In the 1800s, three major political ideologies existed: liberalism, conservatism, and nationalism. To learn about these ideologies, we split off into groups and each group was assigned an ideology to make a one-minute video on. Our group was assigned to make a video on conservatism. 19th century conservatism is based on the idea that in order to have peace, we should look to the past, because old traditions are tried and tested and kept the peace for years. Liberalism idealised progress. Liberals were more interested in the good of the many than individual rights. Nationalism was the sense of pride in one's nation and belief that all people with the same culture and language should be unified.
To view our presentation and learn more about conservatism, check out our video here!
Our presentation clearly defines 19th century conservatism and gives some reasons as to why people would have these ideals. Conservative ideals rooted in the past accounted for the repression of revolutions during the 1800s. Conservatives felt that the old monarchies and government systems should remain in place, as opposed to liberals who thought that Europe needed new governments in order to move forward.
Liberals were behind the revolutions of the 1800s, as they wished to move forward. Nationalists also fed the fire of revolution, saying that people should feel unified instead of divided by class structure.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Napoleon
There is and always will be debate over Napoleon Bonaparte and whether his actions were beneficial or damaging. His actions affected social, political, and economic systems in Europe and all over the world.
Napoleon conquered almost all of Europe, and destroyed class distinctions between serf and noble, washing away classist titles. While this was good for the poor peasants of Europe, the former nobles and royalty did not like these changes and felt that their rights were being taken away. He undertook huge public works programs, which again benifited the poor. Under Napoleon, Europe was a less classist and separated society.
Napoleon allowed the countries under his rule to function as usual, just reporting to him. Instead of many absolute rulers, there was only one who controlled all of Europe. The rulers of conquered countries did not like having their power diminished, but the poor enjoyed better conditions.
Napoleon also encouraged industry and built up the infrastructure of the countries he conquered. The gap in wealth between the upper class and the lower class shrank as a result of Napoleon's economic changes.
While many of Napoleon Bonaparte's actions were controversial, his affect on the countries he ruled was mostly positive.
 |
| http://www.mrodenberg.com/category/corsica/ |
Napoleon conquered almost all of Europe, and destroyed class distinctions between serf and noble, washing away classist titles. While this was good for the poor peasants of Europe, the former nobles and royalty did not like these changes and felt that their rights were being taken away. He undertook huge public works programs, which again benifited the poor. Under Napoleon, Europe was a less classist and separated society.
Napoleon allowed the countries under his rule to function as usual, just reporting to him. Instead of many absolute rulers, there was only one who controlled all of Europe. The rulers of conquered countries did not like having their power diminished, but the poor enjoyed better conditions.
Napoleon also encouraged industry and built up the infrastructure of the countries he conquered. The gap in wealth between the upper class and the lower class shrank as a result of Napoleon's economic changes.
While many of Napoleon Bonaparte's actions were controversial, his affect on the countries he ruled was mostly positive.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Lowell vs. London
During the Industrial Revolution, workers in America and Britain had bad working conditions, like low wages, long hours, and no breaks for meals. However, in each country, a different set of working conditions was created because of the differing economic and social situations of the two countries.
Britain had had a recent population boom, and they had limited land space. There were lots of poor children who could be employed in terrible conditions with low wages because their families needed the money. America, meanwhile, was expanding. They had a small population which was moving westward. Factory owners would have to provide a much more attractive workplace with higher wages in order to have parents send their girls there.
As a result of this, Britain's mill working conditions were much worse than those in America. In England, children were beaten if they did their work wrong. Their days started earlier (5:30) and they only got one short break for lunch. In America, however, mill workers were paid higher wages, given more free time, and breaks for meals. In both countries, however, it was very dangerous to work in the mills. Accidents with the machinery were common, and often near-fatal. Nearly half of children working in British mills were disabled in factory accidents. People could be caught in the leather belts of the machines, or catch their fingers in spinning bobbins, or be crushed by falling bales of cotton.
While both countries did not exactly have stellar working conditions, British mill workers were definitely worse off.
Britain had had a recent population boom, and they had limited land space. There were lots of poor children who could be employed in terrible conditions with low wages because their families needed the money. America, meanwhile, was expanding. They had a small population which was moving westward. Factory owners would have to provide a much more attractive workplace with higher wages in order to have parents send their girls there.
As a result of this, Britain's mill working conditions were much worse than those in America. In England, children were beaten if they did their work wrong. Their days started earlier (5:30) and they only got one short break for lunch. In America, however, mill workers were paid higher wages, given more free time, and breaks for meals. In both countries, however, it was very dangerous to work in the mills. Accidents with the machinery were common, and often near-fatal. Nearly half of children working in British mills were disabled in factory accidents. People could be caught in the leather belts of the machines, or catch their fingers in spinning bobbins, or be crushed by falling bales of cotton.
While both countries did not exactly have stellar working conditions, British mill workers were definitely worse off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)