.

Laud, Archbishop William
Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the Church of England under Charles I. Laud was the chief voice advising King Charles I to impose the Book of Common Prayer on the Scottish Presbyterians in 1647. Laud's attempt to restore church practices, rituals, clothing, and ceremonies to their status under Queen Elizabeth I and his demand for absolute uniformity of church practice led to bitter resistance from Puritans. He was impeached in 1641, tried in 1644, and beheaded in 1645.

Levellers
A popular democratic movement, whose chief spokesman was John Lilburne. The Levellers argued that all persons are born free and equal, and cannot be rightly governed without their consent. Opposed by leaders of the New Model Army, the Levellers were able to make many converts among the army's rank and file. Their 1647 "Agreement of the People" called for Parliamentary supremacy and recognition of innate civil rights. Although accused of wanting to eliminate ("level") all inequities in property-holding, the Levellers were actually believers in a hierarchy of merit and ability ("meritocracy").

Lilburne, John
Leader of the Levellers. Imprisoned by the government in 1638 for distributing pamphlets critical of the episcopacy, he was released with Cromwell's help in 1640 and became one of Cromwell's officers in the Eastern Association army. He left the army in 1645 and became an outspoken critic of both the King and of Parliament. In 1649 he denounced the new Commonwealth, instigated a serious mutiny in the army and demanded Cromwell's impeachment. He was arrested and tried for treason but acquitted, but Parliament voted to banish him in 1651. He returned and spent the last few years in and out of prison before his death in 1657.

Ludlow, Edmund
One of a group of "austere Republicans" that included Henry Vane. A soldier in the Eastern Association army during the civil wars, in 1646 he was elected to Parliament. Ludlow was one of the signers of the death warrant for Charles I but generally opposed Cromwell during the Commonwealth and the Protectorate.

M.P.
Member of Parliament.

Manchester (Edward Montagu, 2d Earl of)
Parliamentary commander during the Civil War. Sympathetic toward Presbyterianism, Manchester was a leading Parliamentary critic of the King during the crisis that led to the civil wars. Manchester was a key military leader until his conflict with Cromwell in 1645. The resulting Self-Denying Ordinance forced him to resign his command. Out of favor during the Commonwealth and the Protectorate, Manchester helped in the restoration of the monarchy in 1660.

New Model Army
Created in 1645 from components of three existing Parliamentary armies, including the Eastern Association. Represented the triumph of Cromwell over Manchester and other opponents. Purged of older aristocratic and Parliamentary leaders, the New Model was generally more efficient and effective than its predecessors. Its most notable success was the Battle of Naseby, in 1645, which marked the key turning point of the Civil Wars and the beginning of Parliament's triumph. Leaders of the New Model Army were important in the purging of Parliament and the execution of King Charles.

Nominated Assembly
Governing body after Cromwell's 1653 expulsion of the Rump Parliament. Delegates to this assembly served as a de facto parliament. They were nominated by a council of Cromwell's associates. After a short and contentious session in which a minority of religious and political extremists sought to create a theocratic dictatorship, the assembly dissolved and returned its authority to Cromwell.

Nonconformists
Protestants who refused to conform to the rules and regulations of the Church of England and who did not accept the uniform worship defined in the Book of Common Prayer. During the Civil Wars, some sects, including Independents, Baptists, and Quakers, dissented from the dissenters.

Prayer Book / Book of Common Prayer
The standard Prayerbook of the Church of England. The Book of Common Prayer was created in the 1540s in response to the break with the Catholic church. The Prayerbook provided a uniform and standard ritual for morning and evening prayers, baptism, the Eucharist (communion), marriage, and burial, as well as for the ordination of priests and bishops. Imposition of this Prayerbook on Scottish Presbyterians provoked the Bishop's Wars and the break with the Nonconformists.

Presbyterians
Calvinists, who believed in predestination and a "Presbyterian" form of church government. The church would be governed by a series of courts, starting with the "kirk" (church) session, the local presbytery, regional synods, and a general assembly of ministers and elders which would govern the church as a whole. Presbyterians dominated the Westminster Assembly of 1643 that was called to reform the Church of England. The Westminster Confession that they produced is one of the Presbyterian denomination's important confessional statements.

Pride's Purge
This was a military coup by Henry Ireton and his associates in December 1648 that prevented any further negotiations between Parliament and King Charles I. 241 proponents of negotiation with the King were expelled from their seats in Parliament, and 42 were arrested. The remaining members came to be known as the Rump Parliament, or simply the Rump.

Royalists
Supporters of King Charles I and opponents of Parliament during the English Civil Wars.

Rump Parliament, or just "the Rump"
The faction of Parliament left after Pride's Purge. The Rump moved immediately to try and execute the King, abolish the monarchy, and assert Parliament's supremacy over England. The new government came to be known as the Commonwealth. It was replaced in 1653 by the Nominated Assembly.

Self-Denying Ordinance (1645)
An act of Parliament forbidding M.P.s from serving as officers in the army. Since M.P.s serving in the House of Commons could resign their seats, the Self-Denying Ordinance was only a modest barrier to their military service. Since members of the House of Lords held their seats through hereditary succession and not election, however, they could not resign. The result was the exclusion of the high aristocracy from positions of leadership in the Parliamentary armies.

Ship Money
This was a traditional tax imposed by the King to fund the English navy. It was traditionally imposed only on seaport towns. With Parliament suspended after 1629, however, Charles I began imposing the ship money on inland communities. Impositions in 1634, 1635, 1636, and 1637 were moderately unpopular but generally accepted. As soon as the ship moneys became connected with religious issues in the wake of the Bishop's Wars, however, the tax became extremely unpopular. John Hampden led the opposition against this tax. The ship money tax was outlawed by Parliament in 1641.

Solemn League and Covenant (1643)
Arrangement between the English Parliamentary forces and the Scots, provoked by the poor performance of Parliament's armies in the first year of the Civil War. In exchange for Parliament's acceptance of a Presbyterian form of church organization for the Church of England, the Scots agreed to provide military aid to Parliament's armies. Scottish intervention in the Civil Wars helped turn the tide against the King and his Royalist supporters. The failure of Parliament in 1646 and 1647 to fully adopt Presbyterianism, however, led many Scots to pursue an alliance with King Charles I.

Vane, Henry
A radical and mystical Puritan and "austere Republican." After a short stint as governor of the Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay colony, Vane returned to England and became a staunch supporter of the rights of Parliament. In Parliament he became a close ally of Cromwell and one of its most powerful members. By 1648 he had moved away from his alliance with Cromwell and remained aloof from the trial and execution of the King. A staunch supporter of the Commonwealth as the best form of a republic, he vocally opposed the Protectorate as a betrayal of republican principles. He was executed by the government of Charles II in 1662.

I happen to agree with Corey and the other students who posted that both of these systems were a necessary at that time. Basically, the common people paid the lord for his protection and a place to live and work in his community. We have been talking recently about diffent historical groups and their contribution to our everyday lives during class discussions, and I can see a little bit of the feudal system in the Amerian way today. American's "common people" pay taxes to both the state and national govenrment in exchange for protection in this great counrty by means of the police and military and the ability to work and live in a community. The similarity in our system and the feudal system can be seen in my descriptions of both, and sheds some light on the idea of appropriateness of the feudal system.

After re-reading my orignial posting, I realized it was a little misleading; I agree that feudalism and the relationships forged for protection were vital to the survival of the people. The issue I had concerned the mistreatment of the serfs and the lords' potential misuse of this power.
As for Sarah's post, her thoughts sturck a chord with me. Immediatley, I thought of the picture we saw in class of the "sweatshop," with barbed wire fencing surrounding an austere working environment. To me, the plight of those people contained elements of feudalism. Like Sarah stated, people sometimes are forced to work in awful conditions in order to repay their debt. However, they just continue to grow deeper in debt and cannot become self-sufficient. Generally though, foreign companies, whether from the US or Europe, are the institutions which control these "sweatshops" (like those in Latin America supported by countries in NAFTA) and take advantage of the fact that countries lack strict regulations on minimum wage and labor conditions. Therefore, we, as western peoples, definately play a role in maintaining elements of feudal society in our world.

Until reading the other posts, I hadn't realized how much of an influence feudalism has had, and is still having on our society. From foreign sweat shops to taxes, a system of hierachy still provides citizens with protection and a sense of community. Not only was this system "necessary" as the other students have clearly stated, but it worked. It worked so well that it continued for over a 1000 years, and aspects are still being incorporated into our society today. Although in exchange for protection, the serfs were giving up their freedom to live the very life for which they were fighting, who are we to judge the quality of that life? Maybe their freedom was more important. Most people today don't enjoy their work, but they do it for financial security and freedom, or personal gain, and most of all, for survival. The serfs might not have enjoyed their work, but they did it for their own selfish reasons as well.

The manorial and feudal systems while oppressive and contradictory to what most of us believe today were not only necessary but essential. Granted, the peasants had very few if any rights or liberties, but they were given protection, a living of some sort, and a strong sense of community. These people lived in a dark time in our world’s history, very few could read or write, and the church oppressed scientific discovery and the human spirit. Without manors on which to work and Lords who gave protection theses people would be starving and at the mercy of anyone with a small army and a cold heart. The system was extremely effective, and while the people weren’t necessarily happy, they were provided for and taken care of in a sense. It is hard for us to understand a time when such a system would be necessary; in today’s day and age all we can really equivocate feudalism to is sweatshops and forced labor which really are only one facet of feudalism.

 When I read through this article, I found the reasons that the manorial system started and ended very interesting. Because of "civil disorders, enfeebled governments, and barbarian invasions" these poor people gave up their freedom to become serfs, tied to the lord and to their duties. Mainly fear of others and insecurity about governments drove these serfs to the manor. But when a commerce economy started to emerge, these serfs found their own security and self-confidence by receiving money for their services and buying their freedom.
I found the reasons for serfdom and the reasons for "self-incurred tutelage" to be similar. The serfs chose to be loyal to the lord because of their fears and need for protection and community, just as people choose to be un-enlightened because they are afraid to go against the "guardians'" instructions. Both are too afraid to venture on their own because of their lack of self-confidence. With confidence, the serfs could band together to protect themselves, and today people could question what is being instructed. For this reason, I agree with Stefanie's earlier statements about the importance of self-confidence in the process of enlightenment.

While feudalism is considered mostly a medieval European concept, it is interesting that it had the potential to develop in many different parts of the world. In the first paragraph under "manorialism," the encyclopedia says that "[manorialism] made feudalism possible." By having a social and governmental setting such as the manorial system, the opportunity existed for feudal aristocracy to develop. According to the encyclopedia, such a pre-feudal system existed for some time in France, England, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Byzantine Empire, the Roman Empire, Russia, and Japan. In all of these cultures, the government was hierarchical; however, they were not all feudal. This indicates that feudalism is created by more events than the existence of manorialism.

Just because its the path that a society chooses to make, it does not make it right or necessary. I think feudalism is understandable. I understand how it began and why it last so long, but I am still bothered by the conditions the serfs were forced to live in. Do y'all believe that sweatshops today are okay or necessary? They are a reality, and they do help keep the American, and other wealthy nations, consumer prices down, but I don't think that excuses them. I don't think because we still see aspects of feudalism in our society today we should assume feaudalism was good or essential. It is understandable, just as sweatshops and housing projects and such are understandable today. I believe feudalism met the needs of the time it was created and then, like most systems, began to falter once the years passed. As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with the exchange of labor for protection, but it is a problem when the serfs begin to loose the right to leave or change. Sweatshops are not all bad, they provide jobs for people who would not otherwise have them, but wealthy companies take advantage of this need and pay their workers minimally and force them to work in poor conditions.

I am not sure I agree with Shannon's connection between the manorial system and Kant's article on enlightenment. I see where the connection is being drawn, but it seems to me that the serfs during this time period in history had no other choice than to engage in such a system. As Sam pointed out, they had limited resources and education and a dangerious environment. Granted, this system eventually died out, it wasn't until many years later. The longevity of this system implies that it did provide a stable means of society by which all individuals could maintain a decent and healthy lifestyle. Is it possible that a serf could have freed himself from his mental 'self-incurred tutelage' while still safely living within the manorial system? ---- I do see however that their treatment may appear bonded and unjust from our viewpoint. But, perhaps it was essential. Additionally, as we dicussed in class, the sense of community and reputation is very drawing. I know its not nearly the same, but we as Furman students chose this educational system because of its reputation and sense of community. Why do we put up with the extrememly high tuition rates? Perhaps because these qualities and the promise of a 'safe' future overpower the negative. I am trying to crudely tie this in with the fact that the work and harsh treatment of the serfs may have been overpowered by the benefits they received (safety and an imporatant community status).

I never realized how much the concepts of feudalism could be applied to today's society until reading Heather's posting. I originally questioned why serfs would allow themselves to be enslaved. I assumed that their quality of life must have been so despondent that they had no other choice. However, it is true that on some level the business world is some what similar to the feudal system. At the low end of the executive ladder one is much like a serf, being instructed by their superior as to what to do. Although this existence can prove to be exhausting and frustrating many need the financial security. This system is also similar to the feudal system because many seek employment at the business with the most well known name, regardless of the meager position they receive, simply to be able to bask in the reflected glory that we discussed in class.

I believe that a serf could avoid drowning in his or her own self-inferred tutelage. A serf wasn’t actually a slave and could escape his servitude by moving to a town and paying taxes to the town for one full year. He could sometimes buy his freedom from the lord, because nobles were always out of money. However it was very difficult for a serf to put aside enough money to buy his freedom. Society had a deep sense of duty, and it was the duty of the peasant to serve the clergy and nobles. I do agree with Sarah when she says that the pros of a serf overpowers the cons. The security of a safe haven and a roof over your head greatly outweighs the hard work and the fact that you are on the bottom of the social rung. I think that the serfs were a tight group of people with their own ideas. That’s why they lasted so long. You just can’t be someone’s drone and robot. They thought for themselves. If they decided to leave, there would be no place for them to stay because they were poor and knew no one with political connections.

After reading some of the posts on the subject of feudalism, it occurred to me that, in some ways, feudalism still exists in some ways. To go along with what Erin said about the common people paying taxes to the government, aren't many immigrants thrust into a sort of feudal system when they come here? Just like the serfs worked the land in exchange for a place to live and protection, immigrants often work in some of the lowliest jobs and live in sub-standard housing. However, the protection granted to them by the United States government (providing they are legal immigrants) seems to be enough to justify it for them. This also goes back to the reflected glory we talked about in class and Christina mentioned. Immigrants very often are just proud to live in a nation such as the U.S., no matter how poverty-stricken they may be. These things are the same reasons behind the serfs' willingness to remain loyal to their lords, despite what we would think of as unfair condiditons. As numerous others have mentioned, comparable unfair conditions still exist today, not only in sweatshops in foreign countries, but in factories and mills here in the U.S. I'm not saying that the feudal system is an acceptable way of life, but we have to recognize that many people still live a similar way of life today, both here and overseas.

I can see the point made by Shannon & co. that the feudal system is akin to the "self-incurred tutelage" mentioned in Kant's writings. However, I do not necessarily agree that the serfs themselves were not "mak[ing] use of his understanding." I also see the connection made between the serfs operating under the feudal system of centuries ago and the immigrants of today. Like one that may be under the spell of "his self-incurred tutelage," a serf under the control of a feudal system or an immigrant placed in our society may become aware of what we consider to be the "suppressive" nature and realize that they want no part in it. Two questions arise in my mind: Did the serfs/immigrants choose to be involved in the system? Secondly, did they consider the conditions of the system to be oppresive in the first place?
I agree with Brent that the serfs indeed were thinking for themselves. They were fully aware of the consequences of their actions, choosing what appeared to them to be the most stable, most reliable way of life; it was not forced upon them. It was no mystery what came along with the choice. Just like the immigrants of today, they chose to enter that the system and if necessary they can leave it. However, they chose to stay because the alternatives pale in comparison to the structed system they would be receiving.
Secondly, were the conditions that came with the deal oppressive? We condem the feudal system, concentrating on the serfs' permanent attachment they make to their lords. We see this as taking away their freedom. However, does this not make them more free, in a sense? Both immigrants and serfs are associated with a "winning team" so to speak. The are free to gain security, income, and provide for their families. Does this mean that the feudal system is acceptable or inhumane? Does this mean that the condition of the immigrants today should remain unchanged or immidiate action be taken to remedy it? I would argue that it is, in fact, an acceptable and almost necessary system. The serfs and the immigrants are taken care of, have a job, have a purpose. They support the lords they work for, and in turn the lords support them. Why should we question a system that works, a system that provides for all involved, a system that is chosen, not enforced? It is not possible for everyone to be a lord or a CEO. We come from very differnt backgrounds than the serfs or immigrants. To us, yes, the conditions seem terrible. However, what did it look like to them?

The comparisons made between serfs and immigrants/sweatshop workers just proves that certain aspects of society reaccur in cycles just as there are altering cycles of classical and romantic or Apollonian and Dionysian ideals. When the concept of feudalism is no longer necessary to support a society, it disappears, but returns as times change. During times of crisis, the weak will always be drawn to the strong. From the beginning, this has been true with communities creating social contracts to be led and to lose certain freedoms in return for protection. The serfs can also be compared to the sharecroppers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. They also worked the lands of a more powerful person, often living in sub-standard conditions . Yes, they could have gone to the cities, but at that time it more practical to stay with the promise of security and shelter, as Brent said.

Switching to the textbook reading, I found that our class discussions of "westernization" came to mind as I read the half on "An Age of Discovery and Expansion." The most important part of that section I believe was the last part concerning the 'Impact of European Expansion.' In class, the picture that we saw of the Asian people at Disney world--an ultimate sign of westernization-- presented to us the warm and fuzzy feeling of westernization crossing cultures, however; the ancestors of these people and others who saw their cultures thrown aside and replaced by European tradition would not have been so excited about Cinderella's castle. Do you see the connection here? Look to the reading. The native American people upon conquest by the Europeans were not appreciated; their civilizations had their own "unique qualities and a degree of sophistication rarely appreciated by the conquerors." Thrown aside. Exploited. Exterminated by disease. Forced into Catholicism (what a great way to show the purpose of the Christian people!!). All for what?? To give hopes to the Europeans of "land, riches, and social advacement." Yes, we wouldn't live in the same world today if none of this had happened, and it is fascinating to see how European countries began a mission to spread their western ideas around the world, but let's think here: is westernization necessarily a good thing if it causes a near extermination of a people and its own unique civilization?

It seems only natural, especially back in the 12-16th centuries, that the weak side with the strong at all costs. Invasions, riots, and seizure of the "land of the weak" would place fear in any low class peasant's mind. The fact that these peasants would dedicate their lives and service to their lord for military protection either suggests that they had a lot of faith in their protectors, or they were just scared to death. I seriously doubt there was much loyalty to the powers-that-be, except in some rare cases. Presently, our military protection is taken for granted. Just until recently, the United States' citizens have felt invincible to outside intrusion. But all citizens have the right to be protected by their country or "powers-that-be." So, the responsibility has seemingly shifted from the lower class to the higher.

Isn't it always interesting that in the primary years of schooling, we were taught that Christopher Columbus was this great explorer who founded "America." During Thanksgiving, we also visualized pilgrims and Indians sharing crops equally. Well now we know that it's just a bunch of bull. Ironically enough, we discover later that most of the great explorers during the age of expansion and discovery were horrible and greedy people. Concerned about riches and wealth, these men brutally and unrightfully seized lands that were not theirs to take. Consequently, like Leah pointed out, they spread infectious disease, killed the native people, and forced them to conform. Culture has been lost and great civilizations have been destroyed all because selfish men were looking for wealth and fame.

I think we've pretty much worn the feudalism conversation out, but I had one comment/question on it. In the piece on manorialism that we read, it stated that the system started to die out when commercialism hit and England started expanding. My first thought was of the slave trade. I know there were slaves during feudalism, but would easier access to them make it more possible for the serfs of the feudal system to rise out of their depths and use slaves in place of their labor? It would make sense to me that availablilty of materials and extra work hands would make the feudal system less necessary for people. On the other hand, I agree completely with Leah about the tyrany of the Europeans who inhabited the New World. I do realize that they were always in danger themselves, coming to a new land and getting used to new people and climates, ect. But explorers came here originally in search of gold and jewels, which when found, they basically stole and plundered from the natives. When they talk about religious conversion, it's obvious that natives probably weren't given much of a choice as to their religion when their villages were taken over. It just amazes me that people could come in and completely ignore the cultures of a community that already existed and take them for granted that way. I find it ironic that we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for that adventurous tyrany, though. Exploration and new ideas are a fabulous thing, but I'm not sure they're worth the expense of almost wiping out a rich culture and people, whether on purpose or by the accidents of European diseases and such. It's a sad and wonderful thing from different perspectives.

(From the Online Etymological Dictionary [1])

canon (1) - "church law," Old English, from Later Latin canon, from Latin, "measuring line, rule," from Greek kanon "rule," perhaps from kanna "reed" (see cane). Taken in ecclesiastical sense for "decree of the Church," and passed through Later Latin to Old English.

Although this is off the subject of European conquests and growth, I found it to be an interesting part of the chapter in the textbook. In the midst of the conquering, expansion, greed, religious zeal, savagery, and war that characterized the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe, it is amazing that a moderate, independent ruler can emerge as one of the major leaders of the time. Queen Elizabeth becomes one of the great rulers of history during her forty-five year reign as queen. Although women were generally considered to be inferior by many men at this time (as the section on witchcraft in the text mentions), Elizabeth leads England to incredible power, cultural greatness, and religious compromise. Her restraint and moderation is quite a contrast with the other rulers of the time. One such example is King Philip of Spain, whose religious obsession and lust for control leads his country into a disastrous confrontation with England in 1588. Perhaps Queen Elizabeth is and should be an influence on modern Western leaders. Her qualities of “caution, moderation, and expediency” should be an example to many leaders in times of crisis.

I thought Sally's question in class about whether globalization is a trend or not was very interesting. We are studying the roots and contributions of western civilization, which undoubtedly come from the great empires or societies, and the events that occurred or the new aspects that were adapted after the fall of each one. This has proved to be a repeating pattern with the Greeks, Romans, and, as we have read, the discovery and conquering of the Americas. What if the result of globalization is a great empire, soon the be the "western empire?" Is it doomed to fall? By looking at motives of people in the past and remembering what happens when others recognize something powerful and covet its greatness, one would likely answer yes. However, because people worldwide are concerned with preserving their own cultural identity, there is a chance that it is only a trend, and that globalization will be halted in its tracks or even recede so that different societies can retain their values and traditions. What do you think?

I agree with the idea discussed in class that since there are no longer outsiders in a sense (the kind that come in and take over the thriving culture) because of the information age, that no huge downfall is coming for American culture. I think socities will continue to blend and adapt to one another but find it hard to see the fall of Western civilization due to the circumstances of our time.

I think the question of whether or our civilization still has "outsiders" can be discussed if we compare contemporary culture with that of the past. In the text, we read about the "witchcraft craze" that hit Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The trials sound horribly unfair (especially the transcript on page 293) and I instinctively recoil at the idea of them as a terrible custom we're lucky to be rid of. Yet our government is currently engaged in a search for outsiders in the form of terrorists. What does that mean? Either outsiders are a serious threat against which we must defend ourselves...or Adam is right and there are no longer any true outsiders. Following the logic of the latter, is our civilization still in danger of attack? Does it matter whether attack comes from within a society or without it? I wonder if we will look back on the current programs with the same distain we now see the witch-hunts or the McCarthy trials.

I found it very interesting how during the English Revolution that the soldiers thought the results on the battlefield were directly controlled by God, that each victory was assurance from Providence that you were on the right track. This theme is not uncommon throughout history. It was prevalent during the Crusades, when explorers came to the New World and conquered the natives in the name of religion, and in countless other conflicts. Spielvogel writes, “The New Model Army was composed primarily of more extreme Puritans know as the Independents, who, in typical Calvinist fashion, believed they were doing battle for the Lord” (316). He also refers to military documents of Cromwell that give God the Glory for victory in the same paragraph.
Wars in the name of God and the idea of God being on a certain side are prevalent today even, for example, the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. Even the action the United States is taking to halt terrorism is done with the notion of being just and backed by God. At the same time the terrorists of 9/11 acted to protect Western encroachments into Middle Eastern society and the Muslim faith. As long as there are different religions in the world their will be conflicts with these types of religious undertones. The irony of it is that no one will think they are in the wrong and that blame will always be given to members of the other faction.

I am switching up the topic (slightly) to tonight's reading:
In "Why We Honor King Charles I as a Saint," Charles I is described as an "inspiration for us today," a great king who ended in a tragedy, and the last of the true martyrs who supported the church and fought for its rights. However, should he really be viewed as an "inspiration"? He rejected the Parliament's petition of guidelines (after intially accepting it)when he thought that the Parliament was cramping his style; he felt the "limitations on [his] royal power" tighten. He did away with the petition and, for a while, Parliament itself, adopting a system of "personal rule." He could not share power. Is this how a gracious godly king acts? Whether Charles I was a great man with good intentions or a power-hungry king is debatable. However, this duality parallels that of Oliver Cromwell, ironically one of the main supporters for the execution of Charles I, linking them in an odd way. Both are examples of how fine (and blurry!) the line is between sainthood and tyranny. This connection hints at somthing bigger: when prominent active historical figures are subjected to severe scrutiny, a consensus on the nature of his/her intentions is impossible to acheive. Do you agree??!?

I think Adam's point (/m88) about the role of divine providence in war is interesting. If one truly believes that he is fighting in the name of God, then he is capable of anything against the enemy. It's almost a get-out-of-jail free card for any action that would normally be considered unforgivable and deplorable sin. Pious and devout men in religious battle have committed acts as heinous as any others in history. More importantly, I think, belief that one is fighting in the name of God grants a sort of supernatural shot of courage, bolstering men who might otherwise balk at the prospect of marching to battle. Spielvogel includes on page 291 of the text a discussion in which the Spaniards, about to sail against England, realize the hopeless tactical nature of the military confrontation, yet still go to battle "in the confident hope of a miracle". The confused nature of the civil strife that occured during the time of Charles I was such that, whether fighting for the King or for Parliament, the rank and file of both forces had to have been motivated by religious zeal. Like Adam mentioned, divine sanction is still an important force in current events. Who would literally give their life to offer an insignificant attack against their political and moral enemy (Israel, the United States, etc.) unless they really thought that they were enacting God's very will?

I agree with Jennifer's statement that there is an extremely fine line between being revered as a great leader in history and being considered tyrannical and disliked. The two articles we read are examples of this complex paradox. In "Why We Honour King Charles I as a Saint," Charles is portrayed as a deeply religious man who was willing to give his life in order to perpetuate his beliefs. It focuses almost exclusively on the king's contributions to the church. Although important, the article does not mention Charles' other actions. In "Charles I," the king's weaknesses, such as his selfishness and indecisiveness, are discussed. Instead of simply lauding him as a great martyr, it emphasizes the controversy surrounding his decisions. I believe that such paradoxes are very common in history. There is no important historical figure that was either liked or disliked by everyone. Therefore, debates still ensue as to the level of greatness of King Charles I.

Like Addie and Jennifer, I also believe that there are two, paradoxical arguements concerning Charles I. The first article, "Society of King Charles the Martyr," is in my opinion more biased than the other. To portray the likes and dislikes of historical figures is to portray the truth. Charles I adheres to his reputation of greatness because he was a man of progression. Although society sometimes viewed his actions as tyrannical, Charles I remained determined to improve England. Obviously of deep, religious faith, Charles led the best he knew how and never ceased despite the possibiliy of death. In my opinion, he was an honorable man. He ruled with both faith and perseverance (two of the most important qualities in a leader). Although debates exist as to whether or not Charles I was as honorable as many say, I personally believe that he upholds his reputation of greatness.

There is no such thing as the perfect human being. Leaders, however, are put under closer scrutiny than the average citizen. As the King of England, Charles I had the eyes of an entire country on him. To lead under these circumstances, one must have both a strong support team (as Charles had in William Laud, his advisor, and his loyal followers) and a strong belief in oneself. As Kaylan expresses, Charles was a man of strong integrity which allowed him to make difficult decisions, such as the one to turn himself over to the hands of the Scottish army in May of 1646. Charles I's dedication to the Church of England and to his country, despite his flaws that some might view as tyrannical, make him an admirable historical figure and worthy of sainthood in my opinion.

Even though we've just moved onto a new topic, I'm going to move away from Charles I and talk about J.C. Davis and Oliver Cromwell. As we talked about the problems with determining the motivation of various historical figures, I immediately thought of this quote from Davis, "Objectivity was a problem 'because, through envy on one side, flattery on the other, and strong prejudices upon both, it may be truly said, that more of the falsehood and fable is to be met with in the accounts of him...than of almost any other person living so near our times.'" Davis was referring to various other attempts at Cromwell biographies, however, don't we have to apply the same thing to his own work? At times in the reading I found it difficult to decifer which view of Cromwell he was supporting and which he was refuting. He balances negative statements with equally positive ones, usually reiterrating the idea that although some of Cromwell's actions were deplorable, his courage, personal character, and achievements are to be admired.

I found Davis's conclusion helpful in pulling everything together and clarifying some of the paradoxes discussed in the rest of the book. It was particularly interesting to me when Davis went through the various things that Cromwell supposedly wanted and did not want for the country, such as the idea that he did not want a dictator-like rule that would restrict civil liberties. As Julia said, perfect people do not exist. I also agree that leaders of any time are examined to an extreme, whether they are leaders of nations or simply the president of a local organization. Cromwell is obvioiusly no exception, given this extensive look at his life.

Edited by author 01-13-2003 08:01 PM
Davis examines Cromwell’s academic reputation and re-evaluates key areas which have constantly been debated over the centuries. The beginning of the book examines Cromwell’s reputation over the last four hundred years. Davis analyzes Cromwell’s academic reputation following his death in 1658. This part of the book explains why some people have such extreme views about Cromwell. The rest of the book attempts to re evaluate key aspects of Cromwell’s reputation. Davis challenges a common perception held by historians to this day, of Cromwell as the self-made man who had risen from insignificance. Indeed, Cromwell himself had commented that he had done so. Drawing upon recent research, Davis argues that far from being a self-made man, Cromwell in his early life was laden with failure; particularly when he descended the social ladder in the 1630’s. His rise back into the upper class into which he had been born was not self-made, but a result of inheritance upon his uncle’s death. Furthermore, as the grandson of a knight it is argued, from a twenty-first century meaning, that Cromwell would not be seen as being obscure. Because of his relative inadequacy of birth, this allows us to understand why Cromwell would have regarded himself as a man who had risen from obscurity.
Davis challenges Cromwell’s political reputation as being personally ambitious with a lack of consistency, and his reputation of being an omnipotent Lord Protector. He argues that Cromwell, amongst other things, did not keep power to himself after the expulsion of the Rump in 1653. When he became Lord Protector he was constrained by a written Constitution, Council and Parliament. The consistency in his political reputation is not to be found in the pursuit of personal ambition but in his pursuit of religious and civil liberty. Finally, Davis challenges the view of the omnipotent Lord Protector as a state-builder and the architect of centralization of government, the builder of a fiscal and military network resulting in a military dictatorship. He argues that Cromwell wanted the state to shift from a military to a civilian one and that he was more interested in building a godly nation out of reconciliation and consensus rather than force.
Cromwell was a so-called pioneer of the protestant reformation. Cromwell believed passionately in what he called 'liberty of conscience', that is freedom for a range of Protestant groups and faiths to practise their beliefs undisturbed and without disturbing others. Several times he referred to this religious liberty as the principal achievement of the wars, to be strengthened and cherished now that peace had returned. Others, however, viewed these religious policies as futile, unnecessarily divisive or a breeding ground for heresy.

Hey guys! I did not mark in today's notes at which point every one of the causes of the Reformation begins. Does anyone have them and care to share? Thanks!

I agree with Kate that Davis' attempts to be evenhanded in his discussion of Cromwell's character left some clarity to be desired. Yes, I understand that there are many sides of the story and opinions vary widely. However, one would think that of paramount importance in a long string of Cromwell biographies would be not to restate everything already known (although this is necessary to an extent) but to draw new conclusions based on the available information. This shows up in his conclusion, which I like Kate enjoyed the most - but where was he hiding it the rest of the book!?! I finished the book wondering where his startling insights had been for the first eight chapters.

One of the parts of the book I found most interesting was "The self-made man risen from obscurity." Davis begins the chapter talking about the myth factor of a movement "from powerlessness to power," then discusses whether or not Cromwell was actually obscure. The general conclusion is that Cromwell was not a "nobody," so he did not rise from actual obscurity. The thing that interests me is why this myth persists. In my high school history class I remember learning that Cromwell "came out of nowhere" when he showed up on the political and military scene. Obviously our society finds this aspect of "heroes" attractive, because it suggests we can do the same. So do we look for something heroic in all of our leaders, so much so that we will create it if it isn?t there?

King Charles I was a selfish king who imposed ideas that would benefit his own good. In order to fully understand his devotion to the Church of England we have to examine the creation of the it. Henry VIII created the church after the Catholic church refused to grant Henry's divorce from Catherine. The church recognized the king as the supreme head who had entire authority within the kingdom. Since the king had ultimate authority, he felt as if his actions and descisions were not to be questioned. The "divine right of king" thought process would leave anyone arrogant. Although he had the authority, Charles called and dismissed Parliament according to his will, only using them when he had no other choice. He was not humble enough to consider the best for his people. The various taxes and ship money imposed upset many of his commonmen. The lack of support for his monarchial reign was increased due his actions. The Church of England can make a claim that Charles was a patron of the church. In fact, Charles was so deeply rooted in his ultimate power, he knew nothing but that and could not let go of the belief. Charles is not the saint they claim; rather, he was merely stubborn to the end.

Edited by author 01-13-2003 11:02 PM
In every aspect of Cromwell’s reputation that Davis presents, one can find qualities that contributed to his esteem as a leader. By one account on his rise from obscurity, “the self-made man has been portrayed as naturally talented, a born military genius; a man of such commitment, resolution, compassion, courage and vigor as to inspire others to follow where he led (65).” In the Swordsman chapter, “He came to the experience of war with an open mind and a willingness to learn (89)…,” “showed himself to be a team player.. [and] an affective collaborator and subordinate (90).” His capacity for leadership was not only exemplified by his military knowledge and capability, but by his concern for and close relationship to his men. This essentially made his team stand out. As a man of God, it is also made clear that his religion was “the ultimate determinant of his action (128).” This not only gave him confidence and motivation, but it also elicited respect and reverence from others on the notion that he had been chosen by God or had divine authority. As a politician/state builder, he urged cooperation, consensus, and consistency. “What is remarkable is Cromwell’s persistence after every setback, not only in attempting to stabilize the situation but to rebuild a strategy approximating as nearly as possible to that of The Heads of Proposals and delivering reconciliation alongside guarantees of civil and religious liberty (158).” Here also it was clear that his priority was peacemaking. “Cromwell always favoured making, rather than imposing peace; reconciliation rather than conquest rule. The path of the peacemaker inevitably involved moderation and conciliation (169).” As Brent was saying, Cromwell strived for an “operational consensus.”

Also important to Cromwell’s leadership were his networks. In every stage of his life, he relied on these networks, to “interpre[t] the events and struggles of the time as happenings under the dispensation of a provincially active God (84)” or to simply “make things possible (85).” The major part of his political activity throughout his career was “the building and rebuilding of networks, associations and understandings with other players… (145).” When the groups differed in priorities and objectives, he worked at achieving a consensus while taking into consideration the varying viewpoints. Cromwell's greatness was due to a combination of many leadership qualities which enabled him to interact with, substantially influence and control the society and people of his time.

I think that Davis' assesment of Cromwell as a paradox not only in life, but much more so in death is extremely insightful. All of the actions of his life can be seen from so many different views that his life almost defies even the word paradox. The various aspects of his life are not set down with any clear disposition in Davis' book, and it leaves many of us, whom do not have the background an English pupil might, at almost a loss for resolution because of the lack of pertinant information to draw our own conclusions (not necessarily a bad thing).

This is of course due to what Davis calls a patchy record of Cromwell's life. Davis even goes as far as to mention that much of the historical documents referring to Cromwell take certain positions on Cromwell. I think the book clearly explores the life of an influential man, because Cromwell's life affected so many other events and people. But can we call him great? I guess that depends on your definition of great. Even armed with a position on greatness though, are the facts you base this greatness on really facts at all? Or are they nonpartial attributes someone nailed into his coffin long after he was too dead to refute them?

Recently we’ve been discussing the Protestant Reformation, when people were unaccepting of past beliefs and started new sects of Christianity with very precise convictions and guidelines. And I found it interesting that Cromwell who lived after this era had such liberal ideas about religious tolerance. In the “Man of God” chapter, Davis talks about Cromwell’s religious ideal to have a “Protestant piety broadly defined rather than on narrow denominational qualifications” (131). Although this idea is not completely tolerant (only Protestant piety), it is uncommon in it’s downplay of denominations and specific groups, which was so important in his lifetime. Davis also describes Cromwell’s opinions on civil liberties and the importance of liberty of conscience in relation to religion. Cromwell believed that people of all denominations should live by God’s will and interventions and their own conscious interpretations of God. I admire Cromwell for these ideals (which I think could be useful in today’s Christianity with so many denominations) and for his consistent practices of looking to God’s will before battles and political decisions. Instead of being a hypocrite, he actually practiced what he preached; this is a major aspect of his “greatness”.
I agree with Lauren’s comment about Cromwell’s dependence on “networks” throughout his life for political and military aspects, but I found that in his religion, he was less dependent on these connections. Davis discussed in several chapters how Cromwell would meditate in prayer for hours before and after battles, seeking God’s will and His explanation for victories and losses. His piety and religious habits were more isolated than other parts of his life. And although he publicly promoted these “liberty of conscience” ideas and enforced days of fasting and humility, he was also personally involved with God; I admire this devotion that he possessed throughout his life.

J.C. Davis, in my opinion, does an excellent job presenting a full view of the “reputation” of Oliver Cromwell. However, what he presents is not merely the effects of Cromwell’s actions in his lifetime or even the following century after his death, but he also illustrates Cromwell’s lasting impact all the way up to the present twenty-first century. Cromwell is certainly an unsolvable “paradox.” However, the fact that this “paradox” is being debated even today is, to me, astounding. Not only is he being debated among historians, but he is still causing controversy in everyday society. In Oxfordshire, when they tried to name a street after him, they “found [themselves] in a storm of protest.” Cromwell is no ordinary debatable historical figure if he can still cause such an uproar every time he is mentioned.
One of these debatable aspects of Cromwell that interested me was his extreme religious attitude toward every event and action. He claimed that all events, etc. were to be given up to God. That he was doing God’s will and therefore England would prevail. Did he really believe this? J.C. Davis offers three valid points backing up Cromwell's religious sincerity. Basically Davis says that it is almost impossible to keep up that kind of charade. However, one cannot deny all that Cromwell could gain by faking his deep religious faith and enthusiasm. What if Cromwell was, indeed, deceiving his soldiers, colleagues, and subjects? Using religion as a motivator for his soldiers and as a way to keep his subjects loyal is ingenious. Who is going to refute God’s will? If they will not refuse God’s will, then they will not refuse Cromwell. “His godliness was allegedly instrumental in enabling him to control the New Model Army, the sects and the radicals, to carry through the coup of 1648-9 before turning to discipline the army and the radicals.“ This is definitely a large case of “basking in reflected glory.“ What better glory to reflect in than God’s? His subjects followed him because they were not fighting for merely Cromwell’s side, they were fighting on God’s side as well. In the Parliament, although he met with some opposition, whenever he was fighting for a cause, he would quote the Bible or make analogies between his situation and parables in the Bible. What member of Parliament is going to risk a public opposition to a man quoting God’s word? He uses a “great show of his [spiritual] zeal” to spur on loyalty and obedience. Maybe Davis is right, it is impossible to fake that level of religious “zeal.“ Or maybe he really was just that good.

  I found the way in which Davis chose to write the story of Cromwell very interesting. Unlike most books written on historical figures, Davis didn't simply write a narraitve of Cromwell's life from birth to death. Instead, he focused on an important question, whether or not cromwell was really a great leader, and tried to uncover the truth through several unbiased discoveries about his character and leadership abilities. He allowed the reader to pretty much come to their own conclusion about Cromwell, which i decided he rose to power throug little of his own "greatness."
     First of all, if Cromwell was so great, i believe that he could have found a peaceful way to settle the differences amongst the people reguarding religion. One of the atributes of great religious leaders is their ablility to spread peace, somehting Cromwell was far from doing. On page 111, Davis writes, "Both war and religion could sanction the vigorous, even ruthless, pursuit of military ends. But they could also call for the arts of the peacemaker." Another reason that i am skeptical of calling Cromwell great is idea that he rose from nothing to great power. Linda, and a few others, have commented on the fact that we look greatly upon those people who seem to have that "heroic" image, an ordinary man who turned great. Cromwell had so many connections that it is no wonder that he rose to power to quickly. One final idea on why i believe Cromwell wasn't so great was what he gave back to the English people. Shortly after he died, everything Cromwell establishd in England crumbled. On page 162, Davis writes, "At best, it is allleged, he destroyed one state system and failied to replace it with anything perminent." It is my opinoin, that a truly great leader would have left a positive effect on his country and given them something beneficial that would stay long after his death. Cromwell simply failed to do this.

Edited by author 01-14-2003 09:29 AM
I like Linda's inquiry (/m97) into whether or not Cromwell "came from nowhere". It is true that Cromwell came from a rather disadvantaged state to become ruler of Britain, but we have seen many leaders throughout history do the same (not necessarily, of course, ruling Britain). If we allow (J.C. Davis decides against this) for a moment that Cromwell did indeed come from relative obscurity, then circumstances beg the question of whether or not Cromwell was formed to fit a need that would have been met by someone else had he not risen to power. Davis mentions a view in which Cromwell is seen to be "pretending to those qualities which he did not [have] (sincerity, public spirit)". The scientist in me wonders if there were any other people in all of England who bested Cromwell in any or all of his leadership skills, and I have to imagine that there were.

Another thing I found interesting in the book was the treatment of the religious factor in Cromwell's life and rule. Davis paints Cromwell as a genuinely pious man, which he may very well have been, but as Jennifer (/m102) discussed, he could have been utilizing that image to his advantage. Davis said that "reformation was an aspiration close to the hearts of the godly in Cromwell's England". Being critically involved in propelling forward this reformation was, then, a way into the hearts of the godly in England. However, Davis illuminates Cromwell's private side, discussing private letters where Cromwell proclaims his views on the ultimate nature of God's will. Surely no person could keep up such a consummate charade. Also, if we accept that God was in fact Cromwell's prime motive in his actions, it allows for us to more easily rationalize his actions and even, I think, to sympathize with him to the degree that the same is true in our own lives.

According to Webster, the definition of a “great” figure is “an outstandingly superior or skillful person, or someone of distinction.” According to this definition, Cromwell was a “great” figure. He used his own skills to rise from obscurity(however skewed the definition of obscurity may be), albeit mainly through his connections, but he used those connections wisely, through his own volition. He developed his knowledge and skill of war through experience, and was quite often successful in battle. His place in history is still affecting our lives and rousing controversy, making him a distinct, influential character of the past. In my opinion a good leader has the people’s trust and can effectively work toward their common goal. Also, a leader must set a good example and never go back on his/her word. Cromwell’s paradoxical lifestyle contradicts the latter part of my definition, therefore rendering him an unsuccessful leader. Consistency is key to leadership. Inconsistency results in the loss of support from followers, and countless conflicts among them.

Cromwell certainly used scripture and religion to his advantage, as Jennifer stated, but I also agree that it is “impossible to keep up such a charade.” And because I believe that, I think that Cromwell’s beliefs were not false. I know people today that use scripture to support, or rather justify the actions of others and of themselves. They find a reason for everything through their beliefs. Is it so hard to imagine this happening then? Especially when religion was the cause of their fighting and an important part of everyday life, which Cromwell used to his full advantage. Dedication of that magnitude cannot be feigned. Even if a full record of Cromwell’s life were miraculously discovered, many of our questions would be left unanswered, and many more would be posed. Differences of opinion and interpretations will always persist. Not to mention the fact that all of history is biased is some form or fashion.

I, like Linda, was very interested in Davis' descrption of Cromwell as "self-made man risen from obscurity." In Chapter 4, along with a few other chapters, it is as if Davis wants the reader to have a positive, biased opinion of Cromwell from the beginning. The reader can't help but be impressed by a man rising from "provincial obscurity" to a "symbol of godliness." Yet, in the end, Davis illustrates a recurring paradoxical theme, and reveals that in actuality Cromwell was never obscure. Thus changing the readers entire perspective of the character once again.
   Continuing with the themes, another point I found interesting was the outlook on the dominant themes of Cromwell's reputation: "the capacity for paradox and the invocation of greatness." To me, the fact that Cromwell was considered "great" was a paradox in itself. One characteristic of a "great" leader is one who knows what he wants, and does not hesitate to make it happen. I, like Davis, would use words such as "decisive" and "consistent" to describe such a leader. However, Davis also describes Cromwell as taking a "lukewarm approach to the war" and "avoiding religious threats of liberty." Such descriptions, are contradictory of someone who displays "greatness", and therefore his reputation, as well as his reputable themes, are paradoxical in themselves.

As I see it, the Oliver Cromwell depicted by J.C. Davis is a highly complex figure that has been both criticized and praised for his involvement in the history of England. While his political actions and beliefs left much to be desired, his role as a military leader gave him widespread success. Instead of classifying Cromwell as "great" or the opposite, I believe that one should consider him to be a regular person--with strengths and weaknesses. Davis refers back to this paradoxical nature of Cromwell throughout his book, and therefore leaves the reader to determine for himself which policies improved society and which had a negative impact.

Cromwell's numerous military victories label him as an effective leader in that respect. His important contributions to battles against the king during the English Civil Wars such as Marsten Moor, Naseby, Preston, and Dunbar initiated his rise in status and power. However after this was achieved, he faltered in his leadership, often proposing conflicting ideas that had the effect of turning almost everyone against him, even Parliament. Although Cromwell attempted to reform the English government by introducing religious toleration and creating a new parliamentary system, his efforts were demolished after his death in 1658.

As Heather pointed out, "greatness" is a completely relative term that cannot be used correctly without further clarification. Cromwell did achieve victories in his military endeavors, but failed as a political leader. Because of this, he joins the ranks of King Charles I and countless other historical figures whose greatness is debatable. I believe that almost everyone falls into this category. No one is perfect and therefore is unable to be revered by everyone.

Edited by author 01-14-2003 11:15 AM
Like Jennifer, I agree that J.C. Davis thoroughly analyzed Oliver Cromwell and his reputation. However, like we said in class, we can't know the precise motives of Cromwell's actions because we aren't him. Nevertheless, from the evidence portrayed in the text, we can start to understand the complexities of this man, and even his many paradoxes. First, I was surprised that Cromwell made attempts to reconcile the sides of the Civil War. For example, in 1647, Cromwell "backed the Heads of Proposals, which was designed to offer a parliamentary settlement which might be acceptable to the King, the army, the godly, and those who saw substantial constitutional reform essential" (142). Throughout my high school education, I had been taught that Cromwell was driven by his ambition and strongly desired the end of the monarchy; however, my preconceptions were shattered when I read the material and also reached the part about Cromwell denying the crown. Therefore, I realized that I must be careful of my stereotypes because the generalizations can lead to an unsubstantial interpretation.
Furthermore, in agreement with Shannon, Cromwell's religious devotion definately represented a huge, daily part of his character. Again, another stereotype quickly crumbled. Although we do not know for sure whether his devotions were sincere, I more or less agree with J.C. Davis in stating that Cromwell believed himself to be a godly man and that "religion was almost invariably the ultimate determinant of his action." (128). This can be supported by the multiple inclusions of Scripture within Cromwell's letters and speechs. However, my statement does not claim that Cromwell had a true relationship with God; again that is something that we cannot tell. All we know is that he thought himself to be acting by the guidance of Providence; he may be like Saul in the Old Testament, where the man believes he has the support of God, but he looses this favor when he disobeys Him. Nevertheless, it must be agreed upon that Cromwell had a good knowledge of the Scriptures.
Finally, I also agree with many of y'all who state that greatness is relative, as J.C. Davis pointed out in Chapter 2. I also want to add that I think we all have our own examples of parodoxi in our lives. As imperfect people, we hypocritically go back on our principles, in times of weakness and appear to be living a contradictory life. I know I have experienced this when I was passive and did not stand up for my particular beliefs in order to avoid confrontation. Therefore, we need to keep in mind that we can relate on some level to the internal struggles which befell Oliver Cromwell.

I agree with Addie's comment that not everyone is perfect and that Cromwell (as well as every important historical figure I think) should be regarded just as a regular person with strengths and weaknesses, even if one greatly outweighs the other. Cromwell had many positive and negative attributes, and it is hard to sum up a person's life in just one light when there are so many different parts of their personality. Cromwell was such a paradox in every aspect of his personality and leadership that it seems impossible to me to pin him as "great" or a failure. Even his military leadership, which has evidence of being great because of his many triumphs in battle, is controversial because of his treatment of civilians in the places he conquered. He is shown as an extremely accommodating person to his own soldiers, always encouraging them and stopping in the middle of campaigns to make sure they have adequate food and clothing; he is basically described as a monster during his time in Ireland where he apparently was a part of masses of civilian deaths.
What really struck me about the overall message of Cromwell was the fact that he essentially became everything that England was trying to get rid of when they rebelled against Charles I. Our textbook cites some of the major grievances against Charles I as being the fact that he took too much personal control and that he taxed the people too heavily without their consent (through Parliament). After all the country had been through in the Civil War, Cromwell seems to have brought everything full circle by again taking personal control of a country that wanted some say. He also brought back "high taxation and extensive borrowing which alienated the very governing classes he wished to win over" (200). Cromwell was great in many respects, and he definitely made an impact on England, but there are so many good and bad aspects of this that it would be hard for me to say that I think he was absolutely a "great" leader and warrior for his people.

Historians hold many different opinions about Oliver Cormwell. There are two major schools of thought about Cromwell: he was a turncoat who betrayed friends to manipulate himself to power under the guise of reform or he was a man with noble intentions that failed to pan out. I agree with this second assessment. I think every time he used military force to turn out successive representative bodies of government he did so with a heavy heart. Exemplifying this good intent, the textbook credits Cromwell with saying to Parliament in 1653, “It’s you who have forced me to do this, for I have sought the Lord night and day that He would slay me rather than put upon me the doing of this work” (W.C. 316) All his actions really were done with an eye toward what was best for his country in my opinion, not toward imposing his will through force. However, just because Cromwell had good intentions does not mean all of his actions were justified.
 Obviously, these are just my speculations and should be taken with a grain of salt, but it seems to me that is all historians have been able to do as well– speculate on evidence they have such as his speeches and other accounts of his life. The man who arguably has influenced English history as much as anyone, however, has many qualities that historians have yet, and will likely never, agree and come to definitive conclusions about. No wonder history has labeled Cromwell such a paradox as Davis characterizes him. He was involved in many controversial issues during his time, so much so that people most likely did not record objectively his role in history from the start without including their bias. All we are left to do is formulate our own conclusions about Cromwell, sifting through the evidence, evaluating each source on its own merits. This is why his role in history will remain a subject of debate for years to come. At least after reading Davis we have been given the chance to evaluate Cromwell for ourselves.

As we attempt to determine Cromwell's greatness, I have to agree with many of my classmates in saying that greatness is relative. Every perception of Cromwell given is biased and no individual can know his true motives and thoughts. Davis does an excellent job of laying this out for us in the beginning of the book, warning us as readers to be wary of missing information and biased statements. This is essential to our overall classifiction of Cromwell and I think that each of us as individuals will view Cromwell uniquely and may view the various aspects of his character, that Davis discusses, in very different lights.

In the shadow of that comment, the main characteristic that struck me when reading was the chapter labeling Cromwell as a 'Man of God'. As Davis analyzes this characteristic he dives into three reasons he believes support the fact that Cromwell was a sincerely relgious man, as other classmates have already dicussed. Cromwell's consistency, the alignment of 'godly' maneuvers with the best positive worldly outcomes, and the outlook that God will protect and deliver his 'chosen people' from 'languishing in the wilderness' all exemplify his label as a 'Man of God.' For me, however, to view this as one characteristic that makes Cromwell 'great' is not easy. I do agree, as others have stated, that he was a man of the Scriptures and firmly believed in the protection and divine leadership of God. However, it seems that we have to acknowledge the possibility that Cromwell's overwhemling trust in his God took away from his own leadership. Anything that went wrong can then simply be cast off as a result of God's hand in Cromwell's devout following. Perhaps this is because of my personal life that I view this chapter in such a way, but I do not think Cromwell's religosity can be labeled as making him any more or less of a 'great leader'.

  As most have discussed in some way, the paradox is the question of his life. Kate mentioned that she had difficulty deciding if Davis was for or against Cromwell. I say that's the point of the book. He gives what facts are available to him, which directly contradict each other, and presents them to the reader, so that we can be historians and draw conclusions for ourselves.

  To answer a common question of his greatness, I found this quote to hit the nail on the head: "Whether positive or negative, his reputation has, since his death, been pushed to the extremes of 'greatness.' If he was bad, he was extremely bad, greatly evil; just as he was, in the role of the champion of virtues, heroic. It is hard to find a single case of a sustained argument for Cromwell's mediocrity." Though it does not answer the question of whether he was 'good' or 'bad,' I think it puts an interesting and valid twist on the word 'greatness' in reference to Cromwell's life.

  I think Erin makes a very valid point to look at the final result of his work in the assessment of Cromwell's success. Once Charles I was executed and the monarchy abolished by Parliament, Cromwell's 'rule' ended up in more confusion and division. After dissolving the Parliament, he divided England into 11 regions; his military force was worse than that of Charles I. Such a system did not work for England; upon his death in 1658, she returned to monarchy with Charles II. Not such a great ending for Cromwell, is it?

  Nevertheless, the last sentence of the book holds true in my mind. Though he did not necessarily succeed in creating a liberated and improved England, he had mny trials to struggle with. His attempt indeed "was admirable none the less."

I think I'm changing the subject again, but I just had a few ideas about some of the readings in the book. Leaders were often led by their religious convictions into situations that would change the fate of their country. King Philip’s religious conflict against the Netherlands led him to war against Britain and the defeat of the Spanish Armada causing a “psychological blow to the Spaniards”. As Adam stated, religious wars continue today in areas of the Middle East between Jews and Muslims, each seeking land and various freedoms.
Henry IV granted religious freedoms like Frederick the Great did in the eighteened century but for different reasons. Henry IV did it to retain power and to be accepted by Catholic France, while Frederick did it because he was an “enlightened” monarch.
The conflicts over dynastic rule during the sixteenth century were much the same as those during the early Roman empire. Leaders realized that the relationship between themselves and their public was crucial, which led them to seek backing from various powerful institutions. Rulers during the sixteenth century often looked for religious backing while Roman emperors needed the backing of the army to retain power. Oliver Cromwell did the same. He sought the support of not only his allies and supporters, he even looked to former enemies to help him achieve his goals of “civil and religious liberty”. As Julia stated, there is no such thing as a perfect human being and Cromwell was not the exception to the rule. Some incidents as with Charles I being intercepted by one of his kinsmen a few days after they had a meeting and then moving to the custody of another kinsman does seem suspicious but his main goal remained virtually the same from 1647- 1653. The Heads of Proposal of 1647 wanted the king to be restored, modification of the Church of England without coercive powers and liberty of conscience for the godly, a biennial Parliament, and a government accountable to Parliament. In his second speech to his first Parliament in 1653, he asked them to embrace constitutional propositions provided that the following were respected; joint rule of one person and Parliament, regular not perpetual Parliaments, liberty of conscience with national religious provisions, and joint responsibility control of the army.

Edited by author 01-14-2003 11:39 AM
The concluding chapter to the book frustrated me because it never truly answered its own question satisfactorily. First of all, Davis sets up an issue to resolve: the usage of 'paradox.' The main problem he has with prior opinions of Cromwell is that they either describe him as a radical lunatic, a glorified saint, or simply call him a paradox. Davis effectively proves through his research and various citations that Cromwell is neither a saint or a lunatic, although at times he appears to take on one role or another. Davis also attacks the idea of Cromwell as an open-ended paradox: "The contradictoriness of the paradox, while it may illuminate the problem, never explains or resolves it. It is essentially a restatement of the problem (p.4)."

Perhaps I read the last chapter wrong, but I understood Davis to conclude that Cromwell is different depending on the context in which he is viewed. When Davis attempts to place him in the context of his time and the events surrounding the actions, Cromwell is portrayed as a man doing what is best at the time. However, Davis still cannot get around the fact that Cromwell was a hereditary regime dictator (called a Protector, but anytime the Parliament disagreed, they were disbanded), yet claimed to be working towards "a stable civilian basis (p.201)." How can anyone claim to be a strong leader with a strong civilian voice, yet still be the regime head who dissolves the Parliament when there is disagreement? Even on the last page of his conclusion (201), Davis cannot escape the paradoxical image of Cromwell. Despite his best efforts, Davis has not overcome, in my mind, one of his main original goals: to find another convincing view of Cromwell that is not paradoxical, but proving instead that his beliefs/actions have consistency. We may be temporarily satisified with Davis's explanation that Cromwell failed because his regime did not "possess the hereditary legitimacy of those sympathetic to the fate of the 'martyr' King or sticklers for the untarnished rule of law. But it was admirable none the less (201)." However, after reflecting on Davis's argument, his reasoning for the regime's downfall does not seem to resolve Cromwell's paradoxical image as both a tyrant and God-and-people-loving image.

Edited by author 01-14-2003 11:39 AM
Oliver Cromwell certainly has established himself in history as the man of paradox. He has been considered both a man of greatness and a man of tragedy. Cromwell was able to do what most people only aspire to do. He rose out of “obscurity,” used his resources, and established himself as a man of military genius and governmental ambition. His ambition, however, may have been the characteristic quality that drove him to his tragedy as a leader. As a man struggling with his status in society, Cromwell is respected because he was resourceful in finding ways to make a name for himself. His triumphs as a military leader are also respectable as he rose rather rapidly in rank. However, as Lauren stated, it may be questionable as to whether his military success is worthy of praise (considering the treatment of the conquered people). Maybe his rise in military rank was the attribute that caused him to fail so miserably as a political leader.
 As we discussed in class, the motives behind Cromwell’s actions are questionable. We may never know what made him destroy the monarchy, dissolve the Parliament, and essentially take over as a dictator. He also may have had good intentions with tolerating different religious beliefs, but as history tells us, his rise to power ended in tragedy. Because Cromwell was such a successful military figure, maybe that success gave him the taste of power which drove him to gain control as a dictator figure. Or maybe he was just crazy and not thinking rationally. The point is that we may never know what made Cromwell do what he did. We do know that he made history by becoming one of the most paradoxical figures of the Western civilization.

One phrase utilized often when describing Oliver Cromwell is "a self-made man risen from obscurity." This expression is used to describe many great leaders throughout history. In Chapter 4, J.C. Davis used the phrase "from the log cabin to the White House" in reference to Abraham Lincoln's rise to power. Why is it that we as a people are so fascinated by the personal trials and tribulations of leaders? I believe it is because, without knowing their personal struggles, it is harder to understand where they are coming from and why they make the decisions they do.

Several people have hinted that Cromwell did not truly come from obscurity, and therefore his rise to power is not as impressive. It is true that Cromwell came from a privileged background. However, there were many people in England with his same social standing, and how many of them became leaders of his caliber? In my opinion, what one begins with is not as important as what one does with it. People may not have agreed with the measures that Oliver Cromwell took, but he was taking actions against a political system he saw as corrupt, and standing up for his beliefs, which make him an admirable leader to me.

Oliver Cromwell is one of the most controversial and enigmatic figures in English history. Histroians have interpreted his character and motives in different ways. Both topics have incited heated debate much like the arguments we are having at this moment. To this day, Cromwell has suffered a variety of split personalities at the hands of his interpreters, such as Davis. I would go as far as to say that many believe Cromwell as corrupt. Despite this outlook, Davis also suggests Cromwell was a man of honesty.

Cromwell's reputation is more controversial in Ireland than almost anywhere else. Cromwell sent troops to Ireland to crush almost a decade of citizens that rebelled against authority. The troops massacred almost everyone in the town. However, despite the numerous casualties, Cromwell justified it as an act of rightousness. We recently had the chance to learn more about Charles I last week in class. I think that a strong connection exists between the two men. I realize that Cromwell may have been responsible for the death of Charles I. However, the two men had much in comman about leadership. The length at which they endured in order to uphold their own beliefs is more than just admirable. Cromwell had a gift. You may argue that his thoughts were weak and his actions corrupt. But, no argument lies in whether he was a man of greatness. He was great because he rose above controversey. He had the power inside of his to ignore those that stood in his way of what he truly thought was the 'right thing to do.'

I agree with Erin about how Davis applies a creative structure to his book. The fact that we were able to see key points about Cromwell, encouraged us to use our imaginations in order to think of diverse ideas. Davis states in the first sentence of the preface, "Hero or villain?" The book concludes with a short, "But it was admirable none the less." As a class, or even as society, we can debate of what category this man falls into. Then again, who are we to judge. Do we even know what category we fall into? A person has many 'sides' to them in a sense, but just because you may not agree with the morals or ideas of another being does not give anyone the right to judge whether a person is 'good' or 'bad.' Cromwell was somewhat destructive, but he was a powerful leader. This is the messege that I received from Davis.

I really like the quote Leah chose, "Whether positive or negative, his reputation has, since his death, been pushed to the extremes of 'greatness.' If he was bad, he was extremely bad, greatly evil; just as he was, in the role of the champion of virtues, heroic. It is hard to find a single case of a sustained argument for Cromwell's mediocrity." I think that this paradox is exactly what J.C Davis wants the reader to think about. He shows the evidence for both sides, which as many of you have pointed out makes it hard to decifer which side he is on, but I think that is exactly the point.
   We raise our leader up to such a point and put them under such scurtiny that ultimatly no leader can be considered truely great, because as humans we all have flaws. Conversly we all have strengths. If we focus in and raise up Cromwell's dedication to his faith, we can call him a great man of God. If we looks at many of his decisions as a leader- he was very hypocritical.
   I, personally, wish there was some way to do a "brain scan" on Cromwell, to discover his motivations, but since that is impossible, I think the question of whether he is truely good of bad, will remain unanswered.

Edited by author 01-14-2003 05:16 PM
     Oliver Cromwell without doubt is one of the most controversial and remarkable, whether positively or negatively, figures in European history. The questions of whether he was a saint or a crazed war finatic still remains today. With all the different angles and events that be controversially justified, it's tough to decide myself which path Cromwell was walking. Though I hate to be repetitive, the quote, "positive or negative, his reputation has, since his death, been pushed to the extremes of greatness." is very true. There's no doubt he rose from "obscurity" and became one of the greastest and most influencial leaders of all time. Yes he wanted religion to closely reflect the scriptures, but once he became king, or ruler, he set ironically more arbitrary policies than Charles I.
     My opinion is that Oliver Cromwell was in the beginning truly a saint and wanted to fight for rights of the people to worship in a biblical manner. But upon recieving soo much victory and power for soo long, he later continued to live in his power and not in his once more innocent outlook to have the people worship freely. Once war, power, and responsibility were upon him, he could never go back to the once young and ambitous man that he once was. J.C. Davis did a wonderful job telling the stories of Cromwell in such a way that allowed you to think on both sides of the fence and ponder the thoughts of Oliver Cromwell. But no matter which side of the fence you're on, the fact that he believed something so strongly and rose his people to victory in war proves that he was a great leader.

While looking at Davis’s portrait of Oliver Cromwell, there were three factors that I saw contributing to the rise Cromwell to make him remarkable in the areas of military leadership, politics, and religion. The first is his network of connections and kin. Oliver Cromwell was indeed not a “self made man.” Davis points out that Cromwell’s family was “well and powerfully connected (79).” Cromwell also benefited from his marriage to a wife whose family had numerous connections. He even inherited his land from his uncle, Thomas Steward, allowing himself to remain a part of the gentry. There is little to no chance that Cromwell could have had any of his later successes without the help of his connections, which persisted throughout his career.

While his connections helped him obtain the leadership positions that he did, there are two other factors that I believe helped keep him in position. The first of these is his ability as a learner. Although Davis mentions that Oliver was not a great student while in school as a younger man, Cromwell was able to become a genius military leader because of his ability to learn. His capacity to learn new things is again mentioned in the chapter on politics, as Cromwell “…developed a leading politician’s capacity to approach political crises and problems with a rounded view and creative initiative (138).” This is what allowed him to ascend to power and remain there for as long as he did.

The third and final factor that allowed Cromwell to remain in power was his passion and zeal. Cromwell stuck to his convictions until the day he died. His religious fervor is evident throughout the book. As Robby pointed out, this passion is evident even in his most personal letters, indicating that he truly believed in his God. Cromwell also remained passionate with what he believed politically. Oliver continuously fights for civil and religious liberties as the primary values to be preserved. Davis’s conclusion asserts that Cromwell attempted to remain true to the principles he had fought for and believed in since the early 1640’s (200).

I feel that these three factors greatly influenced Cromwell’s rise. All three combined allowed Cromwell to be a leader that England so desperately needed. In short, Cromwell was in the right place at the right time and with the right qualities needed to become one of the "greatest" leaders of all time.

     Oliver Cromwell is an interesting character who influences the English empire, forever altering its history. Like Molly mentions, Cromwell is not a "self made man";however, he is a powerful and natural born leader. Cromwell was born with machiavellian instincts and had the keen ability to rally patriotism when necessary. Some argue whether Cromwell was a warrior or a peacemaker. In my opinion, he was both. His ultimate goal was peace, but Cromwell realized that in order to obtain it, war was inevitable. Davis states that "God's will is peace" (169
). Cromwell uses this belief to acheive the peace for English.
      Cromwell uses his social circumstances to rise to authority showing his true ability as a leader. Cromwell was born as the son of a gentry family, but was able to rise to the most promeninent English figure, maybe in all of history. Only someone with natural born instincts can take control as Cromwell. Although he had the ability for authority, he had a love for his country that could not be matched. Cromwell's ultimate concern was whatever was best for his country. His hatred for the actions of Charles I was not enough for him to act on inclination and immediatly overthrow the monarchy. The leadership skills that Cromwell possessed was important to his timing and authoritive efforts. He knew England needed a monarch so his took his proposal to the king before he acted violently. Eventually he took his leadership ability to take necessary action which proved best for his country. Cromwell was a leader throught actions; his timing perfect; his character unshakable.

Oliver Cromwell's dream and drive are what got him into the position to earn the accolades he received. His initial purpose while involved in the government was to rid the churches of Catholic influences. At first, his cause was pure and noble, to aid the Protestant Reformation. The fact that King Charles tried to pass laws without Parliament's consent was reason enough to begin a rebellion. His personal cause could be fulfilled by a rebellion because if successful, the Catholic ties would somewhat diminish, as Charles' loyalty to Catholicism and the fact that his own wife was Catholic was irritating to the parliament. Fortunately, the parliament army defeated the Royalists, and Cromwell shifted up the ladder due to his military involvement in the civil war. Up to this point, Cromwell's actions had made perfect sense.
    However, it is what comes after this sequence of events that is inconsistent with the initial character analysis of Cromwell. He had fought for a true cause and won. The Protestant Reformation had benefitted from his war triumphs, but then, he began to exploit his newfound military power in hope to convert other territories, using excessively brutal tactics. Killing civilians, in my opinion, is not a sign of any respectable military campaign. While helping his reptutation politically, these actions jeopardized others' opinions of his character, including those of modern day historians. While the magnitude of the impact made by Cromwell is not in question, the means of which he attained the peace in England are.
   While some may claim that Cromwell was just a human embodiment of sheer nationalism, doing whatever it took to win peace inside his country, others will always have a valid point in arguing that while initially he meant well and was true to his cause, he abused the power when it was given to him to go outside his real goal to further the promotion of his reputation. But honestly, many of us can not say that we would not do the same thing, given the opportunity. All in all, to achieve such a status from such humble beginnings, Cromwell has to be one of the most impressive and respected English "hero"s of all time.

I believe that what J.C. Davis has told us about Oliver Cromwell is truly a message about humanity. This man while being so praised for his miliatry triumphs and leadership is also fully of hypocracy. On one hand he is a man of God fighting for his faith however meanwhile killing many innocent people. The controdictions in his life, while somewhat appauling to me at times, simply reflect the inately flawed human nature. This is very interesting to me and helps me to personalize the readings.

   It can be argued to a good extent whether or not Oliver Cromwell was a benevolent ruler or a power-hungry and ambitious despot. In actuality he was some of both. His motives seemed to be only for the betterment of England, but his actions seemed to contradict this once he became Lord Protector. He was as much of a monarchist as he was a parliamentarian.
   Once Cromwell had executed Charles I and won the civil war against the loyalists, one would think he would be pleased and return to his life prior to the war. Instead, Cromwell becomes first chairman of the Council of State, and he leads a series of military campaigns against Ireland and Scotland. He realized that these military victories would make him enormously popular with the common people, and by consolidating the army to under his control he would be the most powerful man in England.
   Cromwell’s actions seem very similar to that of Julius Caesar’s. Cromwell takes control of the army and gains enormous popularity with the people, exactly as Caesar had done. They both disband or kill their respective legislatures, and they both took sole control of their countries. Cromwell differed from this model because he was inspired to do all of this by his unwavering belief that his mission was God’s mission.
   To his credit, Cromwell did deny the crown on more than one occasion, but if he had taken it, he would have lost a great deal of his support. His approval and acceptance (although somewhat hesitant) of the Constitution put together by the second Parliament was a great step to a government for the people.

Today's presentation on Louis XIV and absolutism can be found at:

http://history.furman.edu/~benson/hst11/show/wcabsolutism.htm

While I was reading the assignment for the past two days, two things really stuck out at me. One, the term absolutism connotes "absolute" power, authority, etc. However, I was surprised to find that abolute monarchies were seriously limited by the landed aristocracy. For me, the term was a little misleading.
The assignment for today especially contained a poignant message. Reading about the Atlantic Slave Trade, as "one of the most profitable commercial enterprises of the eighteenth century," in contrast to the inhumane conditions and treatment of the "slaves," my heart was torn. Especially after reading the commentary from an anonymous French critic, I experienced a kind of wake up call. The absolute horrors of the Middle Passage and the treatment of people still cannnot be expressed in words. The French writer did give a good impression of the Negroes' ordeal, but even then, my words cannot justify that experience. And if any of y'all have seen Amistad, like the written commentaries of the slave trade, the movie gives much insight into the humiliation, confinement, and torture of the Negroes aboard the ship. My teacher in eighth grade also told me how the captured peoples would try to commit suicide by swallowing their tongues. However, I can't empathize at all with what the people must have felt aboard the ships because I do not know such horror. Just like I truly cannot empathize with victims of the Holocaust. In my little world, in the bubble at Furman, I have not, and I'll probably never know true horror and suffering.

The slave in the this time, as stefanie said, were treated ridiculously harsh. It always strikes as ironical that countries founded off of their religion could take a person and treat them worse than their dogs. It would be extremely hard to have to live in those days and this is probably just one of those things that we cannot understand completely bc its soo far back in history. another thing to thing about is our great country, which i love, was founded on a lot of poison. By that I mean, killing and running an entire people off their land bc we wanted to expand and all the years of slavery we had. Its good to think about.

As true as it may be that the slave trade was an extremely profitable commercial enterprise, it is hard for me to accept that such a brutal act could have any positive results or accolades given to it. Whether or not it helped the economy in the 18th century, I will never care. Those acts are still among the most, if not the most disgusting act in the world's history. While I definitely love our country today, I do have to stop and wonder sometimes what it would be like had the slavery trade and other such harsh acts not occurred. I try to imagine what would be different. In fact, there may be things about it I wouldn't like nearly as much had that not happened, and had our ancestors not kicked the natives off the land. However, I have to think that if it were in my power, I would sacrifice the things that maybe different because of the slave trade, in order to cancel out the terribly unjust acts that befell the men and women on the Amistad, and other trade ships.

Slave trading was obviously a booming business during the 18th century. Not only could the slaves themselves be traded for items such as sugar and coffee, but then the slaves could be used to run profitable plantaitons that weath and goods for the parent country.
But, as our textbook and the article on slave laws show, the treatment of slaves was deplorable. Many of the postings have delved into the various despicable acts preformed by slave owners. However, it is interesting to note that this treatment was not prevalent when slavery began. Queen Isabella of Spain and England as a country especially looked down on the harsh treatment of slaves. As shown in the slave laws of Virginia, slaves atually seemed to have more "rights" to better treatment earlier on. However, once people saw that slaves could be treated harshly with no real consequences from the parent countries, slavery became even more of a depraved institution than it started out as.

Like Stephanie, I too, found the readings of the slave trade a bit disheartening. I just can't imagine living in such a world of fear and terror. I found today's brief discussion in class to be an interesting take on the reading as well. Not to justify the horrors of the slave trade in any means, but I find it one thing to trade criminals as slaves, and I find it quite another for people of the same country and background to turn on their other tribes so vehemently. I think it illustrates the terror of the trade if people are willing to do such inhumane things.
    One final question I have is in the articles from last night's readings. I found the language/mispellings to be difficult to read, and I wasn't sure if this technique was simply due to the many years and changes in language that have passed through the years, or what is the significance of that?

I find it hard to believe that the slave trade started with Britian's entry into Spanish American markets in 1713. The British were granted asiento and began trading right then and never looked back. These slaves weren't even paid for by money, they were paid for by tobacco. The slaves were like an easy way out for labor. Why not hire slaves and pay nothing for it? So the rich only got richer. All the merchants had to do to own a slave was to give up a little rum and brandy. But, at least the sugar factories flourished. 100,000 tons of sugar a year, for the brutal death and treatment of millions of slaves I guess back then was considered a great deal. Did the British not consider the Africans a form of life? It's real disconcerning to me, that after all this, slave abolishment in the U.S.A. didn't come until a century later.

“In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue...” Is it possible that Henry Irven created our first American hero? Is this where our concept of the American dream originated? Why is it so important for us to base our existence on some elaborate fairy tale? These are some of the questions posed by our discussion on Friday. I must admit that I find it terribly wrong to instill these falsehoods in our children in our age of "enlightenment." Why teach our children this myth of the past, to later be refuted, admitting that it was known all along of its inaccuracies? This makes me seriously question our educational system. What else is being taught that is a known fabrication or solely based on biases? And most importantly, why is it still being taught? It just goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything you read. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt and carefully analyzed by each individual. I think that it is very important for our society to have heroes, assuming, of course, that they are indeed heroes. Even today, people are so eager to have such heroes, that others are branded this title without all the known facts, and sometimes without merit. It seems to me that when this story was first advertised, it was assumed fact because people wanted so desperately to have something to believe, someone to look up to, and so they adopted this figure as their hero. People have always looked up to some higher figure, and in this case, one was made up, so that we, as Americans, might have some unity as a common people. I agree that it’s a good thing to share a common bond with so many others, especially if the end result is something positive, such as a sense of nationalism. However, I don’t think the ends, in this case, justifies the means.

In last night’s reading about the Scientific Revolution, I found this quote particularly interesting: “God is a reasonable bet; it is worthwhile to assume that God exists. If he does, we win all; if he does not, we lose nothing” (337). This statement, made by Pascal, is pretty selfish and uses God for only self-seeking reasons. In this new age of reasoning, I know that many great new discoveries were made in medicine and astronomy, but I think science might have rubbed off on religion in the wrong way. I don’t think you can create a belief in God through reason; religion is about faith and not scientific analysis. I think this quote shows how the Revolution made people think of themselves in a higher esteem, but sometimes too high.
 This notion of selfishness in religion is not only apparent in the scientific revolution, but also in the slave trade we discussed in class. Owners of slaves would use Christianity and Scriptures to justify slavery and their own economic stability. How selfish is that! People would actually mold the Scriptures to their advantage in order to enslave another human being. This is why I definitely agree with Stefanie and Corey in their evaluations of the harshness of the slave trade and how appalling it is that Christianity was used to help continue the slave trade.

Edited by author 01-20-2003 10:28 AM
As I read about the competition between the church and the science lab during the Scientific Revolution, I realized that despite this debate being listed in the history books, it continues heavily today. A perfect example is in the Creationism v. Evolutionism argument, where certain churches argue the literal 7 days of creation against Darwinian theory. I would not assume to know which is correct. However, I will point out that in the historical "Earth is center of solar system" v. "Sun is center of solar system" debate, the scientific side is now accepted. Is this a result of church theology being buried under too many theories (Copernicus's heliocentric theory, Kepler's planetary motion, Galileo's astronomic observations, etc)? In reality, it was Newton's universal law of gravitation that won the battle for science in the Earth v. Sun debate.

Modern times present a surprise in the traditional Church/Science debate, as various groups assert that both Creationism and Evolutionism are true, and are not mutually exclusive. I was not able to find any Scientific Revolution-period arguments in the text that allowed for both sides to be right. Any ideas?

in response to Heather's posting on the deception of Columbus. This posting makes me ask the question of what would happen if this 'myth' was not fabricated by Irving? How would this change America? Just as Heather commented, it seems to be very dishonest and unecessary to feed such inconsistencies to our children, but even though they are untrue, does that make them worthless? It is interesting to think of what an impact Irving's creation of Columbus as the discoverer of the New World made on the patriotism of Americans.

I do agree however, that we need to take everything we hear and examine it for ourselves. Revealing the myth of Columbus helps us to realize that the things we take as firm facts may indeed be untrue. And through the light of examination Irving's creation does not seem so horrible. Though untrue, it stood a vital purpose in American history. All of this ties back to the concept of tutelage introduced by Kant. It is all a process of breaking free and discovering things for ourselves - whether that be the truth of Christopher Columbus, our beloved history class hero, or of concepts penetrating even broader aspects of our lives.

  I found it interesting that with all the new intellectual activity and developments going on throughout the scientific revolution, there was still room for much ignorence. Jean de la Bruyere, a moralist of the time, wrote that, "an educated woman was like a gun that was a collector's item 'which one shows to the curious, but which has no use at all, any more than a carousel horse.'(335)" De la Bruyere wrote that following the disovery that women had, overall, smaller skulls than men, causing many to infer that women were therefore inferior to men. To see how women used to be reguared, and where we are today (having a large percentage at many of todays leading institutions)is impressive to me. I also find it interesting, as many other students made reference to it throught the slave trade, that such christian people treated other human beings, either women or others of different ethnicities, so poorly. The church was and still is based on kindness and morality and equality, something that was incorrectly extended on during this age of "revolution."

Sorry this message is a little late, my computer and I don't always agree on when it should work and choose not to work...
  I, like Mike and Shannon, was interested in the effect of the scientific revolution on religious veiws. One of the things I find most interesting is that in so many ways, the scientific revolution breed an atmosphere of the church, or Christian belied, versus science. Yet at the same time, there was a move toward combining the two. You see it even in the messages posted here. Pascal's quote about the reasonability of God. God worked well with what he wanted to believe, so God became a part of his beliefs. And I agree with Shannon, in saying God doesn't fit into a box of reason. Believing in God takes an elimate of faith. Its a search to know who He is, not creating Him to be what we want Him to be.
   Conversely, there is a whole other school of thought, which Mike commented on, about how Science and the Church were put at ends. The church believed this (Creationism, for example) and Science believed that(Evolution). I agree with Mike that it is not always either or, as many scientist are fighting for today.
   I think a key to remember in all this, is that a major point of the enlightenment, in my opinion, was the people's search for truth. The church was not seeking to understand the new ideas of science, but simply to fight them. People were trying to reason out God instead of searching for truth. I think both of these are lessons we still need to learn today in battles that still rage between the church and scinece.

I found the movie today to be very disturbing. It is shocking to see how horribly slaves were treated, but even more alrming to see the attitudes of the slave owners. They purposly treated the slaves as animals. One can only assume that as it was simply part of the culture that it seemed natural. However, I can not imagine the emotional and physical suffering that they must have endured. The scene that portrayed the slaves on the ship I found to be particularly tragic. I can't even begin to image the type of torment they must have gone through.

I completely agree with Christina about the viewing of “Roots” in class today. I now understand why this was such a groundbreaking television event. It unapologetically shows the injustice inflicted upon these men and women. I found the scene in which the African girl is looking to the moon and thinking of her family particularly moving. Kunta Kinte reminds her that they can fight against the slave traders, and they can overcome the institution of slavery. He has hope, and as Jean-Jacques Rousseau maintains in his letter to Voltaire, “…hope beautifies everything.”

Rousseau leads to another discussion of tragedy: the Lisbon earthquake of 1756. The four articles present radically different views of the same horror and disaster. The most interesting contrast is the Malagrida article contrasted with Voltaire’s poem. Malagrida argues that the cause of the earthquake is the “abominable sins” in which the people of Lisbon have been engaging. However, Voltaire takes a completely opposite approach. As the text mentions, Voltaire maintains “God had no direct involvement in the world he had created…(349)” and mentions that many other cities, namely London and Paris, have been doing exactly the same things as Lisbon, and yet were not destroyed.

 Perhaps the most disturbing thing of these two pieces was the imagery used. Voltaire presents more realistic images of the tragedy: women, children, mothers, and broken memories. He shows the human side of the earthquake. Sinners were not the only to perish, for the earthquake killed many innocent. Malagrida’s approach to describing the earthquake is to show a “…great harvest of sinful souls…” sent directly to Hell. Malagrida’s piece was likely written to lead people back to the church and to counteract the growing rationalism of the philosophes that was gaining popularity at the time. He uses intense imagery and fear to persuade members to seek God and turn to the church. If this is true, one has to wonder how successful his approach was. I wonder how many people were persuaded to turn to a God “…watching us, scourge in hand.”

I found it interesting to watch the movie in class today and see the way the ship captain was portrayed. Amidst all of the injustices,it was almost a relief to see someone actually express some sort of regret, remorse, and even a hint of objection to the practices of the slave trade. When Karrington (not sure of the spelling on his name) told Captain Davies that he would be returning to Africa to get more slaves after taking tobacco to Europe, it was clear from the look on his face that the idea didn't appeal to him. Granted, he did not stand up and outright refuse to make the voyage, but his character was as close to a protester as the movie offered in the short clip we watched.

I also found Rousseau's closing comments to Voltaire to be intruiging. He says, ". . . I have suffered too much in this life not to look forward to another. No metaphysical subtleties cause me to doubt a time of immortality for the soul and a beneficent providence. I sense it, I believe it, I wish it, I hope for it, I will uphold it until my last gasp. . . ." If his piece had more directly addressed the earthquake, like Voltaire and Malagrida, I have a feeling that he would have something to say along the lines of Malagrida's message.

I just wanted to write a quick quip regarding Erin M's posting. The church, as it is used in the textbook, at this time was based largely on tradition and heirarchy, not necessarily praising God. From this, it is easy to see why people who grew up in this enviornment seemed ot have no concious or morals. It is because all "church" was for them was a ritual, such as bathing or eating. The chruch was very ingrained in people's lives, much to the church's favor. It took someone like Luther or Calvin to show the church its hypocracies and get back to what the church was originally intended for: worshing Jesus.

I think that, while the church may have been mired in ecclesiastical politics and things other than "pure" religion, one cannot discount the fact that there were many pious parishioners throughout the history of Christianity. Sure, there have been corrupt Popes, bishops who craved power, and wars fought ostensibly in the name of God. However, I feel compelled to assume that a good majority of the masses of the worshippers throughout the ages got more out of church than merely ritual and structure. I think it is a gross oversimplification to say that people who lived in the environment that we've been studying were amoral people with conscience problems, as Robert said. I defy anyone to prove that modern Western Europe derives their moral ethic from church more so than a few hundred years ago.

Jean-Jaques Rousseau is a man who, in his sickness, is displeased with and uncomfortable about the message that Voltaire's poem sends. Rousseau would much rather believe what Pope and Leibnitz said; he wants to believe that his 'woes are a necessary effect of [his] nature and of the constitution of the universe.' Voltaire's view is much less appealing, however. Rousseau sees Voltaires poem to be telling him: 'suffer unforutnate one. If a God created you...[he] could have prevented all your woes.'
I agree with Molly in the effectiveness of the graphic images of Voltaire's poem, for it is this that so disturbs Rousseau. He tells himself that 'a rapid death is not always a true misfortune, and that it can sometimes be considered a relative blessing.' Rousseau may even want a quick death to avoid being 'tormented with an incurable illness' and die slowly. It is well with his soul to believe, like Pope and Leibnitz say, that sickness and disaster are in the nature of the world; he will not believe that God is punishing him.

Although women were still treated unfairly because of traditional attitudes and gained very little respect in the field of science from men during the middle ages, I'm still impressed that a woman, such as Margaret Cavendish, was able to make a name for herself. She was in a world where men were the dominant leaders, and it is reputable that she persevered in her works in science. On the other hand, I do not feel that it was reasonable that the only women that could participate in the scientific revolution were the women of high aristocratic decent. It still seems as though women were still bound by society and dependent on family fortunes (which were primarily earned by men in the family) in order to gain admiration from society at that time.

I found the articles on the Lisbon Earthquake to be very interesting in their different points of view. In a world that was slowly moving away from a religious basis and moving towards a more scientific one, it seemed very controversial to me that people, such as Malagrida, were still proclaiming the wrath of God over the people when something bad happened. I agree with what some of the other people have said in recent discussions about how people of that age tended to, for whatever reason, use religion and God's will to their own personal advantage and interpretation. The four articles on the earthquake for today's reading are four totally different interpretations of God and nature's will on humanity. You can tell the world is in the process of "enlightenment" to get this many different views from people who maybe before this wouldn't have spoken out.
As for the movie yesterday, I also found it very disturbing. It's totally different to read about the slave trade in a textbook and see it portrayed in a very real way right in front of you. Something that my partner and I discussed during the movie was the attitude of the ship captain. It was obvious that he didn't agree with the slave trade, but he was still shipping blacks across the world from their homes! While I do not think it is admirable for him to stand back and not do anything about his beliefs, it seems to reflect the society at that point. If the captain took a stand and refused to use his ship and talents for the slave trade, he would do nothing but be out of a job. Especially because he's on the lower end of the class system, his efforts would not have much of an impact on the society that was almost completely influenced by the elite.
This attitude of the elite being in charge of everything is evident in the treatment of women as well. During the scientific revolution and the "enlightenment" women started to take a stand, but the only ones who would ever get recognition or even the chance for a real education only recieved it because of their prominence in society. I think it says a lot that a world that thinks it is progressing marvelously still does not acknowledge the importance of anyone but typically upper-class white males.

As I watched “Roots”, I could see similarities between Captain Davy and John Newton, the writer of “Amazing Grace”. After he deserted the Navy, Newton was a slave in Africa for fifteen months. He had a religious experience while steering a waterlogged ship during a storm. Even so, he was a slave trader for the next six years. This just illustrates the mentality of a number of people during this time period. They had strong religious sentiments but continued to participate in acts that they felt were wrong, as Captain Davy does in the movie. It was evident that Davy didn’t agree with the treatment of the slaves and he knew what was going to happen to them when they reached Annapolis, but he did nothing to stop it.
I was also fascinated by the different ways that God was portrayed or is referred to in the works of Malagrida, Wesley, and Voltaire. Voltaire makes a statement about God that would characteristically be made by a believer, then refutes it and uses imagery as Molly said to make his point even clearer. Wesley portrays God as vengeful. He also states that the event was “purely natural and accidental; the result of natural causes” and he refutes the statements. He even challenges the reader to “prove that God never works in or by natural causes”. Malagrida writes that it would be “scandalous to pretend the earthquake was just a natural event…” Each of these men had quite different backgrounds. Malagrida was a Jesuit Priest; Catholic. Wesley was Anglican and the founder of the Methodist Church. He originally wanted Methodism to remain in the Anglican Church. Voltaire was a writer during the Enlightenment who championed deism, the belief in a “clockmaker”, God who didn’t interfere in the lives of man.

A line of the Wollstonecraft passage from tomorrow?s reading jumped out at me in conjunction with Sally's post (144.) Sally discusses how despite some women?s participation in science, many are still bound to society and male domination. Wollstonecraft says, "Women are told from their infancy, and taught by the example of their mothers, that a little knowledge of human weakness, justly termed cunning, softness of temper, outward obedience, and a scrupulous attention to a puerile kind of propriety, will obtain for them the protection of man; and should they be beautiful, every thing else is needless, for, at least, twenty years of their lives...." The part about being beautiful really struck me. Can we really claim that we have moved beyond this? I do not think we can. Not when women read Cosmo articles about catching or catering to a man, when every fifth ad on TV is for skin care products to make women look younger. Not when 25% of Furman students marry each other and young women joke about coming to school to get their "MRS. degree." Are we liberated???

Edited by author 01-21-2003 11:31 PM
In reading A Vindication of the Rights of Women by Mary Wollstonecraft, I noticed many of the themes that we have been discussing. She explains the notions of women obeying men and being inferior, ideas which came from the Bible since it explains the submissiveness of wives to their husbands. This thought had been reasonable previously, considering the focus on religion of the society before the Enlightenment. She does not mean to undermine religious teaching, for she is a believer, as exempliflied by her acknowledging that God was the one who gave her "sufficient strength of mind to dare to exert [her] own reason." Instead she attacks the men in power by accusing them of being hypocritical. They may claim to be enlightened by reason, though women innately contain the same means by which to be enlightened. She also draws a comparison between the treatment of women and slavery, which portrays the extremity of the situation.
I found Linda's point interesting, because in terms of beauty and appearance, we are far from liberated. But, our book says that Wollstonecraft is the founder of modern feminism, which brings to mind the struggle for equality in the workforce, one aspect that has made significant progrss since the 18th century.
Another thing that I found very interesting was the discussion of manners. She says that women are discouraged from thinking scientifically, so they learn from observations. This becomes a study on life and manners. "They dwell on effects, and modifications, without tracing them back to causes; and complicated rules to adjust behvaior are a weak substitute for simple procedures." This is contractictory to the development of etiquette among the higher classes after the establishment of Versailles. In this case, Wollstonecraft is saying that good manners are a characteristic of the class being suppressed - women.

I agree with Lauren that Mary Wollstonecraft's writing emphasizes the comparison between the subordination of women to men and that of slaves and their owners. Just as slaves were told exactly what to do, women were also stripped of their own opinions and dependent on decisions made by their husbands or other men. Although these women wish that they could voice their opinions, they are afraid to undermine the authority of men because they might be rejected from society. They had to constantly pretend to agree with their husbands and as a result, built up resentment against them. Although some forms of this subordination, such as striving to look beautiful and letting men make some important decisions, may suggest that women have not advanced in their liberation, the opposite is true. Women today have opportunities almost equal to those of men. They can attend college and receive an education equal to that of their husbands, earn a salary greater than or equal to that of men, and express their opinions without fear of being punished. I believe that women today have come far from the days when, like slaves, they had no rights.

Two arguements arise when contemplating the idea of the liberation of women in general. I agree with Linda as she argues that women are encouraged to look younger, dress in a less conservative manner, and act almost inferior to men. Wollstonecraft argues that women are not inferior because they have been subjected. At the same time, however, I think that men also undergo similar subjection. Although Wollstonecraft's writing portrays a unique outlook on the subordination of women and slaves, I personally disagree with the idea that only women have undergone expectations that deter them from liberation. I agree with equity. While women may be eshewed from job opportunities, men may be obligated to perform a task that violates their beliefs, etc. All in all, Wollstonecraft's comparison is appropriate in various ways. I believe she simply fails to point out the subordination of both genders and even other races.

While I certainly agree with Linda, Lauren, and Addie about the second-rate treatment of women, I feel that even in examining the opinions of Mary Wollstonecraft, we cannot ignore the powerful women of this time, such as Catherine the Great. It is true that these women were not granted power; they inherited it when their husbands died. However, if it was truly believed that women were inferior, as Wollstonecraft argues, they would not have been entrusted with the fate of a country. Catherine was viewed not only as a satisfactory replacement for her husband, she “proved a worthy successor to Peter the Great by expanding Russia’s territory westward…” (369). In this respect, she was even superior to Peter—what a concept! Catherine was by no means a perfect leader, but she did a job equal to or better than that of a male, dispelling the notion that women were intellectually and physically weak and needed protection from “a big strong man.”

Edited by author 01-22-2003 04:45 PM
In Mary Wollstonecraft's paper, "A Vindication of the Rights of Women," I found the emphasis she puts on education of women extremely interesting. Women at that time were being taught how to make themselves "pleasing" to the opposite gender. Wollstonecraft believes that women should be educated in all areas so that she can live alone, independently from a husband. If women receive the same education as men then they can take care of themselves as a single woman, not having to jump into marriage so quickly. Extending this point, if women receive this education, marriage, in turn, would be more rewarding for the woman involved because she would take the time to pick the right man. Also, once married she would not feel that her only purpose is to please him. Wollstonecraft looks down upon marriage as if it were imprisonment, a settlement. When I first read this, I was amazed at her view of marriage; marriage is a bond made in love, how could it be an arragement that turns from love into "indifference"? However, the more I thought about it, I realized that these women did, indeed, live in a very different time. Then marriages were more arranged, more necessary. Today women have the luxury of time to choose their mate. They are taught to survive independently in today's world. They are given much more power and authority than in Wollstonecraft's time. Like, Addie, I believe that Wollstonecraft's paper proves the how far the female gender has come.

Since we're on the subject of women's liberation, it seems fitting to comment on The Women's Petition to the National Assembly. Reading this reminds me that, as Addie and Jen pointed out, we have indeed come a long way. Some of the language these women use in their argument makes my stomach turn, as they describe themselves as: "the most beautiful and most lovable half of the inhabitants of this vast kingdom" and "the sweetest and most interesting half among you!" The reason this frustrates me is that they are asking to be taken seriously as intellectuals who can contribute politically to their country, but their main selling points are that they are attractive and desirable. I wonder if it took until women actually had some political sway before they could actually take themselves seriously.

Another facet of the importance of language is shown through their focus on the male gender in speech (decree #3) ? this relates to our discussion of whether the way our grammar is structure affects the thoughts we think. It is interesting that English doesn?t assign gender to all nouns the way the romance languages, like French, do. Just something to ponder!

I am totally for Women’s rights. The women of this time, in my eyes, had every right to notify the national assembly of this grave objection. To the women, it seemed like everyone in the world but themselves was “moving on up to the east side to a deluxe apartment in the sky.” In every facet of the notion, women were scrutinized heavily for speaking their minds and I think that this formal letter was an excellent way to illustrate the oppression that women faced in those days. But at the same time, how they expect to be taken seriously by some of the comments that they imposed in this letter. They described themselves as “the most beautiful and most lovable half of the inhabitants of this vast kingdom from positions, dignities, honors, and especially from the right to sit amongst you.” In this statement, all that is being said to me is that feminine beauty should be more appreciated. In no way does that measure up to the big picture that they are trying to get across to the men. They are writing very intelligent men. These men would feel as if they are being patronized. These aristocratic men would probably come away with a sense of sarcasm after reading this letter. At the same time that these authors are writing for their rights, they so mysteriously refer to the committee reading the letter as “our masters.” They once again refer to beauty as the omnipotent reconciler in the statement saying that “There is no better way to reconcile the public with the courts of justice than to seat beauty and to see the graces presiding there.” It just seems like to me that these women would be a little more diplomatic when writing the hierarchy of society.

I have several remarks about the women's rights postings on the message board. First, I agree with all of the comments previously posted that maintain that women have come a long way in society. I suppose that it is a situation rather like the one presented in class in “Roots.” While both Mary Wollstonecraft and the Women’s Petition to the National Assembly present very strong arguments for their cases, it still takes at least another century for women to truly be liberated. The custom of treating women as the “weaker sex” that lack “sufficient strength of mind” was so deeply ingrained into society that these petitions probably did not have much of an effect. Societal changes start from leadership at the top, and it is a shame that it takes so many years after these documents were written to change the rights of women.

Secondly, Brent does bring up a very valid point. While the documents present strong arguments to support their cases, they do choose poor language. The Petition is particularly emotional (moreso than the Wollstonecraft paper) and would not be approrpriate in a presentation to well educated men. The women were intelligent as well (The introduction to the petition states that the authors were "...well acquainted wtih the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen...as well as historical accomplishments of women.") Perhaps the authors should have become better acquainted with their audience as well.

On a lighter note, one thing that I found amusing was Clause Six in the Petition. I can’t believe that men would be forced to dress up in women’s clothing when a soldier compromised French honor out of cowardice. Modern societies would find that to be an absurd punishment. Culture truly has come a long way in the past two centuries.

Like Brent and Linda, I also found the language used in the Petition interesting, though I do not think it comes across sarcastically. In a way, they are reinforcing what the men already think by affirming their beauty. This conveys that they should have the same train of thought, helping the men to understand and hopefully agree with the rest of what they are saying. In the last paragraph before the proposal, the women insinuate that if the men accept these rights it will be for the betterment of their society and character. "...give us the possibility to work like you and with you... and if...you consent to share your empire with us, we will no longer owe this precious advantage to our attractiveness; and your own susceptibility to it, but solely to your justice, to our talents, and the sacredness of your laws." The women refrain from using exceedingly demanding language. This shows respect for the men, and is also another way to convince them.

Out of all of the essays we read for tonight, I thought the Edict of Toleration was the most thought provocing and well-versed. One of the first points the article brings up is the forced conversions to Catholicism going on at the time. IT is beyond me that the Church could believe that someone forced to say the believe certain things would bring someone under their control. It seems, in my mind, much to the contrary and would only prodice resentment and seeds for revolt. Also, by not giving nonCatholics any status in France, the country assumed it was a country full of only Catholics, which was totally inadmissable. These principles were contrary to the spread of any kind of political or religious security in the kingdom.
I also thought the Civil Constitution of the Clergy was interesting. For such a strong, ;asting power as the church to be bound in such a way is very interesting. I think it is amazing the National Assembly pulled that off, even if all the changes did not last. The Remonstrances of Parlement article was also interesting insomuch as the burgeouis' full out assault on anything that might take their power away from them. And, so I do not look like some insensitive guy, the comments on the women's rights article were also very well pu by many of the comments I read concerning the article. Even Brent Friddle managed to sound suave.

As has already been mentioned several times, I too felt that the language in the Petition took away from its message. Although I think Lauren has a point about trying to persuade the men by playing to their egos, this method doesn't really mesh with their requests for occupational and societal equality. If they wanted to be treated with the same respect as men, and given the same rights as men, trying to manipulate the men by virtue of an ego-boost doesn't help their cause.

As I was reading, the vocabulary we talked about in class today came to mind. In an age where a laissez faire attitude was encouraged and liberty was defined as the freedom to follow one's moral compasss, it doesn't seem fitting for women to be kept in the old inate and organic hierarchical system. However, tying in the clip from "Roots," the impression I get is that women were thought of as almost sub-human. Not that they were anywhere near as low on the class scale as the slaves, but, much like the slaves, they were long denied their natural rights.

      Women do have the right to be politically involved w/ todays society. And althought most of us are in general agreement with the liberation of women into todays political world, including myself, i find it humerous, as someone else said earlier, that women sold their desirable attributes physically to be accepted politically. The two seem to contradict each other. Though there were of course other angles and perspectives to convince the men deiciding on womens rights in their document, ( and focussing on that one section) That persuasive style should have been viewed as illegitimate and poorly put together.
       Adding on to another topic of Kate's, it does seem fitting that the women's rights movement would began to come around at this time bc people were beginning to think more liberally and more and more new freethinking intellectuals were justifying things that had previously been against the church and the state. I will admit it does seem like this should have happened earlier.

In the "Edict of Toleration" of 1787, Catholic authorites realized that they must include people "who profess anthor religon than the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman religon" in their laws. In this declaration of toleration, the births, marriages, deaths, etc. of non-Catholics are recognized by the state. The authorites realized that forced conversions to Catholicism were not real conversions and were therefore making a mokery of their religon. So the question they asked themselves was: is it better to have fake Catholics pretending to respect that religon or truthful non-Catholics who were recognized by the state but were not given as many rights? They chose the latter. The issue of this document marked a change in the way the Catholic society viewed Protestants. They were legal now. They counted. Also, this, in a way, brought all the members of the state closer together. This edict lessened the chance of a non-Catholic revolt. I believe that the creators of this law were extrememly smart and tactful in issuing this. They made sure that the official religon was still Catholic (Catholics still had control). However, it provided toleration; and that makes everybody happy.

Before reading these articles, I never really grasped the significance of the natural rights of man. This enlightenment concept can be found within Jefferson's Declaration of Independence in the United States and also in 1791 Thomas Paine's Common Sense. In France, also, the idea of natural rights prevailed. For example, within The Declaration of the Rights of Man, and also the Edict of Toleration and the Women's Petition to the National Assembly contain arguements which are based on the assumption that people have "certain unalienable rights" and should be treated equally. For example, in the Edict of Toleration, the major point claimed that to best interest France, the country should not "exclude any longer from the rights of civil status" of the subjects who do not practice Catholicism. The rights of civil status referred here, again represent natural rights to own property and such.

I also want to address the idea in class that natural rights are contradictory during that time period because of the institution of slavery. Like in class with the discussion about "Roots" and the rights of women, the question comes into context over whether society at that time considered slaves to be humans, and whether are not women were "humans." Therefore I agree with Kate, and claim that the liberating ideas of the enlightenment are not as paradoxical and contradictory as they appear. To elaborate, the people of the time may have thought that they were accepting that all people had natural rights; however, their conception of "all people" and classification may have excluded slaves and even women. I know that may be a little confusing, but it's just a thought.

     Among the edicts, constitutions, and formal letters, I found the Women's Petition to the National Assembly by far the most entertaining. First and foremost, I must agree with everyone who has said that the women's choices of lanugage were not in the best interest of supporting their argument. Second of all, I find it hilarious that these women are so cynical in their petition. Going on and on about all the different groups who have been given more equal rights, they bring up a valid point that they were deliberately (it seems) not included in this progression for the good of humanity.
     However, in the list of proposals it becomes evident to the reader that these women were very strong-willed and knew what they wanted and deserved. They were way ahead of their times in demanding such things as equality of man/wife in the household and the ability for women to hold public office. I almost laughed to myself, however, when I saw the proposal to allow women to wear pants. Somehow an image of modern day hyper-feminists came into my mind, those who always have to be PC and be completely equal with men. Here, it seems, are the roots of gender equality battles that have escalated to where the never-ending conflict lies today.

As I read over these different edicts and revocation of edicts, ect. I was impressed upon by how unreal it all seems to me. Having grown up in a well-to-do American family in the late 20th and early 21st century, I really don't understand what it would be like to have no rights. From my earliest days, I can vividly remember my father telling me "You can be anything you want to be, and don't let anyone tell you that you can't." To me, this idea has seemed so normal- its the epitome of the "American Dream."
   To non-catholics living in France after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, or to women living during these times, could their fathers sit them on their knee and tell then this? I guess, they could have, but in reality, there futures were very limited. "We forbid our subjects of the R.P.R to meet any more for the exercise of the said religion in any place or private house, under any pretext whatever..." WOW! I take for granted my ability to worship anywhere I want, whenever I want. I take for granted the fact that I can wear pants- it is kinda funny, but, come on girls, can we imagine having to wear skirts all the time- YUCK! I love to dress-up as much as the next girl, but not 24/7! In a society that gives us so many rights, I found myself taken back by how much I take for granted!

The Women's Petition to the National Assembly I found to be appropox at a time when slaves were abundant in the west. I find it interesting that the women refer to themselves as slaves, and feel that they have been unfaily treated and are await their own liberation. However, they make no mention, maybe because they see no wrongdoing, in forcing human beings into labor in other parts of the world or being traded for sugar and vaious goods.
  Another thing, i agree with leah in saying that these women were stongwilled and knew what they wanted, but i think that they came off a little bit too stong. If they wanted to be taken completely seriously, i think that they should not been as boastful as they were. By saying that france has left out "sweetest and most interesing half," I almost thing that this is too foward for such a formal proposal. I guess it does show confidence, which probably took a long time to muster. As for the rest of the petition, I found most points to be valid, and a few to be humorous, but probably important to the women of the time.

No Chat Today
To maintain continuity with yesterday's lecture and because of the complex and controversial nature of today's materials we will not have a virtual chat class today.

Optionally, feel free to post messages here, even if it is not your scheduled day.

I will be online from 12:15-1:30 if you wish to chat page me or e-mail me with individual questions.

All items on the schedule are now officially pushed back one day. Presuming we have class tomorrow (Friday) we will discuss the early revolution rather than its radical phase. Check back here for further instructions.

Some of the rights that weren’t available to women in the eighteenth century weren’t granted until the middle of the twentieth century or are still being debated today. The petition wants the clause “That the wife is authorized by her husband before those present” to be excluded from contracts. In some areas women couldn’t get loans without their husband present even in the 1970s. The petition also asks for the sanctuary be open to women. Even today, controversy surrounds female pastors or priests in certain denominations including the Catholic Church. I agree with the ninth proposal and the fact that a revolution that excludes half of its members, women, is greatly weakened. I agree with Linda in the fact that the language used in the argument is in a way counterproductive. The petition wants women to be appointed as Magistrates so the public can “see beauty and to see the graces presiding there”. In that statement there is no mention of the capability of a woman to carry out the actual duties of a Magistrate.

I have read some of the most ineffective, circular arguments in European history during the last two days. The two writings which particularly caught my attention were Burke's "Reflections on the Revolutions in France" and the Parisian Parlement's "Remonstrances against Turgot's Six Edicts." I do not need to spend much time arguing about Burke's unsupported and ineffective opinions, since Thomas Paine wrote 12 great pages destroying them completely. However, Parlement defends nothing with its remonstrances except their obvious love for themselves. As a governmental structure made exclusively of nobility, they give themselves credit for a lot: "It was the descendants of those ancient knights who placed or kept the crown on the head of Your Majesty's forefathers. It was these noble descendents [the Parlement], poor and virtuous, who, for so many centuries [..] have neglected their own fortunes or spent them in order to dedication themselves entirely to the public good." Granted, the nobles played an important part in the feudalistic society. But I cannot agree that the nobles are the sole reason for the Monarchy's past and present existence, and that the nobles have given up anything close to what the lower classes give up every day for the Kingdom.

Can anyone please find any logic (or reason, to fit class discussion) in this essay?

I’m sure that not many of you will agree with my feministic views, but “The Women’s Petition to the National Assembly” really struck home for me. If these women hadn’t stood up for the rights they were denied, women’s rights may not be what they are today. They researched their case and presented it with such confidence as was unheard of in their day. I disagree with Erin’s comment that they “came off a bit too strong.” Should they have been more submissive and compromising in their demanding of equal rights? No. Simply no. When you’re fighting a battle, you fight with all the power you have, so as not to be taken as the weaker of the two. Not to mention that their situation then was MUCH different from women’s today. Some may think it was a bit much now, but then this was a big issue for them. Sexism and racism have always been and will probably always be. Might I point out that black men were able to vote before women. Suggesting that despite race, it is women, of all colors, who are still lagging in their rights. There are many battles today for women’s rights that are still being fought, most recently, the Roe vs. Wade ruling. Women are still not equal in this society, from our paychecks to the jobs we’re allowed in the military. When reading about how soldiers were made to wear women’s clothing as punishment, it reminded me of the things heard in military training today. When the soldiers aren’t doing a job as they’re supposed to, such comments are made to them for being “women, sissies, girls, or ladies.” Imagine how the women going through training respond to these derogatory comments made mainly for the male majority. I respect what these women were trying to do and I am thankful that they did so. There are many rights left to be fought for that these women proposed.

I believe that the women who wrote "The Women's Petition to the National Assembly" had every right and reason to do so. As Heather said, their situation was so different than the situation of women today that we cannot comprehend their feelings. The women in the 18th century lived surpressed lives from which few were ever able to break free. By writing the petition, they made their voices heard. However, I doubt that the petition had much effect on society at the time. While it was a step in the right direction, the mindset at this point in history could not be easily changed. For so many years, women were considered to be the weaker sex, both in physical and mental strength. Everyone was used to this way of thinking and it would take more than a petition to change it. Obviously things are different for women now, but it took many years to achieve the freedom we have today.

Edited by author 01-23-2003 04:42 PM
Of last nights articles, the one on women's rights particularly caught my eye. I have to aggree with Addie that French women in the 18th century had every right to petition to the National Assembly. For years women had been a basis for mockery, and they were fed up. I did not find any of their demands to be unreasonable, or "over the top". They weren't demanding any special treatment or superiority over others, they simply demanded the respect and courtesy that they felt was well deserved. "Will we be the only ones for which the Iron Age will forever exist?" I thougt that raised a very interesting point. Why was it that all other minorities, soldiers, and citizens had been granted certain freedoms and women had gained no ground? I, as well as the women of this era, thought they were totally within their means to make these requests.

Like everyone else, I thought the petition to the National Assembly for women's rights was very interesting. I agree with Leah and others that some of the language was a little too ornate,but that these citizens had every right to petition to their new goevernment. These women whose country had "broken the scepter of despotism" and "pronounced the beautiful axiom [that] . . . the French are a free people" still did not give them equal rights as the government should. I thought this idea related back to the article by Mary Wollstonecraft. At the end of her statements, she explains that, "as sound politics diffuse liberty, mankind, including women, will become more wise and virtuous." Obviously, France's politices are not sound enough and have not used enough reason in this age of reason and enlightenment. Because equality and the betterment of the people depends on a reasonable government, I believe these women to be extremely justified in voicing their opinions directly to the government. As soon as the national assembly seeks equal policies for women and men, then these women will be able to receive more education and respect, which according to Wollstonecraft, is essential.

Edmund Burke writes a interesting article on the "Relflections on the Revolution in France." The essay is written with a biased view point, one that is concerned with the time. An "enlightened" opinion might have taken on a very different aspect. Burke obviously had a "divine right of king's" mentality when dealing with royal authority. Although one is taught to respect authority, Burke holds on to his faith that there is no justification for revolt or revolution. When does a King takes his authority past cruelty to injustice. A King is given authority but he too has the right to respect his people. The people should have the right to choose their own King, living under a surpressive government due to a faulty king may not be the will of the sovereign God. His will might be for the people to revolt, overthrowing the king only to replace him by one who will enable the country to prosper.

After reading the petition for women's rights, I have begun to wonder why they couldn't sum everything up in a single provision. They decided to outline every single difference in men and women's rights, and put it under a separate provision. While it was a great idea, and the results of this petition are key to the development of our history, I can't help but to think it should've been handled differently. However, I do think that this petition was long overdue, and that women should have had such rights long before they were finally granted them. Also, I must agree with Erin that the requests were not unrealistic or unfair at all. All the women asked for was equality, something that they should have in the first place. When other "minorities" were given rights, it was definitely fair for women to finally have equal rights as men...

While the enlightenment was a very great time of change and rebirth of society during the 18th century, we have all noticed some discrepancies about what causes people chose and did not choose to champion. While slavery was being abolished, women were still being treated as second class citizens. Religious tolerance was becoming more normal, but great minds such as Diderot were still taunting people of Jewish faith and mocking their traditions. We keep focusing on these things because it is easy to notice them while we're looking back on past perspectives. But I have to step back and realize what an accomplishment ANY of these thoughts were to people of that era. Like Dr. Benson has stated over and over again, these people were not stupid. They simply are living by the values that they have been raised with, and to a point we can't fault them for that. It just makes the people who stepped out of the boundaries even more amazing!
Going back to the petition for women's rights, I do think that it was negative for the women who wrote it to include the part about their being attractive and such when they were trying to justify their achieving equal rights. However, I think this goes back to them sticking with what they know. Women at that point in time were fully aware that the only way they really got any attention was just to be cute; they wanted to change that, but at the same time when you know a way to get attention you will keep using it till it doesn't work anymore. We were talking in class at the end of last week about how native women in Columbus' time would gain protection for their families by using their feminine sides to get attention and then ask for favors in return. Don't get me wrong, I am in NO WAY advocating that or the attitude that surrounds it, but that was the only way, for a long time, that women could get anything accomplished! And I have seen on TV and movies plenty of times even today where a woman who wants something can dress cute at work one day and schmooze with the boss and get special priviledges...thank God society does not rest entirely on that attitude anymore, but we are still seeing it today on a much lesser scale. Not just women, but anyone who gets attention for something imparticular will use it to their full advantage as long as they know it will work!

First of all, I agree wholeheartedly with Lauren in that the accomplishments of people during the Enlightenment Era were amazing. To think that people completely changed their ways of looking at the world and the principles running in it is amazing. I honestly don't know how I would react if I had my world turned upside down, and the theories that had been engrained within me and the "truths" about the world that my parents taught me, turned out to be not entirely true, and even in some cases, completely false. It reminds me in many ways of A Beautiful Mind, which I just saw recently. For a long time, European peoples believed their establishment of society was the best and most functional; then, they experienced other cultures. That must have been a huge reality check.
On a completely opposite note, I personally found the questionairre on Rights and Limits in Civil Society quite challenging. I never really thought about whether or not a convicted murderer should have the same rights as the rest of the United States. To be honest, I still am a little shaky about some of my answers, and I don't know my opinions on them yet. Furthermore, I think that rights and civil liberties are the MOST important principle which our country was founded upon. Men died for these liberties and I find myself taking them for granted when studying the French Revolution--specifically, the right to free worship and freedom of expression.

I found the document “The Civil Constitution of the Clergy”, published in 1790 to be very interesting. One title that stood out in my mind is Title II, which states that bishops are to be elected by a system of voting. This deviates from the previous beliefs that to hold the position of bishop was divine right and not one to be decided by a group. Perhaps this change in thought is a result of increasing secularization of the world that takes place during this period. Another interesting provision made by this document is the residency requirement imposed on the clergy. It was mandatory for them to live within the area over which they had control. This changes the tradition of traveling priests who were responsible for a much larger region. In many ways this is beneficial, first and foremost being the chance for the priest to get to know the people in his parish on a much more personal level and therefore provide them with better service. The opinions on what makes an effective church have changed throughout the ages, and continue to evolve constantly, reflecting the attitudes of both the people in power and the parishioners.

It's definately time for a change in topic, so here it goes.
Looking back on crime and punishment during the eighteenth century, we notice that we have come a long way from beheadings and judicial torture. Certain methods of torturing, such as the rack, have long since been condemned due to its barbaric and cruel nature. Ironically, certain persons including Cesare Beccaria advocated the use of prisons rather than executions. Now, detention centers and prisons are overcrowded and unable to support the number of inmates living in the quarters. In prison, convicts are well fed, they have access to showers (even though the experience may not be wonderful), and a place to sleep. True, non of us would trade our lives here at Furman for ten to fifteen in the slammer, but to someone who has had nothing their entire life, prison is a means for escape, and sometimes all a person may know. It reminds me of Shawshank Redemption, when Red (Morgan Freeman) says, “All I do anymore is think of ways to break my parole so maybe they'd send me back [to prison].”
On the contrary, there are still some ideals and concepts that still resonate in society three centuries later. Cesare Beccaria’s opposition to capital punishment is prevalent today as society attempts to identify possible solutions to overcrowding in prisons and the apparent increase in crime and lack of serious punishment. And although we would not like to admit it, the elite (such as Hollywood stars and professional athletes) are capable of escaping from certain charges in criminal courts—for the time being I will exclude R. Kelly from that list. Similar to the eighteenth century, the upper class, if convicted, was sentenced to a quick and painless beheading, whereas the lower-class criminals were subject to brutal tortures. And they say money can’t buy everything—it certainly can buy your freedom if need be. (note to readers: this is a rather cynical view, so don’t take it TOO seriously)

Edited by author 01-24-2003 11:40 AM
This post is a late addition to the discussion of the Dublin group:
An interesting theme in what we have been studying lately is that there are always conflicting opinions and ideas that different groups and/or individuals always have about the same situation. These situations are prevalent throughout all that we have been studying so far, from how Scripture should be interpreted to the role of the church in society. Differing interpretations also apply to events of the eighteenth century we are now studying. As professor Benson explained in class, Malagrida, Wesley, Voltaire, and Rousseau, all interpreted the same evidence to explain the earthquake in Lisbon completely differently. Another example is the revolution in France where the sans-culottes thought the revolution should extend to encompass much greater reforms than did the Legislative Assembly. Also, the extent of the rights that women should be extended was hotly debated with most men contesting that women should maintain a traditional role and with women obviously supporting more rights for themselves. As noted by other posts, sometimes the ideas different people present aren’t agreeable (as in the people who supported the Atlantic slave trade for business purposes) Watching the competition of these ideas and seeing which ones prevail and why, one of the main themes of the course, has been a great way to look at what we are reading. It will be interesting to see hundreds of years from now to see which ideas about topics like abortion and cloning survive the test of time.

Addie makes a strong point in acknowledging the fact that a petition such as this one carried little weight at the time. After being determined inferior for so long beforehand, a petition like that probably held no water with the government, or for any other citizen at the time. Men were quite complacent with their superior status, and while the men occupied the power in the state at the time, there was very little sympathy shown towards women. It is kind of surprising that women ever got the full rights they have now. With men in power from the very start, one has to wonder how women finally constructed a good enough campaign to convince the ones in power that they should share their power.

      I find it fascinating to look at how weve, meaning those of us from a european background, given rights to people over the years has evolved. Many years ago gave the peasants the rights to work for us agriculturally in the manorial system. African Americans had to slave for many years before being treated as an "American Citizen" and women had to go through the women's rights movements. How conceeded the Europeans have been over time. This shows you that the europeans have always thought highly of themselves and it reflects on us today as the "superpower" of the world.

Athens was supposed to post before class friday, but since we did not have class Thursday and did not cover the material we were supposed to, I waited to post a day later. Hope that is ok. Athens is/was supposed to post on the French Revolution. I have not seen many postings from my group on it yet, but here it goes anyway. First, I thought it was extremely gutsy of the 3rd Estate to break off from the Estates General. They had to have know the turmoil that would ensue. But, they were determined and ended up making something out of their vision for a republican France. Also, I did not read about any real prominant leaders in the 3rd Estate (until much later in the revolution). They came together and got the job done without factioning.
The army the Committee of Public Safety is also amazing. They raised over a million men in a nationalistic movement for the freedom of France from absolutism. That is very cool that the people of a nation banded together to do something that they saw as necessary for their country.
However, the Terror that ensued reminded me a lot of the Salem with trials and the Inqusition. I guess there will always be people that will take advantage of instability for their own personal advancement.
Overall, I have to say that the French revolution is facinating because of all the catalysts that caused it and then the various twists and turns it took once it was started.

I am particularly interested in the character of Louis the sixteenth. He seems to be a true democratic ruler who cares about the interests of his people. He wants his government to run smoothly, however made bad decisions as to who should assit him. He hires men that do not seem to have the same interests as him. These men do not always give financial advice that is pleasing to the people which ends in conflict.

The Edict of Toleration is a clear example of Louis XIV's abilitiy to apply his domestication of the nobility. Being an avid Catholic and wanting to enforce the religion among this countrymen, Louis knew that revoking the Edict of Nantes would not solve the religious problems in his empire. The Edict of Toleration enables Hugenots to worship freely with one condition; they are not given political freedom. With the Nobles of the Robe, the new noblity, the will have no choice but to accept the Catholic religion. Louis XIV is a powerful genious. The nobles, who are concerned with power and status, hold on to their social class more than their religion. Louis XIV knew how to run a country, empire, and his people. Masterfully, Louis used his genious to get his way.

While looking at the progression of the French Revolution, specifically how the subsequent classes were pulled into the Revolution, I can't help but be fascinated. Like Robert, I think the French Revolution is amazing; I never understood before how many facets existed. I was definately one of those people before who believed the Revolution to be a result of the oppression of peoples, instead of the result of conflicts between classes over meritocracy issues and economic fallacies. In some ways, the French Revolution even reminds me of the English Civil War. In both cases, the public desired to have a larger influence in the government, whether it be their say in relgious affairs as in the English Civil War, or, as in the French Revolution, who (which class) had the most say in the government. However, once the revolutionaries gained power, Cromwell in the English Civil War, and a few prominent members of the Jacobins like Maximilien Robespierre, created a type of dictatorship. I know that may be a stretch, but I feel that because Cromwell enforced his measures through the use of the military and because Robespierre was the main guy behind the Reign of Terror...they both strayed from the initial outline of the revolution to ensure more PUBLIC involvement in the government. In both cases the public was restricted either by military measures, or the threat of the guillotine.

The French had many great accomplishments in the time of the Revolution. They created a "people's" government to fight "people's" wars. They thought everyone, no matter age, sex, or color, should be involved in helping the war, and therefore helped to create a sense of nationalism. However, the Revolution was not all so wonderful. Robespierre's Reign of Terror was a terrible time for all. I was surprised at the people's reaction to this barbaric scene. When asked if the blood should be cleaned from the streets, one man responded, "The dogs should lick it up." From past history courses, I remember that this was a sort of entertainment for common people. They would gather round and cheer on the executions. I also find it ironic that Robespierre was killed by the same instrument he used to kill nearly 50,000 people. In retrospect, we can see how horrifying and inhumane this practice was. It makes me wonder if there are things today that people will look back on with the same horror, yet we find them perfectly acceptable in our time. Another thing I wanted to respond to was Stefanie's comment on the influence of the public. We have a government in which the people's voice counts, however we are also restricted to a certain point. Not to say that our society can in any way compare to the Reign of Terror, but the government does use certain tactics to keep the public under control, though they aren't as extreme. Without control, however, there would only be chaos.

From last night's reading, it disturbed me how quickly the values and goals of the French Revolution came apart during Napoleon’s reign. Some of the values and rights were kept, like equality before the law, meritocracy, and religious tolerance, but the society without a monarch and overpowering aristocracy was lost. Instead, the French republic was replaced by an “initially benevolent despotism” (400). Many lives were lost and an enlightened government failed because of economic problems and foreign and inside enemies that forced the republic to rely too heavily on the military. And I agree with Stefanie on the military issue with Cromwell and Robeispierre, that they strayed from the true meanings of the Republic and overused their power. This applies to Napoleon as well, when he used the military to become a dictator and later overused his power when he “insisted that all manuscripts be subject to government scrutiny,” clearly taking away the right of free speech. Why did the French people initially accept this dictator when they had so desperately wanted a republic with all the rights for the people?

Robespierre's so-called "Reign of Terror" is another example of how unstable fear tactics really are. In the beginning, a horrifying means of execution displayed with almost celebratory pomp to the masses will almost surely get the ruler's point across with deafening accuracy. Think of how you might feel if, watching the SuperBowl halftime show, there was a cut scene for a political execution, followed by a short blurb in praise of America. Then think how it might be if it weren't just this once, but such displays were actually the standard. Even though scare strategies will drum up near instant support from the people who support the ruler and do not want their heads removed, it can quickly shift in opposition and destroy the original offender entirely. The line that seperates a show of power from blatant and gratuitous bloodshed is a fine one that I think many leaders have crossed over the span of history.

Edited by author 01-27-2003 10:36 AM
After reading a bit about the French Revolution, as well as discussing it in class, I, like Stephanie, was surprised to learn that the basis of this revolution was not just an uprising of the lower class citizens, but a dispute between the classes themselves and the king, over who will possess the most power. On a different note, I found the influence of the military to be very surprising. It seems at a time such as the Reign of Terror where there is a chance of being convicted by the government at any time, you would not want to go fight for such an establishment. However, the government had no problem whatsoever in raising an army of over 1 million troops in a very short period of time. In the end it appeared to be very beneficial, but I still wonder about the citizens reasoning. Is there less of a chance of being convicted if you are serving your country and your king, or what is the reason for such a rush to become militant?

Revolutions and civil wars are common and often necessary events in developing countries. Up until 1792, the French Revolution was simply one of these common, necessary releases. In August 1792, the ordinary revolution changed into a deadly, hypocritical blood-letting. When the Legislative Assembly decided to wage war on Austria in April 1792, the spark was struck to change the revolution. Despite the fact that the population was already under enormous pressure and stress because of the rapidly changing government and constitution, the Legislative Assembly placed the war burden on those drafted to fight in the army. This extra loss caused the lower classes to snap and organize a mob attack on the Legislative Assembly. As we all know from the textbook, this mob attack by the sans-culottes was the result of a bad government and the beginning of a worse one. It took Napoleon to strip France of all the rights it had fought for, so that France could look back and realize the importance of its loss.

I find it interesting that in times of turmoil, people turn to any hope of a more successful future, no matter who may gain control of their lives. In last night's text, Napolean, the self-proclaimed "son of the revolution," was compared to Hitler and his quest for power. The Germans during the Nazi erra, like the French did during the revoluion, turned to a power hungry leader, Hitler, and trusted him to build a bridge to the future. in both cases, the empires "collapsed almost as rapidl as they had been formed" (402). However, in the case of the French people, the rise of nationalism was a main cause for the collapse. I agree with Shannon in saying that the ideals of the revolution soon changed with the rise of Napolean, but I believe that they were reinstated with the fall of Napolean. This idea of nationalism was based off the emphasis on brotherhood that was formed during the revolution, so the ideals were definitely reinstated during the fall of napolean.

In last night's reading I found the concept of Napoleon's Civil Code and the impact it had on changing the role of the woman in society very interesting. The most interesting point to me was the fact that a woman caught in adultery could easily be divorced and even imprisoned! A husband, however, could only be accused of such an act if his mistress moved into the home. The imbalance of roles must have had an interesting impact on the society. Such a code, viewed as revolutionary, pressed restrictions on individuals who once experienced more freedom. This 'backtracking' of role equality changed the way in which society played out and how individuals viewed themselves and others.

I guess one things that comes to my mind after reading these comments is the overwhelming role of authority. Though revolutions are in part "against the authorities," its also a trandfer of trust to another authority. Erin asked how could the government raise over 1 miliion troops? I think the answer can be found in the question of authority. People desire to be on the side of those in power- the winning side. Why did Louis XIV's programs work so well, because he established himself as the authority and everyone wanted to be on his side- the nobles wanted to hand him his night shirt. The peasants were impressed because their noble was off at Versaille with the king.
   Its human nature to do whatever we think will bring us the best. If you're scared of your government's harsh policies, its probally better to be a part than on the outside. Once Napoleon took over, why were people so anxious to join him? A man the book compares to Hitler! Who would support such a man? In many ways it comes down to the fact that we do what we are told. A psychological study run in the 1960s by Stanley Milgrim asked this very question. The results were mind-blowing. Men were asked to press a button which would shock another man(a confederate) each time he got the answer incorrect(Each time the voltage of the shock would also go up). The experiment was rigged so the confederate(who would pretend to react to each shock by at first yelping, then screaming to stop, then not repsonding(as to infere he'd passed out)) would never get the correct answer in order to see how far the man giving the shocks would go. Sixty-five percent of the participants went all the way to the top voltage, 450 V, which read "XXX." Why? Because they were told to by an experimenter! Why did people follow these changing governments? My guess would be because of authority. Either the authority of the revolutionaries or the authority of the new government. Its exactly why the revolt started at the top and went down- it started with the "authorities", and others followed.

I found several things stated in today's lecture to be very curious. I was surprised that the concept of assignants was at all accepted by the general public let a lone inforced in general. I understand that this was a relatively quick way to resolve France's debts. However, this so closely tied church and state that it is shocking to me that it was allowed and accepted. I also found it very ironic that within the constitution that was designed to give people more power over the aribtrary government there was such a sepration of rights of the active and passive citizens.

I, like Christina, was surprised at the acceptance of assignants by the French population. It does seem as if this would be a difficult concept for many to understand or be willing to tolerate considering the religious problems that France had had in the past. However, I do think that at the time it seemed to be the right thing to do. I also was surprised at the “snowball” effect of the revolution and how it came about. As we discussed in class, although no single event was intended to cause a revolution, all of the events combined to have a drastic, significant effect on the French nation. This revolution took years to come about and fully change the government and did not occur because one group set out to dramatically change the way the country was run. I had not taken the time to realize that the Revolution was a complex movement resulting from the interactions of different, separate events and was not a single one-time overthrow of the monarchy.

In response to the readings for tonight, it is difficult to imagine that after the Age of Enlightenment placed value on the individual and the rights of man that workers could have been so cruelly exploited during the Industrial Revolution. The squalid living conditions outlined in the textbook (fever, sickness crowding, filth, garbage, excrement, stench) and the inhumane working conditions described by the Sadler Committee Report and Germinal are enough to make any humane person’s stomach turn. I cannot imagine anyone allowing his or her young preteen children to work “out of necessity” in the modern world. However, although the Western world has made great progress to clean up the conditions in its nations, the problems still persist elsewhere. Asian and South American nations make many of the consumer goods used by us in western societies, and we have all seen the conditions and long hours that the men, women and children have to work in to produce these goods for us. We have all heard the sweatshop scandals that have plagued several notable companies that supply western societies with goods. Although sweeping reforms have been made in Europe and the United States, “business is still business”, and it is surprising that 150 years later that these problems are still persistent in other parts of the world.

Today in class, we discussed the Great Fear in depth. I was very interested in some of background information that led up to this unfortunate event. I thought the event that kicked the whole peasant revolt off was that book written by that Sieyes guy, “What is the 3rd Estate.” The 3rd estate then begins to build confidence and considers themselves the overwhelming power in France. And they are going to stop at nothing to get what they want. They fear that the nobility is trying to revolt, and the 3rd estate kills everyone is sight pretty much. But in actuality, all the 3rd estate wanted was to have equality in France. And in the end, it worked out. In the end, the Nobility gave up their special rights and privileges. This gets even better when the National Assembly is made up of the 3rd estate and commoners. They, being the low of the social rung, made the constitution of France and equaled out the playing field. I’m even more eager to find out how the Radical revolution changes the playing field of the National Assembly.

     I like Molly's use of the term 'snowball effect' in describing how the French Revolution came about. Like Dr. Grenary said, the intense momentum that came as a result of several groups opposing each other so strongly is what inevitably ended in the French Revolution. No one particular group intended on what the real consequences were; none took in to account the facts and what the years of buildup would produce. As Dr. Benson said, it was not just a matter of peasants being oppressed and revolting against the King...it was so much more than that.
     In tonight's reading, the European Industrial Revolution and its consequences are familiar to those who took American history in high school. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries with America's own Industrial Revolution, exciting new processes in manufacturing were key to sustaining the lives of Americans, however; extreme working conditions for adults as well as young children were all but ideal. Illuminated in the 'Sadler Committee Report on Industrial Conditions' are the inhumane conditions that appeared later in American history. Why the Americans did not learn from the Europeans is beyond me. And, like Molly mentioned, many Asian countries are still making the same mistakes today. Why?? When histories are forgotten and countries don't learn from each other, history indeed repeats itself, often times needlessly.

One thing that I found interesting was that 60% of those persecuted during the reign of terror were peasants or were from the working class and only 8% were from the nobility. It seems to me that they were persecuting the people that they should have been trying to protect and not those who they were opposed to only a short time earlier. Later, the Directory, “relied on its military to maintain power” as Cromwell did right after England’s civil wars (398). The statement that I found most ironic was that “The revolutionary era that had begun with an attempt to limit arbitrary government had ended with a government far more autocratic than the monarchy of the old regime” (399). A similar comment could also be made in regard to Cromwell’s move from opposing Charles V to his position as Lord Protector. I also saw the “dechristianization” of France as almost inevitable after the government gained the power to take away the church’s land to raise money. But this effort of “dechristianization” like many others including the growing rights of women were overturned by Napoleon.

After finishing the readings about Napoleon from yesterday, I was really struck with the comparison to Cromwell that several other people have pointed out over the discussion board. There are so many similarities between these two men: they were both leaders of the army, projected to a higher place of authority, and eventually took control and established a sort of dictatorship. It seems to me that greed is eventually what drove both of these men to their demise. Napoleon handled most of his own subjects well, perhaps because of the "loyalty to who's in charge" concept that Sarah pointed out, but when he started conquering other countries and trying to expand his rule, he ran into trouble.
I've always thought that one of the most intriguing aspects of studying history is the theory that history often repeats itself. Like Leah said, if histories are forgotten people don't learn anything from them and so make needless errors. I think for the French people, Napoleon's actions were a repetition of what they might have learned from watching England fall apart under Cromwell's dictatorship. If they had used hindsight to analyze the problems England had with someone rising up from the military to form a not-so-successfull takeover, maybe they would have seen Napoleon coming. I'm not sure the country as a whole, in their state of turmoil, could have done much about it, but at least they could have seen the warning signs!

Here is the post I was supposed to make on last Thursday’s reading. Better late than never I guess . . .
History seems to be dominated by problems caused by people pursuing their selfish interests. This theme was evident in the following readings: Remonstrance’s of Parlement of Paris Against Turgots’s Six Edicts, Louis XIV’s Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and The Women’s Petition to the National Assembly. Reading Remonstrance’s, it is obvious that the members of parlement were trying to manipulate the situation to their benefit and were only looking out for their interests. For example, in the eighth paragraph of the document says, “The noble devotes his life to the defense of the state and assists the sovereign by providing council. The last class of the nation, which cannot render such distinguished service to the state, fulfills his obligations through taxes, industry, and physical labor.” In their minds this is the only acceptable proposal because as the bourgeoisie see it they do enough by counseling and fighting that they shouldn’t be burdened with taxes. If they hadn’t been so selfish and just paid the taxes then maybe all the problems in France could have been avoided.
In addition, Louis XIV caused many problems by trying to impose the Catholic religion on all of his subjects. The Revocation document explained that by not granting basic legal rights to non Catholics many legal problems arouse (i.e. marriage, birth, and death certificates) as well as the burden of not being able to practice your religion. Only years later in the Edict of Toleration did the French spell out that this kind of discrimination was not fair, yet they still imposed some restrictions on non Catholics.
The professor who filled in for Dr. Benson said that you can’t look back on history and try and apply today’s concepts and ideologies and get an accurate picture of what was going on. The modern American ideas of separation of church and state and that of proportional taxation didn’t exist so the French people didn’t know what they were missing out on to an extent. That rule of thumb proves helpful when examining political situations and remembering the fact that the people weren’t stupid back then helps me too. Also, I found it interesting that Dr. Benson compared the tax situation in France during Turgot’s time similar to the situation in America today and how the upper class is being catered to by the tax reforms proposed by President Bush. Apparently the theme of being selfish despite the opportunity to help one’s country still exists today.

I wasnt sure when Cardiff was supposed to post since the schedule got moved around, but I hope I'm not too late. I agree with Lauren that the similarities between Cromwell and Napoleon are certainly too obvious for us to ignore as history students, however, it's possible that the French never examined what caused England to fall apart to the extent that we do today, if that makes any sense. And of course, as everyone always says, hindsight is always 20/20.

As a bit of a change in topic, as I was reading the Sadler Committee Report on Industrial Conditions, it reminded me a little of our summer reading assignment, Fast Food Nation. The topics of the two are certainly different, and whereas Fast Food Nation was more of a third party account of the scandals in the fast food industry, the Sadler Committee Report was a direct transcript from a sort of hearing. However, I was immediately struck by the vividness of the descriptions in the latter, much like I was when reading the former. Although the accounts were brief in length, the message was poignant: the conditions in which people were forced to work were atrocious. In addition, what is almost more appalling, similar conditions exist in many places still today, such as the Disney sweatshop we saw a picture of in class a few weeks ago.

I'm not really trying to embody the height of naivete, but isn't it always a little surprising how unsavory some of the most important parts of history are? The conditions of the Industrial Revolution, as described in the Sadler Committee Report, are among the worst cases of maltreatment of human beings in recorded history. It's interesting how the new economic driving force imparted by this industrialized capitalism resulted in what might arguably be a more profound insult to human rights than the agricultual slavery of the early United States that currently serves as American history's pet outrage. At least most of the slaveowners of the American South realized the need to keep their chattel well nourished and rested for maximum work output, something that Elizabeth Bentley's testimony in the Sadler Report seems to counterindicate when it comes to the early British industrial period (I am, of course, NOT a proponent of slavery of any kind, nor do I desire to see the "glory days" return as the South "rises again"). Kate's point that such conditions still exist today is at least in part true, although I think that the victims we saw working in the Disney sweatshop in class might have it slightly better than the human tarmac represented by the people behind the Industrial Revolution.

Dr. Benson is always asking us to consider of historical events "why now?" and "why not earlier?". That's a question that I find difficult to answer about the Industrial Revolution. Can we really say that technology was finally to a point such that machines that were sufficiently sophisticated could be used? Because I think that the mechanical technology used by the advanced Greeks and Romans approached that of the eighteenth century pretty nearly. This is obviously a huge question to ponder because it involves a plethora of cultural and socioeconomic factors, but I'd still like to pose it to the rest of the class. What caused the Industrial Revolution to occur when it did, in the eighteenth and nineteeth century?

As Kate mentioned, the harshness of factory conditions revealed in the Sadler Committee Report on Industrial Conditions was horrifying. For years conditions such as these were prevalent in factories all over the world. In addition, housing for these workers was terrible at the time. As industrialization increased, the workers moved into cities and were housed in tenements. These were slum dwellings that were small, often windowless, and lacked sufficient heating and plumbing. Disease was rampant due to the close living conditions and lack of proper sanitation. Sewage was often dumped into ditches or streams, contaminating the city's water supply. Crime also increased, making city life less than desirable. The poor living conditions of the workers was not made easier by their employers, who worked them mercilessly and paid them little in return. The Sadler report describes these hardships of workers during the Industrial Age.

Edited by author 01-29-2003 11:18 AM
The effects of the spread of nationalism resulting from Napolean’s conquests that brought Enlightenment ideas to other nations still effect politics today. On page 402 of Spielvogel in the second paragraph it says, “The French aroused nationalism in two ways: by making themselves hated oppressors and thus arousing the patriotism of others in opposition to French nationalism and by showing the people of Europe what nationalism was and what a nation in arms could do.” The idea of nationalism and the innate strength of a unified nation was present in President Bush’s State of the Union Address last night. Napoleanic views of nationalism have led America to rally together and fight a war on terrorism. President Bush declared that no nation will blackmail the United States and that as a free country we have to defend liberty. He said America will lead a coalition to disarm Saddam Hussein. Here is where the nationalism comes in – Bush said we will not wait on others if necessary and that Americans will decide the fate of America. He stated, “We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass on our problems . . . we will confront them with focus, and clarity, and courage.” He elaborated, “We are asking them [many of our allies] to join us, and many are doing so. Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of other.” Enlightenment ideas and nationalistic ideals from the early 1800's obviously still influence the politics of the United States and many other counties in 2003.

Continuing on the subject of harsh factory conditions, I agree with Addie and Kate that the descriptions of the working conditions are shocking. As stated in the text, the disease-ridden slums and unrelenting demands of the factory employers grew to be too much and in the beginning of the nineteenth century, "the pitiful conditions found in the slums, mines, and factories of the Industrial Revolution gave rise to another ideology for change known as socialism" (430). This new movement believed in cooperation over competition; equality of conditions to all classes. This obviously gained huge support from the working class. Most socialists believed that society would be at its best if all peoples lived in a "cooperative environment" in which there was no private property; everything was shared. Robert Owen was successful in acheiving a "flourishing, healty community" that had no private property and everyone relying on the other. It was thought that he proved that it could work -- however, was the idea of socialism too extreme? I think that in the idea of socialism, the "political theorists or intellectuals" were on the right track. However, human nature turns their idea into merely an ideal, not a pratical or realistic practice that could be applied to society for long-term. What do you think? Do you think a socialist community could work for long periods of time?

I thought Dr. Benson brought up an interesting point yesterday when talking about the Jacobins during the Reign of Terror. During this time, people within the party began to turn each other in for being counterrevolutionary. Their theory was, ‘better to turn my neighbor in and have him be executed than be executed myself.’ This very act makes them go against the principles of virtue that they are fighting for, which seems very hypocritical. However, I cannot say that I wouldn’t do the same thing if placed in their situation. It is one thing to simply state your beliefs, and another entirely to actually practice them. One thing I find very ironic throughout history is the number of wars that have been fought for the purpose of establishing peace. It seems that man is determined to make the same mistakes over and over, perhaps calling into question the notion that true virtue even exists.

Essentially, the "Industrial Revolution" describes a process of economic change from an agricultural and commercial society into a modern industrial society. This was a gradual prcess, where economic, social and political changes nontheless produced a recolution. Other revolutions spurred this new era. For instance, the Age of Discovery and Exploration helped to solidify the economic doctrines of mercantilism. The effect of the Scientific Revolution produced the first wave of mechanical incentions and technological advances. These factors, not to mention an increase in population in Europe which increased producers, consumers, and the economy as a whole, all enable a transformation in the English economy. The Revolution created a category of people who were dependent on their job alone for income. Like the others said previously, the system tended to depersonalize society and demoralize the workers. Condidtions did improve as the century wore on, but the stresses the workers endured will never be forgot.

The address for Friday's presentation on romanticism is (http://history.furman.edu/~benson/hst11/show/wc3.htm)

Edited by author 01-29-2003 05:18 PM
I found Adam’s post on nationalism very interesting. Indeed many aspects of nationalism are prevalent in the world today, especially as the US is fighting terrorism. The entire country's response to September 11 exemplifies patriotism and the importance of unity. Though with great national strength sometimes comes danger. To some Middle Eastern countries we are thought of as evil Americans for various reasons, linked to our strength and power that come from our unity. This idea of danger or threat because of nationalism is illustrated by what happened to France during Napoleon’s rule. The nationalism that he cultivated initially to conquer the Italians was also what caused his fall. When he was experiencing megolomania and his armies seized control of Spain, his brother was put on the throne. This lead to the guerilla warfare that we discussed in class that cost French heavily. It even caused other countries to desire to revolt. Because of the revolt of Spain, Napoleon loses his charisma and some credibility, the key point in his loss of power. Though nationalism can be very powerful and successful, it also potential to be detrimental.

I thought Julia's post (205) about virtue very thought provoking. (Also, I guess this is my post for today since it turns out we are posting by day and not by topic.) How can we tie in the notion of virtue with the ideas of nationalism that are emerging in France as we discussed today in class? If the entire country has a common goal or feels a special unity, is it the general will?

What about when the country has more than one opinion, as concerning our current relationship with Iraq? Bush obviously feels that by advocating war he is embodying the will of the people, yet thousands of protestors oppose him. Plus, sometimes it is obvious (at least in hindsight) that the general will, or at least what the majority of people are doing, is not virtuous. The majority of Germans following Hitler does not make him any less despicable.

So, following this logic, is it the responsibility of leader to always do what the people want? Or should a leader do what he or she thinks is best? For me it's hard to decide one way or another for any situation without looking at it specifically. In general, I do think that government should represent its people. Sometimes, however, the general public is not privy to all the necessary information, and may not be able to see the big picture and all of its complications.

The Romantic period was a direct reflection of the events of the Revolution. The age of intellection, reason, and deduction had diminished. The time of emotion and passion has erupted. The art reflected the sufferings and hardships of everyone, including the common people. Society became aware of all facets of life, all torments. Artist were painting and writing about what they were feeling inside. Goethe's, The Sorrows of the Young Werther, portrays the touchy subject of love and suicide. Goya was painting vivid images of unarmed men getting gruesomly slaughtered. The Romantic period stood for liberty, self-idenification, and expression.

Ok...I am not a history buff at all--BUT...I'm not sure that I can buy everything that seemingly "worked out" for Napoleon! I mean come on! The part about he swindling the two officers that try to arrest him? That sounds just like a movie clip. I never inquired in class whether it was proven that this happened...but if this is just a myth and not proven fact, I believe that something coicidental DID happen to Napoleon...which led to a stretching of the truth to what actually happened. And...is he really that great? Yes, he did manage to pull off some neat things and get out of the worst of situations...18th century MacGyver)--but when he got back in the ballgame, he just got crushed. I recognize that Napoleon is a pivotal character in the history of western civilization, but my question is...is he overrated?

We have discussed the idea of nationalism as a form of unity and shared popular belief among the people, and as Lauren F. pointed out, we are living in an age of renewed nationalism here in the United States. After September 11, our country changed drastically as we came together to fight this war on terrorism. However, after September 11 and the search for bin Laden was launched, a poll was taken. Of the people supporting the war on terrorism, only a small percentage of those polled were willing to actually go fight for our country. This is a strikingly different view in comparison to the French soldiers, under the command of Napoleon. As we discussed today, the French were willing to fight for France and not retreat when they approached the Austrians. That’s not to say that they were not afraid, but it implies that they were at least willing to do their part to help protect France. I’m not saying that I would jump at the chance to go over and fight in Iraq, but if the United States is truly as “united” as we claim to be, you’d think we would have more people willing to fight for our national security.

Revised Schedule

Wednesday Napoleon / Beginnings of Industry
      (Dublin due to post. Submit these even if late.)

ThursdaySocialism / Marxism
      (Read the excerpts carefully. All groups post.)

FridayRomanticism, Nationalism, and Unifications
      (Athens group posts before class)

MondayZola, Germinal / Wilhelm and Commune
      (All groups post. Topic is Germinal.)

TuesdayResume normal schedule.

Admittedly, Karl Marx and Fiedrich Engels do make a strong case for the absolute equality of communism. After reading the horrors of the industrial revolution for the lower strata of workers (as detailed by Kate and Kaylan in their posts) it is easy to understand how this ideology quickly became prevalent in some nations throughout the world. Marx gives the struggling lower classes the power to overcome the enemies (capitalism and the bourgeois) by first showing how inherently bad and evil these are, and then showing how things could be different. He also strives to promote a great sense of nationalism by having individuals heavily dependent on the state for credit, communication, transport, wages, and education. This nationalism is perhaps the most dangerous part of the entire Manifesto, and it makes up a large part of the document. While some nationalism and strong national identity is a good thing, the extreme patriotism that communism is trying to instill in its people is dangerous. Anyone can look to the previous examples given of Napoleon, Hitler and the Holocaust, and even the United States to see the consequences of this. The dependence on the state also fails to foresee the disastrous consequences that occur when this governmental structure goes wrong. While communism was a good idea on paper, its applications have proven to be ruinous.

I found it interesting that the text didn't mention luck as one of Napoleon's contingencies. It seems to me that this was his main asset in the beginning. His merit and skill took over afterwards. Napoleon was very intelligent, from the psychological tactics that he used on his troops, to his perceptive observations of the troops' motivations. However, I believe it was his over confidence that was his demise. He was not accurately representing the people's wishes in his reforms. He believed his wishes were the peoples wishes. Linda posed the question of rule of the people or the leader. This is still quite an issue today. Personally, I think rulers should rule on what the people believe is the necessary course of action, after being given all the facts. This goes back to our age old question of “what makes a good leader?” Through his Civil Code he did manage to bring about some good changes, but he destroyed some beneficial laws as well. In response to Dustin's posting, it does seem unlikely that Napoleon was able to convince his captors of allowing him to go free. Thanks again for making me question the "facts." I guess this scenario fits in well with Napoleon's "life of luck." Is it possible for a person to be so lucky? Either way, it makes me look at Napoleon as a real person with strengths and weaknesses, as opposed to some dead, historical figure of the past.

   In their manifesto Marx and Engels spout out many different reasons why capitalism is bad for the world, and the majority of the population. Maybe it is because I have grown up capitalist in a capitalist society, but nothing that Marx and Engels argued really seemed bad to me. They went on about the work of the “proletarians” losing its charm and uniqueness due to machines and factories. So what?! Honestly, wouldn’t you rather have a wood chair that costs thirty dollars made in a factory than some piece of shit handcrafted, “unique” chair that costs 300? Marx’s ideas are way too impractical. He is really idealizing the poor people also. What have they done that is so great? Granted, they are almost always the group responsible for revolts and governmental reform, but in capitalism they are not hungry enough to revolt. One of the inherent flaws with communism is the inability for a worker to better his place in life. No matter how hard he works, or how smart he is, he will always do the same job for the same wage. That is why “proletarians” are so happy in capitalism; they can better themselves and improve their positions in society.
   The only truly good point I think Marx and Engels made was that in capitalism small businesses have trouble competing against larger corporations. While the shopkeeper may be ran out of business, the new competing corporation will provide many jobs due to its size and larger capital. Sometimes the needs of a few need to sacrificed for the wellbeing of many. Hypothetically, I would not say I would be happy to lose my business so that thirty uneducated clerks could get jobs at a new “Wal-Mart”, but generally when bad things happen to us we do not step back and look at the bigger picture. Marx and Engels’ ideas were fashionable when they came out, but as we well know they certainly did not stand the test of time. I mean the only real communist power left is China and it cannot even get itself together enough to feed its own people. I think if we look at it from a historical viewpoint capitalism kicked the shit out of communism.

I would argue in contrast to Molly's posting on how Communism emphasizes nationalism. While I agree that over-zealous patriots can be very dangerous, I do not see in the excerpts any Communist support for such nationalism. It is easy to be misled by Marx and Engels' statements about how everyone is dependent on the state for transportation, education, banking credit, etc. However, I would argue that "the state" is not necessarily an individual country, like Germany or Nigeria or Mexico. Rather, it is the centralized governing structure over which (theoretically, in the ideal Communist utopia) all people are equally governed. Granted, the Manifesto says that "the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeosie is at first a national struggle" (p41), and also says that the "immediate aim of the Communist is [...] conquest of political power by the proletariat" (p50). After reading these excerpts, I would say that though these comments are easily associated with nationalism, Marxism is not: "The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. [...] In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end" (p67,68,71). Communism's actual argument is not nationalism. Instead, it favors a proletarian uprising against the structure of the nation or bourgeosie, since they exploit the proletariat's work. This uprising leads theoretically to the natural breaking-down of borders and competition between people and nations.

I found it very interesting that Marx and Engels said that “the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class”. This seems to relate to the French revolution with the working class being the true revolutionaries and the engine of the revolution. As Molly stated, communism looks good on paper, but it isn’t practical. The idea that land should be more evenly distributed and not belong to one-tenth of the population sounds acceptable, but the methods used don’t work well in the real world. It is human nature to want to make money in order to own things. Some people are better equipped to do this, will be more successful, and have more things; including land. That does exclude a large number of the population, but it is inevitable. I found it curious that they want the proletariat to form a class, overthrow the bourgeoisie, and then live to peace together. I think disturbances with the classes would continue regardless. I also agree with Molly that Marx appealed to the working class merchants and tradespeople who seemed to be losing their identity and their jobs because of the industrial revolution and to the lower classes who despised their jobs. Both of these groups wanted to overthrow their bourgeoisie oppressors and the Manifesto outlined the evils of the bourgeoisie, how the proletariat around the world should band together, and described the world without capitalism, private property, etc.

The thing that struck me about the excerpts we read from the Communist Manifesto was the idea of connectedness vs. disconnectedness from production (which we talked about on the first or second day of class.) The impression I get from our reading is that they are saying that when you produce something, part of you go into the production...so industrialization 9and separation from personal production) leads to alienation. His logic seems to follow through on paper...the question is whether or not this is important. Would our lives be more fulfilled if we grew our own food and wove our own clothing? Sam?s post (217) tells us that not everyone agrees with the importance of connectedness to production. Also, it seems like when communist ideas are put into practice, they are less about being in touch with your own needs and more about being in touch with everyone?s needs. Again, this seems impractical, but it sure sounds good!

Although I agree with Sam that capitalism is currently a better way of running a nation that communism, I believe that the benefits of communism are often overlooked. The idea that everyone is equal and should have equal opportunities is not terrible. No one ever said that there was anything bad about being loyal to their country. In fact, I'm sure it was quite beneficial to many people who, at the time, were living in poverty. Communism not only gave them necessary material goods, but also a sense of belonging to their nation. While I do not believe that communism should be prevalent in today's world, it was an idea in the 19th century that was untested and therefore deserved to be given a shot. I have always viewed McCarthyism, which occurred in the 1950's, as somewhat ridiculous. The communist scare that was created and the resulting animosity toward anything close to communism were completely unnecessary. Communism was not a perfect system as everyone had hoped it would be, but it had a large impact of the shaping of society in the last 150 years.

     In some ways I agree with both Addie and Sam on their views of communism vs. capitalism. It is difficult for me to side with either because they both have good insights into this issue. Sam points out that capitalism works very well in America, and, we find it to be what holds the idea of the 'American dream'; to 'be all that you can be' so to speak. An individual can accomplish as little or as much as he likes to achieve any rank or status that he works for. As a result, we have the world's most prosperous nation! But, I ask you, at what cost?? There are so many homeless people who are wasting their lives; under a communist power, they would at least have work. Many small businesses are being leveled to be replaced with a Super WalMart. And, (though I hate to bring this up freshmen) we live in a 'fast food nation' so to speak where the ones who sell finished products are always looking for ways to screw over the consumer just to make an extra buck. All of you who read the book know of what I speak.
     However, to take Addie's point of view, communism, at least 'on paper' as a few have put it, is beneficial to all the lower class people. Everyone works for the same purpose, to help the economy as a whole within the system, so people aren't cheating each other for their own selfish purposes and there is no competition between large corporations and small businesses. One common cause, everybody working together as a team...now doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?? Except now, people are prohibited from moving up in social status---because there no longer is any. They cannot work harder and achieve more, so the smartest and most hard working are grouped with the not-so-smart and those who just do what they have to to get by. Probably 5 or 6 years ago I remember reading a short story in an English class about a community where everyone had to be exactly the same. A distinct image that still remains in my mind is that of a strong, intelligent man who had all these physical and mental restrictions put on him, which made him look monstrous, to make him as stupid and as weak as the most handicapped person in the community. (Sorry, guys, but I can't remember the title of it to save my life). That essentially is what communism is. Helping the group as a whole while limiting the worth of the individual.
   Neither system is perfect...it is only a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. However, through the test of time we have seen which of the two really works.

While reading excerpts from the Communist Manifesto, I found parts which pertain to my life. Especially Marx's description of how capitalism thwarts other cultures, by forcing the world-market on nations...a.k.a. the "little guy" gets wiped out in the process. Marx claims that "all old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed," as newer, capitalistic industries thrive. This type of out with the old and in with new relates to me becasue of the changes in my hometown. I'm from Surfside Beach, which is right next to Myrtle Beach. For a long time, we've had a local Harris Teeter in one of the strip malls, which my family and I went to for groceries. It was a relatively small Harris Teeter, but we knew the cashiers; I enjoyed shopping there. However, recently a wal-mart has moved into the area, and then out of the area. This was horrible for that area, as the addition of wal-mart brought the area progress, and then the removal of Wal-Mart to 544, made the area more down-trodden than it was before wal-mart had moved in. Harris Teeter was no longer there, and all that remains are a few rinky-dinky shops that have little business. For a while, we were upset by this turn of events. We knew a lot of people who had lost their jobs because Harris Teeter went out of business. However, thinking back, Wal-Mart opened up many jobs for people in the community. Also, eventually, Bi-Lo moved in and provided more jobs. Therefore, even though capitalism can sometimes hurt "the little guy," I believe it represents progress.
I also agree wholeheartedly with Kimberly in how communism cannot work because of human nature. In the utopia of communism, all people would do their equal part to provide for the success of the nation. However, people need some sort of incentive to work; communism removes that.

Karl Marx advanced Scientific Socialism to the extreme that it was considered the ideology of protest and revolution. As we see in the excerpts, Marx developed a communist philosophical system which was founded essentially on the inherent goodness of man. We discussed in class Rousseau's impact on society. I found it extremely interesting to witness the connection between Rosseau and Marx. Marx held the position that the history of humanity was the history of class struggle and that the process of the struggle would continue until a classless society was discovered. Like many of us, Marx thought that the working class was the most severe and oppressive phase of the struggle in society. The industrial working class needed to be educated and led towards a violent revolution which would destroy the institutions which perpetuated the struggle and even the suppression of the majority.

After the revolution, Marx advances his concepts in The Communist Manifesto. His arguments were portrayed in scientific form. Marxism was becoming very much accepted into societies. I agree with the many people that said capitalism is in fact an efficient way to run a nation of communism. I think Addie brings up great points about the benefits of communism. I find it interesting how she says that it is not such a negative idea for everything to be equal. However, I definitely agree with the majority of socialists in the 20th century who realized the significance and benefits of the democratic process to bring about their goals

Edited by author 01-30-2003 11:29 AM
I agree with Addie (221), communism was far from perfect but the ideology behind it was valid. Today it is agreed by most that capitalism is a superior system than communism. However, when capitalism first started to emerge, it is understandable that Marx & Co. would fight against its rise. With capitalism, more and more factory workers began living in poverty, many nations became one universal industry, small buisnesses became "swamped in the competition with the large capitalists." Therefore, the communists arose as the fighting voice of the working class who were growing more and more discontent with their conditions. They recognized that without the working class the bourgeois class would fail. This realization, therefore, gave the working class power. They could now band together. The communists had good ideas in mind: free education to all children, "equal liability of all to labor," "centralisation of credit in the hands of the State," etc. However, today when we hear someone called a "communist" we automatically think of that person as a traitor or criminal. Even though communism may not work today, it was beneficial to the society of the nineteenth century. I agree with Addie that the intentions and ideology of communism had several advantages, and at the least it should be appreciated for the impact it had on modern history.

As a number of people have noted, Communism seems like a good idea in principle, helping out the "little guy" as Stephanie said. However, as was seen in the U.S.S.R., rarely do the people who try to institute communism want to give up the power and presgtige they gain as leaders. We have yet to see an example of true communism at work because of the greed of human nature. I also agree with Stephanie that communism removes the incentive to work hard. When you know that no matter how hard you work, you're still going to end up with the same piece of the pie in the end, why should you work any harder than the rest?

First of all, i would like to take this time to mention the fact that if this were back in the time of the red scare in the Unites States, none of us would dare mention any of the "positive" outlooks of the communist system. So we should all consider ourselves moderately fortunate to live in a time where free speech won't put us in any danger. Secondly, i would have to disagree with Addie and the others who said that communism is simply set aside before any of the postive outlooks are considered. I think that it is easy to say that an idea which would creat equality is a good thing, considering the recent class topics on the equality of women and african slaves. However, how many of us would acutally be willing to give up what we have in order for everyone to be equal. "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." This quote pretty much sums out my biggest problem with communism, the idea that nothing is mine nor would have been in Marx's time. The idea of working hard to achieve something great is in my mind one of the most wonderful privledges in life, and to have a dream taken away, all dreams taken away, would almost be the end of a pointful life. Imagine America with out the "American Dream" that drew so many poor immigrant to the country. Call me crazy, but i think that the capitalist system is by far the best system for all people, even back in the time of Marx.

There’s not a doubt in my mind that I prefer the American capitalist way over communism. True, as Leah has pointed out, capitalism has its downfalls. Social mobility comes either through hard work and education or through your family connections. The idea of a homeless man not being able to eat because he doesn’t have a source of income and cannot get a job because he does not have a place of residency (yes- a vicious cycle) is disturbing and saddening all the same. Even the idea of a classless society would be nice- where everyone has the same opportunities. However, communism has potential to be over-bearing. For some reason, I always associate communism to modern China. Thanks to the rising of communism, China was able to stabilize their economy and become a potentially powerful nation. On the other hand, because of its communist government, there are no individual and new ideas other than those imposed by the government. The idea of the government telling me what I can and cannot buy is something I would never want. Maybe it’s because I have grown up in a capitalist country that I am against communism but I’m not willing to buy into conformity.

In reading the excerpt, and people's responses, I would have to agree with many of Addie's views. Though I do not support many of the ideas in this system, I can see how such a system would catch on. It gave people something to support, and get behind, which many people often need. However, it surprised me the rapid growth and widespread influence this system was able to achieve. It would seem to me that one would not want to "abolish private property". It gives too much power to the government, and leaves the individual with little or no power whatsoever. On a final note, though Communism became such a large scare, and people now are very critical of people during this time. I feel it is almost unfair to criticize the people during this era. It is easier for us to see the whole picture, because we can step back from this situation. People in earlier years simply got caught up in the movement of things, and once they were involved and learned what the system represented, it had developed into such a powerful system that it was hard to avoid this influence.

I agree with Mike that some of the excerpts were a little misleading in conveying nationalism, but I don’t think Marx and Engels left out this idea entirely. I got the feeling from paragraph 71 that once a sense of nationalism was achieved, a sense of internationalism would come about. “In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end." Elimination of antagonism between classes within a country may not necessarily mean nationalism, but it’s a pretty good start. If they are not disagreeing then they probably have some of the same ideas, which brings them together. I also thought it was interesting, as Kim pointed out, that they thought this proletarian uprising would end in peace and everyone would get along. These ideas all sound very good in theory, but I am apprehensive of their aura of perfection. I think there are factors, especially in terms of unexpected consequences, that they may not have anticipated.
I also want to respond to the idea of larger corporations overpowering smaller ones, as Sam discussed. In my hometown there was a huge debate over whether they should build a Wal-Mart on one the main streets. Locals complained that all the small businesses near the location would have no chance, and they would be put out of business. But we have another Wal-Mart that isn’t too far away from where the new one is supposed to be, and it has developed its area tremendously. It was the first thing to be built at that exit and now there is a huge movie theater, lots of restaurants, and many other businesses that are benefiting from the location. Big corporations have the capability to improve a community, not destroy it. This also brings up another facet of capitalism - the importance of competition. If Wal-Mart has the best and cheapest stuff, why shouldn’t people shop there? As the smaller stores are trying to compete with the larger ones, they should be driven to improve the quality of their products or find ways to benefit from the large corporations. (I realize it’s not that simple, I’m just trying to make an argument)

As Kate mentioned, communism has never really been accomplished nor will it ever be, most likely, due to the selfish nature of the human race. The "ideals" of communism are not all bad, as many have mentioned, but I have a hard time defending anything that has to do with "Communism" as we've seen it. "Communism" caused many many problems. The plans to help the "little guy" did no such thing. In my opinion, what happened was people lost their ability to "work for" their dreams. As Erin says, I, too can understand how such a system could catch on, but, unlike Addie, I can also understand why there was such a scare as McCarthism took place. If we were living in a time where we saw, or heard about, the horrors of communism and the possibilty of them taking over our culture, I don't think its that far of a stretch to believe why it occured. I am in no way supporting either of these, but I am saying I understand how it occured, and by saying that, I point out the fact that understanding how it occurs does not mean the system is valid or even acceptable.

From the manifesto, I defintely saw the neagtive aspects of capitalism in its "brutal exploitation" of workers and the subordination that it brings under the bourgoisie class. The examples of exploitation reminded me of the characters in Zola's book, especially the fifteen-year-old girl who was forced to work in the coal industry and who was already submissive to the upper class. So I agree with some of Marx's solutions to exploitation like the free education of children and the "abolition of children's factory labour". But I also see the downsides of his plan, as Kate pointed out, that new leaders (proletarians) would be greedy with their new power and would probably exploit others like the bourgosie did before them. So, as others have, I see the negative and positive aspects of communism,but in any case there was a need for change in Marx's society and I respect his efforts in trying to change that society.

I would have to agree with Erin on her point that we should not be critical of people in that time period for going along with communism. Dr. Benson's constant question of "why now?" makes perfect sense to me in this aspect - of course the people of the industrial revolution age went along with this idea! I can't imagine the working conditions they went through, and to be in a working situation like that made all of them feel like they had already lost personal contact with society. Workers were ,at that point, only considered laborers, not people, as we've seen from the harsh excerpts a few days ago. If we were all working 17 hours days and still barely earning enough money to pay for food, communism would sound like the best idea ever! Even if you still did dirty work, you would get paid as much as the next guy, and for the lower classes that must have sounded fantastic.
The personal aspect of these two systems confuses me, however. In the Manifesto, Marx and Engels were proposing these ideas partly becuase people had lost personal connection with their work. But with communism, aren't people still losing that personal connection? Sure, they can have jobs that they are good at, but they have no chance of really being an individual and moving up in the world. It seems to me that communism is more a suppression of the personality it was trying to portray than capitalism was at that point. While I am definitely a supporter of capitalism, I have to agree with Leah that they both have their ups and downs. But at that time period, I can see why communism got the thumbs up from the majority of people.

I think it is a very interesting point that there has always been a class struggle in society dating back to feudalism, but contrary to Marx andEngels, I do not think it is a necessary one. I think we perpetuate it as necessary, but if we learned to live with ieach other instead of just around each other, this would not be the case. Socialism is not the obvious answer because it would take away all of the rights many rich and poor alike hold dear.
I thought it was laso interesting that Manifesto believes that Capitalism will destroy all of our traditional values. While you could look at America in some respects and see this, we have also maintained a lot of the same values over a couple hundred years.

Sorry to mess with the flow of the communism postings, but I just read a paragraph in "Germinal" that totally matches what we talked about in class concerning Hegel's dialectic view of history. (And since Hegel influenced Marx, you see it really isn't totally unrelated.) Check out page 240 - the paragraph at the very top. Etienne and Souvarine have just been shouting over whether the worker's strike can live up to ideals or should be focused on practicality. "That was the fundamental reason behind the exaggerated difference between the systems they expounded, throwing one into revolutionary excess and forcing the other into an affectation of prudence, so that they both tended to get transported in spite of themselves to extremes which did not represent their true convictions, as they found themselves caught up in the fatal logic of the roles which they found thrust upon them." Interesting!

I was very interested to hear about the consequences that the Industrial Revolution brought to religion. I still don't totally understand why the changes occred interms of what about the Revolution caused them but I found them to be incredibly paradoxical and facsinating. I was particularly interested to hear about the irony in the fact that while this "Sunday School Movement" occured during this time it essential went against everything the workers were stiving after. For example, as industry was booming people were becoming excited about the prospects of earning more money. While this is a normal human response, the bible definitely preaches of the dangers of dwelling on earthly treasures. I also found it odd that religion came to be thought of as a womanly thing. I am curious as to how long this way of thought survived because today religon is equally important to both sexes.

Edited by author 01-30-2003 04:40 PM
I found that the industrial time discipline was very intriguing. I am very curious as to why more poeple would veer away from their own task orginization and steer towards this strict punctual time discipline. I think that there are still feudalistic characteristics amongst these English people. But England is suppose to be on the verge of an Industrial revolution. There can't possibly be this medieval feature within the English society right? It doesn't seem right to me that the middle class would retrofit their work habits so that they can make a few more bucks. Did the factory workers make more than the average shop owner? I also understand why England was the birthplace of the Industrial Age. The other so-called powerhouse of a country, France, couldn't have started it. France's whole perspective on life is to rage against the nobility and rise up to equality. The French could have never left their task orginization to go work for an aristocratic factory. France hasn't the learned the art of sacrificing yet. You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette.

I have never before been exposed to the specific ideas of Communists such as Marx and Engels and I found it very interesting to read how they present viewpoints so drastically different to what we have been exposed to through our Capitalist environment. The points made in the readings are presented to entice and seem convincing on the surface. However, as we dig deeper, the positive aspects of Capitilism overshadow the Communist perspective as has been pointed out by previous postings.

p21 the section discussing why capitalism must renivent and defy morals and beliefs is an interesting example of the way in which Marx and Engels presents Capitalism as negative in a very eloquent manner. The Manifest argues that the "conservation of old modes of production in unaltered form, was the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes." It is interesting to hear an argument against "revolutionising the instruments of production" which is instinctively the only way by which society may advance.

Karl Marx provides very intriguing ideas in his Communist Manifesto. Angered by the treatment of the bourgeoisie toward the peasants, he strived to create a classless society. He had the ideas of equality, that sadly will never truely exist. His ideas on communism is not what we see today. His idea is a society not defined by class that has a say in government. His Communist Manifesto attacks all facets of capitalism. He vents toward the ruling middle class and their ability to influence government. He felt the bourgeois democracy was only limited to the bourgeoisie. Karl Marx's ideals of government are strong values, ones that will never be accomplished. Marx had visions of an ideal society. The human race by nature competes and is greedy. People strive to outdo others, becoming more prosperous. Looking at the Communism of today, we see evidence of this. There is not a ruling classless society. Within the governmental branch there are different levels and the government has ultimate control of businesses and industries. The still allow people to make more than others. No true marxist society will ever come to rule and last. Attempts have been made, each time the corruptness and nature of man takes over, destroying the ideals and principles it was built upon.

Karl Marx had many interesting ideas and perceptives in the Communist Manifesto. Judging by just document alone, he is a great thinker whether you agree with him or not. The Communist Manifesto takes many of the major doubts and or questions one would originally have and answer them in a political, communicative, and convincing opposition. An example of this is when he posed the question wouldn't communism make the work force lazy and unproductive? His response was- The bourgeois is no different. The poor work hard for nothing and the rich become wealthier by doing nothing. For laziness of all the aristocrats alone hurts our suffering economy- (obvisoulsly, this is no direct quote). Of course, with perspective that we as Americans, and many other countries for that matter, have today, we know that communism can't be ran perfectly because of the natural corruption from human beings. Marx is none the less a great thinker.

I agree with Justin in the fact that Marx's hopes may never come true. The economies of countries worldwide may not ever yield equality as far as rule goes. A single class has the power in several societies. There will always be the group of people that makes more than the other. In order to achieve the perfect Marxist society, everyone will have to make relatively the same amount of money, no matter what they do. However, I don't know that it's the "corruptness and nature of man" that is keeping our society from corresponding with Marx's ideals. I think it's the nature of society and the economy for things not to work out in Marx's favor. Greed is always a part of it, ...but some jobs will always be worth more than others, and therefore will be paid more for..

I believe nationalism is prevalent in any society with a stable, strong government because in order for a government to have stability it needs the support of the people, and for the people to support a government they need to be at least somewhat nationalistic. The Germans are a prime example of strong nationalism. Prior to their unification no one though of Germany as a unified country, but due to Bismark and his aggressive military campaigns the German peoples began to take pride in being German causing Germany to become a power to be reckoned with in European affairs. Hitler capitalized on this nationalistic ideal much in the same way Napolean did in order to rebuild his broken country. The Germans, tired and broken, were looking for someone to make them proud to be a German again. The French were much the same. Following the intense internal fighting caused by the French Revolutions and enlightenment, Napolean made the French people excited about their country instead of being weary of it. I believe nationalism springs from a people’s desire to feel part of something bigger, and the quickest way to take advantage of this is by glorious military victories. The Romantic period reflects this idealization of everything passionate and moving. The artwork, music, and literature from the time are intensely emotional. The whole purpose of the movement was to evoke an intense emotional reaction by portraying powerful, depressing, or magnificent situations.

The Romantic Period is feeled with imagery, imagination, and emotion. Many of the writers of this time were moved by nature and against "false intelligence". One example of this is Thoreau's Waldon Pond and his beautiful theory of simplicity. Meaning a truly self-fulfilling and moral being should become as close to nature as possible and rid one's self of surplus items one might have in order to experience the true fruits of life. Another example of this way of thinking is shown in William Wordsworth's, "Lines Composed a Few Miles Above Tintern Abbey". His last few lines read; " Well pleased to recognized, in nature and the language of the sense, when than the anchor of my purest thoughts, the nurse, the guide, the guardian of my heart, and soul of all my my moral being." which is self-explanatory. Interesting that the transcendentalists were quickly follewed by the anti-transendentalists saying the transcendental point of view of too optimistic. Theres always an oppostion isn't there?

I thought the idealologies of liberalism presented in the text were pretty interesting. Most of the ideas in liberalism seemed to come from the Enlightenment and the various revolutions at that time. The way the text presents it, it sounds a lot like the American system of political ideals. Liberals looked to laissez-faire economics, protection of civil liberties, the desire for a written document to concrete these ideas, religious toleration, elected parliament, constitutional monarchy(president), and a system of checks and balances in the government. I just think it is really cool how these ideas sprung up after the American and French revolutions. These obviously helped form these ideals and were taken up esppecially by the middle class. Granted there are some differences in liberalism and the America we have today like limited suffrage, etc. but it makes you think how much this set of ideas contributed to what we hold as right and true today.

First, Corey's comment on the rise of transendentalists, and then the subsequent rise of anti-transendentalists reminds me of what we spoke in class yesterday about Hegelian Dialectic. The thesis was the rise of the transendentalist, and then the antithesis was the resulting and opposite reaction of the rise of the anti-transendtalist. Then, years later there would be a synthesis of these ideas, and a new thesis would develop (although I'm not sure what that is). Therefore, does Hegel and thus Marx believe that the course of the universe is in a continual state of progression? It's kind of like you take a step forward, and then backward, and finally you go a little bit forward. I don't know if this makes any sense, but that's what I got out of the Hegelian Dialectic. This would mean that Marx believes that human nature changes, and eventually we'll reach a kind of Utopia...at the end of all theses, where all people will work together for the betterment of society, without class struggles, etc. Therefore, the Hegelian Dialectic and Communism work well together.
As for the Romanticist period we were to read about for today, I really enjoyed the paintings. Personally, I have studied Goya's works, El Segundo y Tres de Mayo, about how the French Napoleonic soldiers killed "innocent" Spanish victims during the Napoleonic Wars (which relates to what Dr. Benson said about how the Spanish were upset by France's audacious presence in Spain). What I like most about Romanticism is that it pertains to the emotions, and really evokes feeling from the viewer. In El Tres de Mayo, Goya highlights the eyes of the Spanish man with his hands raised, and also the white of his shirt in contrast to the dark colors of the Napoleonic soldiers. By having all this emotion in romanticism, one can really see what the author was trying to convey. Also, in respect to the topic of nationalism, the painting illustrates Goya's nationalistic feelings and his contempt of the French invasion.

One phrase commonly used in describing unpopular movements in history is “hindsight is always 20/20.” Throughout the term people have described how events, even though we now view them as unfathomable, seemed rational at the time. Examples of this include the feudal system, slavery, and, most recently, communism. Certainly, when compared to our modern capitalist system, it seems dictatorial and unfair. However, one must consider the living conditions of people in this time period. As Dr. Benson showed us in class, there was little or no grain surplus and the majority of the population went hungry at least some of the time. So when a system of government was proposed that promised food for everyone, it isn’t surprising that so many people were in favor of it. We must examine every philosophy, including those of Karl Marx, within the context of when it was developed.

I have to agree with Sam on his views of the Nationalist system. People were wanting to be a "part of something bigger", and they desired to have a government with the same interests and ideals as themselves. Not everyone was as supportive, however, some people felt that this new system would "upset the political order". Though the order in the countries and amongst themselves had been upset for years. Thus leads me to my next point...the support of the Romantic movement. For so many years, the countries in Europe had been fighting amongst each other and amongst themselves. The Romantic movement brought about a sense of real emotion and tranquility which the people were starving for. The only recognition of knowledge up until now was military, yet "the Romantics tried to balance the use of reason by stressing the importance of feeling [...] as a source of knowing." This variance from anything harsh and war-like was readily accepted and supported by the people.

It amazes me that people of this industrial revolution only took heed to the poor working conditions after Marx's Communist Manifesto. He points out how the aristocratic society is failing in the leadership category. Marx, in his own way, is hoping for another revolution of astonishing change and all the hardships that go along with it. He believes that there has to be a revolution in order for some positive change to occur. There is one thing that I didn't quite understand in class. Do the teachings of Marx help to bring about Romanticism or is this a period that occurs due to ongoing hardships in society and in the workplace? But one thing that you can't refute about Marx. He had his sources from a variety of social classes. He just doesn't take heed to the working class. He takes heed to aristocratic society too and therefore he concludes his teachings into one melting pot for his communist beliefs.

I thought it was pretty amazing that France went through yet another revolution in 1830 in the July Revolution. I think it is interesting to note that France was always at the forefront of revolutionary periods and seemed very sucessful in their attempts, even if their end products did not always match up with the intended results. These were awfully bloody revolutions though and I wonder what that did for the common people of France at that time. I can not imagine living in a place of such constant political instability. I seems like the revolutions are what the people want and all that, but it had to be hard on living conditions, etc.

I thought it was pretty amazing that France went through yet another revolution in 1830 in the July Revolution. I think it is interesting to note that France was always at the forefront of revolutionary periods and seemed very sucessful in their attempts, even if their end products did not always match up with the intended results. These were awfully bloody revolutions though and I wonder what that did for the common people of France at that time. I can not imagine living in a place of such constant political instability. I seems like the revolutions are what the people want and all that, but it had to be hard on living conditions, etc.
I also want to agree with Sam and Erin's assesment of the Nationalist movement. People do just want to be part of something sometimes, and that can drive people even to revolution (look around campus).

I agree with Robert totally about the way the people of France went about and thought about revolutions. It seemed like all that they were living for was to have another revolution. Would you just not get tired of fighting all the time? It seemed like to me that the people really didn't know specifically what kind of revolution to have. The first reason being that most of the revolutions were conducted by commoners. These people didn't know first hand on how to run the government because the government back then was always ran by the nobility. The second reason being that there weren't sure which revolution would bring equality to everyone. All their past governments were based on making money and that was it. Then came the Romantic Age. Like Erin said, this age brought forth emotion, stability, and balance to an unbalanced and chaotic society. This age didn't bring forth Inventions and Industrial Ages. This new Age brought forth the feelings in all of us and them back then.

The Second Industrial Revolution was a done correctly in Europe. The Industrial Revolution of the early nineteenth century was great progress for the world, but there were many negative results. As technology advanced, people were treaty more poorly, poverty rose with population, women and children were victimized, and sanitation grew out of hand. The Second Industrial Revolution in the latter part of the century was a correction of the past problems. This is not to say all the troubles were corrected or fixed. However, the society as a whole was far better off. With this revolution population increased. This time around, cleanliness of the cities were priority. Clean water was brought in and sewage was taken out. Private baths became a popular item in some households. The government was stepping in and making needed improvements to places not previously touched. Education became prevelant for many during this time. Even local women's colleges were given their first start. Condition and well-being of society improved greaty during this time, far more than the first revolution. This was a great step for the history of mankind.

I think I am still unsure of when we are supposed to post about Germinal, but I suppose it is ok to be early.

Emile Zola’s Germinal is a terrifying yet stunning view of all aspects of life for a little mining village in 19th century France. It manages to affect every reader to some degree. This is what makes the novel so great: its ability to shock on so many different levels. Zola uses this “shock” to emphasize the disgusting conditions faced by the miners and argue against their exploitation.

First, there is the plausibility of the story. Although a novel, Germinal could have been written in any coal mining town of the time. There is nothing fantastic about the novel. Zola did his research and did hours of observation for his work. The novel’s brutality (for example, the corruption of Jeanlin, the mutilation of Maigrat, the murder of Cecile, the gunning down of the mob, etc.) is most terrifying when one realizes that every aspect of this could have actually occurred. The introduction claims that Germinal is most compelling because it is “…grounded in identifiable realities. (xi)” This is a key part of what makes the novel shocking.

Second, the brutality of human nature makes the book upsetting. It is remarkable how the village can go from civilized human beings to rabid animals in a matter of weeks. Zola shows that life is not pretty for everyone. Not everyone lives like the Hennebeaus or the Gregories. Life is brutal and harsh. Zola manages to show the true realities of human nature (sex, murder, thievery, drunkenness, and violence) that were little discussed at the time.
 
Finally, the book is shocking because of the abject failure of all of the efforts of the miners to cause change. It offers little hope for the future, as La Maheude ends up toiling in the mine that took her daughter, her son and her husband, while crippling her son. This is what terrifies many people: the sense of failure, lack of hope, and sadness in which the book ends. This is what is most profoundly disturbing, and a moving point in Zola’s argument against exploitation. These people are powerless to change their futures, something that will affect any reader of this book.

Germinal is a strikingly realistic account of miner's adversity in the mid 19th century. From corruption to sex to murder, this novel is fiction, but is an accurate representation of what a miner's life could be like during the time period. Molly is right when she says that Germinal has the power to affect people in one way or another, due to several different "shock" elements, along the lines of the realism of the novel and the blunt depiction of human nature.

Proof of the accuracy of Zola's novel is evident in the massive attendance of miners at his funeral at the beginning of the 20th century, over 15 years after the book was first released. It is also very interesting that Zola chose the mining industry to illustrate the injustices in France at the time. Zola went to the mines to do research for the main character, and determined that the depressing atmosphere was the most notable trait. He used the feeling he got from that mine as the outline for the events that would occur to make the novel resemble what miners had to go through. A deep novel; I hate reading, but that is honestly a great book.

I feel like Zola presented a society riddled with problems that he never suggests solutions to. Not that a happy, unrealistic ending would have been appropriate, but what did he expect his readers to glean from reading his book? The ending paragraph particularly left me confused. There?s all this spring imagery of growth and birth...so is he saying that the society will heal itself? Or just that no matter what, babies will keep getting born and the cycle will repeat itself. I think it is more likely the latter, since Etienne and Souvarine are both shown continuing, but without really improving their lot in life. Etienne stands out especially as an example of this, because he leaves the novel walking aimlessly, just as he entered it.

Although I did not agree entirely with Zola's ending, I thought the novel in general was very successful. It truly impresses upon readers the utter hopelessness of the situation. It's not as if the characters are missing an obvious solution - what else could they be doing? And I feel that as readers, we are sufficiently attached to the characters without actually liking them. Since Zola is more likely to tell us about their actions then describe their thoughts, I feel that he leaves us more outside as observers than as participants in the story. This means we can think about it more as a study of a society then as personal stories.

Dirk mentioned the death of Zola and the massive numbers who attended, even more powerful to me was when I read that at his funeral they chanted, "Germinal, Germinal." At first, I couldn't understand why they'd chant this, but after reading this book, its not hard to understand why this book made such an impact. I was very moved by the horrific realism. The book had no real "good guys" or "bad guys." Yes, you tend to want to fight for the miners and the injustice they suffered, but the miners were not perfect, nor were the owners to be hated. The characters were very real, encompassing both the good and bad of human nature.
   Like many have also mentioned, I found myself let down by the ending, not because I think he should have ended it any other way, but because I wanted a "happy ending." I wanted the efforts to be successful. I wanted the typical "triumph of the human spirt." This book showed very clearly how it takes more than a desire for change to have change be accomplished. As we've discussed over and over in history class, change and revolution occurs because of many factors. The timing has to be right. With Napoleon did not come to power just because he fought to be in power, but through a long line of extenuating circumstances. The ending of this powerful book follows in ine with the rest of the book, it was depressingly realistic. Everything does not end up happy, but it ends how one would have expected a similar situtation at that time to end up. Though depressing, I have to agree with everyone in saying it was very well-written and moving.

Edited by author 02-02-2003 11:02 PM
     As almost everyone has pointed out so far, Germinal is poignant illustration of human realism. And as Molly discussed Zola’s main intention was to shock the reader. Not only is it a commentary on human nature and sociology, but also on power and leadership. The shocking events and violence were incorporated to exemplify the extremity of the miners’ situation, the harshness of the times, and the reality of an unequal distribution of power.
     The central focus of the book seems to be a harsh reality, one that we have encountered many times so far in the roots of revolutions - few wealthy upperclassmen in control and a large number of working class people that, as Molly put it, are being exploited and powerless to control their futures. But, I disagree that the book ends with this same lack of hope. The miners were defeated, and their strike did not affect their generation in ways that they had hoped. But, the strike did have affect on the state. “Of course they had been beaten, they had lost money and lives; but Paris would not forget the shorts fried at Le Voreux, and the blood of the empire would drain out of this incurable wound; for even if this industrial slump was drawing to a close, and the factories were opening one by one, a state of war had none the less been declared and peace was no longer possible…They realized that the revolution would always be able to rise again as a day’s notice…(522)”
     Another important emphasis in the book was that of leadership, particularly that of Etienne. At the beginning, he realizes how little he knows and hungers for knowledge. Through this he not only becomes more intelligent, but he acquires confidence in his ability and passion for his ideas. It is with this passion that he leads, motivates, and organizes the community throughout most of the strike. But it is also because of this reputation that he is ridiculed and blamed at the end. This is one of the dangers of a passionate leader, for he is held responsible, and may be forced to realize how quickly his followers might turn on him. He does become disheartened, but he ultimately does not give up. As he is walking around at the end of the book, he is “enchanted” by his fundamental theory, that, “If one class had to go under, wouldn’t the people… trample over the bourgeoisie, who were debilitated by their own pleasure seeking? New blood would create a new society… There reappeared his absolute faith in the forthcoming revolution, the real one…(521)” He still believes.
     One last comment on the illustration of social interaction. It seemed as though their situation as a whole was reflected in these interactions, for example, women gossiping or the abuse of sex. The gossip represents a sense of community and at the same time a sense of division within, as they spread harsh words without much thought about their “friends.” The sexual promiscuity may represent a need for escape, and in the some situations a disregard of certain authority.

I know most of y'all have already mentioned the lack of protagonists and antagonists within the story...but I too found myself constantly changing "sides" as the novel progressed. In the beginning, I sympathized with the miners because of their horrible working conditions and the futility of their situation, as seen through the eyes of the Maheu family and their neighbors. However, towards the end, I went so far as to sympathize with the bourgeoise, especially the character of Monsieur Deneulin. As the miners transformed into savages, marked by their barbaric pillage of the local mines, I found myself confronted with the pitfalls of a tortured and oppressed humanity--brutal destruction and basic chaos. This scene especially reminded me of a novel I read in high school titled the Lord of the Flies, about the breakdown of civilization into a savage hierarchy, which was equally gruesome as Germinal. As Sarah stated, the "horrific realism" of Germinal is impressive and shocking. Finally, the ending of the book brought me no sense of closure, as seeds of revolution, spoken through the fertility imagery, remained within the hearts of the miners.
  
However, I think Zola does an excellent job of chronicling society during the Industrial years. Not only does the book have a plot, but many political ideas and paradigms of that time are expressed within Germinal, spoken through such characters as Souvarine and Pluchart. Furthermore, Zola included a reference to "the tablets of bronze," (144) or the iron law of wages and profits, which we spoke of in class, giving added evidence to the success of this novel as a portrayal of political ideals and social structures of the 19th century.

     Zola's Germinal is without a doubt an interesting look into human nature and flaws that we bring to this once naturally existing planet. Though i do find it somewhat surprising how starteling (sp) this book is to many people. Has the negative or sinful side to human nature been pushed too far back or forgotten. I don't think we should harvest the evil side to our nature, but it's important to know where one comes from or the direction they're headed can easily be questioned. If sheltered from something one should eventually come to find out why it is that they are sheltered. If one has the luxury of something one should think of what it must seem like not to have that luxury. That is one of the reasons history is studied. The failing attempts of Lantier to strike against pay-cuts amount to a realistic look into how many live out their lives and how ambition doesn't always lead to results. But without the amibition, the results can't be imagined.

Edited by author 02-03-2003 12:54 AM
While I was reading Zola’s Germinal, I was shocked and horrified, just like most everyone else, at the gruesome and vivid imagery portrayed by the author. Although the images were harsh and crude, the realism of the novel was astounding due to the social aspects and the working conditions of the setting. Throughout the entire novel, I noticed the perpetual theme of mistreatment and abuse. From the miners to the horses, there was nothing but maltreatment, neglect, and cruelty. However, because the people were accustomed to such harshness, it seemed as though there was nothing wrong with the physical abuses placed upon them. Throughout the novel, children were harshly reprimanded, wives or mistresses were badly beaten, and the sexual abuse was an everyday event. However, once the companies started taking away wages for food, ironically enough, the people felt as though they were being “abused.” I’m not saying the companies were justified in cutting wages but they need to make a living as well. Although they seem to be living rather comfortably, just like Gregoires or even the Deneulins, they were losing more money than they could afford as well.

Today, we know the consequences and the dangers of working in the coal mines. However, during the time of the Industrial Revolution, coal was a significant aspect to the success of the industry; therefore, there were many jobs available in the coal industry. The situation in Zola can be viewed as a paradox and maybe slightly Marxist. Both the bourgeois and the coal miners are blind to each other’s misfortunes. The coal miners believe that the wealthy owners are content, whereas the bourgeois think that the coal miners should be grateful for what they do get from the companies. This is certainly viewed as a repetitive cycle, and it is not until a leader, such as Etienne- an outsider- is able to bring about a change for at least one of the classes. Germinal may not have been a novel of the successes of a revolution, but it shows a determination held among the people, the consequences of losing control, and the negative aspects of a revolt (a.k.a. it may not be a “happy ending”).

     What makes Germinal such a success and such a moving story to all who read it?? First of all, when I began reading it I thought I had accidentally picked up a Dickens novel--the descriptions make the reading kind of slow at times. However, these very descriptions take the reader into the setting of the story and make it all the more powerful. In addition, his use of imagery makes the reader feel the cold, watch the bloodshed, and taste the coal in the air, making it more realistic.
     His detachment from the characters also allows the reader to look at the story objectively; human instinct is to 'side' with a set of characters, but, like others have said, as soon as we feel pity for the miners, we are given another side of the story that is equally valid. The hopelessness of all the people involved is truly understood after examination of both sides. Also, like others have mentioned, the ending is not final and does not resolve the problems. So what?? Zola's goal was not exactly a happy-go-lucky novel for reading while sitting on the beach sipping a margarita. This is deep stuff. Though it begins and ends as a depressing story, it leaves a lasting impression on all who read it, as the horror is historically accurate. Zola definitely made the impression he intended to leave.

I thought Germinal was an eloquent protest against the inhumane working conditions common in late Nineteenth-Century European factories and mines. Zola's work clearly portrays groups of humans in the grip of circumstances beyond their control, often destined to be destroyed in monumental catastrophes. One can see from the reading that Zola was a fierce naturalist. She wanted to find out how the environment around someone affected their physical and emotional life. An example of the social environment is evident in the book where it describes the workers as a “mountain of pennies.” This tells you that they are all poor and are huddled and piled on top of each other.

But Germinal is a more overtly politically based novel than anything. It is a novel about the class conflict between the industrial proletariat, management and shareholders. One example of this that sticks out in my mind is the workers and their inability to escape. Perpetually in debt, they can only shop at this store where they are overcharged and abused. They are never able to accumulate enough money to escape from the company's demands. And since they live in company-controlled housing, they have no basis for independence whatsoever. Company stores and towns were not built out of a charitable concern for workers. They were a means of shackling them firmly to the company in a state of pseudo-slavery. The “Iron Law of Wages” also has an outstanding effect on the workers in this novel. The so-called "iron law of wages" of the English economist Ricardo argues that in a capitalist society, wages tend always to be depressed to the lowest minimum capable of allowing the workers to reproduce. This mechanism is used to portray the workers as being treated as a commodity rather than as living people? Étienne, on the other hand, is interested in people who believe in achieving socialism by popular elections which would force governments to set up self-governing , worker-owned cooperatives. His ideas lie at the opposite end of the radical political spectrum from those of Souvarine. Etienne’s beliefs seem harmless but as he observes the state of the gentle folks who have taken him in, he watches their spirits slowly die and eventually decides to try and do something about it. First, he organizes a workers' fund. Then, when the mining organization lowers the workers' wages, he helps them strike. Ultimately, he leads the starving, frustrated employees in violence, as they attack scabs and destroy mining property.

Even though Etienne isn’t successful in beginning a revolution, I believe he ended what he started. The end of the book shows him walking away into a kind of Limbo. But I think that this portrays the name and motto of the Book….Germinal. This book took place during the month of late March and early April, which together, formed the Revolutionary month called "Germinal," the month of germination. Germinal is the month in which plants first begin to sprout from the ground. But the image of sprouting plant life is also used throughout the novel and particularly at its conclusion, to symbolize the rising consciousness of the workers as they realize the sources of their suffering and the ways to organize to beat them. Etienne walked away only to let someone else continue with the revolution…(the theme of “life and death.”)

Like others, I found Zola’s novel to be shocking in its brutal portrayal of the exploitation of the coal miners and the oppression they faced, but I also was shocked by the innate submission and the lack of education that these miners and their families possessed. Zola purposefully created a vast difference between those who were not educated and those who were knowledgeable, like Etienne who hungered for knowledge and honestly tried to compromise the strike rationally. Most of the miners were poorly educated and did not give priority to schooling (as seen when Alzire was forced to skip school to help the family’s financial crisis), which makes them incapable of understanding fully their relationship with the bourgeoisie and creates chaos at the end of the strike when they do not know any other way to compromise but through violence. Zola created this shock factor in order to make the reader see the need for change in this society, and I think a main asset of change for these people would be a good education, at least for them to see how oppressive their situation was and how to rationalize their solutions. Education could change the “crushing force of habit” and their “status of a machine” (136). I agree with Brent in saying that an awakening of consciousness is necessary for these workers to “germinate” and grow to understand their society. I think good education is a big step towards this awakening.
I also found the aspect of competition throughout the novel was interesting and tied into our class discussion of Ricardo’s “Treatise on Political Economy,” as Stefanie pointed out earlier. Economic competition was driving wages lower and lower and causing the majority of problems between workers and bosses and between different mines (Montsou and Jean-Bart). This competition also gave reasoning for the elites to oppress the workers as one boss claimed that, “it has to obey the laws of competition or go bust” (221); the bosses saw their problems of competition as equal to the starvation and other problems of the workers. This realistic portrayal of the miners’ situation gives me a clear view of why Marx wrote his Manifesto and the desperate need for change in his society.

Edited by author 02-03-2003 02:07 AM
I was impressed by the impression Zola gave of the utter level of control the company exercized over the miners. Maheu and his family literally lived on the brink of life, burdened by constant debt and seriously worrying about how to get the bread that would sustain them until the next meager paycheck. The miners lived in constant tension, fearing the accident that would end their ability to provide their families with their wage. Jeanlin's injury incurred from the cave-in was so serious not because it ever threatened his life, but because it removed a primary source of wage from the family. In my family, only my father works, and it's hard for me to imagine my siblings and I pulling equal weight and being responsible for supporting the family just as much as my dad, who is infinitely wiser and stronger (I should forward this discussion page to dear old Dad). Zola summed up the tired, desperate feeling of the miners quite nicely with La Maheude: "The worst of it, I think, is when you realize that nothing can change... when you're young you think that you're going to be happy later on, there are things you look forward to; and then you keep finding you're as hard up as ever, you stay bogged down in poverty... I don't blame anyone for it, but there are times when I feel sick at the injustice of it all" (p. 166). The company did their best to keep the workers stupified with bare sustinence and alcohol such that no one person would catalyze and organize any kind of resistance to the horrible oppression the workers faced. Though conditions were universally appalling, the workers lacked education, organization, and the know-how to seize the possibility of a brighter future. It took an outsider and newcomer to the mine, Etienne, to spark the strike and provide a nucleus around which the preexisting frustrations could concentrate.

Edited by author 02-03-2003 03:06 AM
I fully agree with Robby's ideas and great quote about the predetermined and unchanging status of the coal miners. I, myself, need a goal to strive after and something to motivate me. Though these miners think to themselves, "I've got a mother to look after...I've got children...I've got to eat", I still can't imagine knowing that things will never improve and that life is in a monotonous cycle that only ends with death. Though, in the end, many of the miners "sold out" Etienne, I think they were just trying to be realistic. Yes, they wanted to prosper and improve the working conditions for all people, but realistically they had to do what they had to do in order to make ends meet and to support the people they loved.
     Another point that I found interesting, but fairly shocking as well, was the lack of information that much of the upper class and aristocracy, particularly Hennebeau, knew about the working conditions of the miners. I think perhaps they did know what was occurring, but by not acknowledging it, it did not exist, and they did not have to deal with it..."Ignorance is Bliss." However, this ignorance is not always such a bad thing. Many of those who were informed of the situation tried to exploit the miners and turn them against each other in attempt to keep them from the continuance of revolt against the owners. These issues, as well as others, were consistently eye opening and shocking in all areas. I find it especially hard to think that such conditions were the norm for many people, and that others who had the power to improve the conditions did very little in doing so.

After reading Germinal, a few things still stand out in my mind. I have to agree with everyone who’s mentioned education as being a prime oppressor for these miners. This is emphasized by the miners “ant-like” world, being herded in like “cattle” into their vast ant hill. Day in and day out these miners did exactly as they were told, mainly out of necessity, and even in the face a grave danger. They knew no other life, other than to work, eat, and sleep. Their unquestioning lifestyle kept them from enlightenment. Even though Etienne questioned their lives with his hunger for knowledge, which lead to the revolt, he still lacked some primary knowledge to do it successfully. The miners were even unaware of the diseases caused by working in a mine. In the beginning, Bonnemort attributes his cough to a cold he caught recently. However, we, as an educated and enlightened audience realize that this is not so, as does Etienne. Etienne also realizes the danger when he is first “swallowed” down into the “hungry” mine. As an every day phenomenon, the workers don’t realize the danger they are constantly placing themselves in. I find it interesting that no one ever thought of abstaining or trying to prevent pregnancy. These people were not stupid. They knew that sex equaled children. If older, the parents welcomed that child as a future wage earner. However, if it was their own children having children, they grew upset b/c the childrens’ wages were less and the baby had to be fed, even if too young to work. These people looked on their children as property. La Maheude is upset when Catherine runs off only because she considers her ungrateful and she thinks Catherine should stay and turn over her wages to her family because La Maheude thinks Catherine owes her for her family having had her. The lack of love given to children is preposterous. However, in their society it was quite normal. This makes me even more thankful for my childhood.

As Brent mentioned, I also thought of our discussion of the “Law of Iron Wages.” Wages were used to hold these people down, to keep them working their hardest all day long to hopefully afford a piece of bread. This way, the bourgeoisie thought that they wouldn’t have time to think of revolting, b/c they would be too consumed with working to extinguish their hunger. Yet they were always kept just a little bit hungry as to increase motivation. Another aspect I wanted to mention includes the bourgeosie. At the start of the revolt, I was astonished that they all believed it to be nothing, and yet insisted on having their dinner party. Then, all through dinner until the end of the book, they made it out as a joke, they thought it was funny! The only thing they thought of importance was having the pastry-cook arrive, even in the attack on their house. Their tours through the village helped them to believe that the miners had a comfortable lifestyle. They truly believed that they had nothing to complain about. Just because they had a very lavish lifestyle did not mean they were more educated. Obviously they had not read the countless books out at the time concerning miner’s working conditions and the effects on health.

While I was very interested (and disturbed) by many parts of Zola's novel, this has to be the most detailed writing I have read in a long time. With the exception of maybe James Joyce's "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man", Zola puts the most painstaking detail into every inch of text. For example, simply look to a description of the cave where the miners worked: "And the darkness seemed to be coloured an unnatural black, with swirling waves of coal-dust, and vapours which hung heavy on the eyelids. The wicks of the lamps, beneath their gauze chimneys, failed to penetrate the gloom with their small red glow" (40). After only four lines (out of probably hundreds Zola uses to describe the cave), we already have an amazing feel for the mining atmosphere. This novel is realism taken to a new level - Zola has taken realism, which describes everyday life in detail, and expanded it to include a heavy description of multiple lifestyles: miners, mine owners, bourgeosie, etc. Furthermore, he had to experience and study all these lifestyles in order to be accurate.

Another brief comment I would make is about how depressing Zola's message seems to be. He obviously discredits capitalism in the French society, but almost every attempt by the miners or by the existing authorities to create a good/effective government is struck down. Despite the fact that Zola never presents a good government, he also shows that anarchy is not a positive answer either. So what does he want? What government will satisfy Zola and his characters? The answer to that is unfortunately never answered fully. As described in the Introduction, not even the emergence of Etienne from the mine into the light is a final resolution: "We should nevertheless refrain from reading into the final pages of "Germinal" the triumph of positive forces" (xix). Despite all his detail, Zola never quite tells us (or France, rather) what to do.

The part of Robby's post about families worrying more about the loss of money than their own children made me think about the section of Marx and Engels theory from class on Friday, the cash nexus. This is the idea that cash becomes the center of everything and destroys all other aspects of the community, and this is definitely shown through Zola's novel. While the families of village Two Hundred and Forty were concerned with money because they needed it to survive in any way, it still became an idea that took over their lives. Even marriage, something that we take for granted as a fabulous and exciting establishment, becomes a burden to families because they lose a working member of the household to another family. The despair of the Maheus because of Zacharie and Catherine's marriages really struck me because that is something that seems so basic to our lives, especially with all the engaged people at Furman!
I found the novel to be very disturbing at times, only because it was so realistic. Zola did a great job of not leaving a single detail to the imagination as far as the condition of the miners and also the struggles of the bourgeoise. Like many other people who have posted, I had a hard time finding the good/bad guy in any situation. Neither class seemed to be really happy with where they were in life. The miners obviously had some reasons to be upset, but the people in the upperclass had struggles that were just as obscene to them in their different mindset. Even though Monsieur Hennebeau was not fighting for enough food to live every day, he was tortured by a love for his wife that was never realized, and to him, this was worse than having to starve. "He had enough to eat, and yet he still writhed in agony. His rickety marriage, his whole lifetime of suffering, rose up and caught in his throat to choke him...Life was not perfect just because you had bread to eat. What idiot would measure happiness by the distribution of wealth?" (353). I thought it was great that Zola pointed out both sides of the story; I fully expected to get the typical story of poor starving miners and the lazy, evil upperclass. The details about unhappy rich people and also some not-so-hardworking and kniving underclass people (La Pierronne),