23stabslater-blog

[23stabslater-blog]

Turns Out Overthrowing the Government is Harder Than You Think

After spending months thinking, planning, and creating, the Genius Hour assignment has come to a close and with that, I must sadly reflect on my work if I want to get anything above a 50. Looking at my blog and my presentation, I can say that my blog if the stronger piece of work. I am quite thankful the assignment was a blog post and not an essay as I am more confident writing informal pieces of work. Providing humour and my own voice to a piece of work makes it far more engaging to me.

A believe that one weak point in this isu was when in my presentation, I did not further explain how the three components of impact a revolution. In my blog post and presentation I simply talked about how the components were present in the three revolutions. I should have further explained why it is so important to have them in the first place.

A change I wish I made going back was to look at revolutions in a different way. The common factor between the three that I selected was that they all had the lower class rise up against the upper class. However, this is not always the case. It is not always poor vs rich. A revolution only specifies that it’s the replacement of the government, not who replaces it. Going back, I would examine how one upper class faction overthrew another. This would give the presentation both a sense of variety and a twist that could get others thinking critically.

My question also did not have a straightforward answer, although I don’t know if that is good or not. On the one hand, having a question that cannot be truly answered due to the debate of morals would provide a deep discussion and thoughts about the costs of war and what exactly a human life is worth. On the other hand, not only does it feel like a cop out of an answer to just reply “who’s to say?” but it may not provide those who were watching the presentation with something they are looking for.

Overall, this project gave me the opportunity to view history through a philosophical lens and think about the morals that apply to a situation that seemingly has a straightforward answer.

[23stabslater-blog]

[23stabslater-blog]

How to Create a Successful Revolution in a Few Easy Steps

There are a few words that pop into my head when I think of the word “revolution”. There’s “power,” “justice,” “poor,” and “overthrowing.” I also think of Les Mis but I’m pretty sure the Jacobins weren’t singing “Do You Hear the People Sing” as they instigated the Terror of 1793.

For the most part, some revolutions turned out great. The Americans got independence when that whole Yorktown thing worked out well for them, the French eventually got rid of both their monarchy and mass killers, and peasants in the Dark Ages eventually got some rights (wild, I know). But what is it that made revolutions like that work? Historically, a revolution “refers to a movement, often violent, to overthrow an old regime and effect complete change in the fundamental institutions of society.” Today I will be examining the criteria of a revolution and seeing if the French Revolution, Peasants Revolt, and Conflict of Orders follow that criteria.

The first step in any regime’s takeover is to be yourself and have a good time. The next step is to actually have a cause and target for the revolution. This is actually a simple answer: the lower class did not like how they were treated so they decided to take matters into their own hands by targeting the upper class. By the end of the 18th century in France, King Louis XVI has been spending so much money that it has left the country in the brink of bankruptcy. The king decided to gather the three Estates to figure out a solution to something he caused. The Third Estate, aka the lower class, decided to use this meeting as a way to make demands about their voting rights. By the time the meeting happened however, tensions were so high that the three Estates became hostile with one another. In the end, a mob stormed the Bastille, stole all the weapons, and effectively kick started the revolution. Back in 1381, the peasants of Medieval England have had enough. Taxation was at an all time high and it was affecting the peasants the most. To rub salt in the wound, the peasants had to work for free as well. Finally, in 494 BC in Rome, the Plebeians (lower class) and Patricians (upper class) were at each other’s throats. This is because the Plebeians asked for corrections for all the wrong that had been done to them. It is clear to see that the consistency here is that the lower class were treated unfairly by the upper class and decided to change that.

A revolution obviously requires dedication to a cause, but true dedication is being able to stand strong with your beliefs even if the situation isn’t looking good. In France, this.... strong dedication was shown during the Reign of Terror. Listen, I didn’t say the dedication was GOOD. It worked considering they got what they wanted and the monarchy was no longer in power.

If you excuse all the murder and beheading and just the general awfulness of what happened, you can’t say the Jacobins didn’t have spirit. Did they take it too far? Yes. Could one argue that this fighting spirit and determination helped them with their goal? Also yes, but I winced answering that. Another example of a strong spirit was demonstrated by the peasants of Medieval England. When soldiers came to establish order and stop the peasants from revolting, did the peasants stop when faced with the law and also sharp weapons? No. In fact, they just kicked them out, just like that. You’ve got to have been pretty worn down and broken to go against soldiers like that and continue on instead of deciding when to cut your losses. Going back to determination, the Roman Plebeians were a picture perfect example of sheer perseverance. The French Revolutions was ten years of some crazy things happening to keep everyone on their toes while the Peasants Revolt simply lasted less a year. The Conflict of Orders however was 213 boring years. To sum it up, the Plebeians would go and ask the Patricians “hey can we establish a set of laws?” and the Patricians would go “no. Also, die.” This would go on for about TWO HUNDRED and THIRTEEN years. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone said “screw this” and just killed themself.

The final thing a revolution needs is an end goal that makes a lasting impression. If it doesn’t have that, then there was basically no point of having the revolution in the first place. Luckily, the three revolutions ended up making one hell of an impression. If it didn’t, then I wouldn’t even be talking about it. In France, they flat out changed the government system and got rid of the monarchy, having delegates, councils, and houses instead. That sort of changed when Napoleon showed up but we don’t talk about him. In Medieval England, the peasants actually failed. With their leader killed and nowhere else to turn, the revolt collapsed. However, that doesn’t mean they didn’t make an impact. Their message and revolt resonated and made a lasting impact in the minds of many people in different social classes. Finally in Rome, those stubborn little Plebeians wore down those rich bastards so much that they had no choice but to give them rights. This led to political equality between the classes and the Plebeians were even able to appoint senators. Take this as a lesson: if you want something to happen, just annoy the person enough times.

So there you have it. You mad at someone? You think the way you’re treated just isn’t right? Wanna pull a JFK on good ol Donald? Just follow what I said in here and everything will work out perfectly.