Free Essays

How have the industrial revolution, productivity expansion and technological developments contributed towards the formation of an improvisational industrial sector?


Since the industrial revolution, productivity expansion and technological developments have contributed enormously towards the formation of an increasingly improvisational industrial sector. The excessive use of internet technologies for various business operations has widely transformed the key business processes including marketing, commerce, development and research, manufacturing, and logistics. These improvements have also played a strategic role in fading the spatial barriers between world economies. The development of a global industrial and financial system is supportive in free flow of information, products, people and investments across the globe.

The highly dynamic and competitive characteristics of e-businesses offer to generate revenue streams in various ways. As Dave (2003) noted, “all electronically mediated information exchanges, both within an organization and with external stakeholders supporting the range of business processes”, organization needs improved e-business technologies in order to formulate a sustainable business strategy. Innovation among e-businesses usually occurs through new exchange and transaction mechanisms not found in traditional organizations. Due to lack of geographical boundaries, virtual markets are reachable to a huge number of people and products. It is also economically viable for firms to outsource their services quickly and cheaply to the developing countries.

Over the last few decades, the dynamics of highly competitive global industry have forced organizations to rethink and re-evaluate the way they design competitive strategies in accordance with the fluctuating demand and diverse technologies. According to Robert Grant (2005), “When the external environment is in a state of flux, the firm itself, in terms of its bundle of resources and capabilities, may be a much more stable basis on which to define its identity”. In order to meet volatile customer preferences and needs, e-businesses worldwide are relying more on their internal resources, capabilities and advanced internet technologies. Emerging forms of effective online collaboration among firms such as affiliate programs, customizability of products and services and reduced costs of information processing also have profound effects on the revenue returns.

Strategic Application of E-CRM and E-Marketing

According to Lee-Kelley, Gilbert and Mannicom (2003), “e-CRM refers to the marketing activities, tools and techniques, delivered over the Internet (using technologies such as Web sites and e-mail, data-capture, warehousing and mining) with a specific aim to locate, build and improve long-term customer relationships to enhance their individual potential.” The adoption of e-commerce has long-term impacts on business profitability. Larger customers reach and existing customers’ base has potential for increasing revenues. Additionally, electronic service greatly reduces the operational costs such as staff, transport and materials reducing the purchasing costs. It also helps to improve communication and relationships with workforce, suppliers and customers. Complex business processes get simplified and standardized increasing the speed of access to information. Integrated business processes improve reliability, accuracy and also shorten the delivery time.

After the advent of World Wide Web, firms are using digital technologies such as intranets, extranets, online purchasing and e-government services to promote sales. Companies experienced increase in their stock prices by adapting to the internet. For instance, the web store of North West Supplies is online since 2002. In the first six months of website launch, the company had increased sales by ?20,000 through application of pay per click advertising. In order to reduce further advertising costs, the company redesigned its website and implemented Search Engine Optimization (SEO). The improvements in website design and marketing methods added to the NWS brand value increasing the annual turnover from ?250,000 to ?350,000.

For devising appropriate strategy plan and marketing techniques, the characteristics of trading in multiple business environments such as business-to-business and business-to-consumer, must be kept in view. Whether through distributors or inter-organizational, research over e-business transactions shows the availability of more opportunities for business-to-business models rather than business-to-consumer ones. Another important aspect to be considered about internet marketplace is the company’s distribution channel pattern for products and services. Internet makes it feasible for some businesses to bypass wholesalers, and distribute directly to online retailers or customers through a process called disintermediation. Amit and Zott (2001) have described business model in terms of application on the internet as, “A business model depicts the content, structure, and governance of transactions designed so as to create value through the exploitation of business opportunities”. Producers save sales and infrastructure costs which can be passed on to customers creating a competitive edge.

However, collaboration with intermediaries such as sponsorships and partnerships can also produce beneficial results. Intermediaries such as search engines, malls, virtual resellers, financial intermediaries, forums and evaluators have become important destinations to acquire information. For example, Hoover’s online provides basic company and industry information free of cost to any visitor. However, only paid subscribers are eligible to access detailed information. Additionally Hoover’s also generates revenue by advertising products and services of sponsor companies on their websites.

Sometimes, firms have to create new intermediaries to facilitate customers with selection of products by a process called re-intermediation. According to Dave (2003), “The advent of e-commerce means that marketers cannot rely on the online presence of existing intermediaries – instead they must create their own online intermediaries.” Re-intermediation is also important to monitor the market prices of other competitors and formulate a strategy accordingly. For example, nine European airlines including Air France, British Airways, KLM and Lufthansa created Opodo to facilitate their service buyers. The strategy was competitive enough to increase turnover in 2008 up to ˆ1.3 billion in gross sales. Amazon and eBay are among the most successful e-businesses having business-to consumer relationships. They use specific e-business activities such as intelligent information systems to generate sales revenue. The system keeps record of customer’s preferences and helps in product selection when customer visits the website again. eBay generates revenue primarily through the listing and commission on completed sales. Paypal, providing global online payment solutions was also acquired by eBay in 2003. It also acquired Skype Internet Telephony in 2005. The company’s strategy is built on revenue generation from just transmitting information between buyers and sellers at tiny incremental costs.

Highly competitive market environments are challenging organizations to build a cost-effective technology infrastructure. Successful e-commerce solutions demand compilation of all buyers’ information into single database. Sawhney and Zabin (2001) have described effectiveness of sales on internet as, “technology-enabled selling will be used increasingly to synchronize and integrate all selling channels used by the enterprise, including telesales, the Net, resellers, and the direct sales force, through the use of a common customer relationship repository, a common applications infrastructure, and a shared business process.” The formation of a multi-channel input stream is critical for personalized service offerings to allow free flow of information between channels as well as cross-channel dialogue with buyers. A comprehensive understanding of the customer preferences will help firms to provide products and services they want. Additionally, e-commerce can be utilized to offer one-to-one relationships to customers. For instance, a software application consolidating a set of different e-CRM applications such as information integration, customer analysis, campaign management, real-time decision, and personalized messaging applications may accomplish a durable value exchange.

Instead of attracting new customers, it is economically more viable for firms to implement a customer retention strategy. Several studies have revealed that loyal customers are less sensitive to prices. A company can reduce the long-term costs of attracting new customers by maintaining relationship with existing customers. A good e-commerce strategy offers integration of all processes into a single, customized web interface. It is important to note that all customers do not use online communication. Some may prefer telephone or face-to-face communication channels. Thus, along with other needs, integration of e-CRM with intranet, extranet, organization’s portal and other channels is also critical.

Nowadays, established businesses are seeking access to virtual markets as well as need street presence. Firms often experiment buying and selling on the internet. A specific channel strategy may work for few while not for others. The re-designing of business processes must be able to match customer expectations. It has been observed that web pages with the most recent, interactive, reliable and rich information have the ability to enhance brand value attracting more customers. Most of these online corporate brochures present outdated financial results, invalid telephone numbers, already filled job vacancies, and outdated press releases portraying a negative image of respective organizations. If the design, funding and quality are properly managed, these brochures can improve overall image of such e-businesses.

Online order processing provides customer with multiple tools to access supplier information, pricing, participation in auctions, comparison shopping and view product or services aggregations quickly and cost-effectively. For companies, it provides a detailed overview of customers buying habits that can be further exploited for cross selling, up-selling, customer-service and technical support. When customers are offered to configure products and services according to their needs, firms become more competitive in their investment strategies. Conducting online surveys enable marketers to test customer behavior critical for designing effective e-commerce strategy.

The integration of internet technologies has systematically changed the traditional marketing practices reducing costs and enhancing reach. Previously, firms were using various numbers of marketing practices including transaction marketing, database marketing, interaction marketing and network marketing etc. Apart from TV, print, mail and other media, firms also include internet as part of a multi-channel marketing strategy. According to Dave (2003), a multi-channel marketing strategy “defines how different marketing channels should integrate and support in terms of their proposition development and communications based on their relative merits for the customer and the company.” Reports on the most visited sites ranking indicate various marketing opportunities including portals and web-logs. Companies are actively using them for keyword advertising, banner advertising or sponsorship to market their products and services. For instance, Yahoo is one of the top most portals developed according to geographical locations. Despite enormous competition from Microsoft and Google, Yahoo has been able to successfully generate large marketing services revenue.

In essence, e-marketing is same as agricultural-age-marketing building direct relationships between producer and consumer. E-marketing is still at lower costs compared to agricultural-age-marketing, however. It also makes remote areas accessible to the firms inexpensively. E-marketing can be utilized with respect to universal reach of markets fading spatial barriers between different nations. Moreover, the amount of information available is much greater and without human intervention. The contact process is simple to understand and use such as a contact form for most customers. For example, it is quite difficult to manage airline scheduling and reservation systems according to every customer’s needs. The interaction provided by e-marketing firms allows customers to customize required services and products according to their own choice.

Country’s infrastructure and institutional development has far-reaching implications on a marketing strategy. The infrastructure development includes roads, telecommunication channels, legislative authorities, and law and order situation. The presence of effective, competitive and efficient marketing institutions is essential to ensure institutional development. It is easier for companies having physical presence in different regions such as Wal-Mart, Dell and Cisco to reduce costs and enhance reach compared to the catalog firms. It is thus very important to formulate e-marketing strategy according to the available infrastructure and institutional development in a country.


The role and impact of e-business technologies in an organization’s overall performance cannot be neglected. As the business environments are quite dynamic globally, e-businesses should choose geographical development of their online business mediums. Businesses worldwide need to competitively adapt to the e-commerce and e-marketing technologies in their future strategies. Virtual markets are under the influence of complex environmental forces that can affect the strategic application of e-business technologies adversely. Another challenge for organizations implementing e-CRM and e-marketing is the selection of appropriate technology partners. Firms should be able to evaluate currently applied e-business technologies and monitor online processes for further improvements.

In addition to the websites, customers should also be provided with other multiple points of contact such as support centers, sales representatives and telephonic communication. For companies to be highly effective and efficient, a single view of the customer information and communication is critical in e-business strategy analysis. If e-marketing and e-commerce technologies are extended to competitive strategy initiative, they are highly likely to deliver far greater returns and establish different competitive positions in identical market environments.


Amit, R. and Zott, C., 2001. Value creation in e-business, Strategic Management Journal, 22 (Special Issue), pp. 493–520.

Basu, A. and Siems, T.F., 2004. The impact of e-business technologies on supply chain

operations: A macroeconomic perspective, Working Paper 0404, Federal Reserve

Bank of Dallas, Research Department, Dallas, TX.

Brodie, R.J. et al., 2007. Is e-marketing coming of ageAn examination of the penetration of e-marketing and firm performance, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21 (1), pp. 2-21.

Dave, C., 2003. E-business and e-commerce management. 2nd ed. London: FT/Prentice Hall.

Grant, R. M., 2005. Analyzing resources and capabilities: Contemporary strategy analysis. 5th ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Lee-Kelley, L. and Gilbert, D., 2003. How e-CRM can enhance customer loyalty, Marketing

Intelligence & Planning, 21 (4), pp. 239-48.

Opodo ., 2008. Opodo 2008 results announcement. [Online] Available at : <> [Accessed 02 April 2011].

Pan, S. L. and Lee, J. -N., 2003. Using e-CRM for a unified view of the customer, Communications of the ACM, 46, pp. 95– 99.

Pride, W. M. et al., 2009. Business. Mason, OH: South-Western.

Ross, D. F., 2005. E-CRM from a supply chain management perspective, Information Systems Management, 22 (1), pp. 37-44

Sawhney, M. and Zabin, J., 2001. The seven steps to nirvana: Strategic insights into e-business transformation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sheth, J. N. and Sharma, A., 2005. International e-marketing: Opportunities and issues, International Marketing Review, 22(6), pp. 611-622.

Free Essays


D. Revolutionary Changes in the Atlantic World, 1750-1850

1. The American Revolution never went through the radical phases that the French Revolution did. Yet, the nineteenth-century French government was more conservative than the nineteenth-century U.S. government. Explain.

The American Revolution is not as tough and Radical as the French Revolution because

France provided American forces with financial help and armor support during the American Revolution. The Americans are also greatly influenced by some philosophers that made them not to look up to French’s form of government as a model even though France provided coalitions and even send off fleet and an army to help them triumphed battles effectively.

French government is more conservative than the U.S government during the 19th century because of the absolute monarchy of French government. Americans never went through radical changes since they followed a series  of  board intellectual shifts and social shifts as well that gave them new republican ideals that expands democracy among  American people and created the ethic that formed the core of American political values.

2. What similarities and differences do you see between the nineteenth-century revolutions in Latin America and their French and American predecessors?

The similarities between the 19th century revolution in America and their French American predecessors is that they began to inherit political powers and the idea of a democratic government where the consent lies on the government’s consent. Assertion of liberty, individual rights, equality and hostility towards corruption which are considered as American core values greatly influenced their predecessors. This made realizations to them that they could also break away and become self governing nations.

E. The Early Industrial Revolution

1. How did events in the eighteenth century lead to industrialization in the nineteenth century?  What was the most important catalyst for industrialization?

The industrial Revolution was a result of the outgrown of institutional and social changes in Britain right after the 17th century English Civil War  and  technological innovation

The presence of a large domestic market should also be considered an important driver of the Industrial Revolution, particularly explaining why it occurred in Britain. In other nations, such as France, markets were split up by local regions, which often imposed tolls and tariffs on goods traded amongst them. (Deane, Phyllis. The First Industrial Revolution, Cambridge University Press.)

2. Compare and contrast the impact of the Industrial Revolution on men and women.  How was family life affected by industrialization?

Industrial Revolution have different impact on men and women for men it paved way for more work ad encourage them to more enhanced way of labor through innovation and technology. Forced labor and child labor is also rampant during the years of Industrial revolution which gave workers longer working hours. Women’s job like factories of clothings and the weaving industry is affected by Industrial revolution because machines takes place of the job which is supposedly for the works of women.

The Great Exhibition of 1851 site


Free Essays

Locke and Hobbes on Revolution

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1706) belonged to the same generation of philosophers.  However, both philosophers viewed English Revolution differently.  Hobbes had experienced the English Revolution as a time of brutality.  Thence, the philosopher compared the revolution to what he referred to as the “state of nature” (or, a state of primitiveness).

This state was ruthless and uncouth.  Hobbes believed that revolutions were similarly a negative state, and in order to guard itself against the malice of revolutions, society needed a strong king and strict governance, somewhat akin to the Panopticon state of Michel Foucault.  Locke, on the other hand, lauded the concept of revolution as a necessity during times of governmental disturbance.  In other words, the philosopher with a good view of revolution believed in dismantling the government if it does not work (“Locke and Hobbes”).

Sharp (2006) explains the difference between Locke’s and Hobbes’ viewpoints on revolution thus:

At least part of the difference between Hobbes and Locke can be attributed to their historical circumstances.  Hobbes witnessed the English Civil War, which destroyed every opportunity for happiness for many people.  His all-powerful state must have seemed like the lesser of two evils, since it would at least be stable and life would not devolve into anarchy.   Locke, however, witnessed the Glorious Revolution, where the government was completely changed without bloodshed.

For him, revolution must not have seemed like such a terrible thing.  Most likely, both views are too extreme.  Revolution is usually a costly endeavor, since those in power rarely relinquish it willingly.  However, the possibility or revolution is a key  part of maintaining rights, since an all-powerful government could suppress our rights without fear of repercussion.

Hobbes, being senior to Locke in age and experience, had apparently seen a bloody war that Locke had not been a witness of.  Thus, the views of the philosophers differed with respect to the English Revolution.  Had Locke also lived through the English Civil War, he might have been bitter about the idea of revolution as well.  Nevertheless, it is important to note that both philosophers believed in human rights.  Locke was not a violent agitator.  Furthermore, it is clear that his philosophy on revolution was written with ultimate peace in mind.

Locke wrote about “abuse of power by the government” as a reason for a revolution.  In order to serve justice, he considered it ethical for citizens to fight for their rights, even if they must fight the government for the same reason.  In Locke’s view, “rebellion” was a necessity at times of governmental corruption and dissidence.  Besides, in the perspective of the philosopher, the people could be trusted to make decisions as regards civil rights.  The important matter to consider remained, however, that people could achieve “restoration of their rights” via a revolution (Kemerling, 2000).

Locke’s philosophy on revolution makes the kinds of allowances for the common people that Hobbes’ philosophy does not allow for.  In the latter’s view, revolutions are bad because they lead to bloodshed.  So therefore, governments should be strong enough to rule the people without letting them express their agitation in any form whatsoever.

Locke’s philosophy can debate with Hobbes’ view quite simply by claiming that the victims of bloodshed are usually the common people; and if they are the ones taking responsibility for a revolution, they are the ones also responsible for guarding their safety at all costs during a revolution.  Governments that try to quell public rebellion through military violence are bad in any case.  Hence, the public is right in demolishing such governments.  At the same time, the public must protect itself from the agitation of the government during a revolution.

Thus Locke’s philosophy of revolution allows for public liberty unlike Hobbes’ philosophy, which is similar to the Panopticon.  Michel Foucault’s (1995) Panopticism begins with a detailed description of the measures to be taken against a seventeenth century plague.

The government was meant to exercise absolute control over all citizens during such time, as spaces were to be partitioned and houses were to be closed off.  Stray animals were to be killed, and human beings were to be advised that they could only leave town if they wanted to be killed too.  Moreover, guards were to be put on duty to keep a constant eye on the people.  Every guard was to be informed that “if he leaves the street, he will be condemned to death.”

The government aimed to create a pure and disciplined community through these orders.  What is more, as Foucault points out, it was a “political dream” to create such an obedient community, even for a brief period of time.  Such an obedient community happens to be a model for other communities and other times.  This plagued community was further marked by:

…strict divisions; not laws transgressed, but the penetration of regulation into even the smallest details of everyday life through the mediation of the complete hierarchy that assured the capillary functioning of power; not masks that were put on and taken off, but the assignment to each individual of his ‘true’ name, his ‘true’ place, his ‘true’ body, his ‘true’ disease.  The plague as a form, at once real and imaginary, of disorder had as its medical and political correlative discipline.  Behind the disciplinary mechanisms can be read the haunting memory of ‘contagions’, of the plague, of rebellions, crimes, vagabondage, desertions, people who appear and disappear, live and die in disorder.

The Panopticon state is the literal embodiment of Hobbes’ philosophy of government.  Totally unlike Locke’s state of freedom, which is equal to democracy in present times, Hobbes’ is a restrictive state with police control at best.  From these two differing philosophies of government arise two dissimilar, defining concepts of revolution.  People through history have found it difficult to believe in both at the same time.  To answer their concerns, both Hobbes and Locke advise their readers and thinkers to use their reason in changing or adopting a form of government (Sharp).


Focault, Michel. (1995). Panopticism. Retrieved 20 May 2007, from


Kemerling, Garth. (2000). Locke: Social Order. Philosophy Pages. Retrieved 20 May 2007, from

Locke and Hobbes, Two Contrasting Views of the English Revolution. Retrieved 20 May 2007,


Sharp, Robert. (2006, September 5). Hobbes Vs. Locks: A Question of Rights. Retrieved 20 May

2007, from



Free Essays

To What Extent Did the American Revolution?

DbKatie Gordon APUSH Mr. Vieira September 24, 2012 DBQ: To what extent did the American Revolution fundamentally change American society? In your answer, be sure to address the political, social and economic effects of the Revolution in the period from 1775 to 1800. After the American Revolution, Americans, who were free of British control, started to reevaluate politics, the economy and society. After breaking away from what they thought was a corrupt and evil government, Americans changed how they wanted to govern their society, even though they ultimately reverted to a more centralized government similar to Britain.

The uneducated masses, as viewed by the elite, didn’t experience a lot of change though the ideals from the revolution still guided some to seek better financial opportunities. Women, slaves, and loyalist experienced a considerable amount of change in society as women experienced more freedoms, some slaves were set free, and loyalist left America. Overall, America didn’t experience a lot of economic change, but it did experience, to varying degrees, political and social change. Politically speaking, the Americans did not want their government to resemble that of the British government.

Which brings about the development of the Articles of Confederation. However, there were many holes in the Articles: there was no executive branch, the federal government could not implement taxes and overall the government did not have much centralized power. Everyone knew that a change needed to be supplemented and quick. This brings about the writing and ratification of the Constitution. In order to persuade states to ratify the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote and circulated the Federalist Papers.

James Madison also writes, “ambition must be made to counteract ambition” (Document I), insinuating the system of checks and balances that the Constitution insures. This active separation of power was pivotal in the ratification of the Constitution, which contrasted the American government from the British government. Americans did not experience much change economically. The Philadelphia society for the promotion of agriculture in 1786, handed out a medal, which said, “venerate the plough” (Document F). This demonstrates how the elite were still “rewarding” the common people who weren’t financially better off than before the revolution.

Similarly, in Shay’s Rebellion farmers led by the ex-military officer “[stopped] the courts of justice in several counties…crying out for a paper currency, [or] for an equal distribution of power” (Document G). A particular example of the downfall of American economy was Shay’s rebellion. This represented economic strife that the common people were enduring and ultimately rebelled. Two important socio-economic issues the founding fathers discussed were the rights of women and slavery. Women’s roles increased greatly during the revolution. While me were away fighting or running the country, women were at home running and defending the farm.

This can be seen in the woodcut (Document A) and in Abigail Adam’s letters to Thomas Jefferson (Document G). Women had, for a time, the right to vote in New Jersey. The revolution also increased the education of women and encouraged them to be more involved in public life. However, all women were not content to go back to their household chores after the revolution as seen by Molly Wallace who says “if [taught] to read, why not speak? ” (Document J), illustrating how some women wanted to further their domestic roles and play a larger role in society.

Women were not ultimately granted the right to vote until many years later, but that foundation started during the American Revolution. The practice of slavery was common during the time period of the American Revolution in the colonies and in Europe. At the time, it was the primary economic engine in the south and Caribbean. American revolutionaries thought about the morals of slavery, but were unable to change much at this time. However, slavery could be banned in the Northwest Territories, where it wasn’t too important to that region’s economy.

The Northwest Ordinance specifically says, “There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in said territory” (Document H). Although the revolution was not directly able to ban slavery, it cased the issue and allowed future generations to solve it. The revolution also enabled religious freedom to be written into the fabric of our nation. Many European nations had state religions of this time. Some of the first settlers to the colonies came in search of religious freedom. However, some of them instituted theocratic governments once here. But the revolution showed that America was a melting pot of ideas and people.

They believed that our government should not sponsor one particular religion. Virginia enacted such a law in 1786. Politically Americans experienced some change by forging a new government even though they revised it in the end. Economically, the common people, who fought for better lifestyles, still lived under the heel of the elites. However a significant amount of change occurred for women, slaves and loyalist, although the loyalist position in changed in society in a very negative manner. In these ways American society experienced change in respect to political and social life, but not economically.

Free Essays

Radicalism of the American Revolution

Essay 1 “Radical”, a term generally defined by many as an event or action that fundamentally changes the political, cultural, and/or economic nature of a society. The American Revolution was a time of great change within the structure of society, greatly transforming certain parts of America, yet leaving other parts relatively unchanged over the course of the Revolutionary period. When asked whether or not I consider the Revolution to be “radical”, I can give no absolute yes or no response.

Instead I will have to take more of a “grey area” approach to the question and say a bit of both yes and no, because although the revolution did change quite a bit, there were still areas it was unable to change. In my opinion, I would say the American Revolution was “radical”, but only to a point. Some of the most important changes that the Revolution did make in American society were focused heavily on expanding and redefining political freedom throughout the country, and establishing religious tolerance. One important way that the revolution did not change the American society was in social hierarchy.

Prior to the American Revolution, politics consisted of many voting, but few actually holding any kind of political power, those who did have power not listening to voters, no parties, and few public political arguments. During the Revolution, however, many Americans had a much more powerful voice in politics. This newfound power was due to an ending of old governments and authority, and the fundamental “need to reinstitute legitimate governments”. Election campaigns also became very public arguments over what the government “should” be, this is very different than what the political scene was in post-Revolution Colonial America.

Some of the most radical movements can be seen in the Revolution in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, the pro-independence radical took control, abolishing such political offices as governor. The issue of voting rights was also a very contentious subject in politics. John Adams believed that the “common rabble” of men in the country had no “judgment of their own”, and the removal of a property qualification to vote would “confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level”.

Pennsylvania, for one abolished the property qualification for voting, but retained the tax payment qualification, whereas other states did away with both. Prior to the Revolution, only a few colonies embraced religious tolerance, those being Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. Most of the colonies in the country still had established state churches. However, colonists began to regularly associate religious freedom with “liberty” and evangelicals particularly supported this movement towards religious liberty, having suffered much oppression, and believing that “government corrupted religion”.

An assault on state churches developed with The Elites, a. k. a. , Founding Fathers agreeing that religion could be potentially dangerous when apart of government. This “Enlightened” religion argued that religion had often supported unjust governments. Most of them would have been Deists. Deism, a popular belief among elites in the 1700s, held belief in God, but that he was rarely and distantly involved in human affairs, and viewed many Christian beliefs as superstition.

Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia, 1782 saying that “The whole history of these books is [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it”. The Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom was a Virginia bill introduced by Thomas Jefferson in 1779. The bill eliminated religious requirements for voting and office-holding, eliminated government finance for religion, and barred the state from forcing participation in religion. One important way that the Revolution did not change the American Society was in social hierarchy.

Although the American Revolution changed many things, it still left some unchanged, like the much higher sociopolitical power of the upper class aristocrats within the country. The social classes were arranged from highest to lowest as such: Upper class, merchants, tradesmen, farmers, working men, indentured servants, slaves, and finally Indians. Not much had changed since Colonial America with the wealthy upper class controlling much of everything from politics to religion. Slavery continued, women had no rights whatsoever, and the system was simply not open to all white men yet.

Wealth always made a difference, as it usually does. They were the land owners, the voters, the senators and congressmen. Normal people couldn’t be or do any of these things without having the money and success. In conclusion, the American Revolution, in my opinion, can be seen as partly “radical” and partly not. Similar to many other revolutions, it could not have changed every single thing overnight, and in fact, it did not. But there is no denying that, at least then, it did radically change things in the country, but also left some the same.

Free Essays

Prelude to American Revolution

Creating the New Nation The social, political, and economic consequences of the Revolutionary War and the early American Republic have served as a blueprint for global freedom enabling subsequent generations and the nations to secure the blessings of liberty. With the culmination of the French and Indian War, British and American ethos clashed causing the American colonists to create a new nation founded on the principles of self-government and human liberty. The following paragraphs will detail a succinct history of the events that shaped this watershed historical and political movement. The year is 1754.

After years of feeling envious of the Spanish spreading culture around the globe, the British decided to follow in their footsteps, hoping for the same successful results. They set their sights on the New World that promises, “Land as far as the eye can see” and religious freedom. So they set sail to travel to the Promised Land, only to soon find themselves in a major conflict. It’s not before long that the British are in battle with the current French habitants. Both sides try to receive as much help as possible, by befriending local Native American tribes. This war is now famously known as The French and Indian War.

This brutal, exhausting war lasts seven years. In 1763, the Treaty of Paris is signed to finally end the warfare. Taking note of this, the British Parliament issues the Proclamation of 1763, which forbade any British colonists to settle past the Appalachian Mountains. The tired, beaten-up, colonists were outraged. Some refused to comply and moved out west anyways. This is significant because this is the first sign of rebellious acts that the colonists made leading up to the American Revolution. The damage from the French and Indian War was far more devastating than people realized.

Britain was severely in debt and stripped of resources. As a result, a few taxes were placed on the colonies. The most important being The Stamp Act of 1765. The idea was for the British to place a tax on all documents produced in the British colonies. This was the main form of communication, so having to pay even more for something they used very often frustrated the colonists to an even greater extent. Many colonists thought it was against their rights to be taxed without their consent. The phrase, “taxation without representation” became more and more popular within the general public.

Some colonists even formed rebellious groups and protested the British Parliament’s taxes. On March 5, 1770, a group of protesters were on King Street in Boston, Massachusetts. They began verbally abusing and harassing eight soldiers stationed in front of a building. Without order, the soldiers fired into the crowd, instantly killing three people and wounding others. This major event is known as the Boston Massacre. After several similar events, significant figures such as Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, and many others, signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776.

This document stated that America is declaring its independence against the British Government. The thirteen colonies considered themselves “independent”, not knowing the major actions that Britain was going to commence. The American Revolution had officially begun. A disgruntled colonist named Thomas Paine wrote a pamphlet criticizing not only the British, but the colonists also. He thought that no one was actually taking actions in preparations for the war against Britain. He constantly used biblical references to try and influence people to take action.

This pamphlet, titled “Common Sense” is famously known as being the most popular pamphlet in the revolutionary era. In the midst of the Revolutionary War, the young country of America thought they needed some type of constitution; therefore, The Articles of Confederation were established. The A of C loosely linked the 13 states mainly to deal with foreign affairs. It didn’t create an executive branch. Each state had a single vote and 9 of the 13 states had to vote for a bill before it passed. The main problem with this was that Rhode Island had the same amount of power as Virginia, which had three times Rhode Island’s population.

Also, The A of C did not provide the government power to tax, raise an army or navy, and regulate commerce for national interests. States, however, could enforce taxes. Frustration continued throughout the American states for years. A farmer named Daniel Shay, led a small army and tried to revolt against the government. Shay’s Rebellion was stopped, but exposed several major problems. First, there was not standing army to stop a rebellion. Second, many people, including Thomas Jefferson, agreed with Shay. Jefferson stated, “The tree of liberty has to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time.

It is as natural as manure. ” And thirdly, the A of C were not working AT ALL. In 1787, a quorum of 55 emissaries from 12 states gathered in Philadelphia. Thomas Jefferson called this a “Convention of Demigods”, but it was formally known as the Constitutional Convention. They issued many major compromises. One being the CT Plan/Great compromise. This set a standard to how many representatives in each state could be in Senate (equal) and the House of Representatives (based on population). Another compromise they established was the 3/5 compromise.

This stated that slaves were to be counted as 3/5 of person. This greatly impacted when bills or policies were in the voting stages. Lastly, The Electoral College was created. The idea of this was to be used for future presidential elections. They were to use the number of congressional electors from each state to determine the president based on the state’s power. For example, California would have more Electoral College votes than Oklahoma because it has a higher population. Realizing that the A of C has led to be a string of failures, George Washington appointed James Madison to construct the U.

S. Constitution. Many Anti-Federalists sharply criticized the Constitution because it did not recognize many civil rights. The first 10 amendments of the Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, is a necessity to the most precious of our rights. It prohibits too much intrusion by the government. In other words, it greatly limits the government’s power. As the country became more and more in debt, Alexander Hamilton argued that Assumption was the right way to go because the debts were caused by the shared goal of Independence.

In addition, it put the states under more power by the federal government. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison met with Alexander Hamilton for dinner in Philadelphia one greatly historic weekend. They made a deal: Jefferson would support Assumption and Hamilton would support moving the Nation’s capital to the Chesapeake area. This is why the capital is in the South and called Washington D. C. Once George Washington left office, John Adams took his place as President. Adams was not going to take any negativity for the way he ran things.

So the Adams’ Administration established the Alien and Sedition Act which enforced arrest on any people who criticized the government. Thomas despised the way Adams took things during his presidency. So Jefferson runs against him and sabotages Adams’ presidency and wins the Election of 1800, aka The Revolution of 1800. Immediately, Jefferson with the help of James Madison tried to thwart the federal government’s power. In conclusion, Early America, despite all the rebellious acts and criticism, served as a blueprint for global freedom enabling subsequent generations and nations to secure the blessings of liberty.

Thanks to many great leaders such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and many more, there is a standard set in the country that the Government must abide by. The impact of events such as the American Revolution, Boston Massacre, Constitutional Convention, etc. , the country has grown stronger and more knowledgeable about foreign affairs and globalization. Although America is still considered to be a young country, the history within this great nation is one of the richest in the world.

Free Essays

Study Guide for French Revolution

Study Guide for French Revolution * Brinton’s model of a revolution: * Symptomatic Phase- all social classes are unhappy (peasants are scared of change, bourgeoisie want change) * Moderate Phase- revolution begins in hopes of control (radicals feel like there isn’t ENOUGH change) * Radical Phase- a strong men from a radical group gains and assumes power * Convalescence Phase- revolution has a setback; moderate groups regain power * Estates: First Estate: Clergy (less than 1% of population) * Upper Clergy: noble by birth/bishops * Lower Clergy: peasant class/priests * Second Estate: Nobility (less than 2% of population) * Privileged class * Absolute monarch would cause them to lose power * Third Estate: Common People (97% of population) * They pay all the taxes for the country * Includes the bourgeoisie, urban workers, peasants and serfs * Sans-culottes: radical lower class workers Louis XVI: King of France during the revolution; he was slow to make decisions about the revolution * Marie Antoinette: France disliked her from the minute she married Louis XVI because she was Austrian and did not have a child for the first 7 or 8 years, and disregarded the struggle the public was going through * Old Regime: the social and political system before the revolution began * Cahiers- nobility Estates-General: under the Old Regime there was a legislative assembly with representatives from each estate; this system is very unfair because the 1st and 2nd estates would usually agree with one another and the third estate (which was obviously much larger than the other estates) was left in the dust; Louis XVI called them together when he heard about the revolution * Abbe Sieyes: a priest that wrote a pamphlet about the 3rd estate, which created the revolution to some extent because it made the third estate think about how little power they have; also this pamphlet helped the Old Regime urn into the National Assembly * National Assembly: the new legislative system in which the amount of representatives from the third estate was doubled, but the voting didn’t change (so in the end it helped with nothing) * Tennis Court Oath: Louis XVI locks the National Assembly out of their meeting spot at Versailles, so they go to an inside tennis court that’s near; the National Assembly took an oath saying that they would not separate, but reassemble whenever certain situations required a reorganization, at least until the constitution of France was created * The Bastille: July 14th, 1789;a large group of people bombarded the royal prison; it was a symbol of tyranny * The Great Fear: riots and violence spread to the countryside of France; people went on a rampage because they were afraid the king was forming an army and was going to attack them; National Assembly takes action to keep things in order * The Law of the Fourth of August: National Assembly abolishes feudalism (on paper, but in reality it doesn’t actually stop) * Emigres: French term meaning someone who has left/migrated out of the country * Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen: influenced by Rousseau; not a radical document; only benefit wealthy men * “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity”: French motto March of the Women to Versailles: the goal was to bring the King back to Paris, so people could speak to him about important situations whenever they wanted * Civil Constitution of the Clergy: a law created that made the State have control of Church; priests were forced to swear an oath of loyalty to the revolution * Olympe de Gouges- a girondist woman who created the Declaration of the Rights of Woman, which was after the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was created * Jacobins- the most radical group that wanted Paris to be the center of government; represented interests of sans-culottes * Girondists- another radical group that favored decentralized government; feared sans-culottes * Legislative Assembly: National Assembly voted themselves out of existence and created this new assembly; it lacked experience because there was a rule that said anyone from the National Assembly couldn’t be in the Legislative Assembly * The Marseillaise- France National Anthem; also it is an area in France * Flight to Varennes: the royal family tried to escape and flee to Austria to live with Marie’s family; unfortunately they were caught ecause common people knew Louis XVI’s face from the currency (money) in France; after this people saw Louis as a traitor * National Convention: the NEW government of France during the Reign of Terror (radical phase of the revolution) * Robespierre- radical Jacobin; dictator of the Radical Phase; led the Committee of Public Safety * Committee of Public Safety: a radical group that tried to eliminate anyone who was against the revolution; killed them using the guillotine * Danton- led/roused up the sans-culottes; Robespierre eventually executed him * Jean Paul Marat- bitter, angry newspaper writer, who took his anger out on the revolution; killed by the girondist, Charlotte Corday * Universal manhood suffrage- every man can vote, class doesn’t matter * Reign of Terror- period of time (during the radical phase) were there was a lot of violence stirred up by conflicts between the Jacobins and the Girondists; over 25,000 people were killed * Republic of Virtue- Robespierre tried to create this as part of the de-Christianization in France * Guillotine- an enlightened, democratic, and humane way to kill people; it was equal for everyone and someone’s class didn’t change the way they were killed * Levee en Masse- a law that said that everyone should someone support the revolution; men could fight in battles, old men could sell things; and women could be nurses for the injured men * Directory- government of France after the Reign of Terror; very corrupt; their only success was creating a better army by increasing patriotism; people who were originally involved in the Reign of Terror were now being attacked in what is known as the “White Terror”; they revived Catholicism; ruled by rich bourgeoisie * Napoleon Bonaparte: short, but extraordinarily energetic man from the island of Corsica, who believed he was destined to do great. In order to succeed and get what he wanted, he would do anything (Machiavellian). He created a new government: consulate. He tricked people into voting for him by making it seem like it was a democracy when he was going to dictate the country anyway; declared himself Emperor and crowned himself as a symbol of true power; he made sure that there was no freedom of speech for citizens and he restored Catholic Church * Josephine de Beauharnais: Napoleon’s first wife * Coup de’ etat: French term for overthrowing something * Plebiscite: everyone votes for something and someone simply counts to see how many greed or disagreed (very democratic) * Napoleonic Code: legal code that Napoleon created and brought everywhere; based on old Roman law and influenced modern day French law * Continental System: main goal was to hurt Great Britain economically, but it backfired on Napoleon * Duke of Wellington: the man who defeated Napoleon in his last battle (Battle of Waterloo) * Peninsular War: fought Portugal * Guerilla Warfare: hide and ambush * Russian campaign: on June 24th, 1812, Napoleon ignores the advice from his advisors and invades Russia; the weather randomly turned winter-like plus the unfamiliar size of Russia helped defeat Napoleon * Scorched-earth policy: Russians would burn everything in their path to create hardship for their enemies * Elba: an island that Napoleon was exiled to * Hundred Days: Napoleon came back to France after he was exiled, Louis XVIII was afraid so he fled, Napoleon was in control for 100 days * St.

Helena: the second island Napoleon was exiled to; he died there * Klemens von Metternich: the Prince of Austria; also the President of the Congress * Congress of Vienna: a meeting in Austria; nobles who were in the Congress wanted everything to just go back to the way it was before the Revolution, which was reactionary * Balance of Power- a new diplomatic system that created an equal amount of power for different sections of government * Lord Castlereagh- British representative in the Congress of Vienna * Talleyrand- French representative in the Congress of Vienna * Principles of Peace Statement: * Legitimacy- if someone was legitimate or not, so they could rule * Compensation- something, typically money, awarded to someone as to make amends for loss, injury, or suffering * German Confederation- the Congress of Vienna voted to destroy the Holy Roman Empire and create the German Confederation, taking hundreds of miniscule states and creating 15 main states within the association

Free Essays

Why Was the Irish Revolution of 1919-21?

On December 6 1921 the Anglo-Irish treaty was drafted and signed by representatives of both the Irish and British Governments. After centuries of bitter feuding involving both sides the British Government was for the first time to offer the Irish independence. In this essay I seek to outline how the Irish revolution of 1919 and 1921 was successful in achieving Irish independence. Richard English says, “There had never been any chance of a formal military victory… nor in practice of the British recognising an Irish republic. [1] If English is right to say this then how did the Irish manage to gain independence when the odds were stacked against them both militarily and politically? I believe that independence was reached for a number of reasons to be discussed in more detail later. These factors can be divided into the two crucial areas of political and military. Politically, there was a list of British failures including the negative publicity attracted by the revolution at home, pressure from America and the Government of Ireland Act. Failures only exacerbated by political achievements on the Irish side.

Such as De Valera’s trip to the U. S to canvass American support for the revolution plus the establishment of Dail Eireann and its de facto courts. The next section of the essay will be based on the military issues. Was the revolution’s success down to Britain’s failures or Ireland’s triumph of military tactics? Military mistakes were made on the British side which nullified the fact that they had a vastly superior army. The harsh reprisals in nationalist territories for example stoked tensions unnecessarily. A large part of the revolutions success could be attributed to the military strengths of the IRA.

With Michael Collins at the head the IRA was extremely strong tactically and used guerrilla warfare to great effect. The also had a mass intelligence system to rival any according to figures like Thomas Bowden for instance. Although some historians such as Peter Hart try to unravel the legend of Michael Collins and believe he did not have quite as big a role in the war as many would later claim. Political In order for the revolution to work the IRA had to defeat Britain politically and in a propaganda war as well as militarily.

It has to be noted that as far back as 1916 the Irish public had no interest in a revolting. The men who took part in the Easter Rising were looked upon as villains in the immediate aftermath not heroes. It was political failure that allowed such a dramatic swing in public opinion to take place. The harsh treatment of the rebels was the turning point in Irish popular opinion. It formed the motivation for many who joined the IRA during the revolution becoming a superb propaganda tool for the republican cause. With each execution of the men who took part in Ireland the fury grew.

A student in the University College of Dublin Barry once studied remarked, “I never experienced anything like this surging fury with the news produced in everyone. ”[2] Later in the interview the student claims that there was notable rejoice when three Englishmen were shot for every Irishman hung. Primary quotes like this go some way to showing the feelings of resentment caused through Britain’s political own goals that multiplied the supporters of an armed revolution in a matter of days. It was not only public opinion in Ireland that was affected by the mistakes of the British administration.

Public opinion in Britain throughout the revolution had reached a low. Many normal British citizens were horrified by what they saw as atrocities going on in their name. A sketch of opinion at the time can be viewed in a report of the Labour commission to Ireland in 1921. The report claims that the results of a government policy of reprisals on the people manifests in three main ways they are health economic and spirit. The report states, “months of oppression, coercion, and physical violence cannot but have far reaching effects upon the people who suffer under them. The Labour party believed at the time that British Government policy was to the detriment of the economy both in Ireland and in Britain. While the armed forces “provocative behaviour” was only creating “a new bitterness of spirit” among the people. Perhaps a concluding line from the document may sum up the thoughts and fears of many in Britain. “Things are being done in the name of Britain which must make her name stink in the nostrils of the whole world”[3] A crucial failure of British policy was the Government of Ireland Act passed in 1920.

The Act was to create two subordinate parliaments one in Belfast and one in Dublin. The Belfast Parliament comprised of the same six counties that would later make up Northern Ireland. The Act was ignored in the twenty six counties but the Dail was powerless to prevent its operation in the North. Ronan Fanning believes that the Act later caused the British to give away more independence than previously hoped by the very fact it had Ireland divided into separate legislative bodies never an intention of the Act. Britain continually faced U. S pressure to solve the Irish question.

Lloyd George faced constant pressure from U. S president Woodrow Wilson. It is said in Hopkinson’s book that Wilson told him until the Irish question was resolved it was bound to not only affect the relations between England and the U. S but inevitably effect the relationship of England with her colonies as well. [4] It would be wrong for one to say the Irish revolution of 1919-1921 in achieving Irish independence was all down to Britain’s failure politically. For one to do claim would do a great injustice to many strengths the Irish displayed politically before independence was achieved.

Three factors to be considered here are the rise of Sinn Fein, De Valera’s canvassing of U. S support and the creation of the Dail parliament and Courts. The rise of Sinn Fein led to a radicalisation of the masses which had previously not existed in Ireland before this the majority were happy with Home Rule now it was all or nothing. When discussing this many historians would say that the rise Sinn Fein was as much if not more a consequence of Britain’s failings more than any great genius on behalf of Sinn Fein. A school of thought shared by historians including Hopkinson and Dangerfield.

Dangerfield was of the belief that by not implementing Home Rule the rise of a more radical politics was unavoidable. “The point is that when the concept of Home Rule vanished… Nationalist Ireland drifted into a position were only republican and revolutionary leadership became possible. ”[5] Once this process had begun it was simply irreversible. Whereas Hopkinson would state that the British Government had a misplaced optimism involving Sinn Fein. They tried to suppress them by making many arrests which all led to propaganda victories for the party.

Who could now claim they were unjustly victimised. “Like many other British politician both before and since, they believed that a few extremists were the problem and that usual order would be restored once they were dealt with. ”[6] By trying to introduce conscription in Ireland Britain only managed to give Sinn Fein another boost. Townshend asserts, “In resistance to conscription, the Sinn Fein leadership found for the first time a national political issue which could mobilise the mass of the people. ”[7] Not all of Sinn Fein’s rise can be blamed on the British according to Peter Hart.

The party he argued was strengthened by female involvement and the support of first time female voters. De Valera’s visit to the Treaty of Versailles may not have laid to the American backed independence hoped but was beneficial in other areas. Yet despite this there was support for his cause in America. According to Ferriter, De Valera managed to raise something in the region of $6 million between January 1920 and October 1921 a figure higher than that raised in Ireland. Ferriter asserts that to call Irish Nationalism a mass movement in the U. S by 1920 was no exaggeration.

Perhaps the central political success by Ireland before eventually achieving independence was the creation of Dail Eireann on January 21 1919. An illegal parliament based in Dublin separate from British control. The Dail followed the path of which Ronan Fanning called “Sinn Fein’s unilateral solution to the age old problem of the constitutional relationship between Britain and Ireland was to deny that there was any legitimate connection. ”[8] Thus it made sense that the Dail’s first law was to break with Britain. Townshend was complimentary in speaking of the decision to set up Dail Eireann. Their (nationalists) action in assembling on 21 January 1919 as Dail Eireann, the Parliament of Ireland was in itself revolutionary. ”[9] At the beginning Britain simply ignored this new parliament. They shared the same beliefs Stephen Gwynn echoed in 1921. “When the decision was taken to constitute the Irish members into an Irish parliament people were inclined to laugh. ”[10] Gwynn later claimed that the fact the British Government did not initially interfere merely added unreality to the whole proceedings. Yet many believe that when Britain did interfere in 1919 in banning the Dail more harm than good came as a consequence.

Arthur Mitchell says the banning of the Dail was not its end but really its making driving it underground was generally to its advantage. The fact that Dail Eireann created its own judicial system greatly undermined British rule. Ferriter points out positives and negatives of these courts. It was said, “The promptness and efficiency of the courts impressed even most unionists. ”[11] Although at times reality bit as Ferriter tells us how figures such as Cathal Brugha the minister of defence had little time for courts they were a distraction from war.

Military Despite all the ramifications of each side’s political manoeuvres it is highly unlikely of course the Irish revolution would ever have taken place were it not for what happened militarily. Similar to political, military could also be divided into both Britain’s failures and Irish success. How did the IRA gain a truce when they were fighting the military might of the British Empire? If English’s point earlier in the essay is to be considered the IRA could never have gained a formal military victory.

Could it be a case that the British overestimated the IRA’s staying power? For the IRA’s key leader Michael Collins himself believed the IRA was close to breaking point. The British policy of reprisals was in itself a military disaster. Augustein puts the point across that, “The actual and alleged bad behaviour of the crown forces was an extremely persuasive force which caused and justified a violent response by the IRA in the eyes of men and women on all sides. ”[12] Thomas Bowden is of the view that reprisals were advocated at the very top level of British intelligence.

Sir Henry Wilson, chief of the Imperial General Staff was a known sponsor of these methods declaring “shoot all Irish leaders by roster. ”[13] On May 21 1921, General McCready sent a memo stating, “Defeat the IRA by the summer or pullout” It is possible the general did not want to get bogged down in a guerrilla conflict in unfamiliar terrain. Though historians like Townshend believe McCready was giving too much credit to the IRA who would soon fall. While others including Hart have the view that the IRA’s organisation was such McCready was right to issue the memo.

In order to achieve independence the IRA had to have been strong militarily. Much of this is put at the door of historians to Michael Collins held by many as a master of tactician and great exponent of guerrilla warfare. Collins is chiefly judged in history as the main man behind the revolution. One such historian is Dangerfield who complements Collins highly. “Neither Richard Mulcahy, the volunteers chief of staff, nor the Minister of defence come close to Collins, with his administrative genius, his enormous energy, his warm blooded presence, his cold and concerted purpose. [14] Strong praise for a man Peter Hart claims never held a gun post 1916. For Collins was based in Dublin mainly undertaking intelligence duties. ———————– [1] English, p29 [2] Augustein [3] Labour, pp54-56 [4] Hopkinson, p33 [5] Dangerfield, p246 [6] Hopkinson, p31 [7] Townshend, p318 [8] Fanning pp1-2 [9] Townshend, p328 [10] Gwynn, p62 [11] Ferriter, p202 [12] Augustein, ‘Motivation’ [13] Bowden, p119 [14] Dangerfield, p313

Free Essays

American and French Revolutions

A watershed event in modern European history, the French Revolution began in 1789 and ended in the late 1790s with the ascent of Napoleon Bonaparte. During this period, French citizens razed and redesigned their country’s political landscape, uprooting centuries-old institutions such as absolute monarchy and the feudal system. Like the American Revolution before it, the French Revolution was influenced by Enlightenment ideals, particularly the concepts of popular sovereignty and inalienable rights.

Although it failed to achieve all of its goals and at times degenerated into a chaotic bloodbath, the movement played a critical role in shaping modern nations by showing the world the power inherent in the will of the people. Prelude to the French Revolution: Monarchy in Crisis As the 18th century drew to a close, France’s costly involvement in the American Revolution and extravagant spending by King Louis XVI (1754-1793) and his predecessor had left the country on the brink of bankruptcy.

Not only were the royal coffers depleted, but two decades of poor cereal harvests, drought, cattle disease and skyrocketing bread prices had kindled unrest among peasants and the urban poor. Many expressed their desperation and resentment toward a regime that imposed heavy taxes yet failed to provide relief by rioting, looting and striking. In the fall of 1786, Louis XVI’s controller general, Charles Alexandre de Calonne (1734-1802), proposed a financial reform package that included a universal land tax from which the privileged classes would no longer be exempt.

To garner support for these measures and forestall a growing aristocratic revolt, the king summoned the Estates-General (“les etats generaux”)–an assembly representing France’s clergy, nobility and middle class–for the first time since 1614. The meeting was scheduled for May 5, 1789; in the meantime, delegates of the three estates from each locality would compile lists of grievances (“cahiers de doleances”) to present to the king. The French Revolution at Versailles: Rise of the Third Estate France’s population had changed considerably since 1614.

The non-aristocratic members of the Third Estate now represented 98 percent of the people but could still be outvoted by the other two bodies. In the lead-up to the May 5 meeting, the Third Estate began to mobilize support for equal representation and the abolishment of the noble veto–in other words, they wanted voting by head and not by status. While all of the orders shared a common desire for fiscal and judicial reform as well as a more representative form of government, the nobles in particular were loath to give up the privileges they enjoyed under the traditional system.

By the time the Estates-General convened at Versailles, the highly public debate over its voting process had erupted into hostility between the three orders, eclipsing the original purpose of the meeting and the authority of the man who had convened it. On June 17, with talks over procedure stalled, the Third Estate met alone and formally adopted the title of National Assembly; three days later, they met in a nearby indoor tennis court and took the so-called Tennis Court Oath (“serment du jeu de paume”), vowing not to disperse until constitutional reform had been achieved.

Within a week, most of the clerical deputies and 47 liberal nobles had joined them, and on June 27 Louis XVI grudgingly absorbed all three orders into the new assembly. The French Revolution Hits the Streets: The Bastille and the Great Fear On June 12, as the National Assembly (known as the National Constituent Assembly during its work on a constitution) continued to meet at Versailles, fear and violence consumed the capital. Though enthusiastic about the recent breakdown of royal power, Parisians grew panicked as rumors of an impending military coup began to circulate.

A popular insurgency culminated on July 14 when rioters stormed the Bastille fortress in an attempt to secure gunpowder and weapons; many consider this event, now commemorated in France as a national holiday, as the start of the French Revolution. The wave of revolutionary fervor and widespread hysteria quickly swept the countryside. Revolting against years of exploitation, peasants looted and burned the homes of tax collectors, landlords and the seigniorial elite.

Known as the Great Fear (“la Grande peur”), the agrarian insurrection hastened the growing exodus of nobles from the country and inspired the National Constituent Assembly to abolish feudalism on August 4, 1789, signing what the historian Georges Lefebvre later called the “death certificate of the old order. ” The French Revolution Turns Radical: Terror and Revolt In April 1792, the newly elected Legislative Assembly declared war on Austria and Prussia, where it believed that French emigres were building counterrevolutionary alliances; it also hoped to spread its revolutionary deals across Europe through warfare. On the domestic front, meanwhile, the political crisis took a radical turn when a group of insurgents led by the extremist Jacobins attacked the royal residence in Paris and arrested the king on August 10, 1792. The following month, amid a wave of violence in which Parisian insurrectionists massacred hundreds of accused counterrevolutionaries, the Legislative Assembly was replaced by the National Convention, which proclaimed the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of the French republic.

On January 21, 1793, it sent King Louis XVI, condemned to death for high treason and crimes against the state, to the guillotine; his wife Marie-Antoinette (1755-1793) suffered the same fate nine months later. Following the king’s execution, war with various European powers and intense divisions within the National Convention ushered the French Revolution into its most violent and turbulent phase. In June 1793, the Jacobins seized control of the National Convention from the more moderate Girondins and instituted a series of radical measures, including the establishment of a new calendar and the eradication of Christianity.

They also unleashed the bloody Reign of Terror (“la Terreur”), a 10-month period in which suspected enemies of the revolution were guillotined by the thousands. Many of the killings were carried out under orders from Robespierre, who dominated the draconian Committee of Public Safety until his own execution on July 28, 1794. His death marked the beginning of the Thermidorian Reaction, a moderate phase in which the French people revolted against the Reign of Terror’s excesses. The French Revolution Ends: Napoleon’s Rise

On August 22, 1795, the National Convention, composed largely of Girondins who had survived the Reign of Terror, approved a new constitution that created France’s first bicameral legislature. Executive power would lie in the hands of a five-member Directory (“Directoire”) appointed by parliament. Royalists and Jacobins protested the new regime but were swiftly silenced by the army, now led by a young and successful general named Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821). The Directory’s four years in power were riddled with financial crises, popular discontent, inefficiency and, above all, political corruption.

By the late 1790s, the directors relied almost entirely on the military to maintain their authority and had ceded much of their power to the generals in the field. On November 9, 1799, as frustration with their leadership reached a fever pitch, Bonaparte staged a coup d’etat, abolishing the Directory and appointing himself France’s “first consul. ” The event marked the end of the French Revolution and the beginning of the Napoleonic era, in which France would come to dominate much of continental Europe. Similarities America ; France Revolutionary Twins?

The American and French Revolutions were fought several years and an ocean apart. However, they feature enough similarities that some people initially consider them “mirror struggles. ”  After all, there are some easy comparisons:  both revolutions occurred in the later eighteenth century. Both subverted an existing, monarchical government. Finally, both created ripe conditions for constitutionalism and deep patriotism. But dig more deeply, and you’ll find that this “same revolution, different continent” concept is not as tidy as it initially appears.

Further similarities between the two revolutions are just different enough to produce profound distinctions between the two revolutions. Although most scholars believe that the two revolutions influenced one another (as well as had profound worldwide impact), each revolution is a very distinct and singular struggle for freedom, identity, and an improved way of life. Indeed, scholars have built entire careers on this subject, and rich debate and information is available online or at your local library. However, here are a few fundamental elements shared by the revolutions, with intricate but important differences highlighted: Causes

Both the American Revolution and the French Revolution were borne of dire economic conditions. Economic challenges definitely contributed to the basis for both revolutions. However, each nation’s money-related woes were quite unique. The American Revolution had roots in the financial pressure that Britain placed on the New World; because Britain was economically dependent on the colonies, it kept taxing them. However, the colonists didn’t oppose the taxation itself. They were more vexed by the lack of a reasonable basis for the taxation, feeling that they received little or no benefit from their unds that were being spent “back in the old country. ”  This phenomenon—commonly known as taxation without representation—infuriated the colonies, building the basis for their revolt. Classic images of hungry, poverty-stricken French peasants are still familiar. Indeed, the pre-revolution French economy was dismal and had been for decades. As a second-tier trading nation, France was unable to pay off national debts using the scant amount of money it received on the taxes for traded goods. To make up for this deficit, the King imposed further taxes, especially on the peasants.

Paradoxically, the wealthiest nobles were not obligated to pay taxes. This allowed the King to successfully sell titles, pulling the two social classes further apart. So although the British tax-related woes were also tied to royal greed and exploitative control, they were relatively common to any new colonist establishment. France’s case, while certainly tax-related, was more deeply rooted in a historic division of social class. Although the rich and poor had long been separated, the King’s selling of titles totally isolated the two groups.

This resulted in famine and extreme poverty for the lower classes, and left them no choice but to revolt. Goals Both revolutions were undertaken with the goal of independence in mind. The American Revolution was not initially or even primarily fought for independence. Independence almost became a “by-product” of the colonists’ initial attempt to remove unfair taxes levied on them by British Parliament. On the other hand, France’s decades of class division and its burgeoning interest in thinkers like Rousseau (who emphasized the importance of human rights) sparked a popular interest in a more independent way of life.

The influence of speeches, articles, and pamphlets from gifted writers and orators like revolution leaders Jacques-Pierre Brissot and Maximillien Robespierre also fueled this desire for freedom. Finally, the success of the American Revolution (and the colonists’ resulting independence from British rule) arguably acted as an incentive for revolt. American-French Relationships Both revolutions spurred a strong response from the other nation. Before 1789, most people (excluding the Americans of the new United States) lived with the general form of government their ancestors had known for centuries, sually hereditary monarchy. After the French Revolution began in 1789, no form of government could be accepted as legitimate without justification. The revolutionaries established a republic in 1792, and henceforth republicans around the world would challenge monarchists. Overall, the French Revolution offered the world something totally novel: an ideology that allowed and encouraged the questioning of historic power structures. This ideology borne of the French Revolution laid the groundwork for other ideologies, including nationalism, socialism, and eventually communism.

In fact, early communist leaders Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels both commented extensively on the French Revolution, hoping to find important lessons for building and governing communities. North Americans showed special interest in the French Revolution, believing the events of 1789 drew heavily on their own experience with Britain. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen seemed to borrow strikingly from the states’ bill of rights. Even more direct influence took place when American Thomas Jefferson, resident in France at this time, passed along specific ideas to the legislators through the Marquis de Lafayette.

Although the French Revolution took a far different path than the North American variety, this interaction was close, so it is not surprising that the initial U. S. reaction to the French Revolution was positive. Not all Americans approved of the France’s methods. For example, John Adams declared his early and ongoing disapproval, and the Federalist Party’s support began to waver toward the Revolution’s end. The Reign of Terror also did little to create American approval and drew criticism from some prominent American statesmen.

However, the Jefferson-led Republican Party remained largely supportive throughout most of the revolutionary decade. Famous Documents Both revolutions produced similar and seminal political documents. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was adopted in France in August 1789 by the National Constituent Assembly. Drafted by the Marquis de Lafayette, it was intended as part of a transition from an absolute to a constitutional monarchy, and presented the ideas of popular sovereignty and equal opportunity.

This document, which defined a set of universal individual and collective rights, was to be considered valid in all times, in all places, for all people. This novel way of thinking totally contradicted the traditional French idea of people being born into a nobility or into another favored class. It also eliminated the concept of people enjoying or being denied special rights based on family lineage of status, which clearly dismantled centuries of French ruling structure. The principles outlined in the Declaration sprung from the theories of philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau and other Enlightenment thinkers.

However, the French Declaration is at least partly inspired by the declaration of Human Rights contained in the U. S. Declaration of Independence, adopted on July 4, 1776, and on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, developed by American George Mason in June 1776, which was itself based on the English 1689 Bill of Rights. The Declaration of the Rights of Man also showed similarities to the United States Constitution (1787) and the United States Bill of Rights, which was adopted in 1789, at approximately the same time as the Declaration of the Rights of Man.

Like the U. S. Constitution, The French Declaration provided for a national defense, and emphasized equality before taxation (which was distinctly different from traditional France, in which the Catholic Church and the nobility were exempt from most taxes). Like these American documents, France’s Declaration prohibits ex post facto application of criminal law and proclaims the presumption of innocence to a crime suspect. Finally, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and addresses freedom of religion.

The Declaration departs from seminal American documents in some important ways. It’s vital to note that the Declaration is largely individualistic. It focuses less on the rights of a political or religious group and more on the singular citizen, thus straying from America’s “we the people” stance. The Declaration also fails to address the freedom of assembly, liberty of association, or the right to strike, which were important American tenets. Differences Self-Identification and Independence * France was a well-established nation long before the French revolution. It was not facing any acute external dangers in the late 1780s.

In contrast, the American revolution was a struggle for self-identification and independence from another nation. In France, the essential motive of the revolution was a stratification transformation of the society because “the third estate” saw the clergy and the nobles as social parasites. Attitudes Toward Monarchy * The Americans were not anti-monarchists from the very start. They considered their rights as the British subjects were being violated, and their main complaints were aimed against the British Parliament. In France, the revolution was very much against the monarch and his power.

Revolutionists saw the monarch as a traitor and acted aggressively toward the royal family. That led them to accuse the monarch of conspiracies against the French people, which in turn led to the execution of the royal family. Social Stratification * Social equality was not the main concern of the American revolution. Slavery was abolished in the Northern states, but it did not drastically influence the social stratification of American society. In France, the whole social structure was made up of three traditional estates: clergy, nobles and others. The revolution transformed all of them.

Elimination of the traditional privileges based on the social origin was the main goal of the French revolution. Revolution and Religion * The American patriots did want to break with the Church of England, but the American revolution was not driven by a religious goal. The French revolution was, and it accomplished most of those goals. It eliminated the privileges of the clergy. Monasteries and churches were closed, the monks and nuns were encouraged to return to the private life. Many priests were killed. The Cult of Reason emerged during the revolution as part of the new France’s plan to “de-Christianize” the country.

It stressed enlightenment and rationalism over the believe of a deity. Revolutionary Values and Mottos * John Locke formulated three basic values which were adopted by the American patriots: life, liberty and property. They fought for the idea that governments were obliged to preserve these values. The French revolution proclaimed three values too: liberty, equality and brotherhood, or death. The last part was adopted during the period of terror in 1793-1794. Thus, the common value shared by both revolutions was the pursuit of liberty.

Free Essays

DBQ 2. Reporter Paine. Reconciliation with Britain. Declaration.

DBQ’s – Questions and Answers

  1. Document 1 Why did Whately (and probably most other English officials) feel that the American colonists should be willing to pay higher taxes to Parliament? Whately felt that American Colonists should contribute to the preservation of the advantages they have received.
  2. Document 2 According to Dickinson, what taxes was Parliament justified in imposing on the colonies? According to Dickinson, Parliament was justified in imposing the Stamp Act on the colonies. Why did he object to the Stamp Act and the Townshend Acts? Dickinson objected to the Stamp Act and the Townshend Acts because he did not have the authority to levy taxes.
  3. Document 3 How does the engraving tell a different story from the above description of the Boston Massacre? The engraving was a anti-British propaganda. Where do you suppose the term “massacre” to describe this event came from? This event is described as the term “massacre” because the Boston boys were taunted and cursed by the mean British soldiers.
  4. Document 4 Who did Cresswell blame for the growing antagonism between the British and the American colonists? Cresswell blamed New England for the growing antagonism between the British and the American Colonists.
  5. Document 5 Why, according to this document, were the Americans justified in fighting the British? According to this document, Americans defended themselves against British tyranny. Since the Parliament’s claim was that it had authority over the colonies “in all cases whatsoever”, the Americans felt threatened and had to resist by force.
  6. Document 6 Why was Paine unwilling to be reconciled with Britain? Paine was unwilling to be reconciled with Britain because it brought war into the land. Was Paine an objective and unbiased reporter? Explain. Paine was not an objective and unbiased reported because he was going against the king.
  7. Document 7 How does this document describe King George? This document describes King George as a tyrant. Was the Declaration an objective and unbiased statement of the American-British conflict? Explain. The Declaration was not objective and unbiased statement of the American-British conflict because it was on the American side.

Essay 763 marked the end of French and Indian war and caused a great celebration and pride in the American colonies. But, in next twelve years, the same pride was altered by at bitter and violent conflict with the mother country. The injustices of the mother country finally led the American colonists to declare independence and wage war against it. American colonies were justified for waging war and breaking away from Britain because they were defending themselves against a series of measures Parliament wished to impose on their communities without their consent.

In Thomas Whately’s pamphlet “Considerations” he expressed Britain’s view of taxation. The British felt that the colonists should pay higher taxes because they owe them for the help they received in the French and Indian War. Britain imposed new tax acts such as the Stamp Acts and the Sugar acts. However, the colonists felt threatened by these new rules (Doc1). Parliament imposed the Townshend Act, which raised taxes on imported goods. According to John Dickinson, Parliament was justified in imposing the Stamp Act on the colonies. Never did the British parliament, [until the passage of the Stamp Act] think of imposing duties in America for the purpose of raising a revenue” (Doc2). Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense to convince the common people to support independence. His main idea was that Britain wants America for its resources. He also believed that Britain was too small to rule a continent, and that Britain was willing to kill its own people (OI). Paine was unwilling to be reconciled with Britain because it brought war into the land.

He was not an objective and unbiased reporter because he was going against the king (Doc6). After all the big American-British conflict, the Americans finally gained their independence. They signed the Declaration of Independence adopted by The Continental Congress of July 4 1776. This document was objective and unbiased because it took the American side. It also mentioned King George – “the history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations [unlawful seizures], all having in direct objest the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States” (Doc7).

Free Essays

Revolutionizing an Industry’s Supply Chain Model

Revolutionizing an Industry’s Supply Chain Model for Competitive Advantage Crocs is one of leading manufacturer and the fastest growing company in the footwear industry. While it sold its first shoe in 2003, it has reported revenue of $143 million in the second quarter of 2007. This phenomenal double digit compounding growth rate is because of its policies over its product and supply chain; eventually leading to competitive advantages over its competitors.

The case opens up with a brief discussion of how Crocs came into existence at the very first place. Skipping ahead to the crucial part, the founders of Crocs (whom then were not founders yet) discovered the foam clog shoes that one of them was wearing to be very comfortable, odorless and not slippery. They thought it was likeable and marketable; thus, they decided to start the shoe company only using the foam clog. Unexpectedly it was a huge hit and words of mouth expended the customer base.

With the uncontrollable increase in demand, the founders had to hire a professional to manage their company. This professional is Ronald Synder, a college friend of theirs, who was already an executive in an electronic company. With his help, Crocs has grown astoundingly over the next few years as I have discussed previously. With arrival of Ronald Synder, one of the first things he did was purchase foam creation plant in order to have control over the production.

He then launched the company products worldwide and increased efforts on marketing in a very early stage. These successive attempts have significantly increased the sales revenue eventually. However, these were not his best moves that led to double digit compounding growth over the next few years. With the increase in growing demand, Ronald Synder not only acquired other plants at different locations but also agreed to increase risk with its contracted manufacturers. Such is in the case of their contracted manufacturer in China.

His approach of meeting demand is different from a traditional approach in that he is determined to response even before there is an actual change in the market. Thus, when he is able to pick up signs of growing demand for a specific product, he will the product into assembly even before orders are received. That way, products always meet demand in a timely manner. This flexibility in supply chain has revolutionized the whole industry and the way things are done. In addition, this flexibility in supply chain has also given Crocs a major competitive advantage over its competitors.

Free Essays

Immigration During the Industrial Revolution

Immigration during the Industrial Revolution Immigration was a huge part of the industrial revolution, some migrated legal, some illegal. Either way, many immigrants came to the United States searching for a dream, the American dream to be precise. This leads to the question; Why did people immigrate to America? There can be many answers to this question, but some of the most important answers are: political, others economic, while yet others religious, whatever the case was, the United States became a mix of different cultures.

However, the main reason for immigration was because of the “Industrial Revolution” Industrial Revolution is basically the changes in industry from the 18th century to the 19th century that started in Britain and then other Western European countries and spread to the Unites States. Without the growth in Industry however, Many Immigrants cannot migrate to the United States. For example without the technology improvements in shipbuilding, many ships could not make it past the long journey through the ocean.

The industrial revolution gave many Immigrants the chance to travel to the United States where they were able to get jobs working in railroads, factories, potato picking, or any other jobs industries enabled them to do. In the 1750’s, most people in Europe lived on small farms and made most of their needs by hand. As the industrial revolution started, many people lived in cities and most of their needs were produced by complicated machines. The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain and spread to Belgium, France, Germany, the United States and Japan.

It was an important change in the way goods were produced, and improved the way people lived. The Industrial Revolution is a major turning point in world history. I’m sure by now you are asking What caused industrial revolution? Agricultural Revolution or farming revolution was a change in farming methods that allowed greater production of food. This huge change was caused by the use of new farming technology such as seed drill (Machine that plants seeds) and improved fertilizers. The outcome of this farming change was higher access of food.

The enclosure Movement also forced people into Industrial Revolution for example; farmers who worked in the farming industry where replaced by farming machines and where left homeless forced to find new jobs in the industrial revolution. Big business was also a change that created Mass Production. Mass Production shifted people from production at home, to production in large factories in cities. Mass production also allowed for lower prices on the good produced. In 1892, the government made an immigration station on Ellis Island, in a bay between New York and Jersey City, New Jersey.

Every day, hundreds or even thousands of people arrived by boat and pass through inspections as they arrived, potential immigrants were escorted through a quick health exam. As immigrants climbed up a set of stairs, officials watched for symptoms of illnesses, heavy breathing, and signs of mental disturbances. These were indications that the person might not be able to find or maintain a job. Doctors then gave a “six second physical” and checked for diseases, including a contagious eye infection called trachoma.

Sick people were sent to a hospital on Ellis Island to be treated, and escorted through the same immigration process again. After the physical checkup, potential immigrants were asked a series of questions by immigration inspectors. Life as an immigrant in the U. S was not all that great. First, they had to learn English for many immigrants; they had to put up with going to school and at the same time working which was very exhausting in a situation like this. No one put up signs or notices in other languages for them. This is why learning English was the most important process.

Then, they had to get work, because the government didn’t give money to anyone. They had to earn it themselves! No one cut them any breaks if you were a different nationality. The Italians and Irish were especially subject to cruelty and where paid less sometimes because of their nationality. Swedish and German immigrants: many of these made their way to Wisconsin and Minnesota. They established dairy farms, in particular, and also grew wheat. In this part of the country, there are hundreds of Lutheran churches that they founded, as most of these immigrants were, if not Lutheran, Protestants.

In conclusion, many immigrants migrated to the United States for various reasons and went through the hardest situations to live the American dream. Some immigrants where successful and managed to live their dreams as an American but others struggled through the hardest situations and went through cruelty and discrimination. All of this was caused by nothing more than the changes in the industrial revolution and the huge impact on many people that had to migrate to places like cities to not be affected by this change.

Free Essays

Myths of the American Revolution

The American Revolution is a pivotal point in United States history, considering it was a main event in the creation of the United States itself. However, there are many myths surrounding it that are widely believed to be true. The main information we remember from elementary school and a lot of what textbooks and history teachers have taught us is at least partially incorrect. The main myth of the American Revolution is something that all US Americans, as a general rule, believe and agree with.

It is something that forms the basis for our entire governmental system and policy of freedom as a country. According to A People’s History of the United States, Thomas Paine visualized the government presented in the Constitution would have a great common interest. He thought it would benefit all people equally, and in doing so, as Howard Zinn put it, he “lent himself perfectly to the myth of the Revolution. ” That myth was that the Revolution was for the welfare of a united people.

Contrary to what most US citizens believe and actively support, the United States was not separated from England because people wanted equality. The delegates who made the decision to declare independence and the ones who would most benefit from that were all basically middle-aged, property owning white men. These people made up a relatively small percentage of the population, and therefore the actions they took cannot be defined as for a united people.

The people were not, in fact, united at all, but simply following the actions of the Continental Congress and acting out of self-interest for want of money and profit. There were even people who did not want to separate for Great Britain at all and were against independence. The wishes of these people were ignored, and so the idea of the US starting with equality that we all were brought up to believe, is in fact a myth caused by people who were lucky enough to get some land and wind up in a decision-making situation.

Free Essays

American Reconstruction: a Revolution or a Failure?

American Reconstruction: A Revolution or a Failure? Historians Eric Foner and C. Vann Woodward, provide a Tyson Vs Ali fight in the debate over whether the American Reconstruction period was in fact a revolution or a failure. Each provides an in-depth analysis supporting his argument. Foner takes the approach that the Reconstruction was a Revolution, explaining, that “Reconstruction allowed scope for a remarkable political and social mobilization of black, community, opening doors of opportunity that could never again be completely closed. Woodward takes a much more pessimistic approach arguing, “The other (failure) is the ruins of Reconstruction, the North’s failure to solve the problem of the black peoples place in American life. “ Foner’s argument is based on the immediate political and civil rights that the freedmen were given after the emancipation through the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, and how the mindset of the south was altered forever. New adjustments such as the Homestead Act of 1862 and many other social and political changes were grounds to label the Reconstruction Era a revolution.

Foner believed although nearly every authority and right that the freedmen were given were eventually taken back after the Reconstruction finally ended in 1867, the mindset and the drastic changes that took place would stay with America throughout its history, and therefore was revolutionary. Woodward’s pessimistic response to America’s optimistic take on the Reconstruction being revolutionary was based on the idea that in the long run what actually was accomplished was not very influential.

With the exception of the amendments that were established after the Civil War, the hope of the freedmen sharing equality with the whites was taken away after the Reconstruction, and therefore was a total failure. The South’s resistance against the freedmen gaining any sort of political or social power was stronger than the will of the North to help bring equality to the South and according to Woodward, denies Reconstruction being a failure because they were to headstrong to admit defeat. When looking back at the Reconstruction and asking whether or not it was evolutionary, one must consider the affect it had on the country once the period ended. The answer is, the Reconstruction had had little to no influence on society once it had come to a halt after the election of President Hayes in 1867, and therefore cannot be considered a revolution. When talking about a revolution, what is being considered is a drastic change in culture, politics, and social structure, and the Reconstruction does meet those requirements. Looking into what occurred during the Reconstruction, the only true accomplishments that won out were those that came from the resistance of the South.

When Foner makes his attempt to sway the reader’s minds into following his argument that the Reconstruction was revolutionary, he fails to point out any substantial examples of the freedmen overcoming the resistance of the South without the help of the government. For example the Homestead Act of 1862 was enforced by the government to make available land to freedmen which belonged to former land owners, (many of which were former slave owners) however when the Homestead Act was put in place, only one-tenth of the land was distributed to new land owners.

Other examples such as sharecropping were also non-substantial as it triggered a new labor system which consisted of land owners advertising work to immigrants and hiring them to work for low wages and rations of bacon and cornmeal, which was a similar the experiments in the West Indies with the “coolies. “ How is forcing the freedmen and their families on the streets and living in poverty in anyway revolutionary? It was only until the government stepped in and put and end of what Foner called a, “New modification of the slave trade” that the freedmen even had an opportunity to work for wages on plantations.

One can argue that this was a change in how the labor system worked, but can something so minute be considered revolutionary? Once the government refuted one attempt at resistance from the South, another emerged. In 1865 the Black Codes were established in all different states throughout the South. These codes limited what the black man was able to do for a living and gave no opportunity to own land, making the situation for freedmen similar to what it was before the emancipation.

Other forms of resistance, such as the radical group Ku Klux Clan brought terror and destruction to the South. Radical Reconstruction groups did not match the will of the resistance and therefore Reconstruction did little good for the former slaves. Every attempt to make the former slaves equals to whites was not accomplished because the Resistance in the South would not allow it. Woodward says, “The failure of Reconstruction is to be explained by the lack of revolutionary measures. If the attempt of Reconstruction was more radical, there could possibly be an argument that it was revolutionary, but the truth is the counter-revolution was stronger than the actual revolution. People were scared for their lives, terror and anger filled the streets, and the South was not a safe environment for the freedmen and their families. In conclusion, the only real gain that the freedmen received during the Reconstruction were the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments that were added to the Constitution following the end of the Civil War.

All other gains were taken back with the election of President Haynes in 1867, after he made a deal to end Reconstruction in the South if elected president. Now compare what was accomplished to the other revolutions in History, the American Revolution, which separated the United States from British authorities and the French Revolution, where the people physically overthrew their government and established a democracy. Those were drastic shifts in society that defined what a revolution is.

The idea that Reconstructions was a revolution would be the side that says the government establishing three laws was a revolution. This is a very weak argument, especially when the amendments that were passed were not accepted by the majority of the South and therefore not practiced due to the radical’s response of violence and terror. Revolutions are drastic changes that affect the country forever, and the Reconstruction simply did not meet the requirements to even be considered a revolution. Bibliography : 1.

Eric Foner, “The Politics of Freedom in Nothing but Freedom: Emancipation and its Legacy” (Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press) 2. C. Vann Woodward. “Reconstruction: A Counterfactual Playback” (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1989) John Recchia Prof. Van Gosse U. S History II 9/20/10 ——————————————– [ 1 ]. Foner, “The Politics of Freedom”, 10 [ 2 ]. Foner, “The Politics of Freedom”, 10-11 [ 3 ]. Woodwars, “Reconstruction: A Counterfactual Playback”, 29 [ 4 ]. Foner, “The Politics of Freedom”, 11-12

Free Essays

The Glorious Revolution

Francisco Saravia-Jimenez2012-11-HIS-101-OL011: Western Civilization I What did the “Glorious Revolution” that took place in England in 1688 achieve, and why is it referred to as “glorious”? The Glorious Revolution of 1688 involved the overthrow of King James II from the throne of England. James, throughout his short reign, attempted to catholicize the army and government by getting his supporters into Parliament. When James had a son, England united against the prospect of a Catholic dynasty and sought help from William of Orange.

William arrived in England in November of 1688 and marched unopposed all the way to London. James fled to France and after he was denounced by Parliament, William of Orange was offered the throne if he would accept limitations on his powers. He accepted. One of the most amazing things about the Glorious Revolution was the ability of political opposition, such as the Tories and the Whigs, to come together under a common cause. Such widespread unity throughout a nation had never been seen and it set the table for a peaceful takeover of a dictator.

There were many achievements in the Glorious Revolution. Firstly, as previously mentioned, it was one of the first times an overthrow of a government required no blood to be shed. Also, it helped to issue in the Bill of Rights, which redefined the relationship between the monarch and the subjects. The Bill of Rights is one of the most important documents in history. It guaranteed the freedom of speech, the freedom of elections, parliamentary approval of taxation and the right to petition.

Additionally it dismissed cruel and unusual punishment, standing armies and the monarch’s ability to suspend law whenever he or she pleased. It also stated that no Catholic could succeed to the throne of England, thus eliminating the possibility of a Roman Catholic dynasty. The Claim of Right was issued in Scotland in 1689 and was basically the same document as the Bill of Rights. The Mutiny Act, which limited royal use of martial law to one year, was also put in place in 1689.

The Toleration Act was issued as well, and it gave freedom of worship to Dissenters. Overall, the Glorious Revolution was significant in many ways. It established one of the first Constitutional Monarchies by extending the power of the Parliament. In doing so, the power of the monarchy was severely limited. It marked a milestone, in which practical power shifted from the monarchy to the Parliament. That power that the Parliament had gained from the Glorious Revolution was never successfully challenged again.

Free Essays

Political Parties in the American Revolution

By the beginning of American Revolution, the 13 Colonies already had a profound experience of own political living. Such brilliant personalities as Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine, later becoming Founding Fathers of a new nation were known as original philosophers, lawyers and politicians  far behind the Colonies. Each of them, naturally, had his own idea of principles, upon which a State should be grounded and this lead to many years of debate, in which modern American political system was born. Most of them were followed by groups of supporters, who formed that, what later became fractions and political parties. In this paper I will investigate the origins of political parties in American Revolution and how their political concepts have been influenced by the views of their founders.

The first matter, which has been debated by political fractions regarded the most basic question: whether to struggle for independence or not. On this grounds the colonists separated themselves into the Revolutionists (Patriots), the Loyalists and the Neutrals. Patriots included a wide range of social groups, united by the idea of independence. The minority, estimated about 15-25% of the population kept supporting the British rule[1]. They were typically older, than the Revolutionists and were known for their conservatism, as well as recent immigrants from Great Britain. After American victory in the War of Independence, some of the Loyalists moved to the neighboring British colonies of Quebec or Nova Scotia. However, Patriots and Loyalists can not be yet called “real” parties.

Associated essay: What Led to the Rise of Political Parties in the 1790s Essay

The first separation of the Founders themselves to distinct groups, struggling against one another, has happened at the ratification of the Constitution. The basic division was into Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Articles of Confederation were signed separately by representatives of each State and initially nothing, but a broad confederation of independent states was meant as a form of state structure for the USA. However, the most influential Founding Fathers, including military leaders, such as George Washington and politicians, such as Franklin, quickly came to understanding, that confederacies is a too weak form of state system, which would likely lead to further conflicts between separate states. After Shays’ Rebellion Washington came to understand, that the Government can not be effective under Articles of confederation.

Those could not satisfy their demands, and the federalists believed, that a new document, specifying basic grounds for a State must have been introduced. So, the Federalists started advocating a closer union with stronger powers of central government. And these were the Federalists, who proposed a project of the Constitution. To gain public support the Federalists issued that, what is now known as “Federalist Papers” and has been actually called simply “Federalist”. The writing included a series of 85 articles in support of Federalism with philosophic, politic and legal explanation of it’s benefits, authored by Madison, Hamilton, Burr and John Jay[2].

The Anti-Federalists included much less known representatives of lower classes, fearful, that stronger government would lead to hegemony of rich plantation owners and wealthy people. They pointed, that Articles of Confederation was a sufficient and effective document and the Constitution was simply unnecessary and dangerous for principles, upon which the American Revolution has been grounded.

Under their opinion, that centralization would lead to abolition of freedom and corruption. Notably, Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution in his speeches, accusing Federalists of intention to make President an actual King. As he noted: “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”[3]

Anti-federalists also strongly opposed the idea of Federal Court, declaring, that it will turn into a body of oppression and make local governments dependant on the will of the centre. Same as Federalists, the Anti-federalists tried to influence public opinion by their articles, issued under pseudonyms such as Brutus or Federal Farmer. Contemporary historicists gathered them into a collection, sometimes referred as “Anti-Federalist Papers”.

Opposition appeared to be so strong, that in North Carolina and Rhode Island it managed to take over the public opinion and block ratification of the Constitution. Only the establishment of new governments allowed to adopt Constitution in those states. However, the opposition has not put up with the victory of Federalists, and their massive protests, led by Judge William West almost resulted in a civil conflict[4]. However, victory was on the side of Federalists, to a great extent due to Washington’s authority. As the first President said: “Constitution is a guide, to which I never will abandon”

After weeks of fierce debate an accord, known as “Massachusetts compromise” has been signed between Federalists and Anti-Federalists and a recommendation has been included to the Constitution, that it must have been amended by a Bill of Rights.

As the Constitution has been passed and became operative, both movements were so exhausted, that they started to decay. A new wave of Federalism emerged, based on the based policies of Alexander Hamilton, who stressed the necessity of strong national government and protectionist economy. Together with his allies Hamilton organized a national Federalist Party, which lead John Adams to be elected President. Nevertheless, with defeat of Adams at elections in 1800, the second Federalist party also felt into disfavor, until it took exit in 1821. The Anti-Federalists continued to advocate strict-constructionism and popular rights and was finally transformed into the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson[5].

The adoption of Constitution and early political of America has been characterized by sharp discussion and struggle of opinions. From the historic perspective, it is impossible to say, that Federalists were winners and Anti-Federalists were losers. Both parties made an outstanding contribution to the legal base of the USA – the Federalists by the Constitution, and the Anti-Federalists by the Bill of Rights. Therefore, it is possible to speac of normal democratic process, where every opinion is taken into account.


1. Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States: 1492-Present, Harper Perennial (Reprint edition), 2003

2. T. H. Breen, George M. Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America, Past and Present, vol. 1 (until 1865), 8 ed. Longman, 2006

[1] Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States: 1492-Present, Harper Perennial (Reprint edition), 2003, p.-243

[2] T. H. Breen, George M. Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America, Past and Present, vol. 1 (until 1865), 8 ed. Longman, 2006, p.-190
[3] Howard Zinn, Ibid, p. 246
[4] T. H. Breen, Ibid, p. 201
[5] Supra Note, 203

Free Essays

The Revolution of 1917: Rights of the Republic

Before the Mexican Revolution, Mexico was technically a republic as it is today, but by the time of the revolution, it was a republic in name only. In the mid-1860s, Mexico fought back against the French colonial overlords and established the country for itself, but the plan only partially succeeded.  Over the next decade, grassroots efforts across the country began to bring equality to Mexico, but instead they delivered the country into the hands of an elected dictator.  In 1876, Porfirio Diaz overthrew the sitting president, forcing him to flee the country and Diaz was named president. Once he had the position, he refused to relinquish it, crushing any who dared to oppose him.

For the Mexican ruling class, the period known as Porfiriato was a time of prosperity and peace. There was enormous foreign investment in Mexico and the country was developed from a largely rural economy to a modernized, industrial nation.  Then in 1910, despite Diaz efforts to destroy any opposition Francisco Madero, an academic from one the haciendas of northern Mexico, ran against Diaz. He was immediately jailed by the president and the peasants, sick of being mistreated y the Republic, galvanized behind Madero. The election fraud that had kept Diaz in office was so extreme that officially Madero received only a few hundred votes nationally.

Madero worked with church leaders in San Luis Potosi to develop a plan calling on the people of Mexico to take up arms and overthrow the Diaz government. Diaz ordered Madero arrested again and he fled to Texas where he formulated the Mexican Revolution.  Within a year, Madero was sworn in as the new president of Mexico when Diaz resigned in accordance with the Treaty of Ciudad Juarez after he routed the federalist army with the assistance of forces rallying behind Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata.

Before the year was out, Madero and his vice president would be executed a military junta left in charge of the country because Madero refused to enact the property reforms that he had called for when encouraging the people to revolt.  Madero attempted to moderate between conservatives that wanted to keep the status quo and hard-line revolutionaries like the Zapatistas and in the end had no support at all. For the next six years, Mexico’s leadership was in a constant state of flux with the President Venustiano Carranza, a former revolutionary general who overthrew the previous military leader, chased out of Mexico City for two years of his presidency. Finally, he incorporated many of the extreme viewpoints of the revolutionaries in the Constitution of 1917.

The constitution is the basis for the current Mexican government. One of the most important provisions of the constitution was that it forbade foreign investors from owning land in Mexico. The provision still stands. The reason for this proviso was the fact that during the Diaz presidency foreign investors owned the great majority of the land, making profits off the work of the local peasants and that Mexico’s oil fields were largely owned by foreign investors as well. Residents of Mexico wanted the income to remain within the country and nationalized all foreign-owned property.

The Constitution also severely limited the power of the Catholic Church which had once been almost completely responsible for the education of people within Mexico. President Alvaro Obregon, who was elected to succeed Carranza after conspiring with those who assassinated his predecessor, tried to accommodate all factions of Mexican society including providing better education sponsored by the state instead of the Church and instituting rights for women.

It was a bad time to a politician and Obregon was assassinated by a pro-Catholic gunman. That was in large part the beginning of the rebellion of the Church against the new government. The battles in Mexico continued well beyond the end of the war as the separation between Church and State was painful. Supporters of church supremacy began an uprising called “la Guerra Cristera” (the war of Christ) and estimates are that nearly a million people died in the battles.

The battles between the Church and the government continued until 1929 when an end to the armed conflict was negotiated by the American ambassador. Many believe that the true end of the revolution was not until the presidency of Lázaro Cárdenas, who ran the country from 1934 to 1940 and was the first president to willingly hand over the reins of the government to his successor.  In the meantime, the spiritual base of the national had been destroyed. In 1935, 17 Mexican states were left without a priest and only 334 licensed priests existed within the entire country.

Forty were known to have been executed in the wars and hundreds of others fled the country. The reason: the Constitution of 1917. Under the diplomatic settlement, the anti-clerical provisions of the Constitution still stand. Among its provisions are: Article 5 outlawed monastic religious orders. Article 24 forbade public worship outside of church buildings, while Article 27 restricted religious organizations’ rights to own property. Finally, Article 130 took away basic civil rights of members of the clergy: priests and religious leaders were prevented from wearing their habits, were denied the right to vote, and were not permitted to comment on public affairs in the press.

The anti-clerical provisions of the Constitution are not generally enforced since World War II and the church has regained some of its prominence in the hearts of Mexicans, but not returned to prominence in Mexican politics. Other provisions of the new constitution include the right to freedom of the press, but with the caveat that after publication charges related to sedition and libel can be brought if they are warranted.  The constitution restricts where foreigners can own land, restricts who may be considered a citizen of Mexico and prohibits slavery. It also prohibits extradition of Mexican nationals who have committed crimes in other countries if that may result in the death penalty.

The constitution specifically assures citizens the right to life and prohibits the death penalty.  The constitution assures the right of Mexican citizens to bear arms, but only those which have been approved by the Mexican National Army.  It is also one of the most progressive constitutions in the world with relation to worker rights. The Constitution provides that any slave brought into Mexico is immediately freed and offered equal protection under the law. Furthermore, workers are guaranteed the right to an eight-hour work day, a day of rest each work week, and a minimum wage.

The Constitution prohibits people who are not Mexican by birth from holding most political offices, running the country’s airports or seaport, or being military officers. It also gives preference in hiring to Mexican nationals over foreigners applying for the same job, assuming that both are equally qualified.  Finally, it prohibits several forms of punishment commonly used in the pre-1917 government and outlaws the concept of a debtor’s prison.  Clearly, the biggest difference between the current Mexican government and the pre-1917 government is the treatment of the workers.

Because it was the people, the workers who lead the Mexican revolution, the provisions of the new constitution are designed particularly to protect the rights of the worker.  Workers who rallied behind Emiliano Zapata and the other leaders of the revolution abandoned and executed their leaders when they strayed from the principles of land reform and workers right. Six full years before the November Revolution in Russia, the workers of Mexico began a war to assure that they would have the rights that they needed. The revolution was spurred by the harsh treatment of the peasants and lower class in early years and ended only after the people had their rights secured.

Free Essays

The Libyan Revolution

We are living through a revolution, right now, and we don’t even know it. While we’re all sitting around chatting on facebook, complaining about how much homework we have, and stressing about whether or not we’re going to that party on the weekend, the people of the Middle East are staging a rebellion against their dictators. Sometime in the future, this revolt will be in history books, so perhaps we should know something about it, while it’s actually happening.

In December 2010, Tunisia reared up against President, Ben Ali, in a bid for their undeniable human rights. Major demonstrations took place in Egypt, Djibouti, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, China, Bahrain, and Libya, with minor demonstrations and suicidal protests spreading across almost every country in the Middle East. Dubbed the ‘Jasmine Revolution’ by media sources, the conflict across the area is a cry for the abolition of the oppressive dictatorships in place, and the introduction of some form of democracy.

With the ousting of President Ben Ali of Tunisia and President Mubarak of Egypt, other leaders have stated that they will not be running for re-election, including the presidents of Yemen and Sudan, while the King of Jordan has named a new Prime Minister. In the people’s fight for their rights, this is a huge step forward; Though not without a price. Over the 3 months of protest, over 1600 people have died. Awareness of this has been widely spread by the internet, with images of the violence and terror of the riots, coming to light.

Startling images of the military executing civilians at peaceful protests, and mass murder of military members who refused to follow their orders, are among the more disturbing. These images are showing to the rest of the world just how important these riots are to the peace of the Middle East, and the rights of its peoples. While there has been huge success in regime change in Egypt especially, Libya is in the middle of a horrifically violent revolution.

Over 1000 of the dead are Libyan, and there seems to be no end in sight. President Gadaffi is refusing to step down, while the people become more focused and empowered, which spells an ongoing, violent revolution, even more so than the riots that toppled Egypt in early February. It is vital that the rest of the world be aware of what is happening in these countries, and with word of mouth, I for one, hope that the world will continue to see progress being made, but also the horror of the sacrifices being made.

The internet has been vital in spreading the word, but also in spreading the support for the people, and so with the sentiments of John Green (via twitter) “Our thoughts and prayers are with you all. Be Safe. Except you Gadaffi. You can go to hell. ”, I urge you to take a look around, think about the people of the Middle East, and find out what’s happening with this history-making event, because we are right now, living through what our children will be learning in history class.

Free Essays

Marriage and the Chinese Revolution

Before the 1949 revolution, Chinese women were regarded as lower in social rank than men, notwithstanding the general disempowerment of women due to the lower social class that they belonged to. Women were considered chattels, especially by the noble classes, in which families arranged marriages for their daughters in order to secure favors from government officials, warlords and even from the imperial household. Moreover, men could have as many wives as they wanted, notwithstanding the utter lack of power of women to secure a divorce from their husbands, in the event that they were abused and badly treated.

Mao Zedong said this about the Marriage Law, “The Marriage Law affects all people’s interests and is one of the basic laws of China, next only to the constitution…It is the legal means through which to carry out reform of the marriage and family system in China, the weapon with which to fight the feudal family system, and the tool necessary to establish and develop a new marriage and family system.”

For all the faults of Mao’s China, the marriage law which the communists implemented liberated the women from the bondage of a patriarchal society which dictated the terms of their existence, including their choice of a life partner. By decreeing the dismantling of a feudal system of relations between men and women, women were now able to truly choose to marry only those that they truly love. While such a state policy exists, it took more than the marriage law to truly ensure that the social inequality in a Chinese marriage was implemented politically and culturally, to ensure that women indeed held half the sky.

On the other hand, such liberation of Chinese women in marriage then did not amount to utter sexual promiscuity as in Western countries, except at present, where changing partners and spouses seem to be as fast as changing mobile phones and cars in Chinese contemporary society. As divorce is China is as easy as selling the newest Ipod, it is now steadily undermining once more the value of marriage and the commitment that is intertwined in its concept.

If the women were treated as chattels in feudal China that no mutual consent in marriage ever really existed, the present increasing number of divorces seems to manifest that with the increase in personal income and spending of the Chinese is rendering as a commodity the institution of marriage. These things, treating women as chattel and the commodification of marriage, are both social evils which destroy the basic sanctity of marriage, in view of the family as the basic institution in any society.

As the Chinese economy grows by leaps and bounds, it has also led to the creation and reproduction of a new inequality in the institution of marriage, where mutual love and commitment are not at the center of the institution but property relations to outpace all other families in a cutthroat competition for financial security and success.

It is no different from feudal China where families arranged marriages for their daughters because it destroys the long-held idea, even by Mao Tsetung, that marriage should only be based on mutual respect and love by partners with a deep perspective on their relationship and a long-term goal for the development of both partners’ lives in all aspects – physical, economic, social, and even spiritual.

Is divorce China’s new fad?

By Leon D’souza

ZIBO, People’s Republic of China– That China’s revolutionary leader, Mao Zedong, was an incessant womanizer is no secret. For 22 years, beginning in 1954, Dr. Li Zhisui, his personal physician, chronicled the former dictator’s dark private world. In his critically acclaimed book, “The Private Life of Chairman Mao,” Dr. Zhisui writes candidly about the erstwhile chairman’s voracious appetite for carnal pleasure. Mao was constantly hosting dances and card-playing parties to find new young women to indulge his fantasies. He was “married” at least four times and had ten children with whom he had rather distant relationships.

However, for all his shortcomings, Mao was a firm believer in the power of womanhood. He was fond of quoting an old Chinese proverb, “women hold up half the heavens,” and in his “Little Red Book,” which attained Biblical importance during the Cultural Revolution of the late 1960s, he spoke audaciously of the need for equality of the sexes.

“In order to build a great socialist society, it is of the utmost importance to arouse the broad masses of women to join in productive activity. Men and women must receive equal pay for equal work in production,” Mao declared.

The former chairman began a transformation of the submissive role that Chinese women were historically relegated to over centuries of dynastic rule. One of his earliest reforms involved sweeping changes to China’s harsh marriage norms.

Before the advent of Communist Power, marriage was somewhat of an unholy institution in China, a form of socially sanctioned bondage. Chinese director Zhang Yimou’s brilliant film, “Raise the Red Lantern,” tells of the sordid state of affairs in imperial times. Arranged and mercenary marriages were considered normal practice then. A wealthy man could have as many wives as he pleased. Widows were not allowed to remarry and no woman could ever ask for a divorce.

Mao changed all that. His first “Marriage Law” abolished the system of arranged or forced marriage and extended equal protection to women and children. The new legislation forbade bigamy, child marriage and public interference in the freedom for widows to remarry. Mao took personal interest in the implementation of the measure.

“The Marriage Law affects all people’s interests and is one of the basic laws of China, next only to the constitution,” he emphasized. “It is the legal means through which to carry out reform of the marriage and family system in China, the weapon with which to fight the feudal family system, and the tool necessary to establish and develop a new marriage and family system.”

Noble goals notwithstanding, Mao’s reforms weren’t greeted well in a country steeped in a long tradition of patriarchy. Some derided the edict as a formula for societal instability that was sure to trigger an epidemic of divorces.

“It is a law for divorce,” these naysayers argued.

In some ways, they were right.

Divorce is fast becoming something of an emerging trend in modern China, where successive marriage laws have empowered women who now initiate more than 70 percent of break ups. In fact, so pervasive is this trend that in a story some years ago, The New York Times Seth Faison pointed out that it was even beginning to affect the way ordinary Chinese greet each other in the street.

“For years,” Faison wrote, “people have greeted each other with a question that reflected the nation’s primary concern: “Chi le ma?” or “Have you eaten?” Now according to a popular joke in Beijing, people who see a friend on the street voice a new concern: “Li le ma?” “Have you divorced?”

But unlike other countries, where divorce is seen as a social problem, the Chinese seem to view this trend as a sign of the changing tide for women in a country where they were once mere objects of desire.

As the Beijing Youth Daily explained in a story a while back: “The high rate of divorce reflects a kind of ‘master of my own fate’ notion among urban residents. From an overall perspective, it represents a kind of social advancement.”

Financial independence resulting from a surge of women in the workforce seems to be driving the divorce rate. Chinese women now actually do hold up half the sky. They account for more than 46 percent of the total working population according to statistics. Women experts and entrepreneurs have come to the forefront in large numbers, playing key roles in hi-tech industries as well as large and medium state-owned enterprises. This has helped level the balance.

“In the past, women were very dependent on men for survival. They were not allowed to work. Today in China, women earn their own money. They are becoming more and more independent, and so they need not remain married to men that aren’t loyal to them,” said Huang Yan Ling, an English teacher at the Zibo Foreign Language School.

Huang was raised in Zibo, the rural northeastern city in Shandong Province where she now teaches middle school. As a mother herself, and someone who grew up away from the relatively liberal atmosphere of the rapidly westernizing cities along China’s eastern coast, she isn’t a loud supporter of the spate of divorces.

“I think it is very bad for the children,” she emphasized, when asked why she balked at the trend.

Nevertheless, she is delighted that increasing numbers of Chinese women are standing up for themselves, and places the blame for failed marriages squarely on the infidelity of the men involved.

“When most men approach middle age, they have a lot of money. When they have money, they look for younger girls because they just want to have fun. They don’t really love their wives,” she suggested matter-of-factly. “So it is good for some women to file for divorce.”

Nevertheless, there is room for tightening up the law to facilitate separations while preventing the situation from spiraling out of hand. One of the ways Huang points to is increasing the amount of alimony payable as child support.

“In China, if a couple files for divorce, the woman usually gets custody of the child. This places her in a difficult position. The man can get away with making payments as low as 300 Reminbi Yuan (approximately $38) per month,” she explained. “I think this is not right. Men should be made to pay more. That way, maybe they will think twice about cheating on their wives.”

At the end of the day, whether bane or boon, China’s climbing divorce rate is an indicator of significant social change. Mao’s China has opened up for women doors they could never previously have hoped to unlock. Today, women wear the pants in many families here. And although you won’t get their husbands to admit it, most married men live in peril of their wives ire.

Take Yu Ke Hong for example, one of my colleagues at the Zibo Foreign Language School. A month ago, my brother-in-law, Brian, and I, tried to coax him into buying a dog for his family while we were out pet shopping at the weekend “dog market.” Yu laughed when we presented the suggestion, then added candidly that his wife would “throw him out of the house” if he showed up on his doorstep with the cute Chinese Shar-Pie we had picked out for him since she didn’t care much for dogs. Enough said. You know who calls the shots in his household.

Leon D’souza is a frequent contributor to the Hard News Cafe

Free Essays

Impact of Market Revolution on American Workers

It is a matter of fact that American workers were strongly influenced by the market revolution in America. Market revolution took place before the Civil War and this time is considered to be uprising for America. For example, market revolution caused improvements and enhancements in transportation system, and development of new technologies. Furthermore, due to market revolution agricultural products significantly increased and the number of textile factories grew up.

The life of American society was changed as market revolution caused political, economic and technological changes. Nevertheless, not all the changes are positive. For example, American workers became less independent and more structured, but more women were provided with opportunities to earn wages meaning that gender roles were changes.

Speaking in detail, American workers were provided with new farming equipment and advancements. Furthermore, new staple crops were introduced. In transportation sphere new methods appeared: steamboats, railroads and canals. American workers were allowed in such a way to move faster from place to place. American workers obtained new employment opportunities due to establishment of new textile factories. With time machines made the work easier and faster.

As it is mentioned above, market revolution created new job opportunities for women. For example, women became more economically independent and they were the first workers at the textile factories. Moreover, their payments were descent. It was hard for them to struggle for descent payments and it was market revolution that helped them to achieve the desired outcome.

Summing up the market revolution greatly affected the life and work of American people. They were provided with new employment opportunities, expanded suffrage, new technologies and equipments, etc. Market revolution showed people that life should and must be changed for better.


Rise and Impact of Market Economy. Retrieved September 5, 2007, from







Free Essays

Market Revolution

The worldwide presence of the United States of America in terms of a gigantic political and economic power, as we see it today, is a result of the creative and relentless efforts of many political geniuses. After the War of Independence, the country was thrown in a state of depression and the late 17th century era marked a period of instability. The country had war debt of millions of dollars, negative speculation for foreign investment was inevitable, the army was negligible, the navy fleet was almost non-existent, relationship with England had severed and the Congress was unable to impose taxes until a proper law and order system was in place.

Heavy adjustments to the political and economic regulations were required to drive the country out of the financial crisis. It were only through the relentless vision and efforts of Alexander Hamilton, the First Secretary of Treasury and Thomas Jefferson, the First Secretary of State, that a new political and economic ideal for the country was created and later, a stage was set for  full scale development of the American society and economic growth to all parts of the world.

Similar article: Rise of Political Parties in the 1790s

In a revolutionary era marked by political battles and public discord, these symbolic figures provided different, yet talismanic views of the power of government and enterprise in shaping the political and economic orders of the country that has enabled the rulers of the future to legitimatize their decisions for sustainable development.


Hamilton believed that the revival of the economy and subsequent growth depended on the creation of a strong central government that was increasingly proactive in the affairs of the country. He believed that a central, energetic government will not only be able to supersede the powers of the individual states in order to provide national stability but also provide a common framework for effective development and unionization of the big country. He denied the notion of self-interest, which he believed was prevalent in the political structure and destructive for the nation. His philosophy of centralizing the national economy was a product of his political stance.

Hamilton believed that a structure of public credit facilities, immediate repayment of foreign debts and responsibility of states war debts, establishment of a new bank and protection of young industries were essential to promote business and develop competitive industries. Public credit facilities were to be financed through issuing government securities like bonds which can be used to settle the domestic debt and extended towards the industrial and manufacturing sector.

The government should take over the responsibility of the debt incurred by the individual states during the war since the war was fought for the independence of the entire nation and “A national debt attaches many citizens to the government who, by their numbers, wealth, and influence, contribute more perhaps to its preservation than a body of soldiers” (Finseth).

A banking structure with diversified branches will help the national government to carry out its basic functions like collecting taxes, financing debt and issue payments, issuing currency and generating income through interest on loans. A structure of no-tax for interstate commerce and protective tariff on imports will protect and promote national competition and young firms. Through his notion of a strong economic plan for a mechanized society, Thomas Hamilton gained support of a number of Congressmen and formed a Federalist Party in 1792.


In contrast to Hamilton’s view of an orderly mercantile economy, Thomas Jefferson advocated an agrarian economy, based on individual rights and a limited, decentralized government. He feared that the system proposed by his counterpart threatened the majority of the population who were agrarian laborers and resembled the British economic system. This would result in an emergence of tyranny against such a centralized rule.

Jefferson compounded on a weak government structure because he believed that a proper government will not only restrict the liberty of individuals but also limit itself from creating individualism. He emphasized this concept in one of his political writings: “rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual” (Appleby). Thomas Jefferson reject Hamilton’s proposal of setting up a national bank, fearing that such a bank would serve the rich at the expense of the poor people and emphasize federal powers over state powers. In response to the Federalist movement, Jefferson formed the Republican Party in 1792 along with James Madison to oppose the policies of the Federalists.


The influences set forth by the two politicians shaped the constitution of the country and paved way for a rapid development of the economy from 1815 to 1860. In 1792, the king of France was overthrown and a republic was established. France attempted to extend its powers throughout Europe and Britain was trying to curtail it. This resulted in Napoleonic Wars, of which the United States was a major victim in terms of foreign relations.

The victory of the Republican Party in 1800 resulted in the nomination of Thomas Jefferson as the third President of the United States. This event marked the first significant change in American politics. After the War of 1812, Jefferson realized that his vision of an agricultural market economy was incompetent with the competition in global markets. This led to the adoption of a policy of expansion and competition for power in the global economy.

The Industrial revolution had begun in the 1700s in Europe and was marked by new inventions and efficient methods of production. This revolution spread to the United States and local inventors came up with unique ideas to mechanize the agriculture sector and spur new industries. Cotton gin was a notable invention which revolutionized the cotton industry by creating new industries, promoting inter-commerce relations between the West and the East and exports. Manufacturing of shoes, woolen clothing and machinery were also expanding. By 1860, almost a third of the country’s income came from the manufacturing sector.

The concept of agrarian labor was transformed to that of a wage worker who was paid to run the automated machines in the factories. Most of the urbanized industries were located in the South, whereas the agricultural sector was primarily located in the South. Government provided social capital in the form of national roads, waterways and railroads. These initiatives enabled the nation to establish a firm base for rapid industrialization that followed. Financial industry diffused with new scheme through which some investors made wealth and others lost their savings. Protective tariffs were imposed to sustain the growing industries and bank branches were set up in every city. Rapid development also attracted a great deal of domestic and foreign investment.


The market and Industrial revolution had several consequences, including religion and reform, for the American Society in the eighteenth century. In the north, Evangelicalism or individual holiness, emerged in the new republic and was the “grand absorbing theme of American religious life” (Religion and the American Republic 7).

Progressive and conservative religious forces often differed in terms of religious opinions with the former advocating a mass dedication to the materialism of the market society. Reformism, as a result was an opposing view to that of the individual revivals. Nevertheless, the underlying belief was that “religion was a necessary spring” for the government to operate efficiently and people believed in “a close association between Religion and Patriotism” (Religion and the American Republic 7).

Societies and communities sprang up with a clear objective of devotion towards the removal of social evil and re-enlightenment of the individual soul as a result of the energy created from the evangelical movement. The six largest societies created during 1826-1827 were the American Education Society, the American Board of Foreign Missions, the American Bible Society, the American Sunday-School Union, the American Tract Society, and the American Home Missionary Society (Religion and the American Republic 7).


1.  United States History, The Formation of a National Government, Retrieved on Mar 10, 2006 from:

2. Finseth, Ian. The Rise and fall of Alexander Hamilton, Retrieved on Mar 10, 2006 from:

3. Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, Retrieved on Mar 10, 2006 from:

Free Essays

Third Industrial Revolution

Third Industrial Revolution based on Offshoring and Education It’s no doubt that our economy is changing and so is the world we live in. The major changes in our society stared off with the First Industrial Revolution. Many jobs changed from farm to factory beginning in the late 18th century. This was the largest revolution because it shaped the way we live today. The second revolution was the shift from manufacturing jobs toward service jobs. It’s believed that we are still in this shift. Now we are on the brink of a third industrial revolution which is due to the increase of technology.

Often called the Information Age, the third revolution will require change as the first and second have before. However, it seems as if little changes have been made to accommodate the changing world. We are now facing the struggle of keeping jobs in the country and along with that comes the need to enhance our educational system. The two may not seem to work together, but they do. Improvement in education may change the way we off shoring our jobs. There has been suggested a few ways that could help improve United States and keep us on top instead of having other countries take our jobs.

Alan S. Blinder is the Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. He is the one that presented the idea of changing the way we educate our youngster to have them better prepared for the future. Researching his ideas and theories on how to solve the problem with education, I did agree with him on most of his theories. In the past the fight for our jobs was with computers and technology. Many jobs were being taken by computers, which resulted in many people being laid-off. We can’t deny that we do need computers and the improvement of technology makes our lives easier.

We can’t “dumb down” our economy to keep jobs. People eventually had to accept the increase of computers and the facts that many jobs we needed to do, can now be done for us. We now have another force that’s taking our jobs, offshoring. Offshoring is taking over many companies and there is nothing we can do about it. The good deal of having someone do the same job for a lot less is too good of a deal for a company to pass up. For the heads of companies they love the idea, but for the average worker we have to compete with workers in India and Asia for jobs in our own country.

Offshoring is no longer only limited to service jobs. It was thought that call centers and manufacturing companies were the jobs affected for foreigners taking their jobs, but with the increase in technology that is no longer the case. With the increase of offshoring, the jobs more aimed at leaving the country are impersonal jobs. By not needing face to face contact with customers, it makes it easier to have the job completed overseas. Offshoring is an event that we can prepare for, by better preparing the workforce for a new economy of work.

Training the future needs to be different than in the past because we are emerging into a whole new era. The increase of computers causes an increase of impersonal jobs, which makes it easy to complete many services by electronic means. Blinder’s suggested, “We need to think about, plan, and probably redesign our educational system with the crucial distinction between personal service jobs and impersonal service jobs in mind. ” Because many impersonal are the first ones being offshoring, the more personal jobs are the one staying in the country.

We do need to help the future understand the change that is progressing around us. It does make sense that we need to change our educational system from one that was implemented over 50 years ago. Getting every school and college to change their curriculum will take time and work, but with an effective plan the need for change will eventually happen. The essential need for education needs to change. Learning about a careers that will be available years down the line, will help us be more prepared. Jobs that can’t be offshored or done by a machine will be the product of a new growing economy.

Suggestions of ways to improve the educational system would be to include the following. To keep jobs we need to focus on the advancement of skills that cannot be outperformed by a computer or taken away by someone overseas. The thing that makes us American and different than any other culture is what we need to put emphasis on. Creativity, ingenuity, spontaneity, culture, interpersonal relations, etc. are factors that make us an individual and if these are applied into the education system it’s possible that we will gain more jobs back.

Memorization seems to be something that many schools try to help develop, but that skill is something that a computer can very well accomplish better than the average worker could. Also by bringing in more group and interactive activities we could improve our personal skills. Just a few newer approaches to increasing the way we learn and information that we learn can help put us on the right track to keeping jobs that we could do better than a foreign country and we could be better prepared for jobs that won’t be offshored.

Blinder stated as his main objective, “We need to focus on preparing more college students for the high-end jobs that are unlikely to move offshore, and on developing a creative workforce that will keep America incubating and developing new processes, new products, and entirely new industries. Offshoring is, after all, mostly about following and copying. Americans need to lead and innovate instead, just as we have in the past. Summary The increase of technology has Americans sending off our jobs overseas. We can compete with foreign countries and computers to keep more jobs in the U.

S. One important factor to help us is to improve the way we are educating our future. We need to change the system implementing new ways to educate. We also need to change focus of the lesson and focus on new concepts that in the end can make us competitor with computers and foreign countries. Many people don’t know that change is needed and are perfectly fine with the system we have set up now. The ideas that Blinder suggested for us are just ideas that could possibly have us heading in the right direction for the future.

Conclusions and Recommendations By using and implementing the information that Blinder has given will help to successfully keep the economy on track and not have it handed over to another country. The educational system we have now hasn’t been changed for many years and as the world is changing we also need to change along with it. Because sometimes it can be hard to adjust to change, and many people don’t like change getting the information publicized and persuading policy holders will speed up the progress for change.

Free Essays

Define the rule of the employers during the Industrial revolution

At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, employers were in virtually complete control of their employees and employees lives’. Government intervention to make the work place safe would not occur for several decades and factories were little more than slave shops under a different term. Typically, employees would have no rights at all regarding their employment and were forced to work in deplorable conditions: factories with insufficient light and unsafe work conditions. Many had no ventilation and were fire hazards because of the combustible materials that were used. Employees were forced to work long hours based on production needs and no thought was given to employee health or well-being.

In many instances, the employer would create company towns in the region near their factories. The company would own all houses, markets and goods in the community. The company would then charge exorbitant rates for rent, food and goods making it virtually impossible for employees to get ahead. In many cases, the employee would work for a year only to owe the company money at the end of the year. This was done as a means to keep people from moving to other factories or other communities.  In addition, the law allowed people to be sent to prison for their debts and the debts of the parents to be passed on to the children, so often several generations of a family would be virtually enslaved by their employer.

Wages that were paid were insufficient for a family to be fed and often parents and children worked in these sweatshops as a method of maintaining the family life. Children did not attend school or have any hope of a better life as they were sent in to the factories at very young ages. Women were often forced to leave children at home with an older sibling while they worked or were unable to work at all because of an infant or toddler in the home. Very young children placed a severe burden on the family because of the loss of wages and many children were abandoned to state-run orphanages in hopes that they would end up in a better life or to simply prevent a drag on the family’s income.

This was not a benevolent dictatorship. The employer often ruled with an iron-fist and lived in the lap of luxury while his employees died of disease and malnutrition brought on by his greed. Employers were also allowed without repercussion to discipline employees as they saw fit and often took great liberties with female employees who were afraid of losing their jobs if they did not comply.

Employers profited greatly during this time because labor was plentiful and they could make it cheap. Employers did not provide health care or disability for employees hurt or killed on the job.  Instead, the financial burden on their families was increased by the lack of income. And, people were hurt or maimed regularly by substandard equipment and poor conditions.

Another favorite tactic on employers early in the Industrial Revolution was to pay people according to the number of pieces that they could produce.  This was yet another manner of ruling with an iron fist. Employers could assign employees to good machines, which produced fast and accurate pieces, or old and worn out machines at their discretion. Young people had an advantage of being able to work faster and often would have made better wages, except that employers seized on the idea that children had fewer responsibilities and used this as an excuse to pay children less even though they were expected to carry the workload of an adult. Children who failed were often beaten.

During the American Civil War, proponents of slavery pointed out the inequities in the system and argued that Southern landowners often treated their slaves better than many employers treated their employees. They argued that a slave owner saw his slave as an investment and valued its contribution to his success and a business owner viewed his employees as an endless, replaceable commodity and took no personal responsibility for their safety, health or well-being.

What is and was the right of existence for the unions?

The UK was not initially a good place for unions to be. In 1799 and 1800, British Prime Minister William Pitt had a pair of acts passed called the combination acts which made it illegal for people to band together to try to get shorter working hours or more pay. Then, in 1817 Parliament against acted, this time making it illegal for a group of more than 50 people to meet together and order the arrest of anyone accused of spreading seditious libel, any untoward remarks regarding the Parliament or the Crown.  This severely hampered efforts for parliamentary reform as people were afraid to speak out.

Two years later, nearly 50,000 people gathered at St. Peter’s Field to hear subversive, pro-union newspaper editors and other union leaders talk about the need for reform and the local magistrate, backed by the British Army, attacked, purportedly in an effort to arrest one of the speaks. Several accounts say many of the soldiers were drunk when they attacked the crowd with their sabres.

As a result, Parliament instituted the Six Acts, which expanded the definitions of seditious libel and allowed permanent ceasing of a publication as means of punishment. It also changed the newspaper and stamp act so that even publications of purely opinion were subjected to the tax and provided local authorities with the right to seize people and arms accused of participating in a union gathering.

In 1824, the combination acts were repealed and met with a national outbreak of strikes, resulting in Parliment’s decision to pass a new combination act in 1835. This was the first significant legislation o legalize trade unions, though it made their scope very narrow. Trade unions could meet and discuss working conditions and pay only. Any other activities were considered a criminal conspiracy to restrict trade. The law also forbade unions from doing anything to obstruct or intimidate others. This was viewed as problematic as it gave the judiciary an unprecedented leeway in determining what activities violated the law.

The act remained the law of the land until 1867 when Benjamin Disraeli and others banded together to have the law changed so that a striking union could be charged only with breach of contract and the government in power created the Trade Union Congress. Though calls to allow a union member into the Congress were rejected, the move proved to be an advancement in the cause of unionism. Four years later, the government finally made trade unions legal.

In 1875 when Disraeli was named Prime Minister, as promised, he passed legislation making it legal for a union to do anything that an individual could do. This began the age of unionism and in 1880, Parliament passed legislation making management and employers responsible for the safety and well-being of the employees as long as their injury was not the result of actions by fellow workers.

In 1906, legislation as passed to prevent employers from suing unions when they had a loss of income as a result of a strike and in 1913 legislation made it clearly legal for the labor unions to contribute to the political party of their choice as determined by union leadership. In 1927, legislation was passed to prevent civil servants from joining unions affiliated with the Trade Union Congress and outlawed the use of sympathetic strikes and general strikes. That is, with minor revision, the state of the trade labor union today.

On which roles does the Globalization of the economy depend?

Globalization of the economy is a tricky business and highly dependent on the ability of workers and employers to adapt to the changing international labor market and the changing role of the industrialized world in the age of technology. There has been some effort made within the last two years to update the trade union system and encourage union modernization so that the workers can quickly be retrained with skills more appropriate to the emerging labor market.

As with other parts of the world, the concern among trade unions is that jobs traditionally left to them are now being outsourced to cheaper labor environments worldwide. If we are to adjust to this availability of cheap labor elsewhere, we must do so by changing the way we look at labor unions and evaluating the new markets that could be the modern labor frontiers.

One example of this might be to examine computer workers and administrative positions traditionally viewed as white collar work. These areas are the new growth industries and in recent years, the site of the most abuse of employees. In addition, these more advanced positions have traditionally had to negotiate salaries for themselves resulting in huge disparities person to person and based on gender, age, and other discriminatory factors.

For globalization to work the economy must be revitalizes and the United Kingdom must adjust its perceptions at home and abroad about the things that it will produce. No longer will mining and textiles be a major portion of the economy. Instead, if we are to accept our part in a global economy, we must identify new areas in which we can develop an unrivaled expertise and global reliance.

In a 2005 report, HM Treasury argued that the UK is in an unrivaled position worldwide to make the most of globalization in that we have the economic and trading ties to the entire world. In addition, we have a strong business, technology and macroeconomic base from which to begin our quest.

Not only must we train employees in the fast-growing areas of technology which will present the best opportunity for our people, but we must also reward innovation and creativity. The report calls for the support of workers who need to be retrained to join the global economy and the wise and efficient use of energy and resources as a means to prevent reliance on other countries for our energy needs.

Most importantly, we must rely on the well-established international trade that helped build and strengthen the economy in the first place. It is vitally important that the country not turn to isolationism as a manner of dealing with the threat of international competition. The problem is that many people promote the idea of protectionism as a way to avoid the international competition, but we know that this approach will only lead to a need to rejoin the world economy at a later date when we are less strong and able to do so. We must move forward now and implement change instead of hiding from it.

What is mundialism or anti globalization?

Mundialism is the process of building interconnected word governing bodies rather than integrating the existing nation-states into an interdependent global world. Proponents of mundialism argue that entities such as the International Court and a one-world government should be created rather than relying on the concept of nation-states.

Mundalism promoted the concept that what is right for the world as a whole is right for the individual citizens and the individual nations of the world. It argues that by working together for the common good, we can overcome economic, social and ideological differences for the betterment of all humankinds.

Anti-globalization can encompass a number of different policies, but largely it is the idea that the governments, economies and societies of the world should not be interdependent and that they should remain separate by distinct barriers including borders and cultural boundaries.

Anti-globalization proponents are perhaps the most extreme opponents of mundialism. They believe that the world is already too interconnected and that it would be better if we could simply draw the curtains up around our countries and keep the rest of the world argue.

Many argue that the world can never be as interdependent as promoted by mundialism and that it will always be divided by was and ideology. The idea, they say, is that human nature is competitive and that we cannot make all faiths and all political viewpoints get along. Some would even argue that the only way that mundialism could work would be with a strong world ruler, that someone would have to get the final deciding vote on right and wrong.

Mundialism supporters argue that if the nation’s of the world all expressed a true desire to work together in harmony the major strife points of the world could be eliminated and wars and border disputes could end.

Anti-globalization proponents call that pie in the sky nonsense. There will always be a competition for resources and for power. Those without it will strive for it via any means necessary and those who have it will seek to retain it.

Somewhere in there middle is where we actually are. There are some world organizations, like the International Criminal Court and there are some opponents to those organizations, like the United States. There are growing disputes worldwide over everything from economic gain to religion to claiming the land that sits beneath the polar icecaps.

And, neither theory adequately addresses what should be done about global problem areas like Rwanda and Darfur, places where the massacres keep happening, the land is destroyed and the people are unable to subsist, much less contribute to a world economy.

Describe the Trade union s structure and state why the unions are losing members.

Trade unions are designed to be very specific in their membership and then are loosely affiliated with the Trade union Congress. However, this specialization is contributing to the decline of the unions and the loss of members nationally.

Unions are supposed to be local, with members choosing a regional representative to speak to the specific concerns of their company or community. Then, the locals are affiliated with a national organization which is in turn affiliated with the national congress. But in recent years, with declining employment in regions once covered by the trade unions, even the largest of the unions are beginning to shrink or disappear entirely.  This is a factor of the changing work environment within the UK, as more and more people are working in quasi-professional positions not covered by the trade unions.

Furthermore, even locally, unions do not represent the universal political opinions that they once did. Neighbors now may agree on matters of union employment, but have vastly different opinions with regards to national politics and how the union should be influencing them. This diversity in the union has caused a loss of political power and a loss of interest within the membership.

In addition, the major concern facing trades people in 2007 is not something the union can do much to change.  Unions have had little impact in corporate decisions to close factories or move operations to other nations where the labor costs are more favorable. The days of the union being able to protect its workers and provide for a safer work environment, better benefits and a happier way of life are gone,

Instead, the unions continue to take dues from members, reducing their overall take home pay, but add no benefits. The days of the sweatshop are long gone and virtually every worked is provided the same protections under the law that a union worker can get in a union shop.  That is not to say that the union has outlived its usefulness, but rather that unions have accomplished their original goals of workplace safety and equal treatment for workers.

If unions seriously want to reverse the trend of losing membership, they must realize that they play an important role in the globalization process and update themselves to meet that need. Unions must be actively involved in retraining workers and helping them to find new means of gainful employment.  Unions must work in conjunction with business to find better ways to improve global competitiveness and to make employers understand the value of well-educated, highly-trained workers over cheap labor in an unregulated state.

Free Essays

Why Was There a Revolution in Russia in 1905

Why was there a revolution in Russia in 1905? The 1905 revolution happened for many reasons and so a combination of factors will best explain this question. However the most important reason was the tsar and his ignorant beliefs and attitudes towards Russia. The Russo-Japanese war was a major factor in starting the revolution in 1905, the whole purpose of the war was to try and stop the thoughts of rebellion by getting the Russian people to rally for their country, however when Russia lost the Russian people lost faith in their country and their tsar because he embarrassed their country and put them in a huge national crisis.

Russia’s defeat displayed the government’s incompetence which excited the social unrest that the war was supposed to stop. It also showed people incompetence of the Tsar who’s most important and essential job was to show his command of his army. Enthusiasm was the first reaction to this war, giving the country something to take its mind off, stop the rioting and focus on the winning. However, as soon as it became clear that Russia was losing for the first time to an Asian power, the people declared unrest and resumed, stronger than ever the strikes and demand for reform.

Russia’s ignorance on world issues was showed and clearly laid for the people of Russia to see. The loss of the war, representing the only hope allowed the revolution of 1905 to take place, forming a large number of strikes, constant pressure on the government and the demand for reform. Russia in the 19th and 20th century faced economic collapses along with inflation which would test the nation’s and the people’s patience towards coming sufferings. The increasing population of Russia outlined a new milestone for the empire.

A population increase demanded more from the economy and required a higher order of thought to please the entire nation. However, Russia and the Tsar were not ready for such expansion in population and backward views on society only provided another reason to further damage the rising dissatisfaction. Village population had grown from 61 to 78 million between 1877 and 1905 but the land owned by peasants only grew 24. 2 percent. Clearly, there was a shortage of land, and a shortage of determination to improve the land and shortened patience to hope for better times.

The emancipation of the Serfs by Alexander II in 1861 did little to solve the discontent and agitation of the working people. The view of the freed serfs was the final ownership of land in return for powering the nation’s economy and later the empire. However, the disappointment appeared when the Tsar approved freedom for the peasants, yet taxed them for living on land which they had believed to rightfully own from years of slavery. The view on autocracy was being undermined, even though there was trust in the Tsar and his connection with god.

The Tsar’s ignorance on issues such as the poor living conditions for the peasants in the country outlined a path of public dismay and questioning. While the peasants resisted questioning due to their simplicity, influence from other parts of Europe and the slow industrialisation saw them thinking about the nature of their misfortune and famine. Whilst ‘freeing the Serfs’ and granting them their ironic independence, rising prices along with tremendous taxes influenced the peasants to revolt, playing a part in the Russian revolution.

Illegal political parties were uprising to share their discontent with Russia and their Tsar and create an outline for ideas of revolution, demands and strikes. The social revolutionaries and democrats had existed from 1901, yet public support was achieved in 1905 when living was hard, and the belief of god and the Tsar had been slowly lost. These parties were illegal, yet the Tsar could not satisfy the people in order to prove these parties unnecessary.

All these political opponents were a figure of showing the attention needed to Russia, how strong actions needed to be taken and the hunger of the people needed to be satisfied at any scale possible. The participation of these parties resulted in strikes and a build-up of the Russia changing general strike. Decisively, the build of political parties and the failure to stop their need allowed the citizens of Russia to demand and express themselves more, therefore leading to the activity of revolution and strength. Bloody Sunday’ intensified the revolutionary movement and finally ended the people’s view of the Tsar as their protector and carer. On 9thJanuary 1905, concerned workers came peacefully to address a petition, and expected the Tsar to ease their problems. However, the peaceful workers were shot at by the tsar’s soldiers before they could even reach the tsar. After ‘Bloody Sunday’, the tip of revolution was over and certainly now it stood in every person’s right to take political concern and begin strikes that would swell to form a halt in the nation. By September there were massive strikes by factory workers and railway men.

Soon the country was virtually stopped by a general strike, which stopped everything Russia relied on. Overall the revolution in 1905 was started by many factors however the Tsar’s beliefs and attitudes were one of the main factors because he was so naive and ignorant. He could have stopped bloody Sunday, which was the breaking point for revolution, but instead he let his soldiers shoot his people losing any trust the Russian people had in him. He also involved the country in a pointless war to try and rally Russia together only to embarrassingly lose and display his incompetence.

Free Essays

Apush Dbq American Revolution

Though some may try to argue that the American Revolution was not a real revolution since the upper class was not displaced, it was in fact a revolution because it transferred power from an entrenched British monarchy into the hands of local state legislatures. The American Revolution was representative of a great change which occurred in the way that in Britain, parliament viewed Americans as a small cluster of people who could be taxed without representation, to where in America the government was able to see how each individual could contribute to the economy, government, and the overall well-being of America.

This idea came about from the increasingly more harsh and authoritarian taxes that were being placed on the colonies, without representation, from British monarchy. In reaction to the Tea Act, one of the taxes placed on imported goods to America, the New York Sons of Liberty wrote several resolutions to protest against it.

These resolutions were signed by all different social classes, which signifies a change in society, because while in Britain only the wealthy and educated were permitted to participate in governmental choices, a very broad spectrum of society was able to be an active participant in how they wanted their government to be run. Although the lower class was not necessarily in congress, their ideas were able to represented by the people that they elected to express their ideas.

Some who wish to argue the idea that the American Revolution was not a full revolution may bring into light the women of the revolution, and how there was not a huge change for them. Even though their was not an extremely significant change for them, American women were given a multitude of rights that were not given to women in Britain at the time. The women of America were able to go out to war with the men to protect them, and at times even take their place when a man was wounded and could not fulfill his duties on the battlefield.

Additionally, they were often left in charge of the business and upholding of the household when their husbands went out to war. In summation, American women played many roles that were not typical of them in that time period; showing a revolutionary new way of thinking that involved women. After the surrender at Yorktown, a cartoon by James Gillray was made as a warning to the British that since they were able to defeat the British once, they could do it again should they try to overtake America and their freedoms again.

While this act in itself was not a revolution, it was representative of the revolutionary ideas in the works of the United States of America. The American Revolution was the transference of power from a monarchial government to that of a representative democracy that was able to reflect the ideas and desires of all free white men of America; indicating that it was in actuality a revolution and not an expeditious rebellion.

Free Essays

Retail Marketing Revolution

THE RETAIL MARKETING REVOLUTION By 2010, the list of India’s top 10 retailers will have at least 5 Indian corporate. Retail Marketing will go through a tremendous change in India this millennium. It will change India’s cities, its people, and its households. The Indian consumer is reportedly the largest spender in Singapore and London. It is, therefore, strange that there have, so far, been few efforts to present the product in the right kind of environment in India. Indeed, the right shopping experience does induce Indian consumers to spend more.

This is evident from the experiences of retail-outlets like Shoppers’ Stop, Music World, Food World, Crosswords, The Home Store, Ebony, Bigjo’s, Saboos, Standard, Vijay Store and Janaki Das & Sons, Westside etc. However, the development of organized retail is dependent on the efforts of several agencies and institutions. The first among these is the government. In a country as big as India and with as many states as ours, it is imperative that the Central government and all state governments bring in Value Added Taxation or a unified taxation system to ensure that the tax-regimes are the same across the country.

The laws governing retail real estate should also be looked into, so that it is possible to develop retail-estate beyond the city-limits. Apart from providing entertainment and retail opportunities, this will also decongest the city center and facilitate the development of suburbs. The relevant rules should also be amended to allow retail-stores to operate 7 days a week, 12 hours a day. Given the hours most urban consumers keep at work, and keeping in mind the increase in the number of nuclear families, this may, indeed, make sense. This will also help people enjoy their evenings, out at malls.

The second group, whose participation is essential in making retail a boom-sector in this millennium, comprises developers. Most properties are developed without considering the end user; thus, we sometimes find high-ceilinged offices and low-ceilinged retail stores. Often, the shopper’s convenience is not taken into consideration while the property is constructed. Another area of concern is the way in which developers sell their space. The only consideration is the price, not the usage pattern or the nature of the product that is to be sold.

In contrast, internationally, mall-management is treated as a specialized discipline of retail management. This is what we have to focus on in this millennium. The third constituency that has a role to play in the fortunes of organized retail this century is the education-sector. Retail is a people-intensive business, and there is a huge opportunity for retail institutes in India. For manufacturers, retailing will present an attractive opportunity. Organized retail allows them to expose their products to a large volume of customers in an environment conducive to buying.

Already, several transnational retail giants have established their presence in India; others, notably Chinese retailers, have visited India and studied the Indian market. There’s a lot at stake here: even so early in the 21st Century, India is too large a market to be ignored by transnational retail giants. From the manufacturing company’s perspective, the focus should be on producing good products, and forging relationships with organized retail. Manufacturers need to draw a plan of producing quality products and tie in with retailers.

Indeed, the birth of organized retail will also engender the creation of private labels and store-brands. Thus, if a manufacturing company lacks the resources to build a brand, it can supply to a retail-chain that has the resources to create a brand of its own. A glimpse of the last 2 decades of the previous century proves illuminating. Large-format retailing started with outlets like Vivek’s and Nalli’s in Chennai and Kidskemp in Bangalore, and, at another level, with manufacturer-retail brands like Bata, Bombay Dyeing, and Titan.

The last decade of the millennium witnessed the emergence of lifestyle brands and the plastic culture. Liberalization and increasing awareness of the world around us created the Indian yuppie, who aspired to own everything we saw on TV, or in shops during jaunts abroad. New lifestyle brands offered traditional retail-outlets an opportunity to convert themselves into exclusive stores, franchised or otherwise. And even as these developments were taking place, the Indian consumer became more mature.

Customer-expectations zoomed Thus, at the beginning of the New Millennium, retailers have to deal with a customer who is extremely demanding. Not just in terms of the product-quality, but also in terms of service, and the entire shopping experience. Today, the typical customer who shops in a retail outlet compares the time spent at the check-out counter with that at an efficient petrol station, and the smile of the counter-person to that decorating the face of a Jet Airways’ crew member.

To cope with the new customer, manufacturers have to focus on product quality and brand building. And retailers, in turn, have to focus on the quality of the shopping experience. Internationally, retailing is a large business; you find at least one retailer amongst the top 10 companies in every country. In the US, it is Wal-Mart with a turnover in excess of $ 120 billion. In the UK, it is Marks and Spencer’s with close to ? 10 billion; and, in Germany, it is Karstadt with a turnover in excess of dm 10 billion.

Free Essays

Kant’s ‘Copernican Revolution’

Describe Kant’s ‘Copernican Revolution’ and explain (and outline) how he hopes it will give rise to synthetic apriori knowledge. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason [1781] was birthed out of the Leibnizian-Wolff tradition. He rejected this tradition due to a dislike of the principles of Sufficient Reason and Non-Contradiction. Although much of the Critique can be read as a spirited attack on this tradition, Kant’s real catalyst for the writing the Critique was the empiricist David Hume, and the way one reads the Critique is informed by the awareness of the Critique as a duel attack.

The creation of the ‘synthetic a priori’ and the ‘Copernican Revolution’ that gave rise to it are both conversant of this attack. This essay aims to outline and defend how the ‘Copernican Revolution’ evolved and how this ‘metaphysical revolution’ formed the concept of the ‘synthetic a priori’. In the Preface to the Critique Kant describes metaphysics as once being the ‘queen of all sciences’ (A ix). Yet, despite this, he argues that reason in metaphysics fails to have the stability of mathematics or natural science.

The conflict of Newtonian science with Leibnizian metaphysics, rationalism with empiricism, and natural science with morality and religion, are all instances of metaphysics as a ‘battle ground’ (Gardner 1999: 20). Kant argues that: “If the various participants are unable to agree in any common plan of procedure, then we may rest assured that it is very far from having entered upon the secure path of a science, and is indeed a merely random groping” (B vii).

For Kant, the natural sciences and mathematics are in contrast to metaphysics because the former have undergone a peculiar process of stability. Kant adheres to a ‘Maker’s Knowledge Thesis’, which argues that a subject has supreme (a priori) knowledge of an object, if they are the maker of that object or able to reproduce it. Thus, maths has a priori status because we can construct mathematical objects ourselves. He affects to reproduce an analogous revolution in metaphysics.

At…Kant gives his ‘Copernican Revolution’ of metaphysics: “Hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects. But all attempts to extend our knowledge of objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in failure. We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of metaphysics, if we suppose that objects must conform to our knowledge.

This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be possible to have knowledge of objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being given” (B xvi). The ‘Copernican Revolution’ attempts a compromise between the optimistic Leibnizian realists, who argue that we can have objective (a priori) knowledge of the external world through the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Humean sceptics, who argue that we can have no knowledge beyond immediate experience.

By a ‘Copernican Revolution’, Kant intends a complete overhaul of what has previously been taken as objective fact: like Copernicus explained the ‘objective’ movement of the sun by the subjective movement of the observer on earth, Kant explains our knowledge of ‘objective’ external objects in terms of our subjective modes of cognition (Gardener 1999: 42). On the ‘Maker’s Knowledge Thesis’, for an agent to have a priori metaphysical knowledge, they must have at least partially formed a sum of that knowledge.

Kant claims that this is achieved by the input of our cognitive faculties on what we observe. Some critics question how Kant’s ‘revolution’ does not merely collapse into an account of Berkeley’s mind-dependence, that we ‘create’ the external objects in our own minds (Gardener 1999: 43). But Kant is not idealist in the way that Berkeley is, to say that the subject ‘forms’ the object by the modes of their cognition, is not to say that objects are the creation of our representations.

Kant does hold that there are objective external objects in the world, he merely denies that we can know them as such. He makes a distinction between objects as they appear to us and objects as they are in themselves. Locke makes a similar distinction between what he called the ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ qualities. In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he argued that the secondary qualities such as an object’s colour, smell etc. is fundamentally different from their ‘primary’ qualities such as their size or extension.

The secondary qualities are things that can be known by the observer, but not as a property of the thing in its self, whereas primary qualities are independent of whoever is observing them, and are properties of the thing as it is in itself. Kant’s distinction is even more limited insofar as he does not think that any of the properties Locke describes as ‘primary’ are properties of an object in its self. He believes that all we can know of an object in its self is that it exists. If the fact that an object exists is all that we could ever know of an object in itself, then a rationalist perspective would hold that this s all we can ever know of that object (full stop) because they believe that knowledge conforms to the object. However, because Kant believes that the object conforms to knowledge, he also believes that we can know other things about the object through the faculties of our cognition. We can never have knowledge of a thing its self because we cannot have ‘Maker’s Knowledge’ of such a thing, but we can have ‘Maker’s knowledge’ of a thing as it appears to us because we ‘form’ these appearances with our own cognition. These are what Kant terms ‘synthetic a priori’ judgements.

Kant distinguishes “cognitions a priori… from empirical ones, which have their sources a posteriori, namely in experience” (Guyer 2006: 45). An analytic judgment is one in which “the predicate B belongs to the subject A as something that is contained in this concept A” (Guyer 2006: 46). They are concepts known through identity, such as ‘All bachelors are married men’. By contrast, synthetic judgements are those in which “the predicate B lies entirely outside the concept A, although to be sure it stands in connection with it” (ibid).

Championed by Hume, the orthodox view of the time was that while analytic judgements can be known a priori, given the fact that they can be immediately experienced and understood if you can understand the composite meaning of the proposition, synthetic judgements could only ever be understood a posteriori. A posteriori cognitions are merely based on the experience of an object and a synthetic judgement such as ‘this macbook is white’ can only ever be known by looking at the object (macbook) and a posteriori judging it to have a certain property (whiteness).

Kant disagreed with this Humean reasoning, and while he accepted that there could not be an analytic a posteriori, he did think that there could be synthetic a priori cognitions. Kant blames the instability of metaphysics on the fact that the possibility of ‘synthetic a priori’ judgments has never been considered. In the Preface of the Critique Kant argues that the ‘real’ problem of pure reason is “contained in the question: How are synthetic judgements a priori possible? ” (Gardener 1999). He makes an initial concession to the empiricists insofar as all knowledge necessarily ‘begins with’ experience.

However, he argues that from this it does not necessarily follow that all of our knowledge be derived from such experience (it may, conversely, be derived a priori) (Gardener 1999: 53). Kant argues in the Introduction of the Critique that “if we find a proposition such that in thinking it we think at the same time its necessity, then it is an a priori judgment; and if, in addition, it is not derived from any proposition except one that itself has the validity of a necessary proposition, then it is absolutely a priori” (B3).

Kant presupposes that we have this kind of knowledge: we have a priori knowledge of mathematical objects, and the principle of causation has ‘strict universality’ (Gardener 1999: 53). However, Kant does not regard these as analytic. Instead, Guyer argues that “[f]or Kant, all the fundamental propositions of philosophy as well as the contents of pure mathematics and even the basic principles of natural science are nothing less than synthetic a priori cognitions” (Guyer 2006: 47).

Kant argues that the term ‘synthetic’, when applied to judgments, “has a double sense of connecting a predicate with a concept in which it is not contained, and of presupposing a corresponding act of synthesis or putting together on the part of the subject” (Gardener 1999: 55). This is the act of ‘transcendental synthesis’. This process is significant when considering the a priori. Kant argues that although some concepts are indeed analytical, such as ‘all bachelors are married men’, concepts such as ‘every cause has an effect’ are not.

Such concepts are a priori by virtue of being necessary, but they are also synthetic because they intend to add something to the sum of human knowledge. According to Kant, any informative concept must also be synthetic (Gardener 1999: 56). Because of this, Rawls advances two analytically distinct criteria for analyticity: a judgement is analytic if (1) Its truth can be determined on the basis of conceptual considerations or the meaning of its composite terms; (2) “if it is self-evidently true rather than such as to extend our knowledge” (Gardener 1999: 61).

These criteria have lead critics to argue that Kant confuses two different versions of the analytic/synthetic distinction; the first definition of analyticity encompasses what Kant calls ‘synthetic a priori’ because they would be true for conceptual reasons. However, These critics fail to give an account of how conceptual considerations are intended to extend knowledge the way that the synthetic a priori entails.

Some critics argue that Kant’s method of proving the existence of synthetic a priori judgments is analytic, an argument of regress from the effect back to its cause. By arguing as such, they thus accuse Kant of presupposing the very thing he is intending to prove. Guyer argues that “[o]f course, if one doubts that mathematics and physics do contain synthetic a priori cognition, then the use of this analytic or regressive method to arrive at further metaphysical truths is in trouble from the outset” (Guyer 2006: 48).

Kant admits that his methodology is analytical in the Prolegomena, however, in the first edition Kant argues that his process was synthetic, by inquiring within pure reason itself. In the Preface Kant argues that his objective is “to demonstrate and make comprehensible the objective validity of his concepts a priori”. In the Introduction to the First Edition Kant argues that reason “…finds itself compelled to resort to principles that go beyond all possible use in experience, and that nonetheless seem so little suspect that even common human reason agrees with them.

By doing this, however, human reason plunges into darkness and contradictions; and although it can indeed gather from these that they must be based on errors lying hidden somewhere, it is unable to discover these errors…[t]he combat of these endless conflicts is what we call metaphysics” (A viii). The ‘Copernican Revolution’ is the way Kant attempts to prove the possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge without flying off into ungrounded metaphysics (Guyer 2006: 49). If we assume that the sensory representations and conceptual organisation of objects is contained only in experience, then knowledge can never be more than a posteriori.

But, if we discover cognitive ‘forms’ of these representations and organisations, then we know that nothing can ever be an object of knowledge without being subject to these forms, and thus that these ‘forms’ necessarily apply to the objects of our knowledge and therefore must constitute synthetic a priori judgments (Guyer 2006: 49-50). Bibliography: Gardner, Sebastian (1999) “Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason”, London: Routledge. Guyer, Paul (2006) “Kant”, Oxon: Routledge. Kant, Immanuel (Pluhar, Werner: Translator) (1996) “Critique of Pure Reason”, USA: Hackett Publishing Company.

Free Essays

French Revolution: Ultimately a Failure

Liberte, Egalite, and Fraternite were the main principles of the French revolution. However, it was a time where these three ideals would be twisted into nothing more than moral and physical violence. The revolution was ultimately a failure which spun out of control and began to murder itself. The French wanted Freedom from its absolutist ruler, but in turn saw themselves being governed by the devil. These citizens wanted a sense of brotherhood amongst their country, but saw their nation being torn apart by violence.

Furthermore, the third estate sought to benefit from a new government that promised equality; however, the result was a further imbalance in an already corrupt society. Ironically, the gruesome reign of terror which was fabricated by the French government, contradicted the ideals of which the very revolution stood for, further illustrating the utter failure of this event. In the beginning, the French saw the revolution as a way to improve their lives, but this path quickly turned into a horrifying ascent into oblivion, which aside from immense suffering, achieved nothing.

During the reign of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, revolutionary ideas flourished through the age of enlightenment. However, Louis made a crucial mistake by aiding the American Revolution; although it was a military success, it was an economic failure. France was bankrupt and the people were starving; they watched as their monarchs, nobles and aristocracy live a life of luxury and wealth while they suffered through poverty, drastically changing how the citizens perceived their monarch. Soon this resentment transformed into pure hatred and nothing could be done to change their minds.

Before long the people revolted and Louis’ powers were stripped away, a new man was then put in his place, Robespierre. Maximilien Francois Marie Isidore de Robespierre was a man who had great power and abused it; to some he was “The Incorruptible”, but in reality was a blood thirsty dictator. As a young man, he studied the law and held a reputation for honesty and compassion. He sought to abolish the death penalty and refused to pronounce a required death sentence after becoming a judge : A victor who kills his captive enemies is called a barbarian!

A grown man who kills a child that he could disarm and punish seems to us a monster! An accused man condemned by society is nothing else for it but a defeated and powerless enemy. Before it, he is weaker than a child before a grown man — to erase from the code of the French the blood laws that command judicial murders, and that their morals and their new constitution reject. I want to prove to them: 1- that the death penalty is essentially unjust and, 2- that it isn’t the most repressive of penalties and that it multiplies crimes more than it prevents them.

However, as the revolution progressed so did his ideas; he soon became the head of the Jacobin club, a radical group who advocated exile or death for the French nobility. By this time the once soft and kind-hearted man, was now replaced by one who had developed a great love of power along with a reputation of intolerance, self-righteousness and cruelty . Robespierre quickly came to a conclusion that the end would justify the means, and that in order to defend the revolution against those who would destroy it, the shedding of blood was justified.

Merlin de Thionville who was a member of several French legislative bodies said commented that: “In those days so rotten had France become that a bloody mountebank without talent or courage, whose name was Robespierre, made every citizen tremble under his tyranny”. The French now lived under fear and oppression of a man who no longer cared for the people of the revolution but rather the revolution itself. Using his great oratory skills he successfully demanded the execution of the king and queen without fair trial or judgement, saying that “Louis must die so that the revolution may live”.

In January 1973 Louis XVI was executed, followed by his wife ten months later. By his own words he had become a monster, “A victor who kills his captive enemies is called a barbarian” . A nation cannot be one when the people do not believe in the ideals of the government. The revolution was merely a civil war which pitted citizens against one another. While many people believed in the revolution, they did not accept the extremist ideas of the Jacobins, and for that thousands of ordinary people were targeted and killed.

The September Massacres was a subsequent mass killing of prisoners, after news that the Prussian Army had invaded France. On September 3, 1792, crowds of French citizens stormed into the prisons where they attacked prisoners and refractory clergy, regardless of their status as counter revolutionary. An account of this event by Nicolas-Edme Restif illustrates the torture the citizens inflicted on the prisoners who were their “brothers”: There had been a pause in the murders. Something was going on inside. . . . I told myself that it was over at last.

Finally, I saw a woman appear, as white as a sheet, being helped by a turnkey. They said to her harshly: “Shout ‘Vive la nation! ‘” “No! No! ” she said. They made her climb up on a pile of corpses. One of the killers grabbed the turnkey and pushed him away. “Oh! ” exclaimed the ill-fated woman, “do not harm him! ” They repeated that she must shout “Vive la nation! ” With disdain, she refused. Then one of the killers grabbed her, tore away her dress, and ripped open her stomach. She fell, and was finished off by the others. Never could I have imagined such horror. I wanted to run, but my legs gave way.

I fainted. When I came to, I saw the bloody head. Someone told me they were going to wash it, curl its hair, stick it on the end of a pike, and carry it past the windows of the Temple. What pointless cruelty! . . The number of active killers who took part in the massacres was about one hundred and fifty. The rest of Paris looked on with fear or approval, and the rest behind closed shutters, signifying the destruction of unity through the people. With a country whose citizens mercilessly killed one another, how could the French have a sense of Fraternite amongst themselves?

A Nation is not united under fear and death but rather through peace and prosperity, which was clearly the opposite of the French Revolution. Equality was promised to the third estate, but the revolution did not create a balance. What it did was further upset the structure of society. In turn the first and second estate was removed from power, and the bourgeoisie put in their place. The rest of the third estate which included the peasants and the working class (sans-culottes), were left with nothing: They were the working people, the farmers, the shop owners, the trades people, the artisans, and even the factory workers.

They were among the prominent losers of the first, more subtle revolution. While the middle class and wealthy classes benefitted greatly from the revolution, the sans-culottes saw their livelihoods disappearing and inflation driving them to fight for survival. The sans-culottes and peasants were generally poor and had little power, they could not vote, hold office, or own land because they did not have the means to do so. Since they could not own land, peasants were angry that they had traded one master for another; once again they had found themselves at the bottom of the ladder.

The Sans-culottes atoned for this by aligning themselves with the Jacobins. While this alliance gave them a facade of power, they were nothing more than henchmen to a group of radical thinkers who needed people to do their dirty work. However, at the end, many of the Sans-culottes found themselves imprisoned and executed by the very revolutionary tribunals that they had supported. The revolution gave nothing more than an illusion of what the common masses craved; while the first and second estates were gone, a new powerful and cruel organization made up of the bourgeoisie were put in their place.

The Reign of Terror was designed to fight the enemies of the revolution; with that in mind the revolution was no longer about freedom, equality and brotherhood, but rather an extremist form of revolutionary ideals. Anyone who had not aligned themselves with the Jacobin rule or had talent and power were seen as a threat to the new revolution, they were subsequently dubbed as traitors and sentenced to the guillotine. For the first time in history, terror became an official government policy, with the intent to use violence to achieve political goals.

In the course of this reign the new regime managed to execute thousands of people who were considered as having the potential to stand up or overthrow the government. Through this, scores of influential people were falsely accused. In one particular execution, a woman by the name of Mme Roland uttered the words that have been immortalized by history, “O Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name”. She was right, the revolution had abused and committed crimes against not only the idea of liberte, but also of egalite and fraternite.

Every person who placed their head upon the guillotine, were there because the three ideals which the revolution stood for were corrupted to support the extremist views of the Jacobins. The modern era has unfolded the shadows of the French revolution. Ultimately this time period did not bring any successes, but rather the opposite. The revolution was purely the product of a few conspiratorial individuals who brainwashed the masses into subverting the old order. The promises of egalite, equalite, and fraternite, were soon lost as violence and bloodshed set in.

The French were eager to be free of the constricting class system and absolute monarchy. However, the people found themselves under the rule of a man who oppressed the people into an absolute state of obedience. Furthermore, the French wanted a sense of unity throughout their country, but instead resorted to the brutal murders of their own people. Ultimately, this reformation was caused by an upset in the balance of equality amongst the classes. The third estate was promised equal status by the revolution, but in the end only the bourgeoisie emerged victorious.

Ironically, the reign of terror distorted the three main ideals for which the revolution stood for. Through the guidance of corrupted leaders, these ideas were washed away in bloodshed. The French revolution is an usurpation of power gone wrong, at the end of this ten year period, nothing was gained, yet everything was lost. The people who once saw this transformation as the answer to an oppressive regime soon realized that had simply set themselves up for a meeting with death.

Free Essays

Paleolithic Age and Neolithic Revolution

Although most historians say that pre-history is not important, it is actually very important because that is where it all started. Paleolithic Age, which refers to the hunting and gathering way of life, is 95% of the human history. 100,000 years ago, Homo sapiens started using tools to manipulate their surroundings, and migrating and adapting to new environments. They traveled to Eurasia, Australia, Western hemisphere, and the Pacific islands. Then they started farming, which lead to an era with more technology, surplus, and time to think.

The Paleolithic Age and Neolithic Revolution was an important beginning to the human history. A lot happened during the Paleolithic Age. Technological innovations, such as stone blades and tools made out of bones were created, along with the controlling of fire. Some people argue because there was no surplus and there was no specialization, life was more egalitarian back then. Men and women were thought to have a more equal relationship. Even then people were spiritual, marking their existence, and was trying to control natural forces with supernatural forces.

Forces of nature beyond their control was feared. When people started migrating, people learned and invented ways to adapt to their environment. They started communicating through language, and in the Americas, it is evident from the discovery of Clovis point that people communicated in a large area. At the end of the Ice Age, the warmer and wetter climate made it easier to settle down, which lead to the Neolithic Revolution. The Neolithic Revolution was when people started farming all over the world.

This gave them surplus, which made them settle down, which eventually lead to villages, cities, empires, and civilizations. But this also meant a more concentrated power to the elite men who forced the labor system, thus more stratified. Pastoralism also developed, which was the domestication of animals. Animals were used for not only meat purposes now but also for transportation, power, and manure. The pastoralists and agricultural people would later conflict due to competition for land.

Agriculture all depended on availability. In the Fertile Crescent, a variety of plants and animals were available for domestication. But in the Mesoamerica, only corn/maize was available, but it also lead to the first genetic engineering. More sophisticated tools were invented, and people tried to control nature by the deliberate selection of plants. Humans started impacting the environment a lot. Agricultural diffusion occurred, where language and ideas spread to other parts of the world.

Overall, the Neolithic Revolution lead to increase in human population, new technologies (pottery, metallurgy, secondary products), new diseases spreading, difficulty to move when something disastrous (crop failures) happens, chiefdoms, and settlements. The Paleolithic Age and Neolithic Revolution was when “Homo sapiens” became “humans. ” It was the base of a new era, the Industrial Era, which is when humans dominate the world for good or for bad. But it all certainly started when humans first started using tools, and started farming all over the world.

Free Essays

American Identity Prior to the Revolutionary War

Early American Identity Robert Zimmermann Madrigal During the time prior to the revolutionary war, there was a mixed sense of identity within the colonies. Some of the colonists saw themselves as English citizens, while others saw themselves as Americans and wanted a free, self governed nation. The first actuall sign of American identity was in 1754 when Benjamin Franklin proposed the Albany plan, as represented in Doc. A. Even though his proposition was denied it still showed that people were starting to take the idea of being “American” into account. In Document B. Edmund Burke shows his resentment of how American is being governed. Is there a single trait of resemblance between those few towns, and a great and growing people spread over a vast quarter of the globe, separated from us by a mighty ocean. ” He says that he doesn’t believe that the colonies should be ruled by a nation that is so different and so far away. “The eternal barriers of nature forbid that the colonies should be blended or coalesce into the mass… of this Kingdom. ” He again states that the colonies should not be ruled by Great Britain. After the French and Indian war England was in a great amount of debt, so they started to impose taxes of the colonies.

The people living in the colonies had lived in the colonies their whole lives and had never been taxed by the government before, so they were very unhappy about them. The people of the colonies protested against all of the acts that the British government had set. From the years of 1763 to 1774 the British government proposed a series of acts that imposed taxes and regulations on the people of the colonies. The proclamation of 1763 being the first of them, prevented the colonists from moving into territory past the Appalachien mountains. This was the begining of an era of protest and unhappiness. In Document C.

Richard Henry Lee talks about how the colonies are all working together to fight for their liberties against “every power on Earth that may attempt to take them away”. In Document D. The Declaration for the causes of taking up arms says “We will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perserverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die free men, rather than live like slaves. This is saying that they wanted their freedom from oppression. In 1774 The British government issued a series of laws that later came to be known as the “Intoerable Acts”.

These most impacting thing these acts did was closing the port of Boston. This only deepened colonial hostility. The other colonies provided food and money to Massachusets. Document G. is a list of the vast amount of provisions provided to the Boston relief effort. In Document H. Hector Crevecoeur reffers to America as a melting pot, where the ancestors of people are forgoten and they become new men and women. All of these documents provide the facts needed to infer that there was a great sense of American Identity in the Americas prior the the Revolution.