June 1789: Tennis Court Oath

After realizing that they would have no chance of outvoting the 1st and 2nd estates for freedom and rights at the estates general, the third estate banded together and formed the national assembly. King Louis XIV, in an attempt to disband the angry members of the third estate, locked the doors to their usual meeting place. The group decided to move their business to a nearby tennis court, and it was here that the national assembly was actually formed and the members pledged to stay together until a constitution was established for the French people. 

September 1792: The Monarchy is Abolished

After fighting long and hard through a revolution and finally earning themselves the freedom and rights that they deserved, the national assembly was not enough to be a constitutional monarchy, sharing the power with a single ruler. They wanted to abolish the monarchy completely and be a republic, free of kings and queens ruling them completely, and that is exactly what happened on September 21, 1792. Shortly after, King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were executed by a new invention known as the guillotine. They were executed for crimes such as treason, and their executions were the final shredding of the monarchy, or so they thought. 

1793: The Reign of Terror Begins

The Reign of Terror was a period between Sept. 5, 1793, and July 27, 1794, when the revolutionaries of France, unofficially led by Maximillien Robespierre, committed mass execution and violent acts against anyone said to oppose the revolution in any way. This mostly included but was not limited to, priests, aristocrats, the bourgeois, and anyone opposing the revolution. Robespierre justified this mass violence by saying, “Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country.”.

September 1795: Rise of Napoleon

After the revolution, the governing committee of the first French republic was made up of only 5 people. The people of France were upset with this committee because of their poor performance, so they banded together to overthrow them in what is now known as the coup of 18 Brumaire. Among this mob was Napoleon Bonaparte. He made himself the first consul of France and gained power after defeating Austria, further raising himself in the eyes of the French people. Napoleon’s rise to power fits into the fourth phase of Crane Brinton’s idea. 

June 1814: Napoleon is Defeated in Russia

In June of 1814, after Napoleon had crowned himself emperor of France, his army was defeated by the British and Prussians after a long and grueling battle. Although he was defeated by the British and Prussians, He, along with his army, was actually defeated while fighting in Russia. After the loss of not only the battle, but also of 300,00 French soldiers, Napoleon was originally exiled to Elba, Italy, but was then exiled to an Island off the coast of Africa where, minus one trip he took back to France for 100 days, he spent the rest of his life. The rest of his life was short, though, as he only lived for about six years in exile after dying of what historians believe was stomach cancer. His body was then returned to Paris. 

June 1815: The Monarchy is Restored

After Napoleon’s climb to power and great fall, Louis XVIII, the son of Louis XV and Dauphin Louis, reclaimed the throne, thus reinstating the Bourbon dynasty. Although the Bourbons were back in power, Louis XVIII recognized the efforts of the people and the revolution, and put some things in place. First, he instated a constitutional monarchy, so the power was spread more than before. He also guaranteed religious toleration and constitutional rights for all French citizens. Although this new monarchy was much better than the old one, how satisfied could the French people really be with it after going through an entire revolution just to end back where they started, even with the same family in charge? The French revolution is an excellent demonstration of Crane Brinton’s theory about revolutions ending right where they started.

I really enjoyed learning about the Russian Revolution. For summer reading in 7th grade, I read The Family Romanov: Murder, Rebellion, and the Fall of Imperial Russia by Candace Fleming. I remember being quite interested in their history, however, I was left curious about the aftermath of the death of the royal family. This project provided me with answers about post-tzarist Russia. I was able to follow the revolution from beginning to end as thoroughly as I wanted to. Below are the main events of the Russian Revolution in chronological order.

Nicholas II’s Early Rule (STAGE 1)

Following his late father’s rule (1881-1894), Nicholas Romanov II and his wife Alexandra, a German princess, began their Russian Rule in 1894. It was abundantly clear to citizens of the Russian Empire from the beginning of their rule that Nicholas II was neither prepared nor inclined to rule. Throughout his early rule, Nikolai sought to solidify czarist absolutism, yet never took action to actualize said objective. In a time of economic development, Russia experienced a great divide between rich and poor, between the wealthy nobility/ruling class and the working class/peasants. The lower class resented the upper class, as the minuscule group of wealthy individuals owned all of the lands and had complete control of the government. Not to mention, many did not trust the czar as they believed that his wife, born of German descent was disloyal to Russia.

Tensions reached a high in October 1905, when the Czar reluctantly published a manifesto granting basic rights to the lower classes. This document pleased neither the poor nor the rich. The working class wanted more rights, and the nobility became angry that the lower class received some of their cherished power.

The Russian Empire Enters WW1 (STAGE 1-2)

Czar Nicholas II declared war against Germany and Austria-Hungary in July 1914. Russia was remarkably unprepared for the murderous war ahead, despite the empire’s size and the Czar’s insistence that he was a remarkable military strategist. This assertion later resulted in Nikolai appointing himself Commander in Chief, causing the military to collapse even further. Russia simply did not have the materials to produce enough ammunition to protect the empire’s 1.3 million untrained soldiers during the war. Additionally, Russia poured all of its economic resources into manufacturing ammunition for the war. 

By September 1914 the Empire was plagued with food shortages, and the Russian Empire was in a rapid economic decline. By 1915 Russia had lost over one million soldiers and the country’s weak infrastructure was unable to supply the remaining troops with much-needed materials. The failing state of the military caused many to begin to lose confidence in the monarch. The starving lower classes held the Czar responsible for their circumstances and the crumbling empire more broadly. 

The February Revolution (STAGE 2)

The first revolt against Russian Rule, provoked by military collapse and immense food shortages across the region began on February 22, 1917 (Gregorian calendar). It ended on March 2 when Czar Nicolas II abdicated the throne, putting an end to the 300-year Romanov rule, and Czarist rule as a whole in the matter of a week.

The revolution commenced with metal workers in Petrograd (today’s St. Petersburg) protesting for higher pay. The next day women of the working class joined in protest of their scarce salaries, and food rationing as a result of the first world war that was rapidly developing. Within a few days, upwards of 200,000 working-class people, including the remaining army, stormed the streets of Russia’s second-largest city. The goal of the protest quickly shifted from food rationing and better pay to the resignation of the Czar and the end of the war.  Czar Nicholas II sent troops to the streets of Petrograd in an attempt to dull the increasingly violent riots but was unsuccessful almost immediately. The troops refused to suppress the riots and joined the protestors. 

Without support from the Russian people and the army, Czar Nicholas II abdicated for himself and his son, Alexei Romanov, on March 2, 1917, under the advisory of ministers and army chiefs. His brother, Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia, refused to take over the crown, ending Czarist rule in Russia. 

The Provisional Government is Formed (STAGE 2)

Intended to organize the elections of the Russian Constituent Assembly, the Provisional Government was announced on March 2, 1917, directly following Czar Nicholas II’s abdication of the Russian throne. The temporary government was led by Gregory Lvov and liberal politicians from parliament and lasted about eight months. 

For the first few weeks, the general public was hopeful for the new rule, in support of the Provisional Government, but that support quickly diminished. Russia continued to face the same detrimental issues that previously led to the Czar’s downfall. Additionally, Russian citizens questioned the path that the new government would take regarding the war. Many believed that Russia should remove itself from the war, to give the country time to recover economically and provide time to rebuild the government. Others believed that Russia should continue to fight in the war, despite the increasing conflict and corruption that Russia was facing. Ultimately, the Provisional Government decided to stay in the war which would later prove fatal to the structure of the country. 

The October (Bolshevik) Revolution (STAGE 3)

The October Revolution, also known as the Bolshevik Revolution and The Great October Socialist Revolution, began on November 7, 1917. The Bolshevik Revolution, led by Vladimir Lenin and the entirety of the Bolshevik party was the second and final revolt of the Russian Revolution and ultimately led to the beginning of the Russian communist republic, mainly led by Russian nobles. 

Lenin rose to power and fame amongst the working class in April 1917, when he spoke to the greater public supporting Karl Marx’s idea that the working class should be in charge of creating change. He based his platform on three words that strongly appealed to the suffering citizens; “peace, bread, land”. He, along with another Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky, spread the word about the Bolshevik party quickly. Lenin didn’t believe that the Provisional Government could make any effective change, so he insisted that violence, protest, and revolt were the only way to truly create change.

In October 1917 the Bolshevik party staged a coup across the capital of Petrograd. They took over government buildings, banks, and other infrastructure, murdering hundreds of thousands along the way. Soon after, the party formed a new communist government with Lenin in charge.

The Bolshevik Rule (STAGE 4)

Following the Russian Revolution, and with Vladimir Lenin at the forefront of the now communist Russian government, Russia quickly withdrew from World War 1. From 1918-to 1920, Russia went into civil war between the Red Army (Bolsheviks) and the White Army (anti-Bolsheviks). The two years of civil war were those of many fatalities, destruction, and great economic unrest. 

While the end of the Russian Revolution resulted in immense urban development, it has been argued among historians that life after the Revolution was not much better than life before it. Post-war Russia struggled on an international level. Many countries tried to isolate Soviet Russia as much as possible, for fear that their dangerous new communist society would provoke violence globally. From a leadership perspective, Russia’s government post-revolution was not extremely different from pre-revolution. Lenin ruled as a dictator, similar to the Romanovs that preceded him. Both Lenin and the Romanovs handled their power similarly, promising good but using their power for evil. When Vladimir Lenin died in 1924, Joseph Stalin became the second leader of the Soviet Union for the rest of his life, continuing this circular leadership.

Until this class, I never enjoyed learning about history. The events that we read in our textbooks felt impersonal and unrelatable. I remember learning about the Boston Tea Party in 6th grade, and thinking, “why does this matter to me?” “how on earth can a single day, from 300 years ago matter so much in the grand scheme of things?” Over the course of middle school, I grew to hate my history class. And, over time, the historical events described in vivid detail turned into nothing more than words on a page. 

However, in the past year, not only have I grown to truly love this class, but my definition of “history” has changed. I remember entering the classroom on our first day and talking about the Cosmic Calander, and thinking, “this is actually kind of cool!”. A week later, we were talking about philosophy. Soon after that, religions. And before I knew it, we were halfway through the year, simulating revolutions that I had never even heard of. It feels like less than a week afterward, I am here, recapping the year. On behalf of myself and the rest of the class, I can confidently say that we are leaving L4 better, more developed people than we entered it in September. 

This leads me to the point of this class, and really the point of this video. I think that the point of this class and history classes as a whole is not to memorize the date the Haitian Revolution began or the day that the Declaration of Independence was signed, but to learn more about ourselves and humanity as a whole today. I think that we started the year talking about philosophy, and specifically this idea of the “natural state of humanity”, for a reason. The idea that humanity is a certain way, (ie, Hsün Tzu’s opinion that “The Nature of Man is Evil”, Confucious’s belief that people are inherently good, Hobbes’s belief stated in The Leviathan that people are selfish at birth, etc.) is much of what narrates the history, and how people act today. So much of religion is based on this concept. For example, Daoism is narrated by the idea that human nature is perfect in every state. Because of this, they believe that simplicity is the guide to ultimate happiness. This year, we read the Tao of Pooh by Benjamin Hoff, which serves as an introduction to Daoism. In Winnie the Pooh, Piglet describes Pooh, saying that “Pooh hasn’t much Brain, but he never comes to any harm. He does silly things and they come out right.” Pooh is a perfect example of someone who may be a Daoist. In contrast, many Christians believe that humans are a mix of sinful beings and the image of God. Confucianists believe that humans are inherently respectful and good. Once we have learned this, we can get a better understanding of the religions as a whole, and why people believe the things they do. 

Developing our understanding of religion allows us as a society to better understand each other and the community around us. Further, learning about religion allows us to better understands WHY people act the way that they do. For example, a person who believes in Legalism will likely act very differently than someone with beliefs rooted in Judaism. 

While studying The Workable Peace Framework along with our unit about Athens vs. Milos, we learned about reasons why conflict may arise, and how to solve said conflict. The Workable Peace Framework is a basic outline developed by Harvard Law School that separates potential sources of conflict and provides sequential conflict resolution strategies with an eye toward preventing war and achieving peace. The sources of conflict, as noted in the diagram include; beliefs, interests, emotions, and identities. As expected, differences in belief systems were a major source of potential conflict in the revolutions we studied as a class. The Protestant Reformation (revolution) was a revolution led by Martin Luther and was centered around religion. Said revolution would eventually lead to the formation of Protestantism, a branch of Christianity. Additionally, religion played a significant role in the American Revolution, as it provided assurance to the American people that it was morally and ethically right to fight. 

So, why does all of this matter today? Over the past year, I have asked myself this question frequently, and I think I finally know the answer. I believe that once we reach a greater understanding of the past and the reasons behind our history, we can work to prevent similar conflicts (at all levels) in the future. We can learn from past mistakes and work to create a better future, creating our own history along the way. This is the reason why we spent the year learning about conflict, human beliefs, and societal development. In order to create truly effective change, we as a global society need to study what has already been done.

I am a fifty-five-year-old man who was born in Saint-Domingue. I work as a carpenter on a sugar plantation in Plaisance. I have a close relationship with the owner of the plantation, who believes I am trustworthy.

 Entry #1: Days on the sugar plantation are hard and boring, but I am lucky. I wake up early in the morning before the sun has risen to harvest sugar in the fields. The plantation owner likes me so he gives me more breakfast than the other slaves. I always give most of my food to the young children, as they need it more than I do. I harvest sugar for many hours, as the sun scorches down on my scar-ridden back. I am better off than other people here. I have gained the trust of those in charge. Once the Haiti sun becomes too unbearable I move on to the second part of my day. I love the afternoon, for I get to work in the shade. I am a carpenter and I make furniture to send overseas to France. I hope that one day I can get paid for my work. I work until dinner, where we get bone broth and sometimes a piece of bread if we get lucky. Again, I give most of my food to the children on the plantation. I remember the sound of my tiny stomach rumbling out in the fields when I was their age.

Entry #2: I received news that these people called “rebels” are revolting. A sugar plantation was set on fire in protest. I empathize with my fellow workers, but I cannot risk losing the trust and respect of my plantation owner. I hate seeing my home up in flames, and I worry that my Saint Domingue will be destroyed. I do not support the treatment of slaves but I know that angering the white overseers will do more harm than good. I am going to continue to lay low and encourage my fellow plantation workers to do the same. I do not want my home to be ruined and I fear that if the rebels are not stopped, we all may suffer the consequences.

Entry #3: I am elated that Toussant has won but I am fearful. Word has spread among the plantation that rebel armies are close and out for blood. Of course, I would like to be free, but here I am safe. If the owner dies and I become free, there is no way of knowing what comes next. The French could rebel and if we continue to fight we will certainly lose. We need to take time to build our economy back up before we fight again. There is no way of knowing that life wouldn’t be worse if we continue. The owner trusts me and I cannot let him down. We need to be practical and safe. Safety is NOT ruthless massacres against innocent children. I have been on this island since the day that I was born. It may not be ideal, but it is my home. It is our home. There is a nation at stake and we cannot risk losing the only thing we have left.

For as long as I can remember, I have struggled with my Jewish identity. And, while I don’t yet have it fully figured out, and I don’t know if I ever will, I can tell you all that I am on what feels like the right path. 

Until recently, I have never felt very close to Judaism. I am what one might call “a Hebrew School Dropout”. In second grade, I was a Hebrew School attendee for about a year, and then I decided that my baseball games were more important so stopped going. In middle school, I attended the rest of my friends’ bar and bat mitzvahs, mumbling the prayers as they, who began their Jewish educations, like me at the JCC right next door, read proudly from the Torah on their special days. I remember every Passover and Thanksgiving, answering my aunts and uncles, embarrassed when they asked when my bat mitzvah would finally be. Not to mention, from grades K-8 I was one of two Jewish kids in my grade, the second of which was my sister. Needless to say, I have lived much of my life feeling very distant from my community, ashamed, as I made myself believe that I was not “Jewish Enough”, or that I am a “Bad Jew” solely because I never identified as much with the religious aspects of Judaism.

So, as you can probably expect, coming to FCS was a bit of a culture shock. Suddenly, I had friends who were Jewish. People who, while having different experiences, I could relate to in a way that I hadn’t gotten a chance to before. I discovered a community of people who I shared a past with, and slowly, I became more proud of this aspect of my identity. I joined BBYO! Which can be best described as an international Jewish youth group. And through that, I have opened my eyes to a global community where we all, no matter where we are from, have one core thing in common.

The other day in class, Jordyn asked the go-around question, If you found out today if you were going to heaven or hell, how would you choose to live the rest of your life? Now, I have said before that I don’t believe in the concept of heaven and hell, but this question still interested me. After going home and thinking more about this question, I came to the conclusion that this question has more to do with our mortality than the results themselves.

My feeling is, the end result doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. Sure, if you were told that you were going to heaven you might live more impulsively and less fearful of death than if you were told you were going to hell, but would life itself really change that much? Theoretically, if I believed in heaven and hell and knew where I would end up, I don’t think that would change if I would live my life as a “good person” or not. For one, I think that it is significantly easier to do good in the world than bad. Think about how much work it takes to rob a bank? And for what reward? Some money? If I was told today I was going to hell, I would try to get as much as possible out of my life on Earth. I would try to be the best person possible while I can before I get burnt alive like a s’more in hell. If I was told today I was going to heaven, I would live life with less fear, but I would also try to prove god right; justify his decision to put me in heaven.

While on the surface, if I was asked which Enlightenment figure I feel I MOST agree with, I would confidently say Locke. However, the incredible thing about ideas, is they are strongest when combined. Much like how Montesquieu and Locke believed that governments can be most successful with many points of view, I think we can only form our greatest ideas when we can agree (and disagree) with a wide variety of ideas.

 So, why does this matter? Essentially, I am trying to state an idea similar to Montesquieu, that a “balance of powers” is critical in everything from forming opinions (as I am doing now) and maintaining a purposeful and successful government. I strongly value Locke’s idea that social contract was “not just an agreement among the people, but between them and the sovereign”. He then proceeds to state that this sovereign should be a king. While I think that having a nation ruled by a king could be good in retrospect, I feel that very quickly it can lead to a dangerous amount of power in the hands of one person. I think that this power should be distributed over a number of people with many different ideas so all citizens can feel that they are represented in important decision-making, similar to how Montesquieu thought. I also acknowledge that nations are constantly changing, as are ideas. The ideas formulated by people in the time of Enlightenment would not be the same ideas formulated today simply because the world has changed since then. I believe that it is very valuable to look back on history and learn about past ideas, but I also feel that it becomes invaluable when we begin to think of the past as today. 

With that being said, there are also many ideas that are similar to those today. Rousseau wrote in The Social Contract, “As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State, ‘What does it matter to me?’ the State may be given up for lost.”  So often we see things happen in the world and think in this selfish mindset. However, we cannot create peaceful and equitable nations until we can erase this notion of only caring when crisis concerns us. If we can change this selfish mindset into one that not only acknowledges but works to change this societal standard, we can realize that while conflict may not pertain directly to you, the second we become selfish we split which leads to an unsuccessful and divided nation. 

In light of the antisemitic act that occurred at school a few weeks ago, I feel that it is necessary to share my thoughts both on the act itself and the response that followed. For context, a few weeks ago, a swastika, please get comfortable with that word, was graffitied in a bathroom in the FCC. That night, we received a vague email regarding the act, informing us that there would be a short homeroom assembly the following morning. The Zoom meeting that Thursday felt like less of a proactive event, and more of an obligation, and staff droned on about how “such events will not be permitted at this school”. It was here that I began to get angry. I, as a Jewish person, am angry that such an act has not only occurred at my school but that it felt normal. 

I acknowledge that as a white person, I have immense privilege, so talking about those times when I am discriminated against as a Jew, can be a touchy subject for everyone involved. However, I know that this conversation needs to be had, and the discomfort that is being avoided around this swastika in our school needs to be addressed. When I initially heard about the act of vandalism, I hoped it was an act of negligence, rather than a clear attack against Jews. As I thought more about this, I decided that the response shouldn’t be any different despite the intent. What should have happened, is for the school to have an assembly to then educate students about the spike in antisemitism in recent years. People need to become aware that antisemitism is at the highest rate it has been since the holocaust. Not only should non-Jewish members of the community want to learn, but the Jews who want to talk to the community should be given that voice. However, this response did not happen.

So, what happens now? For starters, we as a community need to acknowledge that antisemitism will be an ongoing problem that likely will never end. We also need to realize that it is not too late to take action, and it is never too late to educate. We cannot expect people to wake up one morning and suddenly know what a swastika is (yes, I have spoken to students at this school who do not know). Instead of expecting people to know, we need to make them realize by educating on the topic both in our school, nation and at an international level as well. The hope is, by educating the community on the “incident” and antisemitism as a whole, not only could we potentially prevent an act like this from occurring, but we can try to ensure that when it inevitably does, people are reacting appropriately and taking it as seriously as it should be taken.

Link to Note PDF

While I identify mostly with the cultural aspect of Judaism, (ie. communal gatherings, celebrations, family traditions, etc.), after learning this semester more about the different world religions, I also feel that I identify with Confucianism. According to National Geographic, “The main idea of Confucianism is the importance of having a good moral character, which can then affect the world around that person through the idea of “cosmic harmony.” While I don’t agree with this concept of “cosmic harmony”, I do prioritize ethics and morals first when it comes to religion and the way I like to live life.

Confucianism focuses on a key concept called ren and li. Li is the outward expression of Confucian ideals, while ren is both the inward and outward expressions of those same ideals. In addition to ren and li, there are also three other elements that add to total the five cardinal virtues of Confucianism. There is Yi, or righteousness, Zhi, also known as wisdom or knowledge, and Xin, which translates to trustworthiness. I hold all of these values very close to my heart. I believe that we cannot achieve good and peace in the world unless we can prioritize these five moral beliefs.

Being good morally and ethically has always been very important to me. From a young age, I was always concerned about my choices from a moral standpoint. Of course, at the time, I didn’t know that that was what I was worried about, but looking back on it, I do think that I was genuinely prioritizing and worrying about if myself and the people around me were being “good people”. For example, when I was in elementary school, I would always get very worked up if I saw a kid breaking the rules or being mean to another kid, more so than other students. When I would be asked about it, I would simply answer saying, “It’s just not right”. Looking back on these events, I can see just how impacted I was personally by other students breaking the moral code I discussed above.

I don’t think I will ever consider myself a Confucianist, however, learning about this religion did give my feelings about morality and ethics some type of title or label. Similar to Confucianism, I have always prioritized morality in my life, and will continue to do so as I continue to grow as a religious person.