The Philosophy of History (1837)

/in /by

Background:  In The Philosophy of History (1837), Georg Hegel, an influential German  philosopher, stated: “At this point we leave Africa, not to mention it  again. For it is no historical part of the World; it has no movement or  development to exhibit . . . . What we properly understand by Africa, is  the Unhistorical, Undeveloped Spirit, still involved in the conditions  of mere nature, and which had to be presented here only as on the  threshold of the World’s History.” More than one hundred years later,  the British professor, Hugh Trevor-Roper, echoed Hegel’s assertions in  his book, The Rise of Christian Europe: “Perhaps in the future there  will be some African history to teach. But at the present there is none;  there is only the history of Europeans in Africa. The rest is darkness,  and darkness is not the subject of history” (1964).
Assignment: Write an essay in which you critically reflect and respond  to Hegel’s and Trevor-Roper’s comments above about Africa. Your essay  should be 4-5 pages, typed and doubled spaced and must conform to the  current edition edition of the APA (Publication Manual of the American  Psychological Association) and submitted through Safeassign as a  Microsoft Word attachment (PDF or other file types will not be graded).
Instructions: Your essay must include the following components:
1.An introductory paragraph that provides a critical overview of Hegel’s  and Trevor-Roper’s statements. The overview must place the statements  within the historical context of the widespread myths and stereotypes of  Africa held in the Western world.
2.A body of the essay that includes several paragraphs. In this section,  you will identify and select two or three areas—political, economic,  social-cultural institutions/practices (education, family, religion,  etc). Then, critically evaluate and discuss how the areas functioned in  pre-colonial Africa and the changes and exchanges that transpired in  those areas during the colonial and post-colonial periods.
3.Your concluding paragraph should summarize your ideas about this  topic. It should examine to what extent the new knowledge of Africa  obtained from AFA 201 has reinforced or debunked the widespread myths  and stereotypes of Africa held in the Western world such as the one  embraced by Hegel and Trevor-Roper.
4.The question tests your understanding of the entire course content for  AFA 201. Your essay will need to include references to at least five  articles discussed in class during the semester. You may include  additional materials from other sources (articles/books/videos relevant  to our course). But, the five cited materials from your course are a  minimum. Your references need to be well integrated into your essay.
5.Your essay must be clearly written, using correct grammar and  spelling. It is expected that you will approach the writing of this  essay seriously. The current edition of the Publication Manual of the  American Psychological Association (APA) will be the required reference  for the writing and citation guidelines for this essay. Please contact  your instructor if you have questions.

Renaissance of Pan-Africanism: the African Union Author(s): K. Mathews Source: India International Centre Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 4 (SPRING 2005), pp. 143-155 Published by: India International Centre Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23005987 Accessed: 21-11-2017 22:07 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

 

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Terms and Conditions of Use

India International Centre is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to India International Centre Quarterly

This content downloaded from 157.89.65.129 on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:07:17 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 

 

K. Mathews

Renaissance of Pan-Africanism: the African Union

The poverty and backwardness of Africa stand in stark contrast to the prosperity of the developed world. The continued marginalisation of Africa

from the globalisation process and the social exclusion of the majority of its peoples constitute a serious threat to global stability.

(NEPAD, 2001)

Africa must reject the ways of the past, and commit itself to building a future of democratic governance subject to the rule of law. Such a future

is only achievable on the condition that we end Africa’s conflicts, without which no amount of aid or trade, assistance or advice, will make the difference.

(Kofi Annan, 2001)

The thing we have done today, in this small corner of a great continent that has contributed so decisively to the evolution of humanity, says that Africa reaffirms that the continent is continuing its rise from the ashes. … Whatever the setbacks of the movement, nothing can stop us now! Whatever the difficulties, Africa shall be at peace! However improbable it may sound to the sceptics, Africa will prosper…

(Thabo Mbeki, 2002)

The last quotation echoes the Roman philosopher Pliny’s famous dictum on Africa: Ex Africa semper aliquid novi (There is always

something new from Africa). Indeed, Africa today is on the threshold of a new era. From Maputo to Marakesh, from Dakar to Dar-es Salaam, and from Cairo to Cape Town, hope and real success are transforming the continent at the dawn of the twenty-first century.

This content downloaded from 157.89.65.129 on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:07:17 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 

 

144 / India International Centre Quarterly

After decades of stagnation and malaise, a new determination is emerging to move Africa forward, despite continuing crises and contradictions. The latest optimistic development is the ending of the more than twenty-year-old civil war in Southern Sudan on the basis of a historic peace agreement signed in Nairobi, Kenya, on January 9, 2005. It marks a watershed in the history of Africa’s largest country. At the same time, it is a continent still beset by economic and social crises. The dramatic changes in the global system brought about by the ending of the Cold War and related events have had a far-reaching impact on Africa.

During the decade of the 1990s, there occurred an unprecedented political revolution in Africa variously characterised as the ‘new wind of change’, ‘a second liberation’, etc. At no time since the end of colonialism has the popular struggle for political and economic reform in Africa been stronger than in the 1990s, and the early years of the twenty-first century From the Afro-optimism of the 1960s and 1970s and Afro-pessimism of 1980s and 1990s, there is, once more, growing optimism about the future of Africa.

The most striking development in this direction was the establishment of a new, improved regional organisation for the continent, the African Union (AU) in July 2002, which replaced the 39-year-old Organisation of African Unity (OAU). This event marked a renaissance of Pan-Africanism, i.e., Africa’s quest for unity and dignity, and for an equitable place in the emerging world order.

In the early 1960s, the major challenge facing Africa was to put an end to colonisation and imperialism. The OAU was founded by African leaders in 1963 largely to meet this challenge. Mobilising through the OAU, the collective efforts of African countries towards ridding the continent of the scourges of colonisation and apartheid was deemed necessary for Africa to play an effective role in the world order. The primacy of political over economic matters in the charter of the OAU arose from the general belief that once the political independence of African countries was achieved and consolidated, the process of sustained and rapid development would automatically follow. The OAU was more political rather than economic in its orientation. It was conceived primarily from a determination to safeguard and consolidate Africa’s political independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity The formation of the AU, on the other hand, was prompted by the need to address socio-economic and political challenges facing the continent in the twenty-first century.

This content downloaded from 157.89.65.129 on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:07:17 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 

 

K. Mathews / 145

Another significant new initiative taken by African leaders was the adoption of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) at the Lusaka Summit of the OAU in July 2001. It provides a comprehensive, integrated development plan that addresses key social, economic and political principles for the continent. It entails a commitment by African leaders to African people and the international community to place Africa on the path of sustainable growth, accelerated by integration of the continent into the global economy. NEPAD determines that peace, security, democracy, and good economic and corporate governance are preconditions for sustainable development. It also proposes a system of voluntary peer review, and adherence to codes and standards of conduct. In July 2002, at the inaugural summit of the AU in Durban, heads of state and government issued a NEPAD Declaration on democracy, political, economic and corporate good governance.

The AU and NEPAD are twin plans for the political union and economic recovery of African countries; and to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. In a sense they were born out of necessity occasioned by the end of the Cold War, growth of globalisation and the need for a fundamental change in the iniquitous international economic system. Born of a desire to revive a much-maligned continent, ravaged by centuries of exploitation, oppression, war and hunger, these new initiatives have formed part of a concerted drive by new African leaders to put the continent on a track towards sustainable growth and development. The AU and NEPAD are both relatively new names on the African political landscape. An attempt is made in this paper to assess the role and relevance of the African Union in Africa’s quest for unity and prosperity.

The ideological basis of the African Union, like the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) earlier, is Pan-Africanism: the desire to promote unity, solidarity, cohesion and cooperation among

the peoples of Africa, and of African states. Pan-Africanism has been a compelling dream of Africans and the African diaspora, for at least a hundred years. As an idea and movement, it reflects pride in the African continent and Africanness, and a commitment to unity and self-rule. Before independence, common colour and shared suffering under European colonialism provided an adequate basis for the

This content downloaded from 157.89.65.129 on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:07:17 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 

 

146 / India International Centre Quarterly

development of Pan-Africanism. Following independence, however, African leaders only paid lip service to the ideology.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the idea of African political unification, as advocated by Kwame Nkrumah, could not find support among the vast majority of African leaders. In May 1963, at the founding of the OAU, Africa was not ready to come together in a strong union of African states along the lines of the United States of America, or the European Union—everyone is aware of the benefits that the two unions have brought the Americans and the Europeans. Pan Africanism involves a willingness to surrender part of national sovereignty for the greater unity of Africa. The present organisation of Africa into some 53-odd independent sovereign states, mostly small and largely unviable, provides the most suitable climate for dependence, underdevelopment and marginalisation of the continent.

Among the most potent of Africa’s development constraints has been the fragility and insignificance (in terms of population and income) of African economies. Nearly thirty countries in Africa have a population of less than ten million. Only five countries—Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, D.R. of Congo and South Africa—have a population of over fifty million. The insignificant nature of the markets makes it difficult to attract foreign investment and achieve economies of scale production, which are crucial for the attainment of productivity, growth and competitiveness in a globalising world, contributing in no small measure to the marginalisation of Africa in the global economy.

The problem of creating political and economic unity in Africa, for which the OAU was created in 1963, remained an unfinished task.

Considering the rough journey it has had from its inception, the OAU has accomplished several tasks during its life span of 39 years. Only a few states were independent when the OAU was established in 1963. Consequently, one of the cardinal missions of the OAU was the decolonisation of the continent, and it has successfully accomplished its role in that regard. The OAU has also done a remarkable job in peace-making and peace-building activities in Africa. Yet Africa’s worsening debt burden, lack of culture of democratic governance and absence of large-scale popular participation in political and economic life within transparent and efficient state structures, and sluggish economic development, are the OAU’s Achilles’ heel.

The total debt of the continent which is about US$ 300 billion

and which accounts for more than one hundred per cent of the GNP,

This content downloaded from 157.89.65.129 on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:07:17 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 

 

K. Mathews/ 147

and over 360 per cent of the total export earnings of most of its members was enough to intensify OAU’s frustration and pessimism. The irresponsible interventionist politics of the Cold War between the East and the West and its gripping, paralysing effect on the African leadership, deprived the OAU of the political will and prowess to be self-reliant. This made the OAU, to some extent, an impotent organisation. The various plans and proposals for African unity, such as the Lagos Plan of Action (LPA), 1980, remained only on paper.

The decade of the 1990s was characterised by turbulent and crucial developments in African history. Since the adoption of the historic Abuja Treaty creating the African Economic Community (AEC) in 1991, the idea of Pan-Africanism assumed new dynamism and relevance. The AEC formally came into force in May 1994. The Abuja Treaty, among others, recommended the establishment of an African Union and a Pan-African Parliament (PAP). The peaceful and miraculous ending of apartheid in South Africa in 1994 was a crucial development in African history. The 1990s also witnessed the efflorescence of democracy on the continent.

In April 1997, Thabo Mbeki predicted the rebirth of Africa in the twenty-first century. ‘African Renaissance’ soon became a buzzword for the emerging new generation of African leaders. The idea of an African renaissance embodies the vision of a more dynamic, stable, integrated and prosperous Africa. The new generation of African leaders believed that Africa is capable of being resurrected from the ashes of continuing conflicts, famine, poverty and marginalisation in the world. This vision formed the basis of the creation of the African Union.

The decision to form the African Union was taken in July 1999 at the OAU Summit held in Algiers, Algeria, where the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar Gaddafi called for the formation of the United States

of Africa. Following the Algiers Summit, an Extraordinary Session of the OAU Summit was held in Sirte, Libya, on September 9,1999. The main purpose of the Sirte Summit was to amend the charter of the OAU in order to increase its efficiency and effectiveness. The amendment was considered essential in order to enable the OAU to

address new political and socio-economic realities in Africa and the world; to fulfil growing aspirations for greater unity; to eliminate the scourge of conflicts; to meet global challenges and to improve living conditions of the African people.

This content downloaded from 157.89.65.129 on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:07:17 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 

 

148 / India International Centre Quarterly

To achieve these aims, the summit decided, inter-alia, to establish

an African Union in conformity with the ultimate objectives of the charter of the OAU and the provisions of the Abuja Treaty, which established the African Economic Community Adopted at the end of the Sirte Summit, the Sirte Declaration became the bedrock on which the AU was formed. The Constitutive Act of the new African Union

was adopted at the thirty-sixth regular OAU Summit in Lome, Togo, in July 2000. In July 2001, at the thirty-seventh Summit of the OAU in Lusaka, Zambia, African heads of state and government agreed that the new African Union would be declared when they would next meet in Durban, South Africa, in July 2002. They adopted the Lusaka Decision on the Implementation of the African Union. The one-year transition period from the OAU to AU was concluded with the inaugural summit of the African Union in July 2002. On July 9, 2002 the AU was formally launched in Durban, South Africa.

The transformation of the OAU into the African Union is more than a cosmetic change of names. In a real sense, the change represents a qualitative improvement in the process of Africa’s

cooperation and integration: it is expected to impact positively on living conditions and, in the long run, lead to the political and economic union of the continent.The African Union is a political, economic and social project of Africa, moulded along the lines of the European Union (EU). It seeks a higher form of collaborative union for the continent. Unlike the OAU, it has the right and power to intervene in the internal affairs of its member states. The AU vision

forsees a peaceful, integrated and prosperous Africa, driven by its people, a dynamic force in the global community. In general, the African Union objectives are different and more comprehensive than those of the OAU.The main objectives of the AU, as contained in its Constitutive Act, are to:

a. Achieve greater unity and solidarity between African countries and the peoples of Africa;

b. Defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its member states;

c. Accelerate the political and socio-economic integration of the continent;

This content downloaded from 157.89.65.129 on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:07:17 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 

 

K. Mathews /149

d. Promote and defend African common positions on issues of interest to the continent and its peoples;

e. Encourage international cooperation, taking due account of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights; f. Promote peace, security and stability on the continent; g. Promote democratic principles and institutions, popular

participation and good governance; h. Promote and protect human and people’s rights in accordance

with the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and other relevant human rights instruments.

According to its Constitutive Act, the AU will be very different from the OAU: First of all, the AU will have a peace-keeping force, whereas the OAU stressed non-interference in the internal affairs of

member states. Secondly, it will also have its own Central Bank and Court of Justice, and will work towards creating a single currency on the lines of the European Union. Thirdly, it will also have close relations with NEPAD, which pledges improved economic and political governance for the people of Africa. Through NEPAD, African leaders have made a commitment to the African people and the world to work together in building the continent. It is a pledge to promote peace and stability, democracy, sound economic management, people centred development, and to hold each other accountable in terms of the agreement outlined in the programme. The AU is the primary organisation that aims to unite the people of Africa, whereas NEPAD is focused on its socio-economic development.

Structurally, the African Union as envisaged in its Constitutive Act, provides for a form of loose association based on the sovereignty of its member states. It does not provide for an end to the sovereignty of Africa’s individual states. It does not adopt a federalist approach to union or integration, which entails the setting up of a supranational federal authority to regulate the behaviour of the member states, and to assume many of their sovereign rights and obligations. In other words, the African Union does not envisage the establishment of a United States of Africa. It may be said that while the OAU was an organisation for intergovernmental cooperation, the AU is an organisation for integration. While the key objective of the OAU was national liberation and defence of national sovereignty through collective struggle, the key objective of the AU is to enable Africa to

This content downloaded from 157.89.65.129 on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:07:17 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 

 

150 / India International Centre Quarterly

face the challenges of the twenty-first century and strengthen the position of Africa vis-a-vis the global economy and international community.

The AU also differs from the OAU in other important ways. The AU Act is anchored on respect for human rights and people’s participation in the organisation. It specifically provides for “respect for democratic principles, human rights, the rule of law and good governance; respect for the sanctity of human life, condemnation and rejection of impunity and political assassination, acts of terrorism and subversive activities; condemnation and rejection of unconstitutional changes of government” (Article 4). These commitments set new standards for Africa that go far beyond those previously contained in the OAU charter.

The AU has a far more elaborate institutional structure as

compared to the OAU: The OAU consisted of only four main organs; the Assembly of Head of State and Government (the Summit); the Council of Ministers; the Secretariat and the Commission of

The Structure of the African Union

This content downloaded from 157.89.65.129 on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:07:17 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 

 

K. Mathews/ 151

Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration. In 1993, the OAU established

the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution. The Constitutive Act of the AU (Article 5) provides for a more elaborate structure with 17 organs, with the Assembly of Heads of States and Government as the supreme organ of the Union as shown.

he new 53-member AU seeks a higher form of collaborative union for the continent with the right and the power to

JL intervene in internal affairs of its member states. In the short

span of four years of its existence (2002-2005), the African Union has made remarkable progress in many fields. President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, the first elected chairman of the African Union, called

the new organisation a chance for Africa to take its “rightful place” in global affairs and to end the marginalisation of Africa. Rapid efforts have been made to lay the foundations of the African Union in place since its inauguration in Durban, South Africa, in July 2002. The inaugural Durban Summit was able to establish only the basic framework, including the adoption of the Rules of Procedures of the various organs and the Statute of the Commission, and the Protocol establishing the Peace and Security Council.

The second summit of the AU was held in Maputo, Mozambique, on July 4-11,2003. It was attended by over forty heads of African states and other dignitaries. This was primarily concerned with the creation of the Union, institutions and structures, as well as the election of the

president of the commission and eight commissioners. It also evaluated of the progress made in the implementation of NEPAD, particularly in the areas of peace and security, democracy, good governance, poverty reduction and sound economic management. At the start of the Summit, President Chissano of Mozambique assumed the chairmanship of the AU from South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki. Professor Alpha Omar Konare, a former head of state of Mali, was elected chairman of the AU Commission. Patric Kayumba of Rwanda was elected deputy chairperson of the AU. The eight commissioners of the AU elected by the Executive Council were also duly sworn in. The budget of the AU which stood at US$ 43 million for the year 2004, was also considered and approved.

The third summit of the AU was held on July 4-8, 2004 at its headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. It was attended by 48 countries, including 38 heads of state. At the start of the summit,

This content downloaded from 157.89.65.129 on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:07:17 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 

 

152 / India International Centre Quarterly

President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria was elected the chairman of the AU. It took 18 decisions and issued two declarations on important political, economic and social issues of the continent. Among others, the summit made a decision on vision, mission and strategic plan of the AU, 2004-2007. The AU vision is: “A peaceful, integrated and prosperous Africa, driven by its people, a dynamic force in the global community.” The vision’s components consist of “an interdependent, strong and ambitious Africa (Pan-Africanism); opportunities of the globalised community; African values, wealth and diversity of heritage; human and material resources fully utilised in pursuit of progress and prosperity; unity and integration as a platform for growth and progress; and an environment where justice and peace prevail.” The summit also approved the Policy Framework Document on the establishment of the African Standby Force (ASF) and the Military Staff Committee (MSC). Much progress has been made so far in the matter of institutional development.

On March 18, 2004, the Pan-African Parliament (PAP) was formally launched in Addis Ababa. Ambassador Gertrude Mongella of Tanzania was elected as the PAP’s first president. The 202 representatives are selected by 36 member-countries from their national parliaments. The number of representatives is set to rise as more member-countries sign the protocol establishing the parliament. Each member-country nominates five representatives from its national parliament to the PAP, which has its headquarters now in Cape Town, South Africa. Although the Pan-African Parliament does not yet have full legislative powers, it is expected to do so in five years’ time when its members will be elected directly by full universal suffrage. The parliament will only have consultative and advisory powers for the first five years. Eventually it will become the AU’s law-making arm. The parliament has a vital role to play in the implementation of the objectives and principles enshrined in the AU’s Constitutive Act, particularly with regard to the protection of human rights, consolidation of democratic institutions and the promotion of good governance.

Perhaps the most important development in the brief existence of the African Union was the launching of its Peace and Security Council (PSC) on “African Liberation Day” ( May 25, 2004) in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Without peace and stability, the main driver in the formation of the AU, there can be no economic development. The

This content downloaded from 157.89.65.129 on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:07:17 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 

 

K. Mathews/ 153

main challenges facing the Council were the creation of the African Standby Force and the AU’s Early Warning System.

To be set up in a phased manner by 2010, the African Standby Force will undertake peacekeeping operations, including military interventions, if justified. It will also be concerned with humanitarian operations and post-conflict reconstruction. A key objective will be to eliminate the occurrence of unconstitutional changes of government. If the AU member countries will not be fighting each other, then each country can count on the AU force in the case of external aggression, including internal rebel attacks. This obviates the need for disproportionately large national armies. AU members can also contribute a determined percentage of their annual defence budgets to the creation of the Standby Force. There is a need for effective conflict

resolution mechanisms backed by the coersive powers of the African Standby Force (ASF).

It may be said that remarkable progress has been achieved by the AU in the resolution of many crises situations in Africa today— The Comoros, Burundi, Liberia, Cote d’lvoire, The Sudan, Ethiopia Eritrea, Somalia and the Great Lakes Region. A historic final Peace Agreement has been signed in Nairobi on January 9,2005, ending the longest-running civil war in Sudan. One of the most serious crises faced by the continent is related to the situation in Darfur in Western Sudan, which is currently experiencing the most catastrophic humanitarian situation ever known. The crisis in Darfur has come to

be seen as a test for the African Union. The deployment of a Military Observer Mission in Darfur is currently underway in pursuance of the humanitarian ceasefire agreement of April 8, 2004.

The Peer Review Mechanism has been another important aspect of the AU’s work. Africa has always been criticised for poor governance, where African leaders mismanage their economies, become dictators and put their personal interests above the nation’s. To deal with this, a Peer Review Mechanism has been set up, meant to encourage member-states to ensure that their policies and practices conform to agreed political, economic and corporate governance values, codes and standards enshrined in the NEPAD document. It is

about policies, standards and practices that lead to political stability, high economic growth, sustainable development and accelerated economic integration through the sharing of experiences and the reinforcement of best practices, including identifying deficiencies, and assessing the needs for capacity building. It is an African-owned and

This content downloaded from 157.89.65.129 on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:07:17 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 

 

154 / India International Centre Quarterly

managed process that will measure four substantive areas: democracy and political governance; economic governance and management; corporate governance; and socio-economic development. It is important to note that over twenty countries have so far agreed to subject themselves to such scrutiny.

he crucial problems facing Africa today concern poverty and lack of development, aid dependence, debt, continuing

JL conflicts, the AIDS pandemic, and bullying by the major powers through such instruments as the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF. More than forty years ago, Kwame Nkrumah called insistently for unity. His arguments were simple enough: only a united Africa would be able to stand up to the neo-colonialist pressures of the former metropolitan countries, and the Cold War pressures of the US and the USSR. Africa rejected real unity at that time and opted instead for a weak compromise in the OAU.

Undoubtedly, the establishment of the African Union offers a major opportunity for Africa, providing an effective and legal institutional mechanism to respond to their aspirations for unity. It also offers many challenges. There are many hurdles to overcome to make the AU vision a reality. The biggest challenge, of course, is the challenge of implementation. Africa has so far displayed a low level of implementation of treaty obligations. This is mainly due to an unwillingness to incorporate international treaties into domestic law and give powers to supranational bodies. A genuine commitment to unity and a strong political will are required.

The AU reflects important positive developments in Africa in recent years, particularly the efflorescence of democracy and popular participation. The key shift is that the principle of absolute sovereignty has been abandoned. It was the central belief of the OAU that nobody should interfere in anyone else’s internal affairs. That was particularly convenient for African dictators in the past. Now the AU “has the right to intervene in a member state” as is being done, for instance, in the case of the crisis in Darfur, Western Sudan, and elsewhere. Significantly, the African Union also refuses to recognise any new military government born out of a coup. In the past, Africa has had an unfairly large share of dictators and military autocrats—more than any other continent on earth.

This content downloaded from 157.89.65.129 on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:07:17 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 

 

K. Mathews/ 155

Recent history reveals that Africa has been literally torn apart by a barrage of civil wars and border conflicts. Africa had become the boiling pot of civil strife where governments raided state coffers to buy guns instead of medicines and books. It is laudable that the AU is attempting to make a mark where its predecessor, the OAU, had failed. Much of Africa’s problems today are internally caused and, logically, solutions should also come from within the continent. What Africa

needs most is a viable continental organisation that does not simply step into the OAU’s shoes. As Nkrumah wrote in 1961 in his book, I Speak of Freedom: “Divided we are weak; united, Africa could become one of the greatest forces for good in the world.”

References

African Union Directory, 2002. Aparajita Biswas, “Africa’s Quest for Recovery in the 21st Century: The AU and

NEPAD”, Africa Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 2, 2003. Charter of the Organisation of African Unity, Addis Ababa, 1963. Constitutive Act of the African Union, Lome, Togo, 2001. New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), Abuja, October 2001. Adekunle, Ajala, Pan-Africanism: Evolution, Progress and Prospects, Andre Deutsch,

London, 1973. Amate, C.O.C., Inside the OAU: Pan-Africanism in Practice, St. Martin’s Press, New

York, 1986.

Asante, S. K. B., Regionalism and Africa’s Development: Expectations, Realities and Chal lenges, Macmillan, London, 1998.

Cervenka, Zdnek, The Unfinished Quest for Unity: Africa and the OAU, Africana Pub lishing, New York, 1978.

Maloka, Eddy (ed.), A United States of Africa?, Africa Institute of South Africa, Preto ria, 2001.

Mathews, K., “The OAU and the International System”, in R.I. Onwuka and T.M. Shaw (eds.), Africa in World Politics, Macmillan, London, 1989.

Mathews, K., “The Organisation of African Unity”, in D. Mazzeo, African Regional Organisations, Cambridge University Press, London, 1984.

Mathews, K., “The African Union: From Dream to Reality”, Africa Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 2, 2003.

Mathews, K., “Prospects for Africa in the New Millennium”, Africa Quarterly, Vol. 40, No.l, 2000.

This content downloaded from 157.89.65.129 on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:07:17 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 

  • Contents
    • p. [143]
    • p. 144
    • p. 145
    • p. 146
    • p. 147
    • p. 148
    • p. 149
    • p. 150
    • p. 151
    • p. 152
    • p. 153
    • p. 154
    • p. 155
  • Issue Table of Contents
    • India International Centre Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 4 (SPRING 2005) pp. 1-196
      • Front Matter
      • EDITORIAL: Unfinished Agendas [pp. 5-6]
      • The Indian Polity Today and the Road Ahead [pp. 7-22]
      • The Ideology of Deviant Legislations [pp. 23-26]
      • Global War on `Terrorism’ and Democratic Rights [pp. 27-39]
      • A Uniform Civil Code: towards gender justice [pp. 40-54]
      • THE OVERWHELMING QUESTION
        • When will India become a Developed Nation? [pp. 55-65]
        • The Ramayana in Indonesia: alternate tellings [pp. 66-82]
        • Historicising the Ramakatha: Valmiki’s Ramayana and its medieval commentators [pp. 83-97]
        • Notes from the Underground [pp. 98-100]
      • PANEL DISCUSSION
        • Conversations with Eric Hobsbawm [pp. 101-125]
        • A River Lost from View [pp. 126-134]
        • PHOTO ESSAY
          • Re-díscoveríng the Yamuna… [pp. 135-142]
        • Renaissance of Pan-Africanism: the African Union [pp. 143-155]
      • C.D. DESHMUKH MEMORIAL LECTURE
        • The Culture of Science [pp. 156-169]
      • BOOK REVIEWS
        • The Encyclopaedia of Parsi Culture [pp. 170-178]
        • Goan Craft Traditions [pp. 179-182]
        • Tibetan Diaspora [pp. 183-187]
        • A Versatile Life [pp. 187-191]
      • Back Matter

Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution

/in /by

Units/Unit 4/Enlightenment and Scientific Revolutionary Thought.html

4: The Enlightenment and the Age of Revolution

Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution

Introduction

The Enlightenment, also known as the Age of Reason, was an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas during the 18th century. These ideas centered on reason as the primary source of knowledge and advanced ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and the separation of church and state. The Enlightenment produced numerous books, essays, inventions, scientific discoveries, laws, wars and revolutions. Abolitionists questioned the morality and need for slavery, and eventually succeeded in emancipating enslaved men, women, and children around the Atlantic World. Women challenged the ideas of the state and gained the right to vote after a long Suffrage Movement. This period is one that will set the stage for many events to come in World History, and we can connect many of the events that will occur in future units to the ideas of The Enlightenment.

The central doctrines of the Enlightenment philosophers were individual liberty and religious tolerance, as well as the opposition to an absolute monarchy. The period stimulated people to look at authority in a new way and to posit new and different ideas to remedy the daily problems they encountered. This meant drawing on relatively new ways of interacting with the world. Enlightenment intellectuals argued in favor of empiricism. Empirical thinking posited that knowledge comes from experience or observation rather than belief or tradition. They also championed rationalism. Rationalism was a way of thinking that argued reason was the ultimate test of knowledge and that through rational deduction—breaking the problem down into its constituent parts—they could investigate and understand the logic behind ideas, systems, and experiences. Beyond this, they relied on skepticism, which maintained that nothing was certain until proven. For the Enlightenment intellectuals, proof often came from reason or empirical observation. Finally, cosmopolitanism reflected Enlightenment thinkers’ view of themselves as actively engaged citizens of the world as opposed to provincial and close-minded individuals. In all, Enlightenment thinkers endeavored to be ruled by reason, not prejudice.

The Scientific Revolution

Tracing the beginning of the Enlightenment is difficult, but most agree that it was sparked by the Scientific Revolution, a period of history that lasted from the 16th through the 18th centuries. The Scientific Revolution was an outgrowth of the European Renaissance and Reformation, which we discussed in Unit 2, increased contact with Asia, and the voyages of exploration. The Scientific Revolution took these new ways of thinking—empiricism, rationalism, skepticism, and cosmopolitanism—and asked questions about the natural world. They questioned the authority of classical Roman knowledge and Catholic Church belief by questioning the nature of man and man’s role in the natural world and universe.

Copernicus, Galilei, Kepler, and Newton

Left to Right: Nicholas Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, and Isaac Newton

This was incredibly revolutionary. It opened questions of planetary movement—Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) argued with the ideas of the Roman philosopher Ptolemy who argued that the universe’s center was the Earth. Copernicus, after observing the sun’s movement suggested that the sun, and not the Earth, was the center of the universe.  A follower of Copernicus’ ideas, Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) conducted experiments to understand the mechanics of items on Earth and in the sky. Galileo’s decision to teach Copernicus’ heliocentric (sun-centered) theory of the universe brought him into conflict with the Catholic Church in Rome and he was ordered to stop teaching it. He did, for a while, but in 1632 he published the Dialogue Concerning Two Chief World Systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican. This brought him back into conflict with the Catholic Church because one of the characters in this dialogue, Simplico, was a fool whose ideas were precisely that of the Catholic Church’s. He was summoned to Rome, tried, and promised never to write. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

As Copernicus was beginning to question the center of the universe, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) opened new lines of inquiry of his own. Kepler posited not only that the universe revolved around the sun and that these movements were mechanical, but that planetary movements were also predictable. He argued that planets move in ellipses, not perfect circles and that there was a way to determine the size of a planet’s orbit from its axis and relationship to the sun. Kepler’s laws of planetary motion form the basis of modern astronomical physics. These intellectuals demonstrate how knowledge built upon itself, it still does, and how intellectuals used each other’s work to go one step further in their analysis. Indeed, Isaac Newton (1642-1726) used Copernicus’ and Kepler’s ideas to help him create an entirely new field of study, calculus. In his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathmatica (1687) Newton proposed mathematical models for understanding not only the natural world but also the universe.

Vitruvian ManAPPLYING IDEAS TO HUMANS AND PLANTS

It was not only the field of planetary motion that the Scientific Revolution made its mark, but this period also stimulated artists’ and intellectuals’ desires to understand the world around them. When combined with the desires of the Scientific Revolution and its guiding methodologies—empiricism, skepticism, rationalism, and cosmopolitanism—this meant also trying to understand the human body.

During the Renaissance, physicians investigated the human body through direct observation. Andreas Vesalius (1514-1564) observed skeletal, vascular, and muscular systems, creating diagrams and positing explanations with regard to their purposes. As he was uncovering the insides of the body, Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) investigated the external appearance of the body. Da Vinci was an artist born in the Italian city-state of Florence during the Renaissance and he worked to understand the proportions of the human body and famously created the Vitruvian Man drawing that you see here.

William Harvey (1578-1657), an English scientist, helped launch the field of physiology by investigating the circulatory system. Like Vesalius, he observed the flow of fluids through the body, but unlike Vesalius, he not only traced circulation but proved that bodies have a finite amount of blood that is constantly recirculated. Additionally, he observed and dissected the heart and its chambers, noting how blood moved through the system.

Moving away from the human body, natural philosophers (scientists) began applying what they learned in the human body to plants. Working slightly after Harvey, Robert Hooke (1635-1703) used the microscope to identify the smallest portions of plants, which he named, cells. The idea that plants consisted of small, observable units that could be observed, measured, and compared, was revolutionary.

The observations of natural philosophers (scientists) during the 17th and 18th centuries led to the creation of new and different ways of understanding the world. When combined with the European journeys of exploration and more regular communication between natural philosophers, they needed a way to communicate information without having to constantly restate their experiences. One way they did this was through classification. Aristotle (384-322 BCE) suggested that species existed within a hierarchy with higher life forms on the top and lower on the bottom. During the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment, these ideas shifted slightly.

Carolus Linneaus (1707-1778), a Swedish botanist and zoologist, published a work entitled the Systema Naturae in which he classified thousands of animal and plant species in a more systemic way than Aristotle’s method. Using the hierarchy—kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species—Linneaus enabled scientists to group together animals or plants that shared characteristics. When Europeans encountered new animals or plants, there was a way to sort them without disrupting the entire hierarchy—new categories of class, order, family, or genus could be created to accommodate new species. Further, he gave natural philosophers a way to refer to plants and animals—through binomial nomenclature, in which you take the genus and species names and use these to refer to specific animals or plants. This hierarchy based on the shared characteristics of animals or plants enabled natural philosophers to converse with one another about the discoveries they were making and to reach a consensus about the plants or animals being observed through shared scientific naming practices. Without the use of binomial nomenclature, it was possible that scientists observed the same animal, but did not know it.

By the 18th century, this was particularly important as natural philosophers began having the ability to observe plants and, in some cases, animals that never existed prior in Europe. As Europeans traveled abroad some brought new plants and animals back to Europe. The first botanical garden was established in Padua in the mid-16th century and was quickly established elsewhere in the Italian city-states as well as in other European cities, such as Cologne and Prague. In 1621 the University of Oxford established its botanical garden.  Botanical gardens became not only a scientific endeavor, but they also helped prove political and economic power. Spain established its Real Jardin Botanico in 1755 and England established the Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew in 1759. It is currently designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Many of the botanical gardens included greenhouses where natural philosophers not only observed their growth and development but also attempted to cultivate them for economic gain.

Related image

The Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew

Units/Heading/Tito_Lessi_-_Galileo_and_Viviani.jpg

Units/Unit 4/CopernicusGalileiKeplerNewton.jpg

Units/Unit 4/Vitruvian.jpg

Units/Unit 4/Enlightened Ideas.html

4: The Enlightenment and the Age of Revolution

Enlightened Ideas

Image result for the enlightenment Just as the natural philosophers (scientists) of the Scientific Revolution looked to Classical Greece and Rome as a starting point, so too did the Enlightenment intellectuals. Instead of proving the ideas of the classical world incorrect, the Enlightenment philosophers and intellectuals tried to re-create the political systems and moral relationships of the classical era. This was particularly true of the republican and democratic forms of government, which they saw as inherently more fair than the monarchical governments under which many of them lived. In addition to suggesting new forms of government, they also proposed new relationships between the rulers and their subjects. Drawing on the notion of empiricism and skepticism from the Scientific Revolution, these intellectuals proposed new forms of governances and social relations based on the notion of reason. For most Enlightenment intellectuals, reason implied the ability to observe problems and solutions while tracing the changes incrementally through various decisions. Some historians call this the Age of Reason because of their emphasis on this particularly mode of understanding the world.

The Enlightenment ideals originated in Western European intellectuals, but eventually spread throughout the world over the course of the next two centuries. In so doing, the ideas first posited by the Enlightenment intellectuals shifted dramatically as new interpretations combined with older expressions of these ideas.

REASON AND THE PERSISTENT QUESTIONS OF RELIGION

Enlightenment intellectuals used reason to question the social and political relationships that, until the Reformation, relied upon the Catholic Church’s sanction. With the Reformation and the wars of religion that followed (1517-1648), many intellectuals eschewed organized religion entirely because it was so bound with political manipulation and war. They argued that instead of looking to organized religion to make an argument, intellectuals should look to nature and derive from nature what they called natural laws. These natural laws were observable (empirical) and could be tested.

While these intellectuals questioned organized religion, they did not generally question the existence of God; indeed many suggested that because He created nature, God exists in nature and the natural laws that intellectuals created were a new way to understand humanity’s relationship to God. Not all intellectuals, however, were so charitable towards religion.

In France, the Catholic Church remained in power after the Reformation, despite significant Protestant populations. The Church and its representatives controlled significant power and wealth within the country, which many Enlightenment intellectuals objected to. Many French intellectuals including Voltaire (1694-1778) and Denis Diderot (1713-1784) questioned the moral basis of the church along lines similar to Martin Luther’s criticisms—they argued the Catholic Church was corrupt. Instead of stopping at this point though, many intellectuals argued that the Catholic Church was corrupt and therefore the entire basis of the Church was also corrupted. They argued that the Catholic Church represented superstition, rather than reason and belief rather than empirical (observable) reality.

Voltaire, Diderot, & Hume

L to R: Voltaire, Denis Diderot, David Hume

Voltaire did not stop his criticism there. Unlike many Enlightenment intellectuals, Voltaire did not believe in democracy, but firmly believed in benevolent monarchy. He worried that uneducated individuals and ordinary people would not be able to effectively understand complex political arguments. In the book Candide, Voltaire poked fun at all of Europe. Candide follows a bumbling and optimistic main character from a Germanic kingdom in his travels throughout the world. Through Candide Voltaire questioned the irrationality he saw in European society, particularly with regard to its rigid social rules that divided classes and distributed wealth unequally through these classes. Voltaire criticized the materialism he witnessed in society, not only on the part of laypeople, but also on the part of the Catholic Church. In Candide some of the most corrupt figures are priests. This type of writing forced him to adopt a pen name and to live at least part of his adult life in exile, outside of France.

Denis Diderot read Locke’s work on knowledge and argued a step further. If knowledge was not innate, then belief was not innate either.  Diderot used reason to question the power of religion over knowledge and of the Catholic Church and clergy over the people of France. His best-known work is his Encyclopedie. This was a collection of essays and treatises by a number of Enlightenment intellectuals. Diderot used the Encyclopedia to examine what he and others believed were the bases of life—religion, political power, and wealth. Ultimately, many of the books’ contributors argue against mercantilism and, in some cases, against the Catholic Church. They questioned schooling and argued that it failed to teach the key issues of the day—reason, science, and nature.

It was not only the French intellectuals who questioned the role of religion. David Hume (1711-1776), an Englishman, did so too. By employing skepticism, he argued that miracles were not provable. He argued that religion was an intellectual construct created by individuals who needed something to believe in. He argued that no matter how a person understands religion—something revealed through nature or through text, it could not be observed directly and therefore, the phenomenon of religion was not a result of divine revelation, but of human innovation.

These men questioned religion generally because of the way it was practiced during their era and the assumptions that underlined religious theology—supremacy and corruption in church leadership. Whether they were atheists or simply criticized organized religion, they applied the ideas of the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment to notions of belief in order to understand them.

Units/Unit 4/VoltaireDiderotHume.jpg

Units/Unit 4/Women in the Enlightenment.html

4: The Enlightenment and the Age of Revolution

Women in the Enlightenment

The nature of humanity was not the only way that the Enlightenment challenged the existing ideas of the day. The Enlightenment enabled the questioning of the idea of “man” itself. The role of women in the Enlightenment is frequently overlooked. Women during this era were not considered of equal status to men, and much of their work and effort was suppressed. Salons, coffeehouses, debating societies, academic competitions and print all became avenues for women to socialize, learn and discuss enlightenment ideas. These avenues furthered their roles in society and created stepping stones for future progress.

As the Enlightenment came to advance ideas of liberty, progress, and tolerance, women’s issues were of great importance to the period. For those women who were able to discuss and advance new ideas, discourses on religion, political and social equality, and sexuality became prominent topics in the salons, debating societies, and in print. While women in England and France gained significantly more freedom than their counterparts in other countries, the role of women in the Enlightenment was reserved for those of middle and upper-class families, able to access money to join societies and the education to participate in the debate. Therefore the role of women in the Enlightenment only represented a small class of society and not the entire female sex.

Salons and Coffee houses

Image result for women enlightenment Salons were a forum in which elite, well-educated women might continue their learning in a place of civil conversation while governing the political discourse and a place where people of all social orders could interact. In the 18th century, the salon was transformed from a venue of leisure into a place of enlightenment. In the salon, there was no class or education barrier to prevent attendees from participating in open discussion and the salon served as a matrix for Enlightenment ideals as a result. Within the hierarchy of the salons, women assumed the role of governance. Thus, allowing impactful, philosophic discourse to flourish. Consequently, with women at the helm, salons transitioned from an institution of recreation to an active agent within Enlightenment. Suzanne Necker, wife to King Louis XVI of France’s finance minister, is an example of how the salon’s topics are likely to have had a bearing on official government policy.   While the elite discussed Enlightenment ideas at various salons, coffeehouse served as venues for middle and working class women to participate in the discourse of the period.  People of all levels of knowledge gathered to share and debate information and interests. Coffeehouses where women were involved, like the one run by Moll King, were said to degrade traditional, virtuosic, male-run coffeehouses. King’s fashionable coffeehouse operated into late hours of the night and showed that Enlightenment women were not always simply the timid sex, governors of polite conversation, or protectorates of aspiring artists.

Significant Women and Publications

Vindication of the Rights of Woman Some women, including Olympe de Gouges and Mary Wollstonecraft, used their educations and the opportunities afforded them by the new ideas of the Enlightenment. Women were more involved in publishing their writings than previously thought. In order to publish work during most of the Enlightenment, a married woman had to have written consent from her husband. As the Old Regime began to fail, women became more prolific in their publications. Publishers were no longer concerned about a husband’s consent, and a more commercial attitude was adopted, publishing books that were going to sell. With the new economic outlook of the Enlightenment, female writers were granted more opportunity in the print sphere. As print culture became far more accessible to women in the 18th century, the production of cheap editions and the expanding number of books targeted toward a female readership enabled women to obtain more access to education. Prior to the 18th century, many women gained knowledge from correspondence with males because books were not as accessible to them. Social circles emerged around printed books. While the reading habits of men revolved around silent study, women used reading as a social activity. Reading books in intimate gatherings became a mode that fostered discourse among women. Olympe de Gouges (1748-1793) was a French woman who wrote plays and found her voice alongside many others during the years leading up to the French Revolution. She felt that the ideal of égalité  (equality) was unfulfilled, even after the French Revolution began. She penned a scathing rebuke to accompany the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen” (DROM). The DROM, a document that set out the ideals of the early French Revolution and the French Republic, sets out the principles of liberty, sovereignty, and freedom.  It suggests that “men are born and remain free and equal in rights,” and that there are rights to “liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.” It also sets out limits to rights and asserts that “Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights” and that laws aid in determining how these rights are experienced.

Read: “Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen”

Olympe de Gouges questioned the basis of these rights and re-wrote the DROM in her “The Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen” published in 1791.  She inserted the word woman to the original DROM text, suggesting that “woman is born free and lives equal to man in her rights” and “Liberty and justice consist of restoring all that belongs to others; thus, the only limits on the exercise of the natural rights of woman are perpetual male tyranny; these limits are to be reformed by the laws of nature and reason.” Further, she asserted that women should also be subject to laws and must be equally represented by them.

Read: “The Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen”

The rebellion that her words implied was too much for many in the French Enlightenment community to accept, particularly as the revolution moved into its second phase, The Terror. Olympe de Gouges’ ideas and their threat to the overall welfare of society earned her a place in the guillotine during the French Revolution.

Similarly, Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) from England questioned women’s place in society. In 1792, she penned the “Vindication of the Rights of Woman: with Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects.” In this, she questioned a fundamental assumption of English society but stopped short of declaring women equal to men on Earth. Bringing religion into the debate, she argues that morally-speaking men and women are equal, therefore they are equal in the eyes of God. For her, Earth was a different matter entirely. She argued for opportunity—the opportunity for an education similar to men’s, the opportunity to discuss issues on equal footing with men. Although her work was revolutionary, it was largely dismissed within England and in the later 19th century, she became a key figure for suffragettes and those who worked for women’s rights.

Units/Unit 4/Vindication_Wollstonecraft.jpg

Units/Unit 4/Enlightened Despots.html

4: The Enlightenment and the Age of Revolution

Enlightened Despots

Although French monarchs viewed Enlightenment ideals of representation, rule of law, and equality as challenges to their power, other monarchs saw the Enlightenment as an opportunity to reinforce their authority.

The ideals of the Enlightenment stimulated many rulers to re-think the nature of their rule.  Indeed, the trend of Enlightened Despotism swept through many courts in Europe. Enlightened Despotism appealed to monarchs because it enabled them to appear benevolent, while maintaining and, at times expanding their absolute authority over their subjects. These monarchs rejected the idea that rights arose from nature or from God, rather within their realms all rights emanated from the monarch individually. They used the idea of granting rights to their subjects as a tool to centralize their own authority.

Frederick the Great of Prussia (1712-1786) and Catherine the Great of Russia (1728-1796) were considered Enlightened Despots.

Frederick the Great & Catherine the Great

Frederick the Great of Prussia and Catherine the Great of Russia

Prussia was a Germanic kingdom that under Frederick’s reign became powerful and wealthy. Through war and through his own patronage of the arts, Frederick transformed Prussia from being just one of many Germanic kingdoms into one of the most powerful of the Germanic kingdoms. Militarily, he fought against both Austria and Russia in successive wars to expand territory—the War of Austria Succession (1740-48) and the Seven Years War (1756-1763). In addition to his military success, he reformed Prussian laws and outlawed torture, a subtle nod to the supremacy of law over whim and human rights over oppression.

Catherine the Great

Catherine the Great (1729-1796) was the most renowned and the longest-ruling female leader of Russia, reigning from 1762 until her death in 1796. She was born in Prussia and came to power following a coup d’état when her husband and grandson of Peter the Great, Peter III, was assassinated.  The period of Catherine the Great’s rule, the Catherinian Era, is often considered the Golden Age of the Russian Empire. During her reign, Russia was the world’s largest land empire, built on an economic basis of territory, agriculture, logging, fishing, and furs.

Image result for catherine the great

Catherine the Great

An admirer of Peter the Great, Catherine continued to modernize Russia along Western European lines. Thanks to Catherine, Russia grew larger and stronger than ever and became recognized as one of the great powers of Europe. She governed at a time when the Russian Empire was expanding rapidly by conquest and diplomacy. In the south, she defeated the Ottomans and colonised vast territories along the coasts of the Black and Azov Seas.  In the west, she gained a portion of Poland and began to colonize Alaska (a territory that will be purchased by the United States in 1867).

Catherine continued to modernize Russia along Western European lines.  She enthusiastically supported the ideals of the Enlightenment, and is often regarded as an enlightened despot.  As a patron of the arts she presided over the age of the Russian Enlightenment, a period when the Smolny Institute, the first state-financed higher education institution for women in Europe, was established.  Under Catherine, the Russian state also created a system of laws and a law code that she hoped would reinforce her absolute authority, support the state’s continued prosperity, and limit the power of the nobles. For instance, in her Proposals for a New Law Code she argued that “the Equality of the Citizens consists in this; that they should all be subject to the same laws.” By suggesting that somehow all her subjects were equal and below her, she bolstered her own status while reminding her nobles that they were her subjects. In addition to reforming the laws, Catherine also corresponded regularly with other intellectuals, patronized the arts, and imagined herself an intellectual in her own right.

However, military conscription and the Russian economy continued to depend on serfdom, a system that increased due to the increasing demands of the state and private landowners.  Both Catherine and Frederick II were absolutists, meaning they believed their power was without equal in their realms. However, their dedication to creating laws and changing social norms demonstrates their interpretation and institution of Enlightenment ideals. Nonetheless, they remained ruthless autocrats that worked to increase their country’s power and wealth, largely for their own benefit.

Units/Unit 4/FrederickCatherine.jpg

Units/Unit 4/The Enlightenment and Georgia.html

4: The Enlightenment and the Age of Revolution

The Enlightenment and Georgia

The reach of Enlightenment thought was both broad and deep, and it even has connections to Georgia History! In the 1730s, having witnessed the terrible conditions of debtors’ prison, as well as the results of releasing penniless debtors onto the streets of London, James Oglethorpe—a member of Parliament and advocate of social reform—petitioned King George II for a charter to start a new colony. George II, understanding the strategic advantage of a British colony standing as a buffer between South Carolina and Spanish Florida, granted the charter to Oglethorpe and 20 like-minded proprietors in 1732.

Image result for oglethorpe colony of georgia

Oglethorpe led the settlement of the colony, which was called Georgia in honor of the king. In 1733, he and 113 immigrants arrived on the ship Anne. Over the next decade, Parliament funded the migration of 2500 settlers, making Georgia the only government-funded colonial project.

The Oglethorpe Plan was an embodiment of all of the major themes of the Enlightenment, including science, humanism, and secular government. Georgia became the only American colony infused at its creation with Enlightenment ideals: the last of the Thirteen Colonies, it would become the first to embody the principles later embraced by the Founders. Remnants of the Oglethorpe Plan exist today in Savannah, showcasing a town plan that retains the vibrancy of ideas behind its conception.

At the heart of Oglethorpe’s comprehensive and multi-faceted plan there was a vision of social equity and civic virtue. The mechanisms supporting that vision, including yeoman governance, equitable land allocation, stable land tenure, and secular administration, were among the ideas debated during the British Enlightenment. Many of those ideals have been carried forward, and are found today in Savannah’s Tricentennial Plan and other policy documents.

Oglethorpe’s vision for Georgia followed the ideals of the Age of Reason. He saw Georgia as a place for England’s “worthy poor” to start anew. To encourage industry, he gave each male immigrant 50 acres of land, tools, and a year’s worth of supplies. In Savannah, the Oglethorpe Plan provided for a utopia: “an agrarian model of sustenance while sustaining egalitarian values holding all men as equal.” Oglethorpe’s vision called for alcohol and slavery to be banned. However, colonists who relocated from other colonies—especially South Carolina—disregarded these prohibitions. Despite its proprietors’ early vision of a colony guided by Enlightenment ideals and free of slavery, by the 1750s, Georgia was producing quantities of rice grown and harvested by enslaved people.

Table of Contents.html

Surv World History/Civiliz II Section 04G Summer 2019 CO – The Enlightenment1. The Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution

2. Enlightened Ideas

3. Women in the Enlightenment

4. Enlightened Despots

5. The Enlightenment and Georgia

Washington’s Atlanta Compromise Speech by Booker T. Washington

/in /by

“Cast Down Your Bucket Where You Are”: Booker T.

Washington’s Atlanta Compromise Speech

by Booker T. Washington

In 1895, Booker T. Washington gave what later came to be known as the Atlanta Compromise

speech before the Cotton States and International Exposition in Atlanta. His address was one of

the most important and influential speeches in American history, guiding African-American

resistance to white discrimination and establishing Washington as one of the leading black

spokesmen in America. Washington’s speech stressed accommodation rather than resistance to

the racist order under which Southern African Americans lived. In 1903, Washington recorded

this portion of his famous speech, the only surviving recording of his voice.

 

Booker T. Washington: Mr. President and gentlemen of the Board of Directors and citizens.

One third of the population of the South is of the Negro race. No enterprise seeking the material,

civil, or moral welfare of this section can disregard this element of our population and reach the

highest success. I must convey to you, Mr. President and Directors, and Secretaries and masses

of my race, when I say that in no way have the value and manhood of the American Negro been

more fittingly and generously recognized, than by the managers of this magnificent exposition at

every stage of its progress. It is a recognition that will do more to cement the friendship of the

two races than any occurrence since the dawn of our freedom. Not only this, but the

opportunities here afforded will awaken among us a new era of industrial progress.

Ignorant and inexperienced, it is not strange that in the first years of our new life we began at the

top instead of the bottom, that a seat in Congress or the state legislature was more sought than

real estate or industrial skill, that the political convention of some teaching had more attraction

than starting a dairy farm or a stockyard.

A ship lost at sea for many days suddenly sighted a friendly vessel. From the mast of the

unfortunate vessel was seen a signal: “Water, water. We die of thirst.” The answer from the

friendly vessel at once came back: “Cast down your bucket where you are.” A second time, the

signal, “Water, send us water!” went up from the distressed vessel. And was answered: “Cast

down your bucket where you are.” A third and fourth signal for water was answered: “Cast down

your bucket where you are.” The captain of the distressed vessel, at last heeding the injunction,

cast down his bucket and it came up full of fresh, sparkling water from the mouth of the Amazon

River.

To those of my race who depend on bettering their condition in a foreign land, or who

underestimate the importance of preservating friendly relations with the southern white man who

is their next door neighbor, I would say: “Cast down your bucket where you are.” Cast it down,

making friends in every manly way of the people of all races, by whom you are surrounded.

 

 

To those of the white race who look to the incoming of those of foreign birth and strange tongue

and habits for the prosperity of the South, were I permitted, I would repeat what I have said to

my own race: “Cast down your bucket where you are.” Cast it down among the eight millions of

Negroes whose habits you know, whose fidelity and love you have tested in days when to have

proved treacherous meant the ruin of your fireside. Cast down your bucket among these people

who have without strikes and labor wars tilled your fields, cleared your forests, builded your

railroads and cities, brought forth treasures from the bowels of the earth, just to make possible

this magnificent representation of the progress of the South.

Source: Oral history courtesy of the Michigan State University Voice Library.

See Also:Booker T. Washington Delivers the 1895 Atlanta Compromise Speech

W.E.B. DuBois Critiques Booker T. Washington

Making the Atlanta Compromise: Booker T. Washington Is Invited to Speak

“Equal and Exact Justice to Both Races”: Booker T. Washington on the Reaction to his Atlanta

Compromise Speech

 

 

http://vvl.lib.msu.edu/index.cfm
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/39
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/40
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/86
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/87
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/87

History | Ways Of The World Third Edition By Robert W. Strayer

/in /by

1. Making comparisons: To what extent did these four early modern states face similar problems and devise similar solutions? How did they differ? In particular, how did the rulers of these states deal with subordinates? How did they use violence? What challenges to imperial authority did they face?

2. Assessing spectacle: In what different ways was spectacle, royal splendor, or public display evident in the documents? How would you define the purpose of such display? How effective do you think spectacle has been in consolidating state authority?

3. Distinguishing power and authority: Some scholars have made a distinction between “power,” the ability of a state to coerce its subjects into some required behavior, and “authority,” the ability of a state to persuade its subjects to do its bidding voluntarily by convincing them that it is proper, right, or natural to do so. What examples of power and authority can you find in these documents? How were power and authority related? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each, from the viewpoint of ambitious rulers?

4. Comparing past and present: It is important to recognize that early modern states differed in many ways from twentieth- or twenty-firstcentury states. How would you define those differences? Consider, among other things, the personal role of the ruler, the use of violence, the means of establishing authority, and the extent to which the state could shape the lives of its citizens.

5. Comparing insiders’ and outsiders’ accounts: What differences do you notice between the two passages written by monarchs themselves and the two composed by foreign observers? What advantages and limitations do these two types of sources offer to historians seeking to use them as evidence?

After reading the section of chapter 14 called “Commerce in People: The Atlantic Slave Trade” (pages 620-631) in the Strayer and Nelson textbook, please comment on the following questions. As always, your comments should be written in grammatically correct sentences (not bullet points). They should take to the time to explain your thinking and include some quotes and/or examples from the textbook as support. Here are the questions:

What was distinctive about the Atlantic slave trade? How do we explain its rise in the 16th century? What roles did Europeans and African play in it? In what ways did it transform African societies?

Please keep in mind that these questions have to do with the trade or commerce in enslaved people, not the experiences of enslaved people in the Americas.