Constitutions

The 1801 constitution of Saint- Domingue written primarily by Toussaint L'Ouverture.
The 1791 constitution of France.
Obviously this is not my blog post for the Haitian Revolution.

Voodoo Raises Questions about Religion and Violence

Voodoo, an ecstatic rather than fertility based religion, is a combination of Roman Catholicism and the culture of the West African people. In August 1791, Dutty Boukman conducted a voodoo ceremony at Bois Caiman in order to deliver the enslaved blacks to freedom. Apparently, a woman started dancing “raucously” and sacrificed a pig. Then, on August 22, 1791, the slaves rose up against their masters. Voodoo was an integral part to the Haiti Revolution, because it provided people hope and it created unity. Now the question is whether or not Duke Boukman’s ceremony actually led to the enslaved people’s victory. Unfortunately, this ceremony has been widely misinterpreted throughout the years. Just recently, Pat Robertson said that the 2010 Haitian earthquake could be attributed to Haiti’s pact with Satan in 1791. He went on to explain that during the Haitian Revolution, the people agreed to serve Satan in return for their freedom and now they must pay consequences. While I do not agree with this statement, I must agree that ecstatic religions as a whole are not extremely ethical or civilized.

Voodoo appears to revert modern- day people to ancient practices. The barbaric tendencies, sacrifices, and additional archaic practices in voodoo promote violence. Furthermore, the principles of ecstatic religions contradict the basic scientific principles that govern the world.While I admire the principles that voodoo promotes such as health and protection of the family, the idea that spirits can enter a human body is dangerous and simply untrue. When the spirit consumes a person, that person is called a horse. It is this animalistic relationship between humans and voodoo that makes it extremely controversial. When should one draw the line during religious ceremonies? I believe that sacrifice and barbaric rituals should never be incorporated into a modern- day religion.

Violence and barbaric sacrifice are crucial elements to voodoo, though violence should never become an essential part of religion. Analyzing history clearly shows the unwanted consequences of this. For example, the Crusades, the wars fought in order to disperse Christian ideas, and the jihad of radical Muslims, which is used to justify violence, both have disastrous consequences. However, I believe that one should defend one’s right to the freedom of religion, because this is a basic human principle that each person needs. Fighting for one’s fundamental rights is more honorable than fighting in order to promote (and force) religion upon others.


http://kunsoo1024.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/bois-caiman.jpg

While violence and religion should never intertwine, the soldiers in wars probably heavily rely on religion to give them security and love when all they witness is hatred and horror. The purpose of religion is to create a belief system that explains one’s world. Therefore, the connection between violence and religion in this case is admirable; the people are bravely fighting for their countries always resort to religion in order to aid them.

Which rituals and ceremonies are socially acceptable and considered civilize in today’s world? When should religion use religion to promote its concepts? Are soldiers’ religious backgrounds admirable or hypocritical?

Conflict Resolution in England and France

A government can be assessed based on how it responds to opposition. If a government immediately clamps down on revolts, then this government is either extremely effective or tyrannical. On the flip side, if the government surrenders and allows the protests, it is either progressive and open to improvement or a weak, vulnerable system. The key in creating a strong government is trying to get a helpful balance in either of these categories. A tyrannical or weak government leads to dire consequences. Two main examples of rebellions in history were the Boston Tea Party, a revolt in opposition Britain’s Tea Act, and the Great Fear, a rebellion in which peasants overcame their masters in France. The governments, in both of these cases, were monarchies but they handled the situations in completely different ways.

Britain imposed the Tea Act on its colonies in order to prevent the East India Company from sinking into bankruptcy. It essentially allowed the East India company to monopolize all tea trade. Once the colonists of Boston performed the Boston Tea Party, Britain instantly retaliated with the Coercive Acts, or the Intolerable Acts, which limited the rights of Boston. England’s monarchy controlled the rebellion, but the action eventually backfired because it galvanized the colonists even more, ultimately leading to their independence.

In France, which also had monarchy, had a rebellion called the Great Fear. The Great Fear occurred in response to King Louis XVI’s limitations on the National Assembly. Peasants in the countryside began to ransack manors, stand up to their masters, and burn the contracts that outlined their duties. However, on August 4, 1789, the duke of Aiguillon, one of France’s greatest noble landowners, destroyed the nobles’ privileges, eliminated feudal duties, and enforced equality in taxation. However, the duke of Aiguillon, though he consented to the people’s wishes, was not weak and submissive. In fact, his courageous actions saved the monarchy from even stronger rebellion. If he had sent troops to subdue the people, the repercussions would have been even more violent and crazed, as was the case after the Boston Tea Party.

Overall, though England and France were essentially run the same way, as monarchies, they dealt with two crucial oppositions in completely different ways. These two situations show the fundamental differences between England and France. England’s reaction led to further violence. England made no attempts to compromise with the colonies, such as adopting actual representation or giving people more rights. While they withdrew certain taxes, such as the Stamp Act, they did not make attempts to alter their political philosophy at all. Therefore, the repeals of various acts were only superficial attempts to create peace. On the contrary, France’s reaction delayed violent acts, because the duke of Aiguillon gave the commoners more rights and took away noble privileges, even though he himself was a noble. While France had a much more bloody revolution, the monarchy of France attempted to correct its flaws and become a better government. For example, King Louis XVII actually supported the National Assembly at first for he urged reforms and forced all three estates to meet as one body so that discussion could be facilitated easier. While he cracked down on the assembly later (of course, France’s monarchy made some significant errors which resulted in revolution; they were by no means a perfect nation), the intentions of France were more well-meaning. In all, though England and France were politically similar, but the way they handled opposition ultimately affected their revolutions and relationships with the people.

Federalists vs. Antifederalists: Why a Central Government Creates an Effective Nation

When the Constitution of the United States of America was completed in 1787, two very different parties formed, each with contradictory views. The main issue was the strength of the central government and who has power. The Federalists, chaired by Alexander Hamilton, believed in a strong, central, national government in which the power lay in the wealthy elite. The Antifederalists, led by Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry, believed that the national government should be very weak and that the states governments should have more power. In addition, they believed that sovereignty always lies in the people. While the Antifederalists’ concerns about the government’s power and people’s rights were understandable, the Federalists’ national government will create a stronger nation, because it enforces laws while protecting people’s rights.

The Antifederalists believed that power should lie with the common people and that the Constitutional Convention should create a bill of rights. Both of these ideas are extremely important, because they reflect the exact views that colonists had years ago when they fought in the American Revolution. In particular, Thomas Jefferson supported the Antifederalists. He believed that people were naturally born to help the common good. In 1789, he states, “Whenever the people are well- informed, they can be trusted with their own government; whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them on rights.” Jefferson supports John Locke’s ideology, and his faith in the commoners is admirable. Since people are destined to help the general public, each person should have some sort of say in the government. In addition, since the power lies within the people, each person should be completely free. The Antifederalists pushed for a document later known as “The Bill of Rights” which secured the people’s natural liberties such as the freedom of the press, religion, speech, etc. If people’s rights are not defined, the nation will eventually collapse. Several examples include the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Haitian Revolution. The Antifederalists’ views are extremely justifiable and are genuinely geared towards the greater good.

While the Antifederalists made several key points, the Federalists’ views will surely lead to a stronger government. The Federalists believed in a central government that enforced laws but still protected people. As R.B. Bernstein noted in “The Argument over the Constitution”, “Federalists insisted that a bill of rights was unnecessary, because the Constitution gave the federal government no powers to infringe or interfere with individual rights.” There is a misconception that the Federalists were tyrannical and overbearing. The Federalists still very much believed in people’s inalienable rights. However, they also believed in a national government, and they created executive and judiciary branches that actually enforced laws. For example, the Whiskey Rebellion was immediately demolished when nearly 15,000 militiamen were sent to Pennsylvania. As Alexander Hamilton once said, “…of magnifying a riot in an insurrection, by employing in the first instance an adequate force. ‘Tis better to err on the other side. Whenever the government appears in arms, it ought to appear like a Hercules, and inspire respect by the display of strength.” Hamilton suggests that the government NEEDS to control its people in order to survive. In a decentralized government revolts like Shays’ Rebellion could occur. George Washington agreed with Hamilton’s views and in response to Shays’ Rebellion, George Washington stated, “Employ the force of government against them at once.” Here Washington is very clear about how executive branch should handle the people. On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson declared, “A little rebellion now and then is a good thing…It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” The Antifederalists’ lackadaisical attitude towards punishment directly illustrates how people will NEVER be controlled in their system, while they can be in the Federalist system.

In all, the Antifederalists’ views on human rights were very important, but the Federalists’ political model was very effective. The classic debate between weak and strong national governments still exists today. The Tea Party, a new political group led by Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, Bill Miller, and Rand Paul, believes in decreasing the national government’s power. According to “Why Business Doesn’t Trust the Tea Party” in Bloomberg BusinessWeek, “[the Tea Party will] preserve the Bush tax cuts, end the estate tax, lower taxes on savings and dividends, repeal the federal health- care reform law, abolish the Federal Reserve, and shrink federal agencies…That’s certainly what the leaders of this anarchic, decentralized movement are selling.” The deduction of power cannot be good for a country, especially one like America, that is in terrible need of political, social, and economic guidance. While the Tea Party, like the Antifederalists, wants to preserve people’s rights, their ideas are not practical nor effective. In all, the Federalist government model will ensure a strong nation.


----Dr. Korfhage, could you please review my thesis in a comment? Is it what you are looking for?

Why the American Revolution Occurred Before the French Revolution: Factors that Led to a Radical Revolt

The American and French Revolutions marked significant changes in power in the 18th century. However, America’s revolution occurred much earlier on in the country’s history, while it took France centuries to overthrow its monarchy. To begin with, America was first settled in the early 1600’s while France’s history extends back for many years. Since the colonies were relatively new, people understood that they had the power to set precedents for that area for years. The colonists were open to new ideas, unlike the French who were stuck in the old cycle of monarchy. Crucial historic, geographical, social, and economic factors influenced the colonies’ view of England’s dominance until the revolution finally commenced. America’s revolution happened before France’s revolution, because there was a geographical divide between the people and monarchy, unified colonists, economic equality within the colonies, and accessible, revolutionary ideas.

The geographical divide between the colonies and England let the colonists experience a quasi- independence. England could not censor the people as easily and effectively as they would have liked. For example, the Navigation Acts required all imports to go first through London and then to America. However, England’s salutary neglect exhibited their inability to control people so faraway. Plus, without the chief rulers on the same continent with the common people there was a substantial disconnection between rulers, such as King George III, George Grenville, Lord Chatham, Lord North, and Charles Townshend, and the people. In addition, the rulers were not able to truly experience the colonists’ energy or hear their desires first- hand. They relied on letters such as "The Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress, in 1765" in order to receive feedback. The weak bond between England and the colonies is apparent when King George III stated in his Letter to Shelburne in 1782:
"I cannot conclude without mentioning how sensibly I feel the dismemberment of America from this empire, and that I should be miserable indeed if I did not feel that no blame on that account can be laid at my door, and I did not also know that knavery seems to be so much the striking feature of its inhabitants that it may not in the end be an evil that they will become aliens to this kingdom."
King George III explicitly states the fact that the colonies will, in all likelihood, become isolated from England during the war. Overall, the physical disconnection between the people and monarchy led to hostility and lack of unity as well as a false sense of independence.

Though people were detached from England, the people’s discontentment with England actually united the people under a common goal. Originally, the diverse colonies were segregated, but they gradually began to form one, strong body. For example, Samuel Adams in 1772 proposed a “committee of correspondence” which would publicize condemnations of England in Massachusetts. Other colonies did the same, and political organizations began to sprout up that eventually connected the people. On the contrary, the French Revolution widened the gap between the poor commoners with the wealthy leaders. Social unity is imperative in a revolution against the state, and in America this was certainly not lacking.

In America, the majority of people were socially and economically equal. The gap between the rich and the poor was not that large. As Gordon S. Wood, a professor at Brown University, states in his essay called “Radical Possibilities of the American Revolution”:
"…growing prosperity contributed to the… sense that people here and now were capable of ordering their own reality…Therefore any possibility of oppression, any threat to the colonists’ heard- earned prosperity, any hint of reducing them to the poverty of other nations, was especially frightening… Indeed, it was the pervasive equality of American society that was causing the problem."
He discusses the fact that people were finally experiencing the unprecedented idea that the people could control their fate. Therefore, when England’s control took away much of the people’s freedom, especially in Massachusetts once the Coercive (Intolerable) Acts were passed, people were very displeased. England also passed numerous tax laws, restrictions on commerce and manufacturing, the Currency Act, the Navigation Acts, and the Mutiny Act which all threatened the people’s freedom. Unlike in France where the rich and poor lived completely separate lives, the equality in the colonies caused the people to become obsessed with independent living which eventually led to the American Revolution.

Finally, the American Revolution happened before the French Revolution and was ultimately more successful, because ideas were accessible to all people. Everyone in the colonies was included in the revolt, whereas in France the elite people could only access the philosophical ideas from the Enlightenment that formed the basis of the French Revolution. While some elite women did have a say in France’s Enlightenment, in America, women’s opinions were much more valued. Middle- class women formed the Daughters of Liberty, the equivalent of the Sons of Liberty. In addition, ideas were spread through mass-market newspapers, books, and pamphlets while in France most books were imported illegally. Plus, France exalted the elitist salonnières, which excluded the poor. In America, taverns became centers of political debate that even the uneducated and illiterate could participate in. Amid drunken cries, speakers such as Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and John Adams could be heard. In the words of Patrick Henry in 1775:
"The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
Patrick Henry cried for freedom, equality, and independence from England. In all, the colonists promoted revolutionary ideas that were accessible to everyone.

Over all, the American Revolution successfully overthrew its government and reinforced people’s inalienable rights such as liberty, legal equality, and independence. It took France much longer in its extensive history to finally defeat its tyrannical monarchy. America was more victorious than France, because of the geographical divide between the sovereign and the colonies, united colonists, socially and economically equal people, and accessible, revolutionary ideas. As The Constitution of the United States of America states in the Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The people during the revolution dreamed of a world of equality, and it was achieved.

For more information about the American Revolution, click here.

Propaganda and Misinterpretation in the Colonies

In the colonies, people invested power into radical patriots. However, their arguments against England were not particularly virtuous, honest, or logical. The patriots’ propaganda skewed Britain’s intentions in order to persuade people to revolt. In addition, the radicals misinterpreted a lot of Britain’s actions. This certainly caused people to defy England eve more, though it was not always deserved. One example of the colonists’ propaganda was Paul Revere’s drawing of the Boston Massacre called Innocent Blood Crying to God from the Streets of Boston. To this day, it is still not clear who fired the first shot during the massacre. However, Revere depicts the scene as a pre- meditated attack on the colonists. In actuality, the Sons of Liberty instigated Captain Thomas Preston of the British regiment to stand up to the frustrated rebels. However, Revere’s representation of the night of March 5, 1770 led people to twist events in order to fit their personal opinions. The colonies supported freedom of the press and clear information from the authorities; therefore, Revere’s drawing contradicted the wishes of the colonists and misinformed his audience. While propaganda certainly affected the colonists’ radical patterns of thinking, sometimes the general public simply misinterpreted events. For example, as part of the Quebec Act, England legalized the Roman Catholic Church. While these notable actions actually promoted religious tolerance, the colonists believed that England was trying to convert people to Catholicism and assert the pope’s power over them. Naturally, this was not England’s intent, but the colonists just saw it as another example of England’s overarching supremacy. Overall, propaganda and misinterpretation led people to revolt against England, even though it might not have always been deserved.

The Plight of Women

In Women in the Salons by Bonnie S. Anderson and Judith P. Zinsser, it states, “The saloniere—witty, independent, powerful, well- read, and sometimes libertine—was condemned and mocked” (Sherman 49). Why? Why would a well- educated, attractive, polite woman be condemned? The plight of women during the Enlightenment, particularly in France’s salons, was remarkably similar to the role of women in the 1950’s, when the majority of women were housewives. Even in the 1950’s, once women began to seek careers, the housewives would mock those that sought to establish themselves professionally. This is also evident in modern times. Smart, highly- driven women are underestimated by men and scoffed at by other women. Apparently, the idea of a successful woman is threatening, whether it is the 1700’s or 1900’s.

During the Enlightenment, salioneres could get their foot in the door during powerful meetings and influential discussions among government officials, writers, and philosophers. However, they could not truly contribute. The irony is that the Enlightenment was a time when men questioned race, absolute government, religion, and society. However, they forgot to discuss women and their rights. As Mary Wollstonecraft states in A Vindication of the Rights of Women, “…one- half of the human race excluded by the other from all participation of government was a political phenomenon…” (Sherman 42). She means that 50% of the population is considered completely useless, yet if women’s skills could be maximized and utilized, nations would be 100% stronger. Overall, women were underestimated and not given the rights that belong to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A book that I read over the summer called Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide by Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn discusses women’s rights but with a twist. As some of you may know, I am the Co- Founder and Co- President (specifically the Event Coordinator and Treasurer) of Love146, a new CSI at MKA. Women’s rights have certainly been a problem and even today’s age, women are oppressed through the sex trade. Certainly, human trafficking is a much graver issue than women in France’s salons, but they both stem from the fact that women are simply underappreciated in today’s world. Nevertheless, Love146 is dedicated to putting an end to that.

For more information about joining Love146, donating to the Hope Revolution Walkathon, or participating in the walkathon (October 2nd in Brooklyn, NY) please get in touch with Love146’s Student and Faculty Contact, Serena Dunbar at sdunbar16@gmail.com.