Either:
- Newspapers and the Journalistic World in the time of Napoleon
OR
- major Russian spy events of the Cold War
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
French Revolution Reflection
I learned that the French Revolution did not necessarily turn out the way the people wanted to. The revolutionaries had wanted to get rid of the absolute monarchy that had ruled there country for centuries. But as a result of the revolution, new leaders came in but they were just as bad or worse than the absolute monarchies that had come before them. Robespierre was a tyrant that made the people do what he wanted by using terror. He was the main cause of the Terror and enforced his power by scaring everyone with the use of the guillotine. Napoleon was the next major leader who came in and he tricked everyone. He convinced everyone that he was doing good for France when really he was doing what he wanted. He ended up causing more harm than help. As a result of these two leaders, the French people invited the monarchy, Louis XVIII, back to power. The revolution ended with a constitutional monarchy, which is not so different from what they had started out with. The French people never received the free government they were looking for.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
French Revolution/ Egyptian Revolution #1-3
1. Compare / Contrast Louis XVI and Mubarak.
| Similarities | Differences |
| Louis: Absolute ruler Mubarak: dictator | Louis: made peace treaties with countries far away like the United States Mubarak: made peace treaties with neighboring countries and areas like Israel |
| Louis: Came to power because Louis XV died Mubarak: came to power because Anwar el-Sadat was killed | Louis: the economy of France was deteriorating but he did nothing to change that, he only continued to tax the poor Mubarak: in the beginning of his regime, he tried to better the economy of Egypt |
| Louis: forced out of office and executed because of French revolution Mubarak: forced out of office because of Egyptian revolution | Louis: He avoids meeting with leaders of countries that France normally has problems with, like England. Mubarak: He meets with the leader of Israel in 1986, despite having previous problems with Israel. |
| Louis: In 1789, the National Assembly goes against the king and his people, riots start to break out around the country. Mubarak: In 1986, riots break out against Mubarak and his government; this is the most serious riot yet. | Louis: He was an absolute ruler and therefore did not allow for any laws to be made that could kick him out of his position as king. Mubarak: Egypt has a parliament so the constitution was amended so that people could run against Mubarak. (2005) |
| Louis: He keeps his friends that are nobles in places of power, and never assigns someone from a lower class to a position of power. Mubarak: Mubarak assigns is friends positions in his cabinet, like Atef Obeid. | |
| Louis: The National Assembly is formed and begins to go against King Louis XVI. Mubarak: The Muslim Brotherhood fights to gain more seats in the Egyptian parliament so that they can rise against Mubarak. | |
| Louis: When he found out that the National Assembly refused to be a part of his Estates General, he said the Third Estate was no longer welcome in his Estates General. Mubarak: When he found out his people were revolting against him, he shut down all means of communication | |
2. In each case, WHY were the people protesting? (Cite primary sources).
In the French Revolution, people were protesting mainly because of taxes. At the time, the French had a large debt that could have been paid off if everyone was being taxed equally. However, the monarchy was only taxing the poor, lower class. This prevented the debt from being paid off and highly angered the lower and middle classes. The nobles, monarchies, and the clergy were free of taxes, despite those classes having the most money. The lower class did not have enough money to even pay for food so they decided to protest.
French Primary Sources:
In the Egyptian Revolution, people were protesting because Mubarak had been in office too long, and he had become a dictator. Mubarak had been president for about 30 years and he made it impossible for other candidates to become president. Mubarak did as he pleased, and when people began to protest against him he banned protesting. He shut down the internet so that citizens of Egypt could not communicate with people outside of the country. He also used the military at his disposal so that people would not rise against. The people of Egypt’s rights were being suppressed so they decided to protest.
Egyptian Primary Sources:
3. What role did women play?
| French Revolution | Egyptian Revolution |
| Marched on Versailles | Marched outside the presidential palace in Cairo |
| Olympe de Gouges writes a pamphlet called the Rights of Women; this helps women spread the word during the revolution that they deserve equal rights | Leil-Zahra Mortada, a Facebook user, put pictures on Facebook of all the women protesting in Cairo and all around Egypt to spread the word that women were taking part in this revolution |
| Marie Antoinette, wife of Louis XVI, was hated by most of the French so she contributed to the people wanting to overthrow the monarchy | Women demonstrated many peaceful marches in Cairo, despite the ban by Mubarak on any type of protesting |
| Women weren’t officially allowed to take part in the revolution but they conducted most of the marches against the monarchy; women were banned at one point from gathering together because leaders knew that if women got together they would march | Women set up in Tahrir Square in Cairo to protest against President Mubarak. In the square, women have volunteered and set-up makeshift kitchens, bathrooms, and communication stations. They have also been bringing lots of food and water to hand out to the protesters. |
French Revolution/ Egyptian Revolution #4-8
4. What concerns are there about the current situation in Egypt? How might they relate to the days following the fall of Louis XVI?
Some people from Cairo were saying on twitter that now that Mubarak stepped down they wanted people to stop protesting. They said that Egypt now needs to focus on rebuilding their country and government. Other people on twitter were voicing their concerns that Vice President Omar Suleiman and the military might become like Mubarak once they hold all the power. The people are concerned about another dictatorship happening again. This relates to the days following the fall of Louis XVI because people were happy he was gone but they were also concerned that another absolute monarch might come to power. In the case of France, another absolute ruler came into power, Robespierre, during the period that is known as the Terror. After the Terror was over people were even more worried that another ruler would come in and get power crazy. They even considered bringing a monarchy back to avoid that. Hopefully, that does not happen in Egypt.
5. How did/are people express(ing) their views?
In the time of the French Revolution, people expressed their views by marching on Versailles, printing pamphlets that discussed their points (such as women’s rights), attending the Estates General, creating their own Estates General known as the National Assembly, writing their own constitution, and eventually completely revolt with the use of guns and fire. For the Egyptian Revolution, people stormed Tahrir Square in Cairo, people burned down and bombed government buildings, people marched around the presidential palace, citizens refused to back down until Mubarak stepped down, and finally people continued to protest, even though Mubarak had banned any protesting and shut down means of communication. People in both revolutions just wanted their voices to be heard.
6. Are the current protests violent?
Violent protests started on January 1, 2011. These protests were religious bombings against Christians in Egypt. On January 25, the ‘Day of Wrath’ begins. Thousands of people stormed one of Cairo’s major squares and demanded the resignation of President Mubarak. The protest was unusually large and got violent at times. The next day protesters set fire to a government building. The police begin to strike back and attack protesters. There was an official ban on protesting so the police and military were ordered to stop protesters. Up until Mubarak steps down, the protests continued and so did the violence. Most government buildings were being set on fire in Cairo and Mubarak had the military strike back against protestors with bombs, gunfire, and fire.
7. What do people on the ground in Cairo think is going to happen now? (Directly contact reporters and bloggers in Egypt via Twitter during this class period).
There are many mixed feelings about what is going to happen in Cairo now. Some people were so happy that Mubarak stepped down that they were still celebrating and not even thinking about what was going to happen next. There were many twitter messages that said things like “نبتهج! وصعدت جمال مبارك,” which means “Rejoice! Mubarak has stepped down.” Some reporters from the NY Times reported via twitter that Swiss banks froze any accounts they had with Mubarak and that banks around the world would soon be doing the same. Other reporters from NPR’s blog about the revolution suggested that Vice President Omar Suleiman and the military being in charge of Egypt is most likely just temporary. They were saying that election are still scheduled to happen in September and that a whole new government will probably be elected.
8. Based on your study of the French Revolution and your current observations of the situation in Egypt, what do you think are possible outcomes? How are the possible outcomes in Egypt alike or different with outcomes in France -- both in the short and long term.
I think that Vice President Omar Suleiman will stay in office as stand in president until the September elections. Then I think Mohamed ElBaradei will be voted in as the new President if he runs. During this revolution, he was a major opponent to Mubarak and the people really seemed to stand behind him. I think if he runs for President, he is very likely to be elected. I also think that the Egyptian parliament is going to enforce laws so that elections are fair, and so that other candidates can legitimately run against the current president, unlike when Mubarak was in office. I also think parliament will set up more checks and balances for the president so that it is harder for future presidents to gain as much control as Mubarak had. These possible outcomes are similar to the outcomes of the French Revolution in that a new leader arose after the French Revolution, Napoleon, and that is similar to ElBaradei rising as a new possible leader. Also, new laws that parliament might set up in Egypt are similar to that of the French Revolution. The French made a new constitution that prohibited future leaders from gaining too much power. There is a good chance that is also going to happen in Egypt. However, the two revolutions are different in their outcomes because France still emerged with one leader who wasn’t directly elected by the people. In Egypt, the people will directly elect their leaders.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Surprise DBQ about the Terror
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the Terror as an instrument of the French Revolution.
The French Revolution was a revolution that happened based on the French monarchy ignoring its people. This revolution was a major movement towards the government France knows today. France was a country filled with people who wanted a free nation, and they made it happen. However, some parts of the revolution did not go as hoped. During the French Revolution, the time known as the Terror was advantageous because it brought the French people together by fighting against a common enemy, Robespierre; but it was also disadvantageous for the revolution as a whole because it suppressed the rights of the people and made citizens want a monarchy back in power.
The Terror was a dark time in French history. The guillotine was used as a weapon to slaughter the masses. According to document 2, around 13,000 people died during the Terror. These numbers show that people had a reason to ban together and stop the Terror from continuing. The enemy they wanted to stop: Robespierre. Robespierre stated in a speech to the National Convention that, "Its force to repress must be
commensurate with the audacity or treachery of those who conspire against it…." (doc. 7). He was saying that people that went against him deserved to be punished. He suppressed the rights of the people so that a person was either with him or against him; there was no middle ground. The people finally joined together to stand against him. In 1794, a report to the government on public opinion said, "It is a fact that there is no section in Paris which is not dissatisfied with its revolutionary committee or does not seriously desire to have
them abolished," (doc. 13). The reports discusses how the people were not satisfied with the National Committee and that they were ready to take measures against them. This terrible part of the French Revolution brought the people of the country back together.
The French Revolution was highly effected by the Terror. People's rights were suppressed by Robespierre and his followers so much that people were considering having a monarchy again. Louis Antoine de Saint-Jus said in a speech, "Yet the greatest of our misfortunes was a certain fear of the concentration of authority
necessary to save the state," (doc. 11). De Saint-Jus addressed the fact that people were so scared that another citizen might rise up and take power like Robespierre did that they were ready to invite the monarchy back to France. In his speech, Jus tried to convince theses citizens not to backtrack in the revolution. During the Terror, people were disgusted with all the innocent lives being taken. However, citixens could not say anything because then they would be executed. Another public opinion piece states, “Bitter complaints already expressed numberless times, were repeated today of the arrest and imprisonment of citizens who are good patriots and are victims of ambition, cupidity, jealousy, and, in short, every human passion," (doc. 10).
The citizens of France knew their rights were being taken away, but they could not do anything to stop it. William Pitt, a British Prime Minister, summed up how the French people were feeling when he said, "They are compelled into the field by the terror of the guillotine," (doc. 8). This quote shows how even leaders of other countries knew that unlawful acts were happening in France during the Terror.
The disadvantages of the Terror outweigh the advantages of the Terror on the French Revolution. Too many people were suppressed, too many people were killed, and too many backtracking thoughts came out of the Terror for it to be more advantageous than disadvantageous. According to document 3, incidents leading to executions during the Terror were mostly of people who were trying to get their rights back. Robespierre and his followers killed anyone who stood against them. A journalist and former ally of Robespierre even turned against him. He said, "Do you believe that these women, these old men, these weaklings, those egoists,
these stragglers of the Revolution, whom you imprison, are really dangerous? Of your enemies there
remain among you only the cowardly and the sick. The strong and the brave have emigrated. They have
perished at Lyon or in the Vendée; the remainder (consisting of some renters and shopkeepers] do not
merit your wrath," (doc. 6). This writer was showing the ridiculous things Robespierre was doing to prevent his enemy from succeeding. But Robespierre's enemy was the people, so he was really fighting an uphill battle.
Document 1 shows that executions were done in major cities. This proves that Robespierre wanted everyone to see the damage he was doing, and be afraid. A good leader would not instill that much fear in his people.
The Terror can be concluded to have advantages and disadvantages in the overall scheme of the French Revolution. However, those advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages. The Terror resulted in even more death, debt, and bad thoughts than it had started with. People were discouraged after the Terror and it is surprising that the revolution was able to continue. The Terror can be seen as an instrument of torture in the French Revolution.
The French Revolution was a revolution that happened based on the French monarchy ignoring its people. This revolution was a major movement towards the government France knows today. France was a country filled with people who wanted a free nation, and they made it happen. However, some parts of the revolution did not go as hoped. During the French Revolution, the time known as the Terror was advantageous because it brought the French people together by fighting against a common enemy, Robespierre; but it was also disadvantageous for the revolution as a whole because it suppressed the rights of the people and made citizens want a monarchy back in power.
The Terror was a dark time in French history. The guillotine was used as a weapon to slaughter the masses. According to document 2, around 13,000 people died during the Terror. These numbers show that people had a reason to ban together and stop the Terror from continuing. The enemy they wanted to stop: Robespierre. Robespierre stated in a speech to the National Convention that, "Its force to repress must be
commensurate with the audacity or treachery of those who conspire against it…." (doc. 7). He was saying that people that went against him deserved to be punished. He suppressed the rights of the people so that a person was either with him or against him; there was no middle ground. The people finally joined together to stand against him. In 1794, a report to the government on public opinion said, "It is a fact that there is no section in Paris which is not dissatisfied with its revolutionary committee or does not seriously desire to have
them abolished," (doc. 13). The reports discusses how the people were not satisfied with the National Committee and that they were ready to take measures against them. This terrible part of the French Revolution brought the people of the country back together.
The French Revolution was highly effected by the Terror. People's rights were suppressed by Robespierre and his followers so much that people were considering having a monarchy again. Louis Antoine de Saint-Jus said in a speech, "Yet the greatest of our misfortunes was a certain fear of the concentration of authority
necessary to save the state," (doc. 11). De Saint-Jus addressed the fact that people were so scared that another citizen might rise up and take power like Robespierre did that they were ready to invite the monarchy back to France. In his speech, Jus tried to convince theses citizens not to backtrack in the revolution. During the Terror, people were disgusted with all the innocent lives being taken. However, citixens could not say anything because then they would be executed. Another public opinion piece states, “Bitter complaints already expressed numberless times, were repeated today of the arrest and imprisonment of citizens who are good patriots and are victims of ambition, cupidity, jealousy, and, in short, every human passion," (doc. 10).
The citizens of France knew their rights were being taken away, but they could not do anything to stop it. William Pitt, a British Prime Minister, summed up how the French people were feeling when he said, "They are compelled into the field by the terror of the guillotine," (doc. 8). This quote shows how even leaders of other countries knew that unlawful acts were happening in France during the Terror.
The disadvantages of the Terror outweigh the advantages of the Terror on the French Revolution. Too many people were suppressed, too many people were killed, and too many backtracking thoughts came out of the Terror for it to be more advantageous than disadvantageous. According to document 3, incidents leading to executions during the Terror were mostly of people who were trying to get their rights back. Robespierre and his followers killed anyone who stood against them. A journalist and former ally of Robespierre even turned against him. He said, "Do you believe that these women, these old men, these weaklings, those egoists,
these stragglers of the Revolution, whom you imprison, are really dangerous? Of your enemies there
remain among you only the cowardly and the sick. The strong and the brave have emigrated. They have
perished at Lyon or in the Vendée; the remainder (consisting of some renters and shopkeepers] do not
merit your wrath," (doc. 6). This writer was showing the ridiculous things Robespierre was doing to prevent his enemy from succeeding. But Robespierre's enemy was the people, so he was really fighting an uphill battle.
Document 1 shows that executions were done in major cities. This proves that Robespierre wanted everyone to see the damage he was doing, and be afraid. A good leader would not instill that much fear in his people.
The Terror can be concluded to have advantages and disadvantages in the overall scheme of the French Revolution. However, those advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages. The Terror resulted in even more death, debt, and bad thoughts than it had started with. People were discouraged after the Terror and it is surprising that the revolution was able to continue. The Terror can be seen as an instrument of torture in the French Revolution.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Candide Thesis and Outline
Which do you prefer: Pangloss's optimism or Martin's pessimism? Why?
Thesis:
Martin’s pessimism about life is more realistic than Pangloss's optimism and therefore is more appeasing because Martin's pessimism shows logic and enlightened thinking while Pangloss's optimism is more religious and lacks reason.
Outline:
I. Martin represents the opinions of Voltaire while Pangloss represents the opinions of Leibniz.
A. Martin argues that bad things happen in the world, and not so that they can serve some larger, greater purpose.
B. Pangloss argues that everything in the world happens for a reason, that reason being to serve a great purpose.
1. His ideas make it seem as if no mistake can be made in the world.
C. Voltaire uses the character of Martin to express his philosophy on life, and uses Pangloss to express Leibniz’s philosophy about life.
1. In real life Leibniz had the same ideas that Pangloss has in the novel (this can be seen in the first three chapters).
2. Voltaire then creates a character to express his opinion which goes against Leibniz’s opinion so Martin is created to contradict Pangloss (this can be seen in chapters nineteen through twenty-three).
II. Martin’s pessimism is realistic and argues with logic.
A. He is not really a pessimist but a realist. He only seems like a pessimist when compared to Pangloss.
B. Martin thinks like that of an Enlightenment thinker: he uses reason.
1. He says that good and bad things happen in the world. He claims that with most good events, come bad events and vice versa.
2. “You see, said Candide to Martin, vice is sometimes punished; this villain the Dutch skipper has met with the fate he deserves. —Very true, said Martin; but why should the passengers perish too?” (chapter 19)
a. From this quote, the reader can tell that Martin believe good and bad things come together.
b. He is being realistic when saying that if a good thing happens so shall the bad.
3. In chapter 25, Martin and Candide find Count Pococurante who has all the art anyone could ever want but he is still unhappy.
a. Martin shows Candide that people can have all the good in the world and still be unhappy.
b. He is trying to say that if everything that happened was the best possible solution why would this man be unhappy?
III. Pangloss’s optimism is based on his religion.
A. Pangloss said that this was the best of all possible worlds because he wanted
to reaffirm his faith in God.
B. Pangloss said this world is the best of all possible worlds.
1. Candide had jewels stolen from him by a Dutch skipper but than that
skipper boat crashed.
a. Martin is able to use reason to argue against him and say that
why did the passengers have to die?
2. Pangloss's executioner was inexperienced so Pangloss escaped.
a. Martin said that was not the best possible world because later
after he escaped he was arrested and beaten.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)