Category: Revolution

Introduction

In his book, State and Society in Spanish America during the Age of Revolution, Victor Uribe-Uran, considers the period between 1760 -1850 to be a period of deep-seated transformations. Other authors had different names for the same period. For instance, palmer referred to this period as the Age of Democratic Revolution. On the other hand, Hobsbawm called this period the Age of Revolution. Many authors have carried out studies on events that took place within Latin America on different issues such as religion, politics, and even infrastructural development. Their activities relate to a period that they have referred to as the Age of Revolution (AG). Just like most authors who have adopted the theory of the Age of Revolution, Uribe-Uran uses this concept to bring out the history of Latin America in terms of political and colonial aspects (Uribe-Uran 89).

According to Uribe-Uran, Latin America’s activities cannot be separated from its colonial aspects. This is because the colonial system was of significance in various aspects that took place between 1750 to1850. Uribe-Uran makes use of the work done by others in his work. He analyzes the literature of others to get their views on activities within Latin America. In his work, Uribe-Uran considers the reasoning of others in their view about Latin America. For instance, he incorporates the views of Van Young in his book. According to Young, it would be wise to consider the late and early national eras as separate periods when analyzing the Age of Revolution. Young claims that integrating the two periods would raise several new possibilities relating to the same research. He adds by saying that systems such as those relating to production, gender, family matters, and even social relationships were in existence even before this period (Uribe-Uran 59).

These systems were altered in the Age of Revolution. He continues to say that, looking at the late 18th century and early 19th century would provide pertinent information that would be used in determining the role of this period in Latin America. Another source of evidence that Uribe-Uran uses in his work is Salvucci’s essay. The essay looks at the economic situation in Latin America. His essay confirms that, during this period, Latin America suffered from a condition that was referred to as ‘Dutch Disease’. This was as a result of export bloom and reduced traditional export. It led to inflation that affected many parts including Peru and Mexico. Salvucci demonstrates his findings by running a regression analysis that encompassed production, trading activities, and prices of various commodities such as gold and silver in New Spain. His research encompasses Brazil and the findings confirm the Dutch disease through high rates of inflation.

There are also essays in part II that tackles entrepreneurial, political elites, and processes that aim at building the state. Here, Lamar finds that most important merchants were diversifying their nature of trade and related activities. He points out there were changes in which the Chilean merchants carried out their activities. Some of the activities that were considered in this aspect were investing in land, wheat production, real estate, mining, and dealing in commercial goods. The Chileans are believed to have started carrying out the above activities by the 1750s, and continued with the same even after independence. Finally, Uribe-Uran makes use of the works of another author by the name Mark Szuchman. Szuchman looks at political, ideological, and artistic dimensions and links them to the development of the Argentine city. He examines mechanisms of social control and the military plan that took advantage of the teeming urban areas. Secondly, he looked at the material bases of town life that included the economic wellbeing of inhabitants and infrastructure. He also looked at monetary powers and the availability of public facilities in the urban setting. In his essay, he looks at the urban spaces that hosted people who were influential in the development of public opinions. Lastly, he analyzes political beliefs about metropolitan aesthetics.

The author of State and Society in Spanish America during the Age of Revolution seeks to address the effect of the Age of Revolution on Latin America. He seeks to determine the impact of this period on political independence. Also, he seeks to establish how this period facilitated appreciation of economic, political, and social changes within Latin America between the 1700s to the end of the 20th century (Uribe-Uran 90).

The author argues that the works done by various authors invited people to consider various aspects during the specified period. Some of these aspects include political, economic, cultural, and social processes. These aspects were experienced in Latin America throughout the Age of Revolution. He argues out that though they may either provide an avenue for change or not, they reflect one crucial thing; as one leaves conventional aspects, new-fangled aspects of accepting modern Latin America come into play.

Analysis and Criticism

Although the author uses evidence of others, he still believes that the issue is still wanting. For instance, he says that although research has been done, comprehensive and systematic research on Latin America is needed. According to him, studies regarding Latin America require splitting of the entire period. This has been tackled by a few studies, and in-depth studies need to be done. This would be going against what other authors believe; that dividing this entire period into sections or periods would be futile. The other confirms that all the evidence that he has used in his book tend to confirm that splitting of this period would not be appropriate. According to them, these periods are uncertain and fluid at all times (Uribe-Uran 90). Therefore, they do not provide final answers.

He does not agree with the evidence that he has used in his work. He states that other research works done on the same aspects have succeeded in forming splitting the period of concern. He confirms this by saying that splitting this period would lead to the classification of various changes within the Age of Revolution. This would facilitate separate treatments that are necessary. He concludes by saying that all the essays he has used as evidence invite people to have different considerations on issues of social aspects, political issues, cultural processes, and economic issues. However, he notes that the essential thing is to know that when one leaves the traditional system before colonization within Latin America, new perspectives of understanding the history of this place comes up. The others make strong arguments that are supported by evidence. He thoroughly examines what has been done by others and comes with a conclusion on the matter at hand. He makes use of the evidence prudently and this makes the evidence sufficient for the study. However, the weakness of this author is that he does not give a clear opinion on the issue. His comments are not inclined towards a given direction. He does not provide an answer to the question of the study.

Comparative analysis

According to Peter Hall (The Organization of American Culture, 1700-1900: Private Institutions, Elites, and the Origins of American Nationality), culture would be defined as a set of societal institutions used by people in organizing a wide range of elementary actions. The culture of Americans at around 1700 was local and ancestral. Most Americans lived in villages and urban centers of about 2500 people. In such settings, they produce food, clothing, shelter, and other welfare services that were consumed by the people in these areas. Goods and services produced were consumed in the family setting. Most systems during this period were family-controlled. The introduction of national culture served to tie communities together connecting their economies and lifestyles to urban centers (Hall 02).

Most institutions that serve to develop national coordination were set up by the nineteenth century. They included hospitals, schools, libraries, and even lawyers’ chambers. The universities formed the foundation for the professional institutions together with the communication industry. The power of the elite was based on performing activities. It was also based on the efficiency of carrying out activities. This was the basis for the extension of opportunities for a large number of people within Latin America. The policy, managerial and technical experts served to facilitate the extension of opportunities for the population. The private sector served the purpose of embracing the responsibility of the public sector. The creation of a wide range of opportunities compromised the continued existence of local and national identities. The power of mass media and related promotional activities led to’ brainwashing’. The author of this book seeks to study social groups and institutions that lead to surreptitiously dominated cultures within Latin America (Hall 04).

The first author seeks to determine the effects of the Age of Revolution on changes that occurred within Latin America. He makes use of essays by other authors as a source of evidence. He establishes an in-depth examination of the same, and he then gives his opinion. This is based on the findings of the authors of the essays he has used. On the other hand, the second author looks at the organization of the American culture, and how it led to various situations some of which exist up to today. He does not make use of evidence and his arguments are based on what has happened. He explains how the existing systems lead to activities such as advertising and acquiring educational knowledge. The second author does not use evidence in making conclusions. His research work is not supported by any essay or works of other authors. Comparing the two, the first author, Uribe-Uran, makes use of other sources of literature in his work while Hall does not use other sources. This results in watertight discussions facilitating opinion formation on the subject under study. On the other hand, the second author, Hall, does not make use of the works of others. He makes opinions based on current happenings.

Summary

The first author, Uribe-Uran makes use of evidence as sources of information in his works. He analyzes them and comes up with a conclusion based on the essays of others. He examines the effects of the Age of Revolution on Latin America¹. His weakness is that he does not give a clear view or opinion on the subject matter. He seems neutral on the subject of concern. On the other hand, Hall does not make use of any evidence in his work. He makes conclusions based on what happens current time. He examines how organizational structures led to what exists currently. His weakness is the lack of usage of literary works of others as evidence for his study².

Works Cited

Hall, Peter. The Organization of American Culture, 1700-1900: Private Institutions, Elites, and the Origins of American Nationality. New York: New York University Press, 1984.

Uribe-Uribe-Uran, Victor. State and Society in Spanish America During the Age of Revolution. Wilmington, Del: SR Books, 2001.

Footnotes

1. Uribe-Uribe-Uran, Victor. State and Society in Spanish America During the Age of Revolution. Wilmington, Del: SR Books, 2001.
2. Hall, Peter. The Organization of American Culture, 1700-1900: Private Institutions, Elites, and the Origins of American Nationality. New York: New York University Press, 1984.

The significance of the Columbus’ discovery cannot be underestimated, as it is one of the most momentous events in the history of the Americas as well as the whole world. The primary accomplishment of Columbus was revolutionizing the lives of people across all the continents he traveled to – Americas, Asia, Africa, and, of course, his homeland continent – Europe. He managed to foster the exchange of ideas, cultures, lifestyles, populations, crops, and even diseases. However, even more paramount consequence of his travels was changing the structure of the European economy by affecting prices and international economic relations. These two phenomena of the global historical development are referred to as the Columbian Exchange and the Price Revolution.

The whole process of the Columbian Exchange is the clash of three civilizations – the developed Europeans, the Native Americans close to nature, and the progressive Asians. Even though the exchange of lifestyles involved, for the most part, people settling the New and the Old Worlds, the significance of the Asian civilization’s role should not be undervalued, as these were the Asians, who introduced compass, which was later used by Columbus during his voyage to the Americas, to the rest of the world.

There were several channels of the Columbian exchange. In general, they included agricultural products, populations, lifestyles, economic, etc. Before Columbus came to the Americas, the native people led simple lives living in cabins and, basically, in the woods, were cautious making no noise during the nights and fires for the sake of personal safety and avoiding enemies (Champlain¹ 79). Unlike the Native Americans, Europeans lived in the well-developed civilization enjoying higher levels of educational and economic development. It was Columbus, who brought the desire for changing the lifestyles and building up modern civilization to the Americas.

The populations channel was characterized by the migration from the Old to the New World. Because the America were attractive with their vast unsettled lands, the authorities of the Old World saw it as the perfect opportunity for increasing their influence in the world as well as cleaning the European community because it is not a secret that, for the most part, these were the criminals, poor, and diseased, who were sent to settle the New World and develop it.

That said, migration was both voluntary and forced (Nunn and Qian 181). Sending out the worst and lowest social groups was the example of the forced migration². At the same time, there were those, who desired to move to the Americas because they believed that it might become their chance to improve their lives and become wealthier. This form of migration was voluntary.

Another channel of the Columbian exchange was the exchange of agricultural goods³. Some of them included species such as chili peppers and products like potatoes, maize, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, cocoa, coffee, oranges, bananas, cassava, sugar, soybeans, peanuts, and many others (Nunn and Qian 167). Introducing these goods to Europeans was not only the source of nutritious and caloric improvements but also supplemented cuisines making them more locally specific. For example, tomatoes have become one of the most frequently used products in Italy and Mediterranean countries while chili peppers gave rise to paprika popular in Hungary.

One of the most significant channels of exchange was the economic one. First of all, because the Americas had fertile soils and were rich in new products, Europe exploited it as the source for increasing its economic power supplying agricultural goods to the rest of the world and using lands for growing them for commercial purposes. Except for fertile soils, the American land was rich in precious metals becoming the source of silver and gold.

Of course, due to the higher volumes of supply, the prices for metals and food products became lower. Over time, it led to inflation, which whelmed Spain and other European countries with inflation. This change in the economies is known as the Price Revolution. Its primary reason was initially high prices for the goods imported from the New World and lowering the prices once the supply grew.

Bearing in mind the channels of the Columbian Exchange, it should be said that it had both positive and negative consequences. As of the positive implications, it has changed Europeans’ eating habits making them more healthy and interesting. Also, it contributed to cleaning the European community, as the lowest social groups were sent to settle the New World. However, at the same time, it was a negative consequence, if viewing it from the American perspective.

Moreover, it has become the foundation for building the developed civilization in the Americas. However, there were particular drawbacks. First of all, Native Americans obtained diseases such as plaque, chicken pox, small pox, and other infectious illnesses in return of new products. In addition to it, Europeans⁴ viewed the Native Americans as lower people and treated them unequally seeing them as a workforce (Shaffer 20). Still, even though the Columbian Exchange had some negative effects, it, in fact, has become the source for the global integration and creating the global economy by providing the background for the development of migration and international trade.

Works Cited

Champlain, Samuel de. “Going to War with the Hurons.” Voyages of Samuel de Champlain. Ed. William Lawson Grant. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1907. 79-86. Print.

Nunn, Nathan, and Nancy Qian. “The Columbian Exchange: A History of Disease, Food, and Ideas.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 24.2 (2010): 163-188. Print.

Shaffer, Lynda. “Southernization.” Journal of World History 5.1 (1994): 1-21. Print.

Footnotes

1. This source is interesting because the author provides details obtained from the personal experience.
2. Another example of the forced migration was sending people from Africa to the Americas. It gave the rise to slavery.
3. The format of this transition was unidirectional because new products were introduced to the Old World, not to the Americas.
4. Especially the entrepreneurs from France, Portugal, and Netherlands.

Introduction

The impact of the Iranian revolution cannot be underrated as it has not only influenced Iran and the Middle East as a whole but also had a great impact on the Western world and its leaders. Although the revolution itself happened in the year 1979, the events that happened several years earlier were of utter importance as well.

Analysis

The regime of Muhammad Reza Shah became more powerful in 1975 and tried to gain more control over the political groups that stayed more or less independent of the government. The religious establishment in Iran was also attacked; the Shah also replaced the Islamic calendar, which could not go unnoticed by the public. The real problem of the government was its inefficient economic management. While the Shah’s family enjoyed the luxury that was illegally financed by the national wealth, representatives of the urban middle classes were hit by inflation and feared for their economic livelihood.

The Shah’s dependence on the West was also discouraged by many members of society. Slowly, the opposition began to form: it consisted of Westernized urban professionals, students from secular universities and theological seminaries, and bazaar merchants. Their views based on the ideologies and beliefs of prominent oppositionists, such as Mehdi Bazargan and Ali Shariati. Another wing of protesters existed whose views were influenced by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

According to him, an Islamic state, controlled by the ulama, should have been created instead of a monarchy. His activism was based on religion, and he believed that the government ruled by the laws of Islam as possible. His ideas gained more support as the revolution approached. One of his key statements addressed the Shah’s subordinate position to the West; he did not approve the Westernized, secular Iran that the government had created.

In 1978, the revolution took its shape. What began as a movement, ended as a revolution after the Shah had decided to pressure the protesters with brutal force. The protests continued, but during the next two participants were killed. On February 18, 1978, another set of demonstrations took place. Although they were peaceful, 100 protesters were killed in Tabriz where the government sent army forces to break up the demonstrations. Other demonstrations that followed brought more deaths. In summer 1978, the government had implemented a new economic policy that led to unemployment among urban workers who eventually joined the protests. Street demonstrations were banned; however, on September 8 of the same year, other protests in Tehran took place. This time, hundreds of people died.

Anti-regime protests continued during the ritual mourning of Imam Husayn. On this day, 700 hundred protesters were killed. Nevertheless, the protests continued and soon two million people took part in them on December 2. On February 1, Khomeini returned to Iran where the crowd of protesters met him with joy. Shapour Bakhtiar suggested his candidature, but Khomeini declared that it would be illegal. Hence, Shapour Bakhtiar was denounced by the Freedom Movement.

Conclusion

The Shah had left the country on January 16, 1979. Later it was stated that Shah had terminal cancer; eventually, he died in 1980. Although the revolution was successful, the economy and the country needed to be rebuilt. There was no consensus between the political parties, and a new prime minister was needed to restore Iran.

Introduction

The Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment occurred due to a wide range of cultural and intellectual transformations by European thinkers, in particular, and societies, in general, that allowed them to find structured approaches to conceptualizing and exploring the natural world. The radical reorientation of political and philosophic worldviews channeled by learned individuals such as Kuhn, Newton, and Locke led to the large-scale accumulation of knowledge and experience aided by rational questioning (Wiesner-Hanks 366-367). This paper aims to discuss the Scientific Revolution and Age of Reason and their implications for the cultural, political, economic, and social lives of Europeans.

Main Themes

The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe were intellectually tumultuous times during which old approaches to the exploration and explanation of the world were gradually displaced by the succession of independent thinkers (Wiesner-Hanks 366-369). The philosophers of the Enlightenment searched for order in the natural sciences and tried to apply principles and methods discovered in it to social sciences, thereby achieving intellectual liberation (Wiesner-Hanks 367). Writings of a French mathematician Rene Descartes exemplify the application of mathematical rigor to the interpretation of the reality.

The mathematician was firm in his conviction that every phenomenon or piece of information that is regarded as truth should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny that presupposes “long chains of reasoning” (qtd. in Brians et al. 78). Works of a French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau help to understand why the transformation of European thought has initiated far-reaching political changes. The philosopher rejects the violation of natural liberties and writes that “the general will alone may direct the forces of the State to achieve the goal for which it was founded, the common good” (Rousseau 244).

The intellectual movements later dubbed as the Scientific Revolution, and Enlightenment resulted in the development of the public sphere in which individuals from different academic and social backgrounds debated new theories and exchanged ideas. The emergence of shared spaces open to scientific debate contributed to the propagation of the inquiring spirit of the era, which helped to shape the cultures of many European states. Public opinion mirrored tastes of intellectual elites; therefore, middle-class households, which were becoming increasingly wealthier in the eighteenth century, purchased pieces of art that were deemed as worthy by connoisseurs sponsored by aristocratic patrons (Wiesner-Hanks 372). In addition to changing the public perception of arts, the Enlightenment also changed people’s views on religion, politics, knowledge, and the natural world, among others.

Discussion

When analyzing the influence of the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment on European life, one cannot help but notice that the era transformed the scientific and cultural arenas in equal measure. Although they are seemingly contrasting areas of human endeavor, the intellectual movements of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were equally brazen in destroying their lingering tenets and dogmas. Thus, the question might arise whether the scientific and artistic structures of the pre-Enlightenment era were built on the ground that was particularly prone to erosion? To answer this question, it is necessary to consider their basic qualities.

Art in the seventeenth century was preoccupied with the aggrandizement of both religious and secular rulers. Fussy and decorative curved forms of palaces were built to emphasize monarchs’ achievements. Ornate ecclesiastical paintings were produced to elevate the Catholic Church. Instead of looking for new ways of artistic expression, architects, painters, dramaturgs, and composers were utilizing orthodox methods. However, the revolutionary vision of the new era imbued artists of the following centuries with the desire to abandon the beaten path. It means that the artistic structure that had been underpinned by the rigidity of the tradition was not shatterproof. The scientific desire to unearth new patterns overflowed the lecture halls of academia and changed the cultural vocabulary of Europe. The intermingling of inquiring minds from the opposite ends of the creative spectrum produced the biggest change in the world outlook previously known to humanity.

The forceful abandonment of long-standing beliefs and the desire to question everything marked the arrival of the new era in human history. Continental thinkers such as Rousseau and Descartes helped to free the concept of knowledge from its religious overtones that marred it for millennia. Thus, it can be argued that ostensibly contradictory drives towards the accumulation of information in science and the renunciation of knowledge in art, which started in the eighteenth century, both originated from the same place. The two movements stemmed from the desire to disengage from old structures and authorities. A corollary was that people had to build new power structures. Therefore, the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment served simultaneously as ushers and drivers of the new age.

Conclusion

The paper has discussed the transformation of the nature of knowledge that occurred during the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment. It has been argued that the abandonment of the theological framework as an instrument for analyzing the reality shifted many tectonic plates of the Western Culture, which led to the consequential changes in science, art, politics, and philosophy. The emergence of new ideas resulted in societal metamorphoses that made impossible the existence of old explanations of reality and man.

Works Cited

Brians, Paul, et al. editors. Reading About the World. Vol. 1, 3rd ed., Harcourt Brace Custom Books, 1999.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Contrat Social ou Principes du Droit Politique. Translated by Henry A. Myers, Garnier Freres, 1800.

Wiesner-Hanks, Merry. Early Modern Europe: 1450-1789. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Reasons for the Abbasid Revolution

Considered as the first major military and political upheaval in the Muslim and Arab world, the Abbasid Revolution brought a number of changes in both religion and the Arab social system. First, it had an impact on the development of Arab and Islam history, as it saw the destruction of one major dynasty (The Ummayads) and coming in of another (The Abbasids). The most obvious reason for the revolution was to depose the Umayyad Caliphate, which appears to have forgotten the Prophets teaching on the rule of law. However, it is arguable that there were several social, cultural, religious, and political reasons for the Abbasid Revolution, which took place between 747CE and 750 CE (Hugh 324).

First, for a long time, the Abbasid family claimed that they were the legitimate rulers of the Empires by virtue of tracing their origins to the Prophet’s uncle Al-Abbas. The Abbasid family, therefore, felt disrespected for their non-involvement in the running of the caliphate. Al-Abbas, their ancestor, was the Prophet’s younger uncle and, by traditions, he would have been the rightful heir of the caliphate. Therefore, this belief motivated the Abbasid Family to organize a military intervention with the belief that they were legally justified to claim the empire.

Secondly, tribal divisions were evident was part of the history of the empire. The northern tribes were in constant disagreement with the southern tribes due to socio-economic disputes. For instance, the Northern tribes claimed the rights to land ownership, which was greatly opposed by the southern tribes. The Umayyad rulers made one important error in their rule- they granted numerous privileges to the northern tribes at the expense of the southerners, especially with respect to land rights, exemption from taxation, and political positions. The southern tribes, from where the Abbasid Family belonged, felt largely marginalized and discriminated. Very few were appointed to political and military positions. They were supposed to pay taxes and had no rights to land ownership. Therefore, they opposed both the Umayyads and Mudar. They fought fiercely against their enemies both in Khurasan and in Iraq. Their ability to organize large and strong military forces led to the collapse of the Umayyads and the rise of the Abbasid Caliphate.

Thirdly, apart from involving the southern tribes, the Abbasids were able to influence other tribes and groups against the Umayyads. For instance, they were able to influence other warring groups such as the Mawali by promising to work with them in the new regime. Apart from the Middle East, the Abbasids were successful in persuading other groups such as the al-Andalus in North Africa against the caliphate.

Thirdly, the religious divisions between the Shia and the Sunni Muslims were a major cause of the Umayyad defeat by the Abbasid family. The Muslim world was divided into two groups since the death of the Prophet. Each group claimed to be the true religion based on their origins. The division was largely political rather than religious, which resulted from the debate on who should have succeeded the Prophet as the leader of the Ummah. The Shi’s felt that they were the rightful leaders of the Ummah by virtue of their origin (they originated from Shi at Ali, the prophets’ uncle). On the other hand, the Sunnis believed that they were the rightful rulers of the Ummah because they originated from the Prophet through the Prophet’s daughter Fatimah. However, by the time of the Abbasid Revolution, these differences had escalated and changed into a long-term struggle to control the religion as well as the Arab empire.

In fact, the hatred between the two groups had increased to the extent of involving military invasions against each other. The Abbasids were largely in support of the pro-Shiite movements, who had been against the Umayyad. It is worth noting that the Umayyads were Sunnis, and there was no way they could exert political and economic control on the Shia groups without resistance. Constant rebellion from the Pro-shi groups was common in the Umayyad caliphate but was generally weak. The caliphate would use their influence on the Sunnis and tribal groups to crash these rebellions. However, the Abbasids used this opportunity to launch an onslaught against the Umayyad rulers. First, they were aware that several pro-shite groups and tribal chiefs who felt sidelined in the running of the empire were ready and willing to participate in weakening the Umayyad Caliphs (Hugh 314). What these groups wanted was merely a centralized organization and control to invade the kingdom. The Abbasids grasped the opportunity to influence and incite these groups against the Sunnis and the caliphate. Therefore, the revolution was not only political but also religious and socioeconomic in nature.

Conclusion

From the analysis, it is clear that the Abbasid revolution had a number of both direct and indirect causes. While it is evident that the Abbasids were interested in bringing down the regime to claim their rights to the throne, also other social and economic issues contributed to the fall of the Umayyads. For instance, their inability to involve all groups and tribes in their ruling was a grave mistake because it gave the Umayyads ad added advantage since they were able to influence the marginalized groups. In addition, the exemption of some northern tribes and other forms of social and economic favors explains the weaknesses with the Caliphs and the opportunities available for the Abbasids.

Works Cited

Hugh, Kennedy. The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates: The Islamic Near East from the Sixth to the Eleventh Century. London, UK: Pearson/Longman, 2004. Print.

The Haitian Revolution of 1971-1804 was the only black Revolution that ended with the proclamation of an independent state. It is a unique historical period in which political, economic, social, and spiritual circumstances intersect. This event became the key to changes throughout the then civilized world and in the territories of the New World. The Revolution forever changed the attitude of Europeans towards slavery and blacks, who were considered animals. Europe was going through the agony of revolutions (the bloody French Revolution caused incredible damage to European society and changed it forever), which served as the beginning of colossal social changes. The Haitian Revolution showed a vast gap between theorizing about a possible or future revolution and putting the Revolution into practice.

This gap was influenced by many factors, including the implementation of the value of freedom in practice. In the minds of the French, slavery was conceptualized and explained logically. For the French, Africans were uneducated, which gave the French the right to discriminate based on European literature education and knowledge. The French were forced to change their attitude towards slavery and Africans in particular after the 1804 massacre (“PBS Egalite for All: Toussaint Louverture and the Haitian Revolution (2009)” 03:15–05:21). The society and its members individually faced a crisis breaking previous stereotypes, traditions, and foundations. Europeans did not consider Africans under the focus of power and physical strength. Freedom demands thwarted the plans of Napoleon Bonaparte and other Frenchmen to create a French empire with large colonies and rich territories.

Initially, discontent ripened among the colored population, mulattoes, who also possessed slaves and certain plantations and lands. Despite the superficial economic resemblance to the French, the latently colored population, born of mixed marriages, felt condemnation and lack of full rights. The role of race and identity is difficult to assess since mixed marriages influenced the formation of a layer of mulattoes who felt powerlessness. Some of the Africans were loyal to the French government and sided with France during the hostilities; Jean-Jacques Dessalines declared Haiti an exclusively black territory.

The violence and excessive cruelty of Africans towards Europeans during the revolution, as already mentioned above, had a severe impact on the Europeans, causing a severe crisis. No one has ever viewed Africans as a source of danger, death, or serious crime. If an African committed a petty crime or misdemeanor while resting or working, the owner had full rights for lightning retribution and punishment. The massacre of 1804 was a turning point, and no one expected this attack. Researchers at the moment cannot predict how ordinary slaves treated their moral virtues and duty during the riot. However, military generals of African descent linked revolution with the desire for freedom, one of the essential moral virtues. The rejection of life in the name of freedom for Haitians is a cry from the heart, in which it is declared that they are not ready to endure the quality of life that the Europeans have given them. They choose death to have the right to control, if not their own life, then their end: the time and circumstances of death.

Under the flag of equality, the French demanded a certain level of assimilation and acceptance of culture. The French have maintained an expansionist sentiment, declaring, equality is possible with a certain subordination. This subordination concerned religion, literature, spiritual heritage in philosophy, art, poetry, etc. Haitian equality denied such compliance, but the revolution failed to cope with an economic foundation tailored to the slave system. Ordinary Africans often felt themselves after the course, living in an independent state, as weak-willed slaves.

François Louverture is a central charismatic figure during the Haitian Revolution. His life is tragically cut short by an inflammation of the lungs, and history has prevented researchers from examining how he would behave if he gained legal and political power in the territories for which he fought. As you know, generals and military commanders can manifest themselves in different ways in situations of military confrontation and during a quiet life, having total power over territories and people. Louverture remained a symbol and charismatic figure that went far into history, while Jean-Jacques Dessalines, who betrayed him, went over to the side of Leclerc and Napoleon. The rule of Dessalines for Haiti turned into a dictatorial regime in which the emperor showed aggression and cruelty.

The Haitian Revolution brutally shattered Europeans’ attitudes towards Africans and slavery. The revolution led to the abolition of slavery in the territory, but it was started to express dissatisfaction with mulattoes born in mixed marriages. The course was filled with bloodshed and cruelty, not always motivated and having only a thirst for revenge in its foundation. The Haitians opposed the French concept of equality; however, have ended up being hostages of the then economic system, they continued the hard work in the sugar and coffee plantations. General François Louverture is considered one of the most important figures of the revolution, who was betrayed by his supporters, one of whom was Jean-Jacques Dessalines, who later gave birth to a dictatorial regime in Haiti.

Work Cited

“PBS Egalite for All: Toussaint Louverture and the Haitian Revolution (2009).”YouTube, uploaded by Uptown Flava, 2012.

Introduction

The French revolution was a period of radicalism bringing social political upheavals. The monarchy had ruled for a long time and people were tired and led to transformation from feudalism, aristocracy and religion. The pressure came from the political liberal groups and the demonstrating masses. The monarch had to give way to the enlightened citizens.

The Course of the French Revolution

The revolution was triggered by a number of problems. There was economic turmoil due to participation in the American Revolution. Huge sums of money were spent in the expansion to other European countries. Life became hard with no food for the citizens. The peasants were over taxed and became violent; they took money and properties from those who had. This was common even before the on set of the revolution. The uprising of the bourgeoisie and hunger for power was blocked by the monarch. In1789 there was convocation of the estate general that led to proclamation of the Tennis court oath followed by the assault on the Bastille and the declaration of the rights of the citizen. There was tension Smeared relationship between the liberal masses and the monarch (Wood 86)

The impact of the French Revolution

The war in Europe and the American Revolution took seven years and lessened the French morale and determination. A lot of money was spent in the France war and by supporting allies and maintaining military in Diaspora, making the monarchical government bankrupt. The enlightment of people and exposure, made them doubt that King Louis XVI had absolute power and divine right. They were tired having participated in major wars. The revolution led to victory over the buying of church land and nobles’ land for there were wealthier citizens than the nobles. New tax system came into place and eased the burden of paying tithe to the clergy and the monarchy. The French got new leader who observed the rights of the citizens. The changes achieved from the revolution inspired and liberated the French. (Mousette 45)

Technological changes of the Revolution

he new technology brought excitement to the citizens. French troops were coming back full of experiences obtained in the Diaspora, bringing in tactful improvements that had a major impact to the French economy. However, the technology was military based and was used in war. Later, the agrarian revolution took centre stage and introduced farm machinery and factories. New farming techniques were introduced. The discovery of iron and steel in Britain led to the introduction of machinery in France allowing development of steam engine, spinning jenny, telecommunications, rail and road systems. There emerged new energy sources and new methods of production with exit from the traditional handcraft method to new technological methods where machine made work easier, faster and efficient.

Human cost of the new technological revolution

The industries and factories established used human labour to make their goods. This meant the settled life of the citizens was interfered with, bringing a new class of employees who became dependants. France experienced a class of skilled people working in the factories. Child labour was immense and they could work for long hours. The working conditions were deplorable. The industrial accidents were common followed by diseases originating from chemicals like phosphorus. The people worked without protection. New towns came up with cities as centres of settlement that was characterised by overcrowding, poor buildings lacking sanitation. The new transport corridors led to emigration in search of better conditions which were hard to find. The crime rate rose due to poor social conditions. The war became more sophisticated as the troops could move faster and information relayed through the technology, as a result human suffering increased (Constant 34).

Intellectual Approaches to the Industrial Revolution

The revolution led to new science that was used by the scholars of then who saw it as an opportunity of bringing light to replace the superstitions, religion and fear with reason and knowledge. They investigated issues of physics, astronomy and biology. The brilliant people started to question everything leading to the new modern science. The science kept growing with widespread practical being carried out, frequent check on machinery and production processes that led to major inventions. There was accelerated innovations and new technology. Rural technology spread out and was characterised by proto – rural factories that could produce goods for far markets (Owen 56)

Organizing Workers’ Protests

Protests were marred with songs craving for a social change. They protested against the inhuman treatment by the employers, poor pay and increased food prices. The working conditions were deplorable and needed major change. Protesters destroyed properties and many died. The people organised themselves into labour unions and trade organisations which were not recognised. The new industrial revolution meant the beginning of a new era of capitalism and a cycle of peasant mobilisations. They challenged the new law of the government. The communal and national guards were organised and served as platform of the uprising. The peasants, artisans and workers were dissatisfied with low pay and high price of bread and raw materials. The poor were able to get a portion of land for farming and their income increased by 5% (Wood 89).

Overview of Imperialism: New and Old Imperialism

The new and old imperialism was quite different in terms of the economic or wealth, politics and the motive. The old lasted between 1500 – 1800 and the new from 1870 – 1914. In the old, economics was about trade where they bought goods from the native merchants through a trade system. It took place along the coast lines. However in the new imperialism, they were interested in the goods and establishing plantations, factories and docks in other countries. They exploited people as they could. Politically, their interest and intention was to dominate others with their political views and rule of law. The socialists advanced their socialism while the capitalists did the same. They competed for colonies in overseas territories claiming racial superiority and backwardness of the subjects. (Mousset 175).

British Imperialism

British imperialism began in1496 and ended in 1980 after grunting Zimbabwe independence. After recording success in Spain and America territories, Britain took different forms of administration, starting with plantation farming in Ireland and enslavement. Queen Elizabeth 1 grunted patent for overseas exploration, leading to aggression of control. Germans desire to increase their colonies spurred the craving for colonies. There was war with France and Netherlands. Britain won and as a result, started many colonies overseas. Britain used companies to administer. Though it registered success in the two wars, from1945 there was pressure both local and abroad. Bankruptcy led to the beginning of decolonisation. However Britain decided to protect any other remaining protectorate usually islands (Owen 123)

The Ottoman Empire

The empire lasted from 1299 to 1922. It had territories in south-eastern Europe, west Asia and North Africa. It had 29 provinces and several vassal states. Some became part of the empire and maintained some autonomy. Other overseas land was under their control and paid allegiance. The empire had developed some relations with the countries in the west and those from east of Europe. The death of the Sultan in 1300 saw the division and Osman, an emirate rose and joined the nation politically. In 1453 – 1566 the empire conquered Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean. However revolt began in 1566 – 1683. The bureaucracy and weak sultans strained the empire. The European powers began to curb the trade routes. There was internal and external pressure that led to the stagnation and decline of the empire in the 17th century. 1683 – 1827 was a period of stagnation and most of their territories were ceded to Austria, Britain and France. The empire was weakened by Russia in the war. It was defeated and joined hands with other strong nations for security reasons. In 1908, the sultan announced the dissolution of the empire, and the creation of a Turkish government began (Owen 65).

The Meiji Era in Japan

It is a period from 1868 – 1912. During this time Japan was modernising as it was a time of being enlightened. There were major changes to encourage the people, while trying to win them for financial gains. The government promised to observe all previous treaties and act in line with international law. He developed democratic constitution with a representative government. Japan became a civilised country with technological and economic rise. There was robust economic development brought by education and the new 3000 experts. He modernised the military to avert external aggressions. They build armoury factories and trained many soldiers. When U.S navy ended the Sakoku policy, Japan felt defenceless and declared a national independence and penetrated the European market and other markets of the whole world, a strength of the Meiji Era.

Global War

People thought that opposing alliance by German, Austria – Hungary and the ottoman man empires would lead to major war. The powers had global colonies and their resources were important meaning the whole world would be involved. The powers were seen to strike other colonies, thus spreading the fight. The first and second world war, occurred in places that were densely populated, the good communication, roads and the well equipped armies made the war successful. There was a lot of death, properties brought down and lack of peace. Innocent people were in problems and the colonial powers fell due to mismanagement of finances. World bodies to oversee security, monetary issues and diplomacy came into being.

Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire

In 1918, major alliances began to collapse due to American, British and French activities. Turkey and Austria – Hungary signed armistice. The German republic was declared. The terms of the agreement were cessation of war.

It was a political move leading to division of the territory to several nations. The occupation of Istanbul by British and French made the empire collapse. The League of Nations treaty led to final partitioning, realising the Arab world and turkey republic. Britain and France became powers in the Middle East.

Formation of the Mandate System

French leaders failed to rise from a class of humble class – minded provincial petitioners to a national legislative body. This was not a good reason for their deputies not to assume power and status as representatives of the French nation. It was a mandate principle that showed the estate general failure. Therefore the deputies were bound to become the representatives of the nation as a whole with powers to make decisions binding to all.

Works Cited

Constant, Benjamin. Approach to French liberalism. London; Routledge, 1993.

Mousset, Sophie. Women Rights- French Revolution; Transaction Publishers, 2007.

Wood, Stewart. A Survey of the French Revolution, New York: Macmillan, 1951.

Owen Trevor. The British Empire 1558-1995, Oxford; Oxford University Press, 1996.

What was the historical context of the Hundred Flowers Movement and Anti-Rightist Campaign in 1957? What was the historical and political significance of the 1957 episode?

First and foremost, it should be noted that the period of the Hundred Flowers Movement was the time of the overall decline in China. The main problems that needed to be truly addressed were the fragile economy and the dominance of the bureaucratic mechanisms.¹.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the local society was in want of some inspiration and encouragement. From this perspective, the Hundred Flowers Campaign seems to be an appropriate step taken in response to the social demand. However, it can, likewise, be suggested that Mao’s rationale for this implementation was far more complex. Thus, it is essential to refer to the external events that took place in Hungary and Poland that made Chinese leaders become particularly concerned about retaining power.

Historians do not have any consensus regarding the true motives of Mao that underpinned his initial support of the Hundred Flowers Movement. There is an opinion that the Chairman might have had a sincere intention to put up with the public criticism for the sake of the overall wealth. Thus, his fear of repeating Stalin’s way could have motivated him to create a new intellectual environment that would have little resemblance with the suppression of thought in the Soviet Union.

In the meantime, a contrary vision of these events suggests that the peaceful appeal to Chinese intellectuals to express their views was just a well-thought trick performed in order to make them speak openly and indicate “potential betrayers.”². Nevertheless, it would be justified to claim that the outcome of the Hundred Flowers, the Anti-Rightest Campaign was more significant from the historical point of view than the movement itself. Thus, the events of 1957 can now be compared to the repressions carried out by Stalin’s regime in terms of violence and terror.

From a historical standpoint, the Anti-Rightest Campaign led to hundreds of thousands of ruined lives and created an atmosphere of fear and suspect in Chinese society. From a political perspective, these events might be evaluated as a powerful blow to the reputation of the party. Hence, the fact that the Hundred Flowers Movements was accepted trustfully by the society signifies that Chinese people would still express confidence in the government despite the poor economic and social environment in 1956. However, it is evident that after the repressions of 1957, this confidence decreased significantly. In other words, Mao, who feared to repeat the mistakes of the Soviet Union’s regime, would do everything to copy its experience.

Another important aspect that needs to be analyzed in the framework of the political significance of the repressions is the way the priorities were set. Thus, according to historians, Mao assumed that the main threat to the regime’s stability was represented by the Party’s revisionists.³. Therefore, the key target of the campaign was to eliminate all the risks within the Party. This target reflects Mao’s vision of power and its basis. Thus, the Chairman considered the Party to be the most important and reliable mechanism in terms of countering social unrest and anti-governmental movements. The significant role assigned to the Party is the aspect that the Chinese regime had in common with the Soviet Union.

At this point, critical discrepancy should be essentially discussed. On the one hand, the main aim was to get rid of the dissidents within the Party – as a consequence, thousands of its members lost their jobs and were openly persecuted. On the other hand, those intellectuals that would criticize the Party and, pursuing the initial logic, should have been treated as the valuable contributors to the overall wealth, were also announced dissidents and subjected to persecution. Therefore, the Party failed to pursue a concise strategy, and an atmosphere of anxiety and fear was established in society.

The events of 1957 illustrated the powerfulness of propaganda as the key tool of governing in the twentieth century. Hence, as well as Stalin, Mao employed this mechanism to reach his own aim of strengthening political positions. The slogans of the Hundred Flowers Movement appealed to high aims and elaborated morality. Meanwhile, the real course of things showed that the true aims of the Party were different from those announced. Historians agree on the point that the Anti-Rightest Campaign was a crucial blow to the country’s freedom of thought and press.⁴.

How do we situate the Cultural Revolution in the context of the 20th-century Chinese Revolution as a whole? What were the goals of the Cultural Revolution as Mao conceived it, and did the Cultural Revolution accomplish its objectives?

The “cultural revolution” initiated by Mao had a significant long-term effect on the life of Chinese society. Broadly speaking, this policy might now be regarded as an act of terror that led to the deaths of more than a million people and submitted other millions to imprisonment or poverty. What is most remarkable is that Mao’s policy, which was initially supposed not to repeat the mistakes of Stalin’s regime, is now considered to be identical to it due to the methods employed in the “cultural revolution.”

According to experts’ opinion, “cultural revolution” was an equivalent of the preceding “socialist education” movement, though it was of a more violent and oppressive character.⁵. It is critical to point out the significant shift in Mao’s policy that occurred in the relevant period. Thus, it was in 1957 that Mao criticized the “cult of personality” and the methods employed by Stalin and his Party, while in less than a decade, he adopted all the techniques of the Soviet Communists for the realization of the “cultural revolution.”

The reasons that underpin this strategic change play an important role in understanding the principles of the “cultural revolution.” First and foremost, as well as every politician that seeks absolute power, Mao was highly concerned about the betrayal of his cronies. Moreover, the events that would simultaneously develop in the Soviet Union were rather concerning. Thus, Mao could see the outcomes of Khrushchev’s revisionism, and he was, evidently, not eager to have a similar situation in his country. Finally, and most importantly, Mao’s strategic shift was largely determined by the failure of the Great Leap program.

This cause is particularly important as the unsuccessful outcomes of the program led to the general social decline. As a result, there was a strong possibility for the appearance of the public outcry initiated by different communities, including the armed forces. Otherwise stated, Mao was obliged to compensate for the collapse as soon as possible in order to prevent the potential social unrest.

As a result, it might be concluded that the “cultural revolution” had two groups of objectives: those that were publicly announced and those that Mao really targeted. The public appeal was focused on elucidating the survivals of bourgeois views that were positioned as the key disincentives of social and economic development. From this perspective, it is important to point out the crucial discrepancy that underpins any revolution – the announced targets tend to differ from the true motives of its initiators.

Referring back to the enlisted causes of Mao’s strategic shift, it is reasonable to suggest that his core objective was to assign the responsibility for the failure of the Great Leap program to the Party cadres so that the society did not associate it essentially with Mao. This objective was particularly important as social disapproval, especially one of its forms – intellectual dissidence – implied critical dangers for Mao’s regime.

Secondly, it was vital to assure the loyalty of the military groups, the lack of support of which could have been crucial for Mao’s regime. These two objectives characterize Mao as a typical dictator; however, it should be admitted that his decision to announce the beginning of a new revolution is highly pragmatic. In social perception, revolution commonly signifies some favorable change and is almost always welcomed by the public. Thus, Mao managed to outguess the social unrest and camouflage the true nature of his intentions.

The methods selected for the achievements of the set aims were, likewise, similar to those that Stalin’s regime employed. Thence, the key method that was supposed to resolve the first problem – social skepticism and intellectual dissidence – was propaganda. This element is pivotal for understanding the sense of the analyzed phenomenon. Thus, for instance, MacFarquhar and Schoenhals describe in detail the political “hysteria” that grew particularly actively in the university circles. According to the authors, the propaganda had such a powerful impact on Chinese students that they switched their attention from studies to finding faults with their professors.⁶.

These “faults” had nothing to do with the educational process; they were utterly political. Therefore, the revolution that was announced to be “cultural” turned out to have an opposite impact – the only culture that would develop at that time was the culture of propaganda. In the meantime, even the propaganda’s power turned out to be insufficient; otherwise, there would be no need for the Red Guards. The implementation of the Red Guards might be treated as the last step in imitating Stalin’s regime. It would be justified to suggest that it was this movement that signified the inevitable failure of the Cultural Revolution – the violent character of the employed mechanism was apt to meet social resentment.

Therefore, it might be concluded that the methods Mao chose were inconsistent with the goals he set. Hence, his principal aim was to get rid of the anti-revolutionary public moods; however, terror, the tool he selected, had a reverse effect – the opposition to the party and its leader increased significantly. It should also be pointed out that the failure of this revolution was, to a certain extent, determined by the fact that it did not address the existing economic problems in a proper manner so that the overall economic decline contributed to the oppositional social moods.

Discuss the origins, processes, and consequences of the Great Leap Forward

One of the central principles of the Marxist theory resided in carrying out rapid and effective industrialization. Despite the fact that historians have no consensus regarding the general character of the Soviet industrialization, the major part of them agrees on the point that it was highly beneficial from the economic perspective.⁷. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Mao’s Five Year Plan that was supposed to be implemented between 1958 and 1963 was an intentional imitation of Stalin’s reform.

There are two main aspects that need to be discussed in the framework of the Great Leap Plan’s implementation. First and foremost, it introduced a new form of citizen living – a commune. From this standpoint, the parallel might be, likewise, drawn with Stalin’s “collective farms.” This new existence pattern was supposed to reshape people’s attitudes towards their lives, work, and country. Thus, an average commune would comprise thousands of families. In such a manner, people were supposed to accept the idea of common property and sacrifice everything that might be characterized as personal: tools, animals, etc.

The work they performed was also aimed at contributing to the commune’s prosperity rather than the individual wealth. This point is of high importance as it provides an explanation for the increase in labor productivity that could be overviewed in the first year of the program. Thus, people’s approach to work was controlled by the commune that had a powerful psychological impact on their sense of responsibility.

The second aspect important in terms of the program’s realization was the powerful propagandistic campaign. As well as in the Hundred Flowers Movement, propaganda was employed in order to encourage the population to act in accordance with the government’s interests. Hence, it is reasonable to suggest that the Party would not have been able to maintain the overall enthusiasm unless the propaganda machine was employed – in the course of the working process, people were supposed to hear political speeches encouraging them to meet the set objectives and even beat the targeted results. At this point, the problem of the labor’s quality must have arisen. Thus, people would mainly focus on doing over the quota, neglecting, in such a manner, the quality of the goods they produced.

At this point, it might be concluded that the key drawback of the Great Leap Plan, as well as the main cause of its failure, resided in the fact that the government put the emphasis on the quantitative variables rather than the qualitative characteristics. In addition, historians point out the fact that the quantitative norms imposed by the Party would often be impossible to achieve; thus, workers tried to find alternative solutions using all the available methods to conceal the flaws of the produced goods.

In the meantime, it was not only the poor strategy that prevented the Great Leap Plan from a successful realization. External factors such as weather conditions played an unfavorable role in the plan’s implementation. Otherwise stated, bad weather made the working conditions harder and the imposed norms less achievable. Moreover, the implementation of rationing served to be a crucial blow to the health and the working capacity of commune’s members – some of them got seriously ill, others would die of starving or associated diseases. A due parallel with the famine of Stalin’s reforms might be, likewise, drawn, which shows that all Mao’s attempts to avoid the mistakes of the Soviet Union failed – the two regimes resemble one another perfectly.

Broadly speaking, the key figures of the first year of the Great Leap Plan were highly promising – there was a consistent increase in the production of steel, grain, cotton, etc. However, this increase was too rapid and unstable to be characterized as sustainable success. The failure of the project was admitted by Mao, and the fact that it was scrapped before the due date signifies that the outcomes were worse than expected. Therefore, the proposed existence pattern – commune – did not prove to be favorable and was gradually totally rejected. The economic growth was not achieved either as the quality of the produced goods was very poor.

It is essential to note that the failure of this plan had an important outcome from the political perspective. Thus, Mao had to search for urgent measures that would help him avoid social unrest that was likely to develop in the context of the overall decline.

Bibliography

Bernstein, Thomas. “Stalinism, Famine, and Chinese Peasants: Grain Procurements during the Great Leap Forward,” Theory and Society 13 (1984): 339-377. Web.

Bridgham, Philip. “Mao’s “Cultural Revolution”: Origin and Development,” The China Quarterly 29 (1967): 1-35. Web.

Brodsgaard, Kjeld Erik. “The Democracy Movement in China, 1978-1979: Opposition Movements, Wall Poster Campaigns, and Underground Journals,” Asian Survey 21 (1981): 747-774. Web.

Chan, Sylvia. “The Image of a “Capitalist Roader”–Some Dissident Short Stories in the Hundred Flowers Period,” The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs 2 (1979): 77-102. Web.

MacFarquhar, Roderick, and Michael Schoenhals. Mao’s Last Revolution, 1941–1945. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 2006.

Meisner, Maurice. Mao’s China and After. New York: Free Press, 1999.

Footnotes

1. Maurice Meisner, Mao’s China and After (New York: Free Press, 1999), 155-190.
2. Ibid., 182.
3. Sylvia Chan, “The Image of a “Capitalist Roader”–Some Dissident Short Stories in the Hundred Flowers Period,” The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs 2 (1979): 78.
4. Kjeld Erik Brodsgaard, “The Democracy Movement in China, 1978-1979: Opposition Movements, Wall Poster Campaigns, and Underground Journals,” Asian Survey 21 (1981): 771.
5. Philip Bridgham, “Mao’s “Cultural Revolution”: Origin and Development,” The China Quarterly 29 (1967): 2.
6. Roderick MacFarquhar and Michael Schoenhals, Mao’s Last Revolution, 1941–1945. (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 2006), 68.
7. Thomas Bernstein, “Stalinism, Famine, and Chinese Peasants: Grain Procurements during the Great Leap Forward,” Theory and Society 13 (1984): 340.

Introduction

The Glorious Revolution: Britain’s Fight for Liberty by Edward Vallance is a book that presents an elaborate account of the 1688 Britain revolution that was characterized by a lack of violence. In his book, Edward Vallance dealt with different interpretations according to his understanding of the Glorious Revolution. The revolution was actually peaceful but Vallance instead argued that the overthrow of James II was characterized by several instances of conflict and even cases of people losing life especially in Scotland and Ireland. This paper will discuss the interpretation of the historian’s work as compared to the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Discussion

Background of the Glorious Revolution

King James III was involved in several political battles in England during his three years of tenure in office as the king of England. First, he was found involving himself in political battles between the Catholics and the protestants. Additionally, his direct involvement was noted when he participated in political battles that tried to define the divine rights of kings and those of the Parliament of England. The major problem that king James experienced was because his religion of Catholicism had made him isolate himself from the two major parties in England at that time. The low church Whigs attempted to remove King James from the throne. However, its failure to pass the exclusion bill of which would have removed the king from the throne led to fruitless efforts.

The supporters of James since he took over power were Anglican Tories. His Catholicism was an issue that led to concerns being raised by many people even though his daughters were protestants. However, problems arose while James tried to remove the penal laws. The Tories viewed this move as a way of breaking the establishment of the Church of England. As a result, James abandoned Tories, a move that seemed to show that he was trying to form his own party as a way to counter the influence of the Anglican Tories. Therefore, in 1687 James declared his support for a policy that referred to religious toleration. According to valance (2008), “he, therefore, allied himself with dissenters, Catholics, and nonconformists with an aim of advancing catholic emancipation”.

James further continued to make laws in his hands when he sought the common law of dispensing acts of parliament from the English courts¹. The request was successful since eleven out of the twelve judges of the court made the rule in his favor. James’ political involvement in religion was a common behavior, for instance, he ordered the removal of John Sharp a catholic clergy who delivered a catholic sermon yet that had been banned by James. As noted by Valance (2008) “ James ordered the followers of Magdalene college in oxford to elect Anthony Farmer who was a catholic even though he was not eligible according to the statutes of the college”. The followers declined the order and instead decided to elect John Hough. James did not recognize the presidency of Hough and therefore sent some commissioners to install Farmer as the president and went on to convince the followers that they had made a wrong decision and they were therefore expected to apologize for that. Those followers who failed to apologize were ejected from the college and replaced with Catholics.

In 1687, James made efforts to repeal the penal laws and the Test Act by bringing many of his supporters to the parliament. James believed that the dissenters would give him support and as a result, he decided to ignore the support of the Tories and the Anglicans. James was annoyed since his plans were not successful and he, therefore, decide to instruct all the lord lieutenants in the provinces to issue messages to all peace commissions so that they consent to the Test Act. This was followed by the office of deputy lieutenants and those of the Justice for peace being reshuffled and as a result, those who had opposed James were all dismissed. James created an army that was huge and elevated the Catholics to senior positions in the army. In Ireland, the protestant armies were replaced with Catholics and this led him to have more than 34, 000 army officers in all the three kingdoms he ruled.

Major problems arose in 1688 when James fathered a son. This implied that the newborn son would be his successor. But before then, the reign of England would have been passed to James’ daughter Mary who was a protestant. Mary’s Husband was called William of Orange and they were both grandchildren of Charles one of England. William would therefore be third in the succession line. However, since the two had anti-catholic faith, there was a challenge to the English court that they would be both replaced by a catholic French heir.

According to Vallance (2008) William was also stadtholder of the main provinces of the Dutch Republic, then in the preliminary stages of joining the War of the Grand Alliance against France, in a context of international tensions caused by the revocation by Louis XIV of the Edict of Nantes and the disputed succession of Cologne and the Palatinate. This suited the desires of several English politicians who intended to depose James.² William’s intelligence threatened James and as a result, James tried to form a way that they would both work together.

The collapse of the reign of king James started when their relationship with William started not to be beneficial. James tried to win the support of the Tories but this could not be successful since he had failed to endorse the Test Act. On the other hand, anti-Catholics had continually demonstrate in London and it was clear that those troops were not on the streets to fight but instead it was clear that some of his army officer did not have loyalty. He had also been warned in earlier occasions about the conspiracy within his army but he did not take any move to address the issue. The first incidence of blood shed was reported during the skirmishes that occurred in Wincanton when the royalists soldiers retreated after coming into confrontation with scouts. Most of his soldiers deserted thereby leaving him in much fear. At that point, James realized that his army was not reliable and therefore order it to be disbanded and provided an opportunity for fair election. James had to surrender to William after realizing that his own chief commander had deserted to William and even his own daughter, Princess Ann supported William.

Valance interpretation

Valance view of the glorious revolution was considered by many historians as an indication of the true history of what happened in England during the reign of King James II. The revolution has always been termed as peaceful or bloodless. The historian, Edward Vallance presented the revolution as a bloody massacre for the people of specific religions especially the Catholics and the Irishmen. Additionally, Vallance indicated the way the populace in England participated in the affairs of the government since King James provided a favourable environment for the citizens. When William of Orange overthrew James, the kingdom was largely dominated by the catholic religion. James had introduced all his catholic supporters in all the governance organs including the army. James did this by sacking those protestants who did not abide by his orders and thus replaced them with his catholic men.

Conclusion

Vallance work in the Glorious Revolution presented the circumstances of the revolutionary contrary to the history of England. The historian work dealt indicated that the revolution was characterized with blood shed especially by Christians. During the reign of King James who was a catholic, protestants voice was not heard but instead he sacked all those who failed to follow his orders. Vallance presented William and his wife Mary as the hero and heroin respectively who brought the revolution after a period of blood massacre. The historian indicated that William helped to bring revolution in England even though the protestants in Ireland suffered in the course of liberating their lives. Since William and James’ daughter Mary were protestants, this group of worshippers was able to live in freedom, which was not a common characteristic in their lives during the time of James.

Bibliography

Vallance, Edward. The Glorious Revolution: Britain’s Fight for Liberty. London: Pegasus Books, 2008.

Footnotes

1. Vallance, Edward. The Glorious Revolution: Britain’s Fight for Liberty. London: Pegasus Books, 2008.
2. Vallance, Edward. The Glorious Revolution: Britain’s Fight for Liberty. London: Pegasus Books, 2008.

Why Revolutions were Necessary for Change in the Arab World

Countries are governed by systems that are safeguarded by the ruling class to maintain their authority. The system does not change with the change of officials in government and, largely, the ruling class. The reason behind the system’s failure to change is a political ideology that is present in the given country and governs the sociopolitical and economic aspects of the country. It is unlikely for an ideological system to create a provision that will make it irrelevant. Therefore, only individuals subscribed to the ideology are favored to get opportunities as insiders and decision-makers (Camejo, 1969).

Revolutions are the only way to upset the current system and replace it with a new one. Mao Zedong was right in portraying that political power can only be obtained with the help of the power of a gun because without a powerful assault at the current political system, no desired results can be achieved (McLellan, 1995). The ruling class wishes to maintain its ruling authority under all circumstances. In this regard, it identifies the sections of the population that are discordant with its governance and creates distractions to derail further efforts against it.

Successful revolutions are able to defeat this strategy because they arise out of the desperation of people whose main reason for the uprising is an individual need to create a better society for their own benefit. The aim of the revolution becomes the collective aim of each individual, and when one’s effort is thwarted, the encouragement coming from others advancing the same cause serves as a buffer against the full destruction of the overall revolutionary spirit of the people. When the whole society has a single aim of ousting the current governing regime, it becomes a power that cannot be stopped (Camejo, 1969).

Revolutions have to be true in their intentions; they require that each member of the revolution recognizes and identifies with the overall cause of the revolution. The main aim of the revolution should be to change the current setting, and therefore, movements that seek to advance other causes other than change are not true revolutions. In the same manner, a movement to change only parts of the political system that is oppressive cannot succeed as a revolution because it does lead to a regime change that will eliminate the factors that led to the formation of the movement.

In the Arab world, most countries prior to revolutionary change had undemocratic regimes that made it impossible to have an honest political system using the electoral mechanism. The result of the authoritarian regimes has been the maintenance of power by a few individuals who are disconnected from the plight of the majority of their citizens lacking basic amenities. The lack of a proper political structure that accommodates views contrary to those of the then-current regime has created a political opposition vacuum that is required to serve as a check and balance to the ruling class (Mouawad, 2011).

Infiltration of the ruling class with individuals who represent the plight of the society and are willing to direct a change in the system has not succeeded. The political system tends to auto-correct itself to maintain its ideology for the benefit of the majority of the ruling class. A case example is in Lebanon where an uprising to change the regime replacing it with a favorable one similar to the ideas presented by the assassinated prime minister Rafic Hariri failed after it was hijacked by sectarian interests, who instead advanced their cause of defeating another regime (Mouawad, 2011).

In the Arab world, the conditions necessitating revolutions have been created over a long period as political leaders retained power and became too attached to their seats of power for their own good instead of service to their citizens. In the initial oppressive stages of the Arab regimes, the society was cheated into feeling powerful in determining the affairs of their country in what seemed like a fair representation of their interests and opinions. However, as regimes stay longer in power, the masses realize the illusion that they have been living in as they notice that their opinions and interests were disguised interests of the ruling class who made them believe it was theirs (Mouawad, 2011).

Once the masses became conscious of the illusion of power that the oppressive regime was giving them, they became agitated for being fooled. Generally, they began noticing the ills in the society that arise out of the authoritarian nature of their regimes. The masses realized that the hard and fierce character of their nations that they took pride in was a manifestation of the ideology of their regimes that kept them from identifying the ills in their society attributed to the regime. State violence and extreme cases like imprisonment dealt with conscious opinions on the oppressiveness of regimes from individuals. In some cases, governments expelled, from the country, intellectuals advancing the revolutionary message. Democratic Arab states like Egypt only had sham elections carefully crafted to maintain the power of the incumbents (Mouawad, 2011).

The realization of the lie was a painful stab to the population. It also became a unifying factor for citizens to advancing their dissatisfaction with the regime. As the common consciousness of the citizenry in the Arab world became aware of the oppressiveness of their regimes, more cases to support the cause for regime change began to emerge. This included mismanagement of public funds, corruption and nepotism, marginalization, and selective application of the law (Mouawad, 2011).

The manner in which the oppressive regimes in the Arab world like that of Libya, Yemen, and Egypt, dealt with discordant voices ensured that for a long time, there was no worthy opposition to their dictatorship rule. However, the mass awakening to a conscious realization of their oppression by the citizenry could not be stopped in the same way. On the other hand, the masses who wished to topple the regime could not use the already skewed political system to initiate a regime change.

The political power could only be taken by force. There had to be a single target for the force so that it has the most significant output. This target was the top leader of the oppressive regimes in each Arabian country. The anger was to be directed to the leaders, and their removal would necessitate a change in the political structure and, thus, a regime change. The revolution in the Arab world needed no leader and instead relied on the collective rhetoric of the notable young voices in the population who coordinated protests and rallied strikes. The societal uprising needed a general direction that was provided by individuals without political ambitions whose only aim was to see as many people as possible rally against their governments, as a way to address their oppression that validated the revolution in the first place (Camejo, 1969).

Revolutions were necessary for change in the Arab world because the political system present could not accommodate any strong opposition voice. The citizenry had a collective consciousness that realized the graveness of their oppression and could no longer tolerate it. Lastly, nature by which the existing regimes dealt with opposing voices to their governance meant that only a revolution would be capable of ousting them from power.

References

Camejo, P. (1969). How to make a revolution. Web.

McLellan, D. (1995). Ideology. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Mouawad, J. (2011). Lebanon: the last conservative regime in the region? Web.