HIST2024 readings and authors

Brown

American Revolution

1. What is the orthodox “rise-and-fall” narrative about the problem of slavery in the American Revolution?

• The idea that the antislavery revolution went in turn with the american revolution, as unification and idealism was perpetrated in the american revolution rhetoric, it applied to all. They would first get independence and then would advoate to abolish slavery

• The revolutionary generation wanted a revolution for all, but the only reason they didn't advocate was they 'lost the will', basically implies they had the right intentions but many sources indicate they were white supremacists from the start

1. In what way was the institution of slavery under threat during the Revolutionary war?

• Slavery was different for all, slavery did not have as much an imapct in massachusists as it did in virginia for example

• Differing opinions risked not unifying to form a republic

• Most risk from the enslaved, they thought the tension between the british was an opportunity for them to seek their own independence and freedom. Many ran away or petitioned for themselves

• British were using slavery to create political disruption, flip the moral switch on the americans, slaves also used in war which caused death and destruction to slaves and plantations

1. How can we describe the British Empire’s relationship with slavery during the revolutionary era?

• Slaves used as pawns by the British to anger colonists to a degree

• For example, John Murray offered safety to slaves who denounced their american patriot owners

• Slaves were also used in war between two parties, often being killed or malnurished to make a point by the british

• Used it themselves in the Caribbean and in the south, often defended it

• Rejected the protection of the slaves through arming and emancipation, used it as a tactic with loyalists

• They only seized slaves from american rebel states and would resell to loyalists to maintain allies

1. Why must we avoid trying to divide Americans into anti-slavery and pro-slavery camps?

• Many had a complicated relationship with it, they saw it as a necessary evil but they also could not see life without it

• Rhetoric was also often used to try and make the american people be taken more seriously, basically they had to make a public moral stance in order to avoid being ridiculed

• Many people also resided in both camps or in neither camp

• We are trying to seek definitions on right and wrong in a time where that didn’t exist

• For many, management was the only option, not abolishment

• More a political movement than moral movement in many areas of the time

 

1. What are some of the implications of Brown’s argument for thinking about the larger impact of the American Revolution on the institution of slavery?

• New morals and imagery of slavery in the americas

•  slavery was not just a moral discussion or a matter of human principal, but was also a political make or break point. Almost a disconnect as it had become so ingrained into the society

• Slavery only expanded and was rooted into society from the revolution

• The revolution was relatively a lot of unmet promises and betrayals in a sense

 

 

Some argue that the american revolution didn’t end until the civil war because that’s when the antislavery ammendment was introduced, anti slavery became a point of the war between the southern (union) states and the northern states

Linton

French Revolution

1. How has “the Terror” traditionally been understood in the historiography of the French Revolution?

• A terrifying violence that went against the uniting synonymous with typical revolution stories

• Jacobin instituted a system of terror which was led by Robespierre, a simple narrative where the actions were planned and calculated

• Found to be a lot more chaotic and improvised and emotional

• The language is important, "terror" refers to an emotion or feeling, acting on thought and irrationally, but when people call it "the terror" it seems a lot more grand and calculated, that idea of planned vs chaotic

• The chronology of terror, it was argued that the terror came from previous political ideologies, but some argue it was actually just a random consequence and was necessary, not politcal just human reaction

• Also moving away from stereotypes and grouping of classes, instead of looking at the individual and web of political views

• Almost moving away from the cold hard view, and more to the human reaction view

1. Who were the Jacobins? What united them? What disunited them?

• Breton club, founded shortly after the revolution by deputies to the new national assembly

• Radicals for the revolution, for the constitution

• Opposed to the idea of political parties, for the good of all, middle and upper classes

• All believed mankind was good and could be made better, sovereignty

• Concern about how much they actually believed in this socialism, rather than a poltical position

• There were major divides in this group, as the left believed that people were just doing this for political popularity

• Brissot was a radical and proposed war, many considered him a sell out so his supporters and himself left

1. What was the policy of terror, and how and why did it develop?

• State sanctioned violence and political suppression by government authorities

• There was a lot of concern about politicians selling out and having bad intentions, so there was a lot of suspicion and distrust with authorities, aimed to remove corruption

1. What was the role of emotions in the political decision-making that led to the adoption of terror?

• Fear and anger was a real motivator at this time, anger at people using humanity to support their political causes was seen as blasphemous and was a real deal breaker

• Fear was used in politcal rhetoric in a lot of the Jacobite advertisements

• Jacobites felt abandoned by their king and this flipped the switch on wanting a monarchy

• Fear drove the jacobites to not act in the september massacres, both in the way they were scared for their country and themselves from invaders, scared that their plan hadn't gone to plan, and also fear that the people they were killing were not true patriots

1. What does Linton’s account tell us about the nature of the revolutionary terror and how historians are starting to reconceptualize it?

• It was human emotion that fueled the actions, its was a combination od betrayal and mistrust that created a lot of this violence

• For a lot of people it wasn't violence or terror, it was payback, it was only violence if you were on the side of the rich

• The jacobites were not the superior and untouchable group some believe they are, but rather a cumulative group of people that were scared

Geggus,

Haitian Revolution

1. How was the Haitian Revolution initially shaped by revolutionary events in France?

• The overthrow of the monarchy opened the door for a bourgeois revolution prepelled forward by peasant and popular insurrections, also wanted freedom and autonomy amongst the classes

• Interplayed with the metropolitan revolution and development

• Both had similar origins of bankrupt governments calling a state general

 

1. What were the main social and racial divisions in Saint-Domingue, and how did those divisions reflect different goals for the revolution?

• 90% of residents were slaves and had little rights and recognition

• Most of the white people were from france, and most slaves were born in africa

• Creole, people born on the island, had limited effect in the white community but they did form an upper class among the slaves

• A lot of french influence from news and plays, also a lot of political tension

• There were mixed race free people, uncommon for the time

• Combination of extreme demographic imbalance and rapid growth

1. How did the international context influence the direction of the revolution?

• A lot of french influence in terms of langauge, news, plays, writings and the education of the upper class, the french revolution also caused a lot of questions to be asked in terms of equality and rights of coloured men

• The us revolution also had an impact as it gave them a taste of free trade, also similar tensions with the french. Also a lot of the actions and uprising of slaves in the usa dictated a lot of the disagreement and demanding of rights from coloured wealthy and slaves.

• Slaves and economy very internationally connected, also a lot of disagreement from legislation with the british

• The august revolutionaries spread rumours around the king abolishing slavery, they also capitalised on the fact the government was weak and divided

• A lot of anti-slavery and colonist uprising in spanish latin america, slaves were being 'saved' by the spanish and became an ally of the colony

1. Why did the revolutionaries wait so long to declare independence?

• As a small colony they were in danger from invasion and blockades, they needed a larger empire like the british to protect them

• Busy fighting a civil war between races first, a lot of internal discourse going on

• Other allies also involved, basically there was too much of an international war going on that people within the country weren't considering themselves yet

1. How is the Haitian Revolution different from other Atlantic Revolutions?

• Not only a class revolution but also involved a lot more categories such as race and locality, it achieved not just independence but also racial equality and slave emancipation

• There was a lot more discourse between the white and black community in the lead up, but what is interesting is that the white people almost feel threatened by the demands, instead of discounting the blacks' opinion. Black people had power here.

• Many were calling for the end of slavery, but for many it was to boost their own army, not for the ethics, many were slave owners themselves.

• Many decisions were made in a desperate attempt for people to remain in power

Porter,

Scientific revolution

1. What is the classical interpretation of the Scientific Revolution?

• Enlightenment propagandists for science from Fontenelle and the Encyclopedistes to Condorcet who first began to depict the transformations in astronomy and physics wrought by Copernicus, Newton and others as revolutionary breaks with the past, creating new eras in thought

• Began as an astronomical turn, turned into more general usage for constructive and progreessive movements

• Revolutionary scientists thought of themselves as revolutionaries against ancient science

• Pays homage to classic interlect

• Very mystical in the origins of how things were discovered

• Nature was discovered to be more rational and mechanical

1. How does Porter suggest redefining revolution with regard to science?

• Not necessarily a new way of being but a new way of seeing, being intelectuall and analysing concepts we already know about. Taking the wheel and making it stronger or using it on different devices

• The scientific revolution was more important for the change in attitude and for its world inclusion, not necessarily for the discoveries

• The overthrow of an entrenched orthodoxy like with challenge and resistance, mere formulation and appraisal doesn’t count, new order must be established, grand scale, should be aware that there is a change at the time

1. From Porter’s perspective, then, why does it make sense to characterise seventeenth-century transformations in science as revolutionary?

• The sixteenth century was more an era of confusion, while the seventeenth was actually discovery

• Seventeenth century also had commercial and societal revolutions which changed the way common people interacted with the sciences, because again its not necessarily the discoveries by the interactions with these

• Words were abandonded for facts and observations were more important than values, scientific basis became more apparent

• The grandest scale of ancient vs modern thinking and engaged in academic battles, this violence actually resulted in new ideas

• More reorientations in science such as heliocentry, using nature to apply their own models and thinking

1. What other scientific transformations deserve the label of “revolution,” according to Porter? Why?

• Chemical revolution, more definitions of elements, rewriting langauge, quick change of order

• Darwinism, many naturalists employed evolutionary theories, changed facts of the everyeday world

1. What are some examples of scientific transformations that are not revolutionary?

• History of medicine, an old system didn't actually topple

• Copernican revolution, he didn't actually dominate or create big change

Bowler,

Darwinian Revolution

1. What are the reasons that Bowler gives for trying to imagine a counterfactual scenario of a world without Darwin?

• Trying to emphasise the importance of Darwin's' discovery and how much it impacted other areas of not only academia but social categories like religion

• How many butterfly effects would be present without this discovery

• Also brings up the question of would it have happened but someone else did it? Was it Darwin's knowledge or a right place right time situation?

• Would we have also experienced less trauma as a society without it? How would the nazi's and eugenics campaign have looked? Would it have happened? How connected is the social mind to Darwinism? Exploring the significance of this impact

1. According to Bowler, what accounts for Darwin’s originality? Or, how was his theory of evolution different from the theories Bowler calls “non-Darwinian”?

• Darwin was the only one to argue not only the idea of common ancestors and branching dna, but also the idea of individual and natural selection

• He also had more impact and standing in the field so his theory would have been more impactful than if it had come from anywhere else

• Had a more unique combination of reference materials

• The general consensus is that general ideas about development would have happened, but they would have perhaps been slower, less recognised, more morphological and more about general selection, Darwin put meanings to the names

1. In a world without Darwin, then, how would we characterise the religious debate surrounding evolution?

• Would have believed that humans were created by god and not from an animal basis

• Lamarckism remains favourable, the idea that god's will was apart of creation, gave purpose to humans

• Evolution would appear a lot more orderly and planned, it would not have been perceived as ruthless and a test for survival

• Leads to the point though that many religious figures would attack anything that was modernism, less of a divide between science and religion, less uncertainty about the future of faith and ourselves

1. What is normally meant by the term “social Darwinism,” and how would that general idea change in a counterfactual world without Darwin?

• An idea of challenge between people, people fighting to survive and of seperation

• Less formal ideas still perpetuate like war, nationalism, imperialism, colonialism, so it perhaps would have existed but without a name. People were doing it anyway and will continue to do so. It was a banner or a symbol for people to act under.

• The actions would still exist it just wouldn't have had a label. Spencer likely would have created something similar

• Its interesting to consider that darwin's rivals were the ones who argued for distinct races and biologically different species. But is darwin then responsible for this reaction as it was mainly because of his work?

1. What are the larger implications of Bowler’s analysis, particularly in regard to what is known as “The Darwinian Revolution”?

• The revolution was not necessarily new concepts rather new labels

• It was darwin's fame and influence that was responsible for being a lot of source material, without him there would and was other authors to draw references upon.

• There would have been less trauma and discourse possibly, as it may have been based on more acceptable concepts that fit into the narrative better. Part of why it’s a revolution was because it was so different and 'appalling' to other concepts

Kern,

Space and Time Revolution

1. How did the demands of mobilization compete with the carrying out of diplomacy during the July Crisis?

• The pressure to create armies and the rush of technology was stressing out the world leaders to the point where they were making irrational decisions. They were threatening war multiple times

• Peace was slipping away but they still wanted diplomacy, even though it was rapidly disappearing

• Public outcry to assassination also fueled tension and action, also fueled through more communication

1. According to Kern, how did new technologies like the telegraph and telephone contribute to the outbreak of the war?

• It spread around the news of the assassination and of the monarchy's response in record time, sped up communication, or lack of it, for the war, put pressure on austria and germany to act

• As it sped up response times, it not only made communication about an event quicker, it also increased the accessability of other parties and people to put pressure and provide 'updates' about a situation. "it is taking a long time". It was no longer it would come when it would come, it turned into it will come now and you will not hear the end of it until you do

• Allowed distaste and tensions to be communicated between parties more clearly, if we don't like what your doing it you'll know in minutes

1. How does the key exchange between Tsar Nicholas II and Kaiser Wilhelm during the height of the July Crisis reflect the strength and weakness of telegraphic communication?

• Strength as his thoughts could be communicated quickly and could respond to eachothers ideas in record time, personal and private pleas could be made, increase personal touch and diplomacy in a way, gave a private way to say no

• Quick communication

• Threats can also be made in record time

• Similar to text, reduces the ability to have communication in facial expressions and in words, its very mechanical so the emotion would have been removed, which isn't good for diplomacy and trying to reach to more vulnerable areas of people

• Communication could also be generally confused, delayed or lost, the amount of communication was overwhelming

1. How did the temporal orientations of each of the belligerent nations shape their approach to diplomacy during the July Crisis?

• They were all relatively close to one another comparatively, so there was an awareness that any wars and mobilisation in turn involved almost everyone else

• They used meetings and timezones to their advantages; passing along messages at just the right time so that certain leaders wouldn't see the communication

1. Related to that, how did their temporal orientations shape their initial wartime strategies?

• Used it to organise location and sign ups of armies, precise mobilisation

• Helped form alliances through private telegrams

 

Pipes,

Russian Revolution

1. Why does Pipes think that the causes of the Russian Revolution were chiefly political as opposed to social or economic?

• Taken to persue the war more effectively

• Began with the parliamtry politicians and government leaders convincing Nicholas II to not open fire into a crowd, a deliberate move to make him look weak

• There was also no strong economic or social ties between the people as it was a natural economy and very mechanical, so there was no strong resistance or interest in the economy. People were also ruled regardless, so they didn’t need to be bonded, they didn’t have nationalism as it wasn’t necessary. Country lacked cohesion to begin with

• Also began with political humiliation from losing wars and incompetency from the tsar, and rasputin and the parliaments general discontentment with their running of things

1. How does Pipes describe the “mentality of the peasantry” and how is that relevant to the revolutionary situation?

• They were a large part of the physical community, they were a barrier to change and were a permanent threat to the status quo

• Opression wasn't the problem but isolation; they had no idea what was going on socially or politically, they had no attachment or interaction with the people in power, all they knew is that they took taxes, they were abandonded. These alientated people posed a problem, they were waiting for hesitation to act upon with a rebellion. There was a barrier of communication between the parliament and the people

• They did not ackowledge the private ownership of land, they wanted that last 10% and no laws would change their mind, had the attitude that they were entitled to their land, they wanted the landlords out

1. What is the intelligentsia and what role did it play in bringing about the Revolution of 1917?

• A group of educators, academics and university educated people, they were excluded from high society and learnt the ways of social reform from western europe, no representation and press led them to become a voice for the voiceless

• Revolution and a change of government would change the people

• Different thinking gained popular support, brought together left thinkers

• A radical party different to the tsar that would not be stopped or silent, unsatisfied, wanted the argument, they wanted control over the people and for people to change

1. In what ways does the Bolshevik regime represent a continuity with Tsarist Russia?

• Easily created misconception and manipulation of media and events to their own advantage for example with the october revolution, same thing with popular theories such as marxism

• Ignored cultural revolutions and changes among the people and didn’t know how to deal with them

• Were not good at dealing with critique and rebuttals

• Resorted to violence in many regards

1. What is Pipes’s argument about Stalin’s relationship to Lenin?

• Both had a very aggressive and warfare tactic to their leadership

• Lennins beligerance and need to fight for russia contributed to stalins theory that the closer communism grew to victory, the more intense the conflict

• Stalin used a lot of practice and attitude that lennin had, they follow on from each other (lenninism-stalinism)

• Argues that their relationship is stalin ascending to lennins power, also argued that stalin was in the right position to take over because he was a part of all of the key comittees

• Despite tensions between them at the end, it was more so personal than professional, stalin was still a descendent. They were leaders for the party, not for themsleves, stalin was doing what he was taught to do

Walder,

Cultural Revolution

1. In what ways was Mao’s understanding of China’s socialist revolution informed by Stalinism?

• Influenced by the "revolution from above ideology" and stalins texts such as "History of the Communist Party of the USSR: Short Course"

• Used similar techniques on pitting classes against each other to remain in power, socialism as a successful struggle against the bougoiuse 

• Socialism could only exist through continuous class struggle, should happen rapidly and with mobilisation 

• Class struggled did not improve with a better economy, it actually got worse because people wanted to retain communism and with the influence of foreign, this led to the opression of people, making himself the ultimate controller and purging people who suggested the transition to more socialist economies

• Believed in the permanent change that violence caused, coups and rebellions were the role of the peasent to change anything, many disagreed 

1. What role did China’s break with the Soviet Union play in the origins of the Cultural Revolution?

• It was from this disagreement that they would go on to write their own doctrines, Mao writing the beginnings of the cultural revolution. It was through this that the vision that armed forces was the only way of achieving peace that this became a central point of the cultural revolution

• Once the Soviet's had created an agreement with the USA, the relationship was shattered. Response created propaganda defending themselves and attacking the soviet unionm which would form the justifcatoin for the cultual revolution 

• Accused Krushchev of becoming too democratic and launched the campaign in the interest of maintaining the communist party

1. What was Mao’s plan with launching the Cultural Revolution and how did it actually play out?

   • Came off the back of the failure of the great leap forward campaign, which lost millions of lives due to famine, standards of industrialisatoin dropped and the output of produce was at an all time low 

   • To maintain loyalists and get rid of those who proposed revisionist ideas. It was not just about who was loyal to the party but also who was loyal to him. It was originally meant to only get rid of those who were countering, he had to gain trust first. Seized control of government, military for ultimate personal control. 

   • Didn't have a clear plan, left many organisations in shambles

2. What was so distinctive about the Cultural Revolution in relation to the history of other communist regimes?

   • Survivors often returned to office, there was also a higher percentage of survival rates, most punishment was in humiliation and loosing jobs, not in death. Mental punishment, not physical removals. Not to say that the famines and industrial deaths were irrelevant. Different approach to the removal of counterviews, there was still executions though. It wasn’t fear of the government it was fear of eachother

   • Mass insurgency, the rationales, particularly from young people with the red guards. The idea that what was presented was chaos but it was actually continuously monitored and organised. They were also encoruaged to name and shame people who weren't following the revolution. He was using people against each other. People were being used as weapons, and the changes and challenges were coming from all levels

   • The rebuilding of the party happened at the same time as the state and transition to market economy

3. What was the impact of the Cultural Revolution on Chinese society?

   • Bad economic growth, off the back of the great leap this was not good as people were already poor and desperate and hungry

   • Academia and education had become badly effected, students missing and no funding for scientists and professors

   • Erasure of cnnection to other cultures and societies. 

   • Did the opposite of its intention in a lot of ways, it ruined the parties reputation and threatened the return of capitalism

McLaren

Sexual Revolution

1. Why was the pill initially developed and how did it end up launching the sexual revolution?

• Made having sex worry free, could go beyond oral/hand without worry, women could also no longer say no

• Gave more importance to the clit

• Make life simpler for women, to distance the idea of sex with pregnancy and to lower fertitlity of unfit

• Was made to maintain family values but ended up doing the opposite in some regards

• Also became more scientific in its regards for female organs, it was no longer fluffy language but structural and formal langauge like 'cervical canal'. Scientific contreceptions and studies reflect this.

 

 

1. What role did generational change play in engendering new views of sex and sexuality?

• Didn't want to uphold the same family and traditional values associated with children and having sex

• There was also an increasing number of young people coming of age from the baby boomer generation, more young people to relate to'

• More understanding of what women wanted in sex, sex became more about what both parties wanted out of it. Also relied less on the man

• The pill also assisted with how womens' lives were viewed. The pill allowed them to extend their life without children, rather than their 19th century counterparts who would be either birthing, pregnant or would be weaning their whole lives. More respect put onto women, and more emphasis on women having a career and education

• Also gave women more freedom to divorce and open marriages, they could have sex and be with other people without the pressure of getting pregnant. Also gave women the ability to leave and establish healthier relationships

• More crude humour and sex became a less taboo topic

 

 

1. What was the political context for the sexual revolution?

• Vietnam war, civil rights and segregation of races and the feminist movements

• Elections of more liberal leaders who fought for the individual

• Religion was becoming less central, so young people having sex especially before marriage was a lot more interesting to the public

 

1. How did second-wave feminists confront the supposed advances of the sexual revolution?

• It made a women sexually and by all purposes independent, which some would not know how to do

• It also changed the stigma around women who had traditional lives or didn't want to have sex, middle aged women who criticised the movement were labelled as jealous

• It also increased the pressure on women to enjoy sex so many were faking orgasms or not having converstaions about what they enjoyed, also led to a lot of myths about womens pleasure

• A lot of literature was also critical of the monogomous narrative, saying that families were the ideal form of capitalism

• However, this situation also placed a lot of the responsibility on women, the pill had side effects, but also if the pill didn’t work it was their body so it was their fault. Men could walk away easier. Women were loosing control of their bodies in other ways.

 

1. What does McLaren mean when he says that we need to think about the sexual revolution as a period that witnessed “the emergence and clash of a variety of new sexual scripts”? 

• New ideas were being circulated, but many were also conficting. For example, some argued that the independence and lack of pressure for pregnancy created for women was beneficial, but others argued that this created a sense of isolation and lack of protection for women

Hull

Industrial Revolution