Egypt/France

1. Compare / Contrast Louis XVI and Mubarak. The same- Both of them were taken out of power due to a revolution. Both had complete political power; Mubarak a dictator and Louis XVI an absolute monarch. Both had violent riots break out against them during their reign. Louis appointed his friends that were nobles into places of power around him as Mubarak kept his friends in high positions also. Differences- Louis did not attempt help the economy of France but Mubarak tried to help the economy. Louis was executed but Mubarak was just thrown out of power. Louis XVI did not allow others to run for power, Mubarak ran in elections with other but won them all.

2. In each case, WHY were the people protesting? (Cite primary sources). In the French Revolution, people were protesting mostly because of unfair taxes. The third estate, or common people, were the only estate being taxed, and they were the estate with the least money. The other two estates were the clergy and nobility and neither had to contribute to the lessening of the countries debt. The third estate, the largest estate, joined together to revolt against the first two estates.

- http://sourcebook.fsc.edu/history/constitutionof1791.html

- http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1791degouge1.html

- http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/turgot/reflecti

- http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1789platiere.html

In Egypt, Mubarak had been suppressing the rights of the people. He had become a dictator and outlawed and protesting against his reign. He used to the military to protect himself from riots and shut down ways of communication for Egyptian people such as the Internet. The People had enough and began to protest and he stepped down.

- http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/egypt

- http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2011/02/10/live-blog-feb-11-egypt-protests

- http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/02/11/133675132/live-blog-latest-on-events-in-egypt

3. What role did women play? In France, women were still unable to receive and education and had limited rights. Women joined together and revolted against their oppression. Improvement were seen in small steps, especially after The Declaration of the Rights of Women was published. Women in the Revolution did not play a huge role but instead gained rights from the years after the Revolution itself. In Egypt, there are a large amount of women activists protesting in the streets along side the men. Women had been abused by governmental people which added to their list of reason to revolt. There were women's rights groups established and still being established now.

4. What concerns are their about the current situation in Egypt? How might they relate to the days following the fall of Louis XVI? One concern is that some of the people have reported on twitter that they now will stop protesting to rebuild the government and economy. The concern is that the Vice president and military may take full power and a new dictatorship will arise. This can relate to days after the fall of Louis XVI because people did not want a new absolute monarchy to rise. A new absolute ruler did come about in Robespierre and the Terror took place. After it all blew over, the Republic failed and an Emperor came to power.

5. How did/are people express(ing) their views? In both Revolutions, the common people revolted because they felt under appreciated and taken advantage of. In Egypt people marched around the presidential palace, burned buildings, and refused to stop until Mubarak stepped down, and he finally did. In France, the third estate created the National Assembly, protested violently with guns, marched on Versailles, and attended the Estates General when they were banned from it.

6. Are the current protests violent? Yes, the protests are violent in Egypt are violent. Buildings have been burned and large fights have broken out. To try and maintain control the military has been using weapons, bombs, and fire to keep protestors back up until the resignation of Mubarak. The people gathered in an unusually large amount and stormed one of Cairo's major squares.

7. What do people on the ground in Cairo think is going to happen now? (Directly contact reporters and bloggers in Egypt via Twitter during this class period). People are excited that the Revolution got Mubarak out of power and are rejoicing. Reporters are saying that an election will be held for a new president, but until then, the vice president will reign with military aid. I was unable to come in contact with anyone at the scene, put from generic posts this is what I was able to find.

8. Based on your study of the French Revolution and your current observations of the situation in Egypt, what do you think are possible outcomes? How are the possible outcomes in Egypt alike or different with outcomes in France -- both in the short and long term. I think that a possible outcome is that the Vice President will take control and become a dictator as Mubarak was and as Robespierre was a absolute ruler in the French Revolution. He will become power hungry and the Revolution will have to try and force him out of office as they had with Mubarak. This will cause more violence and protests along with turmoil for the entire country as the Terror did in France.

Terror Thesis

Maximilien Robespierre's radical oppression of the public's ideas, such as the gathering of women and any opposition to the French Revolution during his Reign of Terror, caused the French Republic to fail, leading to the rise of an Empire in France.

Term Paper

The Terror

Results from Page 134-136

14/20

French Revolution DBQ

Discuss the advantages and the disadvantages of the Terror as an instrument of

the French Revolution.

The Terror took place in the infancy stages of the French Republic during the French Revolution. The Jacobin's used their best efforts to try and destroy any opposition to the Revolution. The Terror began in the summer of 1793, the year the Jacobin's took over the French government with Robespierre as a head and spokesperson for them. He began to turn on his former allies, and noticing he had become to power hungry, was executed by the convention in the summer of 1794, ending the Terror. According to a chart indicating the amount of people executed in different parts of France during the Terror, 13,347 people were killed through out France during this period (Doc. 3). The Terror of the French Revolution was a powerful tool but it lead the the disbanding of the committee of public safety, an uneasiness through out the French population, and ironically due to the Terror, a emperor came out of the Revolution instead of a Republic.

The French Revolution allowed for the dethroning of the King when the revolution began but later lead to an emperor in Napoleon. The Terror was the killing of anyone who was against the revolution and Robespierre can be contributed with the majority of blame for the Terror. He was one of the five people on the committee and became the face of it, making decisions instead of all people working together. According to reports to the government on January 24, 1974 the public felt "that they acquit the innocent and punish the guilty (Doc. 9)". This is an advantage of the Terror because in the beginning, the people were unanimous in the decision that the right thing was going on. A little less than a month later, another report sent to the government stated a radical change in public opinion: “Bitter complaints already expressed numberless times, were repeated today of the arrest and imprisonment of citizens who are good patriots (Doc. 10)". The Terror had begun to claim too many lives of innocent people who were murdered for even the slightest hint of discontent in a government decision, sometimes unfairly killed. This was a major disadvantage of the Terror as a tool of the Revolution because the public was becoming unhappy as it was before the Revolution even took place.

The government was based in Paris and according to a chart documenting the death of certain classes, a quarter of the people executed in France were nobles (Doc. 2). The common people in Paris were killed in much lower numbers than in other parts of France, where a majority of the deaths were common working class people. This caused an uproar in the majority of France because the common people felt that they again were being taken advantage of. Charles James Fox, reformist member of Parliament and sympathizer with the French Revolution said in a letter to Parliament during the Terror, “What a pity that a people [the French] capable of such Incredible energy, should he guilty or rather be governed by those who are guilty of such unheard of crimes and cruelties (Doc. 4)". This man stated that the leaders of the government, the committee put in place, were the ones guilty of treason against the well being of France, not the commoners being executed. The committee had its leader, Robespierre executed and the committee destroyed, showing the end result of the Terror was negative; the committee they worked hard to make happen being destroyed.

Another disadvantage of the Terror was ironically, in the later years of France, a emperor rose. This would not have happened if the Terror did not take place and the people were kept happy by the new imposed government. A former ally of Robespierre disagreed with his method of killing people to get what he wanted, “You want to remove all your enemies by means of the guillotine? Has there ever been such great folly? (Doc. 6)." If the man's own ally was against his radical killing spree, he should have realized the Terror would in the end hurt France not help it. Robespierre himself said , "To good citizens revolutionary government owes the full protection of the state; to the enemies of the people it owes only death. (Doc. 7)." He made this statement but killed people who were good citizens and valued as patriots in the community, as stated in a report to the government shown early in the essay. If the Terror would not have taken place, yes the reformation would have progressed more slowly, but its overall success would have been greater.

The Terror helped a speedy progression of the Revolution but it was unstable and that was proven through the committee and Republic being destroyed only a few years after the Terror.

Candide Thesis and Outline

Martin's pessimism is much more appealing than the optimism of Pangloss because it deals with reason, thoughts of enlightenment, and reality where Pangloss tries to fake the Earth as a perfect society through his love of religion.

I. Martin's pessimism is realistic and uses logic.

A. His pessimistic attitude is really a realist attitude, he only seems like a pessimist compared to Pangloss.

B. Martin uses reason like an Enlightenment thinker.

1. Martin says good things come with bad things, and vice versa, basically saying nothing is as good as it seems, but also nothing is as bad as it seems.

II. Pangloss bases his optimism on his religion.

A. He says that anything that happens is the best possible situation.

1. Candide has jewels stolen from him but the boat with the jewels crashes (chapter 19).

a. Martin says this cannot be the best possible outcome because the innocent passengers were also killed.

B. Pangloss ignores anything that goes against his beliefs by making absurd arguments to reaffirm his faith in God.

III. Pangloss's beliefs are a parody of Leibniz's philosophy, while Martins views represent Voltaire.

A. Leibniz's philosophy is that everything in the world is perfect because it is created by a perfect God.

1. Pangloss argues the same thing in a satirical, over-the-top way in the novel.

B. Martin's beliefs go along with the beliefs of Voltaire.

1. Voltaire prefers a philosophy that is based on reason and past experiences over religion.

a. Martin had tragic situations in his life that caused him to think with reason when situations came about for Candide.

2. Martin was created by Voltaire to express his own beliefs in the book and to contradict Pangloss and Leibniz.