Monthly Archives: January 2015

Nikolai II: Two Little Too Late

Posted on by

The document detailing Nikolai’s abdication in 1917 shows to readers that the tsar either possessed a very poor grasp on reality or that he couldn’t bear to really tell the Russian people why he chose to abdicate. In the opening of his abdication, Nikolai remarks that ‘it pleased god to send Russia a further painful trial’ (( http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.k.harrington/abdicatn.htm l)). This frame of thinking completely neglects the real reason Nikolai abdicated–namely that his subjects felt angry and didn’t see him as a fit tsar if he couldn’t (and wouldn’t) change with the times and create liberal-minded policies to appease the general public.

That being said, it’s important to look at his family history in order to fully understand why he chose to be a reactionary monarch, rather than a proactive and forward-thinking one. Members of the Narodnaya Volya assassinated Nikolai II’s grandfather, Alexander II, a great reformer. Nikolai II’s father, Alexander III, adopted reactive tendencies upon ascending to the throne, presumably in response to his father’s violent death.

While there’s a chance that Nikolai didn’t know precisely why he failed as a tsar, it seems unlikely that he would know so little about the feelings of Russians in the time. Rather, did he want to change and make reforms, but felt too afraid to actually follow through with them in the end? Did his grandfather’s death, the death of a reforming tsar, frighten him into not providing the Russian people with the reforms and privileges they so desperately wanted?

Why Nicholas II was the last autocratic ruler

Posted on by

Tzar Nicholas II was the last Russian Tzar for a reason. Of all the monarchs before him, like Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, and Alexander II, also known as “Alexander The Liberator”, Nicholas II does not rank amongst them. His reign was the last monarchy because of his failed militaristic ambitions as well as his disregard to satisfy the citizen’s demand for change. During the time of his reign, the Russian army was butchered in two significant wars. The first being, the Russo-Japanese War which should have been an easy victory, instead during into a ugly debacle and a loss of military technology. The second war being, World War II, an even costlier war but in the most indispensable currency; human life. However, his military blunders were just embarrassments. The spark that started the revolutionary fire was his myopic and selfish hold on power. He was a foolish ruler to assume that during his time, his citizens would still be subordinate to his unsovereign reign, when in countries all around Russia had adopted democracy. Nicholas II saw democracy in action, and so did many others; and for the rest who couldn’t travel outside of the nation, the Avant-Garde Movement was enough to vicariously experience what social change could bring about. Nicholas II, in a rather false gesture to the public, appointed a Duma in response to the overwhelming unhappiness, but as it consisted of only like-minded individuals who were content as the small percentage of land-owning individuals, there was no representation of the majority. Had Nicholas II shown a fraction more compassion for the majority, even by appointing a real and representative Duma, the revolution of 1917 could have been avoided. However, if the last Tzar had any sort of compassion whatsoever, his rule could have been much different. Instead, he chose myopic self-interest for the people only in the highest class, which is his tragic flaw, for it is not the highest class that needs strong leadership; they will be just fine with or without it, rather it is the lowest class that needs strong and representative leadership, because they are the majority, and more importantly, unhappy.

Abdication of Nicholas II

Posted on by

A close analysis of primary texts is often helpful in understanding particular political and personal perspectives. Certain phrases and word choice in Czar Nicholas II’s official abdication highlight tensions present in 1917. Nicholas II chose phrases such as “sons of Russia” and “sons of our native land” to emphasize the folk and political ideology of the Czar as a fatherly figure to his citizens. This relationship, whether personal or political, requires a commitment of respect and obedience, since honoring one’s fathers and mothers was a significant and important cultural and religious value in Imperial Russia. This sentiment is further reflected when Nicholas II wrote “we call upon all faithful sons of our native land to fulfill their sacred and patriotic duty of obeying the Tsar.” The Czar’s paternalistic rhetoric contrasts sharply with the Revolution’s community-oriented rhetoric, which used words such as “brotherhood” and “comrade.” This shows that the values and ideology driving the Revolution were founded in a sense of equality and community.The parent-child ideology perpetuated by the Czar comes with a sense of unequal power – an antithetical position to his opposition.

However, Nicholas II’s word choice also exhibits Revolutionary values and it is with this that the Czar implored Russian citizens to “conduct the Russian State in the way of prosperity and glory.” He also used words such as “foreign enemy” to illustrate the severity of a Revolution in the midst of an international crisis and the need for unification against it. The Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich also took up Revolution rhetoric when he claimed that he was “animated by the same feelings as the entire nation – namely, that the welfare of the country overshadows all other interests.” He called for elections to determine whether the monarchy should continue, an act that shows his respect for the values of his opposition.

The French Revolution and its Impacts

Posted on by

Throughout class this week, we have looked the French Revolution and how the revolution shaped French culture and politics.  Yet before looking at how the revolution shaped this new France, one must understand the reasons why people started to believe in the revolution in the first place.  One of these reasons was Maximilien Robespierre, author of The Cult of the Supreme Being.  In this piece, Robespierre justifies the revolution for he claims that the Supreme Being “did not create kings to devour the human race” (Robespierre 1), which was what the Crown was doing to the native French people.  Furthermore, Robespierre claims, “O generous People, would you triumph over all your enemies? Practice justice, and render the Divinity the only worship worthy of Him,” (Robespierre 1) and “Frenchmen, you war against kings; you are therefore worthy to honor Divinity,” (Robespierre 1).  Here, Robespierre is trying to fire up the native peoples and explain to them that the Supreme Being would want them to overthrow the King, for if they did they would be found “worthy to honor divinity.”  Lastly, Robespierre does a tremendous job because he is purposefully ambiguous by never mentioning God; for he appeals to both believers (for they think the Supreme being is God) and atheists (for he claims that all people are meant to help one another).  By appealing to both believers and non-believers, Robespierre is able to unite the people of France through his work, firing everyone up about fighting back against the Crown.

Once the revolution was under way, the French experienced many changes involving their culture and politics.  In order to change their culture, frenchmen and women deemed it necessary to eliminate their past and start over.  In order to eliminate their past, one can argue that they took extreme measures.  For instance, children would not be named Louis, Henry or Francis, for those represented old France and the evil rule known as the Crown (this can be seen as both cultural and political change).  Continuing this pattern, the French eliminated bishops, kings and queens as chess pieces and playing cards; for it brought them back to the Crown and their rule.  Furthermore, the French changed their salutations all together and vowed to never say the words, “obedient and humble servant,” for the believed that they were not subject to the King and his rule anymore.  While these actions may be considered somewhat radical of the French, it was deemed necessary for the fact that they have lived under the Crown for so long and this was a way in which they could start over, forgetting about their troubled past with the Crown.

How the political and cultural revolution worked together in France

Posted on by

Before the French Revolution, there was a separation of power in France based on the way the country segmented their society. The society was split into three groups: the clergy, the nobility and the third estate. The leaders of the French Revolution sought to alter the power and create their own culture to overthrow the monarchy run under Louis XVI and establish an entirely new society.

In Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes’ What is the Third Estate? he argues that the Third Estate of France was entitled to more respect and power than they were currently given, being that the Third Estate makes up the majority, “nineteen-twentieths”, of France (Blaisdell 72). Sieyes motivates his people in the text by challenging them to rise up against the limitations placed on the third estate, as it “contains everything that pertains to the nation” (Blaisdell 74). Sieyes pushes this revolution on the grounds that a monarchy isn’t necessary for the people of France to operate and that they would live in a better society if they were to overthrow the monarchy.

In order to unite the people of France, culturally speaking, Maximilian Robespierre wrote The Cult of Supreme Being, advocating for the revolution under religious grounds. He advocated against the catholic church because many of the followers perceived the church as a way of repression and subjugation by the monarchy. Robespierre incorporates many atheistic views, under the concept of reason in his new religious system. Under this system there are many religious views of deism, where there was belief in a god, but a god that didn’t intercede with the plans of the people of the Third Estate. He also argues that humanity was designed to exist in harmony but the tyrants in power have polluted the system of power in France by oppressing its people. Without the writings and leadership of Robespierre, the French Revolution may not have been possible.

The French Revolution’s success can be attributed to the combination of the political and cultural revolution that occurred before it. Without revolutionary writers and leaders like Robespierre and Sieyes, motivating the majority of the Third Estate wouldn’t have been possible and the shift towards a more enlightened society would never have became a reality.

Questions to consider:

Do you think the French Revolution would’ve been possible without the combination of the  political and cultural revolution?

Are there any power shifts (clergy, nobility, third estate) throughout world history similar to the one caused by the French Revolution?

 

Moving away from Absolutism

Posted on by

France endured centuries of Absolute Monarchs that spent much of their kingdom’s wealth on lavish buildings, monuments, and other signs of status, while the common people, known as the third estate, remained poor, hungry and devoid of power.  Though the third estate lacked power through the traditional estate system, as the clergy and nobility could overrule their political ambitions, it consisted of 96% of the French population.  Because it held the overwhelming majority of the population, members of the third estate believed that they should hold more power over France’s decisions.  Thus power was subsequently moved away from absolute rulers, nobility, and clergy and towards the third estate.

One of the most profound demonstrations of this shift was the change from the state following Catholicism to supporting more general Deist practices.  Revolutionaries saw the clergy as a corrupt entity created to justify a Monarch as well as being a way to neutralize the common man’s power in the estate system.  Therefore, revolutionaries aimed to reduce its power by shifting France’s religion to Deism.  This meant that the clergy and nobility would have less power over the third estate.  Likewise, it meant that the third estate now had control over their own religious preferences and would not have to pay to the church.

Another shift away from the past Absolutist ways of France was the general condemnation of royalty.  Children were prohibited from receiving names of past kings such as Louis, Francis, or Henry.  Kings and queens where removed from games such as chess and cards.  The general attitude of disapproval of royalty was promoted by members of the third estate as they realized their power as their society’s majority.

France underwent a shift away from absolutism towards democracy.  Much of the government supported by the revolutionaries had roots to the Greek concepts of equality and free thought.  These ideas mixed with the third estate’s desire to have political input and led France in its modernization and ultimately its rejection of Absolutist practices.

Heads Would Roll, But That Wasn’t Enough

Posted on by

Just as Louis XIV  created symbols of his power as the absolute ruler of France, such as the palace of Versailles and even himself (he was the “Sun King” and claimed that he was the state/the state was him), so did the leaders of the French Revolution create their own symbols and culture in order to aid their overthrow of the monarchy and subsequent attempts to create a whole  new society.

In a pamphlet entitled What is the Third Estate?, Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès wrote that the Third Estate was “everything.” He argued that because the Third Estate made up the vast majority of France’s people (about 96%), and because it was the only segment of the Estates-General that contributed to the maintenance and betterment of the state, that it therefore was the state. Here, Sieyès made the opposite claim as Louis XIV, but he makes his claim for the same reason: to show where the power of France should lay. Instead of making the king the symbol of France, Sieyès made the common people the symbol of the nation. This trend continued in some of the artwork of the revolutionary period, as common people were shown dressed in fine clothing and in improved health but also performing tasks that would be useful to both themselves and the greater good of the state.

When Maximilien Robespierre wrote about the Supreme Being, he did so not out of religious fervor (although that could have played a role) but because the revolutionaries needed another way to unite the diverse peoples of France. Robespierre asserted that the French Revolution would be supported by the Supreme Being, as He created man to seek liberty and punish tyrants. Robespierre cleverly wrote about the Supreme Being in a Deist manner that would allow both Catholics and people of a more agnostic/atheist persuasion to relate to Robespierre’s argument, and his version of the Supreme Being also enabled him to maintain the Enlightenment ideal of Reason without completely trampling religion into the dirt.

Fashion during the revolutionary period also took on an Enlightenment spin, as dressing in clothes inspired by ancient Greece became a trend. The French thought of the people of ancient Greece as great thinkers and writers, so they sought to emulate this society that placed a value on reason that they saw as being like France’s. Additionally, the first known democracy occurred in ancient Greece, and while France by no means became the paragon of democracy at that point, people of a revolutionary mindset wanted to invoke the Greeks as an example of a nation that placed a high value on liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Chopping off some elaborately coiffed heads could not transform France alone; alongside the political actions and ramifications of the revolution, revolutionary leaders changed the symbols and culture of France in order to unite the Third Estate in rejection of the old order.

Questions for your consideration:

How does Robespierre’s treatment of religion compare to or differ from that of other revolutionary leaders (such as those in the American Revolution or the Communist revolution in Russia)?

In what other ways did the revolutionaries of France use symbols to their advantage? What kinds of symbols do we and/or our leaders use in the U.S. today?

Do you agree that the political revolution in France would not have been possible had it not been accompanied by a cultural one as well?

 

 

 

History and Analysis

Posted on by

It is both fascinating and disappointing to learn that many find the liberal arts History degree of study to be of no importance and have next to no value outside of a classroom setting.  It is sad because these ill informed individuals do not see the bigger picture as to why historian scholars and students take such an active interest in the field of the “what has been”: to be able to analyze an event and place it in a larger significant story of the past.  From this practice, historians are able to craft a thesis based on evidence of past historical events and explain the effect that this particular occurrence has on a separate but related happening.  Is this not how the human race lives from day to day?  Is it not in all of our natures to identify what sequence of events led to our current situations?  That is history: to be able to identify patterns of past decisions which in turn will influence future decisions.  Being a student of history (as we all are) equates to a lifetime of detailed analysis and evidence backed argument, anything less than that is no more than a fallacy.

The value of learning the historical method of research and appreciation is unfortunately not recognized by many in the workforce as it is not a “technical skill” or a STEM based field of study. Not that these fields are not important (they are in fact essential to a modern society), but they lack a major element that is present with that of a historian: detailed analysis and thesis creation from understanding a recorded human event.  At the same time however, these recorded events must be looked at from an unbiased perspective as accounts from multiple fields of view must be considered.  That is the value of seeing through the eyes of a historian, having the ability to not only interpret and understand a historical claim, but to be able to challenge that claim.

La Marseillaise and The Cult of the Supreme Being

Posted on by

When reading “La Marseillaise”, the French national anthem, I found it surprising that Rouget, who composed this anthem himself, refused to take the oath (Halsall,1997). The main focus of this anthem was to rise the people during the French revolution, the goal was to also convince them to stand up for what they believed in. It is to gather the people to go against their tyrant who is unjust. This is stated in the line “shall hateful tyrants, mischief breeding (Rouget,1792)”. This song was to inspire the army to continue on in triumph. This song explains the argument that they can either live in misery or stand up against those repressing them and state their beliefs. This document is a religious document.

In the Cult of the Supreme Being, a similar idea is stated. Robespierre (1758-94), was a leader during one of the most radical, violent stages in the revolution (Halsall, 1997). I thought it was interesting how Halsall pointed out that although this is the period of the reign of terror, it was also a time period where the government had a great deal of control. The people have seen torture, violence and have watched the king demolish a great deal of the human race. This is a time period where the people are in need of peace. Rather than uprising the people as the anthem “La marseillaise” did, it is directed towards the army. This statement is drastically against the idea of having a king, and states the negative affects of all kings rulings.

La Marseillaise and The Cult of the Supreme Being

Posted on by

In The Cult of Supreme Being, Robespierre focused intensely on the correlation between God and revolution. Robespierre’s focus on God discredited the divine right claimed by the French monarchs. While absolutists claimed their title to the throne was granted to the by God, Robespierre claimed the opposite, stating that God did not create kings to “devour the human race.” He did not support many enlightened thinkers of the era,who wished to distance the goals of the revolution from Christianity. Rather, Robespierre legitimizes the revolutionary cause by claiming that God supported freedom and the revolution.

La Marseillaise, on the other hand, has some major differences than The Cult of the Supreme Being. For one, it is not a religiously based document, and it is also a direct call to arms. Robespierre’s document is a religious justification of the revolution, while La Marseillaise implores direct action to be taken. Translated to English, the song cries of revolution, demanding fields to be watered with blood, and that the revolutionaries demand liberty or death. These documents are key revolutionary pieces, although they have different motives. One document is a justification of war, while the other demands action to be taken against the monarchy.