In about 70 years, almost every aspect of the quality of our lives improved. Life expectancy shot up, the amount of free time we had increased. We moved into a completely new way of life in less than a century. This change happened relatively speaking, very quickly. It certainly made life harder for many for a while, factory life was brutal. However this rocky period of readjustment passed, and led into a new era of punctuality and technology. Now schooling is required of children, adults leave home to go to jobs, schedules control our work days, and the need to be cultured controls our nights. Everyone, even the lower classes, is expected to be well rounded and efficient. Yes, we are able to pursue new hobbies and more obscure careers, but does this make us happier? We gave up the ability to control our own days, and we now require schedules in order to get things done. But on the other hand, this time management and structure allows us to explore different activities which are beneficial.

This leads me to wonder, how much of it is curiosity and how much is social convention? Learning instruments and languages had no function for most social classes before the industrial revolution, if you were a blacksmith you didn’t need to know how to play the mandolin. It is important to note that the richer classes have always had the luxury of enough time to muck around with different activities, but that was a very specific and small group of people. Now it is expected for all children and adults to have cultural hobbies like painting or playing an instrument. We are overall very fortunate to have the luxury to learn things like this, but it gets to a point where it just makes you more stressed. I think that the pressure modern society places on people to be productive is extremely detrimental. It kills mental health as well as self worth. Because our lives are expected to be so much richer than they were before, it’s hard not to feel like you’re wasting your time when you are doing nothing. The whole idea of “productivity culture” didn’t exist before the industrial revolution. I personally am not sure If we were happier before or after the industrial revolution, but it is certainly interesting to think about.

This was one of the main things we debated about during our in class trial of king Louis. I think it is an interesting question to look at, because there are serious arguments for both directions. On one hand, we have successful revolutions like The Haitian Revolution, The French Revolution and even The Russian Revolution to some extent. All these revolutions killed their leaders, and they were all able to maintain their freedom. They also all had a massive amount of bloodshed, and The Russian and French Revolutions had periods of extended violence after their revolutions had ended. Despite how much unnecessary violence these revolutions had, they were all arguably successful. On the other hand we have revolutions like The American Revolution. England’s king was not killed, and there was no period of terror and massive loss of life after the revolution had ended. However, there are significantly fewer examples of revolutions where the leader of the nation is not killed. To be frank, The American Revolution is the only one I can think of off the top of my head. I can easily think of at least 5 successful revolutions where the leader was killed. One of the main points argued during class, was that if we didn’t kill King Louis then what’s to stop him from coming back and trying to seize power again. This is an issue America didn’t really have to worry about. We had a lot of things on our side that other places like France and Russia didn’t have the luxury of having. We had distance as a beneficial factor, the king was simply too far away to have total control. It took forever for information and troupes to travel, so we didn’t really need to worry about him trying to seize power again. We also had the benefit of the fact that lots of other events were happening that the king needed to take care of. Unlike most of the before mentioned revolutions, we weren’t the only thing that the king had to worry about. The exception to all this is The Haitian Revolution. Haiti had all the same advantages as us, but I truly believe that it boils down to the injustice that people of African descent already faced. There was no way for Haiti to truly be free until everyone in their way was dead. I personally think that death is never a good option, but sometimes it is necessary in order to ensure success.

It has been a long day of working on the fields of the sugar plantation. My back is sore and my feet ache. All I want to do is rest, but I still have my own little vegetable garden to tend to. I have to wake up early to go to my job in the fields so I never have time to water my vegetables before work. It is hard work but I believe it is necessary. The only way Saint Domingue can manage to stay afloat right now is if we have a well established system of international trade. We are extremely vulnerable right now after our revolution, and our best chance at maintaining a free nation is to rebuild our economy and develop a better relationship with France. I was brought to Saint Domingue over a decade ago, my entire life is here now, and I am prepared to do my part to sustain what I know, and the new opportunities that this revolution has brought.

On Thursday night, I went to listen to The Distinguished Visiting Humanities Lecturer, Jon Grinspan, talk about his job as a curator for the Smithsonian. Mr. Grinspan talked about how the small things we do, and the artifacts we choose to preserve, affect how generations of people will view us. This is a scary and an exhilarating thought. The future is something that tends to make people uncomfortable to think about. It is something that holds so much uncertainty, it’s difficult not to fret over how we will be perceived. Mr. Grinspan said that we, as a species, like to think that we are on the cutting edge of science, that life now is the best it has been. What we choose to put in museums and to preserve is a symbol of this. Being a curator gives him the opportunity to not only put in what makes the 21st century look impressive, but to show our humanity.

Mr. Grinspan showed us examples of relics from protests and riots. These are some of the most in depth looks at the state of our world today. Mr. Grinspan’s job allows him to make sure that important parts of our history are not lost forever. A lot of  the examples he showed us were not entirely happy or “sophisticated” things. Most of his  examples were actually from very dark times in our history.  If we chose to omit them, and only show the highlights reel of our lives, then it wouldn’t really be our history at all. 

Ancient cultures didn’t have as much control as we do now. Lots of artifacts and important achievements have been lost, and that is seriously disappointing. However, what we are able to find and piece together is so meaningful because it is untouched. Unlike our carefully chosen bits of history, these are complete chance discoveries. Because of this, we are able to get a mostly unbiased history. To be frank, I think it is impossible to get an entirely unbiased interpretation of the past, history is written by the victors after all. However, I do think that because these ancient civilizations did not have the luxury to pick and choose what becomes a historical artifact, it means we are at least a little closer to having an accurate depiction of their histories. 

What Mr. Grinspan does by including every beautiful and every unflattering moment in our history, is honestly very noble. How can we truly understand the past if it is  hushed up by historians and curators of bygone days? That’s why the job of curator is so pivotal to how the future understands and perceives us.

Many history classes ago, we had a discussion about The Lord of the Flies, Versus the real life version of the book. They both have nearly identical situations, but the endings are night and day. One ends in violence and death, while the other ends in lasting friendship. 

The Lord of the Flies follows a group of British choir boys, stranded on a deserted island with no supervision. The boys are forced to create their own government. Things only go smoothly for a very short amount of time. Soon the boys become power hungry and vicious. They are willing to kill each other if it means more power and authority. Their upbringing in England meant that they grew up in a very rigid and hierarchical society. As soon as they were given the chance, they abandoned all their manners and structure, in order to be more in control of their lives. They started out well by trying to create a government system, but this only backfired. The positions of power lead to corruption and death

On the other hand, a group of 8 boys from an island called Tonga, who were shipwrecked in a similar situation, managed not only to survive on their island, but to thrive. They had a well functioning system, so they couldn’t get too mad at eachother, a farm, house, instruments and even a badminton court. Their society, instead of instilling laws and manners, instilled friendship and love. This already strong sense of community allowed them all to live happily and to avoid casualties. 

The differences in their upbringings completely changed the way they dealt with the same situation. The boys from Tonga’s upbringing meant that they were not power hungry or violent, this made all the difference. When you grow up in a place that makes you think your entire self worth is tied to your social standing, then naturally there will be struggles for power.

Throughout history, revolutions happen time and time again. Where there is society, there is corruption. People tend to need to be protective of their rights in order to maintain a decent standard of living. Naturally, if a leader isn’t protecting their rights, then they are able to change their leader. Perhaps it is the violent nature of oppression that leads to violent rebellions. A lot of things in life tend to go in circles and to repeat themselves, especially in history. Just like the idea of karma, the more violent the oppression, the more violent the revolution.  Crane Brinton theorized that all revolutions follow the same pattern. By his logic, all revolutions start and end the same way. They each go through a straightforward path that leads them right back to where they started; with an oppressive government. Brinton’s theory doesn’t actually talk about a successful revolution, so are revolutions that are non violent more successful?

The Haitian revolution was an extremely violent and bloody revolution, yet it is still held as an undeniable case  of success. The Haitian people managed to overthrow an oppressive system, and keep it gone. However, they did this by slaughtering nearly everyone who opposed their freedom. This would argue for the fact that violence is indeed necessary for success. Another example of a successful revolution that included violence is the American Revolution. We had a number of very violent battles, and eventually we were able to gain our freedom. Almost all the most famous revolutions we hear about include a war. It makes you wonder why revolution and violence go hand and hand so often. Perhaps it has to do with the oppression that leads to revolution. Crane Brinton’s first step in his anatomy of a revolution is an increase in class antagonism. This leads to building hostility which results in violence.

Peaceful revolutions are by no means unheard of, they are just rare and more likely than not, unsuccessful. However there are special cases. It makes you wonder, what were the different variables that lead to a nonviolent revolution? Brintons anatomy undeniably states that violence is a key component of a revolution. There have been a slim number of non violent, successful revolutions. One of these was the Estonian singing revolution. Thousands of Estonians gathered to sing songs. The songs displayed power and national pride, the protest effectively weakened the soviets and allowed Estonia to become a free nation.

I personally believe that violence is not necessary, but revolution and war are two sides of the same coin. It is extremely rare to find cases of revolutions where there wasn’t some violence involved. Even protests that started peacefully often end up in violence. It is human nature to feel things deeply, and in the case of revolutions, this fear manifests itself in violence. In short, successful revolution without violence is improbable and unlikely, but not impossible.

Marat was a deity of the revolution to the French people. They viewed his death as a sacrifice, and a personal attack. They used his name, and their ideas about him, to show the beauty of the revolution. In a famous painting by David, we see a pure and lovely man, slain in his bathtub, surrounded by papers for the revolution he was working on. They romanticized him and his death, in order to reach the common masses and inspire change. Marat was neither beautiful nor pure. His skin was not clear and rosy, he had a skin condition that left him red and dry. He was not all kind and sweet, many of his methods of writing are considered terroristic by many. This blatant omission of flaws worked perfectly. He led the Revolution from six feet under.

Personally, Marat is one of my favorite figures in French history. His past is fascinating and his role in the revolution is monumental. He wasn’t even alive for most of it, yet he still managed to be one of the main driving forces of the revolution. Marat’s wildly radical thinking and eloquence easily propelled him to the forefront of the influential radicals of the time. Even though he was denied a lot of educational opportunities, he was able to become a very well versed and intelligent person. His words were poetic and well thought out, yet his methods of persuasion were almost terroristic. He was easily able to spark fear and motivation in people with his papers. His controversial and strongly worded articles made him popular with many. However, for as many friends as he had, he had enemies. One of which actually did kill him.

Marat may have been popular before his death, but after his death he was arguably more influential than he ever had been when he was alive. The French people made him a martyr, even comparing him to jesus. The French people’s outrage over his death really spurred the revolution into full force. People painted him as beautiful, untouched by the cold nature of life in France at the time. They omitted all of his physical and mental issues in order to idolize him. The people were very good at controlling propaganda during this time and the French people’s romanticization of his life and especially his death were easily some of the best working bits of propaganda. 

Marat’s death was utilized by the revolution in order to inspire people. His popularity allowed him to live forever, and end the monarchy. His methods of writing were forceful, but they did the job. He was essential in making a bridge between the sans culottes and the common people. Terrorist or martyr? Marat was both.

Machiavelli has always been one of my favorite existentialists. His views of the world are fascinating and highly problematic in my opinion. Learning about Machiavelli through the perspective of humanism is very unique. He coheres to the newly discovered hubris of Europe very neatly. It shows the negatives of the new human focused  way of life. People often look at the positives of humanism; more culture, art and science, but neglect how  self centered it made everybody. Machiavelli had a highly pretentious and self serving way of thinking. He wrote about how the ends justify the means, which is a horrifying display of his moral characteristics. To say that it doesn’t matter what you do as long as it ends well is foolish and almost cynical. When we studied him, we looked at his book The Prince, where he talks about the previously mentioned piece of wisdom, and how to properly rule. Machiavelli states that it is better to be feared than loved because fear is a better motivator. He also postulates that it is easier to control the fear of people, than to control their love. He says that it is better to be completely in control. 

As with all unorthodox thinkers, there are concrete ideas mixed in with the half baked concepts. Machiavelli has a point when it comes to control. it is, however, an extremely convoluted point that he is making. I think that control is necessary when governing a large or powerful area, but I think that it is also possible (and preferable) to be able to maintain control while still being loved. When you think about it from a sustainability perspective, being loved makes for a much more supportable reign. Machiavelli argues that by showing weakness, like love, you open yourself up to being dethroned or attacked. I could say the same thing about being feared. People tend to like their rights, and if their rights are being infringed upon, people will challenge that. No one can maintain leadership with just one or the other, they really go hand in hand. 

I always enjoy reading existentialist papers because it really gives you an idea of what it’s like in somebody else’s mind. Machiavelli was arguably an evil man with questionable morals, but that’s what’s so interesting about studying him. He is totally different from you or me. Learning about people like this and their impact (or lack of) on history is a very beneficial thing to do. looking at how different people view the world can impact how you view the world. I like to see the best in people and look at life through rose colored glasses. I would never, of my own accord, view the world like Machiavelli does. By reading his paper, I am able to experience life in a totally different way, a way that I never would have been able to see before. Machiavelli had a dark yet intelligent mind, a mind that influences people to this day. For good or bad.

Welcome to Blog @ FCS. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!