The Bourgeoisie

In class we talked about the differences between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat class during and after the Industrial Revolution. We discussed that the Bourgeoisie or Middle Class is not necessarily what we think of as our middle class today, just as the Proletariat class is not the equal of our lower class. The differences seem to me more like the difference between the upper class and the middle class of present. But, I think our middle class has a lot more in common with the Bourgeoisie than the Proletariat when a closer look is taken.
Our middle class is not seen oppressors of the lower class, but we have much in common with the Bourgeoisie. We believe that a person can increase their power through honest hard work, which is true of all classes, but I feel like it is lived out in the middle class. The values and discipline of the middle class are evident in their hard work, as well as their planning for the future thought savings and investments. People in the middle class tend to dress in the same style i.e. Polo, Ralph Lauren, and Coach. They are usually educated and well versed. There is a distinction made between their work lives and their home lives. Middle class people tend to work regular 9-5 jobs. They do not work the grave-yard shift, and rarely do they work in factories. While the trend today is for both members of a couple to have a job, it has not always been that way in the middle class, which during the Bourgeoisie time was a clear distinction between Proletariat and Bourgeoisie. Women of the middle class usually have the option of being stay at home moms if they choose to. In contrast, the lower class of today does not have that option.
To equate our middle class with the Proletariat class does not seem like a parallel comparison. I am not saying that we were told to compare today’s middle class with the Proletariat class, but if we were to make the comparison I feel like our middle class better compares to the Bourgeoisie. The Proletariat class had an average life expectancy of 17 years. It was not abnormal to have your entire family, children included, working in the same factory or mine for a 10-14 hour day. Women did not have the option of staying at home, nor did their children. Their dress was usually the same as everyone else’s, simple, cheap, and functional. They probably had some sort of dialect slightly off the proper language. And most importantly, they understood that the chances of moving into the middle class were virtually impossible. They knew they were under the oppression of the Bourgeoisie and at their mercy when it came to having work.
While we do not live in the times of the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat, there will always be class distinctions and social differences. I think that our middle class better relates to the Bourgeoisie class and their consumer lifestyle more than the forever-working Proletariat. Both classes shared their lives with their fellow class members, but the Proletariat seemed to cultivate stronger bonds through their hardships. This unity can be seen in the lower class still today.

Napoleon - love or hate?

This post is not really an opinion or debate as much as it is a question. The more we learned about Napoleon through looking at the pictures and reading about him, the more I wonder if his situation could be applied to many historical figures? I’m sure there are many examples in history of people that we are taught to see as great, but if further studied, we would find otherwise. If we were to look, we could probably find just as many examples of positive literature and graphics of Napoleon as we could negative. While on the surface we are shown the bold and fearless leader, when a more in-depth look is taken, we see the cowardly, small man. Napoleon was loved by many of the French people, but he was also disliked by many others.
In all honesty, I never really put much thought into Napoleon in one way or the other. I just knew he was some French guy that fought a lot of battles and did a few notable things in France. I had seen the pictures of him on his grand steed looking quite noble, and heard the history of some of his battles. After learning more about him, I learned that a lot of the French people really loved him. He was their hero! And I think this is the Napoleon most of us are shown. We see the Napoleon who has songs written about him, who had dishes with his crest on them, and the man who was small in stature but large in spirit and fearlessness. But, I think like many historical figures, we romanticize him. We put the short man on a big horse and forget his cowardly behavior. He did a lot for France, and I am sure it will never be forgotten, just as I am sure there will forever be people who refuse to see him as anything other than their hero who can do no wrong.
Conversely, there are many people who are less than impressed with Napoleon and his performance as the Emperor of France. As we saw in class, there is plenty of propaganda that is less than flattering. These views are the views that most people do not see. There were plenty of people who saw Napoleon as a less than capable leader who chose to flee when times got tough. Through the images we looked at in class we could see that many people likened him to the devil. He was by no means loved by all of the French people! If we were to take a look at other figures in history, I am sure we could find a plethora of examples to match Napoleon. Again, I never really looked to see if he was as great as I have read of him, but upon further reading I see that maybe he is not the fearless leader who can do no wrong. I was unaware of the ill feelings toward him. The images portraying him as a short little man who was fled at every opportunity show the feelings that some people have. He was not everyone’s hero, he was not their fearless leader; he was a man who got his way though killing and force.
Again, I do not feel one way or the other about Napoleon. It was interesting to see both sides of his story and see how the French viewed him. To some he was their leader, to some he was far from it. I feel like that can be said of many people in history and even today.

Sapere Aude!

On Thursday we talked about the Enlightenment and what it meant. We discussed the motto by Kant - Sapere Aude! “Dare to know!” I was asked in class if I thought it was an appropriate motto for the time and events taking place. While I am sure it can be argued that the motto is adequate; I disagree with that thought. I think the motto leaves something to be desired in describing this time period. There are examples of people and mottos that define or mark a radical time period, and there are people and mottos that are just remembered or associated with a time period.
Some examples of radical people include Galileo and with his heliocentric view, Martin Luther and his 95 thesis, Albert Einstein and his physics approach that was contrary to the popular beliefs, Amelia Earhart and her radical flying career, Christopher Columbus and his view of a round world. The list could go on and on. Some mottos that were defining of a place, time period, or people include the Marine Corps motto - Semper fidelis “Always faithful,” Martin Luther King Jr – “I have a dream,” Hitler’s Youth – Blut und Ehre “Blood and Honor.” All of these mottos and people were radical! Their views and sayings exemplified their beliefs and goals. While Sapere Aude! does express what the philosophes wanted the people to do, it does not define this movement or pattern of thought. People who were truly daring did things that others did not, this does not include going along with what the philosophes wanted everyone to do. I understand that during that time it was not common for people to voice their thoughts or opinions, but it was not radical to have one’s own thoughts. I think that the philosophes wanted people to act on their beliefs, not to just have them. Some mottos and people are memorable, but that did not make them daring or radical.
A few examples of memorable, but not radical people include Babe Ruth, Theodore Roosevelt, Marilyn Monroe, and Tupac. Mottos that we know and remember include “Just Do It” by Nike, “I’m Lovin’ it” by McDonalds, “Be the Change You Want to See” by Gandhi, “May the Force Be With You” from Star Wars. We remember these people and these mottos, but that does not mean they define or are the best example of a given time period. To say that any of these people or these mottos are radical would be giving them more credit than they are due. In saying that Sapere Aude! is the motto of the Enlightenment is almost like saying that before this time, people did not think. I think that the motto should have been “Dare to Speak!,” because people have always been able and free to think.
I’m sure this can be argued either way, but this is just my point of view about the discussion this week. Please Dare to Speak!

Testing one two...

Whoo hoo, got it working!