Ideas of Ideology

What were the major political ideologies of the 19th century and how did they influenced social and political action was the essential question of the day. Ideologies is a system of ideas and ideals that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. To answer the essential question we had to first know what the major ideologies of the 19th century were which are liberalism, conservatism, and nationalism. In groups we then discussed what these terms mean in the modern day so we could later on compare them to what they meant in the 19th century. Groups were then formed to focus on a specific ideology and make a one minute project on the topic. My groups’ ideology was liberalism. Each group had a source to read containing clues about their ideology and used that source to come up with the definition of the ideology during the 19th century. We had freedom on how we did our project, as long as it was one minute and described the ideology then we could do whatever we wanted.

A screen shot of my video project with John Locke speaking.

 
For my groups presentation we decided to use the Chatter pixs app. This app that lets you upload a picture, draw in a mouth, speak into it, and it makes it look like the picture is talking. In our video we had a picture of John Locke, who was a founding father of liberalism, explain what liberalism was in the 19th century using the information we read in our source. Liberalism back in the 19th century was the belief that the middle class should have a say in what the king does; that the people have god given natural rights and that the government should respect all rights, excluding women and the poor. This idea influenced philosophers of that time who started to write about liberalism. The middle class really liked this idea and it later lead to a revolt.

The other ideologies were conservatism and nationalism. Conservatives wanted to reserve traditional and political structures against revolution because revolutions always resulted in chaos. Conservatism also had set social classes and a monarchy. Nationalists wanted unification of all common German principalities with common culture, language and history. This way each nation could be more connected. The belief of nationalism motivated people to be the best nation they can be and fight out foreign rulers. Each of the three ideologies were very different and each group thought they had the best idea but the over all goal of each was to do what's best for the people.

Napoleon Bonaparte - Good or Evil?

The essential question of the day was “What was Napoleon Bonaparte impact on the social, economic and political systems of Europe? Were they positive or negative impacts?” In class, to find the answer we looked at all the places that he has conquered and many documents on Napoleon. The documents were mostly individual’s opinions on Napoleon and his works.

 

Napoleon Bonaparte  source- http://jcvalda.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/napoleon-bonaparte-02.jpg

People’s view of Napoleon varied greatly. One of these individuals was Madame de Staёl. Madame had some snide comments on Napoleon such as “He would like to persuade men by force and by cunning, and he considers all else to be stupidity or folly...” She did not have a high opinion on Napoleon because she was once a high class citizen but when Napoleon took over, her social status went down. Just because she had a bad experience doesn’t mean it was bad for the rest of society. Napoleons impact on society was a positive one to most; he abolished serfdom in much of Europe. If you were born poor you could become rich, which was a great thing for the lower classes of people. Another individual we read about was Marshal Michel Ney. Unlike Madame de Staёl, Ney had a positive outlook on Napoleon, saying “Now I would escort you to join this immortal legion which the Emperor Napoleon conducts...” Marshal Michel Ney was an officer who served with Napoleon so he believed that Napoleon was doing a great job politically. Overall the political impact was good for France but bad for the places he conquered. He was building a great French empire but naturally the places being conquered did not like being conquered; but they did like the Napoleonic code because they could keep their own rules but with a new code. Economically it was beneficial to everyone because trade boosted throughout his conquered lands in Europe. As stated in “The Lost Voices of Napoleon”, “it must be confessed, with a certain degree of truth -- as a usurper, a tyrant, and a greedy, egotistical and ambitious ruler, it has also been found impossible to deny that his work, such as it was, was accomplished with an exquisite efficiency almost amounting to perfection." Napoleon was very talented in what he did and with all his skills his main goal was to help the well being of the land.

I believe that Napoleon did mostly good than evil during his reign. Political, social and economic systems of Europe were greatly impacted in a positive way. By reading these multiple sources I got a better understanding of how Napoleon affected others. I found these sources to be very interesting and diverse; but with the overall message that he did do well for Europe. 

No More Chocolate

Today in class we played rock paper scissors. But it was not as simple as it sounds. Everyone started off with two Hersey kisses, but two kids in the class started off with eight. We all stood up and faced each other in rock paper scissors and who ever won the round got a Hersey kiss from the loser. With this freedom of competition some won and some lost which is a lot like capitalism. For me this game lasted a very short time, considering that I lost the first two rounds so I was disqualified and sat down chocolate-less and watched everyone else play. The two kids in my class who started off with 8 Hersey kisses naturally lasted the longest in the game and ended with the most amount of kisses. The game seemed fun in the beginning but then it got really frustrating.  I still wanted my two Hersey kisses back. I got really jealous watching the people who started out with more kisses keep on winning. I experienced frustration similar to the poor people's frustration in capitalism. Some kids that started off with two made their way up the ranks and collected more chocolate by the end. Watching that was frustrating too because I wanted to keep playing and I wanted more chocolate but I had to sit and watch everyone else become richer in chocolaty goods. Then the teacher collected all of the chocolate and redistributed it equally, like socialism. After that we all chose not to play anymore and each keeps two chocolates and no longer needed the teachers’ supervision, like communism. In class we discussed the relationship between this activity and capitalism, socialism, and communism. We discussed Marx's theory of communism and Smith's theory of the invisible hand. 

Karl Marx
 source - http://sidvents.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/carl-marx.jpg?w=600

Karl Marx wanted to help the poor and had a theory on how the government would change and eventually help the poor prosper with communism. Marx's theory of communism first starts with capitalism. Private owners of industries and freedom of competition would results in unequal economic classes so there would be a class struggle and the lower class workers would revolt. This is what leads to Socialism next in Marx's theory, the government owns industries and the goal is to bring economic equality and aim a classes society. Marx said that the government would no longer be needed because people would be more willing to share which would create Communism. Communism is the goal of a classes society with no government needed and having everyone equal, which Marx thinks is the best way to help the poor. Adam Smith, who wrote Wealth of Nations thinks differently. Smith thinks that the best way to help the poor is by the use of the invisible hand in capitalism. The invisible hand is when people buy and sell on their own and have competitions between businesses, which means the harder you work, potentially the more money you make. Unlike Communism, with the invisible hand you do not need to share your wealth. Smith said that with the invisible hand the government would not need to regulate the economy because the economy would regulate itself. This is because people who work are also consumers and will consume and buy things. As you can see Marx and Smith had a very different outlook, but both had the same goal in mind; to help the poor.





In my opinion Smiths' is the best theory. The invisible hand would work better than communism. In communism if everyone is equal and gets paid the same amount then there is no real motivation to work harder. If there is no motivation and no one works harder and tries to learn more then the society would go downhill. With some competition between businesses people are determined to work and do research to make their product better. That way there will be advancements in technology and overall it is close to a fair playing field; the harder you work the more money you earn.

Motivation to Determination

In the start of the Industrial Revolution most girls were very motivated to go and work in Lowell. It was exciting to get away from farm life and go into the city. Young girls wanted to experience city life and meet new people. They would be able to make their own money and buy things they wanted. It was also beneficial to the families as well. The girls would send some of their pay back to their families on the farm. Girls were motivated to work in Lowell also because it gave them a sense of independence. Even though they had a strict work ethic and schedule they still had their own independence outside of the mills.  Being away from their families and out on their own was very appealing to them.


Although there were benefits there were also some costs as well. Aside from the girls leaving their comfort zone the work in the mills was very dangerous and loud. Lots of people got injured or even killed. Many got sick or lost their hearing and had many other health issues. It was very easy to get in trouble while working. A lot of the overseers were rude and strict and if they thought you weren't doing your work fast enough or good enough you could get in trouble or even beat. Working in the mills too long could even damage your reputation; that would mean that you are old and no man would want to marry you.


Women were not taken as seriously as men during this time. Factory owners started to lower wages and increase productions thinking that the girls would not say anything about it but they would not stand for it. The girls help a protest against the factories and many observers and owners were surprised by this. These girls were determined to stand up for themselves and not go to work but they quickly got replaced by other girls from the county side. Two years later another strike happened against the rise in boarding prices and this time with better organization and stronger relationships between the girls the owners were defeated and had to accommodate the girls wants. These protest seemed very 'unladylike' but the girls defended themselves saying that the factory owners 'enslaved' them and that they had independence and could stand up for themselves because they were "the daughters of free men". These actions set the road for future feminists and gender equality.