western civ. majors et al.: maybe you can help me

Feraliminal Lycanthropizer

Feraliminal Lycanthropizer

.
Feb 29, 2004
771
0
16
LAND OF MANSEX
sorry to bother you all, and this was really a last resort, but I need dier help on grasping the concept of Mazzini's:Nationality. Ive been doing pretty well except for here. link to the writing below.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1852mazzini.html


okay im stuck at
1. what does he mean in the second paragraph about "...that which is a secondary consequence in political revolutions..."
2. Why does he say things would beresolved if the 1815 treaty were destroyed?

paper due wednesday. any help appreciated.



yah i know, voted worst thread ever and stuff.
 
This is the part of history that I'm least well versed in, but here goes. I don't know what the 1815 treaty is, but it sounds like it re-drew some countries' borders. This would make people that have always been Polish for example, into Germans. (yeah my geography isn't so great in that area either but you get the idea) It would like if they suddenly moved the Canadian border 300 miles south. New Yorkers would suddenly be Canadian, but they'd still think of themselves as American.

For the other part: A secondary cause of political revolution- well, what is it? A primary cause could be something like the American Revolution: "No taxation without representation." The secondary cause here sounds like everything else he mentions in that paragraph: "social relations, the sources and the distribution of wealth; ... to establish better relations between labour and capital, between production and consumption, between the workman and the employer."


Just an old history grad trying to keep his mind working. :p
 
I took it differently. I thought that the social idea of liberty was the primary cause and that the political relationship between the workers and employers was the secondary cause what was really driving the French.

In truth, the writer's thoughts are so broken it's hard to follow his logic.
 
Correct me if I am wrong but the treaty of 1815 he speaks about must be the treaty signed by the french and the allies to end years of Napoleonic wars, Treaty of Vienna.
Such treaty thus redifined borders in Europe and redrew bounderies with countries like Finland going to Russia, Norway to Sweden, Belgium to Netherlands, Prussia got some of Saxony and Westphalia,... all this resulted in a lot of rebelions and revolutions.

Which is why the writer explains why the map of Europe should once again go back to the drawing board and make sure boundaries go to people of same "culture/nationality", the 1815 treaty gave back much power to small time kings and counties. The example of Belgium in 1830 when the people took arms against the House of Orange and gained independence.
 
Feraliminal Lycanthropizer said:
sorry to bother you all, and this was really a last resort, but I need dier help on grasping the concept of Mazzini's:Nationality. Ive been doing pretty well except for here. link to the writing below.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1852mazzini.html


okay im stuck at
1. what does he mean in the second paragraph about "...that which is a secondary consequence in political revolutions..."
2. Why does he say things would beresolved if the 1815 treaty were destroyed?

paper due wednesday. any help appreciated.



yah i know, voted worst thread ever and stuff.
Click to expand...

1. seems to me he's saying that the primary consequence of a revolution is a restructuring of social order, usually to the benefit of the revoluionaries, however the ideas of nationality, usually considered to be culture and language, are affected. Supposing the American or Canadian governments are overthrown and the customs and laws they had enforced are eliminated, is it still America or Canada, or something new. Is Government, and ergo, nationality, a reflection of the people ot governs or the people governing.

2.what Belgar said essentially.
 
The treaty of vienna almost tops the versailles one in nastyness. One can probably say thst it was worse - few countries redrawing the borders of europe with no respect to history, but only to serve their own country. One day I'll reclaim Åland though!
 
Thrymfal said:
1. seems to me he's saying that the primary consequence of a revolution is a restructuring of social order, usually to the benefit of the revoluionaries, however the ideas of nationality, usually considered to be culture and language, are affected. Supposing the American or Canadian governments are overthrown and the customs and laws they had enforced are eliminated, is it still America or Canada, or something new. Is Government, and ergo, nationality, a reflection of the people ot governs or the people governing.
Click to expand...

so you're saying that these social reforms are bad....?
 
it all depends on the point of view. certainly bad to those overthrown, great to the overthrowers, usually everyone else tends to keep on living, regardless of what you call them, because their "nationality" doesn't really depend on borders and languages, but on a collective culture.
 
EDIT: ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh holy CRAP. I DID THE WRONG ONE! i did the wrong Mazzini writing!! i spent all day writing about the one i posted and i read the wrong one!! i have two freaking papers due by tomorrow, and now this one just went down the drain.
emotion-9.gif


if anyone sees this between now and about 9:00 AM tomorrow with some spare time, please tell me about this.
emotion-9.gif


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1870war1.html


sorry, dont expect anyone to do my assignments. i have a lot more to read and if someone could just give a me a jumpstart...
icon_pray.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back