Although the middle classes of Europe in the nineteenth century may have shared similar values and outlooks, they increasingly identified their future with their nation states. As Unit 7, "Ideologies and Revolutions 1815-1848" explored, the nineteenth century was a time of intense nationalism in Europe. This ideology led to the creation of two new nation states - Germany and Italy - and created tension in several multiethnic empires such as Austria and Russia.
Why did more and more people identify with the nation state as opposed to class, religion, or other demarcations? Read the Italian Giuseppe Mazzini's answer at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1852mazzini.html (Modern History Sourcebook: Giuseppe Mazzini: On Nationality, 1852.) What does Mazzini mean when he claims that "the social question may, in effect, although with difficulty, be partly resolved by a single people"? What was the social question to which he was referring? Why did he believe only nation states could resolve this question?
Thomas Escott partly answers this question at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1885escott.html (Modern History Sourcebook: Thomas Escott (1844-1924): England: Her People, Polity, and Pursuits, 1885.) In this essay, he praises the inclusion of the middle classes into Parliament. Why does he argue that this benefited Great Britain? Nationalists assumed that strong nation states could deal with the problems of the industrial era by fostering a sense of inclusion in a national community. This community could then tackle problems in ways that would benefit all groups.
This blog has two parts to it so please be sure to answer both parts and respond to your classmates as well. Remember to respond to the question in 6-8 sentences (yes it can be longer) and to respond to two of your classmates answers in 4-6 sentences. Do not just agree or disagree without defending or justifying your argument. Think above and beyond the common answers that you may see. Be sure to challenge your classmates with controversial tactics, actions or selections. Good Luck!!!! Go Mustangs!!!
20 comments:
More people idemtified with the nationality of the state rather than the class or democracy because they felt that it was the only way to unify the state. They just kept fighting for what they wanted which was liberty. Nationality was seen as to be the humanity of the people. Mazzani means when he claims that "the social question may, in effect, although with difficulty, be partly resolved by a single people"? that although that getting nationalized may be very difficult it can be all possible due to one person. The social question that he was referring to was the question of nationality, which was the alliance of peoples, the balance of powers based upon new foundations and the organization of the work that Europe had to accomplish. He believed that only nation states could fix this because they would be united and work together.
Thomas Escott argued that putting the middle class would be good for the parliament because he felt that their level of public shool education would help the parliament with modern life-styles. Also because they would know how to handle their money that they spent.
People identified with the nation state because it gave them a sense of nationhood and everyone was trying to gain unity within each nation. When Mazzini said "the social question may, in effect, although with difficulty, be partly resolved by a single people,” he meant that this social question will be answered within a nation and each nation will answer it differently then another, however it will be hard to answer the question for each nation. The social question to which he is referring is, based on the revolutions. The social question asks for a transformation of authority and the organization of labor. He believed only nation states could answer this because, they are united, they want the benefit for all and they share many similarities such as language, customs, and tradition, as well as morals; and through this they have been coming closer as a nation and want the same for all. Thomas Escott argues that the inclusion of the middle class into Parliament has benefited Europe because, they know what life was like for the majority of the nation, and could improve the life styles, as well as manage the money of the nation, because they had been working hard to earn money, and as a result know how to make it stretch.
In Response to
Amelia Parra:
I agree with several of the points you made in you blog. However you did look at Mazzinis quote at a different angle then me. You looked at it as if it were every person for themselves and I looked at it as if it were every country for its self. You showed a good point about how Escott thought the level of education in the middle class citizens would help improve the lifestyle of the country.
Nationalism was becoming a major thing in the 1800's. Class, religion, and other demarcations were a thing of the past. People wanted to come together and create a state. They wanted to be independent and connect with others under their patrionism for their country.By saying, "The social question may, in effect, although with difficulty, be partly resolved by a single people," he meant that it only takes one person to spark and idea that everyone would want to follow. In this case the idea would be nationalism. YOu cannot have nationalism unlessw you have a state to be proud of. By creating anation state it gave the people something to be proud about.
Thomas escort believed the middle class could handle the position of parliament. THe middle class knew how to handle their money because they were not rich yet had some money to invest. This could improve the life of many europeans and create new jobsw, schools and an all-around better society.
Amelia Parra-
i think you stated your case very well. i agree that the nation states could achieve their goals if they work together and unite.
kimarmendariz-
i agree with you stance and that nation states could do well in revolutions because they were united
First of all, more people related better with a nation state because they agreed with what a nation state had to offer. By "offer" it is meant that a nation state had they ability to be independent and free from the domination of other countries. So, more people related with the nation state better because it offered a sense of independence and unity. In "On Nationality" by Mazzini, he stated that, "the social question may, in effect, although with difficulty, be partly resolved by a single people." By this statement he meant, that there is still hope to creating a nation, although it will be difficult, if there is only one person that strives for it. Though, it is not impossible. By "the social question" Mazzini was referring to create better social relationships between labor and the capital; production and consumption; and the employer and workers. Basically, he meant that the social question is whether or not creating better relationships between several groups of people is possible. He thought that only nation states are able to resolve this question because because nation states are independent and they do not have to follow the rule of another other country, this way there will be better unity and the social question will be answered.
In "England: Her People, Polity, and Pursuits" Thomas Escott argues that including the middle class into parliament benefits Great Britain. This is because the middle class knows the struggle and what life is like. They know how most people live in the society and what they want. Because of this the middle class will bring new perspectives into the parliament and help in a positive way.
In response to Kimarmendariz...
I agree with your view on why people wanted a nation state. I liked how you mentioned the "unity within each nation." I also agree with your view on what the social question is even though mine was different. It was a different view which I had not thought of. Your reasoning for Thomas Escott argueing that the middle class being beneficial to the parliament was similar to mine.
In response to beccaxlynn...
I also agree with your point of view. I liked how you added independence to the first question because that is what I had mentioned also. You mentioned that the quote meant that it takes one person to spark an idea, I did not think of that but I definately agree with it. I also liked how you used the example of the middle class in parliament benefiting schools, creating new jobs, and a better society.
People identified with the nationalism because people wanted to unite and produce one whole state; and it was thought to be the only solution in unifying the state and gaining liberty. Mazinni meant that the social question,however different, would be answered from each nation. The social question Manzzini was referring to was nationalism, how everyone would unite for the better cause of their state. He believed that only nation states could mend this because they were united t the time and had a strong sense of nationalism.
Thomas Escott argued this because he thought the middle class could cope with being in the role of parliament. The middle class was money smart and knew ow to invest their money. They also knew what most people wanted and how most people were struggling.
in response to Amelia Parra...I thought that you made very well thought out explanations.
In response to beccaxlynn... i agree with you that the social question was one of nationalism.
in response to Amelia Parra...I thought that you made very well thought out explanations.
In response to beccaxlynn... i agree with you that the social question was one of nationalism.
Good Job ladies for getting this going. The only suggestion that I would make is that if your response to others did not have an argument that explains why you agree or disagree then you should fix that. Other than that thanks for taking the initiative.
I believe the reason more and more people identified themselves with the nation as opposed to class, region, and other demarcations was simply a matter of the saying "United we stand, divided we fall". As the revolutions in the past were for different groups and ideals that wanted to be voiced, the obvious failure was due to the disunity. They felt that if the state was united there would be less disharmony and more unity. Mazzini's remark on "the social question" means that with one group or idealogy's full on commitment to nationalism, the quest for it could be solved although that alone is not just the case. It would still involve some difficulty but that was pretty much the gist of what he was saying. The social question that he was reffering to was the ability to establish better relations between labor and capital, between production and consumption, and between the workman and the employer. He believed only nation states could resolve this question because their unity and cooperation would enable more valid success. Thomas Escott argues that the inclusion of the middle class into Parliament benefited the Great Britain because instead of having a snobbish hoity-toity Parliament having no sufficient knowledge of working for their bread, they would have a broader band of social intellect from the class that knows what it is like to be of the working class and the non-rich. Plain point of views like those are the one's that benefit England the best.
In response to Amelia Parra:
Your comment concerning nationalism being the humanity of the people sounds very poetic but by humanity of the people do you mean that Nationalism enabled people to be more human or that it showed a common sense of togetherness in the people. Either one would make a chock full of sense but just the wonder made me ask. Good blog, though!
In response to anessa:
I like how your whole blog was buil around nationalism and how it provided what the people needed to succeed and be heard. Good job.
My 2nd in response...
in response to.......
AkilahRA :)
I deffinately believe you had many good points to offer. our views on a couple things were different, but thats good, because we can all see how other people interperate the same things. I also liked your opinion on what the social question was, also a different view, but very thoughtful. Overall you made good points, and supported it with why you thought what you did.
More people were identifying with the nation state as opposed to class, religion, and demarcations because they wanted unity and new traditions in their states. The people didn’t want weak states they wanted to be strong and be independent so they wouldn’t need help from other states. When Mazzini claims that "the social question may, in effect, although with difficulty, be partly resolved by a single people" he is saying that a nation state could unite in nationalism but it would be very hard. If there is someone who really is devoted to uniting their state it can happen with the support of the state. The social question was to organize labor and capital to help the worker with the employer and only states that were united could understand and then could organize a balance of power. Thomas Escott believed the middle class would be a positive thing for the parliament. The middle class went through some of the same struggles and other classes and they will know what to do to help other classes not just theirs. He thought the middles class could improve society by helping many people get an education and different forms of work so they could have a better life.
In response to AkilahRA…
I agree when you said that the nation states got more independent which helped them unify and become stronger. You answered the question about Mazzini with detail that helped me understand more and gave some good examples.
In response to beccaxlynn
I also thought that becoming more united and together through nationalism made the people proud and it could have made them come together even more. Also the middle class being in the parliament helped everyone socially because they knew about other people’s hardships and wanted to help them through work and education.
More people indentified with nationality of the state rather than social,religion, or democracy was because it was a common thing they all shared. Mazzani's point was that nationality was only understood once there was an alliance of the peoples. And a balance of powers based on new foundations and abandoning the European initiative.He believed only nation states could resolve this question because of the geographical position, traditions, and its language.
Thomas Ecsott believed that the middle class involved in the Parliament was a great thing. He thought that having a working class man in charge would be a better thing because they wouldnt tend to focus on the luxuries in life. They would also be interested in the well-being of the people and not sulked in the intentions of themselves.
I agree with Amelia because she interpuated the articles the same way I did.However I do think there was more to Thomas Escott's article. His point that he was trying to get across was the issue of the people. How can one rule the country when they dont know what is going on. You cant notice what is going on aroung you, if you are immersed in yourself.
More and more people had began to identify with the nation state rather than class, religion, and demarcations because they had felt that it was the one real way to bring unity to the state. When Mazzini says "the social question may, in effect, although with difficulty, be partly resolved by a single people" he meant that there was still hope to create a nation, and that it was possible even because of one person. Thomas Escott argues that it will help great britain because the middle class knows what it is like and will be able to have things in perspective.
More people identified with the nation state because it was everything they wanted. It was not only some kind of unity and sense of nationhoood (a.k.a. nationalism), but they liked it better because it meant independence and freedom from others. It meant the people themselves together.
Whem Mazzini says "the social question may be resolved by a single people" he meant that there will always be a way to achieve a nation because there will always be at least one person who wants it. And this includes no matter how difficult or how long it may take, its still possible.
The question he was referring to was thw question on whether or not nationalism was possible. Could a people form a true allince? Could there be an agreement in all parts? This including not just the people, but the laws and the jobs, the economy itself, and etc.
He believe only nation states could achieve this because they would already be united and a people working together could achieve this. If they all wanted the same thing, a common place, a common goal, it was possible.
Thomas Escott argues that the middle class benefited Great Britain because they were pretty much the ones with the experience. They weren't ignorant of the consequences, they knew most what was going on and would make better decisions on what would benefit all the people insted of just a small group ignorant of anyone else or anything else that didn't include them.
to AkilahRA:
I agree with everything you said and couldn't have said it better myself. You gave really good examples to support what you were saying.
to AmeliaParra:
I agree with everything you said. I actually had some of the same answers as you with nationalism. I think it really was about the unity of the nation states.
More people identified with the nation state as opposed to other demarcations because nationality was the best means of unification. Not every individual in a nation state was part of the same social class or shared the same faith. Identifying with people who speak the same language and share a common history seemed practical. Also, one person can have a large impact on politics. For example the French Republicans placed Lamartine's manifesto by the side of there aspirations in 1848. The social question is how to establish better relations between labor and capital. Mazzini believed only the nation state could answer this question because its outcome would affect social relations and sources and distribution of wealth.
Escott argued that placing he middle class in parliament was a good idea because they were not rich and also because they had a stronger connection with the average citizen.
In response to Amelia Parra: I agree with your comments on the social question. You could have made you statement stronger by mentioning specific facts and people. Everything that you said seems to be very accurate and on topic.
In response to Anessa: The social question was not soley based on nationalities. It had more to do with a transformation of authority and organization of labor. It appears that you gave a correct answer to the wrong question because you focused on the wrong question.
Post a Comment