The Regis Review A Journal of Student Research
Regis College 2010
The Regis Review: A Journal of Student Research
Spring 2010 Copyright 2010 by Regis University All Rights Reserved Printed in the United States of America
Editor Amanda Bartling Co‐Editors Kimberly Johnson Erik Meddles Autumn Hummel Trent Stevanak Production Regis College Faculty Advisor Gladys Frantz‐Murphy, PhD Submissions The Regis Review is published annually. The Regis Review is a journal of research; only non‐ fiction works from undergraduate Regis College students are considered. The deadline for submissions is mid‐April of the year of publication. Submissions must include hard copy and electronic. Authors receive several copies of the publication Note to: Regis University Dr. Gladys Frantz‐Murphy 3333 Regis Boulevard Denver, CO 80221‐1099
Table of Contents
Conflict between Israel and Palestine ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1 By Kathryn Brisnehan Reason and Faith in Plato and Dante ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 9 By Jennifer Evon French In Name Only ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 16 By Erik Meddles (Not) Made in China ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 30 By Hanh Nguyen Dracula vs. The Moon ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 38 By Mariah Raney Making Connections ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 50 By Kirk Schneider Russia 1917 to 1953: An Incongruent History ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 56 By Christopher Yamauchi
The Role of Israeli Settlements in the Conflict between Israel and Palestine By Kathryn Brisnehan In 1947 the United Nations General Assembly decided to separate the land of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem under the governing of the United Nations. This came as a result of the aftermath of World War II. Since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, the region has been plagued by controversy between Israelis and Palestinians. Before the creation of Israel, Palestinians had controlled the land in the region for thousands of years. However, when the United Nations approved the land for the State of Israel, the Palestinians were pushed into surrounding areas. After the Six Day War in 1967, Israel gained control over the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Many of the Jewish people living in Israel believe that the land of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was also given to them by God. Therefore, this land should also be a part of the State of Israel. In order to maintain a hold on these territories, Israel began building areas for Jewish people to live in the territories in 1967. These areas became known as the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Many people argue that Israeli settlements are the main contributor to preventing peace between Israel and Palestine. The settlements make the possibility of a two-state option nearly impossible. The Jewish settlers living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip would have to be forcibly removed in order to create a Palestinian state. Most of the organizations seeking peace in the region agree that the Israeli government will not do this willingly. In fact, all of the U.S. administrations since 1967 have supported a freeze on Israeli settlements in the territories (Kurtzer). Each administration has cited different reasons for halting the construction of settlements. One of the reasons the U.S. government has condemned the settlements is the Fourth Geneva Convention. It “prohibits an occupying power from transferring citizens from its
own territory into the occupied territory” (Kurtzer 90). Israel has done this in the West Bank and Gaza Strip by moving Israeli settlers into those areas. Another reason the settlements are seen as illegal is because of their restriction of Palestinians to access their own land. Additionally, since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, when Israel agreed to freeze settlement activity, there has been a 70% increase in settlements from 1993-2000 (Kurtzer 91). Finally, Kurtzer also explains how the settlements disrupt Palestinian’s everyday lives as a result of the barriers created by checkpoints and roadblocks. Over time, Israel’s policies regarding the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have changed. In the Six Day War in 1967, Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol announced the founding of Kibbutz Merom Hagolan in the Golan Heights of the territories, which would become the first Israeli settlement (O’Sullivan). At this time Israel began to ensure that any creation of a Palestinian state in the future would be “vulnerable and penetrable so that it…[is not] a credible threat to its (Israel’s) security or existence” (Sirriyeh). After the 1967 war, Israel’s construction of settlements in the Palestinian territories has stalled the peace process, and the Israeli government’s recent support of new settlements will further complicate the road to peace. By 1977, there were 20,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip when the country came under the leadership of Prime Minister, Menachem Begin. Begin was a founding member of the Lukid party, Israel’s first political party right of center. Throughout his time at Prime Minister, Begin believed the “problem of composition of the population in the Jewish state [was] secondary to a concern with its territory” (Permutter 360). After the formation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964 to represent the Palestinian cause for statehood, Begin rejected negotiating with them. During this period, Begin advocated
for the United States’ role as a mediator in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Additionally, he wanted to negotiate individually with each Arab state in the region in order to prevent an Arab delegation from joining together against Israel (Perlmutter 367). However, Begin did remain wary of the United States’ ambitions in Israel, as he worried about becoming a pawn in the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union (Perlmutter 370). By the 1980s settlement developments increased when planning regulations and restrictions were lifted by the Israeli government (Newman 1192). Contrary to popular belief, many Israelis chose to move to the settlements for “economic rather than ideological or political reasons” (Newman 1192). Some settlers are “induced to live in the territories by the prospect of inexpensive housing in attractive surroundings” (Halkin 37). However, there are also many Zionist settlers who chose to move because of their national-religious beliefs that the land belongs to the Jewish people. Begin remained Prime Minister until 1983. The first intifada began in 1987. During the intifada, Palestinians called for strikes and boycotts against the Israelis and attacked the Israeli military and civilians. One of the main forms of violence during the intifada was stone-throwing at the Israelis by Palestinian youth (Promises). This uprising “primarily took the form of civil disobedience,” with the violence mainly contained to the stone-throwing (Sirriyeh 508). During the first five years of the intifada, 994 Palestinians were killed by Israeli troops, 94,830 acres of Palestinian land were confiscated, and 2, 074 Palestinian homes were demolished or taken (O’Sullivan 46). This stand against Israeli oppression provided worldwide awareness of the state of the Palestinians refugees and their dire conditions. On August 20, 1993, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, secretly signed the Oslo Accords, or Declaration of Principles. This agreement was made public
to the world on September 13, 1993. Overall, in the agreement, Israel recognized the PLO as representative of the Palestinian people and the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, through peaceful negotiations, not violence (Reich). However, Rabin and Arafat also agreed on three other main points. First, the Israelis would “transfer [the] power and responsibilities to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza,” in order for them to control their own states (Palestine Facts). Second, all of the permanent issues, “such as Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements and borders…are excluded from the interim arrangements” and will be addressed in the future (Palestine Facts). In the meantime, Israel will “retain responsibility for and the overall security of Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza,” as well as all international borders (Palestine Facts). In order to implement this process of the Palestinian’s right to self-rule, the Israelis must withdraw forces from the Jericho area in the Gaza Strip. After this withdrawal, the powers and responsibilities of “education and culture, health, social welfare, direct taxation and tourism,” will be transferred to Palestinian authorities (Palestine Facts). Palestinians will then be allowed to elect governing officials in the West Bank and Gaza. Finally, after three years of the Palestinian self-rule, the Israelis and Palestinians will begin negotiations about the remaining issues that were not part of the Oslo Accord agreements. As explained by Terje Larsen, a moderator of the agreements from Norway, the Oslo Accords created “interdependence…It’s genius is that if one [state] fails the other fails” (Origins of the Oslo Accords). However, the 1995 assassination of Prime Minister Rabin by Yigal Amir, a right-wing Israeli fundamentalist, challenged the possibilities for peace. The election of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 created a right-of-center government, which left people hoping he would continue a road for peace by meeting with the PLO and tightening the policy on Israeli
settlers (A New Israeli Settlement Policy). The promise from the accords began to be derailed by Israel’s choice to build more settlements and restrict Palestinian movements (Abbas). From 1993-2000 there was a 70% increase in settlers, to nearly 400,000, living in the territories (Kurtzer, Patterson). Additionally, these actions led to further disruption in the daily life of Palestinians with the increase in barriers and checkpoints for them to move around the territories (Kurtzer). These actions led to the beginning of the second intifada in 2000. On October 1, 2000 thirteen Arab demonstrators were killed by Israeli police, beginning the second intifada (Cook). In 2001, Ariel Sharon, a long time supporter of the Israeli settlement movement became Prime Minister. Sharon had been the “longtime master builder” of the settlements as a result of his past ministerial posts in agriculture, housing, infrastructure, and defense (Derfner). This intifada, unlike the first one, reinforced the Palestinians claim to use violence against Israel if necessary (Sirriyeh 508). The use of violence “signaled a return to Palestinian armed struggle in contrast to the guerrilla campaign waged by the PLO…in the late 1960s and 1970s” (Sirriyeh 508). As a result, Israel began building a wall in 2002 to separate the territories from the Israeli land. This action led to a decline in Palestinian attacks (Pressman 363). Throughout the intifada, Sharon would not negotiate with the Palestinian authorities and insisted on using force to end the violence. Sharon’s response included “mass arrests and detentions, home demolitions, checkpoints, curfews and closures,” along with an overwhelming use of force (Pressman 361). However, there were still major suicide bombings by Palestinians that further increased the violence. Over the course of the intifada there were 3,189 Palestinians killed and 942 Israelis killed (Pressman 362). The Palestinian economy was also destroyed. In 2003 a coalition of countries and organizations (United States, Russia, United Nations, and European Union) released a Roadmap to Israeli-Palestinian peace (Pressman 365). In this
roadmap, the first phase was for the Palestinians to disarm and for the Israelis to freeze settlement construction. After this phase was accomplished a Palestinian state “with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty” could be established (Pressman 365). Finally, negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians would determine the final borders of Palestine and resolution of other issues such as refugees and Jerusalem. Many Israelis supported a plan that “removed small isolated Israeli settlements from Gaza and meant that approximately 1.3 million Gaza Palestinians would not be under Israel’s control any longer (Pressman 367). In order to follow this peace plan, in August 2005, Israel began to remove 21 settlements from the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the West Bank, equaling a total of 8,000 settlers (Pressman 368). However, even with the dismantling of the settlements in the Gaza Strip, Israel still maintains control over the Palestinian economy and population. Israel controls the entry and exit points to the Palestinian territory and can slow the movement of goods. Additionally, “approximately 90% of the Palestinian population is denied the ability to travel,” greatly restricting any freedom the Palestinian people might have (The Challenge Ahead). As a result, the removal of the settlements in Gaza has not led to the promise for peace that the Palestinians had hoped would result from the Israelis moving out of the territory. Although the conflict in Israel and Palestine is often overshadowed in today’s media by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama faces a difficult struggle to reach peace between the two groups of people. Israel continues to receive more than three billion dollars of aid a year from the United States (Walt). A recent study released by the Israeli government found that as many as 75% of the settlement construction in recent years has been done illegally (Blau). The current Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu is not interested in a two-state solution to achieve peace with the Palestinians (Walt). Even though Obama could press
Netanyahu to stop settlement construction, he would be overridden by Congress because the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has a powerful lobby with many of the senators in Congress (Walt). Overall, any solution now will require both Israel and the PLO to make major concessions to address a one or two state solution and the problem of refugees. Currently, President Obama is not in the position to encourage Netanyahu to stop building Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory. If Obama decides to argue that settlement construction should be frozen, he will risk losing some of the 78% of the Jewish people who voted for him in the 2008 election. Clearly, the settlements are prohibiting the peace process between Israel and Palestine. One of the main reasons the Oslo Accord failed is because of the Israeli government’s decision to continue the construction of settlements in Palestinian territory. Most people agree that any peace between Israel and Palestine will only occur if most or all of the settlements are removed from the Palestinian territories (Newman). If a peace can be reached between the Israelis and Palestinians, each will need to be willing to make concessions. Additionally, the Israelis will have to address the problem of Palestinian refugees either by allowing them to return to the country or providing them compensation for their damages. The two parties will also have to come to an agreement about Jerusalem, a holy city to Jews, Muslims, and Christians. If the two parties can begin to negotiate on these issues then Israel and Palestine can begin the path to peace again.
Bibliography Abbas, Mahmoud. “Israel and Palestine Can Still Achieve Peace.” The Wall Street Journal. 19 Sept. 2008: A23. “A Dream is Dying: The Legacy of the 6 Day War.” NBC Special Report. NBC. 1987. "A New Israeli Settlement Policy." New York Times 07 Aug. 1996: 16. Beinin, Joel and Lisa Hajjar. “Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict A Primer.”
Blau, Uri. “Secreat Israeli Database Reveals Full Extent of Illegal Settlements.” 20 Sept. 2009. <Harretz.com>. Breeze, Erin and Melodye Feldman. Building Bridges for Peace: An Intergroup Intervention for Israeli, Palestinian and American Teens. A Program of Seeking Common Ground, 2008. Cobban, Helena. “Confessions of an AIPAC Veteran.” The Nation. 2 Nov. 2009. <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091102/cobban>. Cook, Jonathan. “Israel’s Arab Citizens Call General Strike.” Counter Punch. Sept. 2009. Derfner, Larry and Thomas Omestad. “Balancing Act.” U.S. News and World Report. 16 June 2003: 16. Feith, Douglas J. “Is Israel a Jewish settlement? The East Bank.” The New Republic. 16 May 1994. Halkin, Hillel "The Settlers' Crisis, and Israel's." Commentary 119.3 (2005): 37-43. Kurtzer, Daniel C. “Do Settlements Matter? An American Perspective.” The Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs. Vol. 3 No. 2 Spring 2009. Michaelson, Jay. “How I’m Losing My Love for Israel.” The Jewish Daily Forward Online. 16 Sept. 2009. Newman, David. “Israeli Settlements.” Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa. Ed. Philip Mattar. Vol. 2. 2nd Ed. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004: 1191-1193. O’Sullivan, Gerry. “Settler Terror.” Ex Umbris. May/June 1994: 45-46 “Palestine Facts: Israel 1991 to Present Oslo Accords.” 11 Nov. 2009 <http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_oslo_accords.php>. Patterson, Margot. “Settlements fuel war’s fire in Middle East.” National Catholic Reporter. 19 April 2002. Perlmutter, Amos "Begin’s Strategy and Dayan’s Tactics: The Conduct of Israeli Foreign Policy." Foreign Affairs 56.2 (1978): 357-372. Pressman, Jeremy. "Israeli Unilateralism and Israeli–Palestinian Relations, 2001–2006." International Studies Perspectives 7.4 (2006): 360-376. Promises. Dir. Justine Shapiro, B.Z. Goldberg, Carlos Bolando. New Yorker Video, 2001. Reich, Bernard. “Israel: Overview.” Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa. Ed. Philip Mattar. Vol. 2. 2nd Ed. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004: 1159-1170. Simon, Bob. “Is Peace Out of Reach?” 60 Minutes on CBS. 27 Jan. 2009. <http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n&tag=related;photovideo>. Sirriyeh, Hussein. “The Palestinian Political Option After Arafat.” Israel Affairs. July 2005. Pg. 504-516. “The Challenge Ahead.” The Middle East. Oct. 2005: 6-10. “The Oslo Accords: A Third Party Negotiated Treaty and Its Effectiveness in Peace Implementation.” 11 Nov. 2009 <http://www.earlham.edu?~polis/17Fall96/walkejo/homepage.html>. “The Price of Victory.” Frontline. PBS. 1987. Walt, Stephen M. “Settling for Failure in the Middle East.” Washington Post Online. 20 Sept. 2009.
Reason and Faith in Plato and Dante By Jennifer Evon “Reason as human learning is not the opponent of faith but its instrument” (August 9). Plato’s analogy of the cave in The Republic and Dante’s Divine Comedy explore the intricate relationship between human reason and faith in a higher power. Although Plato wrote his philosophical dialogue long before Dante composed his epic poem, they discuss similar points pertaining to reason and faith. They both suggest that reason is more important for humans while on earth because it is within our level of understanding. However, we must always strive to reach the ultimate good, or God. While each author discusses this concept in different manners, one through an elaborate and highly convoluted analogy and the other in a lengthy epic poem, both arrive at similar conclusions when exploring the relationship between faith and reason. The true meaning of Plato’s analogy of the prisoner in the cave has been disputed by critics for centuries. In it, prisoners who are chained to a wall are required to look at shadows on a wall, which they accept as truth. However, one prisoner is forced out of the cave and into the sunlight. At first he is unable to discern the true shapes around him, but eventually gazes at the brightest object, the sun. Plato’s central purpose for writing The Republic was to articulate how to build the ideal city-state, primarily through the use of reason. This analogy may be understood in terms of ascending towards higher levels of understanding. While the cave dwellers accept the shadows as fact, the prisoner forced into the sun experiences the true forms by acquiring knowledge. Plato’s Socrates discusses in his dialogue that if the prisoner was told that these objects were more authentic than the shadows he would become confused, for “wouldn’t he believe the things he saw before to be more true than what was being pointed out to him now?” (Plato 822). Since he relied on his reason, or senses, while in the cave, it becomes difficult for the prisoner to grasp the concept of true forms, since he believed the shadows were real. When
the prisoner finally looks at the sun, “he [works] out that it was the sun which caused the seasons and the years, which governed everything in the visible realm” (Plato 823). While the prisoner may not grasp the full significance of the sun at first, he utilizes his reason to conclude that the sun’s light makes all other forms visible. He not only sees the objects outside of the cave because of the sun’s rays, but also the shadows within the cave. By using reason, the prisoner is able to broaden his knowledge with the hope of attaining a better understanding of the validity of true forms. In the same way, Dante must first rely on reason in his journey in developing his faith. Virgil tells Dante that he will lead him through Hell and Purgatory, but that he must rely on Beatrice to take him to Heaven: “if you too wish to make the climb,/ a spirit, worthier than I, must take you” (Dante 1468.121-122). By referring to Beatrice as the worthier spirit, Virgil is implying that reason is not as important or strong as faith in achieving the ultimate goal of entering into unity with God. Additionally, he says “I shall go back, leaving you in her care/ because that Emperor dwelling on high/ will not let me lead any to His city/ since I in life rebelled against His law” (Dante 1468.123-126). Since Virgil completely relied on his reason during his lifetime instead of faith in God, he is eternally damned to live in Limbo, the first level in Hell. While the souls in Limbo do not experience pain, they are always searching for a higher power. They will never know God, which illustrates the weakness of reason in achieving eternal happiness. However, since it is often difficult to grasp the importance of faith while on earth, Dante believes reason is an important tool in training the heart to later accept heavenly truths. Eugene R. August, a critic of Dante, explains that “the heart may have its reasons, but it may also have its prejudices and superstitions. For fallible humans, it is wise to keep the reasons of the mind
within easy reach” (August 7). While the heart, which is presumably controlled by a person’s faith, may be the source of that person’s values, they may also easily become distracted by other emotions. Throughout Dante’s journey, he speaks with many shades who are in Hell and Purgatory because their reason was clouded by misjudgments. They abandoned their reason and instead gave in to gluttony, violence, or other sins. In fact, Dante must journey through the spiritual realms precisely because he fell off of the straight path during his life by giving into sin. Since Dante realizes that humans are prone to sin because they cannot fully grasp the concept of God and the importance of His commandments, they should rely heavily on reason while on earth. Since true reason is presumably good, relying closely on reason will ensure that a person can later develop a deeper understanding of God through their faith. After the two authors illustrate the importance of using human reason, they also express how reason alone is not enough to achieve true knowledge or happiness. Plato’s philosophical explanation of the universe is that everything on earth is a representation of an ultimate form. We are often blinded by these representations instead of using our reason to discern between shadows and forms. These forms ultimately lead to the good, which can be comparable to the Christian concept of God. While reason may be important, Plato demonstrates that the sun, or the Good, is the ultimate goal in one’s journey. Jade Principe suggests that “the analogy of the Cave confronts us with an image of ourselves caught up in illusion, not realizing that we are so intellectually impoverished until we are brought out of the dark cave and into the sunlight and can thus appreciate true reality” (Principe 222). While we may use reason during our lifetime, what we experience is merely an illusion; we will not realize the full extent of the good until we are in the midst of it. Therefore, reason can actually inhibit humans from experiencing truth. Plato’s Socrates suggests that the good is the ultimate level of understanding that humans are
striving for: “my own view, for what it’s worth, is that in the realm of what can be known, the thing seen last, and seen with great difficulty, is the form or character of the good” (Plato 824). Although relying on faith may be more difficult since we cannot use our sensory experiences to prove the existence of the good, it is what we must strive to find. While we may surround ourselves by illusions and use reason to justify things of this world, we eventually must move past this in order to see the good. This is comparable to the prisoner in the cave, who believes the shadows in the cave to be the true forms. It is not until he is able to look directly at the sun that he attains true understanding and recognition of the good. Likewise, “it is correct to think of knowledge and truth as good-like, but incorrect to think that either of them is the good. The good is something to be prized even more highly” (Principe 222). We acquire knowledge through reasoning, which is an important part of the learning process. Knowledge can lead to a more fruitful life, thus being good-like, but without the presence of the good, or faith, our lives will not be full. Dante holds similar views that reason alone is not enough to achieve an ultimate realization of truth. While reason is clearly important, since he must rely on Virgil for two-thirds of his journey, he must depend on faith to enter into a heavenly realm. August states that “in Dante’s view, humanistic reason has two weaknesses: it can be corrupted, and it is inadequate to the deepest human needs” (August 7). As previously stated, humans can easily lose sight of their faith while on earth and therefore must rely on reason. However, even reason can be corrupted because it can be used improperly. While people should rely on true and just reasoning, they are not always sure what uncorrupted reason actually looks like and therefore abuse it. August’s statement also illustrates that reason falls short of providing people with true happiness, as seen in Dante’s work. The weakness of reason becomes apparent when Beatrice must lead Dante to
Heaven instead of Virgil. After passing through the cleansing fire of Purgatory, Virgil tells Dante, “I led you here with skill and intellect; from here on, let your pleasure be your guide” (Dante 1592.131). While Virgil used his intellect, or reason, to escort Dante through most of the journey, Dante must rely on his love for Beatrice to reach his goal. By using Virgil as a representation of reason and Beatrice to illustrate faith, Dante can tangibly show the differing necessities of reason and faith in his journey toward spiritual enlightenment. Both authors have illustrated the importance of reason in human life while also discussing reason’s faults in comparison to faith. This means that reason is ultimately used as a vehicle to develop faith and achieve subsequent truth. Plato’s analogy culminates in his idea of the ultimate form of the good, for “the greatest thing to learn is the good, and every soul seeks the good and does all that it does in pursuit of it” (Principe 221). The good is similar to Dante’s idea of God; they are both the ultimate truth in one’s intellectual and spiritual journey. A person cannot attain any additional knowledge after they understand the good, for the good embodies all knowledge and truth. Therefore, a person will spend all of their life discerning what the good is and will not be fully satisfied until they achieve it. If we our reason, “the good then is not merely an abstract idea that comes at the height of an intellectual process, but is a guiding principal informing us of what we should be desiring and striving for” (Principe 231). If the sun in the cave analogy represents the good, and the prisoner uses reason to realize that the sun gives source to the light in the cave, then his reason is used as a vehicle for achieving the good. His faith guides reason to help the prisoner out of the cave in order to see the true forms instead of mere shadows. Dante also seems to suggest that reason is included in a larger sphere of faith, for his journey begins with divine intervention and ends with heavenly knowledge. August states that
“in Dante’s vision, reason serves faith, and faith is the logical next step in a journey of life that begins and ends in love” (August 12). By beginning and ending in faith, reason was clearly created out of faith and is used during life as a way to reconnect with faith in the afterlife. In a heavenly communication chain, Saint Lucy was asked by the Virgin Mary to speak with Beatrice on behalf of Dante. Beatrice tells Virgil that “when [Lucy] had finished reasoning, she turned/ her shining eyes away, and there were tears” (Plato 1471.115-116). Lucy uses reason to explain why Beatrice should help Dante, but her tear-filled eyes reveal that she was ultimately moved by pity. If emotions such as love and pity are part of faith, then her faith is what ultimately leads her to ask Beatrice to speak with Virgil. Beatrice also tells Virgil that “love moved me” (Plato 1470.72) to help Dante realize his sins and the necessity of redeveloping his faith. While she presides in Heaven, the place of complete happiness, it would not seem logical that she would want to descend into Hell to help a sinner like Dante. However, her love for Dante was so great that she was willing to temporarily leave paradise to assist him in also entering Heaven. Clearly, faith is prized more highly than reason, and is also more powerful, for Dante was saved because of love, not Beatrice’s reason. Reason and faith are in close dialogue during the communication chain between Mary, Lucy, Beatrice, and Virgil, demonstrating that reason is a mode for which faith may be realized. Lastly, once the characters in Plato and Dante’s works achieve faith, they are not eager to use reason once again. Plato’s prisoner feels regret when he must return to the cave and his old way of viewing the shadows. Socrates says that he would feel sorry for the other prisoners who have such limited knowledge, and “he’d be prepared to put up with anything to avoid that way of life” (Plato 824). Since he had achieved complete understanding of the good, returning to a life that depends completely on rational thinking seems pointless. Since he knows that the shadows
are just an illusion and that the other prisoners will not understand the concept of true forms, his life will be utterly frustrating in the darkness of the cave. In the same way, Beatrice expresses her desire to promptly return to Heaven when she is speaking with Virgil in Hell: “I come from the place I am longing to return to” (Dante 1470.71). Since she has no need for reason, having already achieved salvation, she does not want to stay in Hell, where reason is valued above faith. Without her great compassion for Dante, she would never have had any incentive to enter into the rational realm. Reason and faith are closely connected within the works of Plato and Dante since both authors conclude that reason is employed to aid humans in achieving a full sense of belief. Although they use different methods in explaining the complexities of reason and faith, they arrive at the same end. The two works were written in completely separate and distinct cultures, but yet the ideas presented in the texts are universal. The connection between reason and faith is clearly valid, for Plato and Dante explore the issue in a similar manner with the ultimate realization of the power of faith over reason.
Literature Cited Alighieri, Dante. “The Divine Comedy.” The Norton Anthology of Western Literature. Ed. Sarah Lawall. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. 1465- 1597. August, Eugene R. Beatrice and Virgil: The Dialogue of Faith and Reason in Dante’s Commedia. University of Dayton Review, 1994. 23.1. 5-12. Academic Search Premier. Plato. “The Republic.” The Norton Anthology of Western Literature. Ed. Sarah Lawall. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. 817-824. Principe, Jade. The Ascent as a Return to the Cave. Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines. 219-236. Academic Search Premier.
French in Name Only: Uncertain French Identity for the Algerian Other By Erik Meddles French colonial rule in Algeria was similar to that in other French colonies around the world yet markedly different as well. Algeria, more than any other colony, became closely tied to France and, more importantly, became identified as distinctly French. France colonized many of Algeria’s neighbors including Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco, but Algeria seemed to develop a different relationship with France than these other countries. Egypt had been the first to be colonized by the French at the beginning of the 19th century; yet French intentions in that country were hardly permanent. Cole quotes Napoleon I as he explained the Egyptian mission to his men, stating, “You shall inflict on England the surest and most palpable blow, while awaiting the opportunity to administer the coup de grace.” 1 The short-lived colonial presence in Egypt was only meant to keep Britain from interfering in Napoleon’s conquest of Europe by cutting it off from its rich Indian colony. Other colonial influence by France in the Middle East would be largely commercial, erecting favorable trading and financial systems within the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco. This type of dominance is defined by Cole as “informal empire” and was very different from what happened in Algeria in the 19th century 2 . In contrast, the French invaded Algeria in 1830 and began a system of colonization that lasted until the country achieved independence in 1962. This was a much longer period of colonization than those in Tunisia (1881-1956) and Morocco (1906-1955) and saw a large amount of European immigration. French rule over Algeria drew forth inherent and interesting questions regarding Republican values, the new territory, and the Algerian population. To what degree were Algerians to be considered equal with French citizens in the metropole? Were
1
Juan Cole, Napoleon’s Egypt: Invading the Middle East, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 11. Juan Cole, Colonialism and Revolution in the Middle East: Social and Cultural Origins of Egypt’s Urabi Movement, (Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 1999), 3.
2
Algerian territory and institutions simply administered by the French, or were they intrinsically French? How were French colons (white, French settlers) to be viewed in a French imperial system? By examining the origins of the French settler population, the conflicting requisites to French citizenship, French prejudice towards Islam and Arabs, the confusing hierarchy of “Frenchness,” and French discomfort with their role as colonizers, one can see that Algeria slowly and awkwardly became tightly drawn to France while maintaining an insurmountable barrier of otherness. This ill defined duality was a result of French struggles with an evolving concept of nationalism in the 19th and 20th centuries. At the beginning of the 19th century Algeria and France had very good relations. Algeria delivered grain to the Republican government in France amidst the country’s revolutionary tumult. Franco-Algerian relations were suspended during the Napoleonic wars however, and this sparked a financial dispute between the two countries. Ruedy clarifies that, “When FrancoAlgerian relations were subsequently broken, a debt of 7,000,000 to 8,000,000 francs [to Algeria] had not yet been settled.” 3 Frustration over the unpaid grain and a diplomatic insult on the part of the French consul led the Algerian Dey to dismiss the French diplomat. This insult to French honor and a desire to compete with the ever expanding British Empire gave French royalists the impetus to invade Algiers. After the invasion, French forces secured the coastal cities of Algeria while leaving the interior untouched out of fear of larges scale resistance. 4 Political changes in metropolitan France reflected a disorganized Algerian policy. LouisPhilippe’s July Monarchy led a government divided between colonial mercantilists who pushed for occupation and liberal economists who rejected it. Ruedy explains, “In the absence of an
3
John Ruedy, Modern Algeria: The Origins and Development of a Nation, (Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2005), 46. 4 James Currey, General History of Africa: Africa in the Nineteenth Century until the 1880’s, vol. 6, ed. J.F. Ade Ajayi (Berkely: University of California Press, 1998), 202.
official Algeria policy, facts were created on the ground; ad hoc policies established by commanding generals or their subordinates, or imposed by the logic of events, limited more narrowly every year France’s real options.” 5 In this divided atmosphere, an overarching policy was not feasible and instead Algeria continued to be occupied but with no long-term goals. Events in Algeria were thus dictated in large part by the army and colonizers on the ground in Algeria during this time. So who made up the colons entering Algeria during this time and why were they going there? Some among these colonizers were certainly missionaries hoping to gain Islamic converts to Christianity. In trying to convince Europe to sanction the invasion, Ruedy reports that, “French emissaries, invoke[ed] the solidarity of Christian Europe against the latter-day Turkish menace.” 6 Christian missionaries, seeing an opportunity to proselytize and civilize Algerians, were shortly behind the army or welcomed its arrival for those already within the country. Cohen gives the example of Father Lavigerie who not only hoped to convert Algeria to Christianity but “envisioned spreading Christianity from Algeria to the rest of Africa.” 7 Therefore missionaries valued the colony as a launch pad for further proselytizing efforts. The spread of Christianity was only one aspect of the mission civilisatrice that was an impetus to colonization. The desire to spread Enlightenment thinking through education came through the legacy of Napoleon I and was extended into Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia later in the century. L’Alliance Israélite Universelle founded schools in North Africa for the purpose of combining Jewish traditions and Western education. While supporting the Jewish religion, these educators hoped to shape these young people in the studies of what constituted Western progress.
5
Ruedy, Modern Algeria, 52. Ibid, 47. 7 William B. Cohen, The French Encounter with Africans: White Responses to Blacks, 1530-1880, (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2003), 276. 6
Academic formation was not the only goal of these schools, however, as they were also meant to transform young Algerians from their supposedly poor and decadent conditions into European models of progress. A contemporary educator at a Moroccan school, Mme. M. Coriat, recalls, “In my first letters to the Central Committee, I found many occasions to discuss the character of our girls: dishonest, sly, selfish. […] Some progress has been made in this direction also. I am not saying that the girls are models of solidarity, cooperation, and kindness. But I have noted with satisfaction that there is no longer the same spirit of cunning and deceit among my students.” 8 These students were seen to possess naturally moral failings that the French education system was able to curtail, though not eliminate. Mme. Coriat notes that they had much more success concerning physical appearance, attesting, “At present our girls laugh about it and are amazed that, not long ago, they could have gone out of the house without stockings, sometimes even without shoes.” 9 The Alliance Israélite was thus able to enforce a change of dress that they interpreted was a clear symbol of progress from their prior, laughable, situation. Economic reasons often pushed French citizens to move to Algeria as well. Of particular prominence among this group were those coming from the regions of Alsace and Lorraine. Although many Alsaciens and Lorrains immigrated to Algeria after the Franco-Prussian War to avoid Prussian rule, Fischer points out that significant movements began long before this period. Fischer shows that population growth was enormous at the beginning of the 19th century, jumping from 96.8 habitants per km2 in 1801 to 129.1 in 1851 for the lower Rhine and from 74.8 to 120.2 In the upper Rhine during the same period. 10 Fischer elaborates that, “Dans une société excessivement terrienne, de nombreux journaliers vivaient difficilement grâce à un petit lopin de 8
Alliance Israélite Universelle in Sources in the History of the Modern Middle East, ed. Akram Fouad Khater (Boston : Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004), 87. 9 Ibid, 87. 10 Fabienne Fischer, “ Les Alsaciens et les Lorrains en Algérie avant 1871,” Revue Française d’Histoire d’OutreMer 84, no. 4 (1997) : 58-59.
terre d’une superficie souvent inférieure à dix ares, en raison du morcellement excessif de la propriété.” 11 (In an excessively landed society, many day laborers lived difficultly thanks to a small piece of land of an area often inferior to ten ares, the reason being excessive dividing of the property). Because these two agricultural regions could no longer effectively provide for the increasing populations within the regions, struggling farmers saw opportunity in the new French colony. Additionally, those from the north of these regions, following in the footsteps of their German neighbors, intended to move to America before they were redirected by French authorities. Fischer explains that, “Les départs, quelques fois massifs, de certaines contrées alarmèrent les autorités locales, prêtes à se mobiliser pour réorienter le mouvement vers l’Algérie, dans le but de conserver à la France, une partie de sa population.” 12 (The departures, sometimes massive, of certain regions alarmed the local authorities, ready to mobilize in order to reorient the movement towards Algeria, in the goal of conserving for France, a part of its population). All of these factors led to Alsaciens and Lorrains making up about 20% of the colons throughout the first half of the 19th century. 13 This substantial, landless population immigrating to Algeria did so in search of economic advancement through agriculture. Achieving these goals would come at the cost of dispossessing Algerians of their land and increasing tensions between the inchoate colonial population and indigenous Algerians. These colons were as uncomfortable in their new surroundings and what to do with them as French officials were. Thompson highlights travel accounts as a means of understanding French discomfort with their new surroundings. She finds that the streets of Algiers were troubling for colons because of their difference from typical French urban settings. She asserts that, “Moving through streets whose direction and inhabitants were equally mysterious and hard 11
Ibid, 59. Ibid, 59-60. 13 Ibid, 61. 12
to fathom, whose sights and sounds were nearly incomprehensible, French travelers revealed their inability to navigate, understand, and describe a foreign territory in their accounts.” 14 This physical disorientation often led travelers to avoid the areas of Algiers that challenged them in favor of more comfortable areas. Colonial segments of the city which replicated French urban centers often gave colons a reprieve from this unfamiliar environment. French inhabitants still embraced some of the exotic amidst their anxieties. According to Thompson, “Attestations of French superiority in matters such as urban planning are accompanied by passages in which travelers revel in what is not French: the climate, the sight of different sorts of people, and the availability of different sorts of pleasures.” 15 Through these reflections, one can see that the colons needed to impose their own environment in Algiers, yet they also combined some of the ideal aspects of the new locale into this French ambience. This naturally separated living spaces between colons and Algerians while creating a space that was neither completely French nor completely Algerian. The beginnings of a colonial identity struggled to take shape. Like their colonial counterparts, French officials faced difficulties in defining Algerians under a colonial system. Republican ideals pronounced the equality of human beings and affirmed citizenship amongst the propertied, and the question of whether this should be extended to Algerians soon presented itself. Assimilation presented itself as the answer to the Algerian problem when in 1848, the Second Republic decided to partly incorporate Algeria by administering the colony through départements. Ruedy adds, “While many colons insisted down until the 1870’s and 1880’s that ‘assimilation’ was designed to improve the lot of natives, they had no intention of extending to the Algerian majority the civil or political rights of
14
Victoria Thompson, “‘I Went Pale with Pleasure’: The Body, Sexuality, and National Identity among French Travelers to Algiers in the Nineteenth Century,” in Algeria and France 1800-2000: Identity, Memory, Nostalgia, ed. Patricia M.E. Lorcin (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2006), 25. 15 Ibid, 23.
Frenchmen.” 16 In short, assimilation was desirable to transform Algerians into acting more French, while keeping them of an inferior legal status. Some of the legal complexities surrounding Algerians can best be understood by looking at Algerians who fled to Tunisia. Those who fled to Tunisia did not wish to live under colonial and faced a more promising future. Clancy-Smith reports that although Algerians were second-class citizens in Algeria, these same people paradoxically “became French protégés once they crossed the border into Tunisia. The French consulate in Tunis protected their interests, provided justice, and oversaw matters related to civil status.” 17 Because Algerians had been French “subjects” since 1834, they received the same protections that French citizens did within Tunisia’s colonial system. The idea that Algerians could not be equal with the French in their own country but that this was possible elsewhere added to identity complexities. Reforms instituted by Napoleon III did little to alter the policies regarding Algerian status. Napoleon III repealed some of the efforts to integrate Algerians into local government in favor of military rule because “without such controls the greed of the settlers would run rampant.” 18 Through this action, the government took on a paternalistic protection of the Algerians and created a portrait of an unprincipled settler population. In spite of any protection provided, the Second Empire continued to deny complete Frenchness to Algerians. According to Dunwoodie, “Reforms in a decree of July 1865 gave them [Algerians] French nationality but again not citizenship. ‘The Muslim native is French,’ it declared; however only by renouncing
16
Ruedy, Modern Algeria, 74. Julia Clancy-Smith, “Migrations, Legal Pluralism, and Identities: Algerian ‘Expatriates’ in Colonial Tunisia,” in Algeria and France 1800-2000: Identity, Memory, Nostalgia, ed. Patricia M.E. Lorcin (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2006), 6. 18 Ruedy, Modern Algeria, 74. 17
Islam could he or she ‘benefit from the rights open to a French citizen.’” 19 By creating Islam as a barrier to citizenship the Second Empire insured that an overwhelming majority of Algerians would not become citizens. Dunwoodie further emphasizes that “This abnormal category of ‘French national noncitizen’ was made permanent in 1881, when Algeria was fully absorbed into the metropolitan administrative system.” 20 Even as the administrative system became more directly tied to the French central government, Algerians were kept at a distance from being completely French. Certain Algerians, mainly intellectuals, tried to adopt a European identity and future for Algeria. This group, referred to as évolués, hoped to attain the benefits granted to French citizens through linking their identity to the French colonizers. Dunwoodie notes that the first reference to the évolués came from an article in 1901 and these members were doubtless highly influenced by the French educational system that had spread into the country since the invasion in 1830. Additionally, they supported French liberal ideas, hoping to use this position in opposition to other movements within Algeria. Dunwoodie states that, “the group’s objective was the ‘modernization’ of Islam and feared their future involvement in the pan-Islamic movement.” 21 These intellectuals, likely linking contemporary Islam with a nationalism that they perceived as unrealizable, hoped to secure themselves a position within the dominant colonial system. In this way, Algerians were willing to “moderate” or “reform” the aspects of Islam that the French found impediments to progress. The most obvious of these difficulties was the argument used by Shaykh Ben Badis Al-Basha’ir, leader of The Association of the Ulama of Algeria in his pronouncement of 1937. Badis rejected the idea of Muslims living under non-Muslim rule, 19
Peter Dunwoodie, “Assimilation, Cultural Identity, and Permissible Deviance in Francophone Algerian Writing of the Interwar Years,” in Algeria and France 1800-2000: Identity, Memory, Nostalgia, ed. Patricia M.E. Lorcin (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2006), 68. 20 Ibid, 68. 21 Ibid, 65.
pronouncing that “The action of acquiring a non-Muslim nationality implies the abandonment of Islamic law. Even the renunciation of a single precept of the Qur’an leads, according to the doctrine accepted by all of the ‘ulama’ of Islam, to apostasy. A naturalized person is thus an apostate.” 22 Whether an exaggerated analysis of Islamic dictums or not, this type of thinking completely rejected rule by any non-Muslim power and would not be tolerable under any colonial system. Ferhat Abbas, an Algerian intellectual, acknowledged that this view was untenable in the French colonial system and pushed instead for equality amongst Algerians and the French. Abbas denied the concept of Algeria as a nation, recognizing “the ‘Arab Empire,’ and the ‘Muslim Empire,’ [as real entities], which honor Islam and our race, but these empires are gone. They are the equivalent of the Roman Empire and of the medieval Holy Roman Empire. They were born for an epoch and for a humanity that no longer exist.” 23 For Abbas, the idea of an Islamic government in Algeria did not live in the political reality of the current situation. Instead he argued that, “Six million Muslims live in this land, which became French one hundred years ago. They live in slums, barefoot, without clothes or bread. […] We want to elevate the dignity of these men and women until it is equal to that of the French.” 24 Honor, dignity, and justice for Algerians did not need to come from Muslim leaders. So long as Algerians identified themselves as French and were treated as such, Muslim rule was largely irrelevant. The Blum-Violette proposal of 1936 (drafted by speaker and prime minister of the French parliament Maurice Violette and Léon Blum) sought to extend French citizenship among Algerians to an unprecedented level by removing the religious restriction earlier imposed. The 22
Ben Badis Al-Basha’ir (January 14, 1938), in Sources in the History of the Modern Middle East, ed. Akram Fouad Khater (Boston : Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004), 226. 23 Ferhat Abbas “On the Margins of Nationalism. I am France ! ” Liberté (February 27, 1936), in Sources in the History of the Modern Middle East, ed. Akram Fouad Khater (Boston : Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004), 221. 24 Ibid, 222.
text declares, “Algerian natives are French. It would be unjust to refuse henceforth the exercise of political rights to those among them who are the most cultured and who have furnished important guarantees of loyalty.” 25 This text clearly identifies Algerians as French while still distinguishing between the évolués and other Algerians. The Popular Front Government was not willing to grant immediate, all encompassing French citizenship to Algerians, but was willing to valorize those willing to assimilate. Among those that the proposed law stipulates should be allowed citizenship are certain army veterans, government officials, degree holders, financial leaders, and others designated by certain branches of French leadership. 26 Those who contributed the most to French society and the colonial system would be extended French citizenship. This bill, however, did not succeed in the French legislature. While the évolués embodied the ideals of assimilation that many in France desired, there were others who fundamentally opposed their assimilation. For them, incorporation of Algerians, any Algerians, into a French identity was impossible. Dunwoodie explains that, “where Muslim évolués (and some liberal Paris intellectuals) spoke of retarded evolution and the need for development […] colonial opponents argued somatic difference, the fixity of racial superiority, and threats to (the myth of) ethnic and cultural homogeneity.” 27 These thinkers, doubtless influenced by “scientific” racial theories, defined Frenchness not through cultural adaptation but through racial and physical characteristics. In this way, Frenchness could never be obtained by Algerians because they were intrinsically un-French. The colons became less French in the eyes of the metropole in the 20th century as well. While immutable racial arguments had been used against Algerians to question their ability to
25
Fouad Akram Khater, ed., Sources in the History of the Modern Middle East, (Boston : Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004), 222. 26 Ibid, 224. 27 Dunwoodie, “Assimilation, Cultural Identity, and Permissible Deviance,” 70.
become French, the colons were also viewed as less French due to their time spent in Algeria. Shepard cites contemporary historian Pierre Nora as an example of this type of thinker and quotes his conclusions regarding the pieds-noirs (black feet) colonizers. He states, “Nora explained that the most fervent pied-noir partisans of French Algeria inhabited le bled, the Algerian countryside, where ‘they have suffered the influence of the Arab milieu.’ Sharing the ‘same climate and the same lives, they have finished by adopting the same habits.’”28 Through this one can see that the colons were perceived to have been changed by Algeria and more specifically Algerians. Racially, the colons were the same as the French within mainland France, but they were culturally different. This difference earned the colons the title of the “French of Algeria.” The Algerians and the colons thus suffered from twin arguments meant to exclude them from a French identity. Algerians, no matter how French they may have acted, were ethnically different from their colonizers and, therefore, not French. The colons, despite their physical similarities to the French, were not quite French either, because they acted in supposedly different ways. This type of argumentation thus became a tool to remove the French identity of a population and consign some them some other role. This was useful for the French within the metropole when discussing the colons, because it allowed them to distance themselves from events within Algeria. Discussions of torture and other mistreatment of Algerians could be deflected, because these actions were supposedly being perpetrated by the “French of Algeria” and not the French of France. Shepard elaborates on this thinking, clarifying that, “Their [colons] double exploitation of Algerians and Algeria paradoxically produced a sick society and allowed it to soldier on: it was only their certainty that they ‘all were better than the Arabs that allows 28
Todd Shepard, “Pieds-Noirs, Bêtes Noires : Anti-‘European of Algeria’ Racism and the Close of the French Empire” in Algeria and France 1800-2000: Identity, Memory, Nostalgia, ed. Patricia M.E. Lorcin (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2006), 150.
them to survive.’” 29 This argument continues the trend started by Napoleon III of citing the rapaciousness of the colons as something separate from official French actions. For Nora, Algerian colonists only survived due to their exploitation of the local population and country, and this exploitation was not associated with the larger French colonial framework. The exploitation, therefore, is not French because it is perpetrated by those who have lost the essence of Frenchness through their exposure to the African continent. By creating another non-French “other,” the French of the mainland were able to exonerate themselves from the injustices of the colonial system. All of these examples highlight a general sense of discomfort surrounding French colonialism and the French nation state. France, unlike many other European nations at the time, held a conception that those born in the nation were of that nation and that no blood lineage was necessary. There was an inkling to think of Algeria and Algerians as French. Algerians were considered to be French “subjects” even early on into the occupation, and Algeria was governed by the same administrative structure as French territories in the metropole after 1881. However, the fundamental exploitation of Algeria as a colony rendered a situation of equality and justice between the French and Algerians untenable. The concept of the nation-state held no answer for how to handle the incorporation of a population through forced acquisition. Although Algeria and its people were nominally titled French, they were not equally or completely French. This policy was fraught with uncertainties, leaving the colons unsure of and uncomfortable with their new environment and allowing Algerians outside of the country privileges they did not have within it. French administrators hoped to resolve this uncertainty by incorporating Algerians into their culture, or at least some of them. By casting off Islam and acting more French certain Algerians might hope to be brought into a system of equality. Violette and Blum saw a 29
Ibid, 154. In text quotation again from Nora.
Republican answer to this question, which imagined Algerians (if on a limited scale) as citizens of the Republic. This argument emphasized the Republic as an entity outside of national boundaries or characteristics and thus hoped to reframe the debate. Yet when it came to instituting this as an official policy, the measure was rejected. Others within France considered Algerians to be intrinsically inferior and embraced a system that solidified these perceived differences along racial lines. By insisting on these inherent differences and even portraying these as deficiencies, it was easier to perpetuate a system of exploitation. Furthermore, by claiming that the colons had changed from being French, it was easy to find a scapegoat to blame for colonial abuses. In short, none of the issues of identity were sufficiently answered for anyone involved in Algeria. The status of Algerians was not well defined legally or individually. The colons maintained their legal status but were no longer seen as Europeans by the French of the metropole. In the end, French leaders and thinkers failed to define their nation, their colonies, and those within those colonies in a clear and sufficient way to maintain their colonial system.
Bibliography Abbas, Ferhat, “On the Margins of Nationalism. I am France ! ” Liberté (February 27, 1936), in Sources in the History of the Modern Middle East, ed. Akram Fouad Khater (Boston : Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004). Al-Basha’ir, Ben Badis, (January 14, 1938), in Sources in the History of the Modern Middle East, ed. Akram Fouad Khater (Boston : Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004). Alliance Israélite Universelle in Sources in the History of the Modern Middle East, ed. Akram Fouad Khater (Boston : Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004). Clancy-Smith, Julia, “Migrations, Legal Pluralism, and Identities: Algerian ‘Expatriates’ in Colonial Tunisia,” in Algeria and France 1800-2000: Identity, Memory, Nostalgia, ed. Patricia M.E. Lorcin (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2006). Cohen, William B., The French Encounter with Africans: White Responses to Blacks, 1530-1880, (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2003).
Cole, Juan, Colonialism and Revolution in the Middle East: Social and Cultural Origins of Egypt’s Urabi Movement, (Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 1999). Cole, Juan, Napoleon’s Egypt: Invading the Middle East, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). Currey, James, General History of Africa: Africa in the Nineteenth Century until the 1880’s, vol. 6, ed. J.F. Ade Ajayi (Berkely: University of California Press, 1998). Dunwoodie, Peter, “Assimilation, Cultural Identity, and Permissible Deviance in Francophone Algerian Writing of the Interwar Years,” in Algeria and France 1800-2000: Identity, Memory, Nostalgia, ed. Patricia M.E. Lorcin (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2006). Fischer, Fischer, “ Les Alsaciens et les Lorrains en Algérie avant 1871,” Revue Française d’Histoire d’Outre-Mer 84, no. 4 (1997). Khater, Fouad Akram, ed., Sources in the History of the Modern Middle East, (Boston : Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004). Ruedy, John, Modern Algeria: The Origins and Development of a Nation, (Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2005). Shepard, Todd, “Pieds-Noirs, Bêtes Noires : Anti-‘European of Algeria’ Racism and the Close of the French Empire” in Algeria and France 1800-2000: Identity, Memory, Nostalgia, ed. Patricia M.E. Lorcin (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2006). Thompson, Victoria, “‘I Went Pale with Pleasure’: The Body, Sexuality, and National Identity among French Travelers to Algiers in the Nineteenth Century,” in Algeria and France 1800-2000: Identity, Memory, Nostalgia, ed. Patricia M.E. Lorcin (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2006).
(Not) Made in China By Hanh Nguyen As I wandered past the full shelves at Walmart in search of my boyfriend, I wondered what novelty he would discover, contemplate, and eventually buy this time. I found him with a basketful of white dishes, excited and eager to replace the old and worn wooden set he had bought freshman year. His smile faded and was quickly replaced with a grimace of frustration when I casually flipped over a plate and blurted out that dreaded telltale label: Made in China. The dishes went back on the shelf and out of Walmart walked a thoroughly disgruntled consumer. His reasoning for resisting the allure of those beautiful dishes? He had witnessed firsthand during his trek through Tibet the oppression and inhumane treatment the Tibetans suffer under China. He refuses to support the government that is responsible for this atrocity and others like it, though it means he must painstakingly search for everyday goods made elsewhere in markets that China dominates. He is not alone in boycotting goods from this nation. Those who oppose this giant cite reasons of shocking working conditions, the harsh treatment of Tibetans and Indians, political oppression of its people—in short, appalling human rights violations—as reasons for why a boycott is necessary to change the current situation. Those who oppose boycotters argue that a boycott is ineffective, unrealistic, and that in an interconnected global society, it makes little difference. The little difference it does make, however, is reason enough. Economic, political, and social elements undoubtedly have their places in this equation, but what ultimately matters most is the very real fact that not supporting the oppression of innumerable people—whether it is the Chinese workers or those inhabitants of countries that China desires—sends a message to China, the rest of the world, and future generations that the person and human dignity are more valuable than material wealth.
The rapid growth of this Asian country can be traced back to the drastic changes enacted by the Communist government after millennia of dynasty rule. After a civil war that raged for four decades as a result of revolutionaries who overthrew the last dynasty in 1911, the Communist Party took power in 1949. Social and political reforms appeared in the 1950s, which were followed by economic reforms in the late 1970s. These economic changes included elements of a free market economy and foreign investment; this significantly expanded the country’s private sector and therefore gave China the ability to become an increasingly important player in world trade (Hoshiko 1). With this market socialism came the power to import and export vast quantities of goods: Economy Watch notes that China now has the third largest economy in the world with a GDP of $7.8 trillion as of 2008. The United States and Japan hold first and second place, but this is expected to change in the near future. Economy Watch also reports that China is rapidly overtaking the United States as the world’s second largest exporter and is projected to become the largest by 2010. Chinese exports cover a considerable amount of everyday household goods; their economy flourishes on exports such as home appliances, kitchen wares, food products, shoes, clothes, toys, and bags, with the United States receiving 19.1% of all goods in 2007 (“China Trade”). These gains have undoubtedly spelled out immense wealth and influence for China, but not all who are involved to make this growth a reality have benefitted. This “economic miracle” is the incredibly profitable gamble of Deng Xiaoping in 1978 to implement free market reforms. It has launched China into a position of power and vast wealth. But at what cost does this expansion come? What has China sacrificed in pursuit of a position of world dominance? An increasing awareness of China’s dismal record of human rights violations for its workers and its resolve to maintain tight control over markets has rendered
consumers wary of the products they are buying, products that may have been manufactured at the expense of the workers’ health and human dignity. New York Times writer David Barboza writes that though there have been waves of reform in large corporations in response to these unbelievable human rights violations, much more still needs to be done. The fact that these companies reformed only because they were exposed, fined, or scolded for their horrific practices exposes the motivation that lurks behind the desire to expand: everything else is eschewed in the mad dash for profit. All other things—even the human person—pales in comparison to the elusive god of power and wealth, a god who is merciless and heartless in his demands. A demand from this terrible god is the exploitation of others for personal profit. Chinese workers are the ones who suffer most from this mistreatment: “Some Chinese companies routinely shortchange their employees on wages, withhold health benefits and expose their workers to dangerous machinery and harmful chemicals, like lead, cadmium and mercury” (Barboza 1). This is translated into reality in the story of 16-year-old Xu Wenquan, who tells Barboza that he and his 18-year-old brother earn $120 to $200 a month working 12 hours a day, six days a week. When government officials come to inspect conditions, the two are told not to show up for the day. His is a story among millions; the outrageous maltreatment of workers has been a key factor in why China’s economy has boomed so quickly and so profitably. Despite watch groups that monitor the treatment of workers by these huge companies, practices such as child labor, 1- hour workdays at fast-moving assembly lines, and payment that is less than the fifty-five cents minimum wage in some areas of China are still very much rampant. Physical fatalities of workers are also another result in the pursuit of profit: Barboza
cites a study published by the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences found that 40,000 fingers are lost or broken on the job every year (3). Labor rights advocate Anita Chan reminds consumers that fears linked to recalls of products that may contain harmful substances not only affect the consumer, but the worker who is exposed to these toxic materials during production: “If these things are so dangerous for the consumer, then how about the workers? We may be dealing with these things for a short time, but they deal with them every day” (Barboza 1). Cheap goods are mass produced and marketed at the price of a worker’s physical and mental health, dignity, and in extreme cases, a worker’s life. As China’s allegiance to this detrimental and self-centered god grows, their quest for a greater share of the world strengthens economically; consequently, so has its appetite for geographical expansion. Neighboring Tibet has suffered China’s determination to dominate not only the goods market, but the physical world as well. In an interview with the XIV Dalai Lama, he explains why China views Tibet as beneficial both economically and militarily: “There are many places where there are different kinds of minerals and it is obvious that the large areas of forest and their timber have been destroyed. I think there is a large interest in the mineral resources found in Tibet” (“Interview” 2). China stands to gain more wealth with the natural resources Tibet offers, a natural and often-used reason to invade when one subscribes to this power-hungry god. However, this small country is also a military advantage for the Chinese; in a lengthy explanation, the Dalai Lama acknowledges China’s history of expansion and offers his viewpoint of why China was successfully able to forcefully occupy their neighbor:
When the Chinese Communists came to power the whole of China was united, and thus then had enough power to invade Tibet. If you look objectively, there is clear sign that the two are separate countries. In China’s case, they had a belief that the whole working class of the worlds should unite and destroy the Imperialist or Capitalist. Therefore, when the Chinese reached Lhasa, one Chinese general explained that the liberation of Tibet was not only for the Tibetans but for the neighboring nations as well (3). China’s occupation of Tibet has led to outraged responses from Tibetans and others who believe China does not have the right to absorb this country in pursuit of a greater position. What the presence of the Chinese has done to India serves as a foreshadowing of what will potentially happen to Tibet if this Asian country is permitted to continue with its quest for more land. The Indian economy has faced far-reaching changes since the entry of Chinese goods into its country; the introduction of what Ela Gandhi calls “one hour technology” has derailed an already impoverished country: “Many Indian companies have already shifted their production bases from small Indian towns and villages to China. This has resulted in unemployment for workers, pushing them to the brink of starvation. China's steady entry… has resulted in the collapse of many Indian industries” (“Friends of Tibet” 2). China has not concerned itself with the loss of livelihood for many Indians, but has taken its place in a long line of countries that have fallen prey to these glittery but destructive practices in order to gain control. In response to these injustices, Rajiv Vora (advisor to the Friends of Tibet boycott movement) and a myriad of others have called for a boycott of Chinese goods—abstaining from or avoiding buying products, merchandise, and supplies from China. Vora refutes the common argument that a boycott is ineffective and insignificant by calling attention to the fact that one
should not merely consider the economic effects, but the social effects as well: “In the boycott of Chinese goods lies non-cooperation with the regime that is out to destroy Tibet, and humiliate and damage India” (“Friends of Tibet” 3). A boycott is important and can be effective economically, but the Dalai Lama and Vora are also concerned with the human connection a consumer has with the worker, an American has with the oppressed person in Tibet, a successful businessperson with the couple who has had their small store wiped out because cheap goods have undermined their business. Boycotts in American history—the 1970s boycott of grapes in support of the United Farm Workers and the 1980 boycott of retail stores implemented by the NAACP and Ministers of Detroit—are strong examples of how consumer action has changed the social norm. To those who deem boycotts unrealistic and believe that open discussions are the only constructive way to deal with situations such as this, the Dalai Lama acknowledges that discussions are necessary with the Chinese government and that he does not want to sever ties with them (“Interview” 3). However, open discussion is a political action; a boycott is a consumer action. Though open dialogue is a necessary component for understanding one another, the boycott is useful in that it illustrates the displeasure and sorrow of the consumer. The consumer has some power, regardless of how insignificant it may seem, to voice his or her opinion on the goods that are offered. A third argument frequently used is how the existence of China has helped to stabilize the world economy and has lowered production costs on almost everything. In response to this, Lhasang Tsering, another advisor to the boycott movement, questions the impact of this on people. He comments that “some people wonder and even ask what difference a few individuals can make by not buying 'Made In China'. What we can gain or achieve through this campaign is
not our primary concern. The first and most important consideration is that it is morally wrong to support in any way such an oppressive regime” (“Friends of Tibet” 4).Where is the thin line drawn between expansion with good intentions—to better the quality of life—and expansion without regard to those it is suppose to benefit? Some may argue it is unfair, as it is now China’s ‘turn’ to expand and grow. However, when one examines history, the tactics and practices used during the American Industrial Revolution had to be reformed because conditions were unbearable and inhumane. America has changed that here—at home—but continues to support it abroad by demanding cheaply made goods. The next-to-nothing prices China is able to charge the world does not factor in the human cost it took to make a particular product; it does not acknowledge the destruction and degradation of the human person. Tsering reminds consumers that though prices are low, it is because a brutal government has forced their workers to accept pay and a life that does not celebrate human dignity, but rather degrades it. A continued support of Chinese goods is a continued support of oppression. A continued support is also a continuation of payment for cheap goods with the health and lives of Chinese workers. Rajiv Vora bluntly states this: “Buy Chinese goods if you wish to fund forced labour in China, Chinese repression in Tibet, and China's aggression on India.”
Works Cited
Barboza, David. “In Chinese Factories, Lost Fingers and Low Pay.” The New York Times. 05 January 2008. Web. 26 February 2010. Hoshiko, Eugene. “China's Economic Miracle: The High Price of Progress.” CBC News Online (2006). Web. 26 February 2010. ---. “An Interview with the XIVth Dalai Lama.” Friends of Tibet (INDIA). 26 February 2010. <http://friendsoftibet.org/main/intervw.html>.
---. “China Trade, Trade with China, Trade in China, Chinese Trade.” Economy Watch. 2009. 26 February 2010. <http://www.economywatch.com/international-trade/china.html>. ---. “Why Boycott Chinese Goods.” Friends of Tibet (INDIA). 26 February 2010. <http://www.friendsoftibet.org/mic/>.
Dracula vs. The Moon: the fight for feminine power By Mariah Raney Why don’t women need to wear watches? Because there is a clock on the oven. Why don’t women need drivers’ licenses? Because there isn’t a highway between the kitchen and the bedroom. Why do women wear white on their wedding day? Because then the dish washer matches the rest of the appliances. What these modern day one-liners speak to are the age-old fears that women might one day abandon their domestic sphere in order to enter the mainstream of society. If given liberties outside of their homes, women might think too much or become more aggressive in their sexual conquests, thus threatening the phallocentric order of society. The only way to keep women in check is to limit their liberties. Luckily, nature assists in this. The moon, symbol of womanhood, waxes and wanes controlling female sexual appetite and fertility. However, if something ever obscured or replaced the moon, chaos would ensue; women would abandon their necessary societal roles and threaten the lives of those around them. While not as frightening a concept in the 21st century, the idea of female liberation appeared absolutely repulsive to those in the Victorian era, and many authors of this time period spoke to this collective anxiety. Only powerful during the night when the moon rules the sky, Bram Stoker’s Dracula metaphorically represents the new wave of Victorian femininity whose endemic effects changes classically defined female roles and threatens to destroy the neatly gendered-spheres of the Victorian era. During the time in which Stoker lived, Victorian men and women experienced a massupheaval of the traditionally accepted gendered roles. Wanting to expand their opportunities outside of the home, “numerous women fought for a larger role in public life and challenged the traditions that defined women’s nature as naturally submissive, passive, self-sacrificing, and domestic” (Eltis 450). This brand of woman, typically referred to as the New Woman, sought to
give women equal rights within the working and political sphere, as well as encouraged women to be “more frank and open” (Senf 35) in matters of sex. Within Dracula, Stoker provides two versions of the New Victorian Woman. The three overtly sexualized female vampires who serve as Dracula’s minions act as the fearful extreme of the New Woman’s philosophy on total female sexual liberation. Their seductive, alluring qualities empower them, allowing them to entrap men in order to suck their blood. The other version of the New Victorian Woman that Stoker provides is perhaps more difficult to discern. Mina Murray maintains herself as the chaste and virginal heroine of the novel, resisting all temptation to ever assert herself sexually. In fact, Mina even disparages this “forwardness and openness of the New Woman” (36). However, she too supports the New Woman philosophy by “explor[ing] many of the avenues recently opened to her: education, careers, and other alternatives to women’s traditional roles” (35). Whichever view of New Womanhood one wishes to examine, at the heart of this entire social movement is Dracula, the blood-sucking fiend who threatens to undermine the stability of the neatly-ordered patriarchal society. The first introduction to Dracula occurs as he takes Jonathan Harker to his castle on the eve of St. George’s Day. As the pair makes their way to the Dracula castle, the night sky alternates between moon shine and thunder clouds and the creatures of the night, most particularly the wolves, become rather restless and begin howling. At one moment, the moon suddenly breaks out from behind the clouds and, as though summoned, the howling wolves surround the carriage that holds Dracula and Harker. Dracula, with a sweep of his “long arms, as though brushing aside some impalpable obstacle, [makes] the wolves [fall] back and back . . . . Just then a heavy cloud [passes] across the face of the moon” (Stoker 39), leaving Dracula and Harker in darkness once again. Wolves naturally respond to the moon by howling at it; however,
Dracula quells this natural instinct and replaces it with another, unnatural reaction, with the sweep of his hand. In this scene, Dracula and the moon vie for the upper hand as ruler of the night. If the moon should prove more powerful than Dracula, the natural order will remain as it has always been. However, should Dracula win instead, a new natural order will be introduced, which will inevitably threaten the stability of the societal order. Dracula’s power to alter the natural reaction of the wolves foreshadows the vampiric changes of the women in the story yet to come. As Jonathan becomes more adventurous within the Castle Dracula, he explores a forbidden room of the castle and even decides to sleep in this room, “the soft moonlight [soothing]” him with the thoughts of “old ladies [sitting] and [singing] and [living] sweet lives whilst their gentle breasts [are] sad for their men folk away in the midst of remorseless wars” (60). Bathed in the glow of the moon, Harker remembers women fulfilling their particular gendered roles of passively removing themselves from the action of war and devotedly troubling themselves with the well-being of their husbands. Suddenly, the arrival of the three female vampires that dwell in Dracula’s castle interrupts Jonathan’s reverie. Governed by the moonlight, the women vampires are filled with the natural instinct to satiate their hunger for blood. These three women attempt to seduce Harker in order to drink his blood and turn him into a vampire, but Dracula, arriving on the scene in a fit of rage sweeps away the women with “the same imperious gesture that . . . [he] had used to the wolves” (62). By driving these women away and preventing them from turning Harker into a vampire, Dracula overcomes the power of the moon. He also reveals in this moment the ultimate female power: the power to attract men, to seduce them, and then to deny any sexual fulfillment, thus empowering women through their sexual allure. Troubling as these women appeared to the Victorian audience with their overt and
explicit sexuality, even more frightening was their challenge of the traditional role of mother. While denying them Harker, Dracula gives the female vampires a bundle full of “a halfsmothered child” (63) which they proceed to take with them in order to consume and slake their thirst for blood. Acting in a grotesque parody of a child suckling at a mother’s breast to find nourishment, these women take their nourishment from the child instead, thus toppling the ideal of motherhood. Much of Stoker’s audience feared that with the rise of the New Victorian Women, motherhood would cease to exist, carrying larger implications for the entire future human race. If women became too intelligent, too sexually aggressive, or too powerful, they would undermine the stability of society as well as that of the family and thereby pose a “threat to the future of healthy civilization and the human race” (Eltis 454). By making these women vampires, Stoker’s view of the New Woman is that she “defies both natural law and society’s restrictions and therefore manages to escape many of the limitations which affect human beings” (Senf 39). She defies nature because she is not fully dead, thus defying the natural laws that restrict most humans and this carries larger implications of her defiance of her other natural law, that of motherhood. Society’s restrictions also suggest that she stay within the home and adhere to her passive, domestic role, but the female vampire is not bound by these limitations. By casting off these societal limitations, Stoker and his Victorian audience feared that the woman would assert her dominance over the man within society. This chilling thought then manifests itself when Dracula makes the pivotal pronouncement that “this man [Harker] belongs to me [Dracula]” (Stoker 62), suggesting metaphorically that Jonathan now belongs to the will of unchecked femininity, a concept that resurfaces with his wife, Mina. On the surface, Mina represents the classic sexually repressed female who defers to her husband on important matters and does not assert herself on any intellectual or sexual plane.
However, we soon find that Mina actually possesses more intellectual faculties than either her husband or the rest of the members of the Crew of Light and this makes her a New Woman threat. As a former school mistress, Mina has learned shorthand in order to assist her future husband, Jonathan, with his business; she knows how to operate a typewriter and uses it to benefit the Crew of Light in order to bring down Dracula, and she admits to being a “train fiend” (333), thus having the capacity to understand and memorize train schedules to the Crew of Light’s great advantage. Perhaps most frightening to the men of this novel is that on an unconscious level, Mina recognizes her intellectual superiority and the power that it has the potential to give her over the men. She proves this as she hands Van Helsing her journal written in shorthand that serves the dual purpose of showcasing her accomplishments at the art and exposing Van Helsing’s ignorance at not being able to read what she has written (193). Also, while all of the men refer to Mina as either Madam Mina or just Mina, giving her individual autonomy, she happily uses the possessive my to describe Jonathan, as on her wedding day when she refers to him as “my husband” (123). The use of the word my signifies ownership; thus, Jonathan belongs to both Dracula and Mina which are really two sides of the same concept of Jonathan belonging to the will of unchecked femininity. Mina speaks disparagingly of the New Woman, expressing the ludicrous and improprietous notion that the New Woman may one day “do the proposing [for marriage] herself” (109) rather than waiting for the man to do it. However, while she is not forward in her sexual conquests, Mina exhibits many of the characteristics of New Womanhood that she professes to despise. Though she attempts to maintain her virginal aura around the rest of the Crew of Light and “lay[s] still and endure[s]” (206) when it comes to being in the bedroom, she still succumbs to Dracula’s will and becomes “unclean, unclean” (285) as a result. As Dracula
comes into Mina’s bedroom while Jonathan is asleep, he forces Mina to drink blood from his breast, once again inverting Mina’s role of a mother and turning her instead into a child seeking nourishment from its mother. Mina even admits to “not want[ing] to hinder [Dracula]” (287) as he draws her closer and closer to his breast. She may be unwilling to embrace the sexuality of the New Women, but Mina still finds something attractive about them and try as she may to maintain her Victorian asexual passive demeanor, part of her cannot resist the temptation to break out of her domestic role and try something new. As the Crew of Light enters the scene and approaches Dracula with their sacred armaments, the “moonlight suddenly fail[s]” (283) and Dracula disappears. In that moment of darkness, the damage has already been done: Mina has a taste of New Woman femininity and though she may try to revert back to her old self, she cannot resist asserting this new feminine consciousness after her “baptism of blood” (318) in the failing moonlight. However, Stoker’s tuning Mina into a pseudo-vampire is not merely an indictment of Mina’s behavior. It also serves as a punishment for masculine negligence. While the Crew of Light continues their search for Dracula’s earth boxes, they insist that Mina stay at home because of her “womanly weakness and the necessity of preserving her in the safe and proper location of the home” (Eltis 461). Their intentions seem noble, but Stoker appears to be criticizing the men of the story for their lack of awareness of the large threat that unchecked femininity has on their comfortable lives. Days before Mina’s baptism, Dracula has already fed upon her, admitting that in fact “it is not the first time, or the second, that [her] veins have appeased [his] thirst” (287). Dracula then continues speaking to Mina, saying that the men “should have kept their energies for use closer to home” (288) because then they could have prevented Mina from succumbing at all to vampirism by not allowing her to be bitten. If the men would have remained attentive to
their posts of ensuring proper female behavior and submission to the patriarchy, Mina never would have been bitten and their crusade would have ended the moment Dracula left London. Shortly after bringing Mina into the vampire fold, Dracula leaves London because he senses that the Crew of Light will destroy him if he stays. At this point, a decision faces the Crew of Light of whether or not they should follow Dracula back to his homeland to kill him and thereby eradicate his presence from humanity forever. Van Helsing easily convinces his fellow comrades that they must indeed follow Dracula because Mina is “but a mortal woman” (311) who, if she died before Dracula was killed, would become a vampire. In other words, Van Helsing makes the decision to follow Dracula under the guise of saving Mina from a terrible fate of becoming a blood-sucking vampire. However, implicit within Van Helsing’s motivations is that he wants to follow Dracula in order to save all of the men, all of the women, and all of London from Mina’s potential vampirism. If Mina became a vampire and embraced the ideas of New Womanhood and unchecked femininity, she would not endanger herself, but she would have the potential to harm and convert those around her. The Crew of Light follows Van Helsing’s suggestion primarily because they “never argue about how women should behave” (Weissman 398), thus underscoring the commonalities of their beliefs on this matter, and because they have the contiguous belief that “women who renounce their traditional feminine roles . . . must be destroyed” (Senf 42). In short, the “fight to destroy Dracula and to restore Mina to her purity, is really a fight for control over women” (Weissman 405). After her induction into this new breed of femininity, Mina’s intelligence reveals itself even more strongly than before, thus accelerating her descent into being a New Woman and threatening the stability of society. Though periods occur in which the Crew of Light refuses to divulge their plans to Mina on account of her new-found skills of telepathy with Dracula, when
she is included in the action, Mina figures out Dracula’s travel route and ultimately enables the Crew of Light to defeat him. While the men of the story are able to record the events of the day in their journals, Mina is the one who finally makes sense of everything in her neatly-ordered, logical memorandum about Dracula’s movements. Reasoning that Dracula travels safest on water, she then studies maps of rivers in order to determine the most expedient route for Dracula to return to his house, and remarkably, she is dead on. As fearful as the men are of Mina’s uncleanliness, indeed the scar on her forehead serves as a constant physical reminder of that fact, they still need her New Woman intelligence and initiative in order to save themselves from the menace of unchecked femininity. While she attempts to maintain a passive, non-vampiric demeanor, Mina experiences various changes not only in her brilliance, which seems only to increase after Dracula baptizes her, but in her physical biorhythms as well. At night, she becomes restless, awake, and alert, whereas during the day she sleeps much of the time. Herein lies the most important element of vampire lore. During the night time when the moon, and thereby femininity, supposedly rules the night sky, the vampires become powerful and may awake from their slumber in order to prowl the villages for blood. At this point, they are so powerful that they cannot be destroyed. However, as soon as the sun rises, the vampires lose their power to transform, lose their power to obscure the celestial bodies and act under their own influence, and lose their ability to drink blood. Instead, the vampires are usually confined to their homes—be it coffin or bedroom— while the sun, symbol of masculine power, rules the sky. Only during the day time when the sun illuminates the world beneath it may the vampires be killed because they are weak and defenseless, confined to their proper domestic sphere where real Victorian women are supposed to be.
The method by which these New Women are destroyed is no small accident either. In order to destroy the five vampires mentioned in the story, the men in the Crew of Light know that they must drive a transcendental signifier, either a stake or a knife, through the heart of their victim, thus asserting masculine dominance over this rampant, unchecked femininity in an overtly violent and sexualized manner. Only after this has taken place will femininity return to its proper subordinate position, confined as it should be according to Victorian era men, to the home both during the day and night. Also, as the vampires are destroyed, the men begin using the possessive once again to describe the women in their lives. Once Arthur has destroyed the vampire formerly known as Lucy, he refers to Mina as Mrs. Harker rather than Madam Mina like the other men. In a similar fashion, once Van Helsing has destroyed the three female vampires dwelling in the Castle Dracula, he also uses the possessive to describe Mina, saying “my dear Madam Mina” (361) not once but twice after the other vampires are killed. Having not been made a full vampire, Mina need not be destroyed in the similar fashion as Dracula and his cohorts. Mina’s resistance to her new-found unchecked femininity, in a large part, spares her. By possessing a “man’s brain” (240), Mina agrees with her partners that Dracula and New Womanhood must be destroyed. Although her vampiric “woman’s heart” (240) attempts to gain the upper hand, in the end Mina’s brain, wired into the patriarchal society she helps to defend, saves her from becoming a vampire and helps her bring about Dracula’s defeat. After this vampiric femininity dies with Dracula, the scar on Mina’s forehead disappears, and as such the pure white “snow is not more stainless than her forehead” (368). Certainly Stoker lauds Mina on certain attributes of the New Woman she possesses, her “intelligence, her ability to function on her own[,]” but in the end, “by negating her sexuality, having her adopt a more traditional feminine role, and by showing her decision to abide by the group’s will instead
of making an individual decision, he also reveals that [in fact] she is not a New Woman” (Senf 48) and that New Womanhood has in fact died with Dracula. However, Dracula’s death does not provide the absolute sense of closure sought for by the Crew of Light and indeed Stoker’s readers. Instead of writhing in pain, foaming at the mouth, and eventually losing his head, Dracula merely turns to dust, indicating that far from being eradicated, the New Woman femininity is simply lying dormant for a while in order to regain its strength and plan a new course of action. He may not have been able to induct Mina into the fold of New Woman femininity, but Dracula’s crusade for this new brand of woman is far from over. Though the Crew of Light rallies around Mina as a sort of wife and mother to all of them, her own powers of motherhood are conspicuous only by their absence. Mina and Jonathan, though they have been married for several months, never seem to consummate their relationship and Mina never becomes pregnant while the vampires are still at large. While her masculine brain and her vampiric tendencies remain at odds, Mina cannot bear children until one or the other gains the upper hand. Should the vampire within her achieve the ultimate victory, Mina’s reproductive powers, like Lucy’s and the other female vampires of the story, lie in her consuming the blood of children, thus making them into vampires as well. Should the Victorian patriarchy win instead, Mina’s reproductive powers lie in the womb, but she requires a dominant male lover, Jonathan, in order to bear a child in that manner. After the Crew of Light conquers, or seems to conquer, Dracula, Mina does indeed bear a child, Quincy, and the “child is held up as the crowning glory of the story” (Eltis 465) and also of Mina and Jonathan’s marriage. Thus, Stoker “has his heroine choose the traditional roles of marriage and motherhood instead of [a] career” (Senf 38) and thereby asserts his view of a
woman’s proper place within society. At the closing moments of the novel, Mina’s worth is ultimately determined by the fact that she can procreate and assume her naturally assigned role as a mother rather than by her abilities to help defeat Dracula. Particularly interesting in these closing lines is that the final words come not from Mina, who has up to this point dominated much of the narration concerning the Crew of Light’s adventures, but from her husband Jonathan. Harker recalls the “vivid and terrible memories” (368) of his and his friends encounters with vampires. He then quotes Van Helsing’s observations of Mina, describing her as a “brave and gallant woman” (369), though Jonathan never clarifies Mina’s bravery. Whether he is speaking in reference to helping to bring down New Victorian Womanhood or whether he is instead referencing Mina’s bearing a child is left ambiguous at the close of the novel. However, what is interesting about Jonathan’s final note is that he never adopts the possessive for either his son or his wife, suggesting that in fact Dracula’s power of rampant femininity has still not been eradicated. Jonathan’s failure to kill Dracula properly substantiates his inability to claim patriarchal ownership over his family: he still feels bound to that force that owns him even though Dracula is supposedly dead. The new brand of femininity Dracula championed lives on in both Mina, by virtue of her blood baptism, and little Quincy, by virtue of his receiving his mother’s genes. Thus, while all of the other members of the Crew of Light may return to their normal, dominantly masculine lives, Jonathan’s non-assertion of ownership suggests that indeed Dracula is not dead, but lies dormant, biding his time until the right opportunity to assert New Womanhood comes along again. In the end, Stoker reveals a certain degree of ambivalence about his views regarding the New Victorian Woman. On the surface, the Victorian male patriarchy has triumphed over this potentially disastrous epidemic of femininity. However, the uncertainty over Dracula’s death
arouses doubt as to Stoker’s true feelings on the matter. For the Crew of Light, the moon once again rules the night sky, reflecting the sun’s brilliance and exuding no light of its own. It maintains the natural order of society, keeping womanhood from getting out of hand and allowing men to assert their dominance over their more passive counterparts. But for the rest of society, Stoker implicitly asks a one-liner but does not provide a punch line. The question—can this New Woman femininity be fully eradicated?—flashes past the reader’s consciousness as imperceptibly as a bat appearing as a dark spot on the surface of the moon and leaves the reader at a loss to determine whether Dracula has truly been killed.
Works Cited Eltis, Sos. “Corruption of the Blood and Degeneration of the Race: Dracula and Plicing the Borders of Gender.” Dracula. Ed. John Paul Riquelme. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. 450-465. Senf, Carol. “Dracula: Stoker’s Response to the New Woman.” Victorian Studies 26 (1982): 33-49. MLA International Bibliography. Regis University Dayton Memorial Library, Denver, CO. 30 Nov. 2009. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=112&sid=b23f742d-8816-442b-987698699b3ff7f7%40sessionmgr113>. Stoker, Bram. Dracula. Ed. John Paul Riquelme. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. Weissman, Judith. “Women and Vampires: Dracula as a Victorian Novel.” Midwest Quarterly 18 (1977): 392-405. InterLibrary Loan. Regis University Dayton Memorial Library, Denver, CO. 1 Dec. 2009. <https://regis.illiad.oclc.org/illiad/illiad.dll?SessionID=V135801730C&Action=10&Form=75&Value=103 883>.
Making Connections in Watchmen and Brief Interviews By Kirk Schneider If Brief Interviews with Hideous Men and Watchmen have taught me anything, it is that a man’s world begins at the nexus of sexual inscrutability, over-intellectualization and the occasional God complex. This may be a bit hyperbolic, but there is no doubt that both novels point the reader, in cryptic and postmodern fashion, in the thematic direction of existence as characterized by psychological and physical instability. While both novels do create a “man’s world,” the illuminated social spaces are not necessarily congruent, nor are the participants who inhabit them. And while both books are a variation on the traditional medium of a novel, Watchmen’s graphics and Brief Interviews’ psychological field reports have different effects on individual perception of the average man. Themes run rampant in these texts, ranging from commentary on depression to the threat of nuclear warfare, but the locus of each line of reasoning invariably arrives at the man behind the mask, literally and figuratively speaking, and his precarious entanglement with others in the social milieu. In an interview with Salon magazine, David Foster Wallace, author of Brief Interviews, notably says his use of pop culture is, “just the texture of the world I live in” (4). It is this implicit commentary on social fabric and the disconnect between subjectivity and the larger world that make Watchmen and Brief Interviews kin in the blooming, buzzing confusion of postmodern America. The novel Brief Interviews with Hideous Men by David Foster Wallace is a combination of psychological inquiries, made by an unnamed narrator Q, with short stories that illuminate the rooted complexities of existence. Sexual inscrutability is rampant in this novel, both in relation to heterosexual intimacy, like the unforgettable Mr. Victory for the Armed Forces of Democratic Freedom, as well as familial relationships like in the story “Signifying Nothing.” Overintellectualization occurs as the Chicken-Sexer-Finger-Flexer explains, in complex psychological
jargon, his affinity for “contractual masochism” (Wallace 106). In short, this brief formality allows him, on the third date, to tie up various sexual partners and experiment. Of course, there is a God complex in this world of hideous men too. In one of the last sessions in the book, the subject describes how one gesture in adolescent fantasy, “had proven to entail an infinitely complex responsibility more befitting of a God than a mere boy” (Wallace 224). These are but a few of the multitude of examples at hand in Brief Interviews that cast both normal and abnormal men alike under the penumbra of interface sterility. It is best to approach Brief Interviews holistically, with reference to particulars when necessary, for the novel is not linear as much as it is always-already, to borrow a philosophical term. Wallace’s Salon interview highlights the utility of this phrase. He says, “The world that I live in consists of 250 advertisements a day and any number of unbelievably entertaining options, most of which are subsidized by corporations that want to sell me things” (4). Thus, it is not unreasonable to deduce that the characters of his novel similarly function in such a world, a world where the subject fights a particular battle that is, ultimately, a part of a larger culture war. For example, those unfortunate souls born in the year 2096 must navigate the semantic abyss of the “Datum Centario.” This snippet, from “Leckie & Webster’s Connotationally Gender-Specific Lexicon of Contemporary Usage” reveals that the word date has been redefined from the social engagement testing neurogenetic compatibility to the hard date of sex with a machine. There is even a third definition of dating, meaning male involvement with a Polio-erotic Joysuit (Wallace 125). At once a critique of sexual interchange, technological progress, and semantic representationalism, Wallace works from the particularity of simulated passion to the nearuniversal concern of technological effects on relationships, thus capturing the zeitgeist of subject-object deterioration holistically.
In a similar vein, the story “Think” capitalizes simultaneously on the lack of intimacy between man and woman, as well as on individual saturation with hollow pop imagery. The narrator, in describing his adulterous experience, notes, “Her expression is from Page 18 of the Victoria’s Secret catalogue” (Wallace 72). Even in what should be the most intimate of moments, the man cannot see around cultural imagery enough to identify with the woman he longs for. This raises an important question. Does he lust for her, or does he lust for the way this experience will texture his life? This idea, one that suggests men are involved only insofar as they add a new layer to life’s onion, is repeated in many of the interview confessionals in the novel. What is more, the narrator says, “We see these things a dozen times a day in entertainment but imagine we ourselves, our own imaginations, are mad” (Wallace 72). Cultural discourse, as distinct from pure subjectivity, is thus a more valid and useful set of descriptions for the postmodern man. Thus, he is a product of the environment and personified through it, so long as he neglects to think about the terms of the agreement. A conscious-raising would help the hollow man find a new world view, and it is this very invitation to think and adapt that Wallace extends to his reader. In Brief Interviews, threads of individual ambivalence sew the cloth of society, creating a caricature of the male postmodern conscious that is sexually distorted and emotionally malleable. Watchmen, by Alan Moore and David Gibbons, echoes many of these sensibilities. Both the relationships between The Comedian and Sally Jupiter and Dan Dreiberg and Laurie Juspeczyk are rife with sexual inscrutabilities like impotence, coercion and deprecation. Overintellectualization occurs when Adrian Veidt, the world’s smartest man, exalts Alexander of Macedonia in an odd form of nostalgia for the barbarism of antiquity. He subsequently uses these beliefs to justify intervening in the nuclear arms race, at the high price of millions of American
lives. Dr. Manhattan has a serious God complex bestowed upon him, after acquiring paranormal abilities as the result of an Intrinsic Field accident. It is notable, however, that despite his ability to control things on an atomic level, Manhattan is still unable to connect to humans, as both Janey and Laurie eerily remind him. They both tell him, “You know how every damn thing in this world fits together except for people” (Moore & Gibbons III.5). Herein lies the crux of theoretical difference between Watchmen and Brief Interviews. Brief Interviews with Hideous Men has “stuff that makes the reader confront things rather than ignore them...The reader feels like someone is talking to him rather than striking a number of poses” (Miller 5). Watchmen, in contrast to the subjective confrontation of Brief Interviews, interrogates the influence of cultural structure directly as it is presented through media, environmental decay, and interpersonal relations. The people of New York are brought to life through the city because, as Bernard the newsvendor and average man says, “All we see is what’s on the surface” (Moore & Gibbons V.17). Information in the media is tightly controlled, as is evidenced by the manager scripting Dr. Manhattans press conference. Such information is used to cultivate both suspicions of the Soviet/Communist other, as well as support for the United States in military endeavors. One need look no farther than the crank files (Moore & Gibbons XII.32) to understand that media in New York is far from subjective; rather, it is a form of exalted rubbish and slander, hence the war between The New Frontiersmen and Nova Express. Environmental decay is as rampant as propaganda in the story. In the opening page, Rorschach narrates, “The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood…The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout ‘Save us!’” (Moore & Gibbons I.1). The decay is not only physiological, but also natural. Adrian, in
justifying his murder, says, “To repay soaring debt interests, nations like Brazil leveled their forests…Nuclear power, providing weapons-grade waste, became mandatory…Atomic deadlock guided us downhill towards environmental ruin” (Moore & Gibbons XI.22). Interpersonal relationships in New York are as decayed as the environment. How are the supposed heroes supposed to intimately connect through masks? The concept of secret identity negates inwardness and affection between individuals. Dan is sexually impotent without his mask and Sally uses the responses of fans to her physique as a measure of self-worth. In “The Veidt Method” at the end of Chapter 10, it is no coincidence that Veidt’s propaganda piece says, “YOU AND THE WORLD…Our final chapter will help you to understand the organism that is the world, and your part in it” (Moore & Gibbons X.32). Adrian attempts to fill the hole between the self and community by flexing his muscles and moving to the top of hierarchical power structures, but that is not what interfacing is about. Bernard identifies the disease when he says, “That’s why there’s this commotion…People don’t connect with each other” (Moore & Gibbons XI.23). As Dr. Malcolm Long’s character reveals, that connection is simple to forge. He tells his wife, “It’s all we can do, try to help each other. It’s all that means anything” (Moore & Gibbons XI.20). Thus, minor characters in Watchmen embrace a sense of morality that the superheroes, villains, and authorities lack. Living in postmodern culture is not about flexing ones muscles and usurping normative values; rather, it is about cultivating a self-other directive predicated on connection and compassion for the sake of horizontal prosperity. This subtext is absent in Brief Interviews With Hideous Men. David Foster Wallace believed in connection. In relaying his opinion of fiction to Laura Miller of Salon, he said, “I feel human and unalone and that I’m in a deep, significant conversation with another consciousness in fiction and poetry in a way that I don’t with other
art” (6). This is the great success that belongs to Brief Interviews, for despite its alienating vocabulary and tangential forays into worlds both decrepit and controversial, Wallace connects by appealing to the holistic sentiments of community. What is originally a barrage of rape victims, depressed people, and men trapped beneath the glass ceiling of sexual maturity (or above it in the bizarre world of sexual abnormality) soon becomes a poetic diagnosis of contemporary American neurosis. The same can be said for the subtext in Watchmen. Both texts look at the synapse of intimacy, the almost connection that has come to texture existence in postmodern America. On being a teacher, Wallace comments, “It becomes more a matter of managing various people’s subjective impressions about how to tell the truth vs. obliterating someone’s ego” (7). This is the difference between the two novels, for Watchmen has relatively little use for subjective impressions, and instead favors a volley of imagery that is used to paint a gruesome picture of culture at large. One could argue that there is an obliteration of culture, but this altered version of American history has something more to suggest beyond destruction. I’ll borrow from Watchmen in proposing my own prescription to alleviate the suffering felt in reading of the gap between the self and society at large in both Watchmen and Brief Interviews with Hideous Men. Whether it is the mask of discourse or the mask of perspective, let not the mask eat your brain.
Works Cited Miller, Laura. Interview with David Foster Wallace. Salon. 8 March (1996). Online. Moore, Alan and Gibbons, David. Watchmen. New York: DC Comics, 1986. Print. Wallace, David Foster. Brief Interviews with Hideous Men. New York: Black Bay Books, 2000. Print.
Russia 1917 to 1953: An Incongruent History By Christopher Yamauchi It is understandable to see why historians consider Italy from 1922 to 1943 and Germany from 1933 to 1945 as a single historical unit. From 1922 to 1943, Italy was ruled by the totalitarian government of Benito Mussolini who headed the Italian Fascist Party and is credited as being one of the founders of fascism. In 1922 Mussolini and the fascist party along with the Blackshirts marched on Rome resulting in King Emanuel III handing over power of the government to him. Mussolini was able to exercise fascism freely in the government and to create the Italian Empire, encompassing the Italian peninsula and Ethiopia. By 1943, however, Italy was doing poorly in the Second World War. With the invasion of Sicily much of Italy lost faith in Mussolini and his government, and King Emanuel III replaced him. In 1933, Adolf Hitler was elected German Chancellor and was the head of the Nazi party. His government practiced fascism and he became the totalitarian dictator of Germany until 1945 when he committed suicide after the invasion of Berlin by the Soviet Army. Mussoliniâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Italy from 1922 to 1943 and Hitlerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Germany from 1933 to 1945 can be seen as a single historical unit because each dictator ran a totalitarian government. However, Russia and the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1953 cannot be seen as a single historical unit. There was not a single government that controlled the country from 1917 to 1953. In 1917 there were two revolutions, the first in February and the second in October. Then the Russian Civil War followed ending in 1921. This resulted in the formation of the Soviet Union in 1922. After the October Revolution and the Civil War, Lenin and the Bolshevik Party, creating policies from their understanding of Marxism, controlled Russia. After Leninâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s death, Stalin rose to power in the Soviet Union. He also claimed to be creating policies from his understanding of Marxism and Leninism, but did so in a markedly different way. Stalin led a
totalitarian regime in the Soviet Union until his death in 1953. From 1917 to 1953 Russia and the Soviet Union were controlled and governed by these different policies, parties and individuals, resulting in an extremely diverse political transformation. Prior to the February Revolution of 1917, Russia was known as the Russian Empire under the rule of Tsar Nicholas II. Nicholas II’s government was autocratic, meaning he had absolute rule over the empire. By the 20th century it was clear that the Russian Empire was not at the same level of technology and industrialization as Western Europe. 30 This was made evident by the declining agricultural program in Russia as well as their military shortcomings in World War I. Russia was at first a strong agricultural power in the market economy, but due to the rise of industrialization, it became a mixture of the two. At the turn of the century it could not support both programs effectively. Most of the ministries appointed with advancing the new system of agriculture and industry were not adequately prepared and only worked for advancement, rather than bettering the system. 31 During the First World War, Russia lacked the necessary industrial facilities to supply the army with adequate armaments. One such instance was the shortage of ammunition for rifles as well as artillery guns. The Russian authorities did not predict the new type of artillery warfare and an insufficient amount of shells were produced. 32 Economic downturn and social unrest characterized Russia preceding the February Revolution, as was evident in the general strikes on 9 January, 1917 in Petrograd and Moscow. In Petrograd, 142,000 workers from about 132 different factories tried the march to the city centre to commemorate the 1905 Revolution known as “Bloody Sunday”. 33 Given the significance of the date, the police were prepared beforehand and stopped the march. Other
30
James D. White, The Russian Revolution 1917 1921 A Short History (Routledge, Chapman and Hall: New York, 1994), 17. Ibid, 17. 32 Ibid, 45 33 Ibid, 61 31
strikes and demonstrations during the next month were not stopped so easily; they became the start of the February Revolution. International Women’s Day is celebrated on March 8, but since the Russian calendar under the Tsarist government was thirteen days behind the western calendar, it was celebrated on 23 February by a strike in the Vyborg district in Petrograd. 34 Shortages in food and supplies and long factory hours caused by World War I resulted in many factory workers participating in the strike. At the beginning of the strike they were no revolutionary leaders, just the local leaders at different factories and worker committees and they did not predict the strike was going to be as popular as it was. The local leaders were saving their resources and energy for the date of 1 May (18 April for the Russians), which is celebrated as International Worker’s Day after the 1886 Haymarket massacre in Chicago. After they realised the popularity of the movement, all Bolshevik organizations in city met and decided to continue the strike and plan for more demonstrations. Police and Cossack forces could not control the growing movement and soon the military was brought in and on several occasions fired on the demonstrating crowds to disperse them. By the 25th the strike turned into a general strike as workers from smaller businesses were participating. The leaders of the strike denied the demonstrators weapons to fight the troops with because they understood that if the revolution was to succeed they would need the support of the soldiers. This proved prophetic as the strikers received military support on Monday the 27th of February. Soldiers began defecting over to the side of the demonstrators and soon almost all of the garrisons in Petrograd were under the control of the revolution. 35 The two groups that ended up leading the workers in revolution were the Soviet of Petrograd and a special committee of Duma members. News of the strike and of the revolution’s success began
34 35
Ibid, 67 Ibid, 71
to spread and the revolution began to stretch across the nation. A new government was formed, incorporating parts of the old Duma and representatives from the Soviets on March 2 under the Prime Minister, Prince Lvov. 36 The Provisional Government became the legitimate government in Russia after 2nd March when Tsar Nicholas II abdicated his power. This ended the Romanov Dynasty that had ruled the Russian Empire from 1613. After the February Revolution, Russia was no longer an empire ruled by an emperor, but rather a provisional government created from representation of the parties that participated in the revolution. The provisional government soon became a coalition government, taking member from both socialist and non-socialist parties. Against popular sentiment, the coalition government moved to increase war efforts in World War I and launch an offensive against Germany and Austria-Hungary, which ended in failure. Before the October Revolution, the Provisional Government changed cabinets three times. Prince Lvov resigned, allowing Alexander Kerensky to become Prime Minister. 37 During this time the Bolsheviks were winning power in the Petrograd Soviet as well as other soviets around the nation. Popular feelings toward the Provisional Government diminished after the body decided to continue Russiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s involvement in World War I coupled with the terrible economic situation facing Russia. This environment set the stage for the October Revolution. The Bolsheviks received support through their opposition to the Provincial Government as well as their policies toward ending Russiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s involvement in World War I, land reform, and support for different ethnic groups pushing for autonomy. They were also successful thanks to the organization of their party and their societal connections. Members were in all levels of society, from the top level Central Committee, to the city, provincial, and district committees.
36 37
Ibid, 77 Rex A. Wade, The Bolshevik Revolution and Russian Civil War (Greenwood Press: Westport, CT, 2001), 18.Â
The Bolsheviks were even active amidst the individual factories and the army through a special organization. 38 After obtaining much of the control over Petrograd, the Bolsheviks and other leftist socialists started to plan to take control of the government. They understood that they needed to keep control over the soldiers to successfully take power. Therefore on 21 October they created the Military Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet, or MRC. 39 This made sure that only orders issued to the soldiers by the Petrograd Soviet were valid and that the Provincial Government could not use them against the Bolsheviks. One of the most important events that set up the October Revolution was when Kerensky, the Prime Minister of the Provisional Government, responded to the Petrograd Soviet’s activities by sending the military to raid two Bolshevik newspaper offices. The Petrograd Soviet and the Bolsheviks were then able to issue an order to the MRC to organize their troops. The two groups claimed that the Provisional Government was conducting counterrevolutionary activities. Vladimir Lenin, who was not present in the city centre when the MRC ordered was issued, arrived at the Petrograd Soviet’s headquarters and convinced the leaders to seize control of the city and arrest the Provincial Government’s leaders. 40 When the Congress of Soviets convened on 25 October to decide on how to create the new Russian government, the Bolshevik party, headed by Lenin, held the most seats, but not the majority. It was not until the Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionary Party walked out of the Congress in protest of the Bolshevik’s actions that they gained the majority presence. This ushered in a new government controlled by the Bolsheviks. However, that new government was provisional and needed to be legitimised by the democratically elected Constituent Assembly. After the election, it was clear that the Bolsheviks did not hold the majority in the assembly. Undeterred, Lenin and other Bolshevik 38
Ibid, 47. Ibid, 52. 40 Ibid, 54. 39
leaders refused to give up their new power and disbanded the Constituent Assembly by force after they met for the first time, opening the way for civil war. It became apparent that the Bolsheviks were not dedicated to the parliamentary system around which the provisional government had been organized. Instead, the Bolsheviks believed that they should be the unique party in charge of the country. By disbanding the Constituent Assembly by force, the Bolsheviks left their opponents with only one option to oppose them: armed force. Three different parties sought the defeat of the Bolsheviks. They included conservative military officers and other politicians opposed to the Bolsheviks in the south, nationalist movements in various areas seeking their independence, and a group of Socialist Revolutionaries near the Volga River. The latter, proclaiming to be the real Russian government as they held the majority in the Constituent Assembly, called themselves the Committee of Members of the Constituent Assembly or Komuch. 41 The Komuch proved to be the greatest threat to the Bolsheviks because they had a legitimate claim to power, even if their military strength was not great. Concerned by the possibility that they could be unseated, the Bolsheviks resorted to harsher military tactics. The Red Army under Trotsky had to move away from the preliminary paradigm of a volunteer army by conscripting many rural peasants and enforcing strict and brutal measures to make sure order was maintained. Another feature that was added to the Red Army was the commissar whose job as a political officer was to maintain morale and politically educate the soldiers. By March, 1918, the Bolsheviks signed the Treaty of Brest-Lithovsk ending the World War I for Russia at the cost of huge territorial concessions to Germany. At the beginning of the Civil War, the Red Army was able to expand in every direction, spreading their control. After these initial gains, the Red Army was soon repelled by White armies to the South 41
Ibid, 64.
and to the East. The White armies, however, were not united in their opposition to the Red Army or their understanding of what kind of government they wanted if they defeated the Bolsheviks. Before the Treaty of Brest-Lithovsk, several of the White armies were supplied and aided by the Allies, hoping to keep Russia in the war and requiring Germany to allocate more of its resources to the Eastern Front. However, by 1922 the Red Army was successful in defeating all White armies, nationalist movements and opposition to the Bolshevik Party. One of the ideological roots of the Bolsheviks emerged during the Civil War. The Bolshevik party instituted an economic policy known as war communism to help win the war. War communism was the economic policy created to feed and run the Bolshevik government during the Russian Civil War. It was characterized by brutal tactics and interventionist programs that affected the lives of almost all of the peasant population in Russia. The Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Commissariat for Food Supply (Narkomprod) was tasked with feeding the Red Army to fight the Civil War. It accomplished this at first by using local authorities to divide the land among peasants, but soon turned to interventionist policies of taking surplus stocks of grain from peasants and other consumer goods, forcibly when necessary. 42 As a result of the brutal policies toward the peasants, the Kronstadt naval base revolted. This revolt was quickly put down, but it opened the eyes of the Bolsheviks, including Lenin, to their overbearing policies toward the peasants. This caused another change in policy to the New Economic Policy. The Bolsheviks then took a non-interventionist approach to the economy and allowed an increase in small private business. This meant that the peasants could sell their surpluses while the government
42
1995): 552.
Bertrand M. Patenaude, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Peasants into Russians: The utopian essence of war communism." Russian Review 54, no. 4 (October
maintained its leadership of the major industries. 43 Again the policy of the Russian government changed since 1917. Lenin believed in the Marxist school of thought where there were specific stages of human civilization from feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, and then lastly communism. According to Marx, each stage had to be achieved before it was overcome by the next stage. For example, in the feudalist system the aristocrats hold the power and the bourgeois merchants, being capitalists, work under them. Eventually, these merchants overthrow the aristocracy through wealth gained by enterprise, creating a capitalist society. Although Russia at the time of the revolutions was still a feudalist nation, Lenin foresaw a Communist Revolution. Lenin planned to create a vanguard that would lead the proletariat in the revolution and educate them in how to keep it going, thereby passing the capitalist stage of evolution. 44 Being a communist, Lenin saw capitalism as the force that was stopping the international revolution, and the highest form of capitalism was imperialism. 45 Lenin advocated for the downfall of imperialism and was interested more in the nationalist movements in countries trying to combat imperialism. Although his beliefs were not completely faithful to Marx’s original ideal, Lenin instituted his own communist programme on the country. This was a very different view than that of Imperialist Russia or the provisional government. Stalin further distanced the government from Marxism and from other previous governmental forms. Although claiming to continue Lenin’s legacy, Stalin actually moved away from it. Marx as well as Lenin called for the international socialist revolution, because they believed that one socialist nation could not survive in a world of capitalist nations. Contrasting
43
Wade, The Bolshevik Revolution, 24. Georg Lukács, Lenin A Study on the Unity of his Thought (Verlang der Arbeiterbuchhandlung: Vienna, 1970), 32. 45 A. W. Orrdige, "UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT AND NATIONALISM: I," Political Studies 29, no. 1 (1981), 8. 44
this idea was Stalin’s theory of socialism in one country. 46 When the international revolution did not occur, Stalin was faced with two choices: to follow the tradition of Marxism and possibly lose control of power in Russia or to maintain control but lose the Marxist tradition. Stalin chose to guard his power by making the country even more autocratic. Stalin promoted a governmental system whereby the bureaucracy controlled the government from the top, opposed to Lenin’s plan of having Russia run by separate Soviets in different cities and regions. In choosing socialism in one country, Stalin put Russia against the world full of capitalist powers, and in so doing, made it necessary for the Soviet Union to militarize itself in order to fend off those nations that would seek to destroy it. Stalin effectively created a new Russia that was different from what Lenin envisaged for the future. Russia from 1917 to 1953 started off as an Imperialist Empire ruled by a tsar, went through two revolutions, a civil war, and was lead by a communist revolutionary leader and a power hungry counter-revolutionary dictator. During this period, many different ideas were surfacing as well as several different types of government were in power. These events have created a complex history of Russia, more so than Mussolini’s Italy from 1922 to 1943 and Hitler’s Germany from 1933 to 1945.
46
John Molyneux, What is the Real Marxist Tradition? (Haymarket Books: Chicago, 2003), 43.
Bibliography Lukács, Georg. Lenin A Study on the Unity of his Thought. Verlang der Arbeiterbuchhandlung: Vienna, 1970. Molyneux, John. What is the Real Marxist Tradition? Haymarket Books: Chicago, 2003. Orrdige, A. W. "UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT AND NATIONALISM: I," Political Studies 29, no. 1 (1981): 1-15. Patenaude, Bertrand M. “Peasants into Russians: The utopian essence of war communism." Russian Review 54, no. 4 (October 1995). Wade, Rex A. The Bolshevik Revolution and Russian Civil War. Greenwood Press: Westport, CT, 2001. White, James D. The Russian Revolution 1917 1921 A Short History. Routledge, Chapman and Hall: New York, 1994.