Russian Revolution Blog Post

This reading was very interesting to me because of its relevance to what is going on in modern times, in Egypt. While reading about the peaceful protest in Russia that lead to Bloody Sunday, I immediately recognized a parallel between that and the peaceful protesting going on in Egypt; the difference being that the one in Egypt did not end with the military slaughter of 60 people like the 1905 revolt in Russia. At first, the fact that two similar protests could have such polar opposite ends was puzzling to me. However, after looking deeper into the reasoning behind both governmental reactions I was able to make some sense of it.

I believe that Tsar Nicolas II ordered the military to shoot the protestors because he thought that he had divine, superior power, that he was in no way ready to give up or share. Because he believed he should have power, he reacted to the protestors in such a way that would secure total control over the people. In contrast however, Mubarak had no intention of running to maintain his position this September, since he had already been in power for 3 decades. Because he had no intention of retaining power, any power grab through blood shed would not benefit him whatsoever, in addition to being counter productive to the country as a whole.

Do you agree with my reasoning that the different military responses are due to the leader's desire to remain in control of the government? If not, what do you believe is the cause of this?

V Peaceful protesting in Egypt

V Line of military shooting on Bloody Sunday

Child Labor in the Industrial Revolution

While reading about child labor in the Industrial Revolution, I felt horrible about the poor working conditions children as young as 8 or 9 had to face on a daily basis. In 1750, about 14% of the working force was made up of children. On average children worked from 12 to 14 hour days, with an hour break for lunch. In addition, these children were given minimal food and water, in order to maximize the factory's revenue. What astounds me even more, which i found out while researching this topic, is that that child labor is still largely enforced in countries throughout the world. Unicef estimates that 218 million children around the world are in the work force, and that about 2.5 million of these children live in industrialized nations, not just in rural parts of Africa and Asia!
The next question that came to mind was why the British successfully battled against child labor during and after the Industrial Revolution, while other modern countries still have not done anything about it. This effort to battle child labor in Britain included the passing of the Factory Act of 1833, which placed restrictions on the amount of work hours children of different ages were allowed to work. In addition, more progress was made in this effort early in the 20th century as well, by activists such as Jane Addams.
In my opinion, what sets Britain apart in the area of progress is that they were already involved in reform. As opposed to other countries that employ children, Britain was in the midst of extreme change, involving a new age of invention. This age of inventive change encouraged people to strive to change other things other than machinery as well, such as child labor laws. In other countries however, there is no modern "industrial revolution" taking place, and thus no encouragement for change.

^Soot covered faces of children working in a factory in the Industrial Revolution

Haitian and French Ideals of Revolution

llllllllllAlthough the causes of the Haitian Revolution varied greatly from the causes of the French Revolution, I believe that the Haitian Revolution would not have been possible without the ideals of the French Revolution.

llllllllllThere are two different theories regarding the causes of the French Revolution, including a Marxist theory in which tensions between the nobility and the bourgeoisie were leading factors of the Revolution, and a more accepted and modern Revisionist theory, in which tensions existed within each of the classes. Both theories involve conflicts in or among classes, while the Haitian Revolution was more as a result of racial tensions and class division within each of the races. The main groups of the Haitian Revolution for instance, as opposed to the groups of the French Revolution having only to do with wealth and feudality, were free blacks, slaves, and the white elite, all having to do with both race and class.

llllllllllEven though the Haitian Revolution had different divisions of groups than the divisions of the French Revolution, it was still driven by the same ideals as the French Revolution. For instance, the driving force for the slaves in Saint-Domingue was to achieve equality with the other classes; similar to the phrase of the driving force of the French Revolution of liberty, equality and fraternity. Yet another driving force inspired by the French Revolution exists for the white elite. In order to resist the gain of freedom of the slaves (and France's support of this), they strived for independence from France so that they could govern themselves and make their own laws regarding the rights and freedom of slaves. This is certainly inspired by the French Revolution, in which the people wanted to have the right to govern themselves instead of being controlled by a despotism. Do you agree that these ideals came as a result of the French Revolution? If the French Revolution had not occurred, where do you think that would leave Haiti in it's struggle with equality? Why?

llllllllllIn my opinion, I believe that if the Haitian Revolution did not have these ideals, and thus inspiration, from the French, the slaves might not have had the courage to revolt against the white elite, and Haiti might not have had the courage to stand up against France in it's battle against Napolean around 1803. As a result of both of these, legal equality was gained for all races, and Haiti gained independence from France.

v Battle of Vertières of 1803: France under Napolean vs. Haiti

Differences among French and American Declarations

After reading about the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen on page 691, I noticed that there are striking similarities among this document, and the American Declaration of Independence. Ideals such as freedom, liberty and equality are reoccurring themes in both documents; however, the wording in such phrases differ greatly.

In the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, issued in 1789, the document states that "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights." While reading this phrase, another phrase in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 seemed to mirror this, "All men are created equal." Although these two phrases seem similar, they express two very different ideas. While the French maintain that all men remain equal in rights, Americans maintain that all men are merely created equal, yet may not remain equal. This expresses a much more radical stance on France's part, which is not surprising considering the overall more radical revolution that occurred in France as opposed to in America.

Another phrase in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen states that mankind's natural rights are "liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression." As you may have guessed, this reflects a phrase in the inalienable rights that is stated in America's Declaration of Independence: the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Although both statements are similar in that they both have the guarantee of life in them, the wording in these phrases are different yet again. While the French guarantee property and security, the Americans merely guarantee the pursuit of happiness. In saying this, the French guarantee something that all men are naturally given, while the Americans merely recognize the pursuit of happiness, which may include the pursuit of property and security. These two ideas reflect another difference in stances between France and the United States.

Although it may be a stretch, these comparisons reminded me of the ideals of France and America in modern times. America remains a very capitalistic country, while France has drifted toward some socialist ideals. This may be as a result of the statements made at the core of its values, especially the ones described above. In both statements, France expresses concrete rights that are given to man, as in socialism, as opposed to American rights which do not guarantee any lasting thing except for life and liberty, but rather the ability to obtain things, as in capitalism. Do you agree that these core values led to modern differences regarding capitalism and socialism?

Overall, do you agree with the guarantees mentioned in the American declaration, in the French declaration? In my opinion, I believe that the American guarantees are more accurate, because I do not believe that people remain equal, because of differences in upbringing and people may achieve in life. Instead, I believe that people have equal opportunity in their pursuit of equality, which is similar to the American ideals about the pursuit of happiness listed above.

^Original document of the Declaration of Independence
http://www.founding.com/repository/imgLib/20071018_declaration.jpg
>Original document of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
http://www.dreyfus.culture.fr/upload/m_file/555_1064_image_dafanch01_pc45003489_2.jpg

Upper Class of the Federalist Party

^^(Portrait of Alexander Hamilton)

One of Alexander Hamilton's leading ideas, as a leader of the Federalist party, was to set apart "a wealthy, enlightened ruling class" to lead and support the government (152). Hamilton thought that by having a distinct wealthy class hand in hand with the government, the nation would thrive because of the upper class' governmental support, setting up something of an aristocracy. In my opinion, I think that democracy is the best form of government; not only did it result in the United States being the great nation that it is today, but it is also the most fair form of government, in that it spreads power among all people. Although I am a strong believer in democracy, a question came into mind while reading this bit about Hamilton. Back in the 1790s, success was attainable no matter what class one originates from, however, a wealthy person was certainly more educated than someone of a lower class, much different than todays standards of education in which everyone is by law required to go to school. This made me think about whether or not it would be better to have educated people influence governmental affairs as opposed to uneducated people, so long as the educated people do not take advantage of others.

Yet another argument to this is that only white, male landowners could vote, which would mean that anyone who is too poor (and therefore uneducated) to own property would not be allowed to vote in the first place. Which do you think is right... having a very influential upper class or having power distributed evenly among all? Although democracy is definitely the more fair form of government, in my opinion it would be better to have more educated people run the government. This, in combination with checks and balances, would ensure that greed cannot overrun the system of a powerful wealthy class. In addition, the wealthy class is not set in stone because success can be achieved by anyone, which would mean that almost anyone who meets the requirements of a citizen can gain power, so long as they have the will to.

Hard Work and Success in America

In the reading in Major Problems in American History, titled "Radical Possibilities of the American Revolution" there was a paragraph about the switch from hard labor as being an act of the poor, to hard labor being a way to gain success. As I read this I found this to be true in America, however, I was curious as to how this switch was brought about. In my opinion, I think the switch was brought about because there was no established social system in new America as there was in Europe. Since there were no real social classes, no one could be born into success, like in Europe, and thus had to work for it. This strong will to gain success carried through from the late 1760s to today. One of the greatest liberties of America is that one can truly make their own destiny, without being oppressed by any form of social system or requirement. How do you think this change came about?

Since the social classes of people could be changed, people worked harder, and competed against each other to make it to the top. I believe that this reason alone is one of the more significant causes of the Industrial Revolution, which occurred from the late 1700s to the early 1900s. Even after the Industrial Revolution, new innovations continue to be created; the list is endless, the computer, the telephone and the television.

Image of a factory during the Industrial Revolution:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/capitalism-2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://money.howstuffworks.com/capitalism1.htm&usg=__hJpKkuj9dO60rNoJlm4D5ZYXeRk=&h=290&w=400&sz=45&hl=en&start=0&sig2=pHV85sQ0M5kJwNLg2kvSUA&zoom=1&tbnid=9Lx9NgoBKzipsM:&tbnh=159&tbnw=220&ei=g62tTJeEPYSClAeRy6yFBQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dindustrial%2Brevolution%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26gbv%3D2%26biw%3D1408%26bih%3D646%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C370&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=894&vpy=78&dur=357&hovh=191&hovw=264&tx=104&ty=144&oei=g62tTJeEPYSClAeRy6yFBQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:16,s:0&biw=1408&bih=646