Summary Post #2

Ok, ok, ok. So during the entirety of this week and last week for that matter, we have been looking at Europe during the 1800's. Right? When I sat down to study for the test a couple nights ago, I realized that this period in time was IMMENSELY CHAOTIC with lots of revolts, changes in authority, independence, revoked independence, unification, etc... Nationalism proved to be an 'ism' that can conform and mold to any other group of people that care to use it- that means liberals, conservatives, and socialists all used nationalism for their own needs. We've learned in class numerous times that before 1848- bottom up nationalism was used and after 1848- top down nationalism was used because conservatives began to take charge. There was also a big shift in the balance of power due to the unification of both Italy (under Cavour) and Germany (under Bismarck), and because of the "emergence of the United States as a major power" (780). The Crimean War, in my opinion, provided a needed shock to Russia since their giant inflated head had grown a little too large- and this war dealt a blow to Russia since their influence in the Balkans was 'drastically curbed' (776). The war was also important because Austria lost the support of Russia (therefore both Russia and Austria were weakened,which made it easier for Bismarck in the 1860's), Romania was formed from Moldavia and Walachia, new innovations in warfare were used, this was also the first war that was covered by photojournalists- which made it the most public war to date, and finally after this war- serfdom was abolished in Russia (which had a very similiar affect to the Enclosure Acts in Britain). 

We mustn't forget art! Romanticism with its emotions, nature, uniqueness, cult-ness, eroticism, exoticism, nostalgia for the way things were, macabre, rebellion against conformity, and individual-ness. I realize that that list is a bit strange, but those are the words that come to mind when I think of romanticism. Then came realism which "signaled a strict rejection of artistic conventions and read-made formulas in favor of what artists saw as more honest, objective, and authentic representations of the world" (778). Realism was all about the 'empirical reality' where artists focused more on the empirical facts instead of the imagination and emotions (like Romanticism) (778). 

Overall, this period showed us that Europe was not a stable place around 1870ish with the "Eastern Question" still not yet answered, a change in the balance of power in Europe, and nationalism still a strong tool to be used!! What will happen next??

Italian Unification (758-762)

So in class, we've talked a lot about nationalism- both bottom-up and top-down. I've mentioned in a previous blog post, that to be truly successful- a ruler needs to use a little of both strategies. In Italy we have a prime example of two contrasting leaders (Mazzini, whose ideas are taken up by Garibaldi, and Cavour) using two contrasting approaches. Garibaldi was focused on achieving national unification through a popular movement started by the people. Therefore Garibaldi stood for unification from below, whereas in the kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia, "Victor Emmanuel II brought a man into his government who would embody the conservative vision of nationhood: the shrewd Sardinian nobleman Count Camillo Benso di Cavour" (758). Cavour worked from the top down, which meant he tried to promote economic expansion, construction of modern transportation infrastructure, improve international relations, and he based his plan of unification on diplomacy (meaning he strove to create strong alliances). This attempt to create strong alliances is clearly shown in the Crimean War when Piedmont-Sardinia joins the fight with Britain, France, and the Ottomans to fight against the Russians because Piedmont-Sardinia wants to solidify those alliances. Cavour worked on consolidating the northern and central states, and he even worked on the southern states where a peasant revolt was spreading. This peasant revolt obviously fueled Garibaldi and his volunteer fights called "The Thousand" (762). Garibaldi appears to be seen as almost a hero among the people since he appeared to want what was best for them- and took the approach of 'let's do this ourselves and not wait for the government to unify us!' 

Since Garibaldi was so popular, he was put on a "collision course with Cavour" (762). Cavour ended up forcing Garibaldi to give up his military power by dispatching Victor Emmanuel and his army to Rome. After that, most of Italy was united under one single power, showing that top-down nationalism worked in this situation. Of course, even though Italy was a state, "nation building was hardly over" due to the "regional differences and social tensions" (762). 

A good quote from the book is "we have made Italy; now we must make Italians" (762). Too true, too true...

The Search For A Balance of Power (767-781)

I am a libra and therefore my sign is a scale. Balance and equilibrium are key. In Europe this has been true since practically the dawn of time, or at least as soon as real nations and alliances started being formed. With the rise and fall of influential powers (such as the Ottomans) in Europe, a balance is constantly being sought after. We remember the partitions of Poland or the Congress of Vienna, right? Both were fueled primarily by the goal of trying to maintain a balance of power in Europe. Russia has always been a big expansive heterogeneous empire that was by no means one nation. Russia was smart and definitely very pragmatic during the 19th century while they expanded into new territories because "the Russian state did not try to assimilate the populations of the new territories" (770). 

When the German Empire rose in power and the Ottoman empire began to wane- this "Eastern Question" came into the foreground. Who would benefit from the Ottoman's current state of weakness? As it turns out- Russia, France, and later on, Britain, all had their own interest in answering this "Question." Russia was the first to act when they moved into the  Ottoman-governed territories of Moldavia and Walachia. However, Turkey was obviously not happy with this decision and when Turkey decided to fight back against Russia and started losing- both France and Britain decided to declare war against Russia in order to prevent Russia from growing too big and upsetting the balance. Of course, Russia denied the Ottomans, the French, and the British a clear-cut victory and instead they all signed a treaty in 1856. The Russians and the British were harshly criticized by their people for the poorly managed war, whereas the French and Sardinians were congratulated for their bravery and national fervor. Did the allies actually help maintain this balance of power? Sort of. The Russians lost a lot of influence in the Balkans- but the "Eastern Question" of who would gain from the Ottoman's weakened state had still not been answered.  When would it be answered? Hmm....that's the real question. For how long would this 'temporary/unstable' balance of power remain before everything crumbled? 

Summary Post

For me, a big topic this week has been nationalism. The questions that keep floating around in my mind are- what is a nation? Is the USA a nation? What is the role of nationalism? Which is better- bottom up or top down? Nationalism can be embraced by the liberals, the conservatives, and even the socialists (Marx) but what is key is that nationalist movements only seem to succeed if the ruling regime is sensible enough to use a mixture of bottom up and top down nationalism (for example- the Italians and Bismarck). 

Another key point that was made in class was that as you move eastward, there are greater numbers of different kinds of people and ethnicities and therefore nationalism plays a bigger role in the revolutions. I've also learned this week that nationalism both hindered and fueled the revolutions of 1848. Nationalism helped unify groups of people that identified themselves as "German" or "Italian," but as you moved eastward and the ethnicities began to become a tangled web, nationalism actually broke apart people from these different ethnicities that were living in the same nation. 

Another key point from this week made about Marxism was that even though workers and middle class might start off together- when push comes to shove, worker's only friends are other workers. This concept ties into nationalism in the sense that the people make the nation or the workers are the nation themselves. As long as everyone agrees we are a nation- then we are a nation. As long as we have common ideals shared by all- then we are a nation. As long as we have shared legal, educational, and political institutions- then we are a nation. A lot of the process of figuring out if we are a nation is subjective. 

To be perfectly honest, I'm still quite confused on the chronology of the July Revolution, June Days, and overall, the year of 1848. 

Bismarck, i.e. Machiavelli (762-767)

Throughout this whole week, we've been talking about nationalism and when I read this section I found it quite ironic that the man that was able to unify Germany, was in reality, "not a nationalist" (763). Otto von Bismarck was named minister-president of Prussia in 1862 by King Frederick William. Bismarck was a pragmatic, conservative, Prussian man who didn't try to bring other German states under Prussian domination "in pursuit of a grand German design but because he believed that union in some form was inevitable and that Prussia had to seize the initiative" (763). The main thought that I had while reading about Bismarck, was just how much he reminded me of Machiavelli. Bismarck was a lion in the sense that he lead the Prussians to war against Austria in the Seven Weeks War, which ended in Prussian victory since the German Confederation gained Schleswig and Holstein. However, Bismarck was also a sly fox who defied parliamentary opposition, understood that he needed support from the masses, had massive foreign policy skill since he "played the national card to preempt his liberal opponents at home and to make German nation building an accomplishment- and an extension- of Prussian authority" (764), and in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 he facilitated a Franco-German misunderstanding by editing a "telegraph from the kaiser and releasing portions of it to the press so as to make it appear that King William had rebuffed ambassador" (765). After this war, on January 18, 1871, the German Empire was proclaimed after the French imperial government collapsed when they lost the war. Bismarck also showed his 'foxy' side by understanding that appearances are key: "the constitution of the North German Confederation gave the appearance of a more liberal political body, with a bicameral legislature, freedom of the press, and universal male suffrage in the lower house. Its structure, however, gave Prussia and the conservative emperor a decisive advantage in the North German Confederation- and in the soon to be expanded empire" (765). Bismarck was not a nationalist, but instead an opportunist. He took advantage of all his assets to build up the Prussia state and in the process unify Germany with "iron and blood" (Bismarck's speech). 

Nationalism- A Positive? A Negative? Or Both?

When answering the question "did nationalism fuel the revolutions of 1848 or did it undermine them," my first impulse was to think positively, as I always do, that nationalism is purely a good thing and therefore it must have fueled the revolutions of 1848. There is definitely evidence to support this claim in our nice little textbook. For example "the roots of revolution lay in social antagonisms, economic crisis, and political grievances. But these revolutions were also shaped decisively by nationalism" (746). Liberal reformers in the German Confederation resented both the Austrians and the Prussians, and believed that "german nationalism... would break Austrian or Prussian domination and end the sectional fragmentation that made reform so difficult" (747). With this mindset, in both Prussia and the smaller German states, "political clubs of students and other radicals joined with middle-class groups of lawyers, doctors, and businessmen to press new demands for representative government and reform" (747). The Frankfurt Assembly is a good example of how most germans were struggling to form a single nation: Germany. Unfortunately, the problem with creating a nation is deciding which germans would be included in this new nation. Some delegates in the Assembly believed that Germans were all those who, "by language, culture, or geography, felt themselves bound to the enterprise of unification" (748). Basically, one group argued for Small Germany (which excluded all Germans living in the Habsburg Empire) and the other group argued for Great Germany. 

After reading this, I decided that maybe nationalism wasn't ALL that good for the revolutions of 1848. Sure, it was definitely part of the mentality that pushed germans, italians, etc... to revolt and gain unity; however, nationalism also seemed to undermine the revolutions because of all the "tangled webs of alliances and antagonisms" that it created (751). In central Europe, there were a lot of different ethnicities living side by side, and in some situations they joined forces to fight for a particular cause (like ending feudalism), but the "paradox... was that no cultural or ethnic majority could declare independence in a given region without prompting rebellion form other minority groups that inhabited the same area" (751). Nationalism- helped unify groups of people that identified themselves as "German" or "Italian," but it also broke apart people from different ethnicities that were living in the same nation and therefore a tangled mess of alliances was created. 

Overall, I feel that nationalism both fueled the revolutions of 1848 and undermined the revolutionary gains.

A Response to Natewozere's Karl Marx, or Mr. Presumes-a-lot

Well, if you don't have much to say about the paternalism in this excerpt from the Communist Manifesto- then I do. Marx is incredibly paternalistic with all of his talk about common wives and free love. Yes, yes there was free love in the 1960's but in a much different sense. Marriage is a sacred act and I don't see how it is possible for a wife to be a "common" or universal wife. Just pass her around from one man to another. Marx states that this idea of free love isn't a new concept, but rather a system that has existed "almost from time immemorial." In the bourgeois marriage, many men cheat and seduce each other's wives. Marx over simplifies and generalizes everything and it is quite frustrating since not all men cheat and women are definitely not COMMUNAL PROSTITUTES. Marx wants to change up the way family is oriented, and create a legalized system of free love. According to Karl Marx, the bourgeois see his wife as a "mere instrument of production," but if we create a legalized system of free love- then how are women being treated any differently? They are still tools or instruments; however, now they are being passed around freely instead of in secret.

On a separate note, I definitely agree with your comment on how it doesn't seem that Marx has any idea what human nature is really like. Will the working people really organize themselves after abolishing the supremacy of the more powerful class? How is it even possible to have an "association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all?" Well, I can't answer my own question, so I guess we will just have to wait and watch history unfold before our very eyes.

A Response to JED's post on pages 717-724

I have no doubt that in the 19th century the wheels were turning, technology and industry were growing, and institutional changes were being made in Europe; however, I feel that we must make a more specific reference to the French Revolution and the impact it had on the new political ideologies. Nationalism comes from technological innovations, yes, but also from Napoleon and the new concept of the 'nation' that he helped form. As our textbook states, "the revolutionaries built a national state, army, and legal system whose jurisdiction trumped the older regional powers of the nobility" (723). After the FR of 1789, "the nation became what one historian calls "the collective image of modern citizenry" (723). Liberalism definitely emerged from Enlightenment ideals set forth by John Locke that were in turn used as a foundation for both the American and French Revolutions. I agree that socialism emerged as a response to the industrialization and the laissez-faire capitalism, but it also emerged from the concept of equality that was so sought after during the French Revolution. Socialists believed in equality for the working/common people. Therefore the "French Revolutionary trio:liberty, equality, and fraternity" were all displayed by Liberalism, Socialism, and Nationalism (724). We cannot forget Conservatism, which was a direct reaction against the French Revolution. Conservatives wanted legitimacy, church, aristocracy, and a balance between the monarch and the nobles. All these things were not nearly as important during the French Revolution when the state was ruled by an assembly instead of a monarch.

Conserving, Liberating, Socializing, and Nationalizing

In 19th century Europe, the four major political ideologies were Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, and Nationalism. The ideologies were either continuations of the ideas sparked by the French Revolution or they were reactions against the French Revolution. Conservatism was definitely a reaction against the FR since its "most important guiding concept was legitimacy," which "had broad appeal as a general anti-revolutionary policy" (717).  Conservatives emphasized order, discipline, and tradition and therefore believed in a hereditary monarchy; they thought that social and political order stemmed from aristocracy, monarchy, and the church. "Liberalism's core was a commitment to individual liberties, or rights" and therefore its values stemmed from ideas suggested by both John Locke and Adam Smith (718). Liberalism called for equality before the law (get rid of tradition), direct representation in government, and unhindered economic individualism (laissez-faire). Socialism was influenced by the Enlightenment's commitment to reason and human progress and by the intensification of labor, poverty of working classes, and the new founded hierarchy of the social class. Socialists, such as Karl Marx, focused on equality, creating a following of wage workers, and the inevitable collapse of capitalism. Finally, Nationalism (fraternity), like Socialism (equality) and Liberalism (liberty), flowed from the ideas of the FR. The concept of the "nation" wasn't even created until the French Revolution. Throughout history, the national identity continued to change with further political and economic developments.  

What Principles Guided the Congress of Vienna? (pg 709-717)

The Congress of Vienna met in 1814 to restore order to Europe, "satisfy the great powers' territorial ambitions, and guarantee international tranquility," all the while following "the guiding principle of the balance of power" (710-711). The Congress tried to restore order by creating a "legitimate authority" in France by recognizing Louis XVII as the actual sovereign of France and confirming "the restoration of Bourbon rulers in Spain and the two Sicilies" (710). The peace treaty created by the Congress limited French expansion and even restored a lot of territory conquered by the French to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Prussia  and Austria also received more territory in Germany and Italy. Russia was given control over Poland; however, sections of Poland also went to Prussia and Austria. Britain "received territories that had been under French dominion in South Africa and South America as well as the island of Ceylon" (712). The key concept behind this relatively 'fair' distribution of land to various nations and the creation of international alliances (such as the Quadruple Alliance or the Holy Alliance) was to maintain a balance of power in Europe.