Primo Levi

One of the most interesting parts of Levi's book I thought was the chapter where they were all lined up and watched the hanging of a fellow prisoner. With all the death in the camps, and all of the horrible things that happened in them, this death stood out to me because of the commentary Levi and his fellow prisoners made about it. He mentioned how they had managed to survive the camp, and that he thought they had done a good job. I have to agree with him, his continued existence shows that he has adapted to the strenuous life of the camp and has managed to survive. However, he mentions that the man who was hung must have been something spectacular. He felt that he was fighting the system by staying alive, but this man must have done something profound to deserve to be hung in front of the other prisoners to instill fear in them. I found this to be a meaningful death and I think it would have had a profound impact on the prisoners in the camp.

Fascism

I really enjoyed our drawn out talk about fascism the other day. I feel like we hit on most of the key components of fascism, but I just wanted to reexamine them. I think that the charismatic leader is the most important component to fascism. The charismatic leader knows how to rally people to a cause, knows how to arouse their emotions, and knows how to turn a problem to his advantage. The second most important component is the "intangible threat." This threat could come in many forms, such as Socialism (with Mussolini), or a disease (like in V for Vendetta). The most important feature about this threat is that it cannot be seen or touched. Its effects may be seen, but the fact that it is impossible to see the threat itself makes it that much more dangerous and volatile. The charismatic leader is able to distort this threat and alter the public's perception of it in his favor. The leader can create panic, chaos, or a multitude of other issues, and use all of these to get the people to rally behind him.

Overall, fascism seems like an incredibly well-oiled machine. Without all of the limitations that most forms of government create, fascism allows a leader to enact swift reform for the benefit of the people. However, I believe that there is a saying, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." So I would have a hard time believing that any fascist leader could maintain their ethics (if that was their intention in the first place). While at first they may have been looking out for the interest of the people (and the people probably believed him), he most certainly would slip into the quest for self gain, etc. The people would eventually realize this, and then the fascist government would really be forced to oppress the dissidents, and violence in the state would drastically increase.

Tactics in WWI

I have been really interested in our discussion of the changing in tactics used in WWI. As we've mentioned in class, new technologies have made it very difficult to continue using Napoleonic Warfare tactics. Formerly, troops would line up roughly 20 yards away, and fire at one another with (mostly) smooth bore muskets. These muskets were inaccurate past a distance of ~25yards, and even at that range you would miss your target. So, even with the close proximity the soldiers were in, casualties were not catastrophic due to inaccurate weapons, fewer rounds fired per minute, and other details. The invention of the bolt action rifle was the beginning of the end of these tactics. A bolt action rifle (especially one with a clip) allowed a soldier to fire, in ten seconds, the same number of shots it formerly took him one minute to fire. The machine gun even complicated this further. With soldiers firing ~10 rounds per second, gallant charges and massive lines of troops were just no longer a viable option.

The American Civil War saw what should have been the end of Napoleonic tactics. Two specific battles, Fredericksburg and Gettysburg, were home to gallant charges against an entrenched enemy and resulted in the slaughter of thousands of men. Still, the weapons used during the Civil War were muskets, and even the casualties resulting from these charges are nothing compared to the casualties inflicted in some of the WWI battles. The addition of poison gas and tanks even further threw confusion into the tactics that were formerly used. A tank, or anything remotely resembling its capabilities had never been seen before, and thus difficulties arose in countering it.

(On a side note, J.R.R Tolkien wrote most of Lord of the Rings in the trenches of WWI)

The Renovations of Paris

I found the idea of who "owned" the city to be interesting. I think that the prowler and the reformer seem like obvious choices. The new attraction of large cities to people who wanted to explore the city anonymously was sure to draw crowds of new people. I think that this attraction also may have attracted the more questionable characters as well. While some people enjoyed exploring the city anonymously for fun, I'm sure that there were others who depended on their anonymity. Some people, like Jack the Ripper, were able to take advantage of the anonymity a city provided, and have "fun" in their own ways. I don't think that this would have been possible previously, as in smaller communities, everybody seems to know everybody, and someone could hardly go into a new town and start killing people w/o some townsperson noticing this new arrival.

While the prowler is definitely an interesting character in the life of the city, I found the changing role of women to be of the most interest. Formerly, women were hardly seen roaming the city, and if they were, it was for work related reasons. I found it interesting that before this time, you knew what kind of person a woman was if she was walking the street. Now, women who walk the street could be working, but they could also be an upper class woman going to shop. I'm sure this may have made it difficult for some men to distinguish between "high end" prostitutes, and the bourgois women. It may have made for some awkward situations.

(Sorry this is late, I was busy celebrating the birth of our nation and forgot to blog).

Changes in Work

This week in class, when we talked about Saint Monday and the time vs. task orientation, I was surprised to find how the Industrial Revolution changed the style of work. Obviously the introduction of machinery would change the type of labor people had to do, and it would obviously change the amount of time it took them to perform a certain task. But the change from focusing on completing a task to working for x amount of time was quite interesting.

Modern work is obviously time oriented, you work from 8-5 (or whatever other hour system you use) and then you're typically done. I was under the impression that this was how work had always been done. The old style of "task orientation" was a completely new thought to me. While the old system, where the shoemaker worked the last few days of the week in order to fulfill his orders does sound ideal, productivity definitely increased. Even without the introduction of machines, if people had started working on a time schedule and trying to maximize their output, a revolution of some sorts would have taken place. I don't know if I would call it an industrial revolution, but it sure would be a "production revolution," as people would now being working a full week (Saint Monday included), and instead of just trying to fulfill an order, they (the shoemakers at least) would be trying to make as many shoes as possible and distribute them.

France and its problems

France has an interesting past, and I must say that I always find myself smiling when French citizens stop sipping wine and eating cheese and actually go out and do something.

The French Revolution (to me) is an unlikely phenomenon that, using the France of today as a benchmark, should not have happened. The France that we all know and love (I use that term very liberally), would have sat back and complained (quite loudly I'm sure) about their predicament, while sitting back and not doing a thing to solve their problems (most likely). However, the France of a mere two centuries ago impresses upon me the idea that the Frenchmen of that era would be shocked (read: disgusted, disappointed, etc.) at their descendants 35 hour work week and (dare I say it) inability to win a war.

The French Revolution occurred because the people of France had reached their tipping point. They were tired of taxation policies, they were tired of nobles running amok on their lands, they were dissatisfied with their overall quality of life. The King wasn't helping the common people out and they were finally pushed to the edge. Americans of that era had more in common with the French than they did with England (kind of). Both the Americans and the Frenchmen suffered from an overall neglect by the Crown. They both were subject to taxation policies on what seem like trivial goods (stamps, salt, etc.) and clearly were not going to stand for it [Personally I fault the French King in the failed taxation policies, as he should have learned from England's great success in taxing stamps]. Both the Americans and French also had the will and the drive to revolt from their oppressors in order to live better lives.

Another "diamond in the rough" (thank you Disney) from France is Mr. Napoleon Bonaparte. Although France's greatest military hero was the height of a freshman in high school, he is also an incredibly interesting historical figure. After viewing all of the caricatures of him, I started to wonder what it would have been like being Napoleon. He had multiple issues to deal with as a self declared emperor, issues such as French dissidents, military strategies, conquered citizens, requests of allies, and the desire for conquest. All of these stresses would surely take their toll eventually, but after seeing the caricatures I began to question Napoleon's mental state. While I'm sure any public figure on Napoleon's scale has a thick skin, I wonder if he felt that he had something to prove. Could Napoleon's desire for conquests have come from some personal insecurity? Maybe.

My main basis for questioning Napoleon's state of mind comes from a comparison to Hitler. Both Hitler and Napoleon fought a land war in Russia, both were largely successful before these invasions, and both suffered horribly at the hands of Russia's winter. Hitler should have seen this coming, as Napoleon had already made this mistake, but Napoleon also should have had some idea as to what might happen since there had surely been plenty of land wars fought throughout Asia. I wonder if Napoleon's disastrous drive into Russia was done out of a desire for conquest or if there was some deeper reason. Could some mixture of stresses have caused him to stage an assault that he must have known had high chances of defeat? Could he have had some sort of previous issue that caused him to have poor judgment in this case? I don't know, but it's possible. These are just my thoughts though, there are no facts that I know of to support my speculations.

(My apologies for any lengthy ranting on the modern Frenchmen)

Blog 6/11/10

I thought the strategy's Louis XIII used in his attempt to gather more power to himself were interesting. By creating a noble class that competed with the older nobles, he slowly was diluting the power of the nobles. By allowing anyone (who had the money) to purchase their nobility, I would think that being a noble became a little less impressive. Previously, only those old families were noble, you were noble if you could prove your lineage was of importance. But now, with more common people being able to purchase their nobility, more people became nobles, and thus it was less of a rare thing. While the purpose of the Nobility of the Robe was to demean the Nobility of the Sword and thus weaken their power, it also served a second function. The new influx of nobles, and swelling of their ranks, probably made the idea seem less elite to the common folk. With the sudden expansion of nobles who bought their position, commoners probably viewed the position as less "elite." It would be the same as if instead of being elected to United States Senate, you could purchase your position (even though that's basically what happens today considering an average senate race runs in the upwards of $8mil). But if any rich to moderately wealthy guy could go out and purchase himself a Senate seat, it would become a less prestigious position, and thus the general public would not view Senators with their current level of respect. Nobility went from being a rare attribute attained by lineage to a commodity.

Also the king's use of the courts was an interesting instrument in gaining power. By having his own courts go throughout the land and (if they deemed necessary) overturn the laws and decisions made by other courts, he asserted that his law was greater than all law. The king's ability to whimsically change the law probably frustrated citizens to no end, but also probably instilled a fear that the king would change laws to hurt the citizens if they were to not behave appropriately. The mixture of power grabbing tactics Louis XIII used helped him to gain power, as well as hold onto it.

Begin