HISTORY – ITALIAN, TWO SECTION ASSIGNMENT NOTE: LECTURE EXCERPTS BELOW PART ONE – ORIGINAL Detailed POST, SEE PART ONE

HISTORY – ITALIAN, TWO SECTION ASSIGNMENT NOTE: LECTURE EXCERPTS BELOW

PART ONE – ORIGINAL Detailed POST, SEE PART ONE

PART TWO RESPOND the comments of FOUR OTHERS

PART ONE of TWO

Ideology, demography, and economy

 Argument: “There would be no unified Italy today without a professional middle class, frustrated about the lack of its economic and political power, eager for better economic opportunities. It was their anger that became channeled toward nationalism and fueled the creation of unified Italy.”

Yes or no? Why? Argue your case with clear evidence and examples.

PART ONE INSTRUCTIONS

Seeking 5-7 detailed paragraphs of college level writing and content based on lecture appearing SEE below. Text books “The Force of Destiny”, by Christopher Duggan & “The Pursuit of Italy, by David Gilmour. Use citations when necessary, including complete, competent college level conversational content. Please follow the instructions to include the yes or no & why, within the argument containing clear evidence and examples as required? Must impress as upper level academic.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

PART TWO of TWO – Please respond to the following FOUR comments in 1-3 simple paragraphs each? Please use the complete titles before each number of that response? FIRM! Thank You.

The Unification of Italy ONE

The middle class played a major role in Italy’s unification as the young people and the red shirts attempted to unify Italy, but the Prime Minister, Cavour of Sardinia was the real successor.  He understood business and the economy. Cavour helped to build relations with nations that had powerful militaries in return would benefit later on with political power. He strategically helped to build alliances with Prussia during the Austro-Prussian War that took over Rome and the Papal States that was under France power. Italy’s leadership and foreign powers helped them to unify.

Cavour, also made a deal with France that would help them gain some territory although, they did not make good on it yet, they still became unified. A volunteer military was created by Garibaldi who was one of those that understood that war creates independence. His military and Cavour’s military connected and created the country of Italy.

less

Top of Form

· The middle TWO

I have always maintained there is rarely a revolutionary change without the involvement and the drive of the middle class. Italy’s middle class is no exception as seen with the various movements highlighted. As the lecture mention, Italy’s middle class saw the need for political and militaristic unity as Machiavelli promoted from the Renaissance era. With the warring and divided kingdoms in the South, later movements with the Carbonari sought to promote unification for their self interests. These secret societies approached the system of division by a mode of unification against tyrannical conservativism. Guiseppe Mazzini seen as the father of Italy was a strong proponent of the middle class. His Young Italy Movement rejuvenated interest in unification and the middle class was central to the fights in overcoming authoritarian governance. The middle class became influential and a powerful force in undoing the existing political order in Italy’s long march to unification.

· Ideology, demography, and economy THREE

Yes. According to the notes, the middle class played its role by succeeding in uniting Italy as one, politically and economically. It first began with the Carbonaris who acted as the secret society whose intentions were to unite nationally to reduce government oppression. However, the Carbonaris failed. Another instance came from a young man named Giuseppe Mazzini whose motives were to organize uprisings against the regressive governments and parts of the country that created foreign powers. The movement became extremely popular throughout the middle class with at least 60,000 members. However, all his hard work and dedication was ended when the organization failed, leaving the leaders executed.

As the notes continue, in the 1848, a pattern of failed revolutions and uprisings seemed to happen more frequently causing Italy to need another way out. Finally, Garibaldi, who was marked as a socialist and promoter for European Unification made it possible to unite. In fact, he was a nationalist that fought for ideas that usually crossed the borders, which made him stronger and different in my opinion. The notes also mentioned that because of these men and their brave actions, along with the middle-class economy, made unification in Italy possible then and now.

· Opportunity Argument FOUR

The notes on the Risorgimento do hint at growing popular discontent among the middle class. The Young Italy Movement led many middle-class occupations to show their eagerness to have a say in politics. They did not have the levels of free speech, political assembly, individual rights and influence that they desired. The notes suggest that the movement had about 60,000 members by 1833. In addition, some movements sprung up around Italian cities to try and resist (or topple) oppressive authoritarian regimes, seeing the unification of Italy as their method to stopping the violence of the established governments.

While I do think that Italy today was formed with the help of a middle class that saw a need for more economic and political power, some of the statements in both books by Duggan and Gilmour lead me to think that it is not the entire story. Duggan writes that “class was not in itself particularly significant, and did little to determine friendships or alliances” in Italy – the ‘people’ was seen as a category in its own, meaning “anyone in the nation who was politically aware.” [1] The emphasis on class distinction in revolutionary times for other countries in history may not have been the main driving factor in Italy.

This particular quote from Duggan was enlightening regarding this argument:

“If there was little pressure for greater economic integration in Italy coming from the country’s elites, there was none from the mass of the population. The many thousands of artisans and shopkeepers, domestic servants and clerks, who typically made up the middle ranks of urban society (the ‘popolo’ or ‘people’ of contemporary parlance) catered primarily to the needs of the local moneyed classes and tourists.” [2]

In essence, Duggan says that the plebeians are at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, trying to do whatever they can to survive. There was an emphasis in migrating to areas where there was the possibility of subsistence and finding employment, and migration often happened to areas outside of Italy. The middle classes tended to provide goods and services to the elites and tourists.

To me, this means that the desire to unite Italy really started as more of an elite movement. Often the case in revolutions, the desire to create change started as more of an idealistic and elite movement. To garner success for the revolution, the masses did need to get on board. But, it seems to stay more of an idealistic movement. Mazzini’s political ideology of having nations be made by divine origin led revolutionaries to argue that some individual liberties could be given up in exchange for more rights given to the nation.

Garibaldi followed with more positive viewpoints regarding democracy, but many supported a monarchy in Italy following unification. Patriots and revolutionaries believed that a dynastic monarchy similar to the one in Prussia would unite Italy and move it forward. Moreover, revolts such as the Sicilian revolt did not follow the ideals set by Mazzini – it was “a popular movement driven by hostility to the government in Naples and supported by local aristocrats who wanted autonomy for their island.” [3] The revolt in Sicily was another example of aristocrats and the elite wanting to move the needle in society, and this did not necessarily fall into the hands of the middle class. In other places, “the citizens of some Italian states had little desire to change their rulers,” and this was most evident in Tuscany and Rome. [4]

Finally, Gilmour states that “the benefits of Italian unification remained a mystery to many people who for centuries had been finding it difficult to reconcile themselves to their ever-declining status.” [5] A “lack of enthusiasm for the national cause” existed among many at times, and it could be because of the socioeconomic situation. [6] There were growing numbers of middle-class citizens joining the cause, but it still appears that the elite drove the change to unite Italy. Foreign influence seemed to count much more than domestic influence, as seen with Napoleon III in France and military issues with Austria over their conservative-laden influence over northern Italy.

I look forward to seeing other people’s posts on this one. It seems like the argument really can lean either way, with the right source material to give a good argument with.

[1] Duggan, Christopher. The Force of Destiny: A History of Italy since 1796. London: Penguin Books, 2018, 136.

[3] Gilmour, David. The pursuit of Italy: a history of a land, its regions and their peoples. London: Penguin

LECTURE EXCERPTS ON RISORGIMENTO

Risorgimento

I Introduction

Nationalism is a relatively new phenomenon and ideology. The earliest nation states did not emerge until the 1300-1400s, and even then they were fractious states, where regional identities and loyalties often superseded the national ones.

In many cases, nation states were built around loyalty to the king rather than some sort of understanding of national-ethnic-linguistic unity. As Louis XIV of France allegedly said in 1655: “L’etat, c’est moi.” In English: “I am the state.”

Many of these early nation states, such as France and Spain, continued to be very diverse. In France before the Revolution, only a half of Frenchmen spoke any French, and as late as 1870s, only 25 percent spoke it as their native tongue. Regional languages (Basque, Breton, Flemish, Catalan, etc.) continued to thrive.

However, as the 1700s and 1800s progressed, new and stronger type of nationalism began to grow in popularity. This ideology criticized old, multi-ethnic empires such as Russia and Austria-Hungary, arguing instead that all peoples who shared a language, history and ethnicity, should be allowed to form their own country.

The ideology spread even to Italy. However, in Italy the success of nationalism was far from granted. Cultural diversity, linguistic disunity, geographical distances, foreign powers’ substantial roles in Italian politics, and often severe distrust between different regions hindered the process.

However, during the 1800s, Italy finally unified in a complex and bloody process called Risorgimento,resurgence.

II Origins of Italian nationalism

As mentioned earlier, some Italians of the Renaissance, such as Machiavelli, had called for Italian unity in order to fight off invading foreign powers. However, these calls for unity were driven more by political and military calculations rather than any genuine nationalistic spirit.

French Revolution and the ensuing French involvement in Italian politics formed an important watershed in the development of Italian nationalism.

Revolutionary France invaded Italian Peninsula in 1792 as part of their War of the First Coalition. The French brought with them their revolutionary republicanism and new, Enlightenment-era political ideas.

French introduced ideas of equality and freedom, gave the final blow to feudalism in areas they controlled, and infused the peninsula with ideas that the time of old regional monarchies was over. Additionally, the Wars of the First and Second coalitions had made Italy yet again a battleground for European powers, as Austrians, Russians, and French had again settled their affairs on the peninsula.

After the defeat of Napoleon, the victors in the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) restored old conservative political order throughout the continent.

With the downfall of Napoleon in 1814 and the redistribution of territory by the Congress of Vienna (1814-15), most of the Italian states were revamped: the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia, the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, the Duchy of Parma, the Papal States, and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. They were now ruled by conservative, even reactionary governments.

However, French revolutionary ideas continued to live among young intellectuals, taking additional fuel from the emerging nationalism that was awakening in many parts of Europe.

In the south, an illegal movement called Carbonari (coal makers) sought to resist region’s regressive regimes, promoting national unification to counter the stifling monarchy.

Carbonaris operated as a secret society, with rituals and special terminology for its members.

The members were largely more concerned about curbing the oppressive regime of the Kingdom of Two Sicilies, its strongest operating area. National unification was their intended tool for reducing government oppression.

Carbonaris were brave and dedicated, as a mere membership in the secret society could result in a capital punishment. In 1820-1821 and 1831 they took up the arms, starting organized revolts against the Kingdom of Two Sicilies. However, they failed in both diplomacy and in the battlefields. The movement’s leaders either escaped the country or were arrested and executed.

Flag of the Young Italy Movement.

Young Italy movement (La Giovine Italia) was born in 1831, largely out of the efforts of Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-1872), a lawyer and a journalist who dedicated his life to the Italian unification.

Mazzini was hoping to create a network of dedicated activists throughout the peninsula, who would organize regional uprisings against their regressive governments and, in parts of the country, foreign powers – particularly Austria.

Mazzini had to direct his efforts from exile. After a prison sentence for his activism in 1827-1831, he left the country, working to promote his cause from France, Switzerland, and the Great Britain.

Young Italy movement gained popularity especially among middle classes. In many parts of the country, shopkeepers, lawyers, doctors, professors and other trained professionals saw their path to political influence blocked by conservative monarchies. Censorship, restrictions to free speech and political assembly, and other violations of individual rights strongly agitated this group, who felt they should have a stronger say in directing public affairs. By 1833, the movement had roughly 60,000 members.

Movement was openly confrontational, seeking to foment popular revolts. However, all its efforts failed. In 1833, a plot seeking to revolt in Savoy and Piedmont failed, and its leaders were executed. Similar attempts throughout the peninsula, from Sicily to Veneto, all came to naught.

Mazzini’s dreams of democratic and united Italy failed. However, as a partial consolation, he did see at least a united Italy before his death.

III Risorgimento begins

As the new regimes re-established after Napoleon’s defeat were very conservative, dissatisfaction toward them grew steadily. Especially in northern Italy, Austria dominated Italian states. Austria’s foreign policy was led by Klemens von Metternich, a thoroughly conservative man who had systematically suppressed movements and individuals who challenged Austria’s dominance of its neighbors’ affairs – northern Italy included.

In 1848, a series of failed attempts at revolution around Italian peninsula was an expression of the widespread political and economic malcontent.

Year 1848 is often referred to Europe’s crazy year. A series of largely failed revolutions, led often by middle class, eager for democracy and more liberal states, rose against conservative rulers throughout Europe. Here, Italy was actually at the vanguard of the year’s events.

In January, a popular uprising in Sicily forced King Ferdinand II to give his subjects a written constitution, with some limited improvement to civil liberties. Within a couple of months, Piedmont, Tuscany, and Rome also had adopted new written constitutions.

In the Papal States, new pope, Pius IX, took office and began moderate liberal reforms, such as establishing a council that would represent people’s voices in his government. He also released hundreds of political prisoners, giving hope to people under his reign of further liberal reforms.

In Milan, people rose against Austrians, forcing its troops to leave the city. Soon Venetians joined the fray, and the two cities and the lands around them began to discuss forming an Italian union.

Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia and its ambitious king, Charles Albert, sought to defeat the Austrians. He rode a popular wave, but after some early success, Charles Albert’s army was defeated in the Battles of Custoza and Novara. Charles Albert had to abdicate the throne, and the first war for Italian independence was lost.

In the Papal States, Pius IX had opposed Piedmont’s war against Austria. He did not want to confront another Catholic country, and the intensity of uprisings and calls for more liberal reform had scared him. In late 1848, local revolutionaries declared the Roman Republic, disarming pope’s bodyguards and essentially making him a prisoner in his own palace. With the help of France and Spain, pope was restored to full powers and Roman Republic was crushed, despite some valiant fighting. The experience turned Pius IX a conservative, and he would later issue so-called Syllabus of Errors, a papal cyclical condemning liberalism, nationalism, Protestantism, freedom of religion and various other new, liberal ideas.

Piedmontese soldiers from the First Italian War for Independence (1848-1849).

IV Giuseppe Garibaldi

The central character of Italian unification is Giuseppe Garibaldi, Italy’s version of George Washington.

Garibaldi was an adventurer, globetrotter, farmer, sailor, general, and an ardent Italian nationalist. However, at some level he was also a universalist, who hoped to see the arrival of worldwide movement of democracy or, at least, liberal idealism. In some ways, he has been one of the inspirational characters behind European unification and even globalization.

First, let’s quickly look at Garibaldi’s life story. This HYPERLINK “http://www.britannica.com/biography/Giuseppe-Garibaldi” Encyclopaedia Britannica –entry summarizes Garibaldi’s life and career very well (click the link).

As you can see, Garibaldi was a very complex and thoroughly romantic character. His career reflected the highly idealistic nature of the 1800s, often called “the century of –isms,” that gave us modern nationalism, communism, socialism, anarchism, and other earth-shattering and powerful ideas.

Garibaldi’s flirtation with universalism made him later a hero for socialists as well as more market-driven promoters of European Unification and international cooperation. Paradoxically, he was simultaneously a nationalist, but he also fought for ideas that crossed national borders.

While he was acting consistently based on his ideals, sometimes these ideals seem to shift. While he began his campaign for Italian unification/liberation as a Mazzinian Young Italy –type and proponent of democratic republicanism, he eventually turned into an ally of king of Piedmont-Sardinia, Victor Emmanuel II and his skilled minister, Camillo Benzo, better known as Count of Cavour or just Cavour, pushing for Italian unification under Piedmont-Sardinia’s royal house.

We can question what motivated him. Was he a true patriot and Italian nationalist, or was he an adventurer, eager to join action wherever he could find it? That is debatable. However, we can quite safely conclude that Garibaldi’s personal bravery, strong faith in his cause of the day, and steely backbone inspired hesitant Italians to embrace Risorgimento. Garibaldi’s refusal to accept gifts and money and his quiet retirement to modest farm living inspired a country used to see leaders cashing in on their fame and victories.

What remains a much more debatable issue is whether Garibaldi’s creation is fundamentally good. Was the Italian unification a good or bad thing? Should this very diverse peninsula form one, three, or ten different nations? Has nationalism served Italian people well? Those are pressing questions, as you have read from Gilmour’s book.

V Conclusion

The complex path to Italian unification offers evidence of the highly divided character of the peninsula.

Garibaldi, Mazzini, and Cavour, together with the King Victor Emmanuel II, birthed Italy with force, driving away the Austrians who dominated Northern Italy, French Bourbons who called shots in Southern Italy, and Hapsburg monarchs, who exercised substantial power in many other city states.

Italy was finally united and largely the shape it is today by 1870 (some lands were added after World War I), but it was easier to wave a flag of united Italy than govern its regionally, politically, economically, and culturally fractious peoples. We shall discover how difficult in our next unit.

Unification of Italy, 1858-1870

Bottom of Form

The post HISTORY – ITALIAN, TWO SECTION ASSIGNMENT NOTE: LECTURE EXCERPTS BELOW PART ONE – ORIGINAL Detailed POST, SEE PART ONE appeared first on homeworkhandlers.com.