It's interesting, I think, how similar the American, French, and Hatian revolutions were.

Similarities between the Haitian revolution and the American revolution are striking, in many ways.
Both colonies were rich, offering up produce for sale that could be found few, if any, other places in the world. Both colonies fought wars against a nation over seas, and those nations both wanted their colonies for their incomes. The colonies were helped by other foreign nations, and in both cases the underdog fought and won, hoping to achieve better treatment by those conventionally considered 'betters'.

Differences were present as well, of course: George Washington didn't die in an enemy cell, and unlike the American war, the Haitian Revolution was based predominantly around race and the rights inherent to those of a given race, while Americans fought over the right to communicate their opinion to their leaders, and for equal rights/closer to equal rights among the classes. Unlike France, Britain was not currently at war and mid revolution when it's colony rebelled, and the Americans did not use scorched earth tactics against the incoming British.

The similarities between the American and French revolutions are quite obvious as well: one was based off the other, after all. Similar goals, similar classes of people leading the rebellion, and similar ideals buoying the whole thing. Differences are clear as well: the American Revolution was significantly less bloody than the French one, and significantly more successful. The distance that enemies had to travel to reach France was nothing compared to the journey to America, the amounts and proportions of soldiers per side of the battles, and the shear number of sides to the conflict all differed.


These revolutions share so much in common with each other, and likely with other revolutions as well.
Are there common traits to revolutions?

Napolionic Charisma

Napoleon was almost as famous for being charismatic as he is for his short stature.

Napoleon wasn't short.
Was he charismatic?

How many people followed him for him, instead of because of the alternative option or the promises he made? How much of a factor was his charisma, actually?

I don't know, but I'd assume that most people followed for his promises and the threats posed by his opposition. After all, charisma has the most pull on the people closest to you, and writing and speeches only go so far. Napoleon could not possibly have known everyone who followed him personally: there were simply too many people. Public speeches could inspire those who hear it, but only so many people could hear any given speech, and each time someone passes on word of his charisma, passion, and whatever else Napoleon demonstrated while speaking, the actual glow of his charisma would be transfered less and less. Out of all the time he spent working with and on France, how much of that time was spent in public, densly-populated areas, and how much was away from most of the people he'd want to sway?

The World in a Painting: Lady Liberty Leading the People

Everyone recognizes the painting Lady Liberty Leading the People. Many recognize how the ideals of the french revolutions shine through it. All the same, I was curious to see what I could dig up if I properly analysied the painting.

 

Painted in France, October-December of 1830 by E. Delecroix, this was meant to be a celebration of the the successful Three Glorious Days: a revolution that took place over three days. This painting, when completed, was bought by the new king to place in his throne room, as a reminder of how he was put into power, and how his predecessor was taken out of it. However, due to the central image of a forceful, even violent woman, the image was deemed too inflamatory, and was eventually sent of to be put into storage with Delecroix's aunt. After several years, it finally went to the Louvre, where it still exists today.

This painting positively reeks of symbolism.

Marianne stands out from the painting around her as a classically painted figure in a mostly romanticly painted painting, bringing to mind the Greek statues and roman gods via pose, dress, and symbolism: Delecroix wanted Marianne to be liberty personified. She poses statically in a painting filled with movement, and she is the central and highpoint in the painting. Her dress drapes in such a way as to hang like a toga and reveal much of her bosom, trait familiar to ancient sculpture. 

She stands in the middle of a battlefield, barefoot, half-naked and unmoving, completely unworried about the surrounding mayhem: she doesn't even raise her bayonet. This may be to demonstrate that liberty has already won. Her dress and manner are not particuarly fancy, even peasant-like: if she is a goddess-figure, she is the people's figure. Her dress is yellow, a color that brings joy and happiness to mind, and her belt is red. This directs the eyes path: the eye flows from the middle of the painting to Marianne's face, where she sports rosy cheeks and a phyrigian cap. The eyes jump from there to the flag, the third tripe of which is red, before traveling down the flag pole, pausing at Marianne's belt, before leaping to the kneeling woman's head covering and belt. Marianne's belt also looks a little bit like a stream because of how it flows around and behind her, and the two tails of the ribbon meet in a cross. For these reasons, the belt might be a tribute to those who had and will die for liberty, and/or it may indicate God's favor with the war: in spite of France thoroughly annoying the Church in the 1780s, the Catholic Church had been brought back into France by 1801, and religion had always been important to many Europians, even before then. The belt is part of a triangle formed between the colors on Marianne's face, flag and belt, and that triangle both directs the vision downwards and ensures that both the flag and Mirianne's face and cap are noticed.

Marianne is wearing a phyrigian cap; an accessory indigenous to ancient Rome, the caps marked freed slaves. The French revolutionaries adopted these caps as a symbol while they worked to escape their absolute monarchy. A fairly obvious symbol, it is double-sided: it demonstrates both their goal, what will be written on their victory banner, and it shows what they think about the system they were fighting. The fact that their chosen symbol is so obviously connected with freedom and was something to be worn in the streets, the revolutionaries must have felt it was a worthy cause and battle cry that would draw people into agreement. The fact that the cap used to symbolize freedom for slaves, implies that the french revolutionaries considered themselves slaves to the government, at least when the cap was first adopted. She also carries the flag, waving in the center and at the top of the painting. The white of the flag  almost fades into the clouds in the background: this may simply be an attempt to make the red and blue more striking, or it might be another sign of God's approval.

A typical classical painting trick is to use triangles in the structure of the painting, used to draw attention to a single point. There are two main triangles formed in Lady Liberty Leading the People: one by man in top hat, the woman kneeling and the boy beside Marianne, and the other triangle formed by the boy, the man in top hat, and Lady Liberty herself.  These draw attention to  the woman kneeling and Marianne, respectively, who are connected by line of sight along Marianne's flag's pole. As mentioned above, this painting was held back and kept from display because of the inflammatory strength of Marianne. Perhaps Delecroix recognized this possibility, and painted the other woman in there to provide contrast to Marianne, and imply that normal women did not wander around on the battlefront carrying bayonets.

Another interesting idea in this peace is the existence certain inalienable rights. Several such rights are outlined in The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, including the rights to have an individual opinion and to communicate it: both of these rights are expressed by the existence of the political propaganda itself. It is interesting to note that in the thesaurus, ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ are synonymous, and  the Oxford-English Dictionary definition of ‘freedom’, is “The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint” (English-Oxford Dictionary). This isn't just Lady Liberty leading her people to a fight for freedom. This was a fight for their rights as well.

The foreground of the painting shows that the fighters are willing to kill and die for their rights, demonstrated by the men along the bottom of the image. Some of the men were soldier’s uniforms, and another wears only a shirt and a sock: these deaths are striking in that, unlike the art common to the era, not only is death depicted, it’s depicted in a brutally ugly and honest way, bringing home the cost of the victory. It is possible that these deaths are particularly ugly because, by 1790s, the army that this painting implies the people fought would have been made up of home-grown soldiers, normal French citizens sent off to war. Another possible reason is that by the early 1800s, most of the French were sick and tired of war and death.

Equality is idea was particularly obvious in the people surrounding Marianne: people of all ages, sexes, classes and races have come out to fight for their freedom. To Marianne’s right a little boy who appears to be lower-middle class, eager to fight the enemy with pistols drawn and blazing. Before her kneels a partially-obscured woman, who appears to be asking or begging for something from her. Marianne, a female in herself, bears a bayonet with apparent comfort, and the ease of long use. Meanwhile, at Marianne’s left stand two easily distinguishable men: an upper-class merchant who wears a black jacket, tie and top hat while he holds his rifle cocked, and a man with dark skin, wearing beret and pistols. This man could quite easily be someone's heir due to France's unique inheritance traditions. If a child is born of a Caucasian man and his slave, then the child was often taken in by the father, fed, clothed, sent to school, taken care of, and allowed to inherit.

The background is hazy, with just enough detail to set the painting in France: the buildings themselves are from all over France, and were merely shown together in this image: this may be, again, to clarify that the setting is in France, and it may be to imply that the revolution is happening everywhere throughout France. The corners of the painting are darkened with approaching night and the smoke that obscures the sky suggests that the battle was just recently fought, setting the mood and adding a touch of realism. There is a hazy shadow behind the hoard of people to Marianne's left, implying the untold multitudes who were willing to fight and die for their freedom.

What do you think? Any other symbols that strike you?

France and Black Market Books

Was France ineffective at censoring books, or too effective? One could argue either way.

On the one hand, France had a booming black market. That means, if nothing else, something that people wanted was illegal and hard to get. If getting the products were easy, the market wouldn't be booming: people would just go and get their own, cutting out the expensive middleman. If the products were legal, there would not be a black market for the product in the first place. If the product are illegal and hard to get a hold of, it often means that the body that declared the product illegal is doing a pretty good job keeping the product out of the area. France had a booming black market in illegal books, so it is reasonable to think that France was doing such an effective job at censoring books to make this market necessary.

On the other hand, the uncensored books were still making their way into France: this, by definition of 'to censor',  the censor was ineffective. To censor, according to wikipedia, is to suppress communication which may be considered objectionable. According to Miriam Webster's Online Dictionary, however, it is to examine in order to suppress anything considered objectionable. The Free Online Dictionary and Dictionary.com agree with the Miriam definition. I make this distinction for the simple reason that the slight difference between the two given definitions makes a difference in the argument whether or not France was effective in their censoring. France succeeded in it's fight to suppress objectionable information: if the product was not suppressed, in this case made illegal, it would not have become a black market. At the same time, France failed in it's attempts to examine most of what passed through the black market: it was hardly likely a shady merchant would take all his wares to the nearest censor and ask him if everything checked out.

I generally believe that France was too effective at censoring which lead to it's inability to censor: if a spring is wound too tight, it will become useless. Likewise, if the censoring becomes too good, ways will be devised to make it less good. I would be curious to learn more about how France censured it's books and how it's black market worked.

Bacon, Simplified

Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, Simplified


1. 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; beyond this he neither knows anything nor can do anything.

No one can understand or do anything about anything s/he has never seen before.


19. There are and can be only two ways of searching into and discovering truth. The one flies from the senses and particulars to the most general axioms, and from these principles, the truth of which it takes for settled and immovable, proceeds to judgment and to the discovery of middle axioms. And this way is now in fashion. The other derives axioms from the senses and particulars, rising by a gradual and unbroken ascent, so that it arrives at the most general axioms last of all. This is the true way, but as yet untried.

There are two ways to answer a question. One is to look at the proof, and make a leap of logic. This is what is common [in Bacon's time]. The other is to use the proof and examine that proof for answers, like the scientific method. This method would work, if people used it.


22. Both ways set out from the senses and particulars, and rest in the highest generalities; but the difference between them is infinite. For the one just glances at experiment and particulars in passing, the other dwells duly and orderly among them. The one, again, begins at once by establishing certain abstract and useless generalities, the other rises by gradual steps to that which is prior and better known in the order of nature.

Both ways [of answering a question] are similar in the fact that one starts off with 'proof', but nothing else relates the two. One barely glances at the proof, while the other uses the proof to puzzle out the answer. The first method remarks on a series of useless facts, while the other is a step-by-step process.


31. It is idle to expect any great advancement in science from the superinducing and engraving of new things upon old. We must begin anew from the very foundations, unless we would revolve for ever in a circle with mean and contemptible progress.

It is lazy to expect different results when repeating the same things in a new dress. If we ever want to get anywhere, we need to start from the basics.


36. One method of delivery alone remains to us; which is simply this: We must lead men to the particulars themselves, and their series and order; while men on their side must force themselves for awhile to lay their notions by and begin to familiarise themselves with facts.

We [the scientific community] can only present our findings in one way: we have to show people the proof, what was discovered from that proof, and how; the people themselves must make themselves listen. We can not force anyone to learn.

To read more of Bacon's Novum Organum, click here.

Geocentric

I enjoy debates, and debating, and I always enjoy trying to be a convincing devil's advocate. It is an interesting exercise, usually. This is the argument that I was just imagining:

What arguments for a geocentric universe might one be able to make today in a debate over heliocentric vs. a geocentric, particularly against a high-school student with a background similar to mine? If you can not prove your side right, it is acceptable to keep from being proven wrong.

original theory -> argument towards it being true.

crystal spheres -> who says that crystal is the substance, as supposed to a description thereof? Beyond that, there is something keeping the planets and stars from changing position too much. No reason you can't call it a series of crystal spheres, and no reason it would not seem like a set of complicated spheres/ 3D ovals.

revolve around the sun -> Have you ever seen the earth revolve around the sun? No? Then you are just basing your knowledge on things you have no proof of, and have never seen. You just trust what others are telling you, and that does not mean it's necessarily right. Point in case: witch burnings, sacrifices, every time the government has exploited the unwashed masses, etc. You say there are movies that exist, showing the earth rotating around the sun? Ignoring the fact that the sun would be too bright to look at, videos are easy enough to fake. First rule of Descartes' method: "don't take anything for true which you do not clearly know as such".

heaven -> ignoring all the arguments that it doesn't exist, there is no reason it might not simply be beyond the horizon. Since heaven is religious, and religion by definition can not be proven T/F, this topic will be left be.

Galileo's Recant

Galileo’s decision to recant was the best choice possible in the long run. Had Galileo not recanted, he likely would have been tortured, maybe even killed; while the Pope was reluctant to do so when Galileo might recant, there is no reason he might not change his mind if Galileo became a bigger threat. At the very least, he would have been arrested. He would have become a martyr for the cause of questioning everything, but a martyr rarely does much alone.


At absolute best, it would have spurred on a rebellion, which, after a long and likely body-strewn ‘war’, might have lead to a new age of enlightenment in the best-case scenario. In that case, it would be quite a while until everything settled down, and longer still until Galileo’s experiments were repeated, results found out, information published, and it still probably would not have been as respected as it was coming from Galileo. The worst-case scenario in a rebellion situation would have been a gory massacre.

Had Galileo been tortured or killed, he might have become an example of why to obey the Church, like Bruno was. That runs the risk of scaring everyone into obedience until they forget about it, or some other hero comes along.

Of all these situations, arrest is the most boring. Had Galileo simply been arrested, he would have been watched too closely to write anything useful, assuming he would have even been allowed to experiment at all.



Because Galileo did not recant, he was left in peace, in relatively good health, by the church, and was able to finish and write up his research.