Are Traditions Always Best?

In class we have just finished covering the topic of the major political ideologies in the 19th century. An ideology is  a system of ideas or ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. The three ideologies are liberalism, conservatism, and nationalism.  We started off by creating our own definitions for the words, Liberal, conservative, and nationalism. Then in small groups we made a one minute long project about one of the ideologies based on a document that we read on that ideology. The purpose of this activity was to show that each ideology had a different impact on social and political action.

My group did our presentation on liberalism. we used chatter pix to create our video, having images of john Locke, and Adam smith , two British liberal philosophers explaining what liberalism is , and its impact on social and political action during the 19th century.

This project help to define liberalism because it explained that liberals believe in freedom and equality for humans, and that instead of following tradition that strive to create new systems that benefit the society. We also explained through our presentation that liberals believed in a meritocracy, or a system in which men were rewarded for their hard work, and not their social class. The theory of the invisible hand, and god given natural rights were explained in the video. Liberalism influenced social action because liberals wanted to get rid of all social classes, overall getting rid of hierarchy. Liberalism influenced political action because liberals wanted to make the government more equal so that everyone had a say in how they were being governed.

The other two ideologies of this time period were conservatism and nationalism. Conservatives believed in not changing the systems of the government. Conservatism impacted social and political action because conservatives believed in keeping a monarchy, and not changing the social classes. they didn't want to change the way that the government was run because monarchs wanted to stay in power, in fear of what may happen if they change from their traditional ways. They feared that  chaos and bloodshed would be an outcome of trying to change, and in their opinions monarchy was the best was to run the government. Nationalism also impacted social and political action because they promoted the unification of people of the same culture, language and history, and  they didn't want to have any foreign rulers running their government. unlike how Italy and Germany both were countries that weren't under one single rule, but they had the independence of small states, nationalists believed in having one unified country.

Napoleon's Impact

Napoleon Bonaparte was born on August 15th 1769, on the Mediterranean island of Corsica. He started his military career at the age of nine, and after he was commissioned into the artillery, he would soon be a great military leader who promoted education, and shaped his country's laws, but also plunged the world into war. After watching the video, All You Need to Know About Napoleon Bonaparte, we learned that Napoleon had conquered Italy, Australia, Holland, Belgium, Egypt, Sweden, Spain, and many other countries.  During his military career Napoleon had greatly impacted the social, economic and political systems of Europe.

Conquering and having control of all of Europe except for Great Britain ,Napoleon left a big impact when in power. The first impact that napoleon left in Europe was on the social system. He changed the way in which the countries were ordered, they were all now a meritocracy, or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability. He also abolished serfdom, and created a society where more people had rights to property and access to education. Napoleon also left an impact on the economic systems of Europe. He controlled prices, encouraged new industry, and built roads and canals to expand trade. However, when conquering the countries that he did he often looted them of money and expensive possessions, therefore leaving a negative economic impact. Lastly, napoleon left an impact on the political systems of Europe. Because Napoleon had either direct or indirect control over almost all of Europe, the previous rulers of those countries now had less control, and the members of nobility had lost their political power.  According to  Madame De Stael, Napoleon taking over rule of these countries wasn't a positive thing. She says, “His system was to encroach daily upon France’s liberty and Europe’s independence .” She believes that his system was just good at all, but it was just getting in the way and intruding on how France and all of Europe wanted to rule themselves. On the other hand Marshal Michel Ney calls Napoleon an august emperor, and believes that he has left a positive impact. he says, “the times are gone when people were governed by suppressing their rights.” He believes that Napoleons system had brought more rights to the people in which he is ruling, and leaving a positive impact on society. In, The Lost Voices of Napoleon Historians article, John C. Ropes writes, “ Let us be equally frank in acknowledging his great qualities, -- his untiring industry, his devotion to the public service, his enlightened views of government and legislation, his humanity.” He also believes that the impact left by napoleon was positive. Ropes thinks that Napoleon was a great leader, and was devoted to helping society.

Overall, there were both positive and negative aspect of all the impacts the Napoleon had left on Europe. I think that his impact on the political systems was negative, because he changed the way that the government was set up , and made it so the rulers now had less power over their own countries. Also, I believe that Napoleon’s impact on the Economic systems were positive. this is because he had greatly expanded trade by building new roads and canals, and overall helped the economic systems of Europe. Lastly, I think that Napoleon left both a negative and positive impact on the political systems of Europe. These impacts were negative because he had abolished monarchy, and had completely changed the way the the governments of the countries were run. While he was introducing a new way of ruling, he had also gotten rid of the way that most countries were used to and comfortable with running their government, and could often be hard to switch  back to a monarchy if that is what they wanted to do. However these impacts were also positive because he had increased the rights for citizens, and because of the abolishment of monarchy citizens now had more of a say in society.


Napoleon Primary Source Readings: http://www.edline.net/files/_5HGnA_/24e6ed80deb5ecaa3745a49013852ec4/Unit_3A_Activity_1_Primary_Source_Readings.pdf

Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians:
http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/biographies/c_historians.html

I Have Too Much Chocolate!

In History class we began to learn about capitalism, socialism, and communism, and in order to do so we did an activity during class with Hershey Kisses. Each student got three pieces of candy except for two who got ten. This unequal distribution of the candy was to show that not everyone has equal wealth, and few are much richer than others. We then played rock paper scissors, and every time someone lost the game they would lose a piece of candy, and every time they won they would gain a piece of candy. Once you had no more candy you would sit down and stop playing, but you couldn't stop playing unless you did lose all your candy. Those who had a lot of candy didn't want to keep playing because they feared they would lose it all if they did. I lost all my chocolates in the first three games that i played, but from watching the other students continue to play after I was out , I could tell that they were being selfish with their candy, and they didn't want to lose any of it. After only a few students still remained, the chocolate was then collected and redistributed so that everyone in the class had an equal amount, three candies. Those who were “poor” or had no chocolates were happy that now they had some, but those who were “rich” or had a lot of candy, were now upset, and felt like the redistribution was unfair because they now had less than they did before. The purpose of this activity was to chow Marx’s theory of redistribution, to create a classless society. He believed that people wouldn't be selfish, and they could all agree to have their money redistributed so that everyone was equally wealthy.

Like our teacher wanted to help us by redistributing the candy so that we were all equal, Karl Marx, and Adam smith both wanted to help the poor, but they had two very different approaches. Marx believed in Capitalism, socialism, and communism, and that everyone would start off with their own amount of money and there would be a freedom of competition, which would them result in an unequal distribution of wealth. Therefore, the government would have to take ownership, and then redistribute to everyone, which would result in a classless society where the government is no longer needed. Smith believed something very different. He developed a theory called The Invisible Hand. Smith said that if society was left alone, they would fix the problem themselves. They would try to get the most for their money, creating competition between businesses, the “invisible hand” will push people to the better deals. Smith thought that if people would just stop trying to regulate the government it would regulate itself. Because of this competition there would be lower prices on goods, and more options for the poor, and therefore they will be able to afford more. Businesses will be forced to lower their prices, or they will fail to make profit. Marx didn't think people would be selfish with their money and that they would be willing to share so that everyone was equal, whereas Smith believed the opposite, that people would be selfish with their money, and because of that the economy would regulate itself.

In my opinion , based the activity that we did in class, I believe that while Smith’s theory may not be perfect, it would definitely be more effective than Marx’s theory, especially in today’s society. If the government were to collects and redistribute everything, it wouldn't be as easy as it was for us to do so with the Hershey kisses. People would protest, and not agree to give up their money to share it with other people who didn't earn it like that person did. I believe that this int a fair way to help the poor either because it is taking away from someone else.  Letting the economy regulate itself is a more fair and effective way to help the poor. If the government  were to get involved and try to fix situations by giving everyone equal wealth it would most likely make bigger problems, so by not getting involved and letting things play out on their own it avoids this risk of bigger problems developing. By natural competition between businesses the poor will be able to have more price options for the same product and therefore they will be able to afford what they need. Smith’s Ideas are a way to help the poor without affecting anyone else. His theory is much like they way that our country run today however, there truly isnt a perfect way to fix these problems  Overall, both Marx and Smith had ideas of ways to fix economic problems and help the poor, and both of these theories were very different and had both positive and negative aspects within them.

Choosing the Mill Life

During industrialization in America mill owners did all that they could to hire workers, especially young girls to come work at their mills, and doing so wasn't always the easiest thing. Unlike Britain, the U.S. didn't have an abundant supply of cheap labor, land was plentiful and people preferred life on the farms. Because of this lack of workers willing to come and work at the mills, industrialists look to change the way that manufacturing was viewed, they proved to families that there were many more positives of working at the mills than negatives. In order to do this the Lowell Experiment was created.

The Lowell Experiment was an industrial project that focused on the positives of industrialization, while trying to avoid the negative ones. This experiment was a system that would be used to convince girls to come to work at the mills, and it was based on a paternal system that emphasized that the girls would be protected and taken care of just like their own family would take of them.  Many aspects of the mill life motivated girls to work in the Lowell mills, including , being able to earn their own money and pay for their own clothes, and having the independence of living away from home. However, just because the girl herself was convinced to work at the Lowell mills, that didn't mean that she was going to . The parents also had to be convinced to let their own daughter live away from home at the mills, and the Lowell Experiment did just that. The corporation set rules on the girls, making church mandatory, and giving them a curfew that must be obeyed, along with a code for behavior. By ensuring that the girls were going to be safe and taken care of like family, parents were often convinced to let their daughter’s work in the mills. Also, in the article, A World in Transition, it explains that because of industrialization, and the expansion of trade from new roads and canals, farmers were going out of business and woman were looking for work off the farm. Because of this families were willing to let their daughters work at the mills so that they could make money to send home to their families, and because the girls were being cared for, it meant that they would have one less mouth to feed.  

Often times because of the successfulness of the Lowell Experiment girls would be sent  to work at the mills, and along with that decision there were many costs and many benefits. Based on the video, Daughters of Free Men, some benefits that came out of working in the mills included, the opportunity for education, the money for the girls to buy their own clothing, and they got evenings and Sundays off from work. Also some costs of working in the mills that were evident in the film included, girls being unkind, cruel overseers, and the spread of gossip. There were false expectations when going to the mills that everyone would be kind and friendly. The working conditions of the mills were also some costs, for example, the mills were loud and the air was dusty, there was a high potential for injury, and they were malnourished, they had to sneak out of the mills just if they wanted a drink of water. Lastly, the fear of wage cuts, bells running their lives and having four to six girls in one room were some costs of working in the mills.

Many factors of industrialization, and opportunities for women, reflected the attitudes towards women during the 1800’s.The fact that mills were one of the only working opportunities outside of the farm shows that people didn't think that women were fit for laborious jobs and physical work. In the reading, A World in Transition, it shows that women didn't have as many rights as men at the time, and were not treated equally to men. Also, women were restricted from work after they got married, proving that they were thought to have the job of taking care of their families. Woman had started to be given more opportunities, but were still restricted to what they could do.

Overall, industrialization was a big turning point for woman, for they now had more opportunities to be independent and work outside of their homes, and off of the farms. The Lowell experiment made it possible for the families of the girls to realize this , and that sending their daughters to the mills was the right choice. It stressed that there were so many positives, even though there may have been some negative aspects, but the experiment worked, and many woman went to live their lives in the Lowell mills having opportunity to make their own living.