Jewish Nationalism and the Birth of Zionism

Zionism, which officially began at the World Zionist Congress held in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897, was the last nationalist movement to appear in nineteenth-century Europe. It was also the most ambitious. Jews had not had their own state since 586 B.C.E., when the Kingdom of Judah in Palestine had been conquered by the Babylonians, and from the time of their expulsion from their homeland by the Romans in the first century C.E., they had come to live in communities scattered across the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and the Americas. During the many centuries of their dispersal Jews held fast to the dream of returning to their homeland in Palestine, the Land of Zion, which according to Hebrew Scriptures, was theirs by virtue of their covenant with God. This pious hope, expressed in traditional Jewish prayers and religious writings, in the twentieth century became a highly organized political movement that in 1949 resulted in the foundation of the modern state of Israel (but more on that in Season 5).

Zionism originated in Europe, where in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries many discriminatory laws against Jews were lifted and Jews gained the freedom to participate fully in their nation’s economic, political, and cultural life. Old anti-Jewish prejudices were difficult to eradicate, however, and in an atmosphere of rapid social change, growing nationalism, new racial theories, and simple jealousy of the many successful Jewish physicians, businessmen, journalists, and academics, anti-Semitism intensified in the late 1800s. In France, the trial, conviction, and ultimate exoneration of the Jewish army officer Alfred Dreyfus for treason dragged on from 1894 to 1906 and revealed the depths of anti-Jewish feeling in what was supposedly Europe’s most tolerant and liberal state. German politicians routinely attacked the Jews, and in 1895 voters in Vienna elected Karl Lüger, an outspoken anti-Semite, as their mayor. Russia’s tsarist government issued new anti-Jewish laws, and to divert attention away from its own failures, encouraged mob attacks (pogroms) on Jewish communities in Russia itself and in Poland, Ukraine, and Lithuania, three regions that were part of its empire and the home of the vast majority of Europe’s Jews.

The founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, was born into the family of a wealthy businessman in Budapest in 1860. At age eighteen he and his family moved to Vienna, where he attended the University of Vienna and earned his doctorate in law. Spurning a legal career, he spent several years writing plays and fiction before accepting a job as a correspondent for the Neue Freie Presse, a Viennese newspaper. Although not deeply religious, during the 1880s Herzl became increasingly troubled by growing signs of anti-Semitism in Europe, and in the 1890s he became convinced by the Dreyfus affair and the election of Lüger that Jews had no future unless they had a state of their own outside of Europe. After publishing Der Judenstaat (The Jews’ State or as it is also translated The Jewish State) in 1896, he organized the first World Zionist Congress in Basel (you can read excerpts from that document by clicking here). Until his death in 1904 he worked tirelessly to strengthen Zionism by lecturing, organizing, writing books and articles, and seeking the support of wealthy philanthropists and important political leaders. In 1949, forty-five years after his death, his remains were flown from Vienna to Jerusalem, where they were reburied in the new state of Israel.

After you have read the excerpts from Herzl’s document, I would like you all to reflect on and discuss the following: Herzl states at the outset that the Jews “are a people, one people.” In his view why have the Jews maintained this unity despite living in communities scattered across several continents? According to Herzl, what are the concrete signs of continuing anti-Semitism in late-nineteenth-century Europe? How does Herzl explain the persistence of anti-Semitism? According to Herzl, why are “staying put” and “assimilation” not viable options for Europe’s Jews? According to Herzl, why is a Jewish state the only means for the Jews to escape their predicament in Europe? What role does religion play in Herzl’s arguments? What role, according to Herzl, should it play in the future Jewish state? Your thoughts…

Racism, Militarism, and the New Nationalism

As nationalism grew in nineteenth-century Europe, it also changed. In the first half of the century, when nationalists saw conservative monarchical governments as the main obstacle to national self-determination, nationalism was linked to republicanism and liberalism. During the middle of the century, especially in Germany and Italy, nationalism was championed by pragmatic and moderate leaders who believed that hard-headed politics, not romantic gestures and lofty republican ideals, would bring about national unification and independence from foreign rule. By century’s end nationalism was increasingly associated with conservative if not reactionary groups that used it to justify large military outlays, imperialism, and aggressive foreign policies. It also would lure the masses away from socialism and democracy.

The German historian Heinrich von Treitschke represents this later link between nationalism and militarism, racism, and authoritarianism. The son of a Prussian general, Treitschke taught history at several universities, including the prestigious University of Berlin. He also was a member of the German representative assembly, the Reichstag, from 1871 to 1884. His best-known work is his seven-volume History of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. In this and his numerous other writings, lectures, and speeches, Treitschke acclaimed militarism, authoritarianism, and war as the path to German greatness (you can read excerpts from this document by clicking here). His views struck a responsive chord among many Germans who feared socialism and democracy and yearned for the day when Germany would be recognized as the world’s most powerful nation.

After you finish reading the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What, according to Treitschke, is the relationship between the state and the individual? Why, according to Treitschke, is monarchy superior to democracy? What qualities of Germans set them apart from other peoples, especially the English and the Jews, according to Treitschke? Early nineteenth-century nationalists believed that all nations had a contribution to make to human progress. What is Treitschke’s view? What, according to Treitschke, is the value of war for a nation? Your thoughts…

Independence and Consolidation of New States in Latin America

The wars of independence (1791-1825), the unstable aftermath of independence (1825-1870) and national consolidation (1870-1910) marked the political transformation of Latin America during the “long 19th century.” The wars of independence led to the political separation of most of Latin America from their former colonial rulers: Spain, Portugal, and France. Often described as civil wars because they involved violent class and racial conflict, the wars of independence resulted in, not only the formation of 17 independent states, but also widespread economic devastation, social disruption, and decades of political instability. From the 1820s to the 1870s, generals, who had led the struggle for independence, recruited personal armies and fought with one another incessantly over who should rule. By the 1870s, instability gradually ended and national consolidation began. Emerging from the American born upper class, newly wealthy oligarchs, associated with the export economy (coffee, metals, oil, wheat, and beef) and foreign capital overthrew the old style caudillos and established new regimes. Based on “democracy for the few,” the oligarchs, during the last quarter of the 19th century, centralized governmental functions and formed national armies and police forces that solidified their control.

The wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon precipitated Latin America’s independence movement. This was particularly true of the Haitian slave revolt from 1791 to 1804. When news of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen spread to the French sugar plantation colony of Saint-Domingue, the mulatto population sought equality with whites. But mulatto demands prompted a rebellion for freedom among the slaves. On January 1, 1804, after 13 years of war, the former slaves officially declared Haitian Independence. Black army leaders, Toussaint L’Ouverture and Jean Jaques Desallines, defeated in succession the French colonial regime, a British invasion force and a Napoleonic invasion. The loss of life during Haiti’s struggle for independence was far greater than in the other parts of the Americas. More than one-third of the black population died. Of the 400,000 or so former slaves (the estimates are rough on the slave population, many estimates say 500,000) only 250,000 remained. Black armies killed or drove out the white population and many of the mulattoes. British and French invaders each lost approximately 50,000 men. They succumbed to the violence of war and to yellow fever. Revolutionary leaders also perished. L’Ouverture died in a French prison in 1803 and Desallines was assassinated in 1806. In the first document that I would like you to read, General Desallines “informally” announced independence on November 29, 1803, the day that Napoleon’s army withdrew. He reveals the animosities generated by slavery and 13 years of racial war and hatred (you can read the document by clicking here).

In contrast to Haiti, the least violent independence movement occurred in Portuguese America. When Napoleon invaded the Iberian Peninsula in 1807, the Portuguese King escaped to Brazil on an English ship. While there, the Portuguese King established Brazil as an independent Kingdom. When the monarch returned to Portugal in 1820, the King’s son, Pedro I, declared Brazil’s independence in 1822 to prevent the Portuguese Parliament from reestablishing colonial rule.

In Spanish America, Napoleon presented a different problem. By imprisoning the Spanish King in 1808, Napoleon undermined the legitimacy of the Spanish colonial government. As the Spanish-American upper class argued over who had the right to rule, lower class rebellions of Indians, mestizos and mulattoes, especially in Mexico and Venezuela, shaped the political future of Spanish America. Upper class creoles, the descendents of Spaniards born in America, organized armies that accomplished two purposes; they smashed lower class rebellions by 1815 and eventually achieved independence by 1825.

Simón Bolívar, the liberator of northern South America, Peru, and Bolivia, came from this creole class. His political ideas clearly expressed the biases of his social origins. He mistrusted the lower classes and advocated elite-run governments. In the second document I would like you to read, these prejudices are clearly shown in Bolívar’s advice to the legislators gathered at Angostura in 1819 to discuss the proposed constitution for the new state of Venezuela (you can read the document by clicking here).

Mexican President, Porfirio Diaz, who governed with an iron hand from 1876 to 1910, exemplified the transition to oligarchic rule. Although he was a rough mestizo military leader, Diaz enjoyed the support of the Mexican oligarchs and their articulate spokesmen. With the oligarchy’s help, he ended 50 years of civil war. Through concessions to foreign investors, particularly in mining, railroads, and oil, Diaz presided over an impressive economic boom in exports to the United States. To maintain economic growth, the oligarchy sought stability, and Diaz provided. The third document I would like you to read is from an interview given by Porfirio Diaz in 1908 to the American reporter James Creelman (you can read some of the interview by clicking here, please read pg. 236 paragraph 3 - pg. 245 paragraph 3 [it's not actually 9 pages, there are very large pictures throughout as it's a magazine article]). Diaz candidly revealed how he achieved order.

Once you have read the documents, I would like you all to reflect on discuss the following: Desallines claimed that cruelty is sometimes necessary to achieve important political ends. What is your view of this proposition? Is it a universal claim crossing all cultures? What is Bolívar’s view of the common people of Venezuela? What types of institutions does he recommend to rule these people? Why are these types needed? What role should the liberators (the leaders of the independence armies) play in the new government proposed by Bolívar? What was the relationship between the Haitian revolution and the principles of the French revolution of 1789? How did this compare with the relationship of Bolívar’s independence movement—was all of this a common part of a single age of Atlantic revolution? In what way did Porfirio Diaz, as ruler of Mexico, fulfill the ideas of Bolívar? How did Diaz view the common people? What kind of government did he establish? In what ways did his policies relate to the economy? What was Diaz’s goal for education? Using these documents together: What were some of the key issues in Latin American politics in the 19th century? Your thoughts…

Bolívar’s Dreams for Latin America

Simón Bolívar, the most renowned leader of the Latin American independence movement, was born to a wealthy Venezuelan landowning family in 1783. Orphaned at an early age, he was educated by a private tutor who inspired in his pupil an enthusiasm for the principles of the Enlightenment and republicanism. After spending three years in Europe, Bolívar returned to New Spain in 1803, where the death of his new bride plunged him into grief and caused his return to France and Italy. In 1805, in Rome, he took a vow to dedicate his life to the liberation of his native land. On his return he became a leading member of the republican-minded group in Caracas that in 1808 began to agitate for independence and in 1810 deposed the colonial governor. Until his death in 1830, Bolívar dedicated himself to the Latin American independence movement as a publicist, diplomat, theoretician, and statesman. His greatest contribution was as the general who led the armies that defeated the Spaniards and liberated the northern regions of South America.

The so-called Jamaica Latter was written in 1815 during a self imposed exile in Jamaica (you can read it by clicking here). It was addressed to “an English gentleman,” probably the island’s governor, the Duke of Manchester. The Venezuelan Republic had collapsed in May as a result of a viciously fought Spanish counteroffensive, divisions among the revolutionaries, and opposition form many Indians, blacks, and mulattoes, who viewed the Creole landowners, not the Spaniards, as their oppressors. The letter was written in response to a request from the Englishman for Bolívar’s thoughts about the background and prospects of the liberation movement.

Once you have read the letter, I would like you all to think about and discuss the following: Why does Bolívar believe that Spain’s efforts to hold on to its American territories are doomed? What Spanish policies, according to Bolívar, made Spanish rule odious to him and other revolutionaries? In Bolívar’s view, what complicates the task of predicting Spanish America’s political future? Does Bolívar’s letter reveal concern for the economic and social condition of South America’s nonwhite population? What are some of the implications of Bolívar’s attitudes? Finally, based on your reading of Bolívar, what guesses can you make about the reasons why the new nations of South America found it difficult to achieve stable republican governments? Your thoughts…

Toussaint L’Ouverture—“The Liberator Hero”

Well ladies and gentlemen, isn’t the Haitian Revolution everything I pumped it up to be? And more! At the moment, I want to focus on the most notable figure of the revolution, Toussaint L’Ouverture. François-Dominique Toussaint à Bréda was born on May 20, 1743, on the Bréda plantation in Saint-Domingue. The oldest of eight children, Toussaint’s father had been born in Africa, captured in a war, and sold into slavery in the New World. Taught to read and write by a Roman Catholic priest, Toussaint was given more and more responsibility on the plantation until he was made coachman and livestock steward; the plantation’s overseer (the owner lived in Paris) gave him forty acres and thirteen slaves to manage. Permitted to marry (a rarity for slaves in Saint-Domingue), Toussaint wed Suzanne Simone Baptiste, and the union produced two sons. Therefore, although Toussaint was technically a slave and no manumission papers ever were drawn up, essentially he was looked upon and treated as a free man (affranchi).

When the slave rebellion first broke out in August 1791, Toussaint played only a minor role and was believed to be conservative in his thinking (he had helped his plantation’s white factor, or agent, escape from a mob of ex-slaves). Gradually his powerful and articulate speeches to the troops (Toussaint spoke both the Creole patois and his father’s African tribal language, in addition to French) and his charisma, tactical genius, and emphasis on training and discipline lifted him to the position of commander of the rebellion.

Seeing an opportunity to drive the French from Saint-Domingue, Toussaint briefly sided with the Spanish. It was at this time that he wrote a letter to blacks and signed it Toussaint L’Ouverture, which means the opening. “I thought it was a good name for bravery,” Toussaint reflected. But when he learned that the National Convention in Paris had abolished slavery (in February 1794), he switched sides and led his army against the Spanish and the British invaders, both of whom gave up the fight. In 1796, Toussaint was named lieutenant governor of Saint-Domingue, in 1800 he put down an uprising of the mulattoes, and in 1801 he issued a constitution for the republic.

And yet Toussaint believed that Haiti’s economic future was tied to that of France. In 1802, Napoleon Bonaparte revived French ambitions for an empire in the Western Hemisphere. Intending to reap enormous profits from the sugar and coffee trade and determined to restore slavery in order to do it, Napoleon sent a French invading army to the island in 1802. When the French army invaded the island in 1802, Toussaint, foolishly, was prepared to welcome it. His two sons were being educated in France (they were received by the Empress Josephine) and he had tried to convince the ex-slaves to adopt French ways (he criticized the low necklines of Haitian women’s dresses).

Tricked into surrendering, Toussaint was hustled off to a prison in France (Fort de Joux), where he died on April 7, 1803. His entreaties to meet with Napoleon had gone unheeded. Yet the Haitians ultimately won their independence from the French, and Toussaint L’Ouverture became the symbol of the revolution, the liberator-hero.

The French army, decimated by yellow fever, was forced to withdraw from Haiti, ending Napoleon’s dreams of an American empire. It was at that point that he offered to sell the Louisiana Territory to the United States. The Republic of Haiti (so named in 1804) had secured its independence, but the instability and terror of the revolution did not cease for decades.
No formal eulogy of Toussaint L’Ouverture is known to exist, and, since he died in a French prison, it is possible that none ever was delivered. The document I would like you to read, however, part of an 1814 manifesto written by Henri Christophe, is quite close to a eulogy (you can read it by clicking here, just read "Note C," pg. 326-329). A follower of Toussaint, Christophe was born in the British West Indies (either Grenada or St. Kitts), was taken to the French colony of Saint-Domingue, was sold to a free black who owned a stable, was permitted to purchase his freedom, and became a waiter in a hotel. In 1811, eight years after Toussaint’s death, Christophe proclaimed himself Henri I, King of Haiti. His 1814 manifesto was intended to rally Haitians to repulse a threatened French invasion of the island. What lessons did Christophe intend that his readers learn from the life of Toussaint? Toussaint attempted to create a Haiti in which whites, blacks, and mulattoes could live in freedom and relative equality (although the majority of former slaves wanted all whites out, which is largely what occured). What did Christophe think of Toussaint’s goal? Finally, what does Christophe see as the true meaning of the Haitian Revolution? Your thoughts...

The French Revolution and Its Aftermath

The French Revolution burst forth in the summer of 1789. It lasted for 10 years, and was followed by consolidations and conquests under Napoleon’s Empire. Napoleon’s defeat in 1815 led to a rollback of some of the revolutionary measures, but most of these would return during the political changes of the 19th century. The Revolution, in sum, was something of a blueprint for the constitutions of the modern state.

The Revolution was guided by many of the philosophical ideas developed in the 18th-century Enlightenment. The American Revolution and the constitutions it engendered were direct inspirations as well. The Revolution was also a massive social protest, as peasants and workers articulated the grievances they had developed during the Old Regime.

The Revolution was French, but it had European and, soon, world impact. French conquests spread many of the principles of the Revolution to most of Western Europe. Wars of independence in Latin America were inspired in part by French revolutionary principles. So was liberal-nationalist agitation in Eastern Europe, for example in the Balkans against the Ottoman Empire. Revolutionary ideas show up in other revolutions in the 20th century, and in proclamations of human rights such as the United Nations charter.

There were vital disagreements within the Revolution, as in all complex events—quite apart from the outright resistance the Revolution generated among conservatives. The first three years of the Revolution emphasized liberal principles, but then the Revolution turned more radical, for example instituting universal suffrage for all adult males for the first time, although briefly.

There are five documents in connection with this topic that I would like you to take a look at. The first three illustrate different aspects of the Revolution itself. The final two involve additional complexities—in goals not sought and in a conservative reaction that followed the Revolution itself.

The first three documents I would like you to read are classics from the Revolution. The first two emerged quickly in August 1789, as the revolutionary legislature attempted to define basic political and social principles. The third document, the first two verses of La Marseillaise (the French national anthem), represent the more radical phase, when revolutionary leaders were guiding armies to fight opposition at home and abroad.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (you can read it by clicking here) was a fundamental statement of human rights, inspired in part by American revolutionary documents. It was intended to guide the new political constitution the revolutionary legislature decided was essential. The Declaration invites analysis to determine what its main principles were and why. In the context of the old regime, they were revolutionary. Note that not all the principles were fully followed up by the liberal constitution of 1791, which most notably did not establish universal suffrage.

The second document (you can read it by clicking here) enacted on August 11, 1789, details the abolition of the feudal and manorial system in France. This act, spurred by peasant revolts against their noble landlords in many parts of the country, was the basic social measure of the Revolution, and it was never really reversed. Here, analysis should focus again on what the main principles were—including the relationship to the Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen. Equally important were the wider implications: Given what was now abolished, what new systems would result? The document had massive implications for an extension of government services, for new conflicts between the state and the Catholic Church, and for the control of landed property.

The third document, La Marseillaise (you can read it by clicking here) reflects the Revolution at war. It was composed in April 1792, on the French front against German and Austrian forces, and it spread quickly as a battle song. La Marseillaise was, essentially, the first national anthem ever written, adopted as a “national song” in 1795 and then as an anthem in 1879. The anthem was written by Claude-Joseph Rouget de Lisle, an army captain and, otherwise, a fairly mediocre musical composer.

Document four was written by Olympe de Gouges (you can read it by clicking here), a self-educated butcher’s daughter who used the French Revolution to call attention to aspects of French society the revolutionaries were leaving untouched. Her work is an example of the extent to which revolutionary ideologies can extend beyond what the revolutionaries themselves seem to want, and of the extent to which any revolution, even as thorough-going as the French, confirms certain existing social traditions despite high-sounding rhetoric. De Gouges was guillotined as a counter-revolutionary and “unnatural” woman. Later legislation, under Napoleon, actually weakened women’s rights within the family.

Document five deals with hostile reactions to the Revolution after the revolutionary period ended in 1815 (you can read it by clicking here). Many European countries warred against the French Revolution and then Napoleon—ultimately because of Napoleon’s ambitions for conquest, but more consistently because of a desire to defend key institutions of the old, prerevolutionary regimes. When the coalition finally defeated Napoleon in 1815, a new, anti-revolutionary conservatism seized center stage for over a decade. But agitation continued, and in 1819 the Austrian conservative leader, Prince Metternich, pressed the separate German states to pass the Carlsbad decrees. These decrees summed up key aspects of the new conservative approach. Formal conservatism was yet another result of the French Revolution, and while this version was not permanent, elements of the approach have informed Western conservatism since that time.

After you have read the documents, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What are the main principles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the abolition of feudalism? Are the two documents entirely consistent? What was revolutionary about each of the documents? In what sense did the French Revolution translate the principles of the Enlightenment into political life? What principles did it add to mainstream Enlightenment thinking? What was the role of ideas, as opposed to other factors, in causing and shaping the Revolution? What were the implications of the abolition of feudalism for relations with the king? What were the implications for property rights? In what ways did the abolition of feudalism imply an expansion of government functions? What were the implications of both the Declaration and the abolition of feudalism for relations with the Catholic Church? What were the implications of both documents for the lives of ordinary people? Would their lives be “revolutionized?” What were the main themes of La Marseillaise verses? What new elements in the Revolution do they suggest? How does La Marseillaise suggest the radicalization of the Revolution? Taking the three documents together, what did the Revolution suggest about the nature and meaning of citizenship in a modern state? In what sense was Olympe de Gouges’ feminism consistent with the principles of the French Revolution and Enlightenment? Is her argument no more than an application of these principles to women’s conditions, or does it add further elements? Why did mainstream French revolutionaries ignore or reject these arguments and keep women legally and politically subordinate? What was the relationship, in substance and historical linkage, between French revolutionary feminism and 20th-century feminism? How did the Carlsbad decrees react to the French Revolution? How would their conservative supporters phrase and justify their reaction to the Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen? What was novel about this conservatism? In your opinion, why did French revolutionary ideas, extensions and reactions have such wide global influence during the 19th and 20th centuries? Your thoughts…

"Slumdog Millionaire" Takes the Producers Guild Award and the top Screen Actors Guild Award This Weekend

Well all I have to say is that you can't stop a freight train when it's coming, and Slumdog Millionaire is this year's freight train. Anything short of a Best Picture Oscar for this film would be considered a huge upset. This is a film that the industry has gotten behind, critics have gotten behind, and general populace audiences have begun to embrace (it just broke into the top 5 for weekend box office this weekend for the first time since its release, a sign of phenomenal word of mouth). In fact, the film just opened in Mumbai last week to huge crowds. At any rate, here are the results of the PGA and SAG Awards over the weekend...

Producers Guild Awards

Best Feature Film- Slumdog Millionaire

Best Animated Feature- Wall-E

Best Documentary Feature- Man on Wire

Oh and just for the record, even though I don't really track the television awards here, a big congratulations is in order for John Adams winning best Best Production Long-Form Television (that would be a movie or miniseries made for television)!

Screen Actors Guild Awards

Ensemble Cast: Slumdog Millionaire

Lead Actress: Meryl Streep, Doubt

Lead Actor: Sean Penn, Milk

Supporting Actress: Kate Winslet, The Reader

Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight

Up Next: Directors Guild Awards on Saturday.

Politics and Privilege in France before and after the French Revolution

Political cartoons and caricatures first became popular in eighteenth-century England, where parliamentary government and lax censorship laws created an environment in which artists had free rein to express their political views. Their biting commentary on political issues and frequently scurrilous portrayals of politicians ranged from elaborately allegorical engravings to crude woodcuts, some of which were black-and-white and some colored with water-based paints. Such cartoons and caricatures were sold in bookstores and print shops (the technology did not exist to print them in newspapers) and provoked laugher and arguments in countless aristocratic clubs, taverns, and private homes. Cartoonists such as James Gilray, who produced many hundreds of political cartoons, became nationally known figures whose new works were eagerly anticipated.

Political cartoons and caricatures did not exist in France until 1787 and 1788, when censorship laws were eased during the nationwide political debate in the months leading up to the meeting of the Estates General in the spring of 1789. Once the revolution began, political excitement grew, and so did the market for inexpensive engravings that provided portraits of revolutionary leaders, depictions of events such as the swearing of the Tennis Court Oath and the fall of the Bastille, and above all, satire. Between 1789 and 1792, hundreds of political cartoons, mostly sympathetic to the revolution and many with biting messages, appeared. After 1793 their numbers declined, as censorship laws were reinstated by the radical Jacobins, the moderate Directory, and the regime of Napoleon, all of which appreciated the power of satire to shape public opinion (with saw it recently in this country with Tina Fey’s impersonations of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live).

The six cartoons that I would like you to look at (you can look at all of them by clicking here)—a mere sampling of the numerous political cartoons produced between 1787 and early 1793—are all anonymous works that focus on the three estates of prerevolutionary France and their fate during the revolution. Legal categories rather than social classes, the three estates were the First Estate, the clergy; the Second Estate, the nobility; and the Third Estate, everyone else from poor peasants to wealthy businessmen. Membership in the first two estates brought with it privileges, including exemption from many taxes, preferential judicial treatment, and for members of the nobility, a monopoly on high offices in church and estate. One of the first acts of France’s revolutionary leaders was to abolish the first two estates’ privileges and establish equality before the law.

The first pair of engravings, “The Past” and “The Present,” appeared in many versions in 1790 and 1791. “The Past” shows a peasant carrying a clergyman and a nobleman on his back. The clergyman holds a moneybag entitled “the tithe,” which was a tax paid by members of the Third Estate to the Church. In the nobleman’s pockets are slips of paper on which are written the names of other taxes paid by peasants—the taille, a tax on land; the corvée, required labor on the lord’s land; and various sales taxes. At the peasant’s feet his crops are being devoured by rabbits and pigeons, two of many animals that were protected so they could be hunted by nobles. The nobleman’s sword is inscribed with the words “reddened with blood.” In contrast the peasant is keeping his balance by leaning on a tool, a pickaxe, labeled as representing “goodness.” “The Present” engraving is of course quite different. The peasant is literally in the driver’s seat, riding a nobleman who is being pulled along by a clergyman. The clergyman is carrying a small scale, representing justice. The paper on the left side of the scale has the words “the benefit of the people,” while the paper on the right has “liberty and equality.” The peasant is carrying a slip of paper with the inscription “peace and concord” while singing “Ca ira, Ca ira,” the refrain from the popular revolutionary song usually translated as “it will go” or “it’s speeding along.”

The next pair of engravings presents a female version of the same theme. The first engraving, simply entitled “A Tenant Farmer in Drudgery,” shows a noblewoman and a nun riding on the back of a peasant woman, who is holding a distaff used when spinning wool or flax. The second engraving of the pair is entitled “I Really Knew We Would Have Our Turn” with the inscription below, “Long Live the King, Long Live the Nation.”

The final two cartoons continue the same themes. The fifth print, entitled “The Press,” or in other versions, “The Fat Press,” appeared after the revolutionary regime had confiscated church property in the summer of 1789 and used it as the basis for issuing a new paper currency, the assignats. In it a citizen and a soldier lead clergymen to a press that squeezes money from them into a treasure chest. The sixth print, “The Present,” is based on Jesus’ teaching that in the Kingdom of God “the first shall be last.” The cartoon depicts a world literally turned upside down, with the figure representing the Third Estate bearing a sword and giving orders to a nobleman and a clergyman. The nobleman is dressed as an infantry soldier warily standing at attention, while the poor priest has literally been worked to the bone by his labors.

Once you have had the opportunity to study the cartoons, I would like you all to discuss the following: In their portrayal of social relationships of prerevolutionary France, how do the artists depict the clergy and the nobility? How do they depict members of the Third Estate? What similarities and differences do you see in the way men and women are treated in the first two pairs of prints? What conclusions can be drawn about the status of French women on the basis of your comparisons? What specific grievances of the Third Estate are represented in the various cartoons? According to the cartoonists, what changed in French society as a result of the early events of the revolution? How many themes in the Cahier of the Third Estate of the City of Paris and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen can you see represented in these political cartoons? Your thoughts…

A Program for Revolutionary Change in France

The French Revolution began because of a problem that has plagued rulers since the beginning of organized government—King Louis XVI and his ministers could not balance their budget. Having exhausted every other solution, in 1788 the king agreed to convene a meeting of the Estates General, France’s representative assembly, which had last met in 1614. He hoped it would solve the government’s fiscal plight by approving new taxes. The nobility, having fended off every effort to curtail its tax exemptions and privileges, saw the convening of the Estates General as an opportunity to increase its power at the expense of the monarchy. For both king and nobility the calling of the Estates General had unexpected results: The nobility lost its privileges, and the king lost most of his power and, in 1793, having been judged a traitor to the Revolution, his head.

Neither Louis nor the nobles had comprehended the French people’s disgust with royal absolutism and aristocratic privilege. Nor had they sensed the degree to which the Enlightenment and the English and American revolutions had committed the people to fundamental change. Having convened in May 1789, within months the Estates General transformed itself into a National Assembly, dismantled the laws and institutions of the Old Regime, and set about creating a new political order based on constitutionalism, equality, and natural rights.

Even before the Estates General met, the French populace was in a high pitch of political excitement as a result of the procedures adopted for choosing delegates. The delegates representing the three orders of French society—the First Estate, or clergy; the Second Estate, or nobility; and the Third Estate, everyone else from peasants to wealthy city dwellers—were chosen in a complicated process that began with village and neighborhood and ended at the level of baillages, larger districts based on divisions in the French judicial system. At each electoral meeting those attending were encouraged to draw up a cahier de doléances, a memorandum of grievances, in which all kinds of ideas on local and national affairs could be expressed. These were then passed on to editorial committees at the baillage level, whose members sifted through them and integrated them into final cahiers that were sent on to Versailles, where the Estates General would meet.

I would like you to read some excerpts from the cahier of the Third Estate of the city of Paris (you can read it by clicking here). A document largely created by lawyers and businessmen, it presents a fair sampling of the grievances and expectations of urban, upper-middle-class Frenchmen on the eve of the French Revolution.

Once you have read the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What view of monarchy is expressed in the cahier? How does it compare with the view of monarchy expressed in the English Bill of Rights? What views are expressed in the cahier about the position of the nobility and clergy in the French society? It has been said that the French Revolution was about legal privilege, not monarchy. Do the thoughts expressed in this cahier bear this out? What solutions does the cahier offer for the government’s fiscal crisis? In what ways does this document represent the interests of the urban middle class? To what extent does it show concern for other groups in society? What kind of government does the cahier envision for France? Your thoughts…

“Simple Facts, Plain Arguments, and Common Sense”

After more than a decade of growing tensions over taxes, British imperial policy, the power of colonial legislatures, and a host of other emotionally charged issues, in April 1775 the American Revolution began with the clash between British regulars and American militiamen at the Battle of Lexington and Concord. In May, the Green Mountain Boys under Ethan Allen took Fort Ticonderoga on Lake Champlain, and in June the British defeated colonial troops in the Battle of Bunker Hill outside of Boston at the cost of more than a thousand casualties.

Despite these events, in the summer and fall of 1775 most Americans still supported compromise and reconciliation with Great Britain. They were convinced that evil ministers, not the king, were responsible for British policy and that views of conciliatory British politicians such as Edmund Burke would prevail. Then in January 1776 there appeared in Philadelphia a thirty-five page pamphlet entitled Common Sense, written by Thomas Paine, a bankrupt one-time corset-maker, sailor, tobacconist, and minor customs official, who had immigrated to Pennsylvania from England only fourteen months earlier to escape debtor’s prison. Despite his background, Paine produced what was far and away the most brilliant political pamphlet written during the American Revolution, and perhaps ever in the English language.

In three months Common Sense sold more than 100,000 copies, one for every eight or ten adults in the colonies. It “burst from the press,” wrote Benjamin Rush, the Pennsylvania physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence, “with an effect which has rarely been produced in any age or country.” Written with passion and vivid imagery, Paine’s pamphlet brought into focus American reservations about England and expressed American aspirations for creating a newer, freer, more open society as an independent nation. It accelerated the move toward the events of July 2, 1776, when the delegates to the Second Continental Congress created the United States of America, and of July 4, when they signed the Declaration of Independence.

During the Revolutionary War, Paine fought in Washington’s army and composed pamphlets to bolster American spirits. In the late 1780s, he returned to England but in 1792 was forced to flee to France after his public support of the French Revolution led to his indictment for sedition. Chosen as a delegate to the French National Convention (although he knew no French), Paine was later imprisoned for ten months during the Reign of Terror, and on his release resided with James Monroe, the American ambassador to France. While in France, he attacked Christianity in his pamphlet The Age of Reason, the notoriety of which was such that on his return to the United States in 1802 he was vilified as an atheist. Impoverished and disgraced, he died unheralded in New York City in 1809 (heck of a little known biography isn’t it?).

You can read excerpts from Paine’s Common Sense by clicking here. After you are finished reading the document, I would like you all to consider and discuss the following: What are Paine’s views of the origins and defects of monarchy as a form of government and hereditary succession as a principle of government? What are his views of King George III? What characteristics does Paine ascribe to Great Britain in general and the British government in particular? How might his background explain his negative views? How does Paine counter the arguments of Americans who still sought reconciliation with Great Britain? Despite Paine’s rejection of the British government, do his ideas in Common Sense owe a debt to principles of the English Bill of Rights? What is there about the pamphlet’s language, tone, and arguments that might explain its enormous popularity? Your thoughts…

"The Curious Case of Benjamin" Leads Oscar Nominations with 13, "Slumdog Millionaire" Looks Strong with 10, "The Dark Knight" Denied Best Picture Nod

Well folks, it's official now, this morning the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) announced their nominees for the best in film in 2008. Keep in mind that the Academy is the most prestigious organization in film, and to win an Oscar is the highest honor any film can achieve, so these nominations hold quite a bit of weight. As expected, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, because it is a technical acheivement as well as a solid acheivement artistically, scored the most Oscar nominations with 13, putting it in elite company with films like Gone With the Wind, From Here to Eternity, All About Eve, Mary Poppins, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Forrest Gump, Titanic, Shakespeare in Love, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, and Chicago as the only films in history to score 13 or more Oscar nominations. Seven of the 10 went on to actually win Best Picture. Slumdog Millionaire did very well with 10 nominations. This is especially remarkable considering it's not a special effects vehicle and was largely shot with a hand-held digital camera. All things considered, Slumdog Millionaire remains the front runner for the win. The other big story is that although The Dark Knight earned 8 nominations, only one was in a major category (Best Supporting Actor- Heath Ledger). It just goes to show that there still exists "genre-bias" on the part of the Academy in their snub of a film that they likely saw as a "comic book film." In the mind of this blogger, it really transcended that genre (despite a slightly shaky third act) and became something so much more than a comic book movie, a genre I personally don't particularly care for. Instead of The Dark Knight getting a Best Picture nomination, the late-surging Stephen Daldry film The Reader starring Kate Winslet in the lead role (yes lead, not supporting, I'm glad the Academy at least got that right) scored 5 nominations including the coveted Best Picture nod. This film has been threatening for a while, and in the end it got in. It should be an interesting night, and I'm going to go ahead and call a Slumdog Millionaire win, but I will also say that with Kate Winslet's 6th nomination at just 33 years old, the Academy is ready to finally honor her work with an Oscar for her performance in The Reader, a film that obviously the Academy supports. It should be an interesting race going down the stretch. Below is the run-down of all of the nominations...

Best picture
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
Milk
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire

Best director
Danny Boyle - Slumdog Millionaire
Stephen Daldry - The Reader
David Fincher - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Ron Howard - Frost/Nixon
Gus Van Sant - Milk

Best actor
Richard Jenkins - The Visitor
Frank Langella - Frost/Nixon
Sean Penn - Milk
Brad Pitt - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Mickey Rourke - The Wrestler

Best actress
Anne Hathaway - Rachel Getting Married
Angelina Jolie - Changeling
Melissa Leo - Frozen River
Meryl Streep - Doubt
Kate Winslet - The Reader

Best supporting actress
Amy Adams - Doubt
Penelope Cruz - Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Viola Davis - Doubt
Taraji P Henson - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Marisa Tomei - The Wrestler

Best supporting actor
Josh Brolin - Milk
Robert Downey Jr - Tropic Thunder
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Doubt
Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight
Michael Shannon - Revolutionary Road

Best foreign language film
Revanche - Austria
The Class - France
The Baader Meinhof Complex - Germany
Departures - Japan
Waltz With Bashir - Israel

Best animated feature film
Bolt
Kung Fu Panda
Wall-E

Best adapted screenplay
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Doubt
Frost/Nixon
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire

Best original screenplay
Happy-Go-Lucky
Milk
Wall-E
In Bruges
Frozen River

Best original score
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Defiance
Milk
Slumdog Millionaire
Wall-E

Best original song
Down To Earth - Wall-E
Jai Ho - Slumdog Millionaire
O Saya - Slumdog Millionaire

Art direction
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Changeling
The Dark Knight
The Duchess
Revolutionary Road

Cinematography
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Changeling
The Dark Knight
Slumdog Millionaire
The Reader

Costume design
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Australia
Milk
The Duchess
Revolutionary Road

Best documentary feature
The Betrayal
Encounters at the End of the World
The Garden
Man on Wire
Trouble The Water

Film editing
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Frost/Nixon
Milk
Slumdog Millionaire

Make-up
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Hellboy II: The Golden Army

Sound editing
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Iron Man
Wanted
Slumdog Millionaire
Wall-E

Sound mixing
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Wanted
Slumdog Millionaire
Wall-E

Visual effects
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Iron Man

So there it is. In terms of nomination tallies, below are the leaders in nominations...

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button- 13
Slumdog Millionaire- 10
The Dark Knight- 8
Milk- 8
Wall-E- 6
Doubt-5
Frost/Nixon- 5
The Reader- 5

The winners will be announced at the Oscar ceremony on February 22nd at 8pm on ABC. Up next: the Screen Actors Guild awards their nominees on Sunday. In the meantime, check out the BBC's coverage of Oscars 2009 by clicking here. Their coverage of the awards is always excellent.

Capitalism’s Prophet- Adam Smith

Surprisingly few biographical details are known about Adam Smith, the economist famed for his devastating critique of mercantilism in The Wealth of Nations. Born in 1723 in a small Scottish fishing village and receiving his university education at Glasgow and Oxford, between 1751 and 1763 he held chairs in logic and moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow. The publication of his Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759 ensured his literary and philosophical reputation. In 1763, he became the tutor of an English aristocrat’s son and lived for three years in France, where he met many prominent French intellectuals. From 1767 to 1776 he lived in semiretirement in Scotland and finished The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776. In 1778 he became commissioner of customs in Scotland and died in Edinburgh in 1790.

The Wealth of Nations went through five English editions and was published in several European translations in the eighteenth century. Its importance lies in its general approach to economics, which brought systematic analysis to wages, labor, trade, population, rents, and money supply, and in its unrelenting assault on mercantilism. Unlike mercantilists like Colbert, who believed that wealth and overall economic activity were essentially fixed, Smith believed in economic growth, which could best be achieved not through regulation but through free competition among individuals and nations. You can read excerpts from The Wealth of Nations by clicking here.

When you are finished reading the document, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: Smith denies that nation’s wealth consists of the amount of gold and silver it controls. What arguments does he present to defend his position, and what are their implications for trade policy? Smith proposes that each individual, by pursuing his or her own self-interest, promotes the general welfare of society. What examples of this paradox does he provide? What implications does this paradox have for government policy? What groups in society would you expect to be most enthusiastic about Smith’s ideas? Why? What groups might be expected to oppose them? Your thoughts…

An Affirmation of Human Progress

Throughout history, most human beings have valued tradition and resisted change. Reform of governments and religious institutions was deemed possible, but it typically did not mean going forward to institute something new but going back to recapture features of a lost golden age. Thinkers who studied the past and contemplated the future concluded that the human condition had always been more or less the same, or that history ran in cycles, or that it was the story of gradual decline from a mythological state of perfection. Only in the West in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries did intellectuals and much of the general populace come to believe that the past was a burden and that human beings could bring about changes in their condition that were beneficial, not destructive. In a word, people began to believe in progress.

The West’s belief in progress can be traced back to the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, when many thinkers became convinced that well-intentioned human beings could employ reason to erase at least some of the cruelties, superstitions, and prejudices that had diminished the human condition in the past. By the end of the eighteenth century some went further and developed a theory of progress that saw humanity ascending from ignorance and darkness to a utopian future. The most famous prophet of progress was the Marquis de Condorcet, a mathematician, philosopher, and education reformer. He supported the French Revolution but, like many moderates, fell afoul of the radical Jacobins and was forced to go into hiding in July 1793. It was then he wrote his Sketch of the Progress of the Human Mind, which traces human progress in ten stages from the dawn of history to the French Revolution and beyond. Having completed his work in March 1794, he emerged from hiding, was arrested immediately, and was found dead the next morning of unknown causes.

The excerpts from Sketch of the Progress of the Human Mind that I would like you to read (you can by clicking here here) come from “The Ninth Epoch,” in which he discusses developments from the mid-seventeenth century to the beginning of the French Revolution, and “The Tenth Epoch,” in which he describes the future.

After you have read those excerpts, I would like you all to think about and discuss the following: What factors, according to Condorcet, have impeded progress in the past? According to Condorcet, scientific achievement was the outstanding feature of humanity’s “ninth stage.” In what ways did science in this era change human thinking and affect human society? Condorcet is not proud of the Europeans’ record in dealing with the peoples of Asia, Africa, and the Americas. What groups does he blame for the Europeans’ unenlightened behavior in these regions? Why is Condorcet confident that Europeans will modify their behavior in Asia and Africa? What will be the result? Does Condorcet show any interest in preserving the customs and beliefs of the Asians and Africans? What in Condorcet’s view caused the oppression of women in the past? Why does he reject such oppression, and what positive results in his view will result from ending it? What role will technology play in humanity’s tenth stage? Your thoughts…

The Season 4 Preview: The Long 19th Century (1750-1914)

Get ready and get set for the wildest ride yet that starts on Thursday! The framework for world history from the late 18th to the early 20th centuries will be increasing shaped by growing European power. This power will be based on previous gains in international trade and key colonies planted in India, Indonesia, and elsewhere. It will be increased by European population growth and by a more explicit imperialist spirit, eager to seek new gains and conquests in the wider world. It will be greatly furthered by Europe’s growing industrial strength. Industrialization, beginning in the late 18th century, will generate new goods to sell, new modes of international transportation that will facilitate wider market contacts, and new and more lethal weaponry that will enhance Europe’s military advantage. Yet Season Four will by no means be shaped by European activities alone. Most societies will be able to resist European penetration to at least some degree, and several will undertake active reform programs designed to enhance independence and the preservation of important values. Latin America will free itself from direct European control early in the 19th century, although its economic subordination in many ways will intensify. The development of new institutions and social patterns in the United States, Canada, and Australia, although they will reflect Western European strength, will add another important source of complexity to modern world history. Finally, the emergence of various kinds of nationalisms and other cultural responses, in many otherwise different societies, will reflect the capacity to define distinctive identities combined with the pressing need to innovate. By 1900, reform developments, independence movements, and nationalism will begin to limit Western European hegemony, although the full reaction won’t begin to take shape until Season 5. Buckle your seatbelts and get ready for the wildest, most twisted ride yet. Get ready to start Season Four with a BANG on Thursday!

"We Are Ready To Lead"- Barack Obama Takes the Oath of Office Becoming the 44th President of the United States

Well it's official ladies and gentlemen, a new chapter in American (and World) History begins, the Obama presidency. As always, the inauguration was the smooth transition of power that we've always come to expect in this country. The crowd, however, was much larger than usual, and it is projected that that the inauguration has drawn the largest television audience in television history (knocking the final episode of MASH out of first place). I was glad to be a part of it with all of you today! President Obama's inaugural address hit all the right notes, in my opinion. It really came across as the right words chosen at the right time. Of course, tomorrow, the real work begins. I look forward to following the first 100 days with you guys. In the meantime, enjoy the inaugural address one more time below. If you didn't get a chance to see or hear it, take the time to give it a look above. It's one of the better inaugural addresses you'll see. Finally, take the time to check out the new White House website. It has an entirely new design, complete with a blog and policy proposals and visions. It appears that the new executive is truly willing to listen to America.

Season 3 Whapey Awards Announced! Japan Emerges as a Last Minute Surprise Winner!

Ladies and gentlemen, you voted (well half of you... come on folks, there no excuse for such low voter turnout) and the winners are interesting. Congratulations to Tokugawa Japan for their big win as a result of their performance in the season finale. Incidentally, they only won the one award, but it was the top prize. At any rate, here are your winners...

Best Government: Tokugawa Japan

Most Influential Society: Europe

Most Influential Person: Peter the Great

Best Leader: Akbar

Most Influential Belief System: Christianity

Best Economic System: Mercantilism

Best Social System: Mughal India under Akbar

Best Conflict: Battle of Chaldiran

Best Labor System: none (?) [I guess you all felt there were no good ones in Season 3?]

Worst Labor System: Slavery

Worst Leader: Ivan the Terrible

Most Influential Writer: Martin Luther

Best Invention: Guns

Worst Invention: Guns (hmm... it was the best of inventions, it was the worst of inventions)

Best Cultural Contribution: Europe's Renaissance

Best Film Set During Season 3: The Mission

Congratulations to all of the winners. And now... get ready for the Season 4 Premiere on THURSDAY!

Questions on the Unit 10 Exam?

If you have any questions regarding the test for tomorrow, speak now or forever hold your peace...

President George W. Bush Bids Farewell to the Nation After 8 Years

Last night, President George Walker Bush bid farewell to the American people in the traditional presidential farewell address. It has been an interesting eight years indeed. The Bush years and the Bush legacy will be one debated for decades to come, a presidency that will likely be remembered most as the time period of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the war on terror being fought on two fronts- Afghanistan and Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and the global financial crisis. His final address to the nation consisted of reflections on his accomplishments, subtly addressing some of his critics, and warning of the dangers of international terrorism. You can read more about his farewell speech by clicking here. Additionally, you can watch an interesting reflection on the Bush presidency courtesy of the BBC by clicking on the following links (Part I and Part II). Below you can see his farewell address. So now we finish one chapter of American history and begin a new one. See you all on Inauguration Day...

Change Over Time Essay #1 Discussion Board

If you have any questions or tips for your fellow colleagues, here's the spot to do it. Enjoy...

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and "Slumdog Millionaire" Come Out of Round 11 With 11 BAFTA Nominations Each Going into the Final Round

This morning, the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) announced their nominees for the best of 2008. To put it simply, the BAFTA Awards are bascially the British version of the Oscar Awards here on the other side of the pond. In reality, many AMPAS members (the organization that awards the Oscar) are also BAFTA members, so these nominations are a decent indicator of where Oscar nominations may land next week. Our brothers on the other side of the pond tend to have somewhat similar tastes, although there are always some diverging points (for example, Tilda Swinton won't be nominated for an Oscar here this year, but they love their Tilda in the U.K.). At any rate, the big news from this morning's nominations is of course the continued domination of Slumdog Millionaire as it garnered 11 nominations, including nods for Dev Patel (for LEAD actor, thank you BAFTA, I don't know why some are insisting he's supporting, the film is his story) and Freida Pinto, who are truly the heart and soul of the brilliantly written and directed film. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was also nominated for 11 awards, but this is more expected considering the technical achievements of the film. The other big winners were The Dark Knight with 9 nominations (although the only major was Best Supporting Actor for Heath Ledger, the rest were all technical nods), and Clint Eastwood's Changeling actually did surprisingly well with 8 nominations, yet missing a Best Picture nomination. At any rate, all of the nominations can be found below...

BEST FILM
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall, Ceán Chaffin
FROST/NIXON – Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Brian Grazer, Ron Howard
MILK – Dan Jinks, Bruce Cohen
THE READER – Anthony Minghella, Sydney Pollack, Donna Gigliotti, Redmond Morris
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE – Christian Colson

OUTSTANDING BRITISH FILM
HUNGER – Laura Hastings-Smith, Robin Gutch, Steve McQueen, Enda Walsh
IN BRUGES – Graham Broadbent, Pete Czernin, Martin McDonagh
MAMMA MIA! – Judy Craymer, Gary Goetzman, Phyllida Lloyd, Catherine Johnson
MAN ON WIRE – Simon Chinn, James Marsh
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE – Christian Colson, Danny Boyle, Simon Beaufoy

THE CARL FOREMAN AWARD
for Special Achievement by a British Director, Writer or Producer for their First Feature Film
SIMON CHINN (Producer) – Man On Wire
JUDY CRAYMER (Producer) – Mamma Mia!
GARTH JENNINGS (Writer) – Son of Rambow
STEVE McQUEEN (Director/Writer) – Hunger
SOLON PAPADOPOULOS, ROY BOULTER (Producers) – Of Time And The City

DIRECTOR
CHANGELING – Clint Eastwood
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – David Fincher
FROST/NIXON – Ron Howard
THE READER – Stephen Daldry
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE – Danny Boyle

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
BURN AFTER READING – Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
CHANGELING – J. Michael Straczynski
I’VE LOVED YOU SO LONG – Philippe Claudel
IN BRUGES – Martin McDonagh
MILK – Dustin Lance Black

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – Eric Roth
FROST/NIXON – Peter Morgan
THE READER – David Hare
REVOLUTIONARY ROAD – Justin Haythe
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE – Simon Beaufoy

FILM NOT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
THE BAADER MEINHOF COMPLEX – Bernard Eichinger, Uli Edel
GOMORRAH – Domenico Procacci, Matteo Garrone
I'VE LOVED YOU SO LONG – Yves Marmion, Philippe Claudel
PERSEPOLIS – Marc-Antoine Robert, Xavier Rigault, Marjane Satrapi, Vincent Parannaud
WALTZ WITH BASHIR – Serge Lalou, Gerhard Meixner, Yael Nahl Ieli, Ari Folman

ANIMATED FILM
PERSEPOLIS – Marjane Satrapi, Vincent Parannaud
WALL•E – Andrew Stanton
WALTZ WITH BASHIR – Ari Folman

LEADING ACTOR
FRANK LANGELLA – Frost/Nixon
DEV PATEL – Slumdog Millionaire
SEAN PENN – Milk
BRAD PITT – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
MICKEY ROURKE – The Wrestler

LEADING ACTRESS
ANGELINA JOLIE – Changeling
KRISTIN SCOTT THOMAS – I’ve Loved You So Long
MERYL STREEP – Doubt
KATE WINSLET – The Reader
KATE WINSLET – Revolutionary Road

SUPPORTING ACTOR
ROBERT DOWNEY JR. – Tropic Thunder
BRENDAN GLEESON – In Bruges
PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN – Doubt
HEATH LEDGER – The Dark Knight
BRAD PITT – Burn After Reading

SUPPORTING ACTRESS
AMY ADAMS – Doubt
PENÉLOPE CRUZ – Vicky Cristina Barcelona
FREIDA PINTO – Slumdog Millionaire
TILDA SWINTON – Burn After Reading
MARISA TOMEI – The Wrestler

MUSIC
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – Alexandre Desplat
THE DARK KNIGHT – Hans Zimmer, James Newton Howard
MAMMA MIA! – Benny Andersson, Björn Ulvaeus
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE – A. R. Rahman
WALL•E – Thomas Newman

CINEMATOGRAPHY
CHANGELING – Tom Stern
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – Claudio Miranda
THE DARK KNIGHT – Wally Pfister
THE READER – Chris Menges, Roger Deakins
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE – Anthony Dod Mantle

EDITING
CHANGELING – Joel Cox, Gary D. Roach
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – Kirk Baxter, Angus Wall
THE DARK KNIGHT – Lee Smith
FROST/NIXON – Mike Hill, Dan Hanley
IN BRUGES – Jon Gregory
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE – Chris Dickens

PRODUCTION DESIGN
CHANGELING – James J. Murakami, Gary Fettis
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – Donald Graham Burt, Victor J. Zolfo
THE DARK KNIGHT – Nathan Crowley, Peter Lando
REVOLUTIONARY ROAD – Kristi Zea, Debra Schutt
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE – Mark Digby, Michelle Day

COSTUME DESIGN
CHANGELING – Deborah Hopper
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – Jacqueline West
THE DARK KNIGHT – Lindy Hemming
THE DUCHESS – Michael O'Connor
REVOLUTIONARY ROAD – Albert Wolsky

SOUND
CHANGELING – Walt Martin, Alan Robert Murray, John Reitz, Gregg Rudloff
THE DARK KNIGHT – Lora Hirschberg, Richard King, Ed Novick, Gary Rizzo
QUANTUM OF SOLACE – Jimmy Boyle, Eddy Joseph, Chris Munro, Mike Prestwood Smith, Mark Taylor
SLUMDOG MILLIONARE – Glenn Freemantle, Resul Pookutty, Richard Pryke, Tom Sayers, Ian Tapp
WALL•E – Ben Burtt, Tom Myers, Michael Semanick, Matthew Wood

SPECIAL VISUAL EFFECTS
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – Eric Barba, Craig Barron, – Nathan McGuinness, Edson Williams
THE DARK KNIGHT – Chris Corbould, Nick Davis, Paul Franklin, Tim Webber
INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL – Pablo Helman
IRON MAN – Shane Patrick Mahan, John Nelson, Ben Snow
QUANTUM OF SOLACE – Chris Corbould, Kevin Tod Haug

MAKE UP & HAIR
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – Jean Black, Colleen Callaghan
THE DARK KNIGHT – Peter Robb-King
THE DUCHESS – Daniel Phillips, Jan Archibald
FROST/NIXON – Edouard Henriques, Kim Santantonio
MILK – Steven E. Anderson, Michael White

SHORT ANIMATION
CODSWALLOP – Greg McLeod, Myles McLeod
VARMINTS – Sue Goffe, Marc Craste
WALLACE AND GROMIT: A MATTER OF LOAF AND DEATH – Steve Pegram, Nick Park, Bob Baker

SHORT FILM
KINGSLAND #1 THE DREAMER – Kate Ogborn, Tony Grisoni
LOVE YOU MORE – Adrian Sturges, Sam Taylor-Wood, Patrick Marber
RALPH – Olivier Kaempfer, Alex Winckler
SEPTEMBER – Stewart le Maréchal, Esther May Campbell
VOYAGES D’AFFAIRES (THE BUSINESS TRIP) – Celine Quideau, Sean Ellis

So there you have it folks. Slumdog Millionaire domination and love will continue, and expect this to be a big night for Kate Winslet as well when the awards are announced. Up next: the granddaddy of them all, the whole reason why we follow awards race, the one award you need to win to be forever be put in the history books, the OSCAR. Oscar nominations will be announced next week, Thursday, January 22nd, 5:30 am PST!

The Season 3 Whapey Awards!

Ok folks, now that season 3 is officially over, it's time for awards season. Once again, this is our opportunity to award the "best" in world history at the end of a season. This is also a great opportunity to reflect critically on content learned. The categories for voting will be listed below, and all you have to do, is nominate your selection in a comment post. Voting closes at 11:59pm ON MONDAY. We'll tally the votes, and the winner will be announced Tuesday, January 20. If any of you are in need of volunteer hours and would like to come in after school or during 6th lunch on Tuesday to tally votes, I'll be happy to have you. That would be a great help. Happy voting. Here are the categories for season 3...

[NOTE: DO NOT COPY AND PASTE OTHER VOTERS' BALLOTS. YOU MAY ONLY COPY AND PASTE THIS ONE TO FILL IN. VOTE INDEPENDENTLY!]

Best Government:

Most Influential Society:

Most Influential Person:

Best Leader:

Worst Leader:

Best Conflict:

Best Social System:

Most Influential Belief System:

Best Economic System:

Best Labor System:

Worst Labor System:

Best Invention:

Worst Invention:

Most Influential Writer:

Best Cultural Contribution:

Best Film Set During Season 3 Nominees:

--Amistad

--Gabbeh

--Last of the Mohicans

--A Man for all Seasons

--The Mission

--The Seven Samurai

The Seclusion of Japan

The tables certainly turned in the Season 3 finale didn't they? For close to a century Japan was a European success story in Asia. Portuguese traders and missionaries began visiting Japan regularly in the 1540s, and the Spanish, Dutch, and English soon followed. The Japanese were fascinated by European goods such as eyeglasses and clocks and were quick to appreciate the military potential of European firearms and artillery. Some even adopted European dress. Daimyo on the island of Kyushu in southwestern Japan competed for European trade by tolerating the presence of Catholic missionaries and in a few cases converting to Christianity themselves. Oda Nobunaga, the military leader who unified approximately half of Japan in the 1570s and 1580s, encouraged Catholic missionary activity to weaken his rivals, the powerful and wealthy Buddhist monasteries. His tolerance of missionary activity led to numerous conversions in the district of Kyoto, Japan’s capital city. By the early seventeenth century approximately 500,000 Japanese had become Christians.

By then, however, anti-European sentiment was growing. Nobunaga’s successor, Hideyoshi, became suspicious of Europeans after the Spaniards conquered the Philippines, and he began to question the loyalty of daimyo who had become Christians. In 1597, he ordered the crucifixion of nine Catholic missionaries and seventeen Japanese converts. The early Tokugawa shoguns, in their single-minded pursuit of stability and order, also feared the subversive potential of Christianity. They sought to obliterate it, while at the same time limiting commercial contacts with China, Southeast Asia, and Europe.

Japan’s isolation policy was fully implemented by Tokugawa Iemitsu, Ieyasu’s grandson and shogun from 1623 to 1651. His edicts largely closed Japan to all foreigners and prevented his subjects from leaving Japan. The document that I would like you to read (you can by clicking here), the most famous of Iemitsu’s exclusions edicts, is directed to the two commissioners of Nagasaki, a port city in southern Japan and an early center of Christianity.

When you are finished reading the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What steps are to be taken to suppress Christianity? How are commercial dealings with foreigners to be handled before they are ended altogether? In what ways did the edict affect the shogun’s Japanese subjects? Does trade or Christianity seem to have been the greater threat to Japan according to the edict? Your thoughts…

Early Modern Japan- The Tokugawa Period

From 1600 to 1868, Japan was under the rule of the Tokugawa shoguns, a dynasty of military leaders. The new regime was founded by Tokugawa Ieyasu, a member of the new class of landowning warriors called daimyo. Tokugawa triumphed over his key rivals at the Battle of Sekigahara in 1600 and then pressured the emperor, who was effectively powerless but was the official head of state, to appoint him as shogun (supreme military leader). During the following half-century, Tokugawa and his first two successors as shogun established the main features of the new system of rule.

From their immense palace complex at Edo (present-day Tokyo), which Tokugawa Ieyasu established as the Tokugawa capital, the shoguns issued a steady stream of decrees designed to control the conduct of their subjects in the most thorough way. In order to make the system of controls effective, the shoguns adopted a policy of isolating Japan from foreign influences. They suppressed Christianity—which had spread widely in southern Japan since the 1550s—and also expelled European merchants, banned most overseas commerce, and prohibited Japanese who were living abroad from returning home. To obtain some knowledge of developments abroad, the shoguns allowed trade with China to continue and also permitted an annual visit to Nagasaki harbor by Dutch merchants. The overall effect of the policies of the policies of the shoguns was to isolate Japan from the wider world for about 250 years.

Within Japan, the shoguns balanced their harsh system of rules with a measure of genuine autonomy for the 250 or so daimyo whose large rice-producing domains (estates) were scattered throughout the Japanese countryside. The daimyo were feudal lords whose domains resembled small states. Each of the domains was strictly administered by thousands of sword-bearing samurai officials for whom, given the Tokugawa system, literacy and numeracy rather than military prowess were increasingly important.

The system of shared authority between the shoguns and the daimyo rested squarely on the strong backs of the Japanese peasants. The peasants produced all the rice, soybeans, cotton, hemp, and silk consumed in Japan during the Tokugawa period. About one-third of the peasants lived on lands directly administered by the shoguns. The rest of the cultivators resided on the domains of the daimyo.

Despite the policy of isolation and the extraordinarily strict laws to which the population was subjected, there was much vibrancy in Japanese economic, social, and cultural life during the Tokugawa period. Commerce flourished in rice, sake, soy sauce, silk, cotton, and tea. A prosperous merchant class developed, especially in the cities of Edo, Osaka, and Kyoto, all of which became major population centers by 1750. Performances of colorful kabuki plays before huge crowds of urban commoners and the production of beautiful woodblock prints of leading actors and geisha courtesans signaled the emergence of a lively popular culture. Schools that taught at least the basics of literacy were widespread. Indeed, recent research suggests that by 1800, literacy and certain aspects of material life in Japan (diet, housing, clothing, and standards of hygiene) were quite high by world standards.

I would like you to read a few documents (you can read them by clicking here) regarding shogun and daimyo policies during Tokugawa period Japan. How do the documents illustrate policies of the shoguns and the daimyo, and also hint at some of the dynamism in early modern Japan? How do the “laws for the warrior class” illustrate Tokugawa’s political goals? What problems was he trying to solve? What were his solutions? Was he a Confucian? What aspects of the peasants’ lives did the daimyo seek to control? How did they try to accomplish this? What do the documents suggest about the economic lives of the peasants? About gender relations? What specific goals did the shoguns have regarding the Buddhist temples? What do the regulations for temples suggest about the importance of Buddhism in Japan? Do you see any evidence of peasant protest in these documents? How does Matsui’s book provide us with evidence of the spread of commerce during the Tokugawa period? According to Matsui, why did merchant enterprises fail? What did Matsui think were the characteristics of a good merchant? Was Matsui a Confucian? Was he a Buddhist? Were his ideas compatible with the thinking of the shoguns and the daimyo? How might Matsui’s ideas compare with those of a merchant in England in 1700? What similarities and differences do you see between the Tokugawa shoguns and other rulers of the early modern period? Your thoughts…

Symptoms of Ming Decline

Governing China had always been a formidable task. Expenditures had to be kept in line with revenues; borders needed to be defended; bridges, roads, and dams had to be maintained; countless daily decisions were required of the emperor and his top officials. In the late sixteenth century governing China became even harder. Mongol military pressure grew in the north, pirates continued to raid southern coastal cities, and in the 1590s the Japanese invaded China’s ally, Korea. Peasant discontent boiled over into peasant rebellion as rural misery deepened as a result of a series of poor harvests, worsening banditry, and rising taxes, made even more burdensome by fluctuations in the value of silver currency. From the 1580s onward, however, emperors ignored or were distracted from dealing with both their mundane tasks and their extraordinary new challenges. They paid a price for their indifference. Rebellion overwhelmed the government and brought about the fall of the Ming in 1644.

The document that I would like you to read (you can by clicking here), a memorial (memorandum) directed to the Xizong emperor by a high official Yang Lien, highlights another problem of the late Ming government, namely the venomous conflict between court eunuchs and Confucian scholar-officials. Eunuchs, castrated males whose theoretical purpose was to manage the day-to-day business of the imperial palace, assumed a greater importance in government when the Wanli emperor secluded himself in the palace and eunuchs became the only intermediary between the emperor and his officials. Eunuch influence was opposed by Confucian officials, especially elite members of the Donglin Society, a group of scholar officials and former officeholders connected with the Donglin Academy at Wusih on the lower Yangzi River.

The conflict between court eunuchs and the scholar-officials came to a head in the 1620s when the eunuch Wei Zhongxian rose to power during the reign of Emperor Xizong. Wei, who had served as a butler for the emperor’s mother and was a close friend of the emperor’s former wet nurse, with the backing of spies and small eunuch army in the palace, purged his enemies, levied new taxes, and flouted rules and procedures.

In 1624, Yang Lien, a member of the Donglin Society, took the bold step of denouncing Wei in a memorandum to the emperor. He was carrying out his duties as a member of the Board of Censors, a branch of the administration that served as the “eyes and ears” of the emperor by investigating officials’ conduct, hearing subjects’ complaints, and reporting problems to the emperor. Emperor Xizong ignored the memorandum, and in 1625 Yang was accused of treason, tortured, and executed on orders of Wei. Wei fell from power in 1627 when the new emperor Chongzhen exiled him to Anhui province, where Wei hanged himself rather than face an official inquiry. But the Ming government had suffered another wound, and in less than two decades would no longer exist.

When you are finished reading the memorandum, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: According to Yang, what motivated him to write this memorandum to the emperor? This excerpt contains only a few of Wei’s twenty-four alleged “crimes.” How many of them can you find in the excerpt? What is it about Wei’s actions that particularly violate the Confucian sensibilities of Yang? What does the memorandum reveal about the basis of Wei’s authority and political strength? What does the memorandum tell us about the qualities of the Emperor Ming Xizong? Your thoughts…