The French And Russian Revolutions - 1598 Words

The French and Russian Revolutions featured hated monarchies, fascinating rumors, and allusive innuendos which made them both very interesting. In fact, in both revolutions, the murder of the royal family was one of the more historic events of the war. In France at the time of the revolution, the rulers were Marie Antoinette-born Marie Antoine-from Austria, and Louis XVI-born Louis-Auguste. The two were married when Marie Antoinette was fourteen and Louis was fifteen. In Russia at the time of their revolution, the rulers were Victoria Alix Helena Louise Beatrice- also called Alexandra Feodorovna-whose entire family, with the exception of her sister, Ella, died from a disease and was then subsequently raised by Queen Victoria, and Nikolai†¦show more content†¦Interestingly, both monarchies treated the peasants kindly and generously as well. For example, Marie Antoinette adopted children to help give them better lives, and the Tsarina of Russia helped out at charities. Additi onal similarities included the feelings of hatred the peasants had of their monarchies, the peasants’ desire to emulate the beauty standards of Marie Antoinette and her outlandish hairstyles, and the harsh and savage treatment of the monarchies after the war. Some differences included the leadership skills of the monarchies, or lack thereof, the methods of each execution, and the paths the countries took after the revolutions, for example, Russia took a communistic path and France took a dictatorial path. These parallels and contrasts present remarkable insights into the relationships between the revolutions. Before the French Revolution and Russian Revolution, the general public of each country thought about their rulers and their ruler’s actions in a certain way. For example, people in France thought (and knew) that Louis XVI of France was â€Å"... not raised to be a king.† In fact, Louis XVI’s older brother was supposed to take over the kingdom, but h e died leaving Louis in his place. Similarly, the leadership skills of Nicholas of Russia were questioned from an early age. Many knew that â€Å"People acquainted with Nicholas were, in fact, alarmed

Societies of Chesapeake Bay and New England Colonies Free Essays

Societies of Chesapeake Bay and New England Colonies Many settlers who came to the New World from Britain in the early seventeenth century sought to establish a settlement for motives including economic and religious freedom in areas such as Chesapeake Bay colonies that comprised of Virginia and Maryland colonies and the New England colonies that consisted of Connecticut, Maine, and Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. Settlers who often came to these regions came with varying motivations, settled into different regions that had varying geographies, and encountered different circumstances. Through the passing of time, these particular distinctions would contribute into casting the two regions into two distinct societies. We will write a custom essay sample on Societies of Chesapeake Bay and New England Colonies or any similar topic only for you Order Now While those who settled in the early sixteenth centuries in the New England and Chesapeake Bay colonies were mostly settled by the English, on the contrary to what most believe, these two regions developed into two distinct societies by the eighteenth century. These societies were able to be characterized through their differences in many aspects of society including politically, economically, socially, and educationally. One aspect that illustrates difference between the Chesapeake Bay and New England colonies was the social differences that the two regions developed. For example, in the Chesapeake region, disease such as dysentery, typhoid fever, and malaria ravaged through the area. Unclean air and the hot climate further spread disease amongst the settlers. These factors had larger implications for Chesapeake colony society. With the combination of these factors, an individual living in the Chesapeake often had their life cut short by an average of ten years than an individual in the New England colony. As a result of shorter life spans, many families were disunited as widows were left with young children to support. Thus, women had a greater status than women in the New England colonies. Women of the Chesapeake region were able to inherit their husband’s estates and were issued a different property title. Disease also affected the population growth of the Chesapeake region. Since disease was widespread and many women did not migrate to the region, fertility rates were low. However, in the New England colonies, where a combination of clean air and colder climate helped decrease the risk of diseases, an individual tended to outlive their ounterpart in the Chesapeake region. Furthermore, settlers tended to migrate as families to the New England colonies, so the population was able to grow quicker. With a longer life, an individual could see the upbringing of their grandchildren. They had a pivotal role in ensuring the children grew up in a nurturing environment and that these c hildren followed the morale and guidelines of society. Early marriage and high fertility rates contributed in a booming birthrate. These facets contributed to the creation a strong, tranquil social structure of the New England colonies. Also unlike their Chesapeake counterparts, women in the New England colonies gave up there property rights when they married because Puritan lawmakers worried that recognizing women’s separate rights would cause conflicts between the husband and wife. As illustrated through these examples, New England and Chesapeake colonies were varied through social aspects of their societies. Another aspect in which the two regions differentiated in were economically. For example, in New England colonies, where there was not much arable land, the settlers were forced to depend on more livestock such as pigs, cattle, and sheep. Nonetheless, the settlers were able to create a small varied assortment of crops from the little land that they had. Furthermore, settlers of the New England region developed other industries such as developing their coastlines and built them for use as harbors for industries such as fishing and shipbuilding. In contrast to the New England region, the Chesapeake Bay colonies were quite different economically. The colonies of this region were much more dependent on agriculture economically. The settlers widely grew the addictive tobacco plant after John Rolfe (settler of the Virginia colony and the husband of Pocahantas) improved the bitterness of the plant. Thus, the demand for the plant grew steadily in England. This dependency on agriculture would eventually advance where individuals would create plantation system in order to meet the demands. Once again, as illustrated, Chesapeake and the New England region were different through their economic standards is one of the way that these two regions developed into distinct societies. These different economic characteristics eventually leads to another differentiation in these two colonial societies. In addition to these two societies differing economically and socially, these colonial regions also differed in the political aspects. For instance, in the New England colonies, especially in the colony of Connecticut, the government was based on a town system. The congregational Puritan churches of the region were where the adult men would gather and vote. The New England villagers voted on aspects such as electing their officials, appointing schoolmasters, as well as discussing daily matters. The colonists of this region saw sovereignty as being in the towns. The colonists also adopted this idea as a result of their conviction of unity for purpose. Conversely, the governments of the Chesapeake region operated more on a county system such as that of the House of Burgesses, where the colonists met on a yearly basis. This was a result of the people being spread out from their use of the plantation that tended to distribute the population throughout the region. As demonstrated, the New England colonies form of government varied widely from the Chesapeake form of government. New England’s use of the town meeting system and the Chesapeake colonies use of the county system show the differing political viewpoints, just one of the aspects that defined the two regions as two different distinct societies. Although the Chesapeake and New England colonies were considered monolithic when they were first settled in the early sixteenth century, the passing of time would eventually these regions into two distinctive societies. Those differences that define the characteristics of these two societies are essential because they play an essential role in the creation in several facets United States history such as the development of the government (as later shown in history through Roger Sherman‘s Connecticut Compromise) and social and political issues such as slavery. The Chesapeake Bay and New England colonies were indeed significant regions; even though they varied in many aspects, played a significant role in shaping the attitudes of American society later in the nation’s history. How to cite Societies of Chesapeake Bay and New England Colonies, Essay examples

Epistemology Essay Research Paper In Philosophy many free essay sample

Epistemology Essay, Research Paper In Philosophy, many minds search for the nature and evidences of human cognition. We call this country of survey Epistemology. Two of import epistemic philosophers are Friedrich Nietzsche and Charles Sanders Peirce. Nietzsche # 8217 ; s work has had a permanent captivation for many, and has developed an about cult following although his work has found small significance among fellow academicians. Peirce began his doctrine when he retired. His attack to knowledge is that of the pragmatists. They feel cognition is in portion a societal merchandise, intending that we use our mind to entertain ourselves in a society. Both philosophers have their ain positions on the nature of cognition, and methods for deriving cognition. This essay will research the alone methods and positions of both. Nietzsche does non experience that human cognition is a fantastic thing. His position is besides really matter-of-fact. Nietzsche views our cognition as more of a tool. The gap of his essay # 8220 ; On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense # 8221 ; begins with a comparing of the creative activity of the solar system and adult male # 8217 ; s knowledge, to the prostration of the Sun and world # 8217 ; s death. This long stretch of clip was summed up in three sentences. No description was put into the thought of cognition. For many, cognition is so expansive and complicated that it could neer be wholly explained. Obviously, Nietzsche feels that we are the lone things that would put any value on our cognition. If we could pass on with other animate beings, he feels they would experience the same sense of ego. Nietzsche # 8217 ; s view on the nature of our mind is that it is our agencies of being. We use our mind for endurance. A king of beasts is the male monarch of the jungle with its sheer power and razor crisp Fangs. Amazingly a homo could kill a king of beasts. Using the mind to develop tools to repress the big animal. If we were non a smart species, the big jaws of infinite animate beings would hold wiped us out long ago. In our modern universe, our mind still is our defence tool. Now we use it to suit in socially for our amusement. Now to last we invented tools like lying, flattery, and misrepresentation. Clearly Nietzsche does non put a high value on mind. He tells us that your intellect even deceives yourself, at dark in your dreams, and you can make nil about it. Nietzsche farther demonstrates his value of truth by stating it is a amount of human dealingss that have been enhanced and embellished. We search for truth as an duty to society. Nietzsche places small value on our mind, and sees it as tool that we have used excessively much. Peirce offers a more optimistic, yet matter-of-fact, position on the nature of know shelf. Peirce feels that we all have our beliefs. He says our beliefs steer our desires and determine our actions. As worlds we feel more comfy when we are free of uncertainty. Doubt being the antonym of belief once more. When we enter a province of uncertainty, the annoyance causes a battle to achieve a province of belief. Peirce says uncertainty leads to inquiry, which leads to belief. Peirce has really specific methods, for repairing our beliefs. These are the actions taken to acquire back into the province of belief. In the method of scientific discipline, we use ground and mention to facts and experiences. Just like it sounds, you can prove your uncertainties easy. An illustration would be that you believe you can wing. To prove this you jump off your porch. Quickly you learn if you stay in the uneasy province of uncertainty, or return to the unagitated province of belief. The following method, a priori method, is the philosopher’s method. It is the nature of the procedur e to believe what we want to. This method is more delighting due to believing what you want without fact or ground. For case, person could state you have a nice haircut, so you likely will believe it. The method of authorization is non as honoring. In this public method your beliefs are fixed for you by force. The province has control over these beliefs. Although it does non sound good, it is a good thing. If person believes they should get down killing everyone, so thier beliefs need to be fixed by the province. The last method is Peirce’s favorite. The method of doggedness, as its name suggests, is the method of the persistent and the stubborn. This method is a private method, which allows you to hang on to your belief. A good illustration might be faith. Peoples tend to keep on to their spiritual beliefs all their life. No affair what happens many people will non abandon their beliefs. Peirce’s method for repairing belief is really appropriate for his belief on the nature of cognition. As a pragmatist he views cognition as a tool. His method of repairing beliefs are tools of the head for the head. Both philosophers have really different sentiments, sing both are epistemolgical and matter-of-fact. Nietzsche has a much more pessimistic position of the human mind. Peirce attempt # 8217 ; s to explicate what we do when we are in uncertainty. Both offer some challenging ideas about the nature of cognition. I liked Peirce # 8217 ; s essay. I think he is right that we struggle to be in a province of beliefs. He translated a really specific procedure that I agree that we all go through. Nietzsche was besides really insightful. I agree with his sentiment that the human mind is our survival tool. However I disagree with his deficiency of regard for the human idea. I think it is a really luxuriant system that is a miracle of creative activity.