Friday, October 23, 2009

Blog Post 7 – The Age of Empire

    This week our readings highlighted chapters 10 - 13 in the reading from Eric Hobsbawn's novel The Age of Empire. This week's reading focused on sciences, reason and society, revolution, and war. I believe Hobsbawn did a great job ending the historical novel the manner he did. The age of empire, occurring from 1875 to 1914 was an impactful and important part of world history. One interesting facts was that Nietzcheism and irrationalism were gaining new converts. Nietzscheism is emphasizing the will to power as the chief motivating force of both the individual and society. I have decided to do more research on nietzcheism and irrationalism. Nietzcheism and irrationalism a 19th- and early 20th-century philosophical trend that claimed to enrich man's apprehension of life by expanding it beyond the rational to its fuller dimensions. Rooted either in metaphysics or in an awareness of the uniqueness of human experience, irrationalism stressed the dimensions of instinct, feeling, and will as over and against reason. The term is used chiefly by continental European philosophers, who regard irrationalism as one of several strong currents flowing into the 20th century. The minds and ideas of the people were going away from the culturalistic and religious to the modern and advancements in technology. The people of the time period waned new technologies and tools to grow and expand the area for the ever-so-growing population.

    Furthermore, another important aspect of the readings was REVOLUTION. The core idea of revolution developed in countries that were relatively stable, although there were many variations – including The United States through Austro-Hungary to Russian Empire. Economic prosperity, ability to incorporate diverse ethnic groups and government structure played a key role in the establishment for the people to revolt. There was much more ferment in the periphery countries, which were economically, politically and socially destabilized due to interference from the West. Those countries had the desire to become independent, desire for social change (equality with the West), and had western ideas mixing with indigenous ideas. Long established empires were disappearing.

    This time period brought about many instant changes within state of the empire/ from revolution, it led to war? Here are some inquiries from my end:

  • What truly caused the World War?
  • Did all governments not want war?
  • How did the differences of the 13th century and the 19th century compare?
  • Does democratisation help?

One question that I would like to answer is the democratisation. I firmly believe that democracy does not solve the world peace. Democracy is a stable form of government of an in the United States of America. Democracy in other countries would simply not work. Many countries seem to have found an established form of government and the people love the alternatives and ideas. Thus, if such countries dislike democracy, so be it!

1 comment:

  1. Your theories on Democracy are interesting and I would largely agree. In the context of the First World War, the reinvented idea of democratic rule caused as much instability as it did stability. Rather, it kept the minds of politicians fixed on pleasing the people that put them in power and one popular method (even today) is the creation of an external threat. Couple this with patriotism/nationalism, a stockpile of weapons, a generation with no war exhaustion and the march to war is not only inevitable but desireable