Monthly Archives: February 2014

Fichte – To the German Nation

Posted on by

Johann Gottlieb Fichte began his argument by outlining what makes a natural border for a people. He determined that language was a natural border that defines a people because they can communicate and grow. Germany was united by a common language and way of thinking. He then argued that foreign countries intentionally divided us the German peoples for their own benefit. Germany was unsuspecting and naively fell for their tricks. Fichte claimed that foreign countries manipulated Germany for their own selfish benefit. Some people were considering a universal monarchy as a remedy but Fichte exclaimed that monarchy was the very opposite of what the Germans needed to unify. Perhaps he too saw the repeated mistake the French made or making progress, then undoing it by reinstating a monarch. Instead he wanted to let natural borders reunify the German people.  Otherwise, the nation established would not hold up to the test of time.

Fichte emphasized that the intention of foreign countries was to manipulate unsuspecting Germans and turn them against one another for their own selfish benefit. However, it is difficult to believe that all the blame ought to be on the foreign countries. Maybe the foreigners did have selfish intentions, but they were more likely meant to benefit the foreigners less than to malign Germans. It just happened that Germans suffered from their gains. Also, Germans should have realized. Therefore, Germans were not as united as Fichte claimed in the first place. Were natural borders like language and common ways of thinking truly determinant of a people, Germans would not have been so susceptible.

Portraiture in History

Posted on by

When reading the History of Russia textbook, something caught my eye. In chapter fifteen, which discusses the history of Ivan the Terrible, there was an image on page 136. It was a portrait of Ivan the Terrible, and the caption is what specifically caught my attention. It simply stated “Ivan IV in a psychological portrait by Victor Vasnetsov, 1897”. I had no idea what a psychological portrait was, but after further research found that it was a portrait that depicted the inner man. That was extremely interesting to me.

Closer observation reveals that the Ivan depicted in this portrait was standing on a staircase, his posture quite regal, and his facial expression imposing, if not blatantly intimidating. His eyes have bags under them, and his beard is unkempt, showing strands of white. His clothing appears very ornate, and he is holding what appears to be a string of beads (maybe something like a rosary? I’m not sure if that is used in Russian Orthodoxy), along with a spear pointed downward that has very fine engraving etched into the handle. Everything about this portrait emphasizes the simultaneously regal, yet threatening nature of Ivan IV.

This portrait reminds me of work that I did in my Historical Methodology class last semester. Our class looked at a series of portraits of Benjamin Franklin, and noted how even the most seemingly minute details in fact conveyed a lot of information. We discussed the role of portraiture in the study of history, and how historians can learn a lot about the subjects depicted. After reading the chapter on Ivan the IV a lot of the details in the portrait make sense. As mentioned before, the eyes and unkempt beard were maybe purposefully done, with both of these perhaps indicating his exhaustion, and the psychological battles tormenting his mind. I am particularly interested by the spear facing downward however. Is it even a spear? And why would it be facing downward? In addition, why would Ivan the Terrible be holding what appears to be a rosary?

My theory is that the artist Victor Vasnetsov was subtlety conveying his own opinion about his subject. Perhaps this is more a sympathetic portrait of Ivan IV. The downward facing spear may have been depicted as such to show Ivan as not threatening or aggressive even. That, combined with the rosary type object (which could indicate Ivan’s religious beliefs) may have been used to make Ivan the Terrible, who has always been seen as a ruthless tyrant, more human. Looking more closely at his facial expression, the artist truly conveys not only the exhaustion, but also maybe sadness, grief for his wife’s death, and for what he believes is a betrayal by his most trusted advisors.

There is of course the obvious question of the validity of my claims. With portraiture, there is a very blurred line between what information can be derived from an image, and was constitutes as being too far of an inference to make. It is impossible to know if this portrait accurately paints the inner man of Ivan IV. After all, it was painted centuries after this infamous tsar lived. It is an interesting question to ponder though, how much reliance can be placed on the study of portraits in history?

 

Bismarck and Imperialism

Posted on by

The documents referring to German unification in the 20th century highlight the continual, consistent ideologies that prominent German diplomats maintained towards the struggle of unification for Germany throughout the 19th century. The mutual sentiments of these prominent diplomats advocated for the shifts towards unification with a willing and ambitions Prussia in order to solidify German nationality to restore the German imperial title under Wilhelm IV. Bismarck’s strong diplomatic influence was overpowered, however, when a council was held in his room, and it was decided, with the support of the Wilhelm IV, that Prussia should continue in its pursuit of imperialist endeavors. Bismarck had foreseen this, as he feared an large increase in Prussian power would shift Wilhelm IV’s original stance of unification peacefully as a proper long terms means for German stability to an imperial conquest.

Germany pre rev 1848

A map of Germany prior to the revolutions of 1848 displays the geographical mixture between Prussia and the German states and the overlap the Austrian Empire had with the German confederation.

Germany 1871

This map, however, shows the unification of Germany with Prussia after the Proclamation of 1871. Although the Austrian Empire held its original territory overlapping the German confederation, it was greatly weakened as a European chess piece relative to the new found power which lay in Prussia’s restoration of the German imperial title.

These shifts in power as a result of a century of calculated German diplomacy would have a monumental impact on the alliances between Prussia and the Austrian Empire into the 20th century.

 

Fichte, To the German Nation

Posted on by

I chose the first passage of Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s To the German Nation. He was a great patriot and believed that it was important that the German population embrace their culture. As a reformer and supporter of the French Revolution, he had nationalist ideals and strongly believed that language and history bind a country together.

In the second line he states, “Those who speak the same language are joined to each other by a multitude of invisible bonds by nature herself, long before any human art begins; they understand each other and have the power of continuing to make themselves understood more and more clearly; they belong together and are by nature one and an inseparable whole.” This relates to the topic of nationalism that we have been discussing in class. The people of a country are bound together by a common language, and although different dialects may emerge, they are still united by this factor. By saying “they belong together and are by nature one and an insuperable whole” reinforces the fact that although different groups, factions or regions of a population are created, in the end they all share the same history and background. Another line reads, “men dwell together-and, if their luck has so arranged it, are protected by rivers and mountains-because they were a people already by a law of nature which is much higher.” Every country has a history that is shared amongst its people. Even though they may go through different experiences, and at times may be divided, their common history and language unites them and allows men to overcome these differences.

Wilhelm, Bismarck, and Fichte on Austria

Posted on by

Fichte, Wilhelm and Bismark all had similar ideas regarding the unification of Germany; their ideas of why and how to do that varied, however. Fichte wrote about how Germany was divided by foreign imperialists who failed to see and value the unity of the German people under one state. He believed that the primary reason to seek German unification was to unify the German people, not to bolster the power of the German Empire or that of Prussia. He simply wanted to unify the German people. He wrote,“it is not because men dwell between certain mountains and rivers that they are a people, but, on the contrary, men dwell together-and, if their luck has so arranged it, are protected by rivers and mountains-because they were a people already by a law of nature which is much higher.” The German people had been divided and needed to be reunited according to a higher power.

Wilhelm had different reasoning for why he wanted to go to war with Austria and reunite Germany. He wanted to wage war in order to unite Austria with the German Empire, to the dismay of Bismarck. Wilhelm initially wanted to unite the German people under his crown by peaceful means: “And may God grant that We and our successors on the imperial throne may at all times increase the wealth of the German Empire, not by military conquests, but by the blessings and the gifts of peace, in the realm of national prosperity, liberty, and morality.” Once he began to gain power, however, he sought a less peaceful means to an end. The acquisition of land was not even the primary motive; Wilhelm and his generals primarily wanted Austria to submit to German hegemony. Bismarck feared “that the king and his advisors would be intoxicated by the brilliant victory over Austria and would wish to press on, and perhaps lose much in the end.”

Count Cavour and Nationality

Posted on by

In “The Program of Count Cavour” from 1846, around the beginnings of the Italian Unification, Count Cavour expresses that “no people can attain a high degree of intelligence and morality unless its feeling of nationality is strongly developed. This noteworthy fact is an inevitable consequence of the laws that rule human nature”. As a powerful figure in the unification of Italy, Cavour makes purposefully strong statements such as these to fuel a sense of determination and obligation in the peoples of Italy. In order to prompt in his people a feeling of duty, Cavour subtly suggests that those who have not cultivated a sense of nationality will not achieve intelligence or morality. He insinuates that a sense of nationality and belonging has always been present in human nature, and that awareness of this sense of nationality has always been the key to reaching “a high degree of intelligence and morality”, or in other words, enlightenment. In this manner, Cavour cleverly encourages nationalism in Italians. In a way, he makes those lacking in nationalistic values out to be ignorant and unconscionable. Cavour chooses to tie morality to nationalism because one who is patriotic has a sense of loyalty to a greater population, rather than just himself. Therefore when someone thinks only of himself, and not of his country too, he has a lower standard of morality.

I definitely understand Cavour’s sentiments in relating intelligence and morality to nationalism, but it definitely is not true in many situations. Nations which employ immoral practices should not feel entitled to feelings of nationalism from its people, particularly if there are laws or policies that do not protect the welfare of its people. Sometimes the most intelligent and moral people are those who speak out against a nation, questioning certain practices and systems in place. A sense of nationalism can also be a detrimental thing for a nation’s people. Governments can convince and/or force its people to perform immoral, inhumane acts in the interests of the country. Nationalism may be the best thing for an individual country, but may hurt its people and affect other countries in a negative manner. Is Cavour right in saying that nationalism is tied to high levels of intelligence and morality? Is this relevant in any nations today? Was it only relevant at the time for Italy?

Day by Day Nationalism

Posted on by

“Nationalism has become general; it grows daily and it has already grown strong enough to keep all parts of Italy united despite the differences that distinguish them.”

-Count Cavour (Camillo Benso)

While this quote from Benso, who would become Prime Minister of Piedmont-Sardinia, applies to Italy it could be applied to many different countries in Europe at the time.  Nationalism is no longer a fad at this time, it is assumed now.  Unity is now a key word in the development of new countries.  Giuseppe Mazzini wrote “unity is a necessity in the world.”  As Count Cavour wrote unity has become strong in Italy but it is needed everywhere.  Unity comes with nationalism and the two words are very important together. Count Cavour touches on it briefly and the important part of his quote is that nationalism is continuing to grow.  It is growing on a daily basis, the people are becoming more unified.  Mazzini also wrote “The question of Nationalities, rightly understood, is the Alliance of Peoples”.  This quote is the basis for what Cavour is seeing put into action.  Cavour says nationalism has become general but he is thinking too general.  While he is looking just at Italy, many other places in Europe are becoming more unified.  This is not a separated occurrence in Italy, many people are taking Mazzini’s words to heart.  Count Cavour did not know it but his writing was a base point of what nationalism is.  Italy is just one of the many in Europe who were “unified despite the differences that distinguish them.”

Spirit of Unity

Posted on by

“It was not for a material interest that the people of Vienna fought in 1848; in weakening the empire they could only lose power.” -From Giuseppe Mazzini’s “On Nationality”

This quote, I believe, has the greatest influence in his argument for the unification of the various European states. He aims to inspire unification because it would give the people a greater sense of community by being able to call themselves “German” or “French”, to commonly identify with one another. It also demonstrates what lengths people will go to in order to officially conceive a country. “In weakening the empire they could only lose power.” So, then, why did they fight? They wanted a self-defined nationality, not one given at the discretion of some emperor. This logic applies to Mazzini’s theory. He knew that many states had much to gain if they fought to create a national identity. By sacrificing and  settling for a lower standard of living that comes with living in a revolutionary state, the population would ultimately benefit from having a nationality and a government that supported the preservation of the state. The alternative is driven by egotistical self-interest; a monarch or emperor’s ultimate goal is to keep what they have and to try to gain more by doing so. While they certainly wanted to give their subjects a decent standard of living, they still sought power for themselves. If a nation were established, the focus would become serving the people. This held true, at least, for the French. They wished to eliminate an oppressive nobility because their interests were self-serving, not for the good of the state. Upon eliminating the monarchy, the French were able to create a nation with a body of law drafted with the common man in mind and a government which did just what they set out to do: served, and continues to serve, the people.

Mazzini on Social Change

Posted on by

Writing in 1852, Mazzini served as a national figure, advocating for the nationalism of Italian democracy. He saw Europe not as a unified whole, but a fractured state full of violence and crises. For Mazzini, they key to peace was unity. In his eyes, Europe was taking two two forms: social and nationalities. “I say, which all have agreed to call social, because, generally speaking, every great revolution is so far social, that it cannot be accomplished either in the religious, political, or any other sphere, without affecting social relations […]” Mazzini notes that no tangible change can be made in society without, first, a social change. While other philosophers we’ve read have offered ideas of non-violent changes and revolutions, Mazzini insinuates a more palpable declaration of this notion. He states; “The question there is now, above all, to establish better relations between labour and capital, between production and consumption, between the workman and the employer.” Mazzini proposes social changes that will directly affect they way people live, cooperate with one another, and the ways in which society conducts itself. He offers social changes that would not only be felt on a national level, but also on an intimate and personal level.

Giuseppe Mazzini: On Nationality

Posted on by

Giuseppe Mazzini wrote about what the essential characteristics of nationality are and what that means. He reasoned that nationality is more than just common ideas, beliefs and history. “The question there is now, above all, to establish better relations between labour and capital, between production and consumption, between workman and the employer” (Mazzini, 1). He believes that labor is assigned by god for the people to share. It is this labor that gives man the rights he has as a member of society. If nationality is to work, it must be regarded as holy or scared by the people. The people have to see nationality as a task that needs to be worked on continuously, this way the philosophies of a country can grow progressively. To achieve this, the people have to be at the root of nationality, driving it and making it their mission to show this growth and beauty to nations surrounding. The people must embrace their evolution and must maintain their novelty even as they coincide  with the progress of mankind.

The idea that “the map of Europe has to be remade” and that the public law had to be changed was a big step toward getting a country together and making nationality a priority. The fact that nationality depends on its sacredness within and beyond its borders is still true today. What would a nation be if the people didn’t consider it sacrosanct?