I recommend to everyone who wishes this beautiful website of Meditation, Religion, yoga, philosophy… I received a lot of inspiration from it hope you will too www.har-tzion.com

I completely agree with Erin. This country IS the land of opportunity. If there is a will to be successful, one can definitely find a way. I say this coming from the same background as Erin, so I might not be fully appreciating and acknowledging the difficulties faced by an aspiring worker in this country, but everyone here has equal opportunity for the most part. There honestly should not be a poverty rate that high. With the "strongest" economy in the world, with as much money that we have circulating, everyone here can succeed, no matter what background they came from. It is all about the work ethic, which refers back to some common American stereotypes that Americans are lazy. I guess there is some truth to that when we have the poverty rate that we do...

After reading the article that Dr. Benson posted, I grew very angry at some of the negative responses to each positive aspect of our country. For instance, as shannon also discussed, one in twelve is going to open their own business, yet they say we have the biggest gap in our economic classes and most poverty. Isn't this the nation of dreams, the one nation where you can be whatever you want to be and have many opportunities available to you. We may have a low poverty rate, but that doesn't mean all those people weren't given a chance to achieve. Maybe i am being a little harsh, after all, i came from parents who were able to provide a nice lifestyle, and din't have to work as hard as someone from low income housing to make it to where i am. However, in this country, I believe that if there is a will, you can find a way. That alone should be the greatest aspect of the US, and there is nothing to negate that fact.

After reading the article that Dr. Benson posted, I kept on going back to the idea of compeitition and survival. The article says that, "One in twelve Americans will start his or her own business." Can you imagine the competition in that kind of economy? With so many business in order to survive, you have to be selfish and interested only in your company and its progress. I think this is what leads to the overwhelming poverty and separation of wealth in our country. Only those who survive in this fiercely competitive economy will become wealthy and able to benefit. And those people who are wealthy, feel like they deserve to be because they worked hard to survive, separating the rich and the poor even more.

The virtual study session can be found at (http://www.quicktopic.com/19/H/VQiTgjh59mdU)

Here is my posting (taking advantage of Dr. Benson’s amnesty policy) on the cold war, decolonization, and deconstruction:
     In light of what we talked about in class, the themes of time and place definitely apply to the “Emergence of a new society” talked about on page 596 of Spielvogel. The same idea that my group brought up in class that the cultural crisis between the French would have eventually happened without the world wars as a catalyst, albeit on a more gradual and less expansive basis. I think the same applies for the women’s movement and resulting expansion of women’s rights as well as the more “permissive society” that came about. The changes in post-war society like large scale technological improvements and economic growth obviously helped facilitate these changes. But even without the wars and the resulting changes in society conditions would have eventually arose that made women pursue their rights with the same vigor. On the same note, sexual liberation certainly would have come to pass as well. The competitive appeal of the ideas would have made them rise to the top even if it was a lot later down the road. It is most certainly an interesting trend to recognize however that wars tend to lead to changes like this. That people have to be beaten over the head for them to open their eyes and accept reform. For example, it took WWI to shake things up and give women suffrage. This question of causation has related to most of what we have studied in the course.
     Based on what we have looked at, I have come to believe that circumstances and great leaders aren’t unique. The Cromwells, Napoleans, Hitlers, and Etienne Lantiers are not so unique characters; they are merely products of society. If Hitler hadn’t come to power in Germany, someone else would have down the road. It isn’t the power of individuals that shape history, it is the forces behind society and cultures that put individuals in the place to exert their will – they couldn’t due it on their own. Following that same school of thought, I come to the conclusions that dynamic circumstance brought about this new culture (i.e. the aftermath of WWII), but with or without these exact criteria or set of events, that same culture would have taken shape because of the competitive nature of the idea.

Edited by author 02-19-2003 11:59 PM
Study Session

Friday, 6:30 PM, FH 204

Pizza will be provided, my treat.

Historical Origins, Backgrounds: Constraint or Pick and Choose.

Nasty girl important – 3d reich. Trying to uncover the “real” background.
Selected what they remembered and what they forgot.
Repression affected what came out – it was an upset to the community
Seducing French. Effects of Wld Wars + also second ind. Revolution
(which helped rise of U.S.) put them in position to be seduced.
Could they have resisted the progress? (Not so much America but
changing new technology and modernization.) They do select some.
But couldn’t resist them all?
Coke and health reasons – not successful.
Coke, but would also drink wine -- because they were scared they tried harder.
Because of Americanization, became even more conscious of Frenchness.
They keep their French identity.

Place and Time
Small town atmosphere, post WW II, on eve of Berlin wall collapse
Place is questioned in Nasty Girl as concept – Living room and tree as symbols.
Time is relative – town council decides arbitrarily 30 vs. 50 year delay.
StheF specific to France, but generic domination of Marshall Plan over
   Different societies.
France so tied to place that they have strong insecurities. They remember
        When they were great.
Time and history very important to the French culture.
France’s fall from world leadership harder to French pride b/c history.
America doesn’t have a history, so why do they get to be world leaders?
Opinion changed with time.
Depended on who was involved? Who was leading, and what were the
Different groups that have popular influence?
Disagreed with statement that WWII and I.R. necessary to clash of cultures
Bound to happen anyway. New methods sped it along.
Took a new generation after Nazis, before people could think about it clearly
Previous generation had experienced the horrors. Versus Sonya
Nasty Girl only happens where people have something to hide.
I.R. and wars expedited the process.
“Seducing the Germans” would have been harder because of their history
is there a country or a place that doesn’t have something to hide?
(America, for ex. Had internment camps – though not on same scale.)
Not just unique to them.

Range of the Human Condition
Realized that the idea of French culture and sdt of living based on their history
Huge blow, worried about being submissive.
For America, std of living based on consumer goods and material possessions
France has built-in common history vs. America as upstart.
America forges culture through consumer identity and conformism.
We all have an idea of what is successful.
Everyone conforms to some extent
What we “want’ to think about as core values.
Vs. society hiding what happened.

Competition and Survival
Talked about competing to keep their own culture.
Survival of the fittest with America trying to impose new concepts/cultures
French wouldn’t accept some things that would help them, because of
      Their identity.
Older people wanted to keep drinking French wine wearing French clothes,
But younger people thought it was a cool thing to do.
Competition between the different groups in France.
In Nasty Girl, competition between people covering up their identity
    so that nobody spills bad deeds, preserve their status.
Does your resume (history) make or break competitiveness?

Individual and Community Identity
Both G and F. want to search for their “true’ identity
France looses identity through material goods, Germany gets it.
How much character and identity defined externally.
Depends on how strongly you define your own identity
Could have a “new identity seeking” identity
Willingness to conform – whole problem in France. But America like it,
As do young people in france
Always conforming to outside forces.
How much of a constraint is the past?
As much as we think we can rely on self-determination, not true.
Even if resist, will be influenced by it.
Still going to be cultural ramifications.
Napoleon forced globalization, but here voluntary – you don’t have to.
One thing disgusted the French: Taking all these different cultures and butchering
“Inauthentic”
Not. Necc. A choice to conform. U.S. rebuilt Europe, restored countries that
Would have failed. Did they have a choice? Probably not.
The only things working at the time, other ideas not (comp/survival)
If a freshman told you a better idea, would you be reluctant.

Edited by author 02-18-2003 03:16 PM
     I think it is unfair to say that every foreigner shares a hatred for our country. To me, that is an unnecessary generalization. Obviously Kuisel’s books deals can’t speak for everyone in France. No doubt some French embrace other cultures, just like some Americans aren’t patriotic. That said, though, I find this book to be helpful in explaining the interactions between the two extremes of acceptance and resistance that happen between the two cultures — that middle ground the author describes of selective imitation and adaptation — as providing the most insight.
     I, like Robert in post 383, have always had the impression that foreigners revere, respect, and admire the American way of life. We as Americans are taught at a young age a sense of national pride which becomes engrained in our minds and we can’t see why everyone doesn’t think we are great. I have come to the conclusion that every culture is self-centered in some way; Americans aren’t the only ones with pride and some arrogance. Kuisel himself say that the French response to Americanization was a “defense of civilization,” or there since of national identity that they didn’t want destroyed. This happens in America as well. The example Dr. Benson gave in class that, according to some conservative politicians, Americans must reproduce more so as not to be overrun by minorities in our own country and to keep our “American” identity illustrates this perfectly. I personally don’t think that this type of pride is bad as long as you don’t let those feelings lead to ignorance about other nations or stupid prejudices (like in the example of conservative thought above) like we seemingly have done.
     As a defense on the behalf of the seeming smugness of Americans, some claim that European nations are forced to know more about other countries politics and culture because they are surrounded by them on the European continent. Americans have it much easier to adapt an isolated mentality because of our location far from a lot of countries. While the geographic conditions may be true, that is not an excuse for the lack of knowledgeable Americans today common for most citizens. (I didn’t even know where Kosovo was until just recently when we have had all of this exposure to maps of Eastern Europe in class)
     However, while French people may know more about American culture than Americans do about other nations, they can not possibly know everything. The areas the novel studies of interaction between the two cultures (the Marshall Plan, economic missions, foreign investments, and American consumer products) try to be an all encompassing cross- section, but can’t possibly touch on all the interactions between these two cultures. Kuisel even said he had to limit the scope of his book to a few examples so as not to get in over his head by trying to characterize all the intricacies of such a vast relationship. While this little exposure is more than most Americans can claim to have of any other culture, it can’t possible convey all the nuisances of what it is to be an American.
     In my opinion, what they are exposed to in the vast majority of these interactions is the American culture concerned with making money -- the fast food chains, the rock stars, economic policy aimed to stimulate growth and help the world, but more importantly the U.S to name a few. These are all unarguably parts of American culture, but more expressly the brand of “high-octane capitalism” that the Atlantic Online article from Dr. Benson’s post characterizes. It is obvious that some of these things wouldn’t seem to appealing. What Parisian would want a McDonald’s hamburger rather than French cuisine? While it would be impossible to ship all French people to America to get a sense of the more positive aspects of American culture, I think only an experience like that would let render a more comprehensive understanding of a complex culture.

The article is definitely a surprise to me. I didn't know that the poverty rate and test scores were so low. It appears that as a whole, the country is doing so well, yet when you break it down to individual aspects, we're not. With the exception of a large national debt, the United States is the most prosperous country economically in the world, yet we manage to have higher poverty rates than other economic competitors. I suppose that there are prices to pay for having a stable economy and a respected country, ...however I am surprised by some of those statistics. I never had a clue that Americans, on average, work more than the Europeans. Now, I don't see this as a real roleplaying statistic, but it is definitely surprising to me, just as the infant mortality rate. I think it's important to find the root of these problems, so we know how to make America even better...

I just read the article Dr. B posted and it took me back. I guess I'd heard many of those statistics before- that we are the best of the best, and others how we are the worst of the worst (within advanced democracies), but rarely have a I seen them layed out next to eachother. I found his question, are we abandoning the common good?, fascinating. Are the costs we're paying for "our bests" worth it? We live a country where we have the most advanced medical breakthroughs, yet few can actually afford to attain this care. Many of the richest people in the world reside within our border right next to one of the largest number of the poorest. This article really makes you think twice about the "greatness" of America.

hey, "I agree..." was supposed to be the start of a new paragraph.

        The French along with many other nations resent our country because our culture is coming into and mixing with their own. I think being unique is all fine and dandy, but is it really the best thing? Look at the Balkans; all the death and destruction that is going on down there is fundamentally due to each little ethnic group’s not wanting to lose any of its national identity. Maybe the reason America works so well is because when the immigrants came over here they had lost their former national/ cultural identities and become Americans. The French are trying to preserve their traditions and culture by doing away with all American influence in their country, but they should just find a happy medium between culture and commercialization. The renewal of culture does not have to mean the death of commercialization; there is always a happy medium.
 I agree with Justin when he said “France developed a new jealousy for a power that they wanted to be.” After WWII France was really just a hollow shell of a country. Their national identity was weakened, their industry was hurting, and their pride took a serious blow. It was easy for them to adopt American pop culture, but as their economy began to strengthen and people regained pride in France, there was a call to return to the old ways, France’s ways. Still just a shadow of the great power they once were, the French are bitter towards Americans because of our success. France knows that America does not need them, but they sure as hell need America. For a country who wants nothing to do with our culture, they sure are dependent on our industry.

Edited by author 02-18-2003 01:44 AM
The following is excerpted from Ted Halstead, "The American Paradox," The Atlantic Online, January-February 2003(http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/01/halstead.htm)

"Without question we are the richest, most powerful, and most creative nation on the planet. Our economic and military might stems from our embrace of a particularly high-octane brand of capitalism, supported by financial markets that are deeper and broader than any others, labor markets that are more flexible, and a culture of entrepreneurialism that is unparalleled. These attributes have turned America into the world's unrivaled engine of innovation and wealth creation. We boast more patent applications than the entire European Union; almost three times as many Nobel laureates as Britain, our closest competitor; and more business start-ups per capita than almost every other advanced democracy. One in twelve Americans will start his or her own business, evincing another outstanding American trait—our great tolerance for risk. And our export of movies, television shows, music, and fast-food chains makes us, for better or worse, the dominant cultural force on the globe.

But like the Roman god Janus, America has two faces. Despite being the richest nation on the planet, we suffer from higher rates of poverty, infant mortality, homicide, and HIV infection, and from greater economic inequality, than other advanced democracies. We have far more uninsured citizens, and a lower life expectancy. On a per capita basis the United States emits considerably more greenhouse gases and produces more solid waste. We spend more per student on K-12 education than almost all other modern democracies, yet our students perform near the bottom on international tests. We have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and among the highest proportions of single parents, and American parents have the least amount of free time to spend with their children; indeed, the average American works nine weeks more each year than the average European. Our performance on many social indicators is so poor, in fact, that an outsider looking at these numbers alone might conclude that we were a developing nation."

Edited by author 02-18-2003 01:11 AM
     For most of my life, I have been a very naive American. Never having been out of the country, I had a very simple view of the way the world felt about the United States: it's plain truth that it's the greatest country in the world, the purest and most successful symbol of freedom and democracy, so everybody must love us, right? The patriotic understanding of what our country stands for that we learn in elementary school heavily implies that we are the shining star of the world and so everyone should love us. The current debate over war in Iraq notwithstanding, "Seducing the French" was the nail in the coffin of my unadulterated American smugness.
     I agree with Brent (/m368) that every country in some way influences other countries in the world; however, it is clear that the United States has exercised unprecedented cultural hegemony over the rest of the world since the latter half of the twentieth century. This is a little odd when viewed in the light that the American understanding of our own culture is the "melting pot" myth, whereby we take aspects of all cultures and fuse them into a unique American culture. I call this a myth only because there are certainly disproportionate cultural contributions among the different people that comprise the United States. The French, however, have criticized American culture for being soulless and mechanized, and were afraid that by incorporating American culture (that is, a vacuum of culture) into theirs, a total loss of culture would result. Like Sara (/m371), I have studied Ritzer's "McDonaldization of Society", an extreme extrapolation of Max Weber's sociological theory of rationalization of society. Ritzer contends that American society can be increasingly explained by the efficient and quick managerial and production methods of fast food restaurants. When studying the extreme rationalization of society in this context, one can't help but feel a tinge of the creepy feeling that Kuisel describes the French having about the spread of American culture. At the very least, we can sympathize with their desire to retain the essence of what makes them French.
     I think Corey's contention that "we are just another powerful and threatening country" (/m380) is inaccurate. To French eyes (and in all reality) during the postwar period, we were THE powerful and threatening country, not counting the Soviet Union. The Marshall Plan was seen during the postwar period to be a shining example of American pretense: "The Fourth Republic feared that the program might make Paris appear subservient to Washington; subservience was a sure formula for failure" (100). So, not only does France want to preserve their cultural identity in the face of America's sudden and blinding rise, they also seek to ignore their status as a declining power (relatively speaking, of course).
     On a personal note, I take issue with Christina's offense (/m378) at the way the Americans seem to have been portrayed as overbearing. Since my arrival at Furman, many of my closest friends hail from different continents. I have developed an acute sense of how arrogant and ignorant the average citizen of the United States is. Most people from other countries could rattle off a list of facts and impressions about the U.S., but I doubt that, if pressed, I would be able to accurately describe the culture of more than a handful of countries around the world. I mean, our own President has demonstrated some trouble with simple geography, and I doubt that the average American citizen is much different. I once saw a cartoon about the American impression of the world in which a map was drawn with America labeled "US" and all the rest of the world branded as "NOT US". I had little sense of how arrogant our ignorance was until I became close friends with people of a totally different perspective.

First off, sorry this is so late, I was planning on posting this morning and then the server was down and have been running around all day, but here it is!
  I like many of y'all was taken back by this book and France's view of America during this time period. I guess I never really thought about how great America's influence was, and how offensive American culture could be on people. Today we always here about globalizabtion and how cultures are loosing their uniquiness, and its interesting to see some of that in this book. I was about to say we see its roots here, but then I remembered back to class discussion we had maybe two or three weeks into school where when we talked about Hellinism, and how the Greeks in many ways forced their culture on non-Greek cultures.
   This book highlights the "Hellinism of this time period"- the Americanization of France. As we talked about in class today, with WWII ending, Russia and America became the dominant powers and as such they're culture began to dominate. This was not all that surprising to me, we see it today, but what surprised me was the extent and the response to America. "France might be facing a gadget society, the worship of mammon and the DEATH OF CULTURE"(111). This seems a little harsh! Though America was becoming the dominant culture in many ways, the French did not have to choose to forget their own culture. The French people were not without choices. The huge scale commercialization was abnoxious I'm sure- I'm a proud American and I find many parts of the commercialized American society to be repulsive, but I don't think Americanization was the "death of culture."
   I found this book intriguing and it made many good points, points to ponder, but I also found it, like I know many of you have commented to, to be a little too harsh as well.

Because the author thought it important enough to write almost an entire chapter on the subject, I thought the Coca-Cola controversy deserved comment, or rather the reasons it did become so controversial. The French were told hideous lies about the product to ensure their business was lost, like that their children’s “hair would turn white” or that it was a “poison.” The French were especially afraid of change at that time, because they were still trying to decide what was, in fact, “French.” Then again, who were we (collectively speaking) to impose out “culture” on others? The French were obviously not interested. However, we went so far as to threaten withdrawing aid from them, simply because they wouldn’t allow a product into their country. Other products such as cars and refrigerators were imposed upon the French; however, these convenient inventions would have been made by someone else, if not for the US. Other components of American pop culture such as film and music are now rampant in France. While visiting there, I noticed 99% of their TV programming, radio stations, and movies were all American. I never really saw anything “French” in these fields. Underlying this issue is a basic fear of change, a fear of the unknown. Just because we see our nation as being superior, as does almost every other nation, does not give us the right to force our ways of life onto others. As we’ve seen, each culture is different. What works for ours, will not necessarily work for others, no matter how good our intentions.
There are many things I wanted to mention, so I’ll just throw them all together (I’m not including who else mentioned these same opinions, because there are so many, and I wrote this this morning before the other posts could be made). The age that this book was written about was not THAT long ago. I found it hard to imagine the working conditions of the people were still so lagging in France. No wonder our countries’ factories were so appealing to look to for a positive change in French industry. I can’t imagine the immense reforms required to completely tear down and rebuild a long tradition of non-“transparent” businesses. I also found it interesting that earlier cars had been looked down upon, as Aragon mentioned. Then later, “the symbol of prosperity was the automobile parked in the working man’s driveway.” As far as French identity is concerned, Kuisel stated that the French did not lose any of their “Frenchness” to the “cocacolonisation” of their country. I also found it interesting that Americans were defined as “conformists.” What made the French think that they weren’t and we were? (It’s not a rhetorical question, I really don’t know. Please help me out.) However, I wanted to mention that all societies must have a degree of conformity to function well.
As a whole, I was very interested in reading about the anti-Americanism in French culture. It conjures up many questions about what “civilization” is defined as, who has superiority, and should ways of life be forced upon other cultures, just because we see them as being beneficial to us? I’m constantly thinking of more. The more conclusions I come to, the more questions there are to be asked. I think the most basic thing I can say, though, is that everyone fears change to some extent. In this case, tensions magnified them even more.

 Americanization in other countries has been a topic across the world for many years. But it shouldnt come as a big surprise. Some things in the book were interesting and enriching, but its no surprise many other countries to upon us in a negative manner. Despite our government's attempts to persuade us to believe we're always in the right, many other countries feel the americans have put themselves in conflicts just for power and repuatation. Vietnam for example caused controversy as well as this upcoming conflict with iraq across the globe and even on our own soil. I personally believe in our military and for the most part, government and our decision making, but to others we're just another powerful and threatening country. Amusing how many French dislike like the americans and probably discuss it over a nice bottle of coca-cola. Ironic, dont ya think. America is the best country in the world and im very very proud to be hear, wouldnt want to be anywhere else, but we arent perfect, bc no one is.

     Seducing the French includes heavy research, discussion of many opposing viewpoints and opinions, and an interesting argument that Americanization did not hurt France or 'French-ness' overall. However, from his discussion of the Marshall Plan to the introduction of Coca-Cola, to the policies of de Gaulle, to his final conclusion, Kuisel takes a very biased and overly pro-American viewpoint shaded by rose-colored glasses. The Marshall Plan was touted as an opportunity to open cross-cultural doors and open other countries to the idea of free markets and American life. However, the Plan also was contested by Europeans as an egotistical statement by America that despite having little history in the political/economic arena, they knew what was best for Europe. Despite lauding American managerial styles and business tactics, Kuisel must also admit that many French did not like American "glass house" businesses (89), and ended up not liking most of the recommendations by Marshall Plan reports (100-101). In my opinion, Kuisel focuses too much on saying that certain French factions didn't like the Marshall Plan, and not enough discussing the worldwide dislike of the ethnocentric program.

     Kuisel could also take a less biased tone toward the Coca-Cola controversy. While he recognizes the viewpoint of the French ("serious political problems and raised anxieties about Americanization" (55)), he paints the picture that the French were out to get Coca-Cola unfairly. He labels the French policy to be careful and test new drinks as obstructionism, whereas in America, ANY new drink (alcoholic or nonalcoholic) would be subject to examination by the FDA before allowing sales. Kuisel also does not give enough credit to French concerns about Americans investing in France. While France would want money, there is no reason why they should accept giant American employers on their turf who do not have to play by French rules.

     The most interesting discussion in Kuisel's book is the section on de Gaulle, his policies, and their unintended results. Perhaps that just interests me because I am a political science major, and I'm a dork, but the fact that his hard-line anti-American stance resulted in a "passive acceptance of the American way" (153) is pretty ironical. Kuisel makes an interesting argument that "de Gaulle was correcting the imbalance in Franco-American relations and thus removing an essential source of anti-Americanism" (153). However, I would argue that while American arrogance may have decreased some since Vietnam and the 1960s-70s, America has become even more of a world power. With the fall of the USSR, America became the almost singular world power, and therefore even more of a danger to middle-power countries like France. I don't believe Kuisel takes this into consideration enough. Overall, Kuisel argues that despite a barrage of the American way, France is still France. I have never been to France, so I cannot argue against that point. However, I do have issue with the idea that Kuisel does not hold America accountable enough for our often arrogant and domineering policies towards other nations, seen clearly in actions like the Marshall Plan.

I strongly agree with Brent's statements on the book. I was slightly annoyed and borderline offended by the way the American influence of culture on the French was portrayed. I felt like Americans were made out to look overbearing. The text seemed to indicate that we were completely synthetic and smothered the French's originality. I think that each culture is a mixture of a majority of its own traditions and elements of other's customs that have come to influence them. I think it’s important for the cultures, on some levels, to blend. Countries can learn things from each other and should be accepting of each other's differences. They should want to learn about different cultures and assimilate the aspects that interest them into their own ways of life.
To the same end, however, a country should never conform to a sense of "worldly standards" in terms of culture. Each country should still possess unique elements that they never lose sight of. We have learned much about conformity on many different fronts this term, as Lauren mentioned. We learned both about the good influence it can have over something like industrialism. I also saw how important it was to not conform from the movie "Nasty Girl". If the main character had given into the wants of others she would never have been able to divulge the information she was able to find and her city would still be in the dark about the issues she researched. For this reason I also see that it is also very important to keep one’s individualism at times. Therefore, I believe that countries should stive for a culture that embraces that of other countries yet takes pride in its own special and unique ways of life.

One of the issues discussed in Kuisel's Seducing the French that I found especially interesting was that of the introduction of Coca-Cola to France and other parts of Europe. Some of the reasons the Communists and other opposers of the introduction of Coke to the European market, such as the myth that it would turn your hair white to drink it, were completely ridiculous and obviously manufactured in order to halt international distribution. This issue over a relatively harmless American drink nearly caused relations between the United States and France to crumble. The fact that France was so insecure in it's national identity is clearly demonstrated by this controversy. The anti-Americanism at the time eventually weakened, but only after United States influence in France had declined and the nation felt more secure.
Like Justin, I believe that you can experience other cultures without losing your national identity. If this were not true, tourism would not be an industry. I went to Europe several years ago and was thrilled to have the opportunity to learn about other countries and see a way of life so different from my own. It did not even cross my mind that by indulging in a foreign culture, I might be compromising my Americanism. In addition, many of the products that I own were not produced in America, but in another country. The global economy of today is so far-reaching that it is very unlikely to find a product manufactured in the United States.

     As I read Kuisel's Seducing the French, I did not realize the opinion's and thoughts that many French people had toward America. I took French in high school and was always taught that they loved American culture and ideas. Maybe that is the case for the young generation, but I just thought my misconception was interesting.
     The Americanization in France was something they chose to accept. American boomed after WWII, and like Dr. Benson said, became the most dominant power in the world along with Russia. France developed a new jealousy for a power that they wanted to be. They had "envy of a superpower by a nation that had not quite fully accepted its relative decline in the world" (215). Any country that once had the power that France once had is for sure going to have animosity toward a developing nation who grabs the power. France might possibly be jealous because America had done things right. For many years, they have been staging revolution in order to get a successful power in place. America's revolution was immediatly victorious, and it seems like everything they did afterwards was superior to the developments in France.
     France did not succumb to Americanization, they accepted it. Coke, movies, and cars were all abopted by the people in Europe. America offered things and ideas that people naturally thought was "cool" and socially glamorous. In this process, the French did not become American, instead they took customs and products and made them French. With the booming of fast food industries, "french cuisines did not disappear" (232). Coke is not an American idea, it is an international product that has its own identity in each nation. A person does not necessarily become American for using their product. I don't feel more Italian after eating at a fine Italian restuarant or and more Japanese after playing my video games. The French need to stop worrying about American and concern themselves with their own affairs.

    Kuisel's Seducing the French made me finally stop and think about how other cultures and countries view our country. I had never really cared before, except very recently with the war possibilities and everything going on. I never really thought it mattered until then. But I think it's interesting to see how the development of this country was seen by others. It is no doubt that we're stereotyped by other nations as cocky. However, we have definitely earned the right to be "feared" as Kate said and Leah referred to. With such a strong economy, it is understandable for people in other countries to look in and be jealous, and want to come up with a negative stereotype for us to justify everything. But I think the French, overall, in their observations were fair in their assessment of America.
    I was very interested in the fact that some sort of "Americanization" has been going on, mostly recently in the late twentieth century. I agree with Leah in that because of the similarities that were already present between the two countries, it is not surprising that other changes be made so that the countries grew to be even more alike, in economic and social aspects. Shannon said something very interesting regarding the French's eventual acceptance of the United States. America has so many things that are attractive to other countries, and so they finally realized that there is no point hating something that you can learn from, or grow from. Whatever it takes for someone to change their opinion....

by the way, guys, don't think I'm a slacker, I tried to submit the posting below twice this morning before class, and it wouldn't load. sorry again!

     Like others, it was interesting for me to observe the French views of America in chronology of the 20th century, as they changed over time. Many have discussed different speakers against America as well as aspects of American culture that initially were despised by the French. All of these observations and deep insights were handled very well by the class. Bravo to you!
     However, what captivated me most was the actual 'seducing of the french' that finally was recognized around the 1980's, as well as the reflection upon 'the dilemma of americanization' near the end of the book. French is the foreign language that I have studied, so I had somewhat of an appreciation for the term 'franglais.'(see pg 192) In high school, my french teacher always told us that we were speaking 'franglais' when we tried to invent french words that are derived from what we know in english in order to get our point across. However, in France in the 1960's, this change in language was even a threat to French nationalism; it was also a sign that the French were being seduced as franglais was accepted in advertisements and in colloquial speech.
   By the 1980's, what the Gallist government and socialists were fighting against was accepted as an infiltration into French culture. However, the so-called 'Americanization' is not all that it seemed; it was not a superpower forcing a country to become more like them. "Perhaps the most important cause for this gradual realignment--...--derives from the growing similarity of the two nations' socioeconomic orders."(225) Therefore, it was a conversion of the two nations' needs towards the end of the 20th century.
   I love what Kate said about America being 'the most loved, hated, and feared country all at the same time.' That is exactly right, both when the French were trying to avoid a seduction into Americanization, and now, when countries hate us because of their jealousies of our freedom. We are very envy-able. However, when attempting to protect their nationalism, countries must see that even in France, "often what appeared to be Americanized was still quite French." (232) Though maybe influenced by American culture and economics, countries are still their own. By the way, isn't America 'the melting pot' of the world?? As Dr. Benson has said from the beginning, countries are fascinated with each other and so are influenced by each other. It's not just Americanization, but Westernization, and even Globalization. We are all seduced by each other, while remaining our own.

While I was reading this book, I kept noticing the contrasting ideals of Americans during the 50s and 60s. During this time, America was gripped with fear of Communism but also had certainty that the French needed to learn about American economy and techniques. This is why I think the French leftists were so critical of American culture overtaking France. America was so scared of Communists and their ideals controlling their capitalistic economy that Senator McCarthy went on a witch-hunt to punish high officials that were suspected to hold Communist beliefs. The French were “frightened of seeing a growing shadow of gigantic idols fed by lies, terror, and denunciation” (52). Alongside these fears, America was asserting their economic and cultural influences on the French through the Marshall Plan and the missions where French businessmen would tour American factories. No wonder the French were so skeptical of American culture! How can America be so certain in this age of uncertainty and fear of the Soviets?

What also amazes me, as Kimberly and Molly have pointed out, is how the French changed their opinions on the infringing American culture; with a consumer economy booming in America, the French began to see the higher standard of living in cars, washing machines, and coca-cola. I think what began to soften the French opinion towards the United States was the French people overlooking the contradictory ideals of fear and certainty because of the cool new things they could have from America.
Also, I found it interesting how apparent the "white man's burden" was in America's thinking towards France. Even though America did not think of the French as a differnent or lower race, they saw the French economy has inferior. Americans felt that France desparately needed their type of economy in order to progress and survive in the world. I think this idealology is another reason that the French harbored some negative feelings towards the U.S. I would too if another younger country was looking down on my economy and my traditional culture and consumer interests.

Firstly I just want to say how cool it is when two of your classes relate to each other. What I mean is that while reading Seducing the French an article I read earlier in my Sociology class kept coming into my mind. The article is entitle 'The McDonaldization of Society" by George Ritzer. It is an account describing the culture of America and how it has changed to become increasing consumer related. How our culture is defined as finding the fastest and most efficient ways to participate in everyday activites. It details how the emergence of the fast food industry has many positive aspects, yet may also be seen as detrimental in individual lives by decreasing quality of food and time spent with family and friends. The fast food industry and other similar industries that define the culture of America, as mentioned by Kuisel, were ones that the French stubbornly fought against. They desired to acheive the economic stability of America without the so-called negative cultural aspects.

As postwar French so desperately looked around to other cultures to find some sort of identity and stability their outlook on America is interesting in its metamorphosis throughout time. One interesting outlook that strunk me was on page 190 where Bosquet, a French novelist and poet, describes an imagined American family in Chicago. "The Browns stayed at Holiday Inns and ate at Howard Johnson's so that their vacations held no surprises. . .They strove to please everyone and avoided introspective or philosophical conversation." What a way to view America?!?

Overall, as some of my classmates have alluded to, overall culture has become more of a culmination of what holds best in each situation. "The Americanization process...was more a change brought about by selection and adaptation" (232). And just as the French eventually saw some aspects of the American culture as beneficial to their own, so did the Americans view France. The book speaks of the "Frencification" of the American culture which can again be veiwed more as an adaptative response. On a more personal note, last summer when I traveled to Paris with my family this element of culture jumped out at me. There are McDonald restaurants on the street corners in France (pg. 187-figure 20), yet it is very obvious that the complex, reflective French culture is still dominant. Sitting on the street corners sipping wine and cappucinos while smoking cigarettes and talking of philosphy and books is a truly French concept. Yet, through the "Frenchification" of America we are seeing the emergence of French clothing, and coffee shops peak through the fast food restaurants. Culture, as described by Kuisel is shaped in many ways. And I think this book did a really great job of showing how the major historical events (like Dr. B continually reminds us of) have a vital part in shaping our everyday lives both politically and culturally.

I realize that I didn't really make the point I wanted to about conformity - it seems like we have studied this is almost every class (proletariat or bourgeois) or industrial struggle though we haven't stated so explicitly. The French don't want to be conformists in fear of losing their identity, yet they do end up adopting some American ways. How far do they have to go before it is considered conformity? We've talked about this idea in the movement of peoples (barbarian invasions), and in capitalism in the characteristics of the large companies that have the potential to control everything. The idea of conformity has good implications in movements such as the industrial revolution by the increase of productivity or increased communication. But when it comes to cultural ideals, conformity becomes a significantly more detrimental notion.

I found Seducing the French to be overly repetitive in its description of how Americans were too dark and dirty to be emulated. I felt like I kept re-reading the same points over and over again, however good of points they may have been. I find it extremely interesting how France's view of American people and their "culture" gradually improved over time. From the early 1940's when the slogan was "Yankees go home," to the 1980's when "France had become the most pro-American country in Western Europe" (212), there was definite improvement. The idea that is hardest for me to understand after reading the book, and looking back on some of the opposition to accepting Americanism is understanding how we could have been so hated when many French people lived in America at the time. Understandably, we aren't going to have a common culture, as many French annalysists and jounalists pointed out, but the mixture of all cultures should be someting worth being emulated, because it goes along the same lines as "the best of both worlds." Therefore, the "Americanization" that France and other countries were trying so desperately to escape from was part France, England, and any other country you can think of. It is a mix of all the theologies and ideas from so many; that is part of what makes it so great.
         I agree with Stephanie in saying that part of the reason for the conflict between the two countries has to do with the differences in each others idea of standard of living. However, I find problems with understanding how the French really had a different standard of living than the Americans. Throughout the book, emphasis is put on the idea that Americans stress "bigger and better." That they work for the betterment of themselves, and living in a bigger house and building bigger skyrises and making the most money. However, on page 101, it talks about how on one mission, the missionaries observed that the American system had "very simple tastes and habits in certain ways. Hot dogs and hamburger cost less than a cut of beef manicured by a French butcher. A Frenchman doesn't hesitate paying because it's his way of conceiving life." It seems to me that what was observed was Frenchmen spending a high amount on food simply because he could. That seems similar to builidng expensive buildings and more expensive houses, simply cause we can. I think that personally, a lot of what was being questioned by the anit-americans was really not a part of american ideals, but human ideals, and a lot of what was fought over was simply the idea of power of expansion and pride that ones own country is the best. In class we talk a lot about nationalism and what is stired up when nationalism occurs, and that is simply what cause the ani-americans to speak up in the events discussed in this book.

The book explains France’s way of holding on to its roots and at the same time Americanizing certain identities of smaller aspects. France had a, and possibly still does, a problem with the great wave of American influence. France’s strong feeling of nationalism is revealed through their unwillingness to be open to total Americanization. After much revolt against American persuasion, France finally succumbed to certain ways of America, yet at the same time maintaining a fine balance between defining aspects of France and adoption of American culture. However, I agree with Kuisel when he states that maybe all the hype over America smothering French culture was a little too much. Doesn’t every country influence others in some way?

Americans have no problem with taking cultural ideas from other countries to improve and strengthen our own culture. In fact we find it almost intriguing to add and embrace different things to our lives, such as, fashion in clothing and home designs. American clothing has been altered by influence from countries that are known for fashion. Also, many homes have taken on a new look by adding culture from other countries. The important thing to keep in mind is to maintain that fine balance between clinging to our own unique culture and adopting other things to refine it.

I, like many of my classmates, found Kuisel's book to be an intruiguing work. As I was reading, I found myself reflecting back on the freshman summer reading, Fast Food Nation. Especially in the chapter discussing the conflicts centered around Coca-Cola exports, I remembered the brief mentionings throughough Fast Food Nation of similar backlash toward what was perceived as an attempt to "Americanize" the rest of the world. As has also been mentioned, I was interested by the changes in opinion regarding American culture and politics throughout the work, such as the change in Jean-Paul Sartre. He had previously been "delighted with American vigor and the easy relations among social classes...[the] American devotion to freedom and human dignity...[and] how Americans reconciled conformity with individualism" (50). However, in 1952, Sartre's tune changed dramatically. He joined ranks with the PCF and became a vocal anti-American. He called for a quick isolation from the U.S., stating that "America has rabies! We must cut all ties with it or else we shall be bitten and infected next." Through reading about Sartre's change as well as many others, it is easy to see how America has ended up in it's present position.
It seems that we often find ourselves doing what we believe is right and for the good of everyone, and yet we stand alone in international opinion. As of yet in the Iraqi conflict, we have made our intentions clear, but have gained little support for our imminent actions from the rest of the U.N. Like Lauren, I also had a hard time coming to grips with the backlash against a culture that I know and love so well. I think many Americans experienced the same thing when we saw images of people celebrating the destruction of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on September 11. However, when one looks at it with a more objective mindset, in many cases it seems that other countries are justified in their resentment of both our government and our culture. What other country has assumed the right to waltz into any other country and dictate how its leaders should govern it? What other country exports its cultural 'advancements' onto others with such fervor? I'm not saying that many things in our culture today haven't been borrowed from other countries, but I'd be interested to find out if there was another country that had the same difficulties that the Coca-Cola company did in moving its enterprises overseas. What other country is as greatly loved, hated, and feared all at the same time? It is an interesting position we've made for ourselves. It is impossible to look back on history and not realize that many of the problems we face today are direct reactions to previous foreign relations and conflicts. At one point, Kuisel mentions the lack of response to "Americanism" by the middle eastern ethnicities and countries. I dont think that it is a coincidence that it is those same countries and peoples with whom we are currently at odds.

Kuisel's book Seducing the French definately shed much light on Franco-American relations during the twentieth century. First, both nations adamantly believed that their idea of culture and standard of living was superior to that of the other culutres. This especially led the United States to "champion" their way of living across Europe, which would later be viewed by the French as an act of neocolonialism. The United States in particular viewed their "high standard of living" based on the amount of consumer products in their home, and the ability to have the latest "it." This coincides with the resurgence of pop culture and modernity which we spoke of in class. However, the French viewed their cultural superiority in respect to intellect and art because of the immense history of France. They prided themselves and their nationalistic tendencies in their intellectual and enlightenment thinkers, as well as famous buildings such as the louvre museum and the cathedral of Notre Dame. As written by Kuisel, "Americans had a genius for the former (mass-produced goods) but not for the artistic--not for haute coutre or luxury textiles for example (114), which comprised a "cultured," France society.
This conflict in idea of culture brings about French claims of American conformity, which again relates to the concept of pop culture. I don't know the exact page number, but a quotation exists describing how Americans would buy the most convenient and cheapest, new product to keep up with the trends, whereas French persons would search for that luxury item that was more expensive, yet rare and precious. This illustrates a huge difference in the ideas of early French society.
Nevertheless, these differences in what is proper culture, does not mean that France does not want to bridge the technological gap between her country and the United States. Eventually, France would become more "Americanized," by adopting some of the consumer goods manufactured and produced within America. Like Jennifer posted, the opening of the Euro-Disneyland discussed towards the end of the book reveals that France does incorporate changes into its society which model that of an American standard of living. Also, I thought it was interesting how the opinion of America changed as French sociologists went to the US to study the "flower children" of the counter-revolution in the 1960s and found that America too had more to it than consumer goods---the desire of the youth to rebel against consumerism.

Edited by author 02-17-2003 01:44 AM
In Richard Kuisel's Seducing the French, he poses the question: "what did the French perceive was at risk if the American model crossed the Atlantic?" (231). This new order threatened the loss of "their Frenchness" (3). However, was it really America that was threatening to take it away or a "consumer society" (3)? They simply were afraid of change, not the spread of American ideals. "Americanization was more a change brought about by selection and adaptation" (232). So why then is this change referred to as "Americanization"? It was America that took over France's title as super power and with the new super power brought capitalistic change. France began to associate the two and therefore were oppossed to both. This association brought a hatred of all that was American, whether it was a change or not.
The French people thought that change would render them un-French. And it did, indeed, alter them. The "total household consumption grew 40 percent between 1950 and 1957, ahead of the annual growth of production, investment, and income" (104). The "opening of Euro Disneyland outside Paris in the spring of 1992" brought about a new kind of entertainment (227). They adopted the new "symbol of prosperity, [...] the automobile parked in the working man's driveway" (92). The were introduced to refrigerators, typewriters, televisions, and McDonald's. All of these changes obviously altered France's economic, social, and even political viewpoints and modes of operation. However, was this new change really the "Americanization of France" or the "'Frenchification' of America" (233)? I believe that they did not lose their French identity, but adapted the new ideas created in America to fit them. France became a new version of itself, but remained French all the same.

The French, as other nations, sought to create a national identity. The French, at times, did this by making themselves the opposite of Americans. Throughout the book, comparisons are made between Americans and the French. “Human beings versus technology (120)”, American pragmatism and moralism against French universalism(124)”. Eventually, some French people, in particular the missionaries, began appreciating things like America’s universities, museums, and technological proficiency. They also realized that some American techniques could not be wholly used in France because of cultural differences.
 I am amazed, as Molly was, by the sudden change in their ideas about the United States. The Cold War which led to events like the Cuban Missile Crisis, had the effect of lessening anti-American sentiments, at least for a short period of time. Writers, such as Domenach, began writing about “American open-mindedness (129).” Before this time American were more likely to be portrayed as mindless conformists. To some the “American popular culture was not ‘authentic’ (119).” Some even believed the American way of life was eclipsing the traditions of the common people. These ideas can be traced back to Romanticism and modern ideas about authenticity. I found the fact that even though groups of French people may have been opposed to the “Americanization” of France, they still saw the necessity of American protection. Even when de Gaulle wanted to go to the extreme of backing out of NATO, he wanted France to “still be sheltered by the American nuclear umbrella (139).”
 During the cold war, there were groups who wanted to remain neutral and not be drawn to either of the superpowers, the US or the Soviet Union. This seemed to be caused by the fact that they realized that if the superpowers went to war, the war might be fought in Western Europe and France did not want to become the battleground for a possible Third World War. They had been that for the first two World Wars. They also remembered “America’s tardy entry” into the first World Wars (137).

As Kuisel points out, the French anti-American sentiment has everything to do with culture. This is exemplified by the reaction in the idea of incorporating Coke into lives of the French and, as other class members have pointed out, the fear of becoming a “mass culture.” Though the end of the book says that the French have accepted and incorporated many aspects of American culture, it has done so “without a proportionate loss of identity. France remains France, and the French remain French (237).” Kuisel also says “we should expect continued rivalry (236).” As Sally pointed out, France struggle for identity is respectable and the nation is still foreign to us. But the reciprocal French fascination with America is what has incited and will continue to instigate much debate over the integration of the two cultures.
Switching from culture to economics, I also found the discussion of modernity interesting so far. I somewhat disagree with the others that have stated that the French were not forced to modernize. Yes, the consumers could choose whether or not they wanted to use American products, but during the 60’s, the French economy seemed to have little choice but to adopt and learn from the American ways of industry in order to “meet the American challenge.” Kuisel states, “…the need for modernization took precedence over fear of outside takeovers…Thus the way out was for the French to adopt American ways, for example, to import dollars, management techniques, and technology, as well as to foster mergers and homegrown research that would allow France to stay abreast of and maintain independence from the Atlantic colossus (183).”
The other two main issues I found throughout the book are capitalism and conformity. The ideas and representations of capitalism go along somewhat with the previous paragraph, but also in the beginning descriptions of anti-Americanism. Especially in the Coke debate, much objection comes from the Communists. They wanted a ban on coke “to protect domestic beverages from the unfair competition of the ‘American trust’ (60).” Traditional Marxist views are apparent in a global sense, as American industry is the Wal-Mart that will take over the world. Lastly, one of the things the French are concerned about American life is conformity. Albert Béguin, upon visiting wrote that “daily life impressed him as “an attack against my personal liberty” because of the repetitiveness of advertising, the banality of conversations, the sameness of life-styles, and the uniformity of the environment (116).” He proposed that because of the pressure to be “American” and conform that “America suffered from a “sort of dictatorship without a dictator” (116).” The next editor of Espirit, Jean-Marie Domenach supported this idea by saying that America “is possibly the most totalitarian in the world (116).” It will be a constant struggle for the French and other countries around the world to decide exactly how they feel about American industry and society and how they decide to incorporate certain aspects into their own cultures.

I thought Kuisel's book really helped put cultural conflict into a relavant representation for me. All term we have talked about varying cultural conflicts that have led to various conflicts and such, but it was hard to really relate to the struggle there. This book puts the conflict into terms that are linked to my own life, enabling me to get a sense of of what that must have been like. Obviously the cultural fusion between France and the U.S. is not quite like all of the European countries that share common borders, but it is still valid because of the new means of communications and transport that has arrisen over the last century.
Second, I thougt the reactions of the French people were very interesting. I definately understood why the French Communists and Catholics were immediately anti-U.S. culture. I mean, I would probably be too if India started pushing its cutoms on the U.S. for example. But it was interesting to note how, as time went on, the anti-U.S. French kept their nonconformist attitudes, but started molding to U.S. customs in practice. After that, I guess they just decided to give in and accept it in not so many words. It is just an interesting example of how some people hold these high platforms of beliefs and yet pick and choose which aspects they themselves choose to follow.
I also thought it was eye opening to see how things like Coke can drastically afect even whole cultures throught the use of mass media. No wonder Hitler was so successful for a while!

Edited by author 02-16-2003 10:40 PM
I found Kuisel’s Seducing the French to be rather ambivalent to the point of understanding the views of the French critics. Throughout the book, Kruisel talked about anti-Americanism and the skepticism behind America’s motives, especially during the 40s and 50s. America was ridiculed for saturating the French culture with American products, ideology, and politics. However, as much as America was scorned for being a “civilization of bathtubs and Frigidaires” (38), America was also looked upon as a society driven by productivity (sometimes this was viewed negatively). In comparison to the French, America was proved to be more efficient in its means of production. The missionaries of the Marshall Plan discovered that America had modified means of management and the structure of American firms. They described management as being “open.” It was asserted that “there was easy communication among supervisors and subordinates; information was freely transmitted up and down the managerial hierarchy and throughout the entire enterprise so that even the production worker was kept informed” (85). The mission reports even went so far as to criticize the French for being too centralized. Kuisel also showed how the idea of Americanization was viewed in two different ways. Raymond Aaron stated that it wasn’t necessarily a battle against Americanization but more against the “universalizing of phenomena linked to the development of material civilization” (114). Going along with Molly, others argued that Europeans could choose to use or not use American products.

As Kuisel proves, the Gaullist decade and first postwar decades were most critical and anti-American, however he addresses the real question of why the French are against Americanization. As he points out, resistance to Americanization spawns from insecurity in the French national identity. France takes great pride in their originality and cultural aspects of the society. Although the two cultures are not dissimilar, France was terrified of adopting “mass culture” which characterized the American way. Their struggle with preserving the national identity is respectable, but France should have focused on advocating French culture rather than trying to totally reject America and any idea that reflected the American way. By promoting and focusing on the French culture, America may not have been branded the scapegoat of the denationalization of France. Today, France remains a foreign nation to Americans. We pay thousands of dollars to travel the exotic streets of France, bask in its originality, and feel the strong cultural appeal that makes France the mysterious and colorful nation that it is today.

I think that Kuisel's book did a great job portraying the emotions of the French toward aspects of the US, even if many of us don't agree with their sentiments. When I was first reading the book, I was just struck with the overall negativity of the general French public toward our nation. Being American, it never occured to me that people could consider so many things wrong with a culture that I love. However, we as residents of the US really can't disagree too much for a few reasons. One, a lot of the things that the French point out are true in many cases. They accuse us of being nothing more than a society of producers and consumers (44), which I can see if I was looking in from an outsider's perspective. Our nation is much more industrialized and workaholic compared to other cultures, especially the French. Money is important to our society, not because we are greedy as Kuisel suggests some cultures think, but simply because it is a fundamental part of survival and advancement in our society.
I also got the impression that many people think our culture is intrusive and that we try to be controlling of others. That is a reason the French would have to fear us taking over their culture, even if they do have a choice whether or not to participate as Linda pointed out earlier. The US is such a superpower that it is very influential in foreign affairs, trading, and especially in trading cultures. I thought the discussion in the book about the Coca-Cola issue was hilarious; who would have ever thought a soft-drink could cause such a ruckus? I think this fear of our culture dominating all of society would be warranted for people from the generation of WWII, since they witnessed the Germans trying to do just that. Even though that was not what the US was shooting for, it would not be too out of line for the times in world politics.
I will admit that I would be the first one to come back in retaliation for things that were said about our culture in this book. However, I think there are reasons for the way the French felt, and they should be respected for their opinions. Our cultures are just based on different things, so of course we are not always going to agree with one another. And the US can make some pretty good generalizations about other cultures, as well. One quote from the book really stood out to me as a symbol that the French and Americans are just on two totally different levels; "The Yankee, more arrogant than the Nazi iconoclast, substitutes the machine for the poet, Coca-Cola for poetry, American advertising for La Legende des siecles, the mass-manfactured car for the genuis, the Ford for Victor Hugo!" (41). While I would not say that the things mentioned about the US in this quote completely sum up our society, they are things that I associate with my culture, and I don't see anything wrong with them! The French just have an entirely different outlook on life and what culture should be, and I found the interpretation of it in "Seducing the French" very interesting.

Edited by author 02-16-2003 10:17 PM
Similar to Molly's views, I too can "understand why they would be afraid of the arrogant, American colossus." I also have to give them credit for wanting to stay true to themselves. They have a very strong sense of nationalism, and many of the stereotypes attributed to Americans are not the most appealing. However, I have to question whether or not they took some of the issues too far. I understand not wanting to be materialized or greedy, and adopting such things that may or may not affect your country's culture, but it seems that some controversial products were just a waste of breath to argue over: panty hose, coke. Many people felt Coke "threatened French sensibilities" (63). But, if France is a country that is culturally rich, and prides themselves in doing so, then I don't think they are going to lose all sense of identity.
   Another interesting point I found in the book was that some French people felt they "owed it to the Americans" to be "modernized", since "America is the original version of modernity" (223). The Americans had been supportive and helped win 2 World Wars, and in return, the French felt they should adopt a new culture. I think that logic is a bit funny. I know it was not the basis for embracing the new products, and I know Kuisel mentioned many other reasons, but I thought this one was a bit off key and interesting nonetheless.

Along the same lines as kaylan's first posting, I as well just watched the movie. It is true, agreeing with Kaylan, that we found the movie to be quite hilarious, especially with the assumingly fake backgrounds. (My favorite was when the family would be sitting around a table in their house, but the background would be as if they were ridin in a car and passing through a town. I thought that the movie on the whole was a good representation of what if would be in the post-nazi era. The way the mother always coommented on how she didn't want her kids to assosciate with the socialist children is the idea that there would still be people in towns who had been part of the nazi success is probably how it was.
The way that sonja investigated her town during the riegn of the nazi reminded me of how I always felt about investigating the ocean. Whenever i go to the ocean to swim, i want desperately to be able to put on a pair of goggles, and explore what lies beneath the surface, to find out what i am really swimming amongst. The thing that stops me, is knowing that if i relaly found out what was down there, if i knew what i was swimming with, i would leave that water so quickly, because i know i would find some gross stuff. However, i would miss out on all the fun that the ocean provides for me. That is kind of how i felt about Sonja and her endeavers to search for the truth about certain people in her town. Once she found out what she was swimming with, she no longer wanted to swim.

Kuisel enables us to realize the modernization of France and the conservation of culture in France despite the ‘Americanized’ ways. From an economic standpoint, Seducing the French points out the great benefits of trade within the economy. Because France was on the verge of new technological advances, the consumers were awestruck by new inventions. The French market took advantage of trade and the essential modernization began to increase with the advertisement of American products. The economy opened a new door for politics. The concern now for both countries leaned more towards economic growth. Therefore, national identity was lost in the race for the pleasing of consumers. Consumers fed off their curiosity and their attraction to different cultures.

France had a difficult time pleasing the economy without trade, especially while they insisted on preserving many aspects of their culture. “In order to meet the American challenge France had to compete with the United States in all the essential areas of technology and science” (207). Kuisel reminds us that although France had concern for their own identity, the economy and modernization also had to succeed. For these reasons, the exchange of French and American culture became prominent. I agree with Linda in stating that the book shows us the importance of cultural circulation. Although both countries have mingled with the other identity, Kuisel also displays the honors in which each country holds: “Americans like to think they stand for elevating humankind by advancing freedom and prosperity. The French feel culturally superior and destined to enlighten the globe” (236). In each case, the world heavily relies on the two impacts. Although critics may argue that the countries should have refrained from such cultural circulation, the world as a whole gains much more from the contributions of both America and France to this day. Therefore, economically, the modernization has left the world with a greater advantage.

Richard Kuisel’s Seducing the French gives readers an interesting view of the French and American cultural relationship through the Twentieth Century. Several points caught my attention. First, although there are still examples of French anti-Americanism present to this very day, I was truly surprised that the French quickly changed their stance on the United States starting around the 1960’s. Initially, the book presented the anti-American opinions being a strong part of the culture it seemed as if the pervasive attitude in the conclusion of the book would still be somewhat anti-American. Obviously, from the last chapter, this was not the case. Even claims of “anti-American” sentiment were diminished by the fact that the French have adopted so many things commonly attributed to the United States. I found it amusing that Parisian high school students were manifestly anti-American, but “…were deeply impregnated with American values and attitudes, including their films and clothes, attitudes toward family traditions, and their vocabulary” (218). I also found it interesting that the French were able to accept their status as a lesser power in the global scheme (226) after their emphasis on national pride throughout the book.

Second, I think that it is completely understandable that the French were afraid of the threat to their culture and way of life. While I do completely agree with Linda in that the French did not have to accept any of the products that were introduced to them and “no one was forcing the French to modernize” (206), I can understand why they would be afraid of the arrogant, American colossus. The various attributes attributed to America throughout this book (racism, greed, materialism, conformity, etc.) are very valid concerns and can still be seen today in our present society. I think that the United Sates can be seen as a wasteful, business driven society in comparison to other nations (think about the anti-SUV arguments mentioned in class) and it is understandable the worry and disdain for American things that the French would feel.

This posting is the assignment from Friday. I just finished watching the movie yesterday, but everyone knows that you aren't suppose to do homework on Saturday. Personally, I found the movie entertaining. Not only did I laugh at almost every scene from the childern running back to their chairs during school to Sonja pushing over the baby carraige as a child to the worship tree - what was that? I even screamed out in horror as Dr. Benson told us we would, but that was only because while watching we noticed that Sonja probably hadn't shaved her legs in 20 years.

The movie portrayed how one person can make such a serious impact on history. It seems scary that we might not know the actual truth about different historical events. The movie put this idea into my head. Think about how much faith we put into the stories we hear. We trust that they are correct and we base our future actions on what we believe to be the truth. Sonja had to go to lengths to recover what should have been revealed in the first place- the truth.

I think that Sonja must have become cynical as a result of this process. One of my favorite parts in the movie was the unveiling of the bust. Sonja expressed her anger towards them, saying that she knows they just want her to keep her mouth shut. During her rampage one woman shouted out that Sonja was ungrateful. Ungrateful? Why should she be grateful? She battled society and hurt her family in more than one way in order to benefit society. Sonja was isolated and towards the end of the movie found it extremely difficult to trust anyone.

As this term approaches its end, I found it interesting that Disneyland (this time, Euro-Disney) appears again. At the beginning of our course, we discussed how much of the "magic of Disney" is based on European folk tales. In the case of Cinderella, the castle is modeled after a European castle and a fairy tale that was recorded by the brothers Grimm as a specifically German folk tale. Kuisel echoes this point when he quotes Jean-Francois Ravel as pointing out that "...culture always circulates and. in the case of Euro Disneyland, California was merely repackaging for Europeans such European stories as Cinderella and Pinocchio" (229.)

I think the point about culture circulating is important. Seducing the French describes several cycles of cross-culturalization, especially from America to France. French critics mount protests but in the end, they mostly accept the American culture. One of the points that was important to me was that just because something American exists in France, that doesn't mean every French person has to consume it. Just as I can choose whether or not to drink Coke, or French wine for that matter, a French citizen is not being force-fed anything. I realize that advertising has significant impact, but I think people should be trusted to make their own choices about what they consume.

The two priests that were involved in the Naziite persecution of the Jews certainly changed their tune once the Nazis were no longer in power. One of them threatened to make Sonya's life a living hell if she spread the truth about his involvement. The graffiti on the wall in the beginning, "Where were you from '39 to '45" is taken with special poignance by people like him. When the Nazis were the dominant power, it was okay and even expected to act the way they did. But, when the Nazi phenomenon suddenly became outrageous and not mainstream at all, the men were forced to hide and keep secret the things for which they had once been so proud and convicted of. Paradigms doth shift, I guess, and the priests were left behind, trying to pretend to be authentic members of the new world that was the direct counterpoint to the defeated old order.

One scene from the movie that I found particularly interesting and moving was when the townspeople begin to treat Sonya kindly again and applaud her research of the past. At first I was confused that the town would change their opinions so quickly on the matter, but when Sonya uncovered her bust and started to curse at the crowd, I understood the people's tactic of hushing her up by being nice. It is amazing what people will do to cover up a mistake; obviously the people involved in the crime were desparate to hide their secrets, through violence and acceptance.

I agree with Lauren's interpretations of the symbolism of the traveling room. However, I have a different interpretation to add myself. This may be a little bit of a stretch so bear with me! In times of revolution or upset, the community will join together and (as we have heard so often) "take to the streets." While Sonya and her family are going through the many documents, uncovering the past of the town, they are floating through the streets of that very same town. This reminds me of the revolutionaries who "take to the streets," demanding the truth. It also symbolizes that they, too, are a part of that town, and even though most of the community is against them, they represent the true memembers of Pfilzig. This sort of reminded me a little of the French Revolution when the revolutionaries that "took to the streets" had to be "true" revolutionaries. Sonya and her family were the only true members of the community because they were interested in the real Pfilzig. That is just one interpretation. I really like Lauren's view that the floating couch is a symbol of their vulnerablility to the community.
Also, the backdrops behind the people she interviews are to remind the viewer that all these people are from this town; they are grouped together. It emphasizes that they belong to this town, under emphasizing their indiviual roles/job.

The symbolism throughout the movie was of great interest to me. One interesting scene was when Sonya and Martin are on the cruise. The first few times, the sun behind them is bright red, symbolizing the passion between the two lovers. However, after Martin decides that he is returning to Munich, the scene flashes again, but the sun is fading, reflecting the end of their relationship. Several people have commented on the symbolism of the statues. Was it significant that the finished bust of Sonya, at least to me, didn’t resemble her at all? The town’s decision to create a statue of her symbolizes the town’s desire to put her into the town’s history and keep her from digging any further. The film used many shifts in time and location to represent the challenges Sonya faced in her research. One image that returns again and again is a shot of her whistling. In doing this, Michael Verhoeven is reminding us of Sonya’s hope and innocence throughout the project. A final, integral symbol is the Tree of Mercy. Throughout the course of her life, Sonya returns to it time and time again as a refuge. It is obvious that she believes in its power, and feels very safe there. It is even here that she becomes engaged. While the town obviously had many dark and shameful secret locked within its past, it is refreshing to see that they also had a place of reverence and redemption.

I agree with Addie in saying that Sonya made a good decision to find out the truth about Pfilzig (sorry if I spelled it wrong). I really enjoyed the movie, although the ending was oddly unsettling because Sonya remained to tackle her search for truth alone, abandoned by her town. However, it was encouraging because she is going to stand by her principles and continue her quest for the truth. She definately embodies the importance of studying history, even though we joked about it in class the other day over why study this stuff if it is uncertain.
The movie also reminded me in some ways of La Historia Oficial, which we watched in my Spanish class last term. I was really struck by the measures that the government officials and ordinary people took in order to hide the archives. Alicia, the main character in La Historia Oficial also sought to find out truth like Sonya, and like Sonya, acts of terrorism occurred and her marital relationship suffered. Yet, these women continued to find out the truth. I have a huge admiration for people like those characters.
Finally, to add with Lauren who commented on the symbolism of the trees, I believe that the one tree that the girls went to to pray and ask for things in the beginning was also reputed to be a site for the gallows. It's intersting therefore, that the girls, especially, Sonya, turn to the tree for refuge.

I just wanted to let my group know that I haven't seen the movie yet. So, do not be discouraged! I'll get my posting up ASAP.

Throughout the movie, I was especially struck by the recurring hypocracy and denial from the townspeople. The message written in graffiti on the wall at the very beginning said "Where were you from '39 to '45?" sums this up by reminding everyone of a time they would rather forget. Sonya's struggle to find the truth was terribly difficult, only because no one was willing to admit their involvement. While the priests who were instrumental in the execution of the Jewish underwear-seller clearly had a reason to keep quiet about their wrongdoings, others in the town did not. I find it hard to believe that in a whole city full of people, Sonya could not find a single one that would tell her about life during the Third Reich. In answering the question that Dr. Benson posed before the movie, I do believe that Sonya did the right thing in delving into history and later exposing the truths that she discovered. She understood that she had a right as a citizen of the town to know about its history, and she did whatever it took to spread the knowledge to other less-informed people. One important reason for studying history is to help make decisions for the future. By making public the atrocities that occurred during World War II, Sonya could be preventing a similar event that would have happened in years to come.

Edited by author 02-13-2003 11:09 PM
I thought that Kurtis made some really good points about the movie. I agree that the main symbolism in the statues is related to her freedom. But I also noticed symbolism of just the opposite in other parts of the movie. At the beginning and in another scene, she is standing under at outstretched hand of a larger statue. I think this represents that there were many powers above her - first her parents, then her teachers at school, the government, and finally the whole city. The bust that was commissioned at the end was also a symbolic statue because to those who were presenting it, it was representing intelligence and hard work but to Sonya, it was a trick. This could be symbolic of the issue of trust that was reiterated throughout the film. She is skeptical from the beginning, since she can’t get much out of anyone, which leads her on a search to find reliable information that she can trust. It is also hard for her to trust others since they do not offer her much and are willing to withhold information. (The fact that some people were hard to talk to is representative of the previously mentioned "brain-washing" of the German people under Hitler)
The couch floating in the street not only represented their vulnerability, but I think it also represented the fact that the world was still going on around them while their were in a midst of a personal crisis. It also could represent the scale to which she is being condemned (think of the angry messages), in that many in the community become involved. I also found trees to be recurring symbols. Not only the tree at which she prayed and sought her refuge at the end, but also the building of a tree house. Perhaps this symbolizes that she feels very isolated and unaided in her search for the truth.

Since Dr. B mentioned the statues before we started watching "The Nasty Girl" (and because I?m an art major!) they really stood out to me in terms of symbolism. I found Kurt's ideas very interesting so I'll share mine (which are different, but I do not think they are mutually exclusive.) The movie begins with a statue rotating behind her, and then they show up again after she wins her essay prize and travels to Paris. The ones she starts photographing are not exactly classical in style, but they definitely evoke high culture. Then what jumps out is when she takes pictures of the wedding mannequins as though they are artistic equivalents. Not only does this remind me of the consumer mentality we are talking about in class - mass production and all that. But it also seems to be saying that things are not what you think. Also, it seems like the statues could represent her pealing away the layers of history. I am definitely still grappling with this ? what do you guys think?

Has anyone seen the French movie Amelie? This movie, and especially the heroine, made me think of that one.

The movie was excellent, I liked it apart from the fact that it had some of the classic German style that I typically don't care for. The whole symbol of nudity in the statue the freedom that she aspired for and finally attains after her suit is dropped contrasting against the psychological imprisonment she enforces upon herself I felt to be nicely done. The couch floatin' along in the middle of the street I saw as the utter vulnerability that her family was suffering at the time, while the view overlooking the seminary (?) serving as the backdrop whenever Sonya is interviewing someone concerning the town's past gave a feeling of both confrontation with a higher power (being the town's collective past) and also as a reminder of the wide-scale import of her line of questioning.

I enjoyed the movie, although it was weird (the couch riding through town square, the unusual backgrounds in the archivist's office). I do have one question: Who was Father Schulte, why was he so revered, and what was the big mystery about him? The rest of the movie made decent sense to me, but I never got conclusion on that part of the story. Was he related to the 100 underpants event?

The "Nasty Girl" was a bizzare yet somewhat thought-provoking piece. The fire for her essay is an alterior motive than what she finishes with in the end of the story. Irony is vividly displayed as the sets out to show how the church remained strong through the Holocaust; however, she soon stumbles on a past which she becomes addicted to uncovering. Another interesting aspect was the denial of the accused. Juckenack had built up such a wall around him that he felt like he was innocent again. Father Brummel had taken a vowel to never speak of the incident. Racist and Nazi actions were kept hidden after the war, so much so that only innocent one was basically declared a heretic to the dirt she dug up. The Germans are obviously proud of their past, and many are not willy to admit they participated in it, whatever the costs.

The fact that the ideas that we discussed in class did not seem relavent until after the war makes sense. These ideas were a way of rationalizing human nature, government, ect. after the world had been faced with war. Each new movement seems to build upon each other. Modernity and modernism are not the exeption. Authenticity, simplicity, and fascination with nature were prevalent in Romanticism. People just began thinking about them in different ways. Ways that fit with their post-war mentality. I agree with Leah that these ideas that surfaced or seemed more credible after WWI were crucial to the second World War.

I, like Molly, find Hitler's influence in WWII amazing. How can one man single-handedly start a conflict that puts the entire world against each other? And where does he get off thinking that Germany can control everything and everyone around it? Dr. Benson mentioned, in the discussions before we talked about WWI, that the general mentality of the world had changed to "Our country is better than everyone else's and we're smarter than everyone else". I think that mentality, along with the German general outrage at the concessions they had to make after WWI were very influential to Hitler's already psychopathic tendancies. After reading about both the world wars, I found it interesting that major leaders of Germany (Bismarck, under William I, and Hitler) were the main instigators of war. Bismarck and Hitler both used manipulation of tactics to try and spread their empire, and I think we can see a lot of similarities between their goals for a powerful, united, world-reknown Germany.

The one thing about WWII that has always fascinated and appalled me is the Holocaust. Like many Americans, because I live around such a diverse group of people I can't imagine singling one group out and trying to completely exterminate them! This is racism to the utmost extreme. But while most people focus on the German annihilation of the Jews, the US was using the same tactics on a MUCH lower level. Putting Japanese-American citizens in camps away from the west coast seems very harsh to me, especially because German or Italian Americans were not treated in the same way. And while the US was doing this to "protect itself from spies", which could seem rational to some people, the amount of racism and general nonchalance toward life at this point of every country amazes me. Between the Holocaust, military deaths, and bombing of innocent citizens, the world seemed to become a lot more callous during WWII.

Though many have posted on the reading concerning the rise of the Second World War, I, like Christina, would like to comment first on some of the interesting concepts that Dr. Benson spoke of concerning the aftermath of WWI and especially modernism. The background of modernism and modernity that even came from before WWI is crucial to post-WWI culture and mindset as well as into the buildup of WWII. I have studied at some point or another most of these factors( ie Darwinism, Marxism, music/art of the time), but what mas most fascinating to me was the new psychology and the role it played into WWII. Freud's thories that humans are not rational and that civilization drives to psychosis make a lot of sense; countries trying to hard to be 'civilized' and ally with other world powers to keep their own countries safe and 'civilized' drove a small fight between the small countries of Austria/Hungary and Serbia turn into a massive World War. More so involved obiously in WWII tactics and theories is Watson. Saying that humans are motivated by stimuli and responses works very well for Hitler's career and own 'reign of terror' you might say. Experiments are performed, many of which are very successful and allow this dictator to lure the people of his country to follow instructions for genocide of the Aryans. How interesting it is to look at events of the West, all throughout this course, and see how much psychology and state of mind can influence people to change the state of the world.

Sally, Shannon, and others have made very valid points about the vulnerability of the human mind after such a horrifying event as World War I. Numerous example abound throughout western civilization that exemplify this very fact (consider the various revolutions, governmental changes, monarchies, republics, emperors we have seen). It is undeniable that the Germans and the defeated nations of the war were merely looking for a way to create some sense of order and stability in their nation now in social, political, and economic ruin. However, it is also amazing the way in which history repeats itself. Although western societies had not seen a totalitarian leader such as Hitler, situations such as this had happened before. Perhaps we should consider this as even to this day we are on the brink of war with Iraq and the Middle East.

One interesting thing that I noticed in the text was the picture seen on page 543 showing the mass crowds of Germans at a Nazi rally in 1937. I think that it is amazing the sheer number of people that Hitler could attract. When one thinks of Nazis, they probably think of the racist men in uniforms surrounding Hitler and doing his bidding. However, in the front row of the picture grabbing for their leader with their arms raised are lots of common older women and ordinary men. I think that this picture is fascinating for showing Hitler’s power and the people who were truly effected by his work.

Elaborating on the discussions about totalitarianism, I agree with Erin and Heather in that Hitler rose to power when Germany was in need of stability. It seems as though the people were looking for someone- a leader- to bring them out of the dismal state bounding them. Because the people needed an ambitious figure to secure Germany’s economic and political status, it is possible that we can consider Thomas Carlyle’s “Great Man theory” to this equation. Hitler was a genius in the sense that he was driven, politically motivated, and cleverly manipulative. The Germans were in need of someone this motivated. However, if Hitler had not risen to power, would there have been another extremist of his caliber to rise to power? Hitler may have been a psychopath, blinded by his own racist issues and obsession with the Aryan racial state, but would there have been someone else to rise to occasion if he had not? Every time I read about Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin, I always am reminded of George Orwell’s 1984. Because it was published in 1949, during the rise of totalitarianism, it proved to be a futuristic look into how the world would be if totalitarianism had succeeded. The Brotherhood had its own secret police and spies for the repression of traitors, just as Hitler had established the SS as a secret police authority. The novel is frightening and really makes you think about the consequences of where power can lead. Just as a side note, I would like to say that I am placing Saddam Hussein on the “I’m a psychopathic leader and want everyone to die but me” list with all the other psychosomatic leaders history has been so graciously blessed with (as if we didn't know that one was coming).

As a side note, I thought Cardiff was supposed to post before class today (2/12), so my post for 2/13 is below, a bit early. Sorry about that.

I would like to comment on what was said in class today about Nash's painting, "We Are Creating a New World". Many people chose to focus on the drab colors and the bleakness that the appearance of the trenches brought to the picture. While the color choices were anything but vibrant for this section of the painting, they do not seem over exaggerated. I assume that the atmosphere of the trenches truly did appear overcast much of the time. However, what caught my eye about the painting was the presence of the rising sun. These colors were bold and alive. I found the orange in this portion to indeed be incredibly embellished. I feel as though the artist wished for this to be the main focal point of the painting. It seems as if Nash is trying, though color, to prove to the audience that while the days of war were unbearably miserable, the world is now faced with a new day. With this new day will come a sense of renewed hope for the future, as well as the importance of remembering the past.

Today's presentation on Modernism can be found at (http://history.furman.edu/~benson/hst11/show/wc5.htm)

The music is as follows:

Stravinsky, Rite of Spring (1913)

Charles Ives "The Alcotts" -- from the Concord Sonatas (1920s)

Jelly Roll Morton, "The Jungle Blues" (1927)

Django Reinhardt and Stephane Grappelly
   Night and Day (Cole Porter), 1938
   Don't Worry 'Bout Me, 1939

Edited by author 02-12-2003 11:38 AM
Okay, this is my second time posting this message- it just got erased so lets hope I can remember it all...I want to continue on with this discussion of why Hitlor had so much more "success"(though I'm hesitant to use that word). Its essentialy the question Dr. B has been asking us all term- why here and why now? People and major events are so often a product of their times. As Erin said, we've seen two major exmaples of this in the people of Cromwell and Napoleon. Events don't happen just because someone had a new idea, but they happen because they're building on history. Hitlor is no different. Germany was in a devestating depression and was seeking someone who could bring them out of it- Hitlor made himself this person and won their support. Also, Hitlor used the youth, an idea that was not new, the youth showed their power in the 1848 revolutions, but a group that was not often given enough credit. Hitlor, like Louis XIV, gave power to a group that otherwise would not have as much power knowing that they would then be his support- Loius did it by giving the upper-bourgeoius titles and job near Versaille. He had their support, and Hitlor gained the support of the youth in Germany! Also I'd say their is also the role of "group menatality- once a few began to follow, so did others. Also Hitlor put emphasis on the armed forces and as comes with the armed forces, there is an element of submission to authority. In the post-war trials of many Nazi soilders they asked why?, why kill so many innocent Jews? There answer: Because we were told to do so. These soldiers were not monsters, they weren't created without emotions or souls- they were human! As I've mentioned before in another posting(/m192)- a famous study, the Milgrim study, was done after WWII which showed the huge impact of authority on people's behavior! Hitlor was "sucessful" because he used his intellect and charisma in a time when German was seeking answers and willing to accept anything that could bring them out of their present depression.

Never was there a more manipulative and overconfident man than Hitler. However, it seems that these traits were the reason for his rise to power. After a few devastating years, the people of Germany needed stability. Hitler made many promises as to the changes he would make. The people were desperate for a better life and followed Hitler without questioning him. Although he did improve the economy, Hitler made more promises than he had intended to keep. He was leading for his own selfish reasons, to make Germany an Aryan state and spread this prejudice to other states. As someone said earlier in the course about the study done on students where they did exactly as they were told, even when their actions (supposedly) hurt someone else, people tend to do as they are told by an authority figure. They assume the person is more qualified and therefore should not be questioned or doubted. This study was summarized in Down to Earth Sociology by James Henslin as "If Hitler Asked You to Electrocute a Stranger, Would You? Probably." Hitler knew this, as Sara's quote shows, "what luck for rulers that men do not think." This is a scary realization. It applies to all aspects of society, especially when an enormous amount of power is involved. This is why it is so important to question our national rulers instead of just following their lead. We need to come to our own conclusions as individuals; we need to become enlightened. Hitler, like many other powerful leaders of the past, had the intelligence to get where he wanted, but his intentions were not sincere.

It is a common trend throughout history, and i never really noticed it until recently through taking this class: the creation of a new, powerful leader, when a country is in times of turmoil. We saw it with napolean and cromwell, and in this chapter we see it with Mussolini and Hitler. As shannon suggested, these leaders were able to "take advantage" of their people because of their need for any type of control over their country, any change from the hardships they had previously encountered. When any leader steps up, no matter how radical the ideas, the people will follow cause it is a change and there is hope for a lifestyle improvement.
I found it intersting that both parties, Hitlers nazis and Mussolini's fascists aimed most of their propaganda towards the youth of their countries. Such passages as"the regime relied more and more on the activities of Fascist youth organizations, known as young fascists, to indoctrinate the young people of the nation to fascist ideals,(539)" and " Nazi movement was a "young man's movement" (541)" show that these parties believed that if they could influence the kids, those kids would grow up to be supportive adults. Also, they probably understood that kids would be easily persuaded with images of a "more wonderful" or "more exciting" country under either of those leaders.

I agree with Shannon's statement about the necessity of looking back on the causes for such events as Hitler's Nazi regime as we face a war with Iraq and continue the War on Terrorism. To answer Mike's question about Hilter vs. Mussolini, I would say that a lot of it has to do with the condition of Germany and its economy after WWI, as has been discussed already. Italy, although similarly a newly unified state, was not victimized in the Versailles Treaty. The reparations wrecked havoc on the German economy and the other provisions left many Germans feeling bitter and eager for revenge toward the European powers. Mussolini didn't really have the vengefulness of the people to play on, and therefore had a harder time convincing his people to go along with his schemes.

From last night’s reading, I kept on thinking about how fragile and susceptible the human mind is after a devastating experience like World War I. The totalitarian governments (Italy and Germany) took advantage of their people because these people who were so shocked by the violence and uncertainty of the war that they turned to the first form of government that appeared to be stable. After the Great Depression and the “runaway inflation” in Germany, the people accepted the Nazis, and I agree with Mike that these leaders used their extreme nationalism to bind the people to them. Why else would these people accept the ridiculous claims of Hitler, who was obviously taking advantage of them for the “achievement of the regime’s goal” (538)? This is an important observation to remember as our country is nearing a possible war; of course we will not accept a dictatorship, but we could possibly accept policies for other countries that we would not normally consider. How much will the devastation of the terrorist attacks effect our country’s decisions? And how much more did the devastation of WWI, which took so many more lives,effect England, France, and Germany? Even through our anger and bitterness for the terrorists, which is justified, we still need to make choices that will not negatively effect the future.

I found the textbook discussion on Hitler particularly fascinating and while looking for additional information on the internet I ran across some of his quotes that I think colorfully display a few of his mindsets and perhaps why his Nazi Germany experienced more 'success' than Muzollini's fascist Italy. The fact that Hitler knew "strength lies not in defense but in attack" is exemplified by his timing and angle. Most notable is the weakness of Germany by the extreme hit it received from the Great Depression. The German people had been shaken up and were desperate for a leader who could take the mess of Germany and make it powerful once again. A second qote by Hitler is, "what luck for rulers that men do not think." When I first read this it jumped out at me as a clear example of Hitler's mindset and his 'brainwashing' of the German people in the midst of their turmoil. Perhaps because of the economic disaster of the depression or because of Hitler's skills at orating that allowed him to become the successful Nazi he set out to be. The fact that his tactics circled around using the chaotic masses to further solidify his purposes and the state of the German people probably allowed him his greater taste at success than Muzolinni.

Edited by author 02-12-2003 02:26 AM
Brent's comment (/m326) on the exclusion of the Germans at the Treaty of Versailles raises a huge problem. I would argue that not only did the victors exclude Germany from the process, they 1) kicked Germany while it was already down and 2) pretended (according to Dr. Benson's lectures) that Germany could easily obtain changes to the requirements of the Treaty of Versailles, just by asking. However, after having to assume full guilt for causing the Great War, the idea that Germans would have to grovel even more in order to regain any powers is horribly degrading. No wonder totalitarian and fascist leaders in Germany and Russia were able to play off the nationalism card! For example, if France were to badmouth the US and require that our country grovel to them, of course we would band together when the opportunity arose to put down France in return.

As insecurity continued after WW1, opportunities arose for new governments to be created. Two major dictatorships which were similar in image but very different in success were those of Mussolini and of Hitler. According to the textbook: both played the nationalism card, both used "instruments of repression," both used propaganda, and both had many youth organizations and women's groups designed to foster regimist support. My question would be: If these two governments seem so similar in goal and in method, why was Hitler so much more "successful" (if that's the word we want to use) than Mussolini?

To go along with the paintings discussion, I think the works of Picasso and Duchamp exemplify the way the people of this time are thinking. I think the paintings reveal a sense of discontinuity and lack of symmetry. This entails that the people don't have a strong sense of nationality and that they are ashamed to reveal their real faces because of it. Like Robert mentioned, the faces of the individuals are real vague and general. There isn't a lot of detail to anything. But this might be telling people that there is no need to bask on oneself's beauty. It is saying, "Look at us and what we are going through." The painters are directing attention to some other concept in the painting. I believe that concept is a visual metaphor of the time at hand.

And to mix it up a little. I want to comment on today's discussion in class. The fact that the Versailles Settlement didn't invite any Germans just plain out puzzled me. Do you really think that people from other countries know what the innocent people of Germany want? I just don't think that the people involved in this settlement acted justly to this cause. For everything to work out in the end, there has to be common ground between one another. Right??

I think Riley definately sees things in a good perspective. The famous case is the silent concert, I forget the actual name, but it was a specific duration of maybe over three hundred seconds where the pianist would enter the stage and then sit at the piano for the given length of time. The concert was not the pianist playing, but the audience's reaction to his silence, which of course was never the same twice.

The same could be held true for many of the paintings that you've seen. It is possible that in some, there is no "deeper meaning" that could be gained through extensive meditation. There is only the viewer's reaction to a given stimulus--and in some cases, that is true art.

To go along with the themes everyone else poting today seems to be working on, I think it is interesting to think about what these painting and writings would have stirred up in the 1600s or 1700s. These people would have been labeled heretics and burned or excommunicated! It is amazing how society changes and what it deems as acceptable changes as well. The paintings of Picasso and Duchamp portray humans in ways that are not as defined as in previous genres. This is possibly an allusion to the uncertainty many people felt at that time towards religion and politics. Breuer and Corbusier also give different perceptions of everyday objects, indicating that Westerners' worldview was also changing. The writings of T.S. Elliot also give us another view. They seem to be a little darker than the literature people had been previously used to. A real sense of uncertainty and almost disdain radiate from this work. People are definately changing, and it is pretty cool to watch.

Each painting requires deep interpretation in order to understand. Because of this, paintings like Kadinsky's and Duchamp's confuse me a bit. Picasso's is a bit more straight forward, and has concrete figures to be identified. The use of abstract and seemingly random geometric figures in the other painter's works has a deeper meaning than I can comprehend. This could be due to my lack of appreciation for true beauty in artwork. However, I think part of the beauty of it rests in how difficult it is to understand, and how deep one must look to get a grip on what the artist was seeing and thinking. I do agree with Erin in that the desire to be different has brought a lot of artists into a category labeled "different", so actually end up being alike in some way.

I agree with Sam that each piece of artwork is "exaggerated using sharp lines." I also feel that each painting and structure uses very presise, rigid geometric shapes to develop the desired, abstract look. Each of these artists and architectures uses their own sense of color and fine lines to create their unique image, but the irony of this desire to be different, is that it has now become a form of art in itself. Though I am not really a fan of modern art and architecture, I respect each of the artists works, simply because it is what they felt at that time, and is a "display of their emotions (Kaylan)."

Each piece of artwork is disproportional to its true nature. By exaggerating features and using sharp lines, the Picasso and Duchamp make the paintings more dramatic. They show you their point of view, not just what they’re painting. By using sharp, contrasting colors Kadinsky makes it impossible not to look at his painting. He forces you to interpret his painting because it isn’t apparent what the painting is/means. The chair by Breuer and the chapel and home by Corbusier are a marriage of form and function. The buildings are far from the Victorian style houses and the gothic style churches prevalent until this time. All these forms of art are meant to be unique and show the world through a different viewpoint.

For some reason I thought I was supposed to post tonight instead of last night but I was wrong! So here is my posting for yesterday - hope it is not too late, and it is not disrupting the flow of things.
Nationalism emerged very rapidly and firmly towards the end of the nineteenth century. The consequences of this new development were numerous and very influential in the start of World War I. It lead to rivalry between the European states; it lead certain ethnic groups to want (and demand) a country of their own. Nationalism can be a very useful tool when it brings the people of a country together, supplying unity. However, too much nationalistic thought within a group can prove to be fatal. This will come into play later with the rise of Hitler. He believed that the Germans were the best in everything that they did - no matter what it was. He went so far as to say that they were the superior race. The nationalism Germany had been striving for was achieved and then some, resulting in the most infamous dictatorship in modern history.

It is clear when looking at each piece of artwork that the artists begin to exaggerate their shapes. While one work portrays various shapes in extreme colors, another displays the rigid shapes of a building. From chaos to order, the artists display their emotions. However, there seems to be no middle ground. I agree with Corey's statement about stressing the simplicities of the works. Although the artist uses complex tools to create the work, the key to understanding is the simple messege.

Although I agree with Lauren that the national idenity is not always better or worse for a country, I do think that there are factors which hinder a country's national idenity. Particularly in the sense of forming new nations, or nations which have many different cultures and ethnicities in them...what defines the national identity? The people don't really have anything in common except that they are a nation. However, in some countries, the national idenity incorporates people of relatively similar ethnicities and cultures, as well as the common factor that they belong to the same nation state. Therefore the national idenitity is one of nationalism for country AND culture. However, like Lauren said, we cannot say whether a "national idenity" is good or bad, because we are biased and it's not justly compared.
As for the artwork that we looked at, I like the transition in the art before and after world war I. Both modernism and surrealism include artwork that is very abstract and a "anti-reality" way of looking at the world. You can really see the impact of the world war and the senseless destruction within this art movement. The jagged edges of Picasso's cubist paintings convey the detachment from the austere affairs of the world. Dali's surrealist work, THe Persistance of Memory, again shows how the outcome of the war affected the people...the world is a confusing place where everything has been turned upside down.

Picasso and Duchamp and other painters of this time period gave a new way to look into and put together art. Driven with abstract images and beautiful color contrasts, these painters poured their interpretive emotions onto the canvas. These painting were fascinating to people audiences, especially the wealthy who spent their luxurious time admiring and interpreting the author's work. The beauty of abstract art, sometimes your right, and sometimes the author would make light of your helpless attempts to interpret the inspired feeling or message. Many times one will look too far into a painting and forget the gorgeous simplicities of the work. I just find that amusing. K.I.S.S- Keep it simple stupid.

In response to Kurtis's post, I don't think a country's national identity can be limited. I think that its source of identity just makes a country different, not necessarily better or worse. You can begin to use terms of better or worse when it comes to things that you can actually compare, such as military or economic strength. But in terms of an entire national identity, there is no better or worse. You can try to definitely state this, but you would most likely be biased towards your own country or whichever one you like the most, so its only better in your opinion. But the source of a nation's identity most definitely plays a role in the way it plays out in its society. Long-standing national traditions will have a lot of historical appreciation and well-established ideals that shape the lives of citizens, while other countries that have been established by a "mass-produced sensationalist movement" exemplify the many forces and concepts that have been brought together in establishing its national identity.

Up until now we've been discussing how a country's national identity has been taking the place of the individual sovereigns in a given country's history. How do you think a country's national identity is limited or improved by its source, whether it be a long-standing national tradition (like France) or almost a mass-produced sensationalist movement (like Germany)?

I read this today and thought y'all might find it interesting since we started reading about this period in art:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/arts/design/09BOXE.html

I thought one of my IDS professors made a very interesting and relevant analogy today. In talking about the Imperialism boom that occurred after the 2nd Industrial Revolution, he compared the rush for new lands to the beginning of a monopoly game, when all of the powers are rushing around claiming territory and building on it in order to generate revenue for the “mother land” (original powers). This made me realize how little strategy was involved in the process. All of the countries were just grabbing as much land as they could, without regard for what they could be doing to the systems the existing governments already had in place. It would be interesting to see what the colonized lands would have been like without European influence.

I find it interesting to see the dramatic changes in society with the adoption of nationalism. Robby points out in his posting that the political identity changed from numerous diversified perspectives to one common idea. Obviously, with the formation of nationalism comes a greater bond, allowing domestic prosperity. The book points out numerous countries that underwent a rise of nationalism as Addie points out. Therefore, as more and more countries take on this political outlook, we see the strength increasing in each individual country as opposed to each individual within that country. Nationalism provided this world outlook. Although leaders essentially initiated this dramatic change, the people remain as the foundation for the unified belief.

A find an ironic similarity between the optimistic feelings of nationalism that prevailed prior to WWI and the common sentiment in our nation recently -- one of confidence about the perspectives of military operations in Afghanistan and of war with Iraq. Nationalistic sentiments prior to WWI led to the popular belief that the war would be short lived were obviously mistaken. On page 515 of the textbook Speilvogel writes, "Both the soldiers who exuberantly boarded the trains for the war front in August 1914 and the jubilant citizens who bombarded them with flowers when they departed beleived the warriors would be home by christmas." These people overlooked the precedent, or "real prototype" as the book deems it, for a long war set by the American civil war. I wonder if we acted with these false hopes and got in over our head in Afghanistan thinking our involvement would be breif and automatically successful. The war on terrorism will continue indefinitely it seems and not reach a conclusion in the near future like many assumed. This pattern of history also repeats itself in the Iraq situation. Most Americans don't even think about what a war would mean; they think the only issue is whether to fight or not. They believe that if we do decide to wage war that it will be painless, quick, and exacting. While that may or may not be the case, (most likely more casualties would result from a second war with Iraq) feelings of nationalism once again seem to be blinding a country on the verge of war, just as they did in 1914.

The rise of nationalism immediately before and during World War I is a great contrast to the policies of absolutism and militarism. As the other members of my group mentioned, the propaganda and the use of the country's name in identifying its people's political views demonstrates these new feelings. Not so long ago, Europe was in turmoil and civil wars were prominent. Germany is the perfect example of this. Not even a unified country until 1871, Germany was forced to create a feeling of nationalism quite rapidly. They achieved this goal and were considered one of the most forceful and important nations involved in World War I. In addition, other countries such as France, Austria-Hungary, and Italy had to quickly alter their mindset in order to be comptetitive in the Great War. France's history as an extremely autocratic state under leaders such as Louis XIV and Louis XVI was completely left behind for new nationalistic leaders and sentiments. Italy also struggled to acquire a sense of this nationalism after being unifed fairly recently. Austria-Hungary, which had been involved in a great number of small wars in the era preceeding World War I, also relied on nationalism to strengthen itself.

Edited by author 02-10-2003 04:01 PM
Linda's comment (/m306) about the text generally not identifying leaders until the signing of the peace treaties is important. Before this point in our textbook, names of leaders and their personalities were given a great deal more attention. I think this is because the rise of nationalism in the nineteenth century largely shifted the question of political identity from that of a single influential person or small group of people to that of a group of people who all shared common interests and passions. One might notice that, far more often than before, our text anthropomorphizes nations. Instead of commenting on the policies or actions of a certain king or political leader, Spielvogel uses names of countries when talking about their intentions: "By 1914, Serbia, supported by Russia, was determined to create a large, independant state in the Balkans, whereas Austria, which had its own Slavic minorities to contend with, was equally set on preventing that possibility" (513). One can imagine that Serbia, Russia, and Austria are merely names of individual people with their own names and personalities. It's interesting that now, nation-states are considered cohesive enough to refer to by their names rather than by the regime that sets the nations' policies at the time. It seems to me that when you have a much stronger sense of identity in the nation-state you live in, people who happen to live in other states around you seem much more like foreigners. Surely this loss of common ground among peoples throughout the Continent was a factor in the development of the Great War.

As Justin pointed out, nationalism played a major role in the happenings of World War I. It was not only a driving factor before and during the war, but also a continuing cause of conflict after the peace treaties had been signed. “As a result of compromises, virtually every eastern European state was left with a minorities problem that could lead to future conflicts (530).” As we already know, these areas of varying ethnicity in eastern Europe have since struggled significantly with war and questions of leadership that have their roots in the Great War.
I also found Linda’s point about the influence of military leaders interesting. I don’t think that because the political leaders of the time made decisions on account of military leaders, that the political leaders were weak or passive. As the military of each state grew, so did its influence. And because of the tension and unease in 1914, the political leaders were forced to make decisions dependent on the military instead of for political reasons (513). It may have seemed like the best thing to do at the time, in the heat of the moment, in hopes of preserving their country.

Napoleon was one of the first leaders to instill a sense of nationalism in his people. This philosophy was used in to start World War I. With the strife between the Serbs and Austrians, and the Schlieffen plan intended to take France and part of Russia, the tension grew on all fronts. Government officals used propaganda to gain support for the war. The picture on page 515 shows French soldiers with a excited anticipation about the ensueing war. Each nation was eager to fight, and each nation expected to win, win quickly. The war proved to be longer than expected, and once again nationalistic propaganda was used to arouse excitement amongst the nations. Various posters, pictures, and slogans were used to inspire people. Women were told to tell their men to go and fight because it was honorable. Nationalism was a important aspect to countries during World War I as it is in any battle. One needs to have support from troops to have a successful outcome. WWI set precedent for what methods the world's countries use today.

Kurtis poses an interesting question in his post (305) about the validity and importance of a great leader, and how a leader affects countries throughout history. What really struck me in the reading from chapter 25 was the inflexibility of the military leadership. "Fearful that changes in these plans (for mobilizing a lot of men and supplies) would cause chaos in the armed force, military leaders insisted that their plans could not be altered." (513) Spielvogel then goes on to describe how this issue of leadership plays out, especially why Germany declares war on France.

So, if the political leaders of the great powers in the early 1900's were truly great, could they have ignored military demands from their own leaders? Or is part of being great delegating responsibility and accepting other people's opinions? I believe that had they been more insightful they might have been able to see flaws in their planned military maneuvers. I wonder if the leadership of the great powers during World War I had been stronger or more charismatic, if they would have been able to ignore the demands of their military leadership.

In more general terms, I noticed that most of the recent reading does not mention the leaders of these countries (except in passing) until it comes time for the signing of peace treaties. This is a contrast to previous chapters, which focused more on the personalities and importance of specific leaders. (Napoleon and Bismarck are two examples Kurtis uses.) Is this a general shift? I know that I can name more important leaders of France from before 1900 then from the last 20 years.

I've noticed that during the course of the term we've reviewed some very successful leaders; whether they earned their success by charisma or military strategy depended on their situation. Some of these include Louis XIV, Napoleon, and Bismarck. During the better part of their reings, their respective nations enjoyed relative peace and prosperity. However, after their deaths or exit from the throne, their nations almost immediately fell to a time of hardship.

My question is this: is there any way for a nation or successive ruler to maintain the level of excellence that was introduced by the initial "genius" leader, without another leader of equal caliber being placed in charge?

In my first message I mistakenly put that the French reverted to Feudalism. I meant to put the Austrians.

It is amazing that the French could go back to a feudal society after all of the problems that arose from it, but, like Kimberly and Kate, can understand how they might do this. The French did need a governmental structure that worked, and if they had to revert to the centuries old structure of the past, then that would have been acceptable at the time. Kurtis raises a valid argument for the reemergence of a feudal society in modern corporations. The example of Microsoft does have some elements of feudalism, and I think that there would be few instances of a totally demorcatic operation within modern, mutibillion dollar corporations.

While I do understand that the French were desparately searching for stability in a time of uncertainty, I cannot believe how many mistakes that they repeated while trying to form a country. They forgot the mistakes and high economic costs of the monarchy and put another Bourbon on the throne (Louis XVIII). Immediately following the re-establishment of the monarchy and the revolutions that followed the place another Napoleon (Louis Napoleon) in charge. He declares himself Emperor and, as the book points out, forms an "authoritarian monarchy." I am surprised that the French did not learn from the mistakes of the past, and repeated the same mistakes of the Eighteenth Century in the Early Nineteenth.

I think more to the point Kate I wasn't saying that feudalism is redeveloping in America proper but actually more that it has redeveloped in the corporate world. Corporations in my mind could be seen as small nations within the greater superstructure of this country, and as such are bound to rules different than the standard political ideals held by voting Americans. In Microsoft for example, I can personally guarantee with near total confidence that managers are not elected by the common office workers. Corporations are a way to slide by so to speak the nation's political structure. Within these, I think one may find a fine example of near medieval feudalism.

As far as my comments on progress, I did mention that there were some tremendous advantages to living in this day and age. Polio, small pox, and syphilis (some of the worse diseases of previous centuries) are now either extinct or completely managable. However, science still does not have all the answers. From the time of aboriginal shamans intervening on the spirit world to cure a hunter's influenza to today when a doctor's wish for a miracle for an AIDS or terminal cancer patient being his last available option the field of medicine does not have all the answers. Irregardless of comfort level, the things that dictate the worst sorrow and the greatest happiness are still present today.

Although it is plain to see that history repeats itself, I have to disagree with Kurtis's idea of a feudalistic system reemerging in the near future. As Kimberly said, it's understandable why the Austrians would go back to fuedalism, because they were in desperate need of stability. However, in today's society in America, I don't see the kind of instability and political discord that was apparent at that time. When democracy has been protecting us as well as giving us unmeasureable freedoms, why would we revert back to a hierarchical system? It seems as though all of the reasons the serfs had for staying under their lords are apparent in our democratic society already; we back in the reflected glory of our nation's military and political achievements (with some exceptions) and we are protected by our government.

On the topic of Imperialism, I agree with Lauren that "nationalistic expansion" is a concept still in effect. However, it seems as though today the idea is more to expand ideals and influence than it is to assert an imperialistic domination over a country. Certainly the U.S. is guilty of pushing its ideals onto countries where it was not welcome, but the U.S. hasn't gone out and conquered areas and claimed them for the President.

Revisiting the idea of progress, as mentioned by Kurtis, I might have to disagree with his point when saying that there is no such thing as true “progress.” It is correct to say that there are unhappy people in this world just as there were unhappy people before the big boom of industrial prosperity. However, our unhappiness and discontent present in today’s society is profoundly different from the disgruntled people of the 1800s. Because we have been raised in a society that has had major technological advancements, we are spoiled to the status quo. How many of us would think that the world had come to an end because our computer has crashed or our cell phone has been broken. It would seem as though the world would stop turning. The people of the 1800s were experiencing massive advancements in industrial progress that had never before been established. Therefore, if they were unhappy, I would think, that it would be because of the new changes taking place and losing that comfort zone. Their zone of contentment drastically contrasts to our level of comfort. They truly progressed into an era of opportunity (well, in a sense) and an era of where science of the 1800s has shaped even our lives, an entire century later. True, people are going to be unhappy- that’s human nature. However, if man hadn’t progressed, our lives and culture today would be very different.

I have to agree with Kurtis' point about life flowing in a spiral, and history repeating itself. That is exactly what struck me in the readings from the book over the last few days. In many senses, history either repeats itself (while becoming better or worse in the same sense) or doesn't change at all. Some problems seem as if they will always be issues; we have been talking about imperialism, racism, and women's rights in every context since the beginning of the class. Powerful countries started out forming themselves, then adding land in the "new world" and now are beginning to reshape by having wars and taking over other countries in Europe(reunification of Germany, French expansion)! Nationalistic expansion is a concept that will always be with us. Women's rights started out the same way. First they had no rights or respect, then they started gaining respect and status in some countries, next they achieved the chance to hold a job (when men weren't available!), and we are still struggling with this on a much smaller scale today! I won't even get into racism because we all see it and feel the effects, even in modern society.

The Age of Realism seemed to me to be one of the points in history that is revisited. Society seems to go back and forth between times of scientific, mathmatic tendancies and romantic, self-fulfilling periods. Just with what we've talked about in class, we've had: the Scientific Revolution, contrast that with the ideas of the Enlightenment, then the Industrial Revolution, contrasted by Romanticism, and now we're back at the age of Realism. It was just interesting to me to compare the ideas from the age of Realism with the effects that the Industrial Revolution had on society. Towards the end of our reading, society is described as leaning more towards urbanization and factories, but in a much brighter light than that of the Industrial Revolution. At least in this instance, it seems that while history repeated itself in ideas and things, it improved at the same time.

I’m not agreeing with Austrian’s return to serfdom, but in response to Brent’s question, in a way I understand why it worked. These people were living in a war-torn country. They had been dealing with political and social unrest for a long period of time and they were willing to do almost anything to regain stability. They were willing to give up some of their freedom for safety as Dr. Benson said in class yesterday. We can’t really understand this concept because we have only really seen peace. We don’t know what it’s like to be constantly at war, losing relatives and to not feel relatively safe. Obviously, just as feudalism fell apart when it was no longer necessary the first time, it collapsed again and the serfs became free. The idea of a legitimate monarch also catered to the wants of some countries. For example, France was ruled by the Directory after the revolution. Then, Napoleon eventually crowned himself emperor and became the sole ruler. This happened partly because the Directory was weak, but also because the people wanted to be ruled by a single person, not small group of people. The one thing that I really question is how Russia, Prussia, and Austria with three very different religions expected their Holy Alliance to really work. Maybe they were willing to do whatever was necessary to live in peace.

About 65 years after the Congress of Vienna, the natural competition between European countries arose in the form of Imperialism. What fascinated me the most was not the stories of colonization, but the motives and reasoning behind this imperialism. Why now??

Since the tension was great after a 'redistribution' of power, states wanted to rise back into influence over Europe by controlling more land overseas that would produce the much needed raw materials. The most peculiar philosophy to us today, however, is that of the 'white man's burden.' The Europeans believed in Social Darwinism, which is not too far fetched, except that they automatically believe that they are the superiors over other races. However, the belief that the white race (in Europe) had a "moral responsibility to civilize the 'ignorant' peoples," though it seems religiously sound and profitable to these 'ignorant' races, is really not. We are merely back to Imperialism long ago when explorers forced their traditions and their religions on the native people. Was that successful? The Humanitarians of the time knew that this method was inhumane and not worthy. However, this method returns in the late 19th century as another form of racism.

In Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden," he explains the general belief of how the Europeans are doing God's work and helping the unfortunate. However, calling natives of other countries "half-devil and half-child" is a bit much. Also, shouldn't this so-called 'mission' to the ignorant people be done humbly?? Well, Kipling seems to be proud of himself for lowering himself as to no longer have the "tawdry rule of kings, but toil of serf and sweeper." What low work he believes this to be, but what wonderful people they are for doing it for the betterment of other races.

The underlying reason for the New Imperialism was the competition that was always there in Europe; the struggle to stay in power. However, they tried to rationalize it by seeming 'holy' and helping the ignorant peoples of other nations, as it was their 'moral obligation.' They are only fooling themselves, for this rationalization will not fulfill its purpose; it is mere racism in disguise.

Alright. First up, on the issue of the Congress of Vienna reinstituting old feudal systems. I believe they actually thought that this would be the best, apart from the fact that it would also give them serious power to wield. They checked back to their own history to see what worked best, because I think at that point they thought pretty much anything would that didn't involve peasants killing aristocrats in the streets. Any student of history will understand that the path of humanity is a spiral--time goes on but history repeats itself. To this end, I would even say we can expect to see a feudalistic system re-emerge in the near future. In fact, should we elevate nearly the whole population of America to be the aristocracy, and relegate the laborers in third world countries that are all-but-owned by corporations as the peasantry, perhaps we can already see feudalism as a very strong reality in our world today.

Now, as far as the idea of 'progression' goes, I believe technological achievement to be a great thing, but there is no such thing as true 'progress.' I honestly believe that the ratio of happy people to unhappy people to be nearly the same as it was before humanity had the capacity for creating fire. Opportunities change, cultures change, languages change, but the same basic question of survival is paramount to every human no matter how much they want to gloss it over. Therefore, it stands to reason (at least mine) that some people will be happy due to either temperment, fate, or whatever you happen to believe in, while the others will suffer and die, despite their wealth, power, and pristige. I believe that technology has brought some great things, make no mistake. But I do not believe that 'progress' is the ultimate definition of the human race.

It seems to me as if the Congress of Vienna want to take a step back in time. Maistre and Matternich want to be conservative and want to find what is totally pure and totally get rid of democracy. I would like to think that I was listening when we went over the Enlightenment and the problems of Absolutism. THEY DIDN'T WORK too great. And these guys want to go back to that way of life. To me, this would be like melting ice and then trying to freeze it back again without a freezer. The Austrians have never know the democracy and now they want to change it. Do you try to play professional baseball without ever practicing the sport? They also want to bring Feudalism back to society. Do you really think that the peasants are going to just voluntarily go back to being someone's slave? I think by making federalism possible, they are affirming that everyone can have their ideas and that will eventually lead to sects and groups of radicals who feel they have the same freedom of speech as anyone else. Did they not think that this was all going to blow up in their face? I don't quite understand what the Diplomacy of Religion is that they are trying to restore. I personally didn't think that religion left. Are they trying to put a Universal religion in place or what? And another thing. Are the Austrians doing this for France just to form alliances with them? Please someone help me with this issue.

     Zola’s Germinal has received acclaim as possibly the best book ever written in the French language. This label doesn’t seem to far fetched. Zola uses many literary devices expertly, especially the allusion in the title. As Kaylan Pedine noted (post 274) the title represents the hope for the growth of a new society after the revolution that planted the seeds for this growth. As Dr. Benson noted, nothing in this book is by accident so I find it a little presumptuous to say that the ending left something to be desired as many noted in their posts. Zola crafted this ending for an express purpose, mostly likely to represent the unfulfilled dreams of the miners and the uncertainty of whether their dreams will be realized.
     I found the comparisons to other novels, namely Fast Food Nation (post 277) and Camus’ The Stranger (also in post 274) intriguing. Germinal has no doubt influenced literature in other instances. Classics like the Grapes of Wrath that characterize the suffering and culture of a certain historical age follow the precedent set by Zola’s work.
     I also was thinking of how the family life portrayed in this novel compared to the material the textbook presented like Mike Overby contemplated in post 291. I found myself wondering how the social lives of these people continued under the circumstances that they were living in. They found time for lust, love, and family in spite of all the strife and amidst the bad conditions they lived in. This aspect shows why the novel is not only a study of conditions in France in the late 18th century, but a study of the human condition and how people react to trying situations.

At the end of the reading last night it mentioned the "Progressive Era" and the new laws and regulations which accompinied this new age. This idea of "progress" is one that has really intrigued me. This idea that we are advancing this world- things are getting progressively better. The book discusses the new laws and regulations that accompinied this era and also the women's rights movements. At first glance it seems hard to dispute that these are moves toward a "better world." Today, most would say we have "progressed" since even this era. In many ways I would agree, but what's the other side? Are we that better off today than in the past? The idustrial revolution made production so much more efficent, but at what cost? Today, we live in a very high-tech world- we're dependent on computers- if we want something, we don't even have to leave our room, we can order it online. But what's the cost? We get cheap products because we use (abuse) the 3rd world nations. Dr. B made a good point in class one day, why would we ever complain about the system in which we live, we're the ones on top. For us, "progress" has made our lives more comfortable, but would small children in the sweat shops of a 3rd world nation agree. Has this world really "progressed" for them?

 I think that a part of me always figured that the problems that we encountered as a civilization during my time generation, or closer to my time period, were new problems, because people always made such a fuss about it. After reading the text last night, I was kind of stunned that many of the same problems were encountered way back in history as well. The jews, as an example, had been the subject of persecusion and opression long before the days of Hitler's regimine. This quote on page 496,"Since the Middle Ages, Jews had been portrayed as the murders of Jesus and subjected to mob violence; their rights had been restricted, and they had been physically separated from Christians in quarters known as ghettos" opened my eyes to the idea that much of recent history, as many others have posted reguarding yesterdays reading, repeats itself, or at least the ideas of people throught history repeat themselves. In class we have discuessed many of the wars that have been fought through Europe, and the number of wars blows my mind. It is funnny how today, when we are attacked by terrorists or somehting horrific happens, people sometimes, as i heard after september 11th, the end of the world, or a world war III. However, a look back in history shows us that fighting amongst different groups and countries is almost a part of life, and rarely has there been peace at a single uniform time throughout all the nations.

While reading the textbook, I was very interested to see how Zola's description of the family compared to that of the text. While Germinal discusses a life of French mining poverty around the rise of the First International (1860s), the textbook discusses working-class Europe in the "Age of Progress," 1872-1894. However, I think we can envision the miners of Le Voreux 20 years after their revolt as possibly benefiting from such progress. If we were to imagine the Germinal mining world during the Age of Progress, we would have to include the following changes:
  1) Higher pay for hard jobs. This is difficult to believe, but La Maheude did indicate to Etienne on p. 523 that "next time it would be the real thing [...] Ah, what a rebirth of justice and truth!"
  2) Mothers stay at home. As seen in the Maheu family, some mothers did during the story's time period. However, rarely was a woman able to stay home simply because the family could afford for her not to work.
  3) Children work less. When Catherine and Zacharie leave the family for sweethearts, and when Jeanlin injures both of his legs, it is obvious how much damage is done to the family income. For children's wages to not matter as much, adult wages absolutely must go up for some reason, somehow.
  4) Education. The best example of how education enables people to be powerful is Etienne himself. When nobody else could read the notice from the Company describing that timbering and coal tubs would be paid for separately, thereby cheating the workers out of money, Etienne was able to whip the crowd into a frenzy later at the Widow's tavern. Nobody else could read well, so they couldn't be angry. Mass education, as described in the textbook, became vital during the Second Industrial Revolution, when jobs became more skilled.

I am particularly facinated by the Enlightenment. There are many views that arose and were esposed during this time that I try and apply in my own life. The concepts of authenticity, in particular, are very interesting. I love the idea of focusing on one's emotions and passion at all times. I think that this can truly bring much happiness to one's life. For example, many people often choose a profession based on the salary they will recieve. While this many bring money, it can often bring frustration and disappiontment. Instead, one should do something they are passionate about and not worry about the pay. I believe that if more people live by these ideals there would be less conflict in the world because more people would feel satisfied with their own lives.

Once again, we see that history repeats itself. Women once again try to gain more freedoms and rights in the 1830’s. They are tired of their place being “in the home.” The Women’s Social and Political Union used strategies of protest still used today. They “chained themselves to lampposts...went on hunger strikes…” However, these were probably not the most effective means to gain their freedoms. I doubt arsine and destruction of property were ever a successful means to persuade government officials that a group would use “political power responsibly.” I was also very surprised with Maria Montessori. A single mother today is still subject to ridicule. Imagine being a single mother in an earlier century. These “new women” gave courage and confidence to their gender to eventually succeed with passing new laws in their favor.

Another thing that I found of interest in the reading was the fact that Jews were considered their own race. After their emancipation, they proved to everyone that they certainly were equals, and more, not only through their occupation but by their percentages of enrollment in professional schools. I also find it interesting that the term “ghetto” has evolved from the world of the 1800s. It is still used as a derogatory comment for housing of repressed factions and serves as a means of “separation.” But the people we characterize as living in the ghetto are no longer people of the Jewish faith, but lower class urban populations. I also think Shannon’s comment on how “people using politics to benefit their economic standing or status” is quite relevant to this discussion. Overall, I see another main “pattern of human behavior,” that any group of people who are repressed, inevitably do rise, revolt, and rally for better representation and rights, no matter the means.

I realize our readings for the past couple of days are not relevant to Romanticism, but our lectures for the past couple of days have been and I, like a few others who posted before me, found this discussion particually interesting, especially the aspect of authenticity. As Dr. Beneson detailied how Fichte eclaimed that he is tired of the "dry bones of the enlightenment" and insisted that true sensibility belongs to the German commoners, it struck me on a historical and personal level. This concept of authenticity, is filled with emotion - passion - intuition, treating the commoners and specifically the women as possesion a intuitive authenticity. Straying away from the "dry" enlightenment way of viewing individuals reminded me (although this might be seen as a stretch to some) of how my attitudes while making my journey through college have transformed. At the beginning I think I tended to view things in a more enlightened manner, giving the people I saw in power or in a higher stage of the social or intellectual heirachy as the authentic. Now, however, I think my view has shifted from seeing these people "false intellectuals" and realizing that individuals who think for themselves and have not been corrupted by a bombardment of forced thoughts from around them as the authentic. Like Dr. B talked about, a shift from appreciating the "false intellectuals" to the "rustic commonfolk".

Finally, I also wanted to add these two bits of Romanticism media that I thought were fun to look at in addition to the ones presented in class. Firstly, a quote by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), who as the book states was an important Romantic model. "Just trust yourself, then you will know how to live." I think this quote plays great with the discussion of how Romantics view authenticity. Secondly, a web site with painting similar to the ones presented in class, but I especially like "A Young Girl Reading" by Jean-Honore Fragonard. (http://www.art.com/asp/display_style-asp/_...2&FT=Y&TKID=2722954). (right, i hope that works but its at 'art.com' if it doesn't take you right there). But, I just thought this was a beautiful example of the Romanitics viewing women as the authentic and who were given religious as well as educational positions in society.

Edited by author 02-04-2003 02:40 AM
I'm taking advantage of a last chance at online amnesty for previous transgressions (i.e. not posting when I should have, and then posting on the wrong day and topic when I actually did post), so this entire entry into our discussion board will seem quite anachronistic. By the way, please disregard message number 285 that I posted, which said "."

Firstly, I need to comment on the French fiscal crisis and the onset of revolution. While Louis XIV's absolutism strengthened the power of the monarchy more than ever before, absolutism's legacy in France was thereafter financial extravagance. Paradoxically, the same royal excess that served to pacify the aristocracy and solidify the king's supremacy was eventually (partially) responsible for the downfall of the monarchy. Had the French government not engaged in costly wars and Versaillesque pampering, I think it's conceivable that the underlying tensions in France could have persisted without revolution for quite some time further, if only because the king would not have needed to call upon the Estates-General. After all, the revolution in all practicality neither started nor ended over fiscal matters. The French Revolution was such an ever-evolving beast that it is nearly imposssible to pin down a single essence or driving force of the event. Edmund Burke said in his Reflections on the Revolution in France that "no government could stand a moment, if it could be blown down with anything so loose and indefinite as an opinion of 'misconduct'". This illustrates the queer nature of the passions of the Revolution.
 
Regarding the French Revolution's debate over rights and citizenship (posting for Jan 23), it's interesting how the venerated Catholic Church became an enemy of France. It strikes me that really very few years separated a time during which blood was spilled over issues of religion and the primary political force was the church, and the aftermath of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy caused the Catholic church to lie in opposition with the state. The fact that so very few priests submitted to this constitution is not surprising; the document is very bold about totally defanging and assimilating the church into the state of France: "All other bishoprics in the eighty-three departments of the kingdom, which are not included by name in the present article, are, and forever shall be, abolished." This is bold invective on the part of the National Assembly I think, especially considering the dominant nature of the church for literally centuries. No government had ever bossed the church around quite like this. Another important part of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, I felt, was the fact that not only was the church to submit to and be fused with the state, but it was strictly to be French. No overseeing by the pope, no communication with ecclesiastical types from other countries. Vive la France, eh?

This nationalistic state-centered liberalism served to catalyze the romantic and nationalistic trends that characterized the European Unifications that marked the rest of the nineteenth century. Without the initial spark of change given by the original French revolution at the end of the eighteenth century, the nationalistic unifications of Europe would not have taken place when they did how they did. As I was saying in class today to my discussion group, who think that I am a total dork, the conditions here remind me of the way water freezes into ice. Liquids can be cooled below their freezing point and still remain liquid; they need some sort of disturbance to provide the impetus for the process of crystallization. If a liquid is kept perfectly still and clear of any impurities, it will not freeze (not a practical thing in our imperfect world). The revolutionary tensions in France (and in the rest of Europe) were much the same. Things could have existed tenuously indefinitely, but in each case of revolution and change, there was some impetus that disturbed the preexisting equilibrium. For the period of revolution in central Europe in the mid-nineteenth century, this impetus was largely the working-class revolt in France in 1848, among other things.

1848 was a big year for the working classes of Europe. Marx and Engels published "The Communist Manifesto", and a failed revolution took place in Germany. The notion that "the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles" resounded heartily with workers living under conditions such as those we read about in "Germinal". The strained equilibrium that existed among classes throughout the world for many centuries in which a very small crust of society held nearly all the wealth and power made for a very receptive audience to Marx's revolutionary ideas (though they were themselves based on concepts and ideas of others that came before him). I think (please understand that I'm not trying to be sacreligious) that this Marxist message achieved its effect in similar ways to the Bible. During the New Testament times and shortly thereafter, people feeling disenfranchised and helpless in the vast colossus of the Roman Empire were especially receptive to the Christian message of universal love and redemption. Whereas before they were simply the poor with no chance of anything better in life, many people now had a level playing field in their eternal worldview, a powerful notion. Marxism, I think, appealed in much the same way to the bitterly oppressed workers of the early European capitalist colossus.

From last night’s reading, I found a pattern of human behavior: people using politics to benefit their economic standing or status. For example, the “lower-middle-class groups who felt threatened by the new economic forces [the Jews] of the times” (496), voted for an Anti-Semitic right-wing party in order to let themselves prosper by degrading the Jews. Also, the chancellor Bismarck of Germany purposefully offered more benefits for the working class, so they would not be involved with the socialist party. To elevate his own power, he deceived others by using politics to create these benefits for the middle class. These selfish politicians do not match up with some themes of Romanticism that we discussed in class, self-sacrifice and heroic martyrdom for the good of the community. But these selfish intents are similar to the self-interest and egotistic individualism that also describes Romanticism. How did people balance these differing traits, principle and selfishness? I agree with Brent in the irony of these two opposite aspects that describe how people behaved in this time period. In relation to religion, how could these selfish yet sacrificing people connect with God, when there was so much friction within their own personalities?

.

I found the discussion on Romanticism insightful. Although we are aware of the main ideas that consisted within this time period, it was almost an awakening to view the relationship between the art of the period and the concepts of Romanticism. The one portrayl of Napolean on the horse really stood out to me. I noticed that the giant creature was upright, but that Napolean remained calm as if there was no physical struggle to stay upon the horse. To me, this concept is key. The period praised the heroic actions of society. For an artist to portray Napolean as this "hero," or super human being, shows the pride that society had for this leader. I just felt like posting on Romanticism, because this period interests me to a great deal, and I know that there are numerous arguements contrued within even the basic ideas of Romanticim. It is a fun topic.

Today, in class, we discussed the ideas of Romanticism into great detail. What amazed me was the huge melting pot of ideas that went into the formation of this well-known time period. The average eye wouldn't be able to see that individualistic ideas and nationalistic ideas were 2 key components in the process of Romanticism. It's really ironic how selfish indulgence and martydom come together to form something so emotional as Romanticism. In this time period, it was all about you and how you connected with God; not how other people did it. But at the same time, it was about sacrafice and coming together as a national community. I hope one would see the irony in that. How could things so different bond together to form something that would appear to others, as being harmonious in nature.

I thought the novel was not only a good look at the conditions of mine workers during that time, but also a pretty good novel in of itself. The book is extremely well written. The portrayal of the mines and conditions for the workers also shows how workers at that time would be open to a system like socialism. We cringe at the word, but would we if we were in the same conditions as the miners?
I also enjoyed reading everyone's responses to the ending of the novel. We would all like to see the revolution succeed because we have been reared in an envirnment that says we can do anything we set our mind to and that no one should be oppressed. I think it is good to also remember that real life offers conditionary victories and we have to way our alternatives, just as the miners did. And, beyond that, it is not to say that just because physical actions did not ensure towards liberation that the whole uprising was without gain. For it is in the hearts of people where true revolution begins. And until Etinee came along, the miners had had that beaten out of them. Etinee helped them see their surroundings more clearly and see things for what they really are. That is noble enough in my mind.

Throughout the novel, I found the futility of the workers' actions to be a common theme. Nothing was achieved from the violent and harmful actions of the miners. In fact, Etienne ends up right where he begins, walking aimlessly down a road in hopes of a new life. Unlike Julia, I do not view this as a message of hope. Instead, I see it as a commentary on the harshness of life for the working class in the 1860s and the powerlessness of the miners.

In addition, I believe that the miners' strike would have been much more effective if they had not resorted to violence and extreme measures such as flooding the mine. As Erin and the rest of my group discussed in class, these rash decisions immediately attracted the attention of the bourgeoisie and made reforms even less likely. A more subtle approach, such as the one taken by civil rights leaders in the 1960s would undoubtedly caused change without provoking the middle class.

 I agree with Brent that many may have been disappointed in the ending of the novel. Many might have wanted a triumphant finale that ended in Etienne and the other miners receiving the rights, conditions, and pay they deserved. One should not see his plight as futile however, simply because a true revolution did not happen. Although, in the end, capitalism still prevailed and there was much suffering, simply standing up for what he believed in made Etienne an amazing leader and revolutionary.
  I liked the underlying message that the book held of putting your heart into what you believe in and not worrying about the consequences, good or bad. I think in today's society too many leaders are afraid to "rock the boat",so to speak, and stand up for a controversial cause.
 It is not surprising however that a revolt as not accomplished. While I am sure that all of the miners detested the conditions and suffered immensely because of them, the meager pay they received went to feeding their children and families. This, in many cases, could not be compromised, no matter how great the cause.

I agree with Brent that many may have been disapointed in the ending of the novel. Many might have wanted a triumphant ending that ended in Etienne and the other miners recieving the rights, conditions, and pay they deserved. One should not see his plight as futile however, simply because a true revolution did not happen. Although, in the end, capitalism still prevailed and there was much suffering, by simply standing up for hat he believed in made Etienne an amazing leader and revolutionary. I liked the underlying message that the book held of putting your heart into what you believe in and not worrying about the consequences, good or bad. I think in todays society too many leaders are afraid to "rock the boat" so to speak and stand up for a controversial cause.
It is not surprising however that a revolt as not accomplished. While I am sure that all of the miners

Some people disagree with the way the book finished. It appears as if Etienne and the miners have failed at producing a revolution in which change would occur and bring them due justice. But I think that Etienne succeeded in his part of the novel. Yes, change was needed very badly in favor of the miners and change is exactly what Etienne brought to the table. The change that Etienne brought to the mining community might not have been the change that the readers or the miners themselves might have wanted. But he did bring forth change. He gave a very meek and shy people a sense of awareness which in turn motivated those people to be a somebody and not just the average Joe that can barely earn a buck. He showed the miners that they are important and that they can change the way they are. Yes, ultimately Etienne wanted a revolution that would change the ways of capitalism and change the ways of the rights of workers. But that did not occur. But just because he didn't win the war, doesn't mean he didn't win a few battles on the way. Etienne left this story with the feeling that someone else might pick up in his footsteps and finish off the revolution. Etienne might not have changed the society physically, but he sure did change them emotionally.

Edited by author 02-03-2003 03:11 PM
As I read Emile Zola's Germinal, I found an interesting comparison somewhat to the required reading for the freshman class this summer. Both Germinal and Fast Food Nation dig into the slums and hardships of factory life. In is amazing to see how 1885 can have such similar aspects to a comptemorary setting. The coal workers are getting exploited by the bourgeois class that employ them. Like Sally mentioned, the troubles these people faced were so horrible and routine that they became accustomed to them. The workers keep going back to what they are used to. This is similar to Kenny in Fast Food Nation who is severly injured on the job multiple times only to show back up for work, sometimes the very next day. Zola is not writing in a time that too distant from today. Young children are still put to work in sweat shops all around the world, and paid very little. The few owners are the ones greatly profiting off the work of many others. One would think that mankind would take heed to the crys that have been reigning down for centuries. There is no use, numerous pieces of literature and exposes have been published with no success. Hopefully one day the world will wake up and demand change.

I found the portrayal of family and its various implications to be especially interesting. In the midst of this tumultuous period in history, children aren't quite a liability, but not still a total asset. Like Sara quoted, "...and then the baby would grow up and wouldn't give a damn for you..." (166). Prior to the Industrial Revolution, when the majority of the population farmed for a living, children were an asset because it provided more field hands. After the industrial Revolution, when everyone was moving to cities, children were a liability because they were more mouths to feed and could not help provide for the family. Even the smallest children could be useful in some ways on a farm, but in factories they were pretty much useless. It is hard to tell what role children served in the period in which Germinal takes place. They could go work in the mines, but it was hard, dangerous work and heartbreaking for the mothers to keep seeing their children die at such early ages.

While some people on the board were not satisfied with Zola's ending, I found it to be a message of hope, that even though the miners had not been successful at this revolt, there would be a time in the future, where they, just like the earth, would break free and gain independence of their oppressors.

Here is my post for the Marxism discussion:
While Marxist idea’s of Socialism obviously do not appeal to our generation born and raised in a thriving economy based on capitalism. I think what Professor Benson said is true though. We need to be exposed to ideas that we don’t necessarily agree with to examine the kind of conditions that could give rise to different ways of thinking and seeing the world. What we have been studying in this class has been a real eye opener to how spoiled we are here in 2003. The idea of owning only two pairs of clothes is downright scary to me, as is growing my own food etc. I can’t even imagine living in Britain during the time of the revolution. Coming home to sleep in tiny rooms with six people to a bed after an extremely brutal shift at the local factory seems like a living hell. Not to mention the overwhelming stench of the festering sewage in the streets! So while we priviledged Americans in the 21 century hate Marx and all he represents, to the common person living during the industrial revolution his ideas didn’t seem so incomprehensible. I am glad that we live in the time of history that we do, especially considering that if this was nineteenth century England we would all be working 10-12 hour days at factories, getting beatings for falling asleep. How’s that for the prospect of upward mobility!??! Kind of puts things in perspective if you ask me.

While reading Zola's novel, I, as well as others, discovered the objectivity of the author. The epic reminded me of Camus's The Stranger, also a French novel, in that we pity one character and are then able to view another perspective. Zola, in my opinion, does a wonderful job depicting the severity of the hardships of the miners. They fought for such small liberties that we take for granted. The graphic images were upsetting, but affective in capturing the inhuman conditions of French miners in the 1860's.

I found it extremely interesting analyze the title of the novel and the relationship between the ultimate germination of a new society and a growing plant. We actually watched the movie in my class last year. Our teacher told us that Zola played around with various titles before choosing Germinal. Zola's objective is to portray not only the struggle of miners, but the causes for such a dramatic change in society.

I also found it extremely interesting and helpful to read the introduction carefully before beginnning the novel itself. I was aware of the metaphors that Zola manifests. He enables human action to be represented by natural disasters, such as floods and earthquakes. I also am reminded of The Stranger as Zola leaves the reader with an unanswered question of where to go now, or what to do. I was impressed with the literary techniques Zola chose to use.

To view both sides of the "oppressed" and the "free" is a gain to the reader in that we can see the hardships of both categories. I am reminded of the simple cliche, "The grass is always greener on the other side." Although the burdens of the miners were by far more destructive to their lives, the bourgeois were also faced with stresses during this time. As the lower class fought for what they did not have (liberties, riches, etc.), the bourgeois fought for what they did have and did not want to lose.

As Robby and Lauren K. previously pointed out, the aspects of the tormenting worries about providing your family with money and the obtainment of cash becoming your first and overwhelming priority struck me. As Zola brilliantly describes the destituion in which these coal miners' drag out their daily lives they are so desperate and pressed with the bare necessities of life that they must seek some release which often comes, as Lauren F. pointed out, as drunkeness and sex as an aid to escape reality. This is described on page 166 as Zola describes in one of my favorite quotes, "Life's only pleasures were getting drunk or giving your wife a baby; and even then the booze gave you a beer belly and the baby would grow up and wouldn't give a damn for you. No, to true, life was not a bowl of cherries."

In this same section of the book, Etienne's start at pushing a strike in the form of staying up late and discussing justice with the other miner's further exemplifies the need for cash and provisions for their families. The very thought of acheiving some sort of justice, however, seemed so far away and proved to be a fact, as the society at this point in the 1860s in France had made concrete the distinctness of the miner's of the working class and the prosperous bourgeoisie. Etienne expresses his desire in saying that, "there's only one thing that warms my heart, and that's the thought of knocking the bourgeoisie flat on their backs."

I think Zola does a very good job of allowing his reader to understand the desperateness these people were feeling and that under the influence of Etienne at the begining of the book and their overwhelming need to provide for their constanly hungry families, they were confusedly excited about the seemingly impossible presentation of justice in their society. On page 169 this is expressed beautifully by Zola, "And the dream grew continually vaster and finer, all the more seductive for riding higher and higher into the realms of impossible fantasy."

I agree with Molly in the fact that the book ends with the failure of the strike, but this is contrasted with the fact that the miners who shook Etienne’s hand before he left, including La Maheude, had “feverish hopes for revenge” (515). Even though these people had suffered so much and had lost so much, they still had hopes of rising up again against the bourgeoisie. La Maheude even believed that the next time they would be successful. It seemed like the more the people suffered, the more obstinate they became; more willing to stand up and fight for their rights.
I was shocked by the violent roles that women played in a number of the encounters including the mutilation of Maigrat and their role at Le Voreux. This may have been because they were tired of bringing children into the world to work and die in the mines. The most shocking moments were the death of the sentry at the hands of Jeanlin, when Bonnemart killed Cecile, and the actions of Souvarine. They all killed for different reasons. Jeanlin killed because of his child-like curiosity. Bonnemart saw the type of person that he believed was causing his suffering and lashed out against her. Souvarine acted because he thought that was the only way to bring about the revolution. The actions shock us but they help us to better understand what people can do when they are put into certain situations.
I think the changes that occur within Etienne are very interesting. He begins as a wandering man looking for a job. Then, Maheu gives him a chance; not realizing how much he would change his life, the life of his family, and the entire village. As the book progressed, Etiennne started seeing himself as being apart of the bourgeois and began looking down on the villagers. He was even offended by the stench of their poverty, but he still wanted them to be seen as heroes in the eyes of others.

Through the reading of the descriptive horrors that Zola writes about reguarding the daily business of the mine workers, I was reminded of a previous posting i had made and of the discussion we had in class a few days earlier. A main concept in the book is the idea of hope, which is evindent throughout the story with the concept of "germination" to build a better future and so forth. It became evident to me that these people needed something more, and if someone had stepped up, as Etiene had, they would follow because they are looking for a rescue. It reminded me of our discussion on Napolean, and my posting on Marx. It was hard for me to find any value in Marx ideals, but seeing them through the eyes of one of the opressed changes things drastically, and i can see why both characters would appeal to the people of their time.
    Another aspect that i would like to comment on is this idea of germination, and the "planting a hope for the futhre." Several students mentioned how the last paragraph left them confused as to the point that Zola wanted to leave the reader with. I would have to disagree with those who said that he wants the reader to believe that it is a vicious cycle. I think that he is saying taht there is hope for the future, and that by saying, "Beneath the blazing rays of the sun, in that morning of new growth, the counrtyside rang with song....geminating slowly in its furrows, growing upwards in readiness for harvests to come, until one day soon their ripenin would burst open the earth itself (524)," there is hope. I think that Etienne had "germinated" in himself a hope for the people of his aread as well as a hope for France and this idea of equality can maybe one day be achieved if the battle continues to be fought. This can also be evident at various parts throughout the text when the idea of promiscutiy can also be taken as the "germination" of a new society, new growth from the old, through the reproduction of the human species. Through this new society, not only is it simply more hands to work the mines, but it is hope for a bigger army to fight the battle for equality.

As most people have already noted, I was struck by the deplorable conditions of the workers as well as their horrific actions toward the bourgeosie, such as Jealin's stabbing of Jules, the soldier. Like many others, I also had a difficult time discerning who exactly Zola was 'behind' as far as his views, however I disagree with Lauren's comparison between the miners starving to death and Monsieur Hennebeau's struggle with his wife's infidelity. I'm not saying that his wife's adultery is acceptable or easy to deal with, however it seems difficult to me to make a solid connection between that and the life-threatening situations of the miners. In the later chapters of the book, after Cecile is killed by Bonnemort, Monsieur Hennebeau even expresses relief that his nephew would be staying around so that he wife wouldn't start sleeping with the coachman. And although the quote in Lauren's message does support the ascertation that he struggled as the miners did, I dont believe that happiness was exactly what the miners were asking for. As I understood, they were (at least at the beginning) fighting for the simple right not to starve.

On another note, along with what Mike said, Zola's ending seems to leave something to be desired. Throughout the novel he is both sympathetic to and critical of both sides, however, he never offers up any sort of solution. I had expected some sort of clue as to Zola's personal views, or at the vary least a suggestion of how things might have gone better for both sides.

Edited by author 02-03-2003 11:16 AM
Similar to many of these postings, I was stunned as well while reading Germinal. It is shocking to us today that thousands of people could live in those conditions and never hope for change. Like Mike, I noticed the extreme realism Zola utilizes in his novel and like he said it was "taken to a new level." I believe that the novel would not hold as much impact if it was not written with this realism. Through the heavy description of everyday life, the reader is forced to sympathize with the miners and see just how different their living conditions are. This true realistic details shock us into action, discussion and thought, exactly Zola's purpose in writing the novel.
On the other hand, Zola did not present the bourgeoisie class as an oppresive evil group of people. To me, this made just as large of an impact as the descriptions of the working class conditions. In describing the upper-class Zola shows that they are people just like the working class that simply got a better deal. Many of the members of the upper-class sympathize with the working class (i.e. Cecile giving the children clothing) but they do not know the extent to which they are exploiting them. They trick themselves into believing that the working class slums are an "El Dorado" (106). To keep this illusion alive, the investors are not allowed to see the dirty housing, starving children, etc. This is illustrated when Madame Hennebeau shows the investors from Paris around the village, feeding them lines of how "divine" it was to live there (106). Due to the fact that the bourgeoisie do not allow themselves to see the full extent of the poverty, they never really know how much damage and suffering they are causing.
Showing both sides, Zola makes this a universal book for all eras. Today we read this book but never actually think it could happen. However, the reality is that these people were no different than us. Although the upper-class do not treat the poverty-striken as poorly today, this book shows what could happen when the wealth of a nation falls into merely a few hands.

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), made the story complete for me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”)

     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.

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”).

     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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

     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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

   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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

     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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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!

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

     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.

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.

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.

      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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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???

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.

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.

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.

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