nationalism

Due to an awful illness, which has seemed to only get worse, I missed out on a lot of the discussion revolving around nationalism this week, but after reading some of the posts of my peers, I can see that nationalism was a main topic of the week. Some major points or questions, if you will, that I noticed were those concerning what defines a nation and whether or not nationalism is a positive movement. Both questions are difficult to address, with no clear-cut answers, as one can see by the varying opinions. David seems to think a nation is defined by exclusivity, while Thomas considers a nation to be defined by the people and what they agree is legitimate. As for the exclusivity point, I think that a nation includes all those who want to be a part of said nation. There are obviously issues concerning citizenship and physical location, especially today, but, when considering 19th century Europe, I think it is fair to say that if someone wanted to be German, they were part of Germany.

Now, concerning the issue of whether or not nationalism was positive, I would have to say, ultimately, no. The idea of nationalism, in its original state, was positive because it promoted change from below and liberal ideas such as "constitutions, reforms, [and] new political communities"(754). The idea of banding together with fellow citizens to fight for a common cause created a very romantic notion of a nation, one in which Mazzini perpetuated. However, once conservatives took control of nationalism and tried to bring about nations through government, the idea of nationalism lost its original appeal. People were cast aside and excluded based on ethnicity, which is a point Danielle brought up. War, death, animosities amongst different ethnic groups, and borders followed in the wake of this new nationalism, none of which I consider to be positive. I think that many of the world's problems would be solved if Mazzini's ideas of nationalism had succeeded and the obsession with borders had never existed.

women

While England was possibly the most liberal nation in Europe during the mid 19th century, the government's refusal to extend voting rights to women is troubling. I greatly admire that England was able to double "the franchise by extending the vote to any men who paid poor rates or rent of £10 or more a year in urban areas and to rural tenants paying rent of £12 or more"(757) with the 1867 Reform Bill. This was certainly progressive and very liberal, compared to how the situation was before in England and still was on Continental Europe. However, the issue of woman's suffrage was not addressed in the Bill. When the issue was brought up in the decade after the 1867 Reform Bill was passed, which is considered "the high point of British liberalism"(757), even liberal leaders showed opposition to woman's suffrage claiming that "female individuality would destabilize family life"(758). Despite the fact that women have played a critical role in getting rid of many evils throughout history, like they did with their efforts in the reform campaigns of the Anti-Corn Law League and abolition of slavery in England, they were once again cast aside, even by men who considered themselves liberal. The only rational I can distinguish behind the motives of these men is that they, like the wealthy land owners, were insecure of having some of their power taken away by people they considered to be capable of taking it away, even though women had proved that they would fight for and represent the common good if given more power.

give up the ghost

If conservative policies have proven to cause anger and revolt, why do rulers such as the Habsburgs, always return to a conservative government? 1848 was a critical year in European history that showed the "major players" how discontent the populace was with the way things were. Yet, after giving into some liberal demands, like the Austrian government under Ferdinand I when they allowed male suffrage and a single house of representatives and "agreed to put forced labor and serfdom on a path to abolition"(751). However, when the Austrians were able to bring Russia on their side, they attacked the squashed the rebellion, effectively getting rid of the liberal government in Vienna. Similarly, Italian rulers like Charles Albert, were unwilling to give into the liberal ideals of Mazzini, who represented the popular movements of the people, favoring a more conservative government, instead. It doesn't seem to make sense that all of these rulers could be so against laws that would greatly satisfy the people they are supposed to rule over. The argument could be made that nationalism would be easier to accomplish if everyone was satisfied rather that just the elite. It make absolutely no sense that any oppressed people would want to participate in a "nation state" that does not respect or help them. If the main goal was for there to be a strong sense of nationalism, why wouldn't these rulers sacrifice their ideas of how government should be handled, not only for the greater good, but for the cause of nationalism?

aw, how romantic!

While reading about the Philosophes and imagining them in their plush Salons discussing rationality and matters of philosophy, I found myself becoming very envious. However, I also found myself fondly imagining a life in the Shelley household or on the horizon line of a Turner painting, concentrating on the emotional aspects, rather than the rational, of human nature. I romanticize, no pun intended, both the 18th and 19th centuries in this way, which makes me question how the Classicists and the Romantics could disregard the others' ideas of human nature so easily. I believe that there needs to be a balance between the rational and the emotional because humans are both. Goethe was possibly so brilliant because he was able to capture both of these aspects of life. Romanticism was key in that it reminded humans that irrationality could be more satisfactory that rationality, lending way for some of the most creative works to come into existence. It also liberated women and men from long-held stereotypes that suggested women to be more emotional and men more rational because, by this time, the world had witnessed members of both genders being both. Both the Enlightenment and Romanticism are critical when considering the human condition, and just because one is favored at one moment, does not mean that the other cannot be favored at another moment.

in response to

this post

which was in response to my previous post

I personally love to ski. I have seriously contemplated moving to Vail and becoming a ski instructor by day and a bartender by night so that I can wake up on those powder mornings and ski until my heart's content. I don't think it is fair to call that a temporary happiness because for some people it isn't. Some people choose to not participate in a job that offers a whole lot of security so that they may be happier more often, even if poorer. I guess what it boils down to is if you rather have certain security or certain happiness, not that the two can't be related.

Also, why can't we do the things we love? If someone loves to watch "frivolous" TV shows, why shouldn't they do it all the time? What is stopping them? Maybe our parents tell us that we can't always do what we want because they are our parents and always want us to be protected, but how much are we willing to give up for protection?

I did not mean to portray UHS students as money-obsessed because I know the opposite to be true, but we are obsessed with success, as a whole, and success, today, apparently means having enough security so as to not end up selling ShamWows or whatever one thinks is equivalent for them. At what point did security surpass passion? Who are we trying to please? Maybe I am naive, young, wide-eyed, idealistic, and all that, but, for some reason, I cannot come to terms with the fact that my only possible way to put food on the table and clothes on my back might be to sit at a desk for the rest of my life, completing work that has no significance in my life or the lives of others, and while this somewhat reckless attitude may cause my mother some sleepless nights in the future, I figure that at some point I have to stop worrying about her expectations and hopes and concentrate on my own.

is repsonse to

this post


I am personally greatly troubled by the idea of working at a job that means nothing to me so as to achieve the ultimate "End", which, for me as well, is happiness. I want to be happy, but, for me, having the work that I do mean something rather than being a means to and end, is what would make me happy. I find myself most miserable when I am catering to the "man" by doing meaningless assignments in and cannot see any benefit. Some of the work we get in high school is a perfect example. There are times when I have a french grammar exercises or math problems that I know how to do without actually doing them, but if I don't do them, then my grade goes down and a natural progression of not getting into college, not getting a good job, etc pursues. However, in the past year, I have found myself not completing these tasks. I love sleep, and I much rather be happy while sleeping than staying up that extra hour to complete meaningless tasks. Have my grades suffered, yes, but I am more happy and well rested than if I were to have given into the pressure and completed those meaningless assignments. I guess my question is, if the ultimate goal is happiness, why spend a good 10 years of your life (and the time when you are supposed to enjoy yourself the most as youth is fleeting) working your ass off at an entry level job so that you can be happy when you are old and cranky? Or, if you are just going to school and getting good grades so that you may get into a good college and for no other reason, why attend school at all or pay for a school as expensive at UHS? Why not take that money and go skiing and to baseball games now? If you are going to be spending a great amount of your life working, why not be happy when doing your work if happiness is the ultimate End? This is all something we will have to struggle with in our lives, and there are no easy answers. I face this struggle every day as I sit down to do homework. I don't want to seem like I am being critical of anyone. I completely understand wanting security in life. I just think it is interesting that we all seem to want to be happy but think that the only way to be happy is to make a lot of money, even if you are miserable while doing it, so that we can have a few weeks vacation every year to actually be happy.

conservatism at its worst

Conservatism has its basis in a bunch of monarchs wanting to stabilize their own personal power with little to no regard about what is best for the people. Yes, they may consider what is best for the survival of the country, but rarely are the people, such as peasants and the suppressed, ever considered. In the time surrounding the Congress of Vienna and the "restoration" of Europe, Europe was witness to many land hungry rulers concerned more with legacy than anything else. In both the Spain and the Italian Peninsula, "restored monarchs who had pledged to respect constitutional reforms abandoned their promises, attempting to squelch elections and reinstate privileges"(713). Furthermore, Ferdinand of Spain went so far as to publicly execute hundreds of revolutionaries in the name of international stability. Stability, for these monarchs, meant stability of their power, not necessarily of the lives of the people over whom they ruled.
What is possibly most unsettling, though, is that these conservative monarchs could not even follow their own principles, which is seen in the attitudes they held and the actions they took when considering Greek war for independence. Even though this was a revolt from the established power of the Ottoman Turks, the major European powers were wiling to over look that because they could all personally benefit from siding with the Greeks. The Europeans powers were more concerned with defeating the Turks, a long time enemy, than with actually serving the people of Greece. They only helped them fight the Turks because they saw a chance to greatly diminish the Turks' empire. Thus, they went against their usual disdain of revolution so as to personally benefit, showing a selfishness that has never left Western politics.