Month: September 2020

Manchester in the 19th century was a prime example of how bad the working class lived in big cities. In our primary source, The Condition of the Working Class in England, Friedrich Engels gives the reader a very descriptive text on just how horrible the living conditions of the proletariats were. He goes into detail about their housing, their diet, their ways of life. On page 85, Engels says, “… these workers have no property of their own, and live wholly upon wages, which usually go from hand to mouth. Society, composed wholly of atoms, does not trouble itself about them; leaves them to care for themselves and their families, yet supplies them no means of doing this in an efficient and permanent manner.” 

The way that these people lived was based solely on if they could get work for just enough money to get food, which was practically not edible. It seems that these families were destined to this lifestyle with no means of escaping it. Do you think the proletarians and their future generations were condemned to this life style for their whole time on earth with no escape or were there chances and opportunities for them to try and better their lifestyle and get away from the horrible living conditions?

Friedrich Engels. The Condition of the Working Class in England. Oxford University Press, 1993.

In Friedrich Engel’s “The Conditions of the Working Class in England”, he mentions that the Bourgeoisie of England are able to maintain power due to the competition between the working classes. Engel’s implies that the Bourgeoisie have the power to render the working class “helpless” by forcing them to compete with one another. For instance, he states, ” Here we have all the competition of the workers among themselves. If all the proletariats announced their determination to starve rather than work for the Bourgeoisie, the latter would have to surrender its monopoly.” Thus, Engels is implying that the Bourgeoisie own all the capital within society and have the power to manipulate and control the lives of the working class (proletariats) by replacing them with one another if their demands ever became too high. Engels also understands that the Bourgeoisie would always have power as long as they had a few workers and only unifying the working class would force the Bourgeoisie to make changes. (“Competition” Page 88)

In Engel’s statement about unifying the working class, he does not just blame the Bourgeoisie for creating competition among the working class. For instance, he also blames the Irishmen for contributing to competition. Engels claims that the Irish force the English to lower their standards in order to not starve or be replaced by the less “civilized” men who are more willing to live in worse conditions. For instance, Engel’s states, “True, this limit is relative; one needs more than another; the Englishman who is still somewhat civilized needs more than the Irishman who goes in rags, eats potatoes, and sleeps in a pigsty. But that does not hinder the Irishman’s competing with the Englishman, and gradually forcing the rate of wages, and with it the Englishman’s level of civilization, down to the Irishman’s level.” Basically, Engel’s claims the the Irish are less “civilized” than the British and attaches stereotypes to certain groups within the working class. Thus, Engels invokes a sense of cultural superiority by attaching the English to “civilization.” (“Competitions” Page 89) Therefore, this final quote prompts a few questions. Also, why would Engels create cultural distinctions between two groups within the working class when claiming unity would be needed to destroy the Bourgeoisie? How might Engels create more division by making distinctions between the Irish and English working class?

“Industry is the mother and father of science, literature, the arts, entertainment, freedom, useful institutions, and national power, and independence.” Friedrich List

If it were not for Great Britain the industrial revolution would have been completely different and would not have taken place until half a decade later. The small nation has always been a forerunner in cultural growth in Europe. Thanks to an almost endless supply of water around the island, the people of England were able to capture the water’s power and use it for the advancement of some of the first commercialized industry. This increased industry allowed for a blossoming of ideals across England. Because of the increase of industry people were more often able to have free time where they could do more than just work. This allowed for the first time in history for people to be able to learn new skills or be introduced to new ideas.

This new spark of interests would lead to a new age of modernization and exploration not just in England but across Europe over the 19th Century as well. Friedrich List’s quote exemplifies the new sentiments of people across the continent as many more ideas and institutions were introduced and grown throughout the century.

In “The Sandman”, Nathaniel is tormented through his entire life by the lawyer/ peddler Coppelius, but during his studies away from home, he is meets Olimpia, his professor’s daughter. It turns into a “too good to be true” story as he begins to fall in love with the most beautiful “woman” he has ever met. Both of these entities play a part in Nathaniel’s eventual demise, but which one played the larger role in his downfall? Was it Coppelius, who tormented Nathaniel for his entire life and was present at his death, or Olipmia, whose bloody eyes rolling across the professor’s floor ultimately sent him into madness?

After reading “The Sandman” by E. T. A. Hoffmann I wanted to investigate what parts of this story connect to the romanticism for the time period. This story was published in 1817 a time long before entertainment that we consume today. This makes me wonder what is so intriguing still about this short story that we still discuss it even today. I lean towards the feeling that you get when you read a gruesome story like this it was a way of escapism for people at the time. It describes a very catastrophic story that draws on a fairly tale that many people grew up hearing and connects itself to a somewhat more realist scenario. For this reason the short story makes me ponder what the most important aspect of these romanticized stories that draws the reader in so much?

The global impact of the American Revolution doesn’t often go unnoticed and most look at the French Revolution as directly inspired by the events that occurred in former colonies. However I think it is clear that the ideas which connected these two revolts are found in a collection of other Revolutions that occurred throughout mid nineteenth century; including a desire for unification of some nation states and a turn away from absolutist monarchies and towards more representative governments (Week 2, video lecture). How did the actions of those in the Congress of Vienna enable the Age of Revolutions which soon followed and could the political repercussions have been limited at that moment in time? Or were the rebellions that followed inevitable with the spread of democratic ideas and growth that the European colonies experienced. As with Spain’s former colonies who saw the weakness in the mother country and seized the opportunity. How important was the fact that these nations witnessed the success in America, France, and Haiti, among other places? Are the revolutions even comparable in this way since the circumstances and motivations varied between each country revolting and the response from forces like the various alliances?

Throughout the 1820s and 1830s, there were a series of uprisings and revolutions throughout Europe following Napoleon’s defeat. While the political leaders of the time, mostly monarchs, resolved to work together to end these revolts, many countries actually supported different revolutions in the following decades. In Making of Modernity, it says, “he [Alexander] also feared that an Ottoman collapse would destroy the Concert of Europe… there were important economic interests at stake, as well”. In this example, Russia helped Greece become independent for their economic interests, but then turned around to help the Ottoman Empire quell protests in Egypt for political relations. While the European powers were ultimately acting for their own self interest, why was supporting some revolutions and not others bad for their own political situations? Would the political benefit of having a more unified approach to foreign revolutions outweigh the potential economic gains lost by not supporting the independence of nations like Greece?