A Strong Defense By the middle of the eighteenth century, the relationship between the colonies of America and their mother country had grown thin. The Americans were financially booming like no other land on Earth. The colonies were also gaining population at a rapid rate. In many ways America was one of the most successful countries in the world. Except for one problem, they were not even a country at all. In Britain they came to be known simply as the colonies. However, life was not too bad for those living in the colonies, as earlier mentioned they were prospering as well as anyone could have imagined. Possibly best of all though, was that there was not a whole lot that they were asked for by their mother country, Great Britain. That was until Britain had defeated the French in the Seven Years War. The war left Britain in a large financial debt, and Prime Minister George Grenville was searching for ways to pay off the debt. He was lost, until he thought of an idea that would qualify as genius if he was able to convince the Americans to go through with it. The idea was to tax the Americans on stamps, which came to be known as the Stamp Act of 1765. This is precisely the topic that colonial governor of Connecticut Thomas Fitch (1700-1774) wrote about in 1764. (Bates, A.C. The Fitch Papers, 2 vol, 1918-20) I have spoken of why this made sense for Great Britain,
Was revolution more far-reaching in Russia than elsewhere because of the superior organisation and efficiency of the Bolsheviks
Was revolution more far-reaching in Russia than elsewhere because of the superior organisation and efficiency of the Bolsheviks? Since 1613 Russia had been ruled by members of the Romanov dynasty who were absolute autocratic monarchs; there was no parliament, political parties or local governments. A strict press censorship was in organisation and 90% of the population were serfs. Despite this, Russia was a country of revolutionary tradition, which can be seen in the Decembrist revolt of 1825(which resulted in assassination of Tsar Alexander I). This shows there was national discontent throughout the Tsarist period. To combat this, Alexander II (The tsar liberator) passed the Emancipation Edict in 1861. However, most found this emancipation legislation unsatisfactory (due to redemption payments, the Mir etc) and it is said that the 1905 revolution was a result of the anticlimax of the emancipation, however revolution was always on the agenda in Russia and it was eventually the masses that made it happen. Nicholas II managed to survive this revolution but it did have consequences such as the October manifesto In 1900 Lenin a member of the Social Democrat Party, left Siberia(where he was exiled) and travelled to Europe where he founded a new revolutionary underground newspaper called Iskra (the spark) with which he intended to develop a strong organizational party network.
Student Number: 9906884 Tutor ~ David Wrench Module: Industry and Community. Primary Source Document: Enclosure, John Middleton, 1798, View of the Agriculture of Middlesex, 1807 The parliamentary enclosures of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were controversial and stimulated collective debate amongst contemporaries. Whilst enclosure was not a new concept and had been in existence since the Tudor period, the enclosing of common land by enforcement was considered radical. As a result, enclosure encountered opposition from contemporary writers who postulated upon its adversary effect on rural life and the long-term social consequences. Yet despite criticism, the enclosure movement also attracted enthusiasm and gained support. The objective of this analysis is to examine John Middleton's excerpt and support his argument with both contemporary and recent historiography. Importantly, it is necessary to briefly discuss the process of enclosure and the agricultural developments that physically, economically and socially transformed Britain's countryside. The chronological history of enclosure was a continuous process that spanned over four hundred years in a somewhat sporadic fashion. Enclosure or engrossment of land was implemented in various manners, some less disruptive than others. Non-parliamentary enclosure occurred either by a gradual piecemeal
How the Mexican revolution changed attitudes towards the "Indians", looking at race and class In this essay I will first try to explain how the title is not as simple to answer as it may seem; I will then move on to give some background history to how the revolution came around and its consequences. Then finally I will look at how attitudes changed towards "Indians", if such a group really exist. The first problem I came across while trying to research material for this essay, is that I couldn't seem to find much information, concentrating on how attitudes changed in racial terms, towards the "Indians" before and after the revolution. Another thing I also noticed is that in a lot of texts, the group termed as "Indians", just seemed to pop out of nowhere. I soon found it very difficult and confusing to what exactly a lot of texts were referring to. I even wondered if the people writing them, knew exactly themselves. "Indians" are socially defined, mainly by "non-Indians" defining what is meant to be "Indian". There were lots of different groups of indigenous people in Mexico before the revolution, many even fighting each other and all of them affected to some extent by cultural "mestizaje". When the Spanish colonised Mexico they decided to group all the people that already lived there, and termed them as "Indians". What it meant to be "Indian", was to be exploited and
1. How does Rousseau argue that obedience to the general will increases our moral liberty? Briefly discuss one reasonable objection to the claim that obeying the general will would increase our freedom.
Yvonne Jane Robinson TMA05 Course Code: A(ZX)103 . How does Rousseau argue that obedience to the general will increases our moral liberty? Briefly discuss one reasonable objection to the claim that obeying the general will would increase our freedom. 2. What evidence can be put forward in support if the claim that David sought to give visual form to political ideas in The Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies of his Sons? 3. What areas of shared concern can you identify between Rousseau's argument in The Social Contract and David's Brutus? Jean-Jacques Rousseau's political ideas were greatly admired by French revolutionaries and were often referred to during the years of the Revolution. The most frequently quoted, 'The Social Contract' was published in 1762. Rousseau thought that freedom was the most important goal for any political system. He argued that society as a whole had to abide by the laws that were imposed for the good of all. In his view, living without laws greatly reduced freedom. The concept of general will is at the centre of Rousseau's philosophy. 'Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains' (Rousseau: Cress (ed.) 1987, bk1, ch.1, p.141). He explains that when an individual decides to follow the general will, to abide by the laws established by the state, he is agreeing to act in accordance with the social contract and remain free and
Douglglas Rivero 03-01-2004 CPO 5091 Dr. Power A critique to David Menendez's analysis of Theda Skocpol's "States and Social Revolution" In his analysis, David raises interesting points of Skocpol's book, assessing her overall approach in a comparative historical analysis, in which the author tries to establish causal inferences about structural processes (e.g. the cause of revolutions). Furthermore, he makes precise comments over her assessment of the role that external factors had in the selected revolutions, for one cannot understand, for instance, the Russian Revolution without considering the First World War, in which Russia was deeply involved. He also makes a critique in a cultural approach of her work in totality, since she does not consider culture as a relevant factor in the causes of social changes. However, it seems that he misunderstood some key elements of her work, such as Marxism's influence in her work and the generalizability of her conclusions. Primarily, Skocpol presents her theoretical and methodological perspectives (in a very fashionable way) of analyzing such unique events as social revolutions in an innovative way. She analyzes previous studies of revolutions, drawing her theoretical approach by adapting from the political-conflict theory and Marxism. Moreover, the Marxist influence, as noted by David, is clear throughout her work. However, she
Assess the importance of Galileo and Kepler to the Scientific Revolution The Scientific Revolution is often said to have started in the year 1543, with the publication of 'The Revolution of the Heavenly Bodies and Vesalius, On the Structure of the Human Body' by Copernicus. Copernicus was born in 1473 in Poland and spent much of his life studying medicine and law in Italy. He launched the strongest of the early attacks on the Aristotelian view of the universe. He believed that the earth and other planets orbited a stationary sun. However the revolution has no definite start or end. It lasted about 150 years and during this time extraordinary advances were made in science (or natural philosophy as it was called at the time). It completely changed man's conception of himself and the universe he inhabited and the advances were made using new scientific methods rather than the old method of reasoning. During the Scientific Revolution many advanced thinkers contributed their ideas and discoveries which continually pushed boundaries of science. Natural philosophers came from all across Europe and those of particular note included Vesalius from the Spanish Netherlands, Copernicus from Poland, Kepler from Germany and Harvey from England. Many of the leading scientists came from Italy including Galileo, Torricelli and Viviani. In the early years of the Scientific Revolution,
European Colonization in the New World Anthony Milbut American History I Professor Ken Rodgers This paper will elaborate on the 17th century European motives for expansion and colonization into the New World. I will also describe the different colonial transplantations that occurred in Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts Bay, as well as discuss details of the major sources of conflict between the Native Americans and the English in Virginia and Massachusetts Bay. The expansion of Europeans into the New World started long before the first settler reached the eastern shore of modern day America. "The Black Death, a plague that swept through Europe in 1347, destroyed more than a third of the people on the continent, and decimated an already limited economy."1 (Brinkley, 2007) Nearly 150 years later, the population had recovered. With this rebound came an awakening of commerce. There was great profit to be had in raising sheep to counteract the worldwide demand for wool. This prompted many landlords to convert their farms to pastures to raise the wool bearing animals. The end result left thousands of serfs and prior renters without a job or a roof over their head. With the establishment of chartered companies and a new concept of economic life, known as mercantilism, there was great interest in products from distant lands, which was complimented by the advance in
With reference to the years 1830-1930, why did it take so long for Britain to become a fully democratic country?
With reference to the years 1830-1930, why did it take so long for Britain to become a fully democratic country? The period 1830 to 1930 witnessed the greatest ever extension of the franchise in British history. By the end of the period the country could claim to be a full democracy, but why did it take so long? Unlike most other European countries in this period, Great Britain failed to undergo a revolution. The three sectors of the population to which the franchise needed to be extended to achieve universal suffrage were the working classes, the middle classes and the women. To some extent the campaigns were chronologically parallel and they sometimes overlapped, even though the driving forces behind demands for change tended to come from different directions. Extensions of the franchise came at intervals when the pressures became too great for the ruling elites to ignore. The upper echelons of British society distrusted the lower classes and only gave way when inaction in the face of unrest threatened them with social upheaval. Despite the fact that Britain never did truly undergo a revolution, the threat of one was credible during the period 1830-32. These two years witnessed a huge barrage of violent and non-violent protests, and as E.P. Thompson claims, Britain came within an 'ace of revolution'.1 During this time there was a general alliance between the middle and
Depictions of the Boston Massacre 1770. Though the newspaper article and the engraving had similar overall intentions in their construction, these two images of the Massacre differ in their relation of the actual course of events and in their visual impre
Chelsea Greenlee 293: Sophomore Colloquium July 2011 Images of the Boston Massacre As the bells of the Old Brick, Brattle Street, and Old South churches sounded throughout the town, hundreds of citizens gathered in the streets of Boston, Massachusetts, on the evening of March 5, 1770. The ringing of the church bells gathered the outpouring citizens around the sentry post outside the customhouse on King Street. There, a group of youths were taunting a British sentry named Private Hugh White, pelting him with snowballs and other small items.1 The assaults against Private White, and later against the seven relief soldiers led by Captain Thomas Preston, became increasingly violent as the crowd augmented and joined in the agitation.2 The mob of citizens dared the soldiers to fire on them.3 Private Hugh Montgomery, whose musket was struck by a snowball, stumbled backwards, surprised, and discharged his weapon into the crowd. After a confused pause, the remaining soldiers fired. 4 Five Bostonian men, including a mixed-race sailor named Crispus Attucks, died, and six more citizens were injured. This event, termed "The Boston Massacre" by colonial Patriots, was the worst and most publicized of many violent interactions between Boston citizens and British soldiers following the enactment of the Townshend Acts beginning in 1767, which aimed to forcefully exert British power