Revolutionary Movements
With the 20th century, many new revolutionary movements have come into
the focus of world politics. Of these, fascism is one of the most
difficult to put into a proper context. Many scholars through the
years have tried to place fascism and answer the seemingly simple
question of "What is Fascism?" It can be described in several versions
depending on the scholar. The most familiar version is the right/left
idea, while the democratic/non-democratic and
industrialized/non-industrialized models are increasingly popular in
the understanding of fascism. All of these models need to rely on a
concise set of criteria for it's analysis, as well as how these
criteria can be proven. According to the primary evidence, the
democratic/non-democratic and industrialized/non-industrialized models
distinguished fascism, and it provides a paradigmatic example for
revolutions in the 20th century by its descriptive characteristics and
dynamic characteristics of the movement.
The first problem with classifying the revolutionary movements as
right or left tends to fall victim to the term itself. According to
James Gregor, he quotes Laqueur to make this point true. "Laqueur, for
example, has maintained that 'The terms right and left, although not
altogether useless, become more problematical as one moves away in
time and space from nineteenth-century- Europe (Gregor, Phoenix pg.
8).'" With this inadequate definition of what makes a regime left or
right, we are left with this conclusion, "Communists, in effect, have
become increasingly like the fascists on the 'radical right' or
perhaps they had always been of the 'radical right...
... middle of paper ...
...ammad's Black Muslims. Thanks to the "failure" of Marcus Gravy, a
new order was necessary to the formation of an abnormal religious
fundamentalism. This fundamentalism relied of a very different
interpretation of the Koran, so although it is not a decay of fascist
doctrine, and the movement itself was not fascist, an ideological
decay can be seen through the specter of the Black Muslims.
Although there are many theories on what the changes were in the
"fascist" regimes through the 20th century, the idea of ideological
decay seems to happen in almost all of these regimes, even the ones
that only slightly resemble fascist, such as the Black Muslims. The
use of violence as a political tool, and the fall of grand ideological
claims seem to be a hallmark of "half-baked" and "imported" fascist
regimes throughout the world.
“The story of post-revolutionary America,” writes Rosemarie Zagarri, “is the story of how American women and men sought to define – and ultimately to limit and restrict – the expansive ideals they had so successfully deployed against Britain.” In this excerpt from Revolutionary Backlash, Zagarri depicts the extreme radicalism of the American Revolution, while also suggesting that there were some constraints to its extremism. Unlike the normal way of life in European government and society, Americans desired a nation in which the inherent rights and freedoms of individuals were recognized and respected. While these rights and freedoms were ultimately achieved, many groups of people were still left out. Women of all kinds, people of color, and men of poverty were often unable to enjoy and appreciate America’s newfound rights and freedoms. Despite these limits and restrictions, however, the American Revolution was still extremely radical in the sense that it was able to surpass traditional, European political and social ideology.
Reform movements including religion, temperance, abolition, and women's rights sought to expand democratic ideals in the years 1825 to 1850. However, certain movements, such as nativism and utopias, failed to show the American emphasis on a democratic society. The reform movements were spurred by the Second Great Awakening, which began in New England in the late 1790's, and would eventually spread throughout the country. The Second Great Awakening differed from the First in that people were now believed to be able to choose whether or not to believe in God, as opposed to previous ideals based on Calvinism and predestination.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, there have been a number of great revolutionary movements going on in the United States, contributing to a huge spectrum of changes, ranged from American people’s everyday lives, to a more comprehensive view about the world and themselves, even to the national economic system. Those movements had reached a climax in the 1920’s, known as the “The Roaring Twenties”. Accompanied with the changes were conflicts and tensions rising rapidly between the adaptation to new attitudes and the preservation of traditional values. The emergence of the “New Morality”, the development of Science and Technology, and the changes in economy were the three most significant winds of changes leading to the enormous tension in the 1920’s, manifesting in their own distinct ways.
During the political upheaval in the Revolutionary era, writers would write mostly about the politics of the war. Although in past times people would mostly write about the troubles they faced during the time, the Revolutionary changed the way writers would persuade others. In the past most times, the authors would strictly use facts or strictly write to the select few but everything changed when the colonist faced a Revolutionary War.
On Revolution, a book Hannah Arendt published in 1963, after Eichmann’s trial. The book didn’t gain a lot of popularity at first due to the remarkable Eichmann in Jerusalem notability. On Revolution is a work of dichotomies. Arendt compared and differentiated between the French and the American Revolution. How one was successful and how the other was less successful according to her perspectives. To begin with, Arendt defines revolution as a new beginning, a novelty, an irresistible force, something that is unprecedented that cannot be controlled. She also stressed further more on this point that a revolution should have the ability to create something new that would result in more space of freedom. Arendt does not favor the liberal view of freedom, as it is the case in the American model: “pursuit of happiness”. Freedom, according to Arendt, is the freedom of participating in the political life, being an active member in politics instead of being partially active during the elections only. Arendt observed these revolutions and wanted to know what they signify. On Revolution is a narrative of the French and the American revolutions. The book received criticism and Arendt’s historical account came under-attack by historians and experts from the both side. The fact that she referred to the American Revolution as a revolution instead of calling it the war of independence stunned many. Hence not only her views and claims were problematic to some but also the title. In this paper, I’m going to argue and point out the differences between the French Revolution and the American Revolution in line with Arendt’s theory of revolution.
At the time of the American Revolution, no one could have predicted how successful the thirteen colonies would become. Not only did the colonies defeat anarchy, unite, and grow into the United States known today, but something more was achieved. Those early states created a free country filled with many cultures and peoples, brought together by a shared love for freedom. It was a new concept, yet it was mostly welcomed. The American Revolution changed American society economically, but was even more greatly altered politically and socially, as can be seen through numerous documents from those times.
During the summer of 1793, the radical phase of the French Revolution was intensified by the Terror, created by The Committee of Public Safety. The Terror successfully preserved the Revolution by weeding out counter-revolutionaries to eliminate corruption within the government and giving equality to all social classes which untied France under one government. However, these successes were undermined by the many failures of the Terror due to the oppression of citizens which would lead to many executions and the paranoid slaughtering of citizens from all social classes which led to the changes in support of the Revolution.
Throughout history, revolutions have started because of new ideas that change thinking and disrupt what has come to be considered normal. During 1700s, the American, French, and Haitian Revolutions were no exception. The Enlightenment ideas that were spreading around this time lead people of these three nations to question their ruling elites, and to begin considering breaking free. Of these three, though, no one revolt can be seen as more radical when compared to the other two. Each was faced with the challenging task of successfully separating from the oppression that had been brought upon them by to powerful empires and monarchies who had lost sight of what the American, French, and Haitian people alike considered important, as well as being some of the first revolts to use radical Enlightenment ideas to justify each of their rebellions. They considered these rebellions their one shot at being able to break free.
France was a nation ruled by an absolute monarch who had power beyond the grasp of any peasant, and just out of the reach of the aristocracy. King Louis XIV (1774 - 1791) of France was not willing to give up his monopoly that had existed for seventeen years. It was the perfect situation for his absolute government, and may have remained that way if he had been able to manage France’s finances successfully. More money had been spent on roads' canals and wars then were being collected through taxes. In addition the government lost control over the bourgeois class. The bourgeois (working class merchants) gained control by using the disorganized peasant class, members of the Third Estate, who presented their grievances in cahiers to the Estates General. The disbanding of the Estates General resulted in the formation of the new National Assembly governed by the Third Estate. This assembly wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens that described political changes and freedoms for the Third Estate. The constitution of 1791 also resulted in dramatic changes to the political structure. It, however, did not bring relief to those who most deserved it, the peasants. These events were the prologue to the French Revolution, the most important event in France’s history. The French Revolution was a direct result of overspending by King Louis XIV and Louis XVI, leaving France a financially unstable nation and ultimately resulting in a revolt by the Third Estate upset by the dwindling social and economic conditions.
The French Revolution was one of the most violent and chaotic events in history. It took place in France from 1789 to 1795. The end result was a good one, with France’s government being transformed from an oppressive monarchy, to a nationalist state that stood for freedom, equality, and unalienable rights. The process, however, is the interesting part.
The French Revolution last from 1789 to 1799. This war had many causes that began the revolution. Its causes ranged from the American Revolution, the economic crisis in France, social injustices to the immediate causes like the fall of Bastille, the Convening of he Estate-General, and the Great Fear. As a result of this revolution there many effects , immediate and long term. The immediate effects were the declaration of rights of man, abolishing of olds reign, execution of king and queen, the reign of terror, and war and forming of the citizen-army. The long term effects were the rise of Napoleon, spread of revolutionary ideas, growth of nationalism, and the conservative reaction.
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.
The American Revolution began in seventeen seventy-five and featured the colonists rebelling against England for their freedom and independence. The revolutionary war was not one without reason; for, there were multiple accounts that led up to the gruesome years that followed the beginning of the American Revolution.
The American Revolution was a war that was brought on to the British for miss treating the colonists and imposing taxes on them, which led to them revolting against the British. There are also significant events that led to the outbreak of the American Revolution, and each side had reasons for entering the war.
The French Revolution had many causes. According to the historian, French people revolted because they were, “intelligent, free, and prosperous to be critical of the existing conditions.” In other words, this historian is saying that the people of France knew what was going on in their country. I agree with this historian and this quote. There were conditions that existed in France the people were aware of. The ideas of the Enlightenment, social classes, and tax system contributed to the French Revolution. The French Revolution was based mostly on the Third Estate’s desire to obtain liberty and equality.