Throughout history, people in positions of great power have made desperate actions to retain their power over others. Their actions that allow them to stay in power when threatened, however, are generally self-centered and usually detrimental to others. A collection of these kinds of people, those whose power had been threatened, took place at the Congress of Vienna. The Congress of Vienna took place in 1814, in order to establish long term peace in Europe after the fall of Napoleon. Chaired by the Austrian Prince Clemens von Metternich, it was attended by a representative from each European state. In order to understand the decisions made during the Congress of Vienna, our class took the role of Prince Clemens von Metternich and predicted what decisions he would support regarding various issues in early 19th century Europe.
The Principle of Intervention was one of the major decisions made at the Congress of Vienna. It gave the nations of Europe (Russia included) the right to send forces into other countries to quell revolutions that may arise. This kept the leaders in power by giving their allies the right to eliminate any potential threat to their leaderships. The overall impact of the Congress of Vienna was very widespread and extremely impactful. France was made into a constitutional monarchy, and many revolutions began in the following years, but there were positive impacts as well. The borders of Europe were redrawn, and this led to a balance of power, which helped make peace in between the European states.
While the decisions made in the Congress of Vienna caused peace in between countries, they were not necessarily the correct decisions that were made. The decisions that were made generally supported the upper class, and not the working class, who composed the vast majority of the population. A better decision that could have been made would be to not institute the Principle of Intervention at all, and for nations to be more open to the ideas of the people. This would create nations that would be approved by a larger percent of its citizens. Unfortunately for the powerful delegates of the Congress of Vienna, this would involve sacrificing some of their power for the greater good. In reality, the powerful members of the Congress of Vienna made the decision to retain their power, and Europe became one step closer to the place it is today.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Friday, October 17, 2014
Napoleon's Impact on the World
Napoleon Bonaparte is considered by many to be the greatest military leader in all of history. However, Napoleon wasn't only a great French general. During his great conquest of Europe in the early 1800s, Napoleon reformed social structures all over Europe, stimulated economic activity, and completely overhauled political boundaries and structures in all the territory that he conquered. These dramatic changes remained after Napoleon lost control of the land, and their effects have continued for centuries afterwards.
A major focus for Napoleon's conquest was to reform the social systems of his conquered nations to his liking, and to make them the same as France's. Under his rule, he granted citizens more rights to education and property ownership. He also abolished social statuses, granting greater equality to the new citizens of Napoleon's Empire. These social reforms also had influences on the following governments for the region, after Napoleon was overthrown.
Napoleon Bonaparte also stimulated economic growth under his reign of power. He accomplished this growth by controlling prices, encouraging new industry, and focusing on public works projects to encourage prosperity. These public works projects largely remained after his reign ended, allowing resources to move more efficiently and the economy to prosper long after he was forced out of the areas. He also removed trade barriers between nations, allowing for more trade in Europe. Finally, he established the Bank of France. With the bank, he balanced the budget of his empire and allowed everything to be amply funded.
Finally, Napoleon reorganized political systems in ways that were more just and democratic than the previous ones of the empires that he conquered. Firstly, he expanded political boundaries. In 1803, he sold the Louisiana Territory to the United States, allowing the country to prosper with its newly acquired land. The countries in Europe also had their borders changed, as Napoleon completely redrew the map of Europe when he was in power. And example is Egypt, where Napoleon completely overhauled the government. Along with this, he also established the first institution for the study of ancient Egyptian society. He also established a meritocracy in his empire, which ignored social class and judged individuals on their personal skills. Napoleon's global influence on social systems, economics, and political structure show that this great man was more than simply a very successful conqueror, but a wise and great leader as well.
A major focus for Napoleon's conquest was to reform the social systems of his conquered nations to his liking, and to make them the same as France's. Under his rule, he granted citizens more rights to education and property ownership. He also abolished social statuses, granting greater equality to the new citizens of Napoleon's Empire. These social reforms also had influences on the following governments for the region, after Napoleon was overthrown.
Napoleon Bonaparte also stimulated economic growth under his reign of power. He accomplished this growth by controlling prices, encouraging new industry, and focusing on public works projects to encourage prosperity. These public works projects largely remained after his reign ended, allowing resources to move more efficiently and the economy to prosper long after he was forced out of the areas. He also removed trade barriers between nations, allowing for more trade in Europe. Finally, he established the Bank of France. With the bank, he balanced the budget of his empire and allowed everything to be amply funded.
Finally, Napoleon reorganized political systems in ways that were more just and democratic than the previous ones of the empires that he conquered. Firstly, he expanded political boundaries. In 1803, he sold the Louisiana Territory to the United States, allowing the country to prosper with its newly acquired land. The countries in Europe also had their borders changed, as Napoleon completely redrew the map of Europe when he was in power. And example is Egypt, where Napoleon completely overhauled the government. Along with this, he also established the first institution for the study of ancient Egyptian society. He also established a meritocracy in his empire, which ignored social class and judged individuals on their personal skills. Napoleon's global influence on social systems, economics, and political structure show that this great man was more than simply a very successful conqueror, but a wise and great leader as well.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism
As an introduction to our unit on capitalism, communism, and socialism, an experiment was performed among the class. Each person was given some candy at the beginning of class, with most people having 3 pieces and a select few having 10. We were instructed to play rock-paper-scissors with a minimum bet of 1 piece of candy with each other. For me, the game was fun, as I won my way from 3 candies to 7 at the end of our simulation. We were informed that this was the basis of capitalism, where there is a free market. This means that while some are born into large amounts of wealth, people are allowed to trade (in this case, play rock-paper-scissors) as much as they want, without any outside governmental interference. After, Ms. Bailey took all of our candies, and redistributed 3 once again to everyone. While playing the game was fun, it was frustrating that all of my hard work was for nothing.
Karl Marx and Adam Smith, the founders of communism and capitalism, both created their societal systems with the goal of helping the poor. Under communism, there is a shared ownership of all goods, and in theory, the individual morals of the people would eliminate the need for any kind of governing body. This would help the poor because under communism, everyone has the same amount of wealth and the society is classless. Socialism is similar to communism, where wealth is distributed among the population. The poor are aided here by the distribution of wealth by the government.
Adam Smith had a different, more passive idea for helping the poor through capitalism. Dubbed 'the invisible hand', Smith's theory was that without interfering at all with the economy, the poor would be offered higher quality goods for lower prices. To accomplish this, assuming the quality is the same, poor would naturally buy the cheapest kind of product available to them. This causes competition between businesses, which leads to either improved quality of goods, a lower price, or a completely new product to be sold. All three options are valid candidates for purchase, and as they are purchased, the economy is stimulated, without any governmental interference. It was given the name of invisible hand because when done correctly, it appears that there is some guiding force to the economy, where there really is none at all.
Each of these socioeconomic systems, when present in its 'true', or 'pure' form, has significant drawbacks. In socialism and communism, it is very difficult or impossible to become 'wealthy' compared to one's peers, and these systems discourage hard work because everyone will always receive the same or a similar amount of wealth. In capitalism, it is unfair that some are born into much more wealthy families than others. Along with this, the invisible hand can often take a long time to function properly, leading to economic hardship before it can fully be effective. Given these drawbacks, I believe that the only 'good' solution for a socioeconomic system is a combination of the three. A system that encourages and rewards hard work while also distributing some wealth to the poor, ideally would be perfect. Unfortunately, it's never truly possible to make a perfect society, and there will always be a downside to every system that is created.
In class, a Socratic seminar was conducted about these systems. There was discussion about other people's reactions to the game, and discussion of which system each person preferred. There was a pretty clear consensus that out of the three, capitalism was the best, but most agreed that there is no perfect system. As Ryan said, "CEOs make like 200 times more than the average worker. Clearly they work harder, but not 200 times harder". This point was one of the few that was agreed upon by everyone at the seminar. It was decided that people need a government for equality and to regulate some things, but there must be a limit on the regulation, and that a blend of capitalism, communism, and socialism is ideal for a society.
Karl Marx and Adam Smith, the founders of communism and capitalism, both created their societal systems with the goal of helping the poor. Under communism, there is a shared ownership of all goods, and in theory, the individual morals of the people would eliminate the need for any kind of governing body. This would help the poor because under communism, everyone has the same amount of wealth and the society is classless. Socialism is similar to communism, where wealth is distributed among the population. The poor are aided here by the distribution of wealth by the government.
Adam Smith had a different, more passive idea for helping the poor through capitalism. Dubbed 'the invisible hand', Smith's theory was that without interfering at all with the economy, the poor would be offered higher quality goods for lower prices. To accomplish this, assuming the quality is the same, poor would naturally buy the cheapest kind of product available to them. This causes competition between businesses, which leads to either improved quality of goods, a lower price, or a completely new product to be sold. All three options are valid candidates for purchase, and as they are purchased, the economy is stimulated, without any governmental interference. It was given the name of invisible hand because when done correctly, it appears that there is some guiding force to the economy, where there really is none at all.
Each of these socioeconomic systems, when present in its 'true', or 'pure' form, has significant drawbacks. In socialism and communism, it is very difficult or impossible to become 'wealthy' compared to one's peers, and these systems discourage hard work because everyone will always receive the same or a similar amount of wealth. In capitalism, it is unfair that some are born into much more wealthy families than others. Along with this, the invisible hand can often take a long time to function properly, leading to economic hardship before it can fully be effective. Given these drawbacks, I believe that the only 'good' solution for a socioeconomic system is a combination of the three. A system that encourages and rewards hard work while also distributing some wealth to the poor, ideally would be perfect. Unfortunately, it's never truly possible to make a perfect society, and there will always be a downside to every system that is created.
In class, a Socratic seminar was conducted about these systems. There was discussion about other people's reactions to the game, and discussion of which system each person preferred. There was a pretty clear consensus that out of the three, capitalism was the best, but most agreed that there is no perfect system. As Ryan said, "CEOs make like 200 times more than the average worker. Clearly they work harder, but not 200 times harder". This point was one of the few that was agreed upon by everyone at the seminar. It was decided that people need a government for equality and to regulate some things, but there must be a limit on the regulation, and that a blend of capitalism, communism, and socialism is ideal for a society.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
What was Up with the Luddites?
The Luddites were a group of artisans in 19th century England that protested against technological advancement. Some of their professions were weavers, mechanics, and other artisans. They sabotaged, or attacked, factories and machines in the early stage of industrialization. A figure that they were motivated by was Ned Ludd, a fictional Robin Hood-like character. The motives for their malicious actions were due to the amount of skill in work decreasing due to industrialization. With the skill floor lowered for such work, they were left without a use for their profession, and were unable to recruit apprentices. This caused economic hardship and instilled hatred towards the factory owners, motivating them to destroy the very machines that had made their lives so difficult. The following is a mock primary source letter written in the point of view as a farmer who is observing the conflict between the Luddites and soldiers sent to protect the factories. His daughter was sent to the mills to work, and the letter is addressed to her.
Dear Daughter,
 |
| Luddites breaking a weaving machine. Image credit to Wikimedia Commons. |
Word has reached our farm that Luddites have attacked factories and mills close to the area in which you are working. I fear for your safety, but I confide in the solders that are being sent to your mill in the coming days. What are your thoughts on these rebels of industry? I have mixed feelings about them. While I am very concerned for your health should they approach your mill, I also fear that the industrialization will force our family out of our farming tradition and into a new life of monotonous factory work. I do not think that I will act for or against them. We are in dire need of work at home on the farm, and my guidance and labor is essential for a successful harvest. I wish you nothing but the best as you continue your work at the mill, and we will be praying for your safety.
Regards,
Father
Friday, October 3, 2014
Working Conditions in Mills and Factories: Were They Better Across the Ocean?
Throughout our unit about the Industrial Revolution, a point that has reappeared frequently was the severity of working conditions in mills and factories in England and the United States. It was clear that in both nations, working conditions were universally poor. While this is a widely accepted fact, the treatment of the workers, their punishments, and their payments suggests that working conditions were better in the United States than the mills in England.
The workers, specifically young workers, were generally treated better in the United States. They received education, had shorter hours, and they were fed better than their English counterparts. The documents in the DBQ show that workers in the United States had an average work day that was 2-4 hours shorter than the English workers. They also received three months off out of the year for education. Along with better food, the ways that workers were treated by their companies is better in the United States than it was in England.
Factory and mill workers in England also faced what some think to be harsher punishments. In England, they would punish their workers with physical beatings. The overseers did not show much respect for the health of the child workers, and often broke their bones, or in the most extreme cases, accidentally killed them. In the United States, workers were not physically beaten, but they faced a different kind of punishment. Should the workers disobey the rules of the factory or mill, they would be placed on a blacklist, essentially banning them from working in any of the other mills. While this preserved the health of the workers, this prevented their families from earning money. It is of my opinion that this is less severe than the English punishment system. While it inhibits them from making money at the mills, it keeps the worker alive and allows them to farm or work in another trade for money.
Workers in England were finally paid much less than ones in the United States. In the United States, there were not as many workers to occupy the factories and mills, so the companies were forced to make the mills more attractive for workers, to persuade them against traveling west to become sustenance farmers. One side effect of this was the raising of wages for employees. In England, however, there was a surplus of children that were either orphans or too poor to decide against working at the mills. This led them to be paid little to no money at all, essentially making them child slaves.
These three characteristics of factory and mill working conditions show that the United States had better conditions than England. Workers were treated better by the corporations, were paid more, and were punished less than the workers in England.
The workers, specifically young workers, were generally treated better in the United States. They received education, had shorter hours, and they were fed better than their English counterparts. The documents in the DBQ show that workers in the United States had an average work day that was 2-4 hours shorter than the English workers. They also received three months off out of the year for education. Along with better food, the ways that workers were treated by their companies is better in the United States than it was in England.
Factory and mill workers in England also faced what some think to be harsher punishments. In England, they would punish their workers with physical beatings. The overseers did not show much respect for the health of the child workers, and often broke their bones, or in the most extreme cases, accidentally killed them. In the United States, workers were not physically beaten, but they faced a different kind of punishment. Should the workers disobey the rules of the factory or mill, they would be placed on a blacklist, essentially banning them from working in any of the other mills. While this preserved the health of the workers, this prevented their families from earning money. It is of my opinion that this is less severe than the English punishment system. While it inhibits them from making money at the mills, it keeps the worker alive and allows them to farm or work in another trade for money.
Workers in England were finally paid much less than ones in the United States. In the United States, there were not as many workers to occupy the factories and mills, so the companies were forced to make the mills more attractive for workers, to persuade them against traveling west to become sustenance farmers. One side effect of this was the raising of wages for employees. In England, however, there was a surplus of children that were either orphans or too poor to decide against working at the mills. This led them to be paid little to no money at all, essentially making them child slaves.
These three characteristics of factory and mill working conditions show that the United States had better conditions than England. Workers were treated better by the corporations, were paid more, and were punished less than the workers in England.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)