Monthly Archives: February 2014

French Nationalism

Posted on by

Nationalism is a feeling of pride or patriotism to one’s country, it is the effort of an individual to attach their identity to their country. Nationalism was vital to the success of the French Revolution. Being united by history, a common language and customs made it possible for the French to stick together instead of tearing their nation apart. In Halsall’s introduction to Herder’s “Materials for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind”, he says that “people are not ‘naturally’ aware that they belong to a nation in the sense that they might be aware they belong to a family, clan, village, town, or locality.” A nation has larger boundaries and the people who belong to it will go to great lengths to not only define these boundaries but also to protect them. A nation’s physical boundaries are defined by agricultural landmarks, separating different groups of people by nature. Therefore, to define a nation, one has to establish a character belonging to that nation; a character preserved by its people through history. To Halsall, an important part of this character of a nation is language. He believes that a nation should be united by one language, and that to take that away would be begrudging the people “of its one eternal good”. To Halsall, language holds “tradition, history, religion, and basis of life, all its heart and soul”.

To Halsall, Nationalism is dependent on common language, traditions, and history. To him, it seems the past very much defines the future of a nation. What brings a people together and keeps them together is the stability of a nation’s “character”, and other cultures or languages hold a threat against this character. La Marseillaise calls for the “children” to rise up and protect the “fatherland”. This goes along with Halsall’s theory of a nation finding its identity and strength through their forefathers (or the founding fathers of their nation). The song goes on to say that the French need to unite against the “foreign cohorts” threatening their nation. This shows that they as a nation believe that foreigners taking over would ruin the nations character and thereby take away the identity they have attached to their nation. It is fitting that this became the marching song for the French troops because it reminded them why they were fighting- to protect the land as well as its traditions, language, and control of their interpretation of history that were so vital to its character.

Arguing against the notion that developing a national identity is natural

Posted on by

I would argue against von Herder’s statement that having a national identity is natural and rather for what he points out earlier: that man can find identity with family, and even villages. This is how people still live in many African “nations” and in Middle Eastern “states”. They would rather identify with their family and their village than a national government. In Nigeria, for example, only people who worked in a government agency during the transition period from England governing them to becoming a self-governing nation actually recognized the authority of the state. Most people aren’t concerned with national identity or politics in Nigeria. Rather, they only concern themselves with local affairs. Chinua Achebe, a social commentator on life in Nigeria, wrote a book called “No Longer at Ease” where the main character gets a job with the government in Lagos and must repay an overwhelming amount of debts to his family and his village who sent him to school in England to get an education. He begins to take bribes and ends up being caught and punished. He finds that he would rather support people who are close to him rather than abide by the laws of the nation. This example is meant to convey the point that developing a national identity is in fact not natural. This is not to say that government itself is unnatural, but rather that with a large collection of people, there are bound to be some who reject the idea of a national identity.

Familial Relations in post-Kievan Russia

Posted on by

Looking at The Second Testament of Moscow Grand Prince Dmitrii Donskoi allows the reader to gain a better understanding of the post-Kievan society. Specifically, one can learn through this primary source about the practice of “partible inheritance”. This term refers to the system of bequeathing one’s holdings among members of the next generation. While this certainly included the sons of Dimitrii, the prince’s wife, referred to as “my princess” throughout the text, would receive considerable rights in this will. Dmitrii Donskoi was a post-Kievan era prince who ruled from 1359 until his death in 1389. Now a Saint in the Russian Orthodox Church, Dimitrii was a hero of the early Muscovite history. His reign was significant; he was credited with forcing the Mongol army into a draw, and subsequently promising the eventual defeat of these peoples. In his last will and testament, Dimitrii divides his holdings among all his children, and gives specific consideration to his wife throughout the document.

What I found to be the most intriguing aspect of this primary source was how one could derive from the source certain family values that were beginning to develop during this age. For example, there are many references to the prince’s widow (the princess) throughout the piece. The prince notes countless times where his wife receives a share along with all of their sons. In addition, he emphasizes the importance of respecting and obeying their mother, saying “And I have committed my children to my princess. And you, my children, heed your mother in all things, and do not go against her will in anything. And if any of my sons does not heed his mother and goes against her will, my blessing shall not be upon him” (90). This line could imply that within the family unit, there was a hierarchy, with both parents demanding respect from their children. The fact that the sons were expected to not only take notice of their mother’s wishes, but also not go against her implies perhaps that mothers were held in high regard and respected. I found this to be intriguing, because in other cultures, women and mothers were simply seen through their role of childbearing, with little else to offer of importance. I found it interesting that the princess was not only guaranteed rights through this document, but was also ensured respect by her children.

Nationalism and the Frenc

Posted on by

Nationalism major part of the French Revolution, which itself was the creation of a new French nation.  In the introduction to Johann Gottfried von Herder’s “Materials for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind” Paul Halsall wrote “People are not naturally aware that they belong to a nation”.  The French Revolution went a long way in establishing the idea of French nationalism.  An important factor of that was the poem “La Marseillaise” which later became the national anthem of France.  The entire poem is about defending the “fatherland” from “foreign cohorts”.  The French Revolution went a long way in creating a new French national identity.

The nationalists in France worked very hard to keep their vision alive.  They define what Halsall described as “In almost every case nationalists envision much broader boundaries, and have gone to considerable trouble to construct and defend these boundaries with particular interpretations of history.”  The French went to a lot of trouble during their revolution, a time that featured many executions in order to maintain control.  They also had very different views of their place then the nobles or clergy did.  The Third Estate believed that their Supreme Being did not give them their tyrants but it was their job to rid the country of them.  The French Third Estate spared no expense when it came to enforcing the new, national way of living.  They created an entire new society to fit with the new ideas of France.  From creating a new calendar to editing playing cards and chess the French definitely went to “considerable trouble” to maintain their beliefs.

 

von Herder: Materials for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind

Posted on by

In his “Materials for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind,” von Herder writes about the importance of cultural nationalism and the value of local culture. A German scholar, he believes that the people of Germany are brought together by their shared language and customs, and that these attributes make the nation unique to other countries. He compares a nation-body to that of a family and believes that the two are inherently the same because they are both natural. Von Herder also believes that nature creates families and the most natural state is a group or body of people who share a national character and come together as one. He also deplores the concept of a the expansion of states that create a “a wild confusion of races and nations under one scepter.” He states, “An empire made up of a hundred peoples and 120 provinces which have been forced together is a monstrosity, not a state-body.” Von Herder emphasizes the importance of a shared cultural tradition. “Has a people anything dearer than the speech of its fathers? In its speech resides its whole thought-domain, its tradition, history, religion, and basis of life, all its heart and soul. To deprive a people of its speech is to deprive it of its one eternal good…” Von Herder believes in the idea of a community of people united together through their shared practices, values, common language, and history.

It is apparent the von Herder relies on language as a source of German community, but also as a key aspect of the nation’s culture, tradition, and history. He states, “The best culture of a people cannot be expressed through a foreign language; it thrives on the soil of a nation most beautifully, and, I may say, it thrives only by means of the nation’s inherited and inheritable dialect.” Here, von Herder is implying that the best culture of people cannot lack a traditional and historical common language, which would mean that the inclusion of any foreign or external language would be a threat to this cultural well-being. He has also explicitly states that the best culture thrives only by the means of ancestral dialect.

If we take the United States, for example, which has been infused with a plethora of languages and cultures and has even been dubbed as a cultural “melting-pot,” I would presume that von Herder would consider this a nation lacking what he would consider a “national character.” Do you agree?

Violence in the History of Childhood

Posted on by

When considering the “modern model” of childhood according to Peter N. Stearns, there are many different images that come to mind. However, violence is typically not one of them. Nevertheless, exposure to violence has been a major part of the history of childhood, especially recently. Since the 1970’s, over 150 million children have been killed in various types of war. With these types of numbers, it is clear that violence has played a major part in defining the modern model, and vice versa.

With so much focus on the Western progress and evolution of childhood, many people seem to ignore the lives of African children sold into slavery. Having been separated from their families and exposed to brutal treatment and racism, there is no doubt that slave children suffered both physically and psychologically. It appears though, that much research remains to be done in this area. While Stearns mentions childhood slaves and the new forms of child labor that developed from it, he does not go into any detail regarding the effects it had on slaves in the future. In what ways did slavery effect the minds of children? Did slaves have different standards of childhood for themselves? Another interesting aspect would be how whites viewed slave children. How did their view of childhood differ in regards to slaves? It is clear that Europeans had believed violent punishment of children to be wrong, as seen in their opposition to the Aztecs. However, did this same reasoning apply to African American slaves in the U.S. colonies?

Later in the book, Stearns goes into great detail describing the types of violence and discipline that children have recently experienced. As mentioned earlier, surprisingly high numbers of children have been negatively effected by wars and displacements. What is interesting though, is how the modern model of childhood is used within this realm. The belief that children are innocent and should not be exposed to this type of violence, has been the rhetoric used for new global standards and justifying international interference. However, it has also been the rhetoric used by those under attack, such as Japan in WWII. As Stearns notes, the natural impulse of those under attack is to “highlight pictures of dead or injured children.” Therefore, it is fair to conclude that the topic of children is almost unavoidable in discussions about violence. As Stearns admits, this exposure to violence has divided childhoods into two very different kinds of experiences with “intermediate conditions between the two extremes.” If this is indeed true, then can a true global history of childhood really exist? And if so, what more can be done to focus on this important yet wide spectrum without making sweeping generalizations?

The Widow’s Prize

Posted on by

This reading focused on how the Mongol Invasion greatly influenced Rus’ politics and culture. As a result of this influence, The First Treaty of Novgorod was created. This treaty created more communication between the princes of the various provinces. This created a stronger alliance between the provinces; however the treaty seemed to be directed more to the citizens then the government. This is evident based on the new laws that were created by the treaty. Another significant part of the reading was Dmitrii Donskoi’s last will and testament. What was truly significant about this will was the recognition he gave to his wife. She was given a significant amount of power for a woman of that era. She was in charge of distributing the land between the sons. The rest of the will described what son would get what bit of land, and even included any future sons.

This was a very interesting reading, what made so remarkable was the last will and testament of Dmitrii, was his devout understanding of God. “And if, because of my sins, God takes away one of my sons…(Reinterpreting Russian History, pg 89)”. The strength of his faith and the fact that he would blame himself rather than God for the potential death of a son gives Dmitrii a much more martyred appearance. It is even more interesting to note that his wife gained distributing control of his property and possessions. Women during the Middle Ages, especially in Western Europe, had very little privileges and had a lot of social restrictions. Dmitrii seemed to think far more into the future than most ‘civilized’ Western Europeans at the time; he even had written in his will that his children should obey their mother.

I have two major questions on this reading. 1) How did the Orthodox Church feel about this Last Will and Testament? And 2) Was this the way most widows were treated, and if not was this simply because she was a part of the nobility?

State-Building in Post-Kievan Rus’

Posted on by

These readings illustrate the diverging types of states that developed after the fall of Kiev, and geography is a main factor in the separation of different governments.  Novgorod and the north attempted to establish restrictions to princely power and set up a system of elections and assemblies to limit the influence of the elites.  In the southwest, the elites had more power than the prince, who was subject to the will of the boyars.  Finally, in Moscow and the northeast, princely power grew and became more entrenched as land rights were transformed into personal property.  These documents demonstrate the way in which each area was reevaluating their relationship with the state, and this was responsible for bringing about new requirements for good rulers that protected the new form of government.

On thing that stood out in all three readings was the relationship of Christianity to the state.  In the Treaty of Novgorod, the document protecting property rights had to be sealed with a kiss to the cross so that the prince would be held accountable to God if he broke the treaty.  In the Galician Chronicle, the underlying message was that good rulers are Christian because God favored the devout and helped them to achieve their status.  Finally, in the will of Dmitrii Donskoi, he condemned any that violated the testament to be judged and punished by God.  Because Christianity had already spread throughout Rus by the time of the fall of Kiev, it seems that it played a much larger role in the state than it had at the beginning of the Kievan state.  Whereas princely law and church law were once separate, now we seem them becoming combined.  The separation between church and state jurisdiction is now blurred as things once under state jurisdiction, like private property, are now answerable to God.

Posted on by

The reading for today discussed the lives of the princes of Rus during the twelfth and later century’s. During this time there were  Rus was divided up into several different principalities each with their own prince and a different form of government. Some of the princes had nearly autonomous rule and were able to do as they wished. For example in Northeast Rus prince Dmirii was able to will his land to whomever he wished after his death without having to put in any considerations for other state powers. That being said he divided the land up to such a extent that there was most likely some turmoil after his death. On the other hand his neighbor in Northwest Rus had to deal with a completely different situation when they were made to swear to “The First Treaty of Novgorod”. This was the second major text in our reading. It consisted of a list of 23 major things that the prince could and could not do. The text gives the impression that prince Iaroslav was under house arrest

For me the most perplexing part of this reading was “The Second Testament of Moscow Grand Prince Dmitrii Donskoi”.In it he lays out his last will and testament in case he dies. The interesting part of this text besides the fact that it is a several thousand year old will is his use of the word “Princess”. In the text he leaves most of the land and gold to his suns or “Princes”and he often tells the princes that they must obey their “Mothers” or else loose their inheritance. But he also leaves a significant amount of wealth to “Princess”. I have understood the word to mean his wives or the mothers of the princes. But he never once mentions a actual wife all he ever says is Princess. This may be linked to the fact that he himself is named as Prince Dmitrii making his wives princess.

As my questions i have three. How much power over their male children did princess and women in general have? Why was the Treaty of Novgorod so focused on the prince not being allowed to give away land? How meany honey farms did the prince control?

A republic in Novgorod?

Posted on by
Today’s reading featured tales of Rus’ Princes following the Mongol invasion of Rus. While none of the piece treats with the consequences of the arrival of the Mongols into Rus’ land its influence on the society is deeply reflected throughout each source. For instance, the common theme in the first 2 pieces is that the ruler had difficulties keeping his power intact. In the first case, the case of Iaroslav Iaroslavovich, the first treaty of Novgorod shows that the prince of Novgorod – though he was not overthrown – had to give away most of his power to the population of Novgorod and the Church (at least this is what the very first article seems to hint).  The Second Piece was regarding the southern part of Rus’ right after the Mongol invasion, in this Chronicle, we see a prince who is betrayal from close boyars. Though Danilo, in the end, manages to survive, the end of the chronicle seems to imply that he no longer controlled the land.
The aspect of the reading that surprised me the most was of course the Treaty of Novgorod. It is already surprising to hear about anything anywhere regarding republicanism or democracy around that time period (Monthy Python even made it an anachronistic joke), but it is even more surprising to hear about it in Russia out of all places! But anyway, before I digress deeper into Russian stereotypes, I would like to point out one article that, did not necessarily surprised me but that I was still not expecting to see, article 4. In this article the people are telling the Prince that he should not take a person’s land without justification. The fact that such notion appear in the text is not surprising, since back then land meant “only source of income”, but what I find of interest is that (1) it appears so early in Russian history and (2) this is the 4th article, which I assume means it was of high importance. It makes me wonder if this could mean that throughout Russian culture holding land has been very important.
This leads me to my questions: Is the treaty of Novgorod of any significance in Russian History (by that I mean was this influential throughout the rest of history)? And if the answer is yes, why were his ideas absent in the future, and I especially mean after 1917?