"The Black Napoleon"

In 1803, there were two highly successful military-dictators in the world: Toussaint L’Ouverture of St. Domingue and Napoleon Bonaparte of France. These two figures have gone down in history as two enemies who supported contradictory ideals. One supported the equality of all humans and specifically, the abolition of slavery. The other one clearly supported slavery, and even reinstated the concept in French colonies. Obviously, the former was L’Ouverture, while the latter was Bonaparte. However, the distinction and difference between these two leaders is not as clear cut as it is commonly evidenced. While Napoleon did betray and essentially murder L’Ouverture, and did later explain himself by saying, “What could the death of one wretched Negro mean to me?” (http://www.historywiz.com/toussaint.htm), these two men shared many common traits in their ascension to power and their leadership.


Napoleon is often referred to today as the “child of the Revolution”, in that the French Revolution resulted in a changed France, and subsequently provided a chance for a military man like Napoleon to seize power. During the Revolution, there was absolutely no way that a dictator could seize power, however, the ideals and public beliefs evolved over the course of the Revolution. In the end, France had reverted back to a mindset that favored anything reminiscent of the “ancien régime”. In essence, the French Revolution ‘produced’ Napoleon by allowing him to rule.

The same can be said about L’Ouverture’s rise to power, (that he was given a chance to rule by the circumstances of his ascension). In 1791, mass slave revolts occurred in St. Domingue that responded to the white colonist’s refusal to grant colored people their rights. Never before had there been a slave revolt like this in St. Domingue. L’Ouverture seized this incredibly emotional opportunity to take leadership over the slaves, and subsequently propel himself into a position of power. Later, L’Ouverture would seize complete control over St. Domingue, (after chasing away both the British and the Spanish from St. Domingue), and the reason why he would not experience revolt was because of the incredible amount of support he had garnered by fighting in the war, and by leading the slave army. However, L’Ouverture made a fatal mistake when he decided to write up a constitution that granted him “rule for life”. This event likened him to a monarch, and his former followers began to see this. Ultimately, L’Ouverture was defeated by the French in 1802 in part because his own troops (who had so passionately fought for him years before), could not capture the same spirit of freedom they had maintained so very well before.

Although Napoleon crushed L’Ouverture, reinstated slavery, (which L’Ouverture had so passionately supported), and imprisoned him, there were many similarities between these two. Both were military men first, and political leaders second; both overthrew their nation’s former government, both appeared as ‘hero’s to their followers, and both were exiled. In fact, L’Ouverture is sometimes known as the “black Napoleon”. If Napoleon had led St. Domingue, and L’Ouverture had ruled France, history might not have noticed the difference.

Other Sources Used:
http://www.historywiz.com/toussaint.htm
http://www.helium.com/items/1775724-commonalities-between-napoleon-bonaparte-and-toussaint-louverture

Is Rebellion Necessary to an Effective Government?

After Shay's Rebellion, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington expressed opposing views on this specific rebellion, and the nature of rebellions in general. Thomas Jefferson says, "I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Jefferson supports the notion of rebellions as "learning experiences", in which the government can learn what grieves the public people enough to actively protest for change. Jefferson also says that rebellions need to be constant, and the government needs to be "mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much". He desires that governments should accept rebellions as learning experiences, and in handling the rebellion, the government should not be too harsh. Therefore, the government can always adapt to the desires of the people, and make sure that drastic revolution is never a consequence of unanswered protest. Furthermore, the public will be encouraged that their action is promoting progress, therefore they will be able to see that the government is listening to their concerns. In the end, this promotes a healthy, peaceful relationship between the government and the public which results in progress.

George Washington's philosophy, on the other hand, is to "Know precisely what the insurgents aim at. If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once." His fundamental belief, in terms of rebellion, is that "Influence is no government"; that the people should never publicly rebel because most concerns cannot be immediately addressed. He essentially is saying that the public doesn't really influence the government, so there is no point in rebellion. Consequently, the people will become increasingly enraged, irrational and impatient (because their concerns are not being remedied) so that they're numbers will "snowball" over time and before the government knows it, revolution will be on their hands. His proposition, is to kill off the rebellion as soon as possible (before it's too late), and use force if necessary so that there is not even the slightest chance of revolt.

Personally, I tend to agree more with Jefferson's argument, because I believe that relatively peaceful rebellion (ex. protesting with signs, marches etc.) expresses public distaste to the government. An effective government is one that is based on the pillars of the "social contract"; basically, a government that serves for the people. Therefore, the government needs to be aware of the people's opinions and be able to reach compromises with the people that do not impose on the government's power, but also respect the wishes of the people (in order to avoid displeasing them, and ultimately causing them to rebel). I think that this awareness can often only be reached through protest, because the government is usually preoccupied with larger, international concerns, so that they overlook relatively lesser issues. In other words, I believe that protest and rebellion is often the only way to raise awareness of the public's concerns. Protest makes the scope of the problem seem more realistic and urgent to the government, and causes the priority of addressing the concern to increase because the issue will be in the very face of the government. Jefferson supports "a little rebellion now and then", because it is true that rebellion every so often brings the previously unknown concerns of the people to the government. The keywords are now and then, because if rebellion were to be constant, then there would always be chaos, and the government would have too much on their hands to deal with. It is also unrealistic to assume that the government can address all of the people's issues, while also dealing with external affairs such as trade, war, foreign relations etc. In conclusion, I think that progress hinges on two things, 1) the ability of the government to be understanding of any rebellion, and to be able to adapt itself to address the needs of the people (and thus avoiding future future revolution), and 2) the understanding of the people that the government cannot deal with all of their issues at once (rebellion is understandable only every now and then), and that the government cannot address ALL of their issues because some would simply be impossible within the confines of a constitution, or be a compromise to the nature of a government.

Acceptable, non violent, protest

Some Questions:

Who's argument is more convincing theoretically; Jefferson's or Washington's?

Within the the confines of a real government, which opinion is more realistic? What can the government realistically think about government?

What are your thoughts on the importance of rebellion in societies?

I believe that rebellion should never be violent (because there are always non-violent methods such as protest), and bloodshed is unnecessary, however is there justification for violent rebellion?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/408258/shays_rebellion.html?cat=37
http://www.marcvallee.co.uk/blog/2009/01/gaza-protest-170109/

Comparing and Contrasting Taverns and Salons

Colonial Tavern (up); Salon during Enlightenment (down)

After reading about taverns, I drew a parallel between the role of taverns and salons. Taverns during the American Revolution played a similar role to Salons during the Enlightenment, in that they encouraged discussion, debate and psychological progress, however there were fundamental differences in how they impacted their respective societies. Salons were hosted by wealthy, upperclass women, who invited intelligent, upperclassmen to discuss enlightenment-ideas such as "general will" or "the social contract". The actual discussion of such ideas was part of a larger public sphere, and in the process of debate, ideas were built upon or created by individuals so that ultimately there was an infinite amount of ideas being created. During the enlightenment, salons invited the upperclass to experience ideas that were formerly confined to highly intelligent philosophers during the scientific revolution. Salons allowed the upperclass to expose themselves to ideas that were thought of by philosophers, and that were formerly limited to these philosophers.

In the 1770s, taverns were a staple part of American towns, and cities. The appeal of Taverns were that they "provided alcoholic drinks,... where people could meet and talk openly in public" (Brinkley, 106). However, in addition to being a social establishment, Taverns were very similar to salons in that they played a huge role in the public sphere, because here, "taverns and pubs became the central meeting places for airing the ideas that fueled resistance to British policies" (Brinkley, 106-107). Essentially, taverns provided privacy and comfort for all colonists, where opinions could be discussed freely. Naturally, a lot of these opinions centered on politics and either outrage or content with the British government. Furthermore, just as in the salons, public resistance accumulated rapidly as ideas (about resistance) were debated, discussed and tossed around; ultimately resulting in brand new ideas that were supported by the masses. Eventually, this 'brainstorming' led to actual resistance groups such as the Sons of Liberty, who actively resisted Parliament.

Both Salons and Taverns generated an overwhelming surplus of ideas that spread because of the public sphere, however there was a major difference between the two. Taverns were entered by "educated and uneducated men alike... those who could not read---and there were many---could learn about the contents of Revolutionary pamphlets from listening to tavern conversations" (Brinkley, 107). Taverns, unlike salons, encouraged all facets of society to discuss revolutionary ideas, while the discussions in salons were attended solely by educated men (who were invited by high class women). The consequences of this disparity were that ideas created in taverns influenced the poor, the uneducated AND the upper class, while the ideas in salons only influenced the educated men and the wealthy hostesses. Perhaps, the added volume of participants in taverns led to more emotion, and subsequently more active resistance than salons, which primarily only encouraged more thinking (and not so much, active resistance). Perhaps, this is why the American Revolution was an actual, violent revolution, while the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution were merely intellectual movements.

Do you agree with me that salons and taverns played similar roles in their respective revolutions? What do you think were the consequences of taverns influencing the poor and the rich alike? And the consequences of salons only being attended by the high class?

http://candiceroland.umwblogs.org/page/2/
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salon_de_Madame_Geoffrin.jpg

Doubt

http://www.mesacc.edu/~yount/text/empm-v-ratm.html

This is a good explanation of the differences between empiricism and rationalism/deduction.

I already made a blog post for this grading period, but I was really intrigued in class about the concept of "doubt". Francis Bacon says, "Man, being the servant and interpreter of Nature, can do and understand so much and so much only as he has observed in fact or in thought of the course of nature" (Novum Organum). He means that humans can only glean knowledge from experiences, senses and/or observation, which is his basic axiom and also is called empiricism. Therefore man can never assume anything or make generalizations, which Bacon calls "useless and abstract". He further goes to say that man must "Begin anew from the very foundations, unless we would revolve for ever in a circle with mean and contemptible progress" (Novum Organum). Essentially, in order to progress, we must question even the most accepted of ideas and reevaluate. For example, if someone were to use Bacon's philosophy, he/she could question the validity of gravity or even whether or not matter exists. In order to support the theory of gravity, said person would have to begin with observations about nature and then somehow support gravity through experimentation, so long as they never make any assumptions. Is this mindset backwards? Or does it result in progress?

Personally, I think that a world without doubt will not progress, and subsequently neither will a world without faith. (When I say faith, I don't mean religious faith, but I mean faith as in believing in something tangible or inherent). I agree with Bacon that we would "revolve for ever in a circle with mean and contemptible progress" if we were to never question the world. This is because our potential progress would be limited to things we know, and if we never questioned former indisputable truths such as a geocentric system, or Lamarckian evolution, then we would have never arrived at modern theories (that could very well be disproven in the future) such as a heliocentric system or Darwinism. However, if we methodically and carefully followed Bacon's exact philosophy, which is, again, to doubt everything, then would we doubt even the conclusions that we reach through observation? Would we be trapped in an endless circle of doubt, starting over, observation, experimentation, and conclusion? In Bacon's ideal world, once we reached our conclusion we would not be able to proceed from there because in order to expand on our new findings, we would have to assume our conclusion to be true. Yes, this is probably a little too picky and technical but I think that empiricism is contradictory of progress, as is a society based on faith; therefore doubt must coexist with educated assumption in order to result in progress.

My solution to this problem is that every scientist should individually doubt all truths (such as color, sound, gravity etc.) ONCE and if any conclusions are drawn from subsequent experimentation then they should accept these conclusions to be true. This way, new discoveries can occur when an individual cleans their slate of all assumptions, but also forward progress can be made by expanding on any conclusions. Do you guys have any ideas of a potential "perfect" method to progress a society scientifically? Finally, some food for thought; do you guys think that Bacon could potentially be assuming too much? Because technically, his philosophy hinges on the assumption that our senses are correct. What if our eyes perceive the wrong colors? What if we see things backwards and in reverse? In conclusion, what is an official starting point for 'doubting everything'? Should we start with our senses or should we potentially start somewhere else. Perhaps I'm not articulating, but it's all very skeptical...

The end of Aristotelian Astronomy

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/jupmoon.html

Hey guys, after reading tonight's assignment about Newton and looking back on the previous' night assignment about Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo, I wanted to know if anyone had an opinion as to who definitively put an end to, or "demolished" the Ptolemaic or geocentric system. I think that the book portrays Newton's ideas as those that put an end to the old astronomic physics, specifically it reads, "The new findings had not, however, been fused together in a new synthesis, a single explanatory system that would comprehend motion both on earth and in the skies. That synthesis, which prevailed until the twentieth century, was the work of Isaac Newton" (594). The book is saying that Newton unified Galileo's discovery of Jupiter's moons, his law of inertia, Copernicus' heliocentric theory, and Kepler's three laws of planetary motion into one big concept that finally "disproved" Aristotelian physics. Newton apparently achieved this success by proving the notion of 'gravity' which strongly supported the heliocentric theory by making it all possible, and much more realistic than a crystal sphere-supported geocentric system.

However, I believe that the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian system was damaged beyond repair much earlier, when Galileo made his discoveries about Jupiter's moons and momentum public. Together, his ideas strongly denied the existence of a crystal sphere system around earth. I think that the discovery of Jupiter's moons could have almost been sufficient in destroying the old theory, because it would have been impossible for the 'crystal sphere' idea to remain credible or impenetrable. The text says, "He quickly discovered the first four moons of Jupiter, which clearly suggested that Jupiter could not possibly be embedded in any impenetrable crystal sphere." (593). Subsequently, Galileo then throws in yet another piece of evidence, his law of intertia. Galileo proves mathematically, and this is important because by proving this mathematically he no longer requires the law of gravity to support his idea, that an object will keep in motion forever unless stopped by something. The text reads, "Rest was not a natural state of objects. Rather, an object continues in motion forever unless stopped by an external force" (593). In a larger picture, Galileo shows the world that planets do not need the assistance of 'angels' or 'crystal spheres' to keep in motion. So in one move, Galileo abolishes the impenetrability and notion of crystal spheres by sighting Jupiter's moons, and then in another body of evidence he further damages the crystal spheres, and the cornerstone of Aristotelian philosophy, by removing their function.

I think that Galileo definitely demolished the crystal sphere aspect of Aristotelian philosophy, and because this idea was so important to old Astronomy, I think that Galileo put an end to the old theory and catalyzed modern astronomy. Without crystal spheres, then the Aristotelian system is not possible, and this opened doors for new theories to take precedence. What idea or figure do you guys think demolished the old theories? Or perhaps, it was not just one person, but a chain of events that, together, put an end to them. Do you think that Galileo's ideas were not strong enough to debunk any theories until reinforced by the revelations of Newton? Or maybe it was even before Galileo, that the geocentric theory was ended.