Modern History

Answer the following question/prompt for this week's group discussion assignment:

rubric:

week7

As you consider the political events in England and France during the seventeenth century, do you

believe a monarchy-style of government could ever be effective? Why or why not, and give some

evidence to support your views.

Classmate’s post

Never once was a monarchy an effective style of government. It may seem good in theory, but one ruler is bound to

become corrupt, and from there, more corruption will spread. Like many of the European monarch countries, rulers

take their corruption and strive to make their nation an absolute monarchy (meaning that kings/queens held all

power in the state). They used things like "divine right" to persuade some people that an absolute monarchy was

necessary. Divine right is the thought that God created the monarchy and the monarch was one of God's

spokespersons. Under an absolute monarchy, the citizens of a country had no control over any governmental

decisions. The citizens had to do whatever the absolute monarch said. Absolute monarchs typically made decisions

out of their own self interests. Some monarchs did what they thought would be best for their country, even though

many people didn't want to see any changes (Peter the Great). Given the details in the book, I think that

monarchy-style governments are set up for failure.

Week10 A

As you have worked through the French Revolution, you will recall Maximilien Robespierre. He was

responsible for the Reign of Terror. In Chapter 23.2, there is a primary source writing by Robespierre,

which states the following:

● "The first maxim of our politics ought to be to lead the people by means of reason and the enemies of the people by terror. If the basis of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the

basis of popular government in time of revolution is both virtue and terror: virtue without which

terror is murderous, terror without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing else than swift,

severe, indomitable justice; it flows, then, from virtue." On the Morals and Political Principles of

Domestic Policy (1794).

How did Robespierre justify the use of terror, and is there ever a time or situation that using fear and

terror to bring control to society could be the right and virtuous thing to do?

Classmate’s post

He justified his use of terror by saying he was protecting the Revolution from its enemies. It was justified by him

saying it enabled the French to remain true to the ideals of the Revolution. The "enemies" that troubled him the

most were the ones that challenged his leadership. I do not think that using fear and terror is the right way to bring

ones own society under control. There are typically better, less radical ways. Sometimes, reigning through terror

would be necessary, but only after every other plan has failed. It would have to be used cautiously.

Week10 B

Was Napoleon's leadership positive or negative for France and whole of Europe. Defend your

perspective well.

Classmate’s post

Napoleon was a very influential leader of France. ​He made it his goal to conquer Europe.​ Under his reign of war, he conquered most of the European territories. Although he may seem very successful and his reign may seem good

due to the large amount of land added to France, Napoleon's reign brought forth many problems. One of which was

France not being strong enough for its large territory. France being weak eventually led to unnecessary wars and

invasions. Napoleon's biggest mistake was invading Russia, which at that time was an ally. Russia decimated

Napoleon's army and France was even weaker than before. In 1814, Napoleon gave up his throne. The year after,

Napoleon rose to power for a hundred days and Napoleon was then captured and shipped off to a desolate island.

Given everything provided in the book, I think that the negative effects that Napoleon had on France outweighed

the positive. His rushed decisions made it hard for civilians in France to catch a break and eventually led to France's

sudden collapse.

Week15

Which invention was the most influential discovery during the Industrial Revolution? How did it affect

society both then, later, and even now? Defend your answer well with historical evidence and opinion.

Classmate’s post

I think that this question is a matter of personal opinion, but I believe that Watt's steam engine was the most

influential during the Industrial Revolution.

The first commercial steam engine was invented by Thomas Newcomen in 1712, but this steam engine was far from

the engines required to push the economy of the 19th century. These engines would need to become more reliable

and consistent in order to be used for manufacturing purposes. James Watt eventually found a way to achieve a

more practical source of power in 1781. Watt's new engine was designed to produce rotary power and could do so

as long as the heat source was present. This steam engine allowed mills and factories to produce a mass number of

goods faster than human labor. It also had a strong influence on boats and railroads. The steam engine made

transport simpler and faster. In addition to easier travel, the ability to make profits increased.

Week16

How did Europeans use Social Darwinism to justify their imperialistic empire building? Do stronger

nations have the right to impose their will on weaker nations even if in the end it benefits the weaker

nations? Do you agree and/or disagree with any of the beliefs of Social Darwinism? Defend your

response well.

Classmate’s post

Social Darwinism was some of the ideologies in which Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection was

used to justify particular political, economic and social views. Many who were committed to ideas believed in the

survival of the fittest in society. Things such as eugenics, social injustice, and racism have been justified by this

theory. Imperial is the economic control of indigenous people and the development of economic dependency. The

stronger nations have no right to force their will on the weaker nations, even though it helps the weaker nations.

Every country has its own rights and its own independence. It is also illegal for any powerful nation to enforce its

will on smaller and weaker nations.

Week17

During the Age of Imperialism, from around 1850-1914, many countries around the world chose to

expand their territory and control around the world. However, some countries did not choose to

expand, and instead embraced the idea of isolationism. What would be the benefits or drawbacks from

choosing a policy of isolationism? Provide historical evidence and support as you formulate your

opinion on this topic.

Classmate’s post

There are many advantages of isolationism. First, by not participating in foreign relations, isolationism brings peace to the country. This helps the government to concentrate on its needs. It sustains the purity of the culture of the nation and its people. The policy also keeps the nation from intervening in a conflict where soldiers and civilians may risk their lives as a result of conflict or battle. Furthermore, by practicing isolationism, the nation has a better chance of developing its economic stability by preventing the costs of war arising from its participation in foreign affairs. On the other hand, the choice of isolationism strategy often has several disadvantages. For example, a country pursuing the isolationism policy would lack an excellent opportunity to trade with other foreign countries for economic growth. The isolated nation will remain illiterate in the coming technological progress that may be essential to social, political, and economic growth. The military would also lack unique tactics and experience, leaving the nation vulnerable to attack. Therefore, the government would be unprepared during the attack, making it easy to defeat. In addition, the nation would lose out on allies that could be of great help to its political and economic stability.