Freud! Nietzsche!

"Darwin had already called into question the notion that humanity was fundamentally superior to the rest of the animal kingdom" (855). Clearly, Freud did not agree with this concept because he believed that human beings were one of the four great apes (humans, gorillas, chimps, orangutans) and therefore humans on their most basic level were animals. Freud's psychoanalysis was rather unsettling because it dealt with our two drives (aggressive and sexual) and how these two drives are always conflicting with our rational and moral conscience. Basically, only 10% of our brain is dealing with conscious thoughts (i.e. our free will) and the other 90% is all unconscious thoughts (most likely violent and sexual). Another key idea that Freud talked about was his model of the psyche "which contained three elements (1) the id, or undisciplined desires for pleasure, sexual gratification, aggression, and so on (2) the superego, or conscience, which registers the prohibitions of morality and culture; and (3) the ego, the arena in which the conflict between id and superego works itself out" (855). Freud stressed the "irrational," which just fed this growing tension and stress about human reason and what exactly defines reason, truth, science, etc... 

A quote from Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents "in consequence of this primary mutual hostility of human beings, civilized society is perpetually threatened with disintegration," reminded me Nietzsche's concept of Nihilism because Nihilism dealt with human's innate drive to self-destruction. However, Nihilism talked more about how humans need to believe that life has meaning and to do this they must create new values (such as artists) instead of believing in truth, science, reason, or religion. Whereas, Freud is talking about how due to the strength of man's aggressive and sexual drives he will at some point not be able to control his drives and therefore end up killing or raping someone. 

Overall, both Freud, Nietzsche, and all the rebellious artists provoked the minds of lots of lower, middle, and upper class people; however, "millions undoubtedly went about the business of life untroubled by the implications of evolutionary theory, content to believe as they had believed before" (857). So therefore these questions of human reason and primal urges made people wonder what the heck was going on, but they were still not as preoccupied with these questions as with the socialist question!!

Summary Post #4

Mia's blog post in response to the question that I posted, stated that the reason that Alexander II, III, or Nicholas II didn't reform in the face of a revolution was because of tradition: Why should the tsar think that this situation would be any different from other situations where the previous tsars were able to use their autocratic power to dispel the revolutions? Well, it was different- these tsar's were foolish to crush the people's hopes- just like on Bloody Sunday. These peasants went to the tsar with a list of grievances, pleading 'help us, we believe in you!' and his response was 'guards, seize them!' BAM BAM BAM- DEAD! Nicholas II should have listened or at least kept the October Manifesto in action, instead of just undermining the Duma after the strikes, unrest, and overall crisis has passed. 

This week in class we've covered Europe in the late 19th century/early 20th century and the main idea that we learned was that the tensions and pressures of this period were leading to something big... This period was all about "mass politics," mass production, mass consumption of decadent items of luxury, socialism (many different branches of it), a new sense of darker nationalism was instilled in Europeans, there was social upheaval (old allegiances were being broken), an increasing integration of the world (economically, technologically, etc...), and overall there was a great deal of SPEED SPEED SPEED. Russia was also going through all of these changes; however, if I'm remembering correctly, Russia is so big and expansive it is hard to modernize and westernize as quickly or with as much SPEED SPEED SPEED as the rest of Europe. So Russia is still a little behind the times. Alexander II definitely instilled a lot of reform with the zemstvo, the bar exam, economic state bank, etc... however; what impact did the fact that Russia was farther behind with industrialization and modernization have on the stability of Russia? What will happen to Russia in the next century or so? Will it fall apart even more?

Russia is Ripe for Revolution (844-851)

What I've realized so far, is that no matter HOW you try and reform or rule your country, SOME ONE will always be unhappy and try and change the way you are ruling. For example (well, there are a LOT of examples in history, but let's just look at Russia right now), in the 19th century, Russia was doing a lot of industrialization which was creating a very tense, unbalanced, uneasy, and overall BAD situation- the "western industrialization challenged Russia's military might" and the "western political doctrines- liberalism, democracy, socialism- threatened its internal political stability" (844). Also, this rapid industrialization heightened social tensions since the transition from farm life to city life  was harsh for the workers; PLUS, social changes strained Russia's legal system because the system did not  "recognize trade unions or employers' associations" (844). Finally, the "outdated banking and financial laws failed to serve the needs of a modern economy"(844). So basically, Russia was in need of some change- but instead of going left, tsar Alexander II went RIGHT with a whole lot of censorship and restrictions. Now, I'm sure some people thought this was a great idea, but others did not and this tsar was assassinated most likely with the hopes of a promising future, but Alexander III stayed on this same path: repression, more secret police, villages were subjected to the governmental authority of the nobles, etc... Nicholas II continued this as well- just out of curiosity, why didn't one of these tsars break this chain of repression and conservatism! WHY NO LIBERALISM? I think that if one of these guys had broken the chain than this revolution might not have happened- or at least happened so suddenly. Although I don't really know; however, I am certain that the result of this "russification"with coercion, expropriation, and physical oppression resulted in the creation of many opposing groups: populists (russia needs to modernize on its own terms, not the West's), Social Revolutionary Party (political power of the peasants), Russian Marxists organized into the Social Democratic party- which broke into the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Overall, Russia was "RIPE FOR REVOLUTION" with all the different social and political groups opposing the government and its oppression (846). After all the revolt and revolution- Russia basically ended up stuck in the middle of an "emerging capitalist system and the traditional peasant commune;" Russia was modern but still stuck in the past- which would put a lot of pressure on Russia during World War I (848). 

Now It's All About Radical Nationalism (837-844)

Nationalism is this ever changing concept adopted by new countries, new classes, and now, new political parties: "during the first half of the nineteenth century, nationalism had been associated with the left. Now it was more often invoked by the right and linked to xenophobia in general and anti-Semitism in particular" (838). In France, this politicized anti-Semitism was explained by édouard Drumont (who believed that the root of all of France's problems was the Jews) and in 1894 "exploded with the Dreyfus Affair, a pivotal political moment in the life of the French Republic" (838). The key consequence of the Dreyfus Affair was the separation of the church and the state in France. This may sound strange, but when reading about the fact that there was a lot of anti-semitism in France- I felt very uneasy because I am Jewish and I am French- so there is this inherent contradiction in my heritage. I don't like that anti-Semitism was playing such a large role in French culture and politics (for example- the mayor of Vienna was elected on an anti-Semitic platform). In general, it appears that this nationalism was also adopted in a lot of radical situations- the whole idea of Zionism was a "modern nationalism movement" where the Jews wanted to unite and build a separate Jewish homeland outside of Europe (840).

In Britain, the first working-class movements were definitely moderate and the political system was stable; however, over time there appeared to be an "increasingly militant tenor in British politics," which was shown by the radical action taken by industrial militants, coal and rail workers, and women suffragists (844). Also, in Ireland in the 1880s, a modern nationalist party (the Irish Parliamentary Party) "had begun to make substantial gains through the legislative process" but as soon as more radical organizers took control- they took to militant action. 

Germany, which was lead by the machiavellian Bismarck until 1890, was ever changing as well. At first, "Bismarck sought to create the centralizing institutions of a modern nation-state while safeguarding the privileges of Germany's traditional elites, including a dominant role for Prussia (841). Bismarck created a bicameral parliament where the conservative upper house counterbalanced the democratic lower house elected through universal male suffrage. Later, Bismarck went SUPER LIBERAL and basically went down an anti-catholic campaign in Prussia where he "passed laws that imprisoned priests for political sermons, banned Jesuits from Prussia, and curbed the church's control over education" (842). This anti-catholic campaign failed, and after a bad economic crisis- Bismarck started to take a more conservative approach and he defended the "Christian moral order" (843). Bismarck forbade the Social Democrats from assembling or distributing their literature and therefore the SPD was forced to become a clandestine organization. Not all was bad, Bismarck started a bunch of social reforms: "workers were guaranteed sickness and accident insurance, rigorous factory inspection, limited working hours for women and children, etc..." (843). Basically, Bismarck changed his opinion based on the public and he resigned in 1890!!

Summary Post #3!!

Elizabeth's post on imperialism really sparked my attention. "What is imperialism gone according to plan?" I mean, if the Congo had gone according to plan than this FREE STATE would've been very liberal, with open and free trade, no european trading monopolies, free labor, and no SLAVERY! Of course, as we know this didn't happen. Also, Italy tried to expand into Ethiopia in order to build a stronger and more modern industrial nation; however, in 1896 when they tried to conquer Ethiopia, the disorganized Italian army was basically slaughtered by the Ethiopian army. This also is imperialism gone array- or to be blunt, FAILED. Okay, also, when Britain tried to add the Afrikaners' prosperous diamond mines and pastureland to its own territory- they never fully succeeded. First- the British army was woefully unprepared for this war against the Boer's in 1899 and were destroyed in the first couple battles. Later, the British government (Chamberlain especially) "refused any compromise" and with the help of Sir Robert Roberts, "steamrolled the Boers"(818). But of course, that was not the end of the war because the european settlers were not about to give up so easily since this was THEIR land FIRST! The Afrikaners started a guerrilla war that lasted 3 more years- the fact that the British resorted to creating the first concentration camps in order to keep the civilians from lending aid to the guerrillas is a sign that they were desperate to maintain control and win this war. These concentration camps "bred opposition in Britain itself" (819). Basically, the Afrikaners signed over their old republics to the British Union of South Africa, but the Afrikaners were able to maintain a share of political power. This settlement was not stable and definitely not bound to last. Was this kind of imperialism successful? How can imperialism ever be successful if people will ALWAYS revolt? I know that if someone came into my home and tried to change things up and tell me how to behave and who to listen to- I'd rebel. Therefore, due to the constant rebellion- imperialism required constantly changing strategies of rule. 

Also, overall in this chapter we cannot forget how the West created an imperial culture. Basically, this chapter was ALL OVER THE PLACE because we learned about China, Africa, the United States and all of the empires ready to spread their wings and fairy dust all over the world (Britain, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, the USA, etc...)

Scrambled Brains (806-816)

Okay- firstly, all I can say is poor Africa. Scrambled eggs. Scrambled brains. The map on page 808 shows Africa around 1886, only 2 years after the Berlin Conference, and Africa is divided up into lots of sections controlled by the French, Italian, Spanish, British, Portuguese, Turks, Boer, Germans, and indigenous powers. Clearly, Africa was very sought after territory due to the available resources, labor, and the new market available. This continent basically got torn apart by competitive and greedy Europeans in search for palm oil, rubber, or minerals such as DIAMONDS. Now whenever I think of Europeans wanting diamonds- the British "tycoon, colonial political, and imperial visionary Cecil Rhodes" comes to mind because he made a fortune from the South African diamond mines and the company he founded in the 1880's called DeBeers (810). Another reason that I say poor Africa is because of the whole situation with the Congo Free State that was set up in 1884 at the Berlin Conference, which was headed by Otto Von Bismarck and attended "by all leading colonial nations as well as by the United States" (806). The Congo Free State was supposed to be a great example of liberalism because it was going to have free trade and commerce, the slave trade would be suppressed in favor of free labor, and no single European country would have access to any formal control over the region.  However, did any of this stuff actually get put into place? NO!! In reality "the Congo Free State was run by Leopold's (Belgian) private company, and the region was opened up to unrestricted exploitation by a series of large European corporations" (806). Also even though the older slave trade was suppressed, "the Europeans still took 'the free" African labor guaranteed in Berlin and placed workers in equally bad conditions" (806). 

When Africans rebelled, for example the Herero people of German Southwest Africa, the Germans "responded with a vicious campaign of village burning and ethnic killed that nearly annihilated the Herero" (810). Honestly, the ethnic killing was definitely not necessary and over the top. People, for all of eternity, are going to keep rising up against their oppressors- but it is the way that the oppressors deal with the rebellion that will either reflect positively or negatively on them. After this ethnic killing- I look down on Germany! 

Finally, this section of the book mentions how imperialism entered into the European culture. Well, I find it quite horrible that the Europeans just decided to live in decadence while Africans suffered in horrible work conditions to mine and harvest goods that Europeans wanted. Also- imperialism seemed to bring up a lot of discussions about racial inferiority and many discussions lead by anti-imperialists. 

Basically, my overall idea about this section of the reading was that Africa was torn apart, ripped apart by Britain, France, Germany, etc... and spit out like scrambled brains!!

Is Imperialism Worth it? (793-804)

So today in class we talked a lot about the difference between Imperialism and Expansionism- and I realized that the difference between them is practically nothing. Although- in my mind, Imperialism has a more negative connotation than Expansionism. Of course the first country than comes to my mind when the word expansionism comes up is Russia- and this chapter in the book does mention Russian Imperialism. Apparently, throughout the 19th century Russia had been acquiring territory after territory: Georgia, Bessarabia, Turkestan, and Armenia. However, issues begin to arise when Russian imperialism butts heads with a different country that is also expanding its empire into 'unknown' land. Russia almost got into a war with Britain TWICE: once in 1881 when the Russia troops were occupying the 'territories in the trans-Caspian region' and again in 1884-1887 ' when the tsar's forces advanced to the frontier of Afghanistan' (803). These big powers like to acquire new land and they definitely like to maintain and protect their already acquired land- therefore in 1875 when Russian expansion into Mongolia and Manchuria ran into Japanese expansion- all hell broke loose (i.e. they went to war). Russia basically got humiliated because its huge imperial army had met its match and then the navy was sent halfway around the world to help reinforce the struggling army, only to be ambushed and sunk by the 'better-trained and -equipped Japanese fleet' (803). 

While reading this chapter and learning about the Great Mutiny of 1857 in India (which was the center of the British Empire)- I thought to myself, why expand? Why risk everything if you have the chance to lose it all? Colonizing another people and taking over another country takes a lot of effort, skill in keeping the 'other people' calm, pragmatism, military force, and a lot of money. When the British Empire went into India (at first the British Easy India Company was in control- they had their own military, the right to collect taxes on land from Indian peasants, and had legal monopolies over trade in all goods) they had to use both direct and indirect rule, by making alliances with local leaders. However, the problem was that a lot of English wanted to 'westernize' India and therefore get rid of its culture and fix its religion. These kind of changes to India's fundamental state of being- upset a lot of people. A lot of different kinds of people rebelled and it took Britain over a year to quell the rebellion: "British leaders were stunned by how close the revolt had brought them to disaster and were determined never to repeat the same mistakes" (794). After the revolt, the British East India Company was terminated and the crown took over- afterwards India was "left to indigenous princes, who were subject to British advisors" (794). I don't know- it just seems like such a hassle to have to maintain power and stability within this colonized nation. I mean I understand the reasons for imperialism: search for new markets, beat out the competition, want more resources to help feed the future economy, it is our 'duty/mission/burden' to expand- I'm just saying that imperialism seems like it causes more trouble than good. Of course, maybe as I read on this opinion of mine will change.