summary post (for last week-my apologies)

As I reviewed the blogs from last week, I found that people were sort of all over the place. I, myself, considered last week to be more of a review week and thus felt that little material was covered/ resonated with my fellow classmates, which was sort of apparent in the blogs. Most people, in their summary blogs, talked about how nationalism was a major topic under discussion, but I felt that that was more the case for the week before last and thus wrote my last summary blog on nationalism and my thoughts about it and responses to other people's thoughts. This week, I can honestly say, I felt like the only topic we really covered was the Crimean War, which Jonathan, Zak (in response to Jonathan), and Nate all discuss. Jonathan claims that "Alexander II of Russia freed the serfs in a massive, liberal move. And yet, there was little practical impact, and it was in order to strengthen the nation. No more was reform the turf of radical revolutionaries: it had been co-opted so that rulers may increase their domestic support." I have to disagree with this entirely, much like Zak does. For starters, there was a lot of practicality in freeing the serfs because they were then able to help achieve "Westernization" and industrialization in Russia as they could now work in the factories. Like Zak said, Alexander II exploited the workers so that he could bring Russia out of the middle ages and into the future, which would make Russia more competitive in world markets and boost the economy, both of which are certainly very practical for a nation. I don't think Alexander was looking for domestic support when doing this; I think he just really concentrated on bringing his country up to speed, and if he did create some domestic peace it would be an effect not a cause of the emancipation, like Zak said. Similarly, Nate adds at the end of his post that "The impact of the Crimean War was terribly large not in the short-run, but in the long-run." I have to, again, disagree, in that the Crimean War really showed Russia, on an immediate basis, that they needed to get with the program and industrialize if they had any hope in becoming a major European power. I don't mean to say that this was all good, as the exploitation of workers is never a positive situation, in my mind, and I'm not Alexander II's biggest fan. However, it is important to note that despite whether or no one considers Alexander II's conservative and manipulative tendencies, the Crimean War and the consequent emancipation of the serfs in Russia were both very important and practical for Russia's development.