Human civilization exists in categories: old and new, rigid or revolutionary, progressive or conservative, advanced or primitive. People create categories to better understand the world, and to interact with it more easily than if they regarded life in its true, spectrum-like nature. Often, social categories result in exclusion, a path that trends towards increasing harms for any people being excluded. This paper applies exclusion to the nation-state: that modern invention of a new category, one that describes broad, influential political institutions that are justified not by their political past but by the social, economic, and cultural past that their people supposedly share. This paper discusses how exclusion has manifested itself in two …show more content…
Avignon—and its surrounding lands in Provence—was a territory of complex jurisdiction. Its people were ethnically French, with close ties linguistically and culturally to Provence. Throughout its duration as a papal holding, it had periodic pro-French outbursts, such as in 1554 when French King Henry II offered support to nearby Aixois Protestants whom the Papacy had been actively persecuting as part of an effort to remove religious nonconformity from Papal lands. Avignon also had a longstanding tradition among its authorities to ask for rigid obedience to the Papacy in all walks of life, so its people enjoyed fewer freedoms than the French before the revolution. Many scholars have commented on the French Revolution’s influences on sectarianism and nationalism, and others have commented on Avignon’s reunification being the first time that nationalism was used as a justification for a shift in European territorial jurisdiction, but the direct ties between nationhood and exclusion in revolutionary Avignon have received relatively little attention from students of the period, perhaps due to Avignon playing only a minor role in the grander scheme of the French Revolution itself. However, Avignon’s place in history as the first territory of nationalist reunification should be valued by historians more, as its currents of nationalism tie directly into its persecution of minority groups: perhaps the first modern example of nationhood and
The Edict of Nantes had given Protestants, or Huguenots, in France the ability to practice their religion without fear of violence or persecution. Enacted in the late 1500s in an effort to resemble France after the destruction of the French Wars of Religion, the Edict of Nantes served as a means to unite the French population and end the violence that often accompanied religious persecution. Louis’ decision to revoke such a peace-promoting edict, in an effort to homogenize his country and align his subjects with his own beliefs, clearly illustrates his giving of priority to his own agenda, as opposed to that which would best benefit his country. However, while the claim that the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes was detrimental to French society, seems to be disproven by Doc 6, which essentially asserts that the king’s revocation has resulted in the rapid conversion of “whole towns” and describes the king as “the invincible hero destined to… destroy the terrible monster of heresy”, the author’s inherently biased point of view must be addressed. This description, which could be used as evidence to support the fact that Louis did act in interest of the state, must be taken with a grain of salt as the author himself, a member of the Assembly of the Clergy, does not even have the best interest of the state in mind; rather, he is
In the 1560’s, France’s Catholics were being challenged by the Calvinists of Geneva for over a decade. After the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre King Henry IV issued the Edict of Nantes that mandated Catholicism as the kingdom’s religion, but also offered Huguenots the ability to hold public offices, be able to worship at certain times and places, and enter hospitals and un...
With the dawn of civilization soon thereafter followed the creation of authoritarian and totalitarian establishments. The history of man is inundated with instances of leaders rising to power over certain groups of people and through various means gaining formidable control to be used for good, evil, or an ambiguous mixture of both. However, it is an undeniable fact that once unchecked power is acquired, tyranny often ensues, and thus a dictatorial regime is born. Over the centuries, governmental establishments have risen and fallen, but as history and civilization progress, so does the potential for a larger and more powerful domination. The development of differing and contrasting theologies and structural philosophies leads not only to conflict, but perhaps more prominently to unification under one rule with a common belief, especially when that unifying belief provides a promising sense of belonging and structure to a weak society. This is what led to the rise of two of the most domineering totalitarian governments in history: Stalin’s Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and Hitler’s Nazi Germany, or the Third Reich.
Perhaps of the most obvious differences between these two civilizations was in their political beliefs. Two political forces constructed the new form of government in Western Society, known as Nationalism and Liberalism. Nationalists argued that the state should be linked to a single basic culture, and all other natio...
The later 18th century was a time of crisis for the old regimes of Europe and their economic systems and political agitation sometimes breaking out into revolts. English Industrial Revolution vaulted Britain to the fore. France was the most powerful and the most typical of the old aristocratic absolute monarchies of Europe. (lower taxes off backs of lower classes).
In all of the documents listed, liberty and equality are described with regards to the French Revolution. These concepts are shown to have evolved over the course of the revolution, and this is proven by the documents chosen. Liberty and equality were emphasized as either major or minor ideas in the documents, and although some were only alluded to, it is evident that the ideas of liberty and equality changed during the years of the French Revolution. Also, some of the terms used connoted different things at the end of the Revolution than the original Revolutionaries of 1789, which demonstrates the transformation of the use of words which were symbolic at that time.
During the latter part of the 18th century, to be a French citizen almost certainly meant that you were Catholic as well. People outside the Catholic church were denied complete ...
The French Revolution evokes many different emotions and controversial issues in that some believe it was worth the cost and some don't. There is no doubt that the French Revolution did have major significance in history. Not only did the French gain their independence, but an industrial revolution also took place. One of the main issues of the Revolution was it's human costs. Two writers, the first, Peter Kropotkin who was a Russian prince, and the other Simon Schama, a history professor, both had very opposing views on whether the wars fought by France during the Revolution were worth it's human costs. Krapotkin believed that the French Revolution was the main turning point for not only France but for most other countries as well. On the other hand, Schama viewed the French Revolution as unproductive and excessively violent.
During the eighteenth century, France was one of the most richest and prosperous countries in Europe, but many of the peasants were not happy with the way France was being ruled. On July 14, 1789, peasants and soldiers stormed the Bastille and initiated the French Revolution. This essay will analyze the main causes of the French Revolution, specifically, the ineffectiveness of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, the dissatisfaction of the Third Estate, and the Enlightenment. It will also be argued that the most significant factor that caused the French Revolution is the ineffective leadership of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.
For a historian, the 20th century and all the historic events that it encompasses represents a utopia with endless sources of inspiration for the analysis of political figures, events and their consequences. Political figures such as Benito Mussolini of Italy, Adolf Hitler of Germany, Mao Zedong of China and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union are all names we are familiar with due to the time period that they influenced; this time period after the trauma and atrocities of World War I and the Great Depression led to completely new forms of government in Europe and beyond. These “manifestations of political evil”, commonly known as totalitarian states, should not be considered as mere extensions of already existing political systems, but rather as completely new forms of government built upon terror and ideological fiction. Therefore, this was also a time in which political philosophers such as Hannah Arendt, the author of the standard work on totalitarianism, “Origins of Totalitarianism”, could thrive. When looking at totalitarianism as a political philosophy, two initial questions have to be dealt with: what is totalitarianism and what kind of effect it had on countries ruled by totalitarian regimes. The reasons for its occurrence have briefly been mentioned above, although there are much deeper ideological, social and economic reasons including imperialism and anti-Semitism. In order to fully understand it, we must also contrast it to other political systems like authoritarianism and dictatorship, which are similar to a certain extent, but lack crucial elements that are in the core of totalitarian ideology. Out of the many examples of totalitarian regimes in the 20th century, Nazi Germany, Communist China and the Soviet Union stan...
The rise of nationalism and its mark on the history of Europe was quite profound. The unification of major powers and the civil unrest on the journey to unification created a large chapter of history in the nineteenth century. By the 1900s the mark of nationalism had been left on Italy, Germany, France and Great Britain. The major European powers had come through great trials to set the stage for the twentieth century and the conflicts that will erupt. Nationalism will be remembered as a great period of change and growth.
The thesis of this study is how society was during the French Revolution from 1789 to 1799. The French Revolution during this time went through significant changes from the beginning when society was run by the wealthy class and being undemocratic and changed to being a democratic state. From 1789 to 1799, the French Revolution was a “cataclysmic political and social upheaval.” French society was going through a hard period in France.
The French Revolution and the legacy of A Tale of Two Cities & nbsp; It is a commonplace of Dickensian criticism that the writer was influenced by Carlyle's The French Revolution in A Tale of Two Cities. Taking Dickens's comment that he read Carlyle's history "five hundred times" (I. Collins 46) as a starting point, many critics have discussed Carlyle's influence on several aspects of the novel, such as the narrative technique (Friedman 481-5), the imagery associated with the Revolution (I. Collins 52; Baumgarten 166; Lodge 131-2), and the narration of the historical episodes (Lodge 134; Friedman 489). And yet, Dickens's outlook on revolutionary violence differed significantly from that of Carlyle. As Irene Collins points out, Dickens "dislikes the violence of the revolutionaries, both in its popular form (the mob) and in its institutionalised form (the Terror). Unlike Carlyle, he can no longer see justice in the violence" (53).
This essay will describe the characteristics of the modern nation-state, explain how the United States fits the criteria of and functions as a modern nation-state, discuss the European Union as a transnational entity, analyze how nation-states and transnational entities engage in foreign policy to achieve their interests, and the consequences of this interaction for international politics. Some of the characteristics that make up a modern nation-state are: the population of the territory is united in the national identity and traditions, has an official language or languages and common descent, has an organized government, shall have independence and sovereign (self-ruled), and has a defined territory and/or borders. An example of a modern nation-state is Egypt. Egypt’s identity is closely tied to its location and its long history.
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.