**Ever since the period of nationalism, countries in Europe had felt a very strong sense of who they were as nations. They were proud of their heritages just like they were proud of their religions, and many thought they were superior to others because of this. These ethnicities and religions also brought countries that shared these characteristic together, forming alliances. With these prejudices against other ethnicities, nationalities, and religions came much tension. With every country striving for superiority, war was almost inevitable. Though the Black Hand murdering Franz Ferdinand is considered the thing that began WWI, that was only the spark to start the fire. The kindling that had been building up over the years was really these prejudices. The alliances between all the countries that fought in WWI were built previously based on ethnicity and religion, and these alliances were why the war happened as it did.
**One of the two big alliances that was formed was the Triple Alliance. This alliance was between Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Italy. Austria first formed the alliance with Germany, based on ethnic similarities between the two. It states in the Dual Alliance Between Austria-Hungary and Germany, "Should one of the High Contracting Parties be attacked by another Power, the other High Contracting Party binds itself hereby, not only not to support the aggressor against its high Ally, but to observe at least a benevolent neutral attitude towards its fellow Contracting Party" (doc. 1). This states almost exactly what would happen during WWI; "Austria-Hungary consequently considers herself henceforward in state of war with Serbia"(doc. 7), officially starting WWI by declaring war on Serbia, and Germany would be required to come to their aid to overcome the opposing party. This alliance formed because of ethnic similarities would be a deciding factor in the way the war would play out. This effect can be seen to its greatest extent in a telegraph between ruler of Germany William II and tsar of Russia Nicholas II. In their conversation, William II signs his message "You most sincere and devoted friend and cousin" (doc. 8). In response, Nicholas II begs, "I urge You in the name of our old friendship to do all in Your power to restrain Your ally [Austria-Hungary] from going too far" (doc. 8). But despite this plea and because of the alliance between Germany and Austria, Germany still must do all in its power to assist its ally. In Germany's declaration of war against Russia, this is addressed: "In compliance with a wish expressed to him by His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, the German Emperor had undertaken, in concert with Great Britain, the part of mediator between the Cabinets of Vienna and St. Petersburg; but Russia, without waiting for any result, proceeded to a general mobilization of her forces both on land and sea" (doc. 9). The Germans, though, wanted to seem like they had a true cause for war, so they tried to appear to have as peaceful intentions as possible, though this might not be completely true.
**Pan-Slavism, a movement in the mid-1800s, would also have a big effect on the war. This movement was an attempt to unite all the Slavic ethnicities, such as the Serbs, Croats, and Slavs with the Austro-Hungarians. Though this did not fully work out in the case of Austria-Hungary, the smaller Balkan nations were still united. Serbia, Romania, and their neighbors all banded together because of their shared Slavic roots. In Serbia, this sense of teogetherness was especially strong, and they strove to ostracize anyone who was not Slavic. The by-laws of the organization of the Black Hand states, "Beyond the frontiers of Serbia, fight with all means the enemies of the Serbian national idea" (doc. 6) They were prepared to defend themselves and their fellow Slavs at any cost, and so when war broke out, the South-Slavic countries were quick to band together against Austria-Hungary.
**Similar characteristics not only brought countries together, but they also pitted nations against one another. Howard Stewart Chamberlain writes, "Certain anthropologists would fain teach us that all races are equally gifted; we point to history and answer: that is a lie!" (doc. 3). Presumably German, Chamberlain, as many other Germans of that time, believed his race above all others. This superiority complex led Germans to even despise other nations who also thought they were the best nation. Eyre Crowe also discusses how the Germans feel about themselves in saying, "And as it is an axiom of her political faith that right, in order that it may prevail, must be backed by force, the transition is easy to the belief that the "good German sword," which plays so large a part in patriotic speech, is there to solve any difficulties that may be in the way of establishing the reign of those ideals in a Germanized world" (doc. 4). Germans believed that they themselves could overcome any sort of problem that was to arise in the world, they were smart enough, and were generally superior to everyone.
**Through the entire time before the First World War, tensions among all the countries of Europe had been brewing. These tensions turned into bitter disputes and arguments, while similar characteristics between countries turned into alliances. These alliances were what determined the outcome of WWI, and what actually allowed the war itself to happen and become as large as it did.
Showing posts with label DBQ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DBQ. Show all posts
Friday, 15 April 2011
Friday, 25 March 2011
Socialism and Marxism DBQ
**In Europe, the artistic period after Romanticism was one of much change. In this period, Realism, artists and authors started to move away from the idea of nature and instead focused on life itself. Realism as a genre of art was one of the first types of paintings to show Europe as it really was. By studying the paintings done in this time period, one can easily see the lives of the working and middle class. However, Realism did not necessarily show how the middle class had changed. Rather, the art of the Realist period showed the middle class as it always was, along with documenting the truth of how industrialized Europe had become.
**In past artistic movements, the main focus of art had often been religious figures or important political figures. Even though they might have shown common people, one could tell that the scenes themselves were of great importance without having to read too much into them. In Eugene Delacroix's painting of French revolutionaries lead by a women carrying the revolutionary flag, this was clearly a pivotal point in French history. This scene depicted in this painting was of great significance to France as a whole. On the other hand, Fig. 1 shows simple people riding on a train. The train itself is not very important, nor are any of the people in it. These are the true common people. There was a small majority of middle-class men or women who actually participated in the fight for rights in the French Revolution. Fig. 1, being a Realistic painting, showed these people as they really were: folk with simple lives and simple tasks to do, tasks that do not involve fighting in glorious wars. Fig. 2 is another simple painting. The people in this are merely taking a merry stroll down the street as the rain is clearing up. There is nothing truly extraordinary going on. In one painting of the previous Romantic era, The Raft of the Medusa, every person on the shipwrecked raft is doing something, the picture is busy and full of action. This is hardly ever the case in reality. Real life is often slow paced and leisurely, not as hectic as that painting portrays. Fig. 2 instead shows how real life is often as easy as a stroll down the street, nothing too exciting.
**One specific way the paintings of the Realistic era convey the truth is that they convey the truth as the artist sees it him- or herself. The painter of Fig. 1 saw the common people more sad and downtrodden. Weary people on a crowded train, thinking about all the things that need to be done. There are people talking and there are people sleeping -- both adults and a baby. Maybe the artist took a ride on a train one day and was inspired to paint exactly what he saw. What he saw turned out to be a troubled middle class, but only troubled by their own troubles, petty day-to-day troubles, little troubles that everyone is worried about, making this painting seem even more realistic. The painter of Fig. 2 seemed to see the world in a different way. He shows the people in his art as possibly more esteemed, judging by their fancy garb and top hats. He saw a finer side to the common people, and this is the message he tried to convey in his piece. In artistic periods prior to this, common people were common people, all pretty much the same and represented how artistic law told painters to represent them. The Realistic period is when the truth comes out, that even within a social class people can be different -- and so can the way that different people interpret them -- and this fact was represented in both Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.
**Another bit of truth that paintings of the Realistic era convey is indeed one of change: change in technology and industry. In Fig. 1, the people are riding on a train, possible a steam engine or maybe an electric one, to get to their destination. Trains were invented much before the Realistic era, but this was the time that technology like this started to appear in paintings. In Fig. 2, one can see signs of industry mostly from the buildings in the background. These large structures are well on their way to becoming skyscrapers. Often in times before this, paintings had not had clear, detailed images of buildings of this time. Both Delacroix's painting and The Raft of the Medusa do not have any clear buildings in them. But even through all these changes in industry shown through these Realistic paintings, the middle class is the middle class in the middle class. The world changed around them, maybe their jobs changed, maybe their pay changed for better or for worse, the both Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 convey the truth that the middle class stays the same throughout all of these new developments.
**The time of Realism was indeed a time in which artists could show real life as it was in actuality. This was an even farther step forward than Romanticism in stepping away from the once-customary Church commissioned paintings. Realism, as the name suggests, was real. Realism was one of the first types of art to show the middle class as it really was; a middle class that, even through the industrializing world, had not really changed. Of course, there were people in the middle class that rose up, for example the Third Estate becoming the bourgeois factory owners, but there was just another middle class -- the proletariat, in this case -- to take their place. Through both Fig. 1 and Fig 2., the respective artists show the middle class as it was, is, and shall be: a working, sometimes struggling class, with ordinary problems living their ordinary lives, even through all of the change.
**In past artistic movements, the main focus of art had often been religious figures or important political figures. Even though they might have shown common people, one could tell that the scenes themselves were of great importance without having to read too much into them. In Eugene Delacroix's painting of French revolutionaries lead by a women carrying the revolutionary flag, this was clearly a pivotal point in French history. This scene depicted in this painting was of great significance to France as a whole. On the other hand, Fig. 1 shows simple people riding on a train. The train itself is not very important, nor are any of the people in it. These are the true common people. There was a small majority of middle-class men or women who actually participated in the fight for rights in the French Revolution. Fig. 1, being a Realistic painting, showed these people as they really were: folk with simple lives and simple tasks to do, tasks that do not involve fighting in glorious wars. Fig. 2 is another simple painting. The people in this are merely taking a merry stroll down the street as the rain is clearing up. There is nothing truly extraordinary going on. In one painting of the previous Romantic era, The Raft of the Medusa, every person on the shipwrecked raft is doing something, the picture is busy and full of action. This is hardly ever the case in reality. Real life is often slow paced and leisurely, not as hectic as that painting portrays. Fig. 2 instead shows how real life is often as easy as a stroll down the street, nothing too exciting.
**One specific way the paintings of the Realistic era convey the truth is that they convey the truth as the artist sees it him- or herself. The painter of Fig. 1 saw the common people more sad and downtrodden. Weary people on a crowded train, thinking about all the things that need to be done. There are people talking and there are people sleeping -- both adults and a baby. Maybe the artist took a ride on a train one day and was inspired to paint exactly what he saw. What he saw turned out to be a troubled middle class, but only troubled by their own troubles, petty day-to-day troubles, little troubles that everyone is worried about, making this painting seem even more realistic. The painter of Fig. 2 seemed to see the world in a different way. He shows the people in his art as possibly more esteemed, judging by their fancy garb and top hats. He saw a finer side to the common people, and this is the message he tried to convey in his piece. In artistic periods prior to this, common people were common people, all pretty much the same and represented how artistic law told painters to represent them. The Realistic period is when the truth comes out, that even within a social class people can be different -- and so can the way that different people interpret them -- and this fact was represented in both Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.
**Another bit of truth that paintings of the Realistic era convey is indeed one of change: change in technology and industry. In Fig. 1, the people are riding on a train, possible a steam engine or maybe an electric one, to get to their destination. Trains were invented much before the Realistic era, but this was the time that technology like this started to appear in paintings. In Fig. 2, one can see signs of industry mostly from the buildings in the background. These large structures are well on their way to becoming skyscrapers. Often in times before this, paintings had not had clear, detailed images of buildings of this time. Both Delacroix's painting and The Raft of the Medusa do not have any clear buildings in them. But even through all these changes in industry shown through these Realistic paintings, the middle class is the middle class in the middle class. The world changed around them, maybe their jobs changed, maybe their pay changed for better or for worse, the both Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 convey the truth that the middle class stays the same throughout all of these new developments.
**The time of Realism was indeed a time in which artists could show real life as it was in actuality. This was an even farther step forward than Romanticism in stepping away from the once-customary Church commissioned paintings. Realism, as the name suggests, was real. Realism was one of the first types of art to show the middle class as it really was; a middle class that, even through the industrializing world, had not really changed. Of course, there were people in the middle class that rose up, for example the Third Estate becoming the bourgeois factory owners, but there was just another middle class -- the proletariat, in this case -- to take their place. Through both Fig. 1 and Fig 2., the respective artists show the middle class as it was, is, and shall be: a working, sometimes struggling class, with ordinary problems living their ordinary lives, even through all of the change.
Thursday, 10 February 2011
French Revolution and The Terror
THESIS: Though in the end the Terror seemed to have solved many problems of the French Revolution, there was no need to resort to all the violence and killings that occurred in this time period; important figures in the Revolution at that time, the opinion of the general public, and execution statistics of the Terror show how devastating this time was, and how France would have benefited more had this much violence not been used.
- Statistics
- Document 1
- Document 2
- Document 3
- Important Figures
- Document 4
- Document 6
- Document 7 (disagree)
- General Public
- Document 9
- Document 10
- Document 12
- Document 13
**During the French Revolution, the time of Terror was, as its named suggests, a time of much turmoil and death in the whole of France. Throughout the whole of these massacres and be-headings, though, many different reforms were instituted for the better of France as a whole. Policies were put in place and government orders were changed in order to please as many of the subjects as possible in an attempt to stop the murder. These reforms and whatnot would later be very beneficial to France after eventually stopping the Terror. However, this was not the best way the citizens could have gone about trying to change France. Though in the end the Terror seemed to have solved many problems of the French Revolution, there was no need to resort to all the violence and killings that occurred in this time period; important figures in the Revolution at that time, the opinion of the general public, and execution statistics of the Terror show how devastating this time was, and how France would have benefited more had this much violence not been used.
**Statistically, the death toll in the whole of France was outrageous. By the end of the terror, 2639 people had been killed in the city of Paris alone. In the entire country of France, over 11000 people had fallen victim to the devastation of the Terror. Even worse, these deaths were among people of all different social classes: nobles, middle class, peasants, every class imaginable in France was effected by the Terror (doc. 2). Some territories of France -- Vendee and Lyon, for example -- had over 400 executions take place (doc. 1). And even aside from this caste system they already had, with these differing view points as part of the Revolution, France was even more divided than it had ever been. Throughout all of France people were pitted against one another, siding with the enemy, siding against the state, maybe not even allying themselves at all (doc. 3). The Terror of France caused much discord within France, and unfortunately the one thing that all castes and opinions had in common was a large death toll.
**As people began to see how devastating the Terror was, many important figures, whether revolutionaries or people of the state just wanted it to stop. Camille Desmoulins, a journalist and former ally of Maximilien Robespierre, wrote, "You want to remove all your enemies by means of the guillotine? Has there ever been such great a folly?" (doc. 6). She goes on to say that these people doing the killings were murdering so many innocent people for no good reason, and the really brave ones are the ones that have unfortunately perished. She, like many others, realizes what a terrible idea something like the Terror is, and how much more efficient discussing matters peacefully would be. Charles James Fox, reformist member of Parliament and sympathizer with the French Revolution, said in a speech to Parliament, "What a pity that a people capable of such incredible energy should be guilty or rather be governed by those who are guilty of such unheard of crimes and cruealties," (doc. 4). He believes that the people of France do indeed have the potential for greatness, but they are putting this potential at risk by killing all of their enemies. Even as a sympathizer of the French Revolution, he believes that murder is not the way to solve problems. On the other side of the argument, Maximilien Robespierre says in a speech to the National Convention, "To good citizens revolutionary government owes the full protection of the state; to the enemies of the people it owes only death," (doc. 7). This was the violent mindset for the people in favor of the Terror. Though Robespierre did have supporters at first, people eventually realized that his ideas were not logical and would only cause harm, so they took power away from him. People, like Desmoulins, Fox, and those who demoted Robespierre, were completely right in saying how useless it was to go around killing people in order to try and make a better France.
**Even the insignificant general public came to learn that the Terror was a terrible idea. They were indeed in favor of it at first, though, in the January 28, 1794 report to the government on public opinion, which said, "The majority of the citizens agreed unanimously saying that the tribunals act well, that they acquit the innocent and punish the guilty," (doc. 9). But even in this same report it goes on to say, "Murmurs are heard among the public at their judgements," (doc. 9). These people murmuring were the ones who had the right idea about the Terror and that it should be stopped. Just a month later in the next report to the government, it was written, “Bitter complaints already expressed numberless times, were repeated today of the arrest and
imprisonment of citizens who are good patriots and are victims of ambition, cupidity, jealousy, and, in
short, every human passion," (doc. 10). More and more people are beginning to rightly realize that killing people is not the best solution to any problem. Even more discontent was brewing the next month. The next report said, "On seeing peasants on the scaffold, people said, What, have these wretches allowed themselves to be corrupted?" (doc. 12). By now they are certain that people in charge during the Terror were, as the said corrupted. Lastly, on March 30, it was reported, "The revolutionary committees are every day falling into discredit," (doc. 13). By now almost all of the general public knew how bad of an idea the Terror was, and they all just wanted it to stop.
**Though there were solutions that came from the Terror within the French Revolution, these solutions could have arisen from much more peaceful means. As statistics, important figures, and the general public all agree, murder and massacre are not the way to solve problems. Though it took some a little longer to come around then others, eventually nearly everyone was able to see that they should have come up with better alternatives to solve their problems.
Friday, 21 January 2011
Pilgrimage of Grace Midterm
~ Though some people agreed with Herny, signing the Act of Supremacy was a purely selfish decision on his part that many of his subjects, gentlemen and peasants alike, disagreed with, resulting in the Pilgrimage of Grace.
- People in Herny's court who agree
- Common people who disagree
- Gentlemen who disagree
**The Pilgrimage of Grace was a a movement that went from 1536 to 1537 in which many of Henry VIII's subjects protested his signing of the Act of Supremacy. In signing this act, Henry made himself the head of the Anglican Church of England.This upset many of his Catholic subjects, causing them to rebel and protest in the form of the Pilgrimage of Grace. Though some people agreed with Herny, signing the Act of Supremacy was a purely selfish decision on his part that many of his subjects, gentlemen and peasants alike, disagreed with, resulting in the Pilgrimage of Grace.
**There were some people close to Henry who defended his decision to sign the Act of Supremacy, but their numbers were very few. Richard Morrison, a writer hired by Thomas Cranmer, published a pamphlet titled "A Remedy for Solution," in which he wrote, "Those that are of a worser sort must be content that the wiser rule and govern them. An order must be had and a way found so that the better rule the rest," (doc. 7). He was completely convinced that Henry was above the peasant people, and therefore had a right to rule however he so chooses. Even after all the rebellion, Henry still was adamant and his decision and thought that the rebels were merely misguided. Thinking he was being kind, he wrote, "The royal majesty, duly informed that your offenses proceeded from ignorance and false tales, is inclined to extend his most gracious pity and mercy towards you and to grant to you his free pardon provided that you heartily repent your offenses and make humble submission to his highness," (doc. 9). Despite what Henry said, the people were not protesting any "false truths," nor were they "merely misguided." They knew exactly what they were doing, and he did not want to face the reality that his decision was not beneficial to his country or his subjects. Even behind this facade of kindness and mercy, he tried and convicted 144 of the participants in the Pilgrimage of Grace, 65% of all of those who had been tried (doc. 10). In order to defend his wrong decision, Henry just decided to execute the people who had opposed him.
**The majority of the people who had opposed Henry and participated in the Pilgrimage of Grace were peasants. 110 of the 144 people convicted were commoners (doc. 10), but even though they knew they could have been facing death, they were still adamant in their protests. And, unlike the motives behind Henry's original signing of the Act of Supremacy, these protesters did what they did for very unselfish reasons. The "Oath of Honorable Men" sworn by the marchers states, "You shall not enter into our Pilgrimage of Grace for worldly gain. Do so only for your love of God, for the Holy Catholic Church militant, for the preservation of the King and his heirs, for the purification of the nobility, and to expel all evil counselors," (doc. 1). They marched not for personal gain, but for the greater good, for a better cause, and for a better future. They proudly marched in the name of God, sporting a holy chalice and Christ's wounds on their flag, representing their own religious wounds, given to them by Henry VIII (doc. 3). These protesters were knocked down time and time again, and not only by the king and his English nobles. A Marchers' Proclamation delivered at many gatherings states, "We must be ready to help one another when thieves or Scots would rob or invade us either by night or day," (doc. 2). Even people from a different country were happy to persecute these commoners. Catholic monks wrote a ballad for the marchers that talks about how they were "robbed, spoiled and shorn of cattle and corn," (doc. 4). People were trying to take everything away from these peasant marchers, but they still pushed on for their beliefs. Henry VIII had not thought about the consequences of his actions for his peasant subjects in signing the Act of Supremacy, but after he did this the peasants themselves thought of one another and banded together against their selfish king.
**It was not only peasants who disagreed with Henry's unjust decision; it was also gentlemen of England. One gentleman, Robert Aske, attempted to do even more than protest. He wrote a letter to Henry VIII, asking him to do such things as "to have the supreme head of the Church be the pope in Rome as before," and "to have the monasteries' houses, lands and goods returned to them," (doc. 5). Aske tried as hard as the peasants did to change things, maybe even more so, addressing Henry VIII specifically. Right up until his death Aske believed that Henry's signing of the Act of Supremacy was for the worst. In his testimony right before his execution, he said, "Once the monasteries in the north gave great help to poor men and laudable service to God. Now no hospitality is shown to travelers," (doc. 11). He goes on to talk about how ruined the monasteries are and how this should be corrected, but Henry still thinks he has done the right thing for his country. Even Sir Thomas Temple, a former member of Parliament, wrote that, "The King should grant our petition against the traitor Thomas Cromwell and his adherents, or at least exile them from the realm," (doc. 6). Even people who used to work very closely with Henry VIII in Parliament know that he is doing wrong and should correct he and his nobles' selfish actions. During the Pilgrimage of Grace, these gentlemen were much less selfish then the king himself. In the end, 67% of these gentlemen that were tried for treason ended up being convicted (doc. 10).
**Henry VIII's signing of the Act of Supremacy was a selfish act, and it was right of both peasants and gentlemen alike to rebel. For nearly a year, they protested and protested, trying to have their beliefs heard. Though in the end many of them did end up being convicted, their voices were indeed heard. They left an imprint on England and everyone in it. These people convicted of treasons were the ones who knew the truth, and they were the ones who had the right idea about Henry VIII right from the start.
- People in Herny's court who agree
- Common people who disagree
- Gentlemen who disagree
**The Pilgrimage of Grace was a a movement that went from 1536 to 1537 in which many of Henry VIII's subjects protested his signing of the Act of Supremacy. In signing this act, Henry made himself the head of the Anglican Church of England.This upset many of his Catholic subjects, causing them to rebel and protest in the form of the Pilgrimage of Grace. Though some people agreed with Herny, signing the Act of Supremacy was a purely selfish decision on his part that many of his subjects, gentlemen and peasants alike, disagreed with, resulting in the Pilgrimage of Grace.
**There were some people close to Henry who defended his decision to sign the Act of Supremacy, but their numbers were very few. Richard Morrison, a writer hired by Thomas Cranmer, published a pamphlet titled "A Remedy for Solution," in which he wrote, "Those that are of a worser sort must be content that the wiser rule and govern them. An order must be had and a way found so that the better rule the rest," (doc. 7). He was completely convinced that Henry was above the peasant people, and therefore had a right to rule however he so chooses. Even after all the rebellion, Henry still was adamant and his decision and thought that the rebels were merely misguided. Thinking he was being kind, he wrote, "The royal majesty, duly informed that your offenses proceeded from ignorance and false tales, is inclined to extend his most gracious pity and mercy towards you and to grant to you his free pardon provided that you heartily repent your offenses and make humble submission to his highness," (doc. 9). Despite what Henry said, the people were not protesting any "false truths," nor were they "merely misguided." They knew exactly what they were doing, and he did not want to face the reality that his decision was not beneficial to his country or his subjects. Even behind this facade of kindness and mercy, he tried and convicted 144 of the participants in the Pilgrimage of Grace, 65% of all of those who had been tried (doc. 10). In order to defend his wrong decision, Henry just decided to execute the people who had opposed him.
**The majority of the people who had opposed Henry and participated in the Pilgrimage of Grace were peasants. 110 of the 144 people convicted were commoners (doc. 10), but even though they knew they could have been facing death, they were still adamant in their protests. And, unlike the motives behind Henry's original signing of the Act of Supremacy, these protesters did what they did for very unselfish reasons. The "Oath of Honorable Men" sworn by the marchers states, "You shall not enter into our Pilgrimage of Grace for worldly gain. Do so only for your love of God, for the Holy Catholic Church militant, for the preservation of the King and his heirs, for the purification of the nobility, and to expel all evil counselors," (doc. 1). They marched not for personal gain, but for the greater good, for a better cause, and for a better future. They proudly marched in the name of God, sporting a holy chalice and Christ's wounds on their flag, representing their own religious wounds, given to them by Henry VIII (doc. 3). These protesters were knocked down time and time again, and not only by the king and his English nobles. A Marchers' Proclamation delivered at many gatherings states, "We must be ready to help one another when thieves or Scots would rob or invade us either by night or day," (doc. 2). Even people from a different country were happy to persecute these commoners. Catholic monks wrote a ballad for the marchers that talks about how they were "robbed, spoiled and shorn of cattle and corn," (doc. 4). People were trying to take everything away from these peasant marchers, but they still pushed on for their beliefs. Henry VIII had not thought about the consequences of his actions for his peasant subjects in signing the Act of Supremacy, but after he did this the peasants themselves thought of one another and banded together against their selfish king.
**It was not only peasants who disagreed with Henry's unjust decision; it was also gentlemen of England. One gentleman, Robert Aske, attempted to do even more than protest. He wrote a letter to Henry VIII, asking him to do such things as "to have the supreme head of the Church be the pope in Rome as before," and "to have the monasteries' houses, lands and goods returned to them," (doc. 5). Aske tried as hard as the peasants did to change things, maybe even more so, addressing Henry VIII specifically. Right up until his death Aske believed that Henry's signing of the Act of Supremacy was for the worst. In his testimony right before his execution, he said, "Once the monasteries in the north gave great help to poor men and laudable service to God. Now no hospitality is shown to travelers," (doc. 11). He goes on to talk about how ruined the monasteries are and how this should be corrected, but Henry still thinks he has done the right thing for his country. Even Sir Thomas Temple, a former member of Parliament, wrote that, "The King should grant our petition against the traitor Thomas Cromwell and his adherents, or at least exile them from the realm," (doc. 6). Even people who used to work very closely with Henry VIII in Parliament know that he is doing wrong and should correct he and his nobles' selfish actions. During the Pilgrimage of Grace, these gentlemen were much less selfish then the king himself. In the end, 67% of these gentlemen that were tried for treason ended up being convicted (doc. 10).
**Henry VIII's signing of the Act of Supremacy was a selfish act, and it was right of both peasants and gentlemen alike to rebel. For nearly a year, they protested and protested, trying to have their beliefs heard. Though in the end many of them did end up being convicted, their voices were indeed heard. They left an imprint on England and everyone in it. These people convicted of treasons were the ones who knew the truth, and they were the ones who had the right idea about Henry VIII right from the start.
Friday, 14 January 2011
Scientific Revolution DBQ
**The Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries brings to mind great scientists like Galileo who dedicated themselves to math and science in order to help human learning. Advances were made in chemistry, astronomy, math, and even more branches of science by these men. However, they were not the ones whose thoughts were able to change that of the people in charge, i.e., the Pope and the powerful rulers of that time. Without those people, the ideas of the scientists would never have been accepted by the general public. The thoughts of those people such as religious figures, philosophers, and even men working in the state were those that most helped to push the scientific revolution forward, because they broke boundaries and changed the way even society itself reacted to new ideas and developments.
**The year 1554 was one of the first years that a free thinker came into the picture. John Calvin, a French Protestant theologian, disagreed with the fact that the study of astronomy should be outlawed by the Church, saying, "This study should not be prohibited, nor this science condemned, because some frantic persons boldly reject whatever is unknown to them," (doc. 2). He had even formed his own religions, to become known later as Calvinism, because he so disagreed with the Church. Just a few years earlier, Polish priest and astronomer Nicholas Copernicus had agreed in a more mild way, saying, "The learned and unlearned alike may see that I shrink from no criticism," (doc.1) meaning that he would continue his studies no matter what others told him. Both these religious men, though in different religions, thought the same thing about the fact that knowledge and learning should have no boundaries. Galileo himself was living proof of what these two men are discussing; his books were banned by the Church and put under house arrest for the last years of his life because his teachings disagreed with the Church. People all over the world, including people within the Church like Copernicus, began to see that the Church was conflicting with the opportunity to discover many new things.
**Many philosophers had the same ideas about learning and the fact that it must be expanded. Francis Bacon, as English philosopher of science, said that "the true and lawful goal of science is this: that human knowledge be endowed with new discoveries and powers," (doc. 4). He believed that learning new things was absolutely necessary to all of mankind itself. Another philosopher that was way ahead of her time was Margaret Cavendish, an English natural philosopher. She said, "Were it allowable for our sex, I might set up my own school of natural philosophy," (doc. 9). Though it would be many years before this would actually happen Cavendish, like these other men, wanted to open people's eyes up to new possibilities. She also wanted them to accept scientists, though she was speaking of the female gender. Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher, talks not about how the Church would limit knowledge, but how the state itself would. He believes that, because geometry does not appear to matter to people because it has nothing to do with "ambition, lust or profit," people will mostly leave it alone. But, he says that if some geometry postulate or theorem would "conflict with the interest of those who rule," he knows that "it would be suppressed," (doc. 7). Hobbes believes wholeheartedly that any king or queen would censor new discoveries should they not be want they want their people to know.
**Despite Hobbes' views, there were some people involved in the state who tried to encourage scientists to gather their knowledge together. Henry Oldenburg, secretary of the English Royal Society, had wanted scientists to all come together as a community. He said, "Friendship should be spread through the world of learning, and established among those whose minds are above partisan zeal because of their devotion to truth and human welfare," (doc. 6). Oldenburg believed that communities of learning would greatly benefit the world at that time, and all of mankind to come. Jean Baptiste Colbert, French finance minister under Louis XIV, wrote a letter saying how the state also must allow arts and sciences to flourish, and that he has been persuaded to establish many scientific academies to help science prosper (doc. 11). This can be shown being put into action a few years later, with a drawing of all the great minds and projects at work in the French Royal Academy, a place where learning could flourish (doc. 10).
**Free thinkers of the Scientific Revolution such as religious men, philosophers, and statesmen, despite the fact that they were not considered "scientists," made the most important contributions in these time periods. Though they did not actually change the way the people viewed the physical world like some scientists, they changed the way the people of that time period thought. These were the people that opened their eyes so that they could see the new discoveries made by scientists. These were the people that allowed the Scientific Revolution to happen.
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
DBQ Format Quiz
1. What is the range of scores for a DBQ essay?
- The range of scores is from 0-9, with 0 being the worst and 9 being the best.
- If a DBQ does not have a thesis, the highest score it can get is a 5.
3. If you have 12 documents, what is the bare minimum of documents you must cite?
- The bare minimum documents is 7, half of the given plus one
4. Explain what "bias" is.
- Bias is the viewpoint of the author or artist of a given document, which could get in the way of the true facts
5. What does it mean by "groupings"?
- Grouping refers to categorizing the documents in some way, such as by the different types of people the authors are (Ex. - nobles, peasants, merchants)
6. What would be the citation for "Document 5"?
- (Document 5)
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
Effects of the Black Plague: DBQ
As the Black Plague ravaged Great Britain, the majorities turned the mass confusion to their advantage when laborers tried to obtain more rights and violently rebelled against their authorities, and when they needed someone to blame the pestilence of the disease on, they looked toward the Jews.
With the death toll staggering from the sever contagion of the plague, the supply and demand went up not only for commodities, but also for hard labor. The people of the working class attempted to take advantage of this by asking for more money for their services. Even if their potential employers did not want to pay anything extra, their were plenty of others who would, so they did not really have a choice. The wealthier people who were higher up in the hierarchy tried to prevent the working class from rising up, but when it all came down to it, they needed these people were indispensable, and the rich needed them. Whether the wealthier liked it or not, the hierarchy was changing, and the peasants were getting wise.
The peasants were rising up in more than just the economy; the plague had wreaked havoc on both the lives of the poor and the lives of the rich, causing their entire way of life to be turned upside down. As a result of the sheer panic that came from this, many of the peasants went crazy. They banded together and even more ruined the lives of the knights and other wealthy people of the nation, harming them, torturing them, and even killing many of them. This peasant rebellion was caused much destruction during the two years of the plague, in addition to the sickness.
When the people realized how devastating the Black Plague was to them and the world in which they lived, they strove to find a scapegoat on which to place the blame. Some people of the Jewish religion had already been previously charged with poisoning well water, and because of this, everyone turned against them and held them accountable for the plague. Jews were a minority, so it was very easy for the rest of Great Britain to overpower them when it came down to it. Many Jews were burned for this apparent crime, and only in cities such as Avignon were they protected by people of authority like the pope.
In this time of bedlam that resulted from the Black Plague, all of these groups -- the employers, the knightly people, and the Jews -- were shoved to the wall as the peasants and the working class were able to collaborate against the peoples they thought were opposing them; though in the end the main thing that resulted from the ruinous plague was not the power of teamwork, but an extreme decrease in Europe's population.
Thursday, 9 September 2010
Opinions on the Scots: DBQ
During the early 1300s, the English and the Scottish had very different views on the Scottish people; the English treated them as brutes, cowards, and greedy murders, and the Scottish glorified themselves to the point of calling themselves holy.
In the minds of the English, William Wallace -- a hero for the Scots -- was viewed as a corrupt, insane man who, when in danger, saved himself and let others do his dirty work. They took much joy in the gruesome and painful death of Wallace, believing that he fully deserved it for his crimes.
Robert the Bruce was a hero for the Scottish, but the English considered him a selfish, volatile man who murdered for his own benefit. He demanded to be the King of Scotland, and when John Comyn disagreed, the English report that Robert the Bruce was not at all hesitant to run him through with a sword.
The Scottish, however, consider the English villains, because of their desire to conquer more and more of Scotland's land, and thought that Scotland was favored by the Lord Himself. They even appealed to the Holy Father and requested for Scotland and its freedom to be sacred, so that the English may not disturb them.
The English and Scottish both exaggerated the truth of what Scotland was really like, and though there may be truth to their words, both nations were too biased against one another and to self-absorbed with their own territories to see what that truth really was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)