I got home from school and immediately started on homework.
History came first- I wrote the longest assignment of my life so far.
It was an assignment about Marxism.
'Class struggle and other Marxist ideas best describe
why there was a French
Revolution'. To what extent do you agree with this?
(1,500 words)
The French Revolution was a revolution caused by the rage of the
Third Estate of France, a call for equality, that lasted 10 years from,
1789 to 1799. It began on July 14, 1789, when revolutionaries
stormed Bastille, a fortress in Paris, known formally as the Bastille Saint-Antoine, demanding gunpowder after raiding a different
location for weapons. The revolution came to an end in 1799 when
a general named Napoleon overthrew the revolutionary government
and established the French Consulate. There are several theories
that go into depth about why The Revolution happened. For
example, the Marxist Theory, which was a theory devised by
Charles Marx, suggested that the best way to describe the roots of
the revolution was due to class struggle. Other theories, such as the
Intellectual theory (devised by Rousseau & Montesquieu who
believed that it actually happened due to a struggle of ideas) and
the Cultural Theory (by Roger Chartier, who believed that the
revolution was driven by changes to ordinary people's lives that
happened over a long time).
It is possible to agree with this statement because the Revolution
heavily stemmed from the class struggle that already existed
between the three classes. Many historians have described the
French Revolution with Marxist ideas. Marxists claim that the French
Revolution was like most other class struggle revolutions. At the
time, France had three estates: the clergy (people who worked in
the Church), nobility and commoners (everyone else). At the time,
there were tensions between the 1st & 2nd and the 3rd Estate. because of the taxation. 'The first two estates were taxing the 3rd
Estate heavily. The 22 million peasants (farmers) in France made up
85% of the population. Together with the town workers (8% of the
population), they paid the heaviest taxes in the country. The bourgeoisie
made up 4% of the population and were people such as bankers,
lawyers, merchants and doctors.' [1] The parliament was completely
unbalanced. Each estate got 1 vote and the 3rd Estate, who made
up most of the population, found themselves constantly being
outvoted by the first two estates on important decisions. All
taxation raises were also mainly placed upon the poor and the rich
typically dodged their taxes or kept all collected taxed to
themselves. Anything there was, they taxed. In the economic crisis,
the upper class were not as heavily affected, however, the poor
were devastated, as well as being forced to pay high taxes by the
government and private tax organisations such as the Church. This
was also frustrating because they could barely afford to sustain
themselves after all of the tax collection. Bread pieces had begun to
rise, quite quickly and after several famines and poor harvests, they
were left to starve. This led to the Third class to become enraged
due to taxation without representation as they had no say in their
taxes, and they could barely live. This meant that they wanted to
revolt against the upper class and a call for equality. On the 20th of
June 1789, The Tennis Court Oath was made. This was the members
of the Third Estate (and even some from the first two by that point)
swearing that they would "not to separate and to reassemble
wherever required until the Constitution of the kingdom is
established". This led to a series of events such as the Great Fear
and the Storming of the Bastille. This links to the idea of class
struggle because the Third Class began to revolt against them
because of the inequality between them, taxes constantly being
risen against them and not having a fair vote.
However, it is possible to disagree with this statement as there
are other alternative explanations that may better explain the
reason that the French Revolution happened. One alternative
explanation is the Intellectual Explanation which was a set of ideas
developed by Montesquieu (1689-1755) and Jean-Jacques
Rousseau (1712-1778). Historians argue that the French Revolution
happened due to a struggle of ideas, as opposed to the idea of class
struggle that is put forward by the Marxist explanation. During the
enlightenment, philosophers began to develop ideas about the
world around them. Two such ideas were: People should rely on
their problem solving and do things themselves, instead of relying
on superstition and religion. This directed people such as Newton to
his scientific discoveries such as laws of motion. Another idea was
that governing systems should develop a set of rules and laws
based on the rights that everybody had, not catered for a specific
group of people (the upper/rich classes). This system should be
based on democracy – not just rule by one or one small group of
people, and be expressed through laws Montesquieu claimed that
the best kind of government was one where force was part between
various gatherings – for instance, the ruler, the aristocrats, the
Church and the ordinary citizens. This would keep one piece of
society from getting excessively powerful and protect individuals'
rights. However, Rousseau held altogether different opinions to Montesquieu. He thought that the individuals in France (or any
nation) should lead themselves – otherwise called being sovereign
over themselves. This implied that no monarch should rule. This
meant that opinions and thoughts are expressed through law and
votes. This challenges the Marxist idea of class struggle as it
suggests that the Revolution happened not because of inequality
and class struggle, but because people were developing their
reasoning skills and were developing the ability to understand
modern politics and think for themselves.
Another explanation would be the Cultural Explanation.
Developed by historians Roger Chartier, who believes that the
reasons were cultural. This meant that the revolution was driven by
changes to ordinary peoples' lives that occurred over a long span of
time. Some of the important changes that are included were:
Education and literacy, de-sacralisation and people's expectations.
In the 18th century, many of the French had the opportunity to
learn to read and write. Catholic schools encouraged literacy. The
schools did not just teach the upper class. This meant that even the
regular people were literate and could understand political ideas.
Books around this time had also started being printed in their native
language, and not just in Latin (as they had mostly previously been
as books were seen as for scholars). Historians have proven that
more literate areas were more likely to criticise the king and nobles
than areas that were less literate. De-sacralisation refers to when a
building/artefact becomes less sacred, or not sacred at all. This
happened to the French King and the main French religion
(Catholicism) during the 18th century. Traditionally, it was said that
the king was chosen by God to rule. However, the nation lost
respect to the king and therefore the Catholic religion after Louis XV
had led France into disastrous wars, forcing them into debt- such as
funding the American Revolutionary War and had many scandalous
affairs with many different women. Louis XVI was seen as weak and
indecisive. For example, he focused too much on the court and
nobility- not the people who funded their lives. As French society
developed, French people came to assume that changes would
happen within their lives. The Third class gradually became
enlightened to the imbalance and started to demand equality.
These feelings built up over the long-term and worsened at times of
difficulty such as the 1787-88 food crisis. This also challenges the
Marxist idea of class struggle because it suggests that therevolution happened because peoples lives had changed naturally,
such as the introduction of education, the nation became more
literate and could access reading materials which were starting to
come out in their native language.
In conclusion, I partially disagree with this statement. This is
because there are other statements and/or theories that can
partially explain this too. You could take partial elements from
different theories and put them together to make an overall more
accurate theory. A more appropriate statement would be 'Class
struggle and other Marxist ideas partially describe why there was a
French Revolution'. Despite most of it seeming to stem from the
Third Estate's rage due to the inequality they faced in taxes and
votes etc, elements such as the Enlightenment (The intellectual
Explanation), and the fact that people became more literate,
leading to a better comprehension of politics and understanding
arguments (Cultural Explanation) can all be added to make a new
and more agreeing theory. It may not be completely accurate, but
it's definitely better than stand-alone theories that rely on a few
points.
Phew.
My teacher better give me a good grade or else.
I put waayy to much effort into that
Second came maths- it was on the Pythagoras Theorem. I had to write an essay on how it worked and it's rules:
Pythagoras' theorem states that for all right-angled triangles, 'The square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides'. The hypotenuse is the longest side and it's always opposite the right angle. Pythagoras' theorem only works for right-angled triangles, so you can use it to test whether a triangle has a right angle or not.
That was easy to write.
I had no problem with that.
The last one was on geography, another essay- on deforestation this time:
Why should I care?'
Rainforests absorb Carbon Dioxide. You should
care because it's a substantial amount. This is
why the air in the country is much better than in
urban areas. It's because, unlike the cities, most
plants are actually real. This is also why trees are
planted.
Although they only take a small amount of
surface, they're massively influential in the air we
breathe and even the climate around us.
On average, one acre of new forest can sequester
about 2.5 tons of carbon annually. Young trees
absorb CO2 at a rate of 13 pounds per tree each
year. Trees reach their most productive stage of
carbon storage at about 10 years at which point
they are estimated to absorb 48 pounds of CO2
per year. If you, a selfish business, do not care
about that and want to displease the all mighty
Tree Master and Co, every tree you cut down releases
all of the collected carben and even more if you're
idiotic enough to actually burn them down. This
all goes into the Ozone layer (of which all
existence depends upon) and damages it all. It
also contributes to global warming, as well as
going against the sustainable development goals.
(Number 13- Climate Action)
cutting down rainforests also completely messes
up biodiversity, endangered species and also can
make them go extinct.
If that still somehow does not convince you
top care, then wood is a finite resource. If
you just take and don't put back (ie replant
etc) then CONGRATULATIONS, you've just
possibly brought the doom of humanity and
the world we know it far far closer than it
would've been if you'd started a clean energy
company.
So what? I replant trees.
Well, good for you. But you're still
contributing massively to global warming
even then. It takes time for trees to grow
(duh) and honestly, clean energy would be
better.
According to the NOAA 2019 Global Climate
Summary, the combined land and ocean
temperature has increased at an average
rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since
1880; however, the average rate of increase
since 1981 (0.18°C / 0.32°F) is more than
twice as great. That's just an average. The
number is estimated to snowball
exponentially, and even a global pandemic,
one that forced us to stop all transport, well
nearly all, won't put so much as a dent in it,
especially with the effects of Self Licencing
that people may have.
Rainforest can regulation regional
rainfall, it is like a giant sponge, during rain, trees absorbed most of the
moisture, the moisture absorption by
root to the leaf surface to allow water to
water vapor forms released into the air.
After the water vapor formed a cloud,
then become rains, rain formation
brings the life to the arid place. If the
rainforest is felled, cloud formation and
precipitation will also decrease; so
many places there will be loss of
drought and crop harvest.
Wow, that was a lot writing.
This is school for you.
The one I was sent to thought it was a good idea to push us beyond what was just on the curriculum.
I personally loved this style of study, others, not so much.
It was hard work, but it yeilded great results.