One Minute Learning: Ideologies and Competition!

This week, we started discussing the three political ideologies, nationalism, conservatism, and liberalism. Each ideology is very different, so it is important to learn the exact definition for each one. The essential question for this lesson was, " What were the major ideologies of the 19th century and how did they influence social and political actions?". To start the lesson off, we used our previous knowledge to create a definition and sentence for each ideology. Now, since I was only sure of the definition of liberalism, this was a bit challenging for me. However, it was helpful see what I knew before writing the exact definition, which was later given by Ms. Gallagher. After defining each ideology, we discussed the ideologies and how it connects to todays world. The meaning of each ideology is a little different compared to its meaning over 100 years ago.  Before I dive deeper in the meaning of each ideology, it is essential to know the definition of 'ideology'. Ideology is defined as, "A system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic and political theory or policy." After reviewing definitions, we then started a mini project. Each group was assigned one out of the three ideologies. However, two groups had the same ideology. So, when each mini project was finished, we went head-to-head and our other classmates voted on which project conveyed the ideology best.

My Educreations Video Project:

https://www.educreations.com/lesson/view/conservatism-project-by-morgan-mark-and-emily/25467349/?s=k09tOr&ref=app

My group, which included Morgan and Mark, decided to create an Educreations for our project. In our Educreations, we also included various photos that depicted what we were saying. This helps the audience to  hear and see what we are trying to convey. Out of the three, our ideology was conservatism. Our project helped to show the basics of Conservatism and what Conservatives preached and hoped to achieve. In terms of photos, our first slide shows a monarchy and a church. Conservatives support the monarchy system and the church. The following slide shows fighting among people. We included this photo because it represents the fact that Conservatives were greatly  against any type of fighting or war. Aside from the photos, in our video we talked about the people who were favor of Conservatism, and the main beliefs of Conservatism as well. In the 19th century, Conservatism was the belief that tradition is the only trustworthy guide to social and political action. Conservatives did not belief in innovation, because it often led to bloodshed and fighting among peers. Past events such as the French Revolution show that new ideas and innovation cause great chaos. This ideology is the sole belief in keeping things the way they were/are. Conservatism is an aristocracy, not a meritocracy. In the competition, my group actually ended up winning, which was pretty awesome!

Aside from Conservatism, there are two other ideologies (like I mentioned above). This includes Liberalism and Nationalism. To start off, Liberals are people who are willing to sacrifice their personal interests for the greater good. They care equally about all people, and are open to new ideas and solutions. In addition, liberalism is the idea that preserving the rights of the people is best. The invisible hand is an example of liberalism because it gives people the right to do what they want to do. For this ideology, government was chosen based on a meritocracy, where people were elected based on their skills, not on their social status. Liberals supported innovation and reform (in contrast to conservatives), arguing that many traditions were simply superstitions. On the other hand, Nationalism is a very different ideology. Nationalists mainly promote unification of people of the same culture and history. Nationalists did not want foreign rulers and often dreamt of combining people who were alike into one united country. Judging from all three of the ideologies, it is evident that each one includes different beliefs and characteristics.
.

Napoleon Bonaparte: A Hero or Tyrant?

Over the course of history, there have been many influential figures who have greatly changed the world. Recently, in class we discussed Napoleon Bonaparte, man whom many people either love or hate. In order to gain a better understanding of Napoleon, we completed a few activities, which included a fast paced video of his life. While focusing on his life story, the video also spoke about  the countries that Napoleon invaded (and in some cases robbed). A few of these countries include Russia, Egypt, and Spain, along with countless others. Aside from the video, we analyzed documents written by people from Napoleon's time period. These specific documents include commentary by various people on Napoleon, and whether or not they believe he made a positive impact. Most of the activities I completed required highlighting. By highlighting, this allowed for me to directly focus on the key characteristics of Napoleon. Along with the documents, we analyzed maps as well. The first map showed how much of Europe was under the control of France. However, the second map mainly focused on Spain, Portugal, and France, showing that Napoleon had gained immense power among many countries. 

The essential question for this specific lesson is, "What was Napoleon's impact on the  social, economic and political systems of Europe?". This question can be argued, as many people had differing opinions on Napoleon. Napoleon was a hero to many people in France, but others saw him as a tyrant. Madame de Stael is one writer who bitterly opposed Napoleon. In a excerpt written by Madame de Stael, she describes, "He would like to persuade men by force and by cunning, and he considers all else to be stupidity or folly......"(1). Looking at this quote, it is evident that Madame de Stael did not support Napoleon. She goes on to claim that his system was to intrude daily on France's liberty and Europe's independence, which she did not agree with. Seeing that Madame de Stael was part of the nobility and the daughter of King Louis XIV's formal financial advisor, she most likely wasn't happy that someone was attempting to take over and capture France. On the other hand, Marshal Michel Ney conveyed a very different opinion on Napoleon. Dissimilar to Madame de Stael, Ney admired Napoleon. He even describes him as "our august emperor". In the context of this quote, 'August" is defined as someone who is admired or immensely impressive. In Marshal Michel Ney's except, he says, "To the emperor Napoleon, our sovereign, belongs alone the right to rule over our beautiful country"(1). Throughout the whole excerpt, Ney promotes Napoleon and preaches that he is a gift to France. However, Michel Michael Ney's background may have greatly influenced his perspective on Napoleon. As one of Napoleons soldiers, Ney  obviously would have benefited from Napoleons reign. In addition,knowing Napoleon on a more close level, might have influenced him to promote Napoleon in a Postitive way. Looking at a chart showing the effects Napoleon had on France and around the world, it is clear that he greatly affected France and other countries economically, politically, and socially. Napoleon based the value of people not on what social class they were apart of, but on their personal skill. If a poor citizen was skillful they would be more valuable compared to a rich citizen who lacked skill. This aspect of Napoleon was positive in France, but not necessarily for other countries. Politically, Napoleon had a positive impact on all countries. Even though he looted many cities, he allowed the rulers to still rule. Although, they did have to abide by his rules. Economically, he restored economic prosperity, controlled prices, encouraged new industry, and even built new canals and roads. This was in France specifically, but in other parts of Europe that may not have been positive.

Aside from the documents mentioned above, "The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians" also gives readers an insight into different opinions on Napoleon. Throughout the article, there are various opinions that often contradict each other. Many of the people that write about him explain that he had good and bad qualities. This shows that even some educated historians are not set on one answer. As described in the document, John C. Ropes wrote, "While we do not hesitate to speak with proper severity of Napoleon's reckless course in 1813 and 1814, of his obstinate adherence to a military solution of the difficulties which encompassed his Empire, of his indifference as a soldier to the evils of war, of his forgetfulness as soldier of his duties as a sovereign, -- while we recognize these defects and faults, 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." John C. Ropes shows that although his course was often reckless, he was devoted to the public and humanity. (The First Napoleon: A Sketch, Political, and Military). Despite invading many countries, he valued education and built infrastructure as well. Additionally, P.C. Healy, a clergyman and author of biographies wrote, f  "Napoleon was great -- intellectually towering above the princes and monarchs of many generations....He had no rival in the tactics of war....His imagination was under the guidance of reason, whose intuitions were clear as morning light, and as rapid in their comprehensive action." P.C Headley believes that Napoleon was intelligent, and was almost a genius when it came to wear tactics. However, Headley also wrote that "Napoleon was a "moral dwarf" who even in his "magnanimous deeds, always advanced his fame. He aspired after unquestioned preeminence among the thrones of Europe, but he had not the higher qualities of heart and the pure philanthropy which would have made it safe to hold the power that seemed at times within his grasp."

(The Life of Napoleon Bonaparte ). This shows Headley's multiple views on Napoleon.

In my opinion, I think that Napoleon had a positive impact on the social, economic, and political systems of Europe. Although he was not always viewed positively, I believe that he was a military genius and extremely intelligent . To be fair, he even let rulers still rule after invading their country. Also, he built infrastructure, spread education, and focused a lot on humanity.  In  France, he judged people based on their skill, rather than their social class. Napoleon was a great leader who had a lot of ambition, and lots of leadership skills. Overall, even though Napoleon could be seen as a tyrant, I think that he made many positive impacts, especially in France.



Napoleon Himself.
Citation:http://jcvalda.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/napoleon-bonaparte-3/



A Video Describing Napoleon Bonaparte.


Citations
1. Two Views of Napoleon Document

Rock Paper Scissors With a Twist: Karl Marx and Adam Smith!

The Industrial Revolution changed more than just technology and how work is done. It also greatly changed the way money and goods were distributed and most importantly, it changed how people viewed the "rich vs. poor" Most people were proletariat (poor), and others were part of the bourgeoisie. This concept can be quite confusing, so in class we played a game of Rock Paper  Scissors. Our game of Rock Paper Scissors included Hershey's Kisses. Most students received three Hershey Kisses. However, there were some students who received ten instead. This shows the unfairness of the game and can relate to Capitalism in the real world. Once we had our candies, we had the freedom to play against who ever we wanted. Whoever lost the game was forced to give up one Hershey kiss to their opponent. Of course, the winner is able to keep the candy they received from their opponent. Each pair only plays once, there is no "2 out of 3". Once a player loses all their candy, they must sit down. Then, the teacher collected the candy and redistributed it. Each student was given three candies, which was fair. Each person could decide whether they wanted to play again and risk their candy, or keep the three candies. This part represented the economic system of Socialism. Then there were no classes and our teacher no longer had to supervise the candy distribution. This is known as Communism. I found this game to be fun because it was a different way to understand capitalism, socialism, and communism. We were able to apply the characteristics of all 3 economic/political systems to our game. The game resulted in an easier way of understanding the three systems. Although the game was fun, it was also frustrating. Some students received more candy than others, which is unfair. This allowed for those students to play longer, and have a better chance of keeping more candies. Also, once I ran out of candy, I was forced to sit down. From there, there was no way to be able to get back into the game.

Karl Marx and Adam Smith greatly relate to Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism. Both men wished to change the lives of the poor, and help them live a more successful lifestyle. However, Marx and Smith had very different approaches at helping the less fortunate. For Marx, an ideal economic system would result in equality for all, a classless society. Also, that value is determined by the amount of work put into whatever is being produced. Capitalism contradicts Marx's ideas, as he often fought against Capitalism. So, instead, Marx said, in order to make things more fair, people would  create a government system of  socialism. Socialism is much different compared to Capitalism. Socialism is government ownership of industry, rather than private. Economic equality and a classless society is included as well. Resulting from Socialism, Marx said that the majority of citizens would not accept the possibility of divisions between rich and poor any longer. By any means necessary, such as violence, they would create communism. Communism results in  a classless society and no government needed at all. Now, this is merely just a theory. Because it is a theory, Karl Marx's ideal society most likely wouldn't ever happen. But, Marx's theory would allow for the poor and the rich to have the same opportunities and to be equal to each other. Marx's theory isn't just communism, but basically the journey to communism. He believes that capitalism and socialism will lead to communism, which will help the poor.  On the other hand, Adam Smith had a very different theory. Adam Smith invented "The Invisible Hand" theory. Basically, this a metaphor for a self -regulating economy. People can make profit and money on their own without the government intervening. If the government stops regulating the economy, then the economy will regulate itself. People will act through their own self interest. The poor will have more options and will be able to do what they want. Business owners will realize that they have to reduce prices, so that people will buy their products. Therefore, the proletariat will be able to buy products that are at a good price for them. Smith's theory is pure capitalism.  Adam Smith's theory allows for commerce and free trade. This benefits the poor greatly.

In my opinion I don't really think there is a best solution. However, if I were to choose, I think Adam Smith's theory is the best chose. With the Invisible hand, it gives people a chose on the way they want to live their life and make their money. If the government doesn't intervene, then the poor will have more of a chance of pursuing whatever they wish. Also, the Invisible hand gives the rich the opportunity to do what they want to as well. Like I said before, I don't think there is a best solution. It is very unlikely that full equality will be reached. There will always be people who are richer than others, and people who are struggling to be successful. Although difficult, I think creating a system where more jobs are created could be a third alternative. People wouldn't be able to complain if they weren't making money, because people would have the chose to have a job or not. This would be beneficial for the poor and the rich.

Below are two videos that helped me to understand this lesson:

Karl Marx Video:

Adam Smith Video:

The Benefits and Costs of Working in the Mills: Life of a Mill Girl

Although the Industrial Revolution was time of great invention and advancements in machinery, there were also many other aspects of the 19th century that contributed to the Revolution as well. Woman and the roles of women were a large part of the Industrial Revolution. This is because a large majority of factory workers were women. Because of many factors, young women were motivated to work in the mills. However, although there were benefits, there were countless negative characteristics as well.

 

After viewing "Daughters of Free Men", it is clear that there were many aspects of working that motivated young women to head to the mills everyday. For women, earning money was one of the most important reasons why they decided to work. Women were able to send the money that they made home to support their families, or keep a portion for themselves. With the money the girls earned, they were also able to purchase clothing. Most woman wanted to dress nicely, and by working they were able to achieve this. During the 19th century, most women worked as housekeepers or stayed at home. By working in the mills, women gained independence. Specifically,  Mill Girls show that women can support not only their families, but also themselves. Although the girls mostly spent their time working machines,  they were also educated and properly cared for.  This greatly appealed to both the women and their families back home. Of course there were also many negative costs of working at the mills as well. Although the conditions in Massachusetts weren't as bad as England, poor working conditions were inevitable. Whether women were employed in England or Lowell, conditions were less than desired. The women worked long hour days, usually about 13 hours in total The average pay for a six day work week was three dollars and fifty cents, which is not a lot at all. Death and Injury were bound to happen. While working the machines, women's hands were often massacred, and long hair was lost in the machines. Work was not very satisfying and working long hours caused women's bodies to deform and deteriorate. Also, young women were away from their families for long periods of time, which was most likely very difficult. In the film "Daughters of Free Men", it is evident that conditions were not as humane as they could be. Lucy Hall and Harriett, two of the main characters, ended up walking out of the mills. In other words, they boycotted the mills. The mill girls knew what was right and they were aware that they weren't being treated properly. Wage cuts were not certainly not fair at all, considering they were paid very little in the first place.

 

The 1830s marks a time in America where there were many changes for woman. Gender roles and the roles of woman were altered and woman weren't just known as housekeepers anymore. The idea of men working for their families and woman staying at home was no longer part of the ideal society. Woman became more independent and instead wanted to achieve things for themselves, rather than just their families. In "Daughters of Free Men" Lucy and countless other girls worked in the rather "manly" world of machines and manufacturing. The mill girls left their impact by changing common perceptions of woman working outside the home, living away from parents, being educated, writing for the public, and especially labor reform. After working in factories for many years, most woman went on to achieve more than just cooking for their families. This included, unspoken abolitionists and women's rights activists.

 

 

This is a mill girl working a machine. Looking at the photo, it is evident that young women often stood all day with little breaks. This put great strain on their growing bodies. This is a cost of deciding to work in the mills.

Citation: http://usgenderroles.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-lowell-mill-girls.html