Tentative Thesis: On Metternich and his philosophy

While Metternich's conservatism and establishment of "legitimacy" gradually disintegrated beneath the power struggle amongst the 5 Great Powers and popular dissent within these countries, his policy was necessary-- rather than sufficient-- to maintain half a century of relative peace within a continent recovering from the Napoleonic Wars.

William Wordsworth Thesis

Question: Was William Wordsworth’s Romantic poetry inspired by the political events surrounding late eighteenth century France, and if so, did his poems influence national opinion towards the French Revolution?

 

Thesis: Although historians may argue that outside influences such as drastic economic changes and severe social fervors manipulated the original intentions of Wordsworth’s Romantic poetry, lying at the core of the Romantic Movement was a desire to depict true human nature and attitude, which Wordsworth captured (and perhaps influenced), politically and socially in postbellum France. 

Hero or Villain?

Hero or Villain?
Most people enjoy others who share the same interests that they do or laugh at the same jokes. Humans become angry when others mock or challenge them. They have their friends, and likewise, have their enemies. To Otto von Bismarck, (a nineteenth century German nationalist and Prussian chancellor), on the other hand, this kind of thinking made little sense. In matters of peace and war, Bismarck’s enemies could become friends at any moment, and his friends could instantly become enemies. Self- interests and needs dominated Bismarck’s actions. In Bismarck’s world, domination and national needs took priority. Although Bismarck practiced his nationalistic ideas by unifying the divided states of Germany, he did not adhere to popular sovereignty and allowed the balance of power to be broke down in his favor. He turned European nations against each other and was continuously on a control rage. Bismarck lacked faith in others, destroyed the system of government of Germany and acted brutally and selfishly, portraying that he was not simply a German nationalist, but rather a power-hungry expansionist and provoker.

Thesis Paragraph Harry Vardon

Harry Vardon Research Paper

Crimson red colored battlefields, throats that have been cut, patriotic chants of “make them bleed bleed blood and guts”, and one country that has risen above this is the nationalism we’ve all heard of. The armies of Bonaparte and Van Bismarck were familiar to the rush of nationalistic pride that came from victory in battle and for ages and ages before these leaders nationalism was the product of war and terroritorial struggle. However, in 1885 a new brand of nationalism was being developed under the leadership of Harry Vardon. This new mold of nationalism came from taking less than 80 strokes on green grass and white sand not thousands of lost lives lost in a far off land; this form of nationalist simply required the act of hitting a white ball under a blue sky. Despite its non-violent nature, golf, lead by Harry Vardon, became a battleground of sorts for countries to compete amongst each other through pure sport. Vardon’s golf tour through America serves as one of the first monumental example of the magnitude of nationalism that could be created through athletics. This paper will analyze to what extent was golf able to spawn nationalism, and unveil the true significance of Harry Vardon himself. Vardon is important because his life story shows the widespread nature of Marxist ideals and demonstrates how big of an impact the Industrial Revolution had on the “average European Man” in the late 19th century.

Karl Marx (Euro Research Paper)

Question: In such an economic crisis like The United States is in currently, how might Marx’s ideals be considered today? Was Marx’s economic system not valued during the 19th century because of the economic stability that prevailed throughout Europe? Did Marx sell his economic system well or was it perceived in a different light than he had hoped?

Thesis: Though Marx’s economic ideas might appear as a solution for our contemporary struggles, historians have shown that these ideals have been misinterpreted, changed, and modernized throughout the past centuries. Marx’s economic system was unable to compete with the thriving capitalistic system during the 19th century, and because of this Marx’s ideals were therefore turned down and refuted. However, this new system of ideas was unable to be perceived in a positive light because of the flourishing society that was in no need of an alteration. Marx’s system was unable to be executed because of the misinterpretations his different, radical ideas brought about and the fear that surrounded the thought of change.

A Response to others' Responses

There seems to be this ongoing debate on whether humanitarianism and imperialism aren't at all the same or whether they actually have very similar intentions and motives. Obviously most humanitarians don't go to developing countries, demand rubber and then slice off people's limbs, yet I do believe that some have similar attitudes as early imperialists had: this notion that its their obligation or responsibility to take care of the unfortunate. This paternalistic perspective still seems to last, for example, when you see those commercials with small mexican children walking through hills of garbage and an old (christian) man picks one up gently and tells you to donate just one dollar a day. Now, I'm not saying that he's an evil con man or anything like that, I just thought it interesting that in some ways, and in some cases humanitarian efforts seem like a PC version of Imperialism. 

Also, I noticed varying opinions on the "White Man's Burden" poem by Rudyard Kipling. I personally believe that he was being sarcastic but for some different reasons than previously mentioned. I do not think he had any sympathies for the 'natives' of India or elsewhere, instead he felt that Imperialism was in fact a burden...how ironic...Many have stated that he thinks of Imperialism as a sacrifice, but lets remember that a sacrifice is quite different than a burden. Sacrifices are things that people take on because it is their responsibility yet a burden is usually unnecessary and annoying. 

Imperialism Reaction

Reading other people’s impressions of imperialism and its historic significance caused me to wonder about whether it still exists, or will exist in the future. Someone mentioned that the class gap between extremely rich and extremely impoverished is rapidly growing. It’s scary to imagine what the next step in the pattern of imperialism could be when the wealth is already distributed so unevenly. Just look at many third- world, or underdeveloped, countries versus America. But in my opinion imperialism will remain six feet under, mostly because of how global our planet has become. Of course it’s necessary to understand I mean the offensive military actions taken by dominant nations, not the imperialistic attitude, which will exist as long as there are top world powers like the United States. But today justifications for imperialism wouldn’t be tolerated by the rest of the world. If a country tried to oppress another with an unprecedented war there would be a huge backlash. Other nations would come to their aid with their voices and their militaries. We live in a very global world society with a series of networks and allies. Not only would this morally gray behavior be chastised, but many other nations would be affected too. The ripple effect would hurt other nations through trade among other effects. I think we coexist with enough nations that are powerful enough to protect their allies, creating our own method of checks and balances. George Bush’s “war on terror” is an example of military reasoning that many people found to be unsound. Historically many imperialistic powers have acted self-righteous, hiding their true greed behind a façade of democracy or superiority.
Mostly everyone categorized imperialism as an evil force dominating our history textbooks. And while its corrupt nature is undisputable, the point was developed in someone’s paper that there have been benefits like rise of technology, educational programs, and global views that has spread understanding of other cultures. But another glaring negative, besides the killing and suffering of a country’s natives, is the fact that you can’t have imperialism without assimilation. I think this is attributed to the fact that people are afraid of what they don’t understand, including different culture. I wonder, is it possible to conquer another nation without decimating its identity (i.e. religion, dialect, beliefs)? Regardless, I believe the various aspects of imperialism are now a moot point, considering we live in such an interconnected world.