It's midnight and i'm about to drop some historical SKILLZ

Ok so i'm going to do this blog a little differently than the usual brief summary. Tonight I am going to just write what I FEEL, lol. Ok soooo... first off I was not able to read from the little book, left it in my locker at school, that means i'm really just going of of Bulliet. The assignment tonight said to think about how Bulliet's argues the great divergence and industrialization and is it eurocentric or not. The the entire idea of the great divergence is based on the europe. Bulliet says that China stagnated under political and social issues while the west utilized steam power for industry. When I read this I tried to argue against this claim cuz that's what good lil historians in training do! But that was hard to do when the only thing Bulleit gives me is that Britain makes Nemesis and takes over China. A ship able to be created because of industry. When I think about the great divergence I see Britain and other western countries becoming rich and taking over all of the old powerful nations like India and China. The Great Divergence, from my understanding is about world standing and not the quality of life for its workers or social freedoms. I do not see the Great Divergence as anything other than the west getting the upperhand politically and economically at the expense of the worker. But hey, without industry where would we be today. It's hard to argue against something which your whole life is based upon. 

Soooooo yeah...     

Ethan Archambault

P.S. 

here are some relevant MEMEs for you kiddos

Revolution, Not As Easy As I Thought

Good Evening Class,

What I learned from the reading tonight is that revolution is a lot more complicated than I originally thought. Maybe it's because I'm American so my first instinct is to think about the American Revolution which in comparison seems so cut and dry. There was a little tumble with the Articles of Confederation but once we got rid of that it all seemed liked smooth sailing. However, after reading about the revolutions is Latin America I got a pretty good idea about why revolutions are so complex.

For one, deciding on a form of government doesn't always go smoothly. For example, Venezuela and Chile drafted and rejected nine different constitutions between 1811-1833. Additionally, many regions in Latin America weren't accustomed to aspects of politics like elections, political parties, or factions. This goes back to our class discussion about what makes a revolution work. While colonies in Latin America were successful at overthrowing their government, the aftermath left people not knowing how to form the government they might have wanted. For instance, because democracy was so chaotic, dictatorship seemed like the better alternative due to the rise military officials made during the wars for independence. Regionalism also threatened the national governments. Overall, post-revolution Latin America was one big political experiment with no desired outcome. So my preconception that all you needed to get through a revolution was a set of goals was pretty off base. Putting it into perspective now, rebuilding a government is wildly more complicated than it seems, especially when the people trying to rebuild it aren't politically experienced with elected legislatures or municipal governments. Without prior knowledge everything is basically a shot in the dark to see what works.

Another interesting component of the revolutions I found interesting was the role of religion. Conflicts began between whether there should be separation of church and state or if the Catholic Church would continue to dominate political life post revolution. Whenever I think of revolutions politically I generally tend to think about upheaving one government for a new more favored one. I'd never considered the role of the church, which actually makes a lot of sense as pre-19th century the church had a lot of control over politics. So I wonder if religion plays as an important role in post revolution regions as before. Where in France it determined the monarchy which was then revolted against, and in the US was the separated from the state once the Constitution was made.

There is obviously much more that complicates a revolution, but these were two components that struck me in particular. Hopefully you all learned as much as I did tonight!

Stay in school,
Alex out.

"Same same......but different" -James Franco in The Interview

From 1750-1890, a lot of change occurred in Latin America. Countries in Meso America and South America went through a lot of change due to the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. Countries wanted independence which led to large wars. Several countries ended up gaining independence such as Mexico and Brazil. Even after revolution in Latin American countries, the same problems still exist today, such as stabile constitutions, slavery, racism, discrimination, wars, and immigration.

Chain of Revolutions

It is really interesting how the French Revolution inspired a bunch of other revolutions right after it, which is similar to what happened during the Arab Spring a few years ago.  The Haitians took advantage of the weakness of Franc after their revolution to try their own one.  Also, the Haitians apparently did not learn anything from the French Revolution, because theirs was also bloody and violent, although violence might have been necessary at that point in time for anyone to take them seriously.  Greece also had a successful revolution against the Ottomans, which led to other European nations wondering if their government systems would ever be safe, since the people could just overthrow it and place someone else in charge if they were unhappy.

Just Some of Your Basic InFO

Is it funny that a document basically giving people their basic rights can start so much violence amongst those people with others? We have seen it twice in history once with the American Revolution then another with the French Revolution, which if I have to say the American Revolution has NOTHING on the French Revolution. Basically the French Revolution was full of some bad butt people (see no swearing)! The Declaration of the Rights of Men is not only the foundation of the French Revolution but the foundation of human rights as well. The document hits at major points such as "natural right" and "individual protection." The document was not only inspired by the French Revolution but also the Enlightenment. There are key Enlightenment values throughout the entire DOFOM, showing how the Enlightenment had a major impact on Europe.

"DOM", not dumb ?

Hey guys,

I took a look at the basic principles of the Enlightenment Era on the handout we got in class, and laid that down next to the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and found that they do in fact, seem to reinforce these ideals.

Now, according to the handout from Mr. Chaput, the ideals of an Enlightenment thinker, to keep in mind are these:
-Reason
-Toleration
-Natural Law
-Change and Progress are good
-Deism

First, in the D.O.M.,  number two claims that "the aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man".... this idea of natural rights, and having natural rights is something we have already discussed in class as an enlightenment ideal. Summarizing, they are saying that having an opinion about politics is allowing for the preservation, or keeping and reinforcing, of a human's natural rights. Now, it is interesting here because it is being used as a political natural right, not necessarily as a social, which is what I've always thought of it as. 

Number 9 also shows some idea of tolerance : . As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law." Again, very similar to present day American Bill Of Rights.... and the respect for a major theme of Toleration. However, it seems a little ironic to be discussing toleration in a revolution where you could be beheaded by the guilotinne for any and everything. 

Another major theme for these Enlightenment thinkers is that of "reason"... now I think the entire document of the D.O.M. is perfect proof that there was some sort of reason for creating it, and that there is always a reason to wrong things and a way to fix them. The same holds true for change and progress, although it again seems ironic because while there is some change and progress, there is little betterment during the revoltuion for the middle and lower classes... 

Thanks for pondering w me... Talk to you all in class.

Nat

Enlightenment

The ideas of the Enlightenment differed from previous European thought because they were based upon a foundation of science instead of religion and reason instead of superstition. This did not mean they were atheist although. Deism was the belief in a greater being but one that does not interfere in the world or with people. This new scientific way of looking at the world allowed for the development of new theories about political philosophy, a new understanding of economics, and the radical idea that all men should have equal opportunity in society. For the first time, traditions could be questioned and in some cases, a healthy skepticism was encouraged. This skeptical view of the world still is practiced today, with the idea of taking someone's word with a grain of salt and not believing things just because a person is in a position of power.