Just The Average 19th Century Lifesytle

        Have you ever wondered how countries were ruled in the 19th century?  To begin our lesson on ideologies, we worked in groups to determine the definitions of the words Liberal, Conservative, and Nationalism.  However, we were not able to use the internet for assistance upon figuring out what these words meant.  We also had to create sentences that included each of the terms in them.  Next, our activator was to get the accurate definitions for the words Liberalism, Conservatism, and Nationalism in order to answer the essential question.  All of these terms are the ideologies.  The Essential question was: What were the major political ideologies of the 19th century and how did they influence social and political action?  This activity really helped us get a good understanding of the terms so that we would be able to answer the essential question.    

       The next step in our activity was to create a presentation with our group on the ideology that we were assigned.  My group had to create a presentation that displayed Nationalism.  Nationalism today is very different than it was in the 19th century.  We were told to focus on the meaning of Nationalism as if we were in the 19th century.  In the 19th century, Nationalism was defined as the people being united by customs, and languages and who share cultures and trade; not just by countries.  This influenced social and political action in the 19th century by causing nationalists to believe they need to come together and unify the country.  Also, Nationalism caused social and political action because the people wanted to get rid of foreign rulers that controlled their freedom.   We displayed the ideology in our presentation by having Mike play the nationalist who is defending his country from a Foreign ruler played by Anna who is trying to convince him to be a liberal.

Here is our video presentation!:

        The other two ideologies, Liberalism, and Conservatism, were assigned to the other groups.  Liberalism in the 19th century meant that the governments job was to preserve the rights of its people.  Everyone is born with natural rights and the government had to acknowledge this.  It is not fair if the government gives some people more rights than others.  The groups who had Liberalism for their ideology showed it in their presentations by talking about liberalism and what it meant.  Also, both groups included the topic of the Invisible Hand since it was a good example of Liberalism.  Liberalism influenced social and political action because the people all had the same rights and no one was treated unfairly.  Next, Conservatism in the 19th century was against new ideas and innovations.  The aristocracy wanted to stay in power because they feared that there would be bloodshed.  They influenced others to believe in an aristocracy not a meritocracy.  They showed conservatism in their presentations by creating videos with characters talking about how they shouldn't change things.  The French Revolution was used as an example of what bad things would happen if the people tried to change the original tradition of things.  Conservatism influenced political and social actions in the 19th century since the monarchy and old classes were kept the same and the people all believed in an aristocracy.

          Learning about these 3 ideologies and what they meant in the 19th century compared to what they mean today was very interesting.  In the 19th century, the ideologies definitely seem a bit too extreme!  Overall, it was a great lesson and I enjoyed making a presentation with my group to show what Nationalism meant.

Napoleon Bonaparte

        Have you ever heard of Napoleon Bonaparte?  Bonaparte was a man who had a huge impact on the world during the 17th century.  He successfully gained control over France, Italy, Austria, Poland, Venice, Holland, Belgium and many other places around the world.  In class, we focused on the essential question below while learning about Napoleon Bonaparte.



Napoleon Bonaparte.  1769-1821.
http://www.medindia.net/


Essential Question: What was Napoleon's impact on the social, economic, and political systems of Europe?

       Over the course of our research on Napoleon, we viewed the perspectives of two different historical figures from Napoleon's time.  First, we looked at a woman named Madame de Stael's opinion on Napoleon.  Madame de Stael was a member of the nobility and the daughter of King Louis XVI's former financial adviser.  As you can imagine, she was not too happy with the fact that Napoleon was trying to take control of Europe.  Madame de Stael had a good amount of political power and she believed that if Napoleon took over Europe, she would no longer obtain such a power.  Madame de Stael stated, "What particularly characterizes Bonaparte's government is his profound contempt for all the Intellectual riches of human nature: virtue, dignity, religion, enthusiasm."  This quote explains her feelings toward Bonaparte and how she believes he is certainly not suitable for ruling Europe since he has "contempt" towards all of human nature.  Madame de Stael was one person who provided a perspective against Napoleon because she thought it would affect her negatively politically.

Here is a screenshot of the perspectives of Madame de Stael and Marshal Michel Ney.  In groups we annotated the documents, as you can see the notes and highlighted areas of text.

       The second perspective we looked at belonged to Marshal Michel Ney, a soldier during the French Revolution.  Marshal Michel Ney was totally on board with Napoleon Bonaparte.  He stated, "To the emperor Napoleon, our sovereign, belongs alone the right to rule over our beautiful country."  This statement shows how much he appreciated and admired Napoleon because he wanted him to rule over Europe alone.  Marshal Michel Ney enjoyed being a soldier and the thought of joining Napoleon's Army was very exciting so of course he would be on the side that is supporting Napoleon.  Marshal Michel Ney clearly supported Napoleon and encouraged his idea to take over all of Europe.

        Another source that we looked at while learning about Napoleon Bonaparte was called "The Lost Voices of Napoleon Historians".  This is a website that collects passages from text that is now "out of print" or "inaccessible".  The source had a lot of different opinions to offer on Napoleon.  One historian, Andrews, stated,  "Napoleon was so inconsistent in many of his actions, so untrustworthy in much that he said of himself, and so all-inclusive in his ambitious designs that differing interpretations of the man are inevitable,"  Clearly, Andrews was not fond of Napoleon since he described his actions as inconsistent.  However, there were also other historians who provided opinions on behalf of Napoleon.  Tarbell wrote, "that no man ever comprehended more clearly the splendid science of war; he cannot fail to bow to the genius which conceived and executed the Italian campaign, which fought the classic battles of Austerlitz, Jena and Wagram. These deeds are great epics. They move in noble, measured lines, and stir us by their might and perfection. It is only a genius of the most magnificent order which could handle men and materials as Napoleon did."  Tarbell's perspective  was definitely on the side rooting for  Napoleon because his statements all show how much he praised Napoleon.  If you want to check out this interesting webpage, here is the link.  http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/biographies/c_historians.html  

      Overall, there were many different perspectives on Napoleon Bonaparte.  Socially, Napoleon's impact on Europe was positive because he abolished serfdom and nobility so therefore more citizens had rights.  Economically, Napoleon was also mainly positive because he lowered the prices for more people to afford, encouraged new industry, built roads and canals to expand trade, and spread industrialization to parts of Europe like Germany.  Napoleon Bonaparte had a negative impact on the economy of Europe because some of the men that he killed were the men who worked to support their families.  Lastly, Napoleon had both a positive and negative impact politically on Europe because some countries were helped while some countries were hurt.  He also took away power from a lot of rulers.  In conclusion, our research in class helped us get a better understanding on who Napoleon was and the impact he had socially, economically, and politically on Europe.




         

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism

       Today in history class, we did an activity on communism since we are learning about 3 different systems of ruling; capitalism, communism, and socialism.  During the activity, we were all given a certain amount of Hershey kisses.  The majority of the class got 3 candies but I was lucky and got 10 candies.  A few other students also got 10 candies.  This was to separate the rich from the poor.  After receiving our candies, we all went against different people and played rock paper scissors.  If you won, you received a candy; if you lost you gave the person a candy.  Once all of your candies were gone, you had to sit down.  In the end, I had 19 Hershey kisses while others had a lot less or even none.  Then, Mrs. Gallagher took everyone's candy and gave everyone 3 Hershey kisses to show what Communism was.  I was aggravated because I went from 19 Hershey kisses to 3 but others were happy because they had candy again.  I enjoyed the activity but I was also frustrated that I ended with 3 candies instead of 19.

Hershey kiss cartoon 


      During our lesson, we looked at two different figures that wanted to change the way systems of government worked in order to help the poor.  First, a man named Karl Marx (the father of Marxism) developed a theory in which he believed would result in communism for the society.  Marx believed that if the people were left to do what they wanted, society would go through capitalism to socialism and finally it would end in communism.  This would benefit the poor because with communism, it would be a classless society, and everything would be available to everyone.  There would be no "rich" or "poor".  The other man, Adam Smith, developed the Invisible Hand theory.  Smith believed that governments should leave people alone to buy and sell things freely among themselves.  If a store is charging less than you, you will have to lower the price as well because the people will want to go to that other store that sells items for cheaper.  In the end, the stores would be selling high quality things at low prices which helps the poor because they will be able to afford them.

Link to video on Karl Marx: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16IMc5mhbZk&feature=youtu.be  

 Link to video on Adam Smith's "The Invisible Hand": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulyVXa-u4wE&feature=youtu.be


        Both of these theories seem very creative and well thought up.  Clearly, both men cared about the poor and wanted things to be fair for everyone.  To choose which system I think was better is very difficult.  Both of the systems allow the society to have a little freedom.  However, I think that Marx's theory is better because it is more intricate and makes the people have to work together, not against each other.  Overall, the Hershey Kisses activity was very interesting and tasty!

Why spend youth years working in mills?

         During the 1800's, the Industrial Revolution had a huge impact on the way families made their money.  Since the mills became so popular, many girls were interested in working in them.  The young girls wanted a taste of freedom and what better way than living in the big city without the rule of their parents!  They were eager to make their own money, use it to go shopping and buy new clothes.  Some girls had to give the money to their family in order to support them.  A document titled 'The Changing World of American Women', states," Nearly all viewed mill work as a temporary stage in life, a way to escape the limits imposed by a farm, a step towards greater independence."  This quote is significant because it shows that the girls wanted to work in the mills as a way of becoming more independent and escaping the farms.  Although this all may sound great, there were down sides for the girls.  First, they had a lot of limits on their life outside of work.  For example, in mills where the girls lived in boarding houses, they had to follow a strict moral.  If they were caught in town holding hands with a boy, they could be thrown out of the mill.  Also, if the girls were just a minute late to work, they could be fired.  Aside from the strict rules, the girls did gain independence and maturity.  Here is a link to a video about a girl named Lucy who is asked to work at a mill but has to run it through her single father first.  http://ashp.cuny.edu/ashp-documentaries/daughters-of-free-men/