Sean

Recently in class we looked at how revolutionaries are often very disapproving of violence used by the current government that they are revolting against, but the revolutionaries also often have tolerance for violent acts that they perpetrate in attempts to make sure their revolutions do not regress. We specifically compared Maximilien Robespierre from the French Revolution, who supported the execution of thousands of people accused of being against the French Revolution, and Jean-Jacques Dessalines from the Haitian Revolution, who killed and seized the land of white people in Haiti to prevent reverting back to society with white people in power, which would undoubtedly include slavery.

The purpose of the use of violence on the part of either the current government or the revolutionaries is a matter of perspective. Rarely do people step back from a situation and admit that they are wrong. Instead they usually create justifications for their own use of violence that is likely accompanied by condemnation of the other side’s use of violence. Both Robespierre and Dessalines justified their violence. In “Justification of the Use of Terror, 1794” Robespierre wrote, “Subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic.” In this sentence, Robespierre explained his motives for violence since terror refers to the widespread use of the guillotine. Robespierre also explained his view that virtue and terror need each other to be successful. The heroic tone of the document encourages other people to take on Robespierre’s views, thereby spreading the acceptance of violence to try to preserve the revolution. In the Haitian Declaration of Independence, issued in 1804, Dessalines wrote, “We must, with one last act of national authority, forever assure the empire of liberty in the country of our birth; we must take any hope of re-enslaving us away from the inhuman government that for so long kept us in the most humiliating torpor.” The Haitian Declaration of Independence also has a noble tone with commanding language. Eliminating the prospect of re-enslavement for people in Haiti was perhaps Dessalines’ clearest motive for killing white people and claiming the land formerly owned by white people. If slavery was reinstated by white people, all progress of the Haitian Revolution would be lost. Dessalines gave motivation to former slaves for achieving and maintaining freedom for themselves.

It was notable that both of these documents seem to have been written as a call to action, whereas the American Declaration of Independence was not as commanding and carried less of an urgent tone. This may be due to the conditions of the soon-to-be United States during the time of the American Declaration of Independence being relatively stable when compared to the conditions in France and in Haiti when Robespierre and Dessalines’ respective documents were written.

While both the French Revolution and Haitian Revolution involved violence to preserve the revolutions, I believe the core motivations were fundamentally different. Robespierre used terror and violence to subdue anyone who came against the French Revolution, but everyone involved was considered human, and no one’s freedom was at stake. I think the revolutionaries from the Haitian Revolution had more to fight for and preserve than the revolutionaries from the French Revolution. In the Haitain Revolution, the rebelling people were slaves, therefore considered property and subhuman. The violence in Haiti was about people of African descent claiming and protecting their humanity, dignity, and freedom from both physical and emotional bondage, which was caused by hundreds of years of slavery and oppression imposed by white people. The Haitian Revolution was more about freedom rather than trying to change the form of government.

Recently in class, we have been learning about and discussing influential Enlightenment philosophers including Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Baron de Montesquieu, and Jean- Jacques Rousseau. We then looked at how their philosophies and written works influenced the American Revolution, namely Locke’s words that are present in the Declaration of Independence.

One of the main topics we looked at in class was whether the Declaration of Independence was radical or conservative in terms of its motives. We saw arguments for both perspectives, and I noticed that both arguments only looked at a specific part of the document. The argument for radical motives focuses on the opening of the Declaration of Independence and the Lockean principles that were relatively new and had yet to be instituted in government. The argument for conservative motives points to the list of grievances where numerous offenses by the king of England are listed, showing that the colonists wanted to regain their rights from the English monarchy. Both of the arguments have strong evidence to support them, but there does not seem to be one argument that fits the whole document perfectly. I could see both perspectives, and we noted that there were both radical and conservative parts to the Declaration of Independence.

That caused me to think about motives versus effects for a bit. If the Declaration of Independence was written with conservative motives, but it caused new ideas to be implemented, then it could easily be considered radical because of the new society it helped to form. The opposite could also be true if there were radical motives that caused conservative effects in the real world. This shows that the motives as well as the actual events that occurred from the Declaration of Independence can both be interpreted one way or another. Just from the week or so we spent learning about this in class, I can see why it is a debated topic among historians. Why do historians want to find out the motives for writing the Declaration of Independence? How would discovering those motives benefit the United States in the present day? Did the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence expect their work to be analyzed and discussed in such detail?

Something else that came to mind was about how during the time when documents from the Enlightenment were circulating, people read essays for pleasure reading. Without an education, the essays were likely extremely difficult to read and understand. When thinking about the pamphlet “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine, this may be one of the main reasons why it is written in common language. If new ideas are truly going to cause change in a society, the presented ideas need to be understood by more than just the educated people in that society. The whole society needs to be more or less on the same page, and using language that takes this into account may result in more widely accepted ideas and more efficient spreading of ideas among all members of the society.

For the second semester, our class started our Revolutions Unit. I was expecting to start right away with revolutions of countries, but that was not the case. We started the unit learning about the Renaissance, Protestant Reformation, Scientific Revolution, and Enlightenment. I thought about why the unit starts this way, and I noticed a pattern and came to a realization.

In studying the Renaissance, which occurred from about the 1400s to the 1600s, we learned about new views of human life as shown in art and literature. We looked at the School of Athens painting and noted qualities in the artwork that were specific to the Renaissance. We learned about Renaissance people like Leon Alberti and Leonardo DaVinci who showed society’s message that people should strive to be excellent in many areas and subject matters. Also with the Renaissance, we looked at humanism, the belief that humans are God’s most wonderful creations. The writing of Mirandola clearly shows this way of thinking and goes on to say that humans are above the angels. These ideas were new at the time and changed the way people thought about human life and humanity’s place.

Along with the Renaissance is the Protestant Reformation of the early 1500s. Martin Luther’s 95 Theses and the Diet of Worms showed a shift in belief within the Catholic Church and led to the formation of Protestantism. People were beginning to move away from recognizing the pope as the authority of the Church and turned to the Bible as the authority of the Church. People were also starting to speak up against corruption in the Church regarding the pope and indulgences.

The Scientific Revolution, lasting approximately from the 1500s to the 1700s, brought about significant changes in the way people understood the world. A major change in understanding is the heliocentric theory. This is the concept that the sun is in the center of the solar system and contrasts with the geocentric theory in which the earth is the center of the solar system. The law of gravity as discovered by Isaac Newton gave a scientific perspective on matter in the Universe. Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes helped to develop the scientific method. The combined methods Bacon and Descartes stressed the importance of experimentation to gain knowledge in addition to implementing logical reasoning and mathematics.

The Enlightenment, lasting from the late 1600s to the early 1800s, saw the publication of John Locke’s “Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” a philosophical work. This gave rise to the idea that human nature could be changed and knowledge is acquired through experience. People also started to trust and base decisions on their own reasoning instead of getting all of their information from church. People felt like they were gaining an ever-increasing understanding of the world and felt emboldened.

After thinking about all four of these time periods separately, I thought about how they overlap both with regards to time and concepts. The Renaissance covered change in social standards and expectations, and the Protestant Reformation dealt with religion. The Scientific Revolution involved new scientific knowledge and logic, and the Enlightenment seems to have combined all three. There was a wave of new thought entering the human experience all at the same time in many different aspects of life. Combining all of these things, I became aware that the beginning of the Revolutions Unit was all about changes in people’s views of themselves and the world. Now I see why these lessons precede the revolutions of countries. The reason is that physical revolutions of countries often begin with and stem from revolutions of human thought.

This blog post is a collection of epic twos. It is my 22nd blog post on 2/22/22. I am glad that my blog posts lined up this way. Happy Twosday! : )

In class this past week, we engaged in many activities including presenting our Harlem Renaissance monuments, thinking about Martin Luther’s 95 Theses, analyzing historical documents, and reading a poem called “Worst Day Ever?” by Chanie Gorkin.

After designing my own Harlem Renaissance monument highlighting the iconic Harlem Renaissance painter Aaron Douglas, I was excited to see the creations of my classmates. We spent nearly an entire class block presenting our monuments and explaining the symbolism behind them. Sometimes giving a presentation can make me feel a bit nervous. It was a relatively stress-free environment, and I felt comfortable and proud sharing my hard work with the class. Some of my classmates presented about people whom I had never heard of before that day. I enjoyed hearing about the symbolism of each monument, and I could tell that they were carefully thought out and skillfully included within the monument.

When we looked at Martin Luther’s 95 Theses, we kept in mind that Martin Luther was not trying to separate from the Catholic Church when he publicized his theses in 1517. Most of his theses expressed views that were different from many others who were part of the Catholic Church at that time. Martin Luther made sure to talk about indulgences and the limits of the pope’s power as well as the importance of the Bible. He wanted to make it clear that he was not pleased with how members of the Catholic Church were acting, but he did not try to start the Protestant Reformation.

Analyzing documents as historians requires a certain thought process when trying to identify the author of an unknown document. We had to take into account where the excerpts are from in terms of larger documents they may be parts of, the historical events that took place during the time when the documents were written, and the authors’ purpose. One of three documents that we analyzed did not list the author, and it was our job to identify the author. It turned out that the author of the mystery document was Machiavelli, the author of The Prince that we learned about during our unit on the Renaissance. Also notable from one of the three documents we analyzed was how Martin Luther’s tone when talking about the Catholic Church changed drastically between 1517 when he posted his 95 Theses and in 1522 in a letter that he wrote. In the theses, Martin Luther showed disapproval of the Catholic Church, but he did not seem to have a strong sense of resentment. In the letter, resentment is all throughout, and Martin Luther clearly and directly called out the negative ways the Catholic Church treated him.

Lastly, I was pleasantly surprised by the poem “Worst Day Ever?” by Chanie Gorkin. When I first read the poem, I read it top to bottom like I would any other poem. I try to be optimistic, and I was shocked how someone could have such a negative outlook on life and happiness. Then when I read the poem the other way and saw how it completely changed the meaning, it made me smile. I remember being in awe about how the poem made sense when read both ways and thinking something along the lines of “There’s the optimism I was waiting for!” I read the poem backwards again, and I smiled even more.

This week in class we learned about the Harlem Renaissance. We learned about it as an extension of our lessons regarding the Renaissance in Europe, and it was nice to see how the two movements are related. Both involve a change in society and a significant shift in the arts. Our assignment for the Harlem Renaissance was to design and create a monument for one of the people who were part of the Harlem Renaissance.

To make my monument, I am using an online 3-D modeling tool called Tinkercad. This week was the first time that I used Tinkercad, and I really enjoyed exploring it. The cover page of the Tinkercad website is inviting and colorful. The Tinkercad logo is a square three by three square with the letters that make up the word “Tinkercad,” and each letter is a different color. One of the first things I read on the website was, “From mind to design in minutes. Tinkercad is a free, easy-to-use web app that equips the next generation of designers and engineers with the foundational skills for innovation: 3D design, electronics, and coding!” I felt a surge of excitement as I thought about the creative power that Tinkercad could unleash. In particular, the diagrams of the gear set and the model race car fondly reminded me of building projects that I completed in the past.

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) have been very interesting to me starting from a young age. With regards to design and building, I enjoy building things out of K’nex and other materials. The process of seeing and figuring out how the different parts work together is engaging and fun. When building my monument in 3-D, I noticed that the controls are very compatible. The 3-D modeling section allows for view of projects from all angles, full control of dimensions and positions, a built-in ruler, and many more features. In particular, there is an orthographic view where everything on the work plane appears relatively flat. There is also a perspective view in which designs on the work plane appear more 3-dimensional. This reminded me of the Renaissance and how perspective helps with making realistic visual representations of the world. There is also a vast selection of shapes to choose from to construct a project, and there is an option to create custom shapes as well. I also thought about how people may use this kind of software for designing in STEM-based careers. Career profiles sometimes show specialists working with computer-based design programs. It is always neat to see what they are in the process of making as they rotate, resize, and refine their designs.

I also remember thinking about how fortunate I am to have access to tools like Tinkercad. All that I needed to do to access Tinkercad was click on the link and sign in with Google. Many places and people in the world do not have such abundant resources to partake in these activities. I am thankful that I am surrounded by opportunities and new things to try. Tinkercad is one of the many examples of these opportunities, and I am glad that I have the chance to utilize Tinkercad for my Harlem Renaissance monument.

This week in class, we worked through various lessons on the Renaissance. Two of the things we learned about are “Oration on the Dignity of Man” by Pico della Mirandola and how the use of linear perspective transformed art during the Renaissance.

Linear perspective is what artists during the Renaissance used to make their drawings look realistic. The video we watched about linear perspective said the concept of linear perspective was developed by Filippo Brunelleschi. It talked about how he experimented with linear perspective in order to recreate the Florence Baptistery, also known as the Baptistery of Saint John, in his artwork. Brunelleschi held a mirror facing towards him and his artwork facing away from him (both with holes in them) so that he could see the reflection of his artwork in the mirror. Then, when he moved the mirror away, he could see the real Florence Baptistery and compare it to the reflection of his artwork to check the accuracy of his artwork. Linear perspective gives artwork the ability to appear three-dimensional and proportionally balanced. Before the Renaissance, linear perspective was not fully developed in artwork. During the Renaissance when people started utilizing linear perspective, artwork became increasingly lifelike.

The video also addresses something that was mentioned in class when it says: “…some people say that Brunelleschi rediscovered linear perspective, in case the ancient Greeks and Romans had had it before him.” This makes sense since other people could have known about linear perspective before the Renaissance. However, this statement also seems to imply that no other people in the world besides the ancient Greeks and Romans could have known about linear perspective before Brunelleschi. Hearing that statement made me think of how the attribution of knowledge to certain parts of the world often diminishes or neglects the rest of the world’s advancements in similar subjects.

Mirandola brings up an interesting concept that God created humans above the angels. Mirandola explains this using the following lines: “Imagine! The great generosity of God! The happiness of man! To man it is allowed to be whatever he chooses to be! … Spiritual beings from the beginning become what they are to be for all eternity. Man, when he entered life, [God] the Father gave the seeds of every kind and every way of life possible.” I had not thought much about humanity in this way before, and it was interesting to read about this point of view. I agree that there is definitely something unique about human life. Humans can choose to be anything they would like to be, and humans can be multiple things as well. Something else that stood out to me from the reading is about what people must do with the unique freedom of choice that humans have. People, who have the power to choose how they live their lives, should not use their power for things that take advantage of or harm others. Rather, people should recognize and be thankful for the ability to choose their own paths and make conscious decisions to use their power as a constant force of good in the world, glorifying God in the process.

Recently in class, we received our packets for our Revolutions Unit. As an introduction, we read part of Leon Batista Alberti’s biography. Leon Batista Alberti lived during the 1400s and is considered to have been a “Renaissance man.” A “Renaissance man” is someone who has interest and knowledge regarding many different subjects.

Something that I noticed was how the first page of the reading was mainly about Alberti’s skills and areas in which he excelled. He mentioned horseback riding, archery, mathematics, physics, canon and civil law and much more. Later he transitioned into stories that show many positive character traits such as dedication, loyalty, and self-control. The word choice is also different from many books and literature I have previously read. Usually when a person is being complimented, the person gets time to shine, but it is not in a way that might come across as bragging. Alberti’s autobiography, however, has some sort of a compliment about himself in almost every sentence. Maybe society was different during the Renaissance, and it was acceptable for someone to show such little humility. As a class, we thought it was definitely coming across as boastful, but I think the writer and receiver of such compliments plays a large role in how we perceive the writer of the compliments.

In the instance of Alberti’s autobiography, the compliments are written by him and directed towards him. This is likely why it comes across as egotistical and braggadocious. If he were writing these same exact things about someone else, would we still think of him in the same way? I tend to think we would not. People who compliment others are commonly seen as kind and uplifting rather than thinking highly of themselves. Even if Alberti wrote these same compliments about a group of people that included himself, the positive remarks would not be so concentrated solely on him. This could give the tone of the writing more of a “group effort” feeling and still not lead readers to infer that the author is self-centered and arrogant.

Alberti’s writing also led me to think about the differences between how people were during the Renaissance and how people are today involving professions and areas of study. Based on the term “Renaissance man” and the contents of Alberti’s autobiography, people living during the Renaissance had a goal of becoming a master of almost everything. Now, people may have hobbies and interests on the side, but they commonly hone in on one specific area of expertise and/or skill set for a given profession. People still change careers, but to me it does not seem like people are trying to be an expert in everything all at once like it appears to have been during the Renaissance.

Another point that was mentioned during class was that people did not think of themselves as living during the Renaissance. That is only a term people have given to the time period after it ended. I decided to look up the time period of the Renaissance and word history of the Renaissance. I found that the Renaissance time period refers to the 14th century to the 17th century, but the word Renaissance did not start to be used until 1837. This goes to show the separation of when the Renaissance ended and when people started to call it as such.

As the second semester began, our class continued our simulation of the Athens versus Melos conflict. We were getting close to reaching a resolution, but some things still had to be decided upon to reach a complete agreement between the two sides.

In the previous negotiation session, Athens and Melos both hinted at possibly agreeing that Melos could join the Delian League for 10 years with a one-time contribution of 200 troops and 3 ships. What was left to be discussed was how many talents Melos would pay to Athens each year. This turned out to be a large point of negotiation. Athens wanted at least 10 talents annually from Melos, but Melos wanted the amount to be no higher than 5 talents per year. Then we tried coming up with different numbers of talents, such as 7 talents or 9 talents, but these were arbitrary numbers that were disputed among negotiators. There did not seem to be any way to reach an agreement about the number of talents given annually to Athens by Melos. How would the negotiations proceed now?

Then Melos offered to raise the number of ships in the one-time contribution if the number of annual talents was lowered. That got people talking, but neither side was really willing to go as high or low as the other side wanted. Melos claimed that they did not make enough money to pay the 10 talents annually that Athens was asking for. They said that they only made 40 talents per year, and giving up a quarter of their revenue would cause their people to starve. Then Athens proposed that Melos could gradually increase the cost of their goods to slowly start bringing in more and more money. At the same time, Melos would be able to pay Athens a gradually increasing amount of talents as their income grows. This was a plan that both sides could agree on. We decided that we would have the number of talents be seven talents for the first two years, eight talents in the third and fourth years, and so on, until there were 11 talents in the ninth and tenth years. Melos also added one more ship to the one-time contribution for a total of 200 troops and 4 ships. With this compromise of yearly payment, the Athens versus Melos conflict was resolved. Melos agreed to join the Delian League for ten years with a one-time contribution of 200 troops and 4 ships, in addition to the annually increasing amount of talents. Athens agreed to let Melos keep its oligarchic form of government, and they removed their troops off of Melos’ shores and got rid of the naval blockade. An agreement had been reached.

When I thought about it, the negotiations turned out so well because each side maintained what they thought were important aspects of their identities. Athens was able to maintain its self-identity of a noble empire, spreading democracy and expanding the Delian League. Melos retained its self identity of a centuries-old oligarchy, thriving and independent from the reaches of democracy. Overall, the scenario became a “meet in the middle” situation where neither side got everything they wanted. Even still, both sides came away from the conflict satisfied with the outcome, and Athens and Melos could exist together in peace.

This week was the last week of the first semester. In class this week, we started our Athens vs. Melos negotiation role play. The class was split into four groups: Athenian Admirals, Melosian Rulers, Athenian Generals, and Melosian Generals. Each of the four groups had a confidential set of goals and strategies for the negotiation.

This Athens vs. Melos activity has proven itself to be one of my favorites activities from history class so far this year. The way the desks are set up in the classroom really sets the atmosphere for me. There are four desks facing each other in the center, enough for one representative from each of the four groups. The rest of the desks are placed behind the desks in the center for the people who are not speaking at any particular moment. It is like each of us are highly respected individuals from our own countries that have met for the sole purpose of negotiation and progress. It transforms the space from a classroom into what feels like an official space for deliberation.

I have never done a role play like this before, and the new experience is fun and engaging. It is good that as a class we were given lots of information and notes to help us prepare for the discussions. There are also clear points of view for both Athens and Melos, so there is not anyone who is indifferent about how the negotiations may go. I like it when I am at the center table and I get to voice what my group’s proposals are. Both sides play their roles well, and it is interesting how the negotiations flow. For the most part, either Athens or Melos proposes something, and the other side responds. If there is a disagreement, the side that disagrees will usually propose something more moderate than what had been originally suggested. The discussion continues in this manner until both sides reach some type of agreement about a certain issue.

It is also nice that the negotiations are formal and relaxed at the same time. The negotiations are relaxed since we know we are only playing roles, and everyone knows that we are learning as we go along. However, it also feels very formal. We have had opening statements from each of the four groups. There has also been a contract of the terms of controlling violence between Athens and Melos. As Athens and Melos groups, we often like to confer within our country’s groups, and we say something along the lines of: “We would like to request a 90 second independent caucus.” Then we vote to decide if the motion is approved, and there are other things that make the discussions feel real as well. There is definitely structure and a process to these negotiations. That helps so that we are not just making up lines on the spot.

We are going to write an essay about the usefulness of the Workable Peace Framework based on how our negotiations go as we follow the Workable Peace Framework. We noted that it may be helpful to separate identities, beliefs, interests, and emotions to examine our own country’s position in the negotiations as well as the other country’s position.