The Synthetic Sound: Trip Hop (Part II)

Trip Hop, also called the Bristol Sound, is now an internationally recognized genre of electronic music; however, it wasn't always as widely known as it is today. In fact, the genre had much humbler beginnings than most other musical styles, and the sleepy city of Bristol is hardly the kind of environment that coins its own sound. The, ahem, less-than-professional documentary above attempts to answer the questions "Why Bristol?" and "Why this sound?" The DJs in the film provide interesting, underground insights to the music movement that changed the world's perception of electronic music forever. (Interestingly, one of the MCs recounts how his songs became darker as soon as he arrived in Bristol. He believes that the environment absolutely influenced his art in unforseen ways.) There are more scholarly articles on the Bristol Sound and the Bristol underground, but it's always interesting to have an up-front, immediate perspective on the culture and the real people who sustain it.

The Synthetic Sound: MASSIVE ATTACK.

Appendix C: Members.

Before Massive Attack, the three founding members were part of a five-person Wild Bunch Crew. Wild Bunch also fostered Tricky and Grammy-winning producer Nellee Hooper.

Mushroom (Andrew Vowels) - Although Mushroom was a founding member of Massive Attack, his creative differences from 3D and Daddy G led him to leave the group shortly before the release of Mezzanine in 1998. He was a proponent of taking Trip-Hop in a distinctly hip-hop direction and likened touring to "pimping."

Daddy G (Grantley Marshall) - A founding/existing member of Massive Attack and a DJ who has been produced as part of the DJ-Kicks mix series. "Daddy G" comes from a 1960's American song by the Dovells called "The Bristol Stomp." The song actually refers to Bristol, PA, but Grantley Marshall took the name "Daddy G" and established it within the realm of the Bristol Sound, AKA Trip-Hop.

3D (Robert del Naja) - A graffiti artist and MC, 3D is a powerful creative influence in Massive Attack (and a source of much creative unhappiness for his collaborators). As Massive Attack has aged, 3D has assumed a directorial position; many fans and reviewers claim that 100th Window was solo project for 3D. The album got mixed reviews. His breathy vocals and dark electronic riffs are said to typify the Bristol sound (which I will expound on later, since this is a sociogeographical examination of Trip-Hop). He also happens to be the most open with his political views, opposing the Bush Administration vocally and playing concerts to benefit Katrina victims.

In terms of his graffiti...the great Banksy has cited 3D as a major influence.

The Synthetic Sound: MASSIVE ATTACK.

Appendix B: Famous Songs. They are Numerous.

Karmacoma featuring Tricky. This song is a perfect example of the bizarre hip-hop hybrid that coined the use of the term "Trip Hop." At the very beginning of the band's career, the public had trouble categorizing them, but ultimately the vocals and regular beats of (a few of) their songs allowed critics to draw a bridge between electronica and American hip-hop/early rap.

Teardrop has remained perennially on the Itunes Top 100 (always lingering at number 20 or thereabouts.)As you can see, the (rather odd) video has attracted over six million views. The vocalist, Liz Fraser, is a fairly frequent guest on Massive Attack tracks. Although Portishead set the precedent for unusual female vocals in Trip Hop, Massive Attack also has its fair share of crooning sirens on their tracks. "Teardrop" made Liz Fraser's voice almost as iconic as Beth Gibbons'. However, as a rule, Massive Attack tends towards breathy or intensely soulful male vocals.


"Inertia Creeps" is a perfect example of the aforementioned breathy male vocals. Here, the singer is Massive Attack member MC Robert del Naja; he is heavily featured in Massive Attack's Collected Rarities because his songs are unique to the point of extremity. He also sang the iconic Butterfly Caught. "Inertia Creeps" also illustrates the inherent complexity in Massive Attack's often simplistic lyrics. Although the singer seems to be talking about how boredom and idleness overtake you when you least expect it, he personifies this sensibility quite sexually; we then have to ask ourselves whether inertia is a woman he knows or whether, ominously, he is losing his ability to take action.

Angel featuring Horace Andy is one of Massive Attack's most ambient/least dissonant songs. It has been featured in multiple movies and TV shows, but nothing of particular interest. (Horace Andy is the reggae singer who declared Trip-Hop to be the "new world music.")


"Live with Me" is THE example of Massive Attack's soulfulness. Enough said.

Of course, we should all know the original version of "Dissolved Girl," just because it showed up in The Matrix. Ten points to anyone who provides a viable philosophical interpretation of the Wachowski brothers' use of the song:

The Synthetic Sound: MASSIVE ATTACK.

Appendix A: Proof that you KNOW Massive Attack even if you currently believe that you've never heard them in your life.


The first scene of the first Matrix movie. Although the Massive Attack is very subtle, the song "Dissolved Girl" is playing in Neo's headphones as articles flash across his screen.


Further evidence of Massive Attack's immortality: they've collaborated with David Bowie. The track "Nature Boy" was slightly altered to open and close Baz Luhrmann's 2001 movie release Moulin Rouge! (The original can be heard here.)


If you have a song in The Matrix, then it follows that you must have a song in one of the Blade movies. "I Against I," Massive Attack's collaboration with Mos Def, appeared in Blade 2.

Continuing the Race Conversation, and We're Bringing it to the US

Dear Ms. MEHness,

Unfortunately, I could not find a radio report on bi/multiracial identity in Europe, but this is a good start: Farai Chideya's interview with Lise Funderburg. Although this report mainly deals with "combinations" of black and white, the themes discussed are universal for people identifying as racially plural. Naturally, the exact historical context of racial pluralism would be different in Europe, perhaps drastically; in Spain, for example, the proximity to northern Africa and the long presence of the Moors made racial and cultural pluralism a reality early in its history. Although there was discrimination against people who had Moorish blood, the Spanish part of these people was also recognized, which was rare at the time. (They were still considered inferior.) Germany, on the other hand, was a purist state despite its decidedly "impure" background. It will be interesting to see where racial development goes from here.

Internalization vs. Globalization

Dear Classier Hoeing,

I, too, love Goodbye, Lenin! and agree with your point about the internalization of oppression that occurs among the people of totalitarian governments. I think an interesting question to consider on this subject is how such internalization works in a rapidly globalizing society. In Europe it is more difficult for any country to achieve the kind of isolation needed to sustain a totalitarian government; with the establishment of the EU and the enduring political suspicion of many European governments, an outright dictatorship would be taken down pretty quickly. However, in North Korea, the country with the least personal and political freedom in the world, the people reject offerings of knowledge from the outside world. On NPR recently, there was a story of a man who went to North Korea in order to persuade Kim Jong-Il to have a national rock concert. He showed a woman on the bus a newspaper from South Korea, and she looked at it to be polite but did not read it. This incident is an example of the internalization you speak of, but one must wonder how long it will be until the information bug is caught by those who have forced out the desire to know.

The Synthetic Sound: Trip Hop

After reading the rest of my posts regarding the Bristol music scene, many of you may be wondering what Trip Hop actually is. In 1998, after a slew of musical successes from Massive Attack and Tricky, an article in the New York Times came out announcing the advent of "the Bristol sound." The journalist Guy Garcia says of this sound:

WHEN Massive Attack came on the British dance-music scene in 1991 with its debut album, ''Blue Lines,'' the group's bass-heavy beats and brooding spirit of introspection became the sonic blueprint for trip-hop. A studio-concocted blend of hip-hop, ambient techno and reggae that set the tone for fellow Bristol artists like Portishead and Tricky, trip-hop seemed ideally suited to our globally aware, culturally fragmented times. Spawned by the latest recording technologies, yet resolutely human in its message, it was steeped in the ironic film-noir paranoia of 60's spy movies and apocalyptic angst.

As Garcia suggests, Trip Hop is far more than just a specialized sector of "Electronica." Trip Hop is a melting pot of sounds. Later in the article, the reggae singer Horace Andy (who has since collaborated with Alpha as well as Massive Attack) claims that "Trip Hop is the new world music." However, despite the popularity that certain groups enjoyed on Alternative Rock stations in the United States, Trip Hop never really took off. The genre has inspired artists from all over the world, and yet the so-called Bristol Sound seems to be dying. There aren't many groups that are producing quality Trip Hop or revolutionizing the signature sounds that have inspired so many artists. So where does Trip Hop go from here?

Is Yugoslavia Dead? Ponderings by the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/2767597.stm

In class, we talked about the diversity of Yugoslavia compared to other regions of Eastern Europe. This article from the BBC asserts that in fact, keeping this diversity was a failed attempt at co-existence. Thus, the war came out of awkward relations between regions and ethnic groups; Yugoslavia, in many ways, is proof that a post-racialized global society is still far enough off to be called a pipe dream.

The Synthetic Sound: Alpha

Alpha, the self-described "best-kept secret in the universe," is a Trip Hop group formed in Bristol in 1997. The members met in a Trip Hop studio known as the PIJ; the most frequent vocalist for the group (who goes casually by Corin) was engineering another project of her future Alpha collaborator (Andy), and after a few sessions, they began to explore the Alpha sound. For listeners familiar with the Trip Hop genre, the various sounds produced are recognizable--the unusual female vocals are usually reminiscent of Beth Gibbons, and the beats themselves are usually "chill," if not downright dark. Superficially, the Alpha sound is no different from the so-called Trip Hop convention. However, unlike the iconic Portishead, Alpha is easy and avant-garde; instead of having only one singer, Alpha employs a few--most notably Helen White, Wendy Stubbs, and Martin Barnard--and each one has a distinct, decidedly non-commercial voice. The lyrics are poetry, and the grand abstractness of the words contrasts with the strangely familiar feeling of the music. It's orchestral, stirring, disturbing, and yet Alpha remains utterly undiscovered despite representation by Massive Attack's Don't Touch Recordings and collaborations with the likes of Radiohead, Madonna, David Bowie, and Pulp.

A perfect end - Alpha

"A Perfect End," the appropriate final song on Alpha's 2004 release of Stargazing, demonstrates Alpha's avant-garde style perfectly. The vocals are strange, intimate; the background music broad and orchestral. It is almost impossible to visualize this music being produces in a harbor city in southwest England; it is otherworldly. However, the individual voice that Alpha offers up in each song speaks more strongly of its Bristol roots than is immediately apparent. Alpha's sound is borne of the essential emotions of the everyman, the seamen walking across the street from the recording studio; Alpha puts poetry to the everyday feelings of Bristol and the small towns surrounding the city. Thus, Alpha has taken up the mantle of the continued innovators of Trip Hop, drawing inspiration from their contemporaries and their surroundings to expand the emotional impact of the synthetic sound.

People and Politics: Can Germany and Israel Get Along?

This recent Deutsche Welle report on German/Israeli relations is especially pertinent to our in-class discussion of the future of Europe. The fact of the Holocaust has made a relationship between the two parties tentative, at best, and now with the rate at which globalization is progressing, the need to make a secure alliance is important. The postwar realities of the two countries are drastically different; Germany became prosperous, and Israel became mired in further religious conflict. The key to a healthy international relationship between the two countries lies in their willingness to honor the tragedies of the past and move towards a position of "never again war," as Michael Wolffson states. However, is this a goal that can be realistically achieved?

The Synthetic Sound: Bristol, Then and Now

The trading post of Brigstowe (the modern-day Bristol, home of the Trip Hop Movement) was founded between the Avon River and the Frome River during the Anglo-Saxon age. For a few years after its initial establishment, Brigstowe grew as trade relations expanded with Ireland and South Wales. As the town grew, so did the scope if its trade; its ideal location near the sea facilitated international relations and later attracted maritime explorers such as John Cabot. However, the Norman Conquest of 1066 briefly transformed Brigstowe from a midsized trading post to a castle town. (Today, the castle is no longer. There's a park in its place.) After Brigstowe's "castle period," it assumed its identity as Bristol: the second largest city in England and the hub of the Triangle Trade in the 18th century. By the 19th century, however, Bristol's economic success had lessened. Thanks to the modernization efforts of Isambard Kingdom Brunel, the infrastructure and harbor of Bristol did not fall to ruin. Now, despite the establishment of a few supposedly notable centers for the fine arts, Bristol is primarily known for its harbors and its size.

Synthesizers, Anyone? (Outline for The Synthetic Sound)

My contribution to The Synthetic Sound will be focused on the Trip Hop movement in Bristol, England. The parts of my paper are as follows:

Geographic influences: Why Bristol? Why Europe? Trip Hop in particular is a genre of electro that has taken off in Europe and yet has never really found its way to the ears of people in the United States. A feasible answer is that Trip Hop is intrinsically linked to its environment, the cultural traditions of this small area of Britain, and the character of the people. Since these sensibilities are less foreign to the European community, the Trip Hop sound gained popularity. Through examining the exact nature of Bristol and the surrounding towns, context for the music will be established as well as a definition of modern English auditory sensibility.

Musical Style/Influences: This is where specific case studies come in. Massive Attack and their label, Alpha, The Sneaker Pimps, Portishead, and Helicopter Girl will allow me to tie specific sounds to specific genres, regions, and peoples.

(But of Course) HISTORY: Does industrialization affect music production? How about the history of music in the UK? Is the music reactionary, and if so, against what? This is the area in which all questions of how will be answered. After all, it can be argued that every artistic sensibility comes out of the circumstances surrounding the artist...is that true?

Hypothetical Thesis: The Bristol-centered Trip Hop movement was a reaction to the postmodern notion of "simulacra" embodied in the commercial music that continues to be produced today. To counteract this commercialism, Trip Hop groups strove to capture the singularity of their towns and people with never-before heard synthetic sounds.

Visions of the Future: Post-Racialization

Dear Ms. MEHness,

Years after the publication of this issue of Time Magazine, there was a news program about the amazing technology used to generate the face of the woman on the cover. At the time, I was about eleven or twelve years old and just beginning to understand my own complex racial identity. I looked at the report, the computer generated face on the cover, and the sensationalized accounts of the (apparently modern) occurrence of racial mixing in this country. Idly, I wondered why Time Magazine never thought to hire a multiracial human model--they exist. In fact, that racially plural, digital face does not represent the people of the future; we're here right now, and guess what? We've always been here.

I'm strangely flattered, in a way, that Time Magazine groups me with the pluralistic, racially revolutionary people that will supposedly change the face of our country and the world. I feel as though I must be experiencing first-hand "futuristic living" as it is defined by Time Magazine. On standardized tests, I bubble in a different race every year; on my college applications, I checked up to five boxes under "Racial Makeup." (In case you were wondering: White, African-American, West Indian, European, Other.) In interviews, I receive such intrepid and sometimes well-intentioned questions such as, "What are you?" or "What's your mix?" If people are uncomfortable with the word "mix," they will usually substitute "nationality," and then when I explain, I get slapped with the "exotic" label. I must say, the life of a person of the future is fairly difficult to convey.

The most interesting conversation I've had about my race in a long time happened a few days ago, when an Orthodox Jewish man asked me how I stay grounded intellectually. According to him, one's personality is formed mostly through the adherence to tradition, and my racial multiplicity worried him because he thought I had no solid cultural base to grow from. His concern for my cultural and spiritual well-being was kindly, so I expressed to him the same Pollyanna vision of the future I envisioned for Europe in MEH:

One day, far in the future, our concept of race will become so dilute that racial discrimination will be virtually impossible.

Tradition will be maintained, but culture individually innovated.

Conflict will come of material, intellectual, and emotional disputes. Xenophobia will be too confusing to entertain.

Then, he shared a picture of his Japanese-Irish-Polish niece and nephew with me. His family's contribution to racial plurality, he said. The people of the future who are the here-and-now.

The Synthetic Sound: Further Mooging

Dear Elizabeth,

The moog, despite its clunky design and now dated technology, is perhaps the most influential musical tool of the electronic movement. Developed by the American Robert Moog, the instant popularization of the analog synthesizer in Germany marked a distinct shift in the way Germans viewed postwar technology. (To learn more about the heavy industry and military technology prevalent in WWII, I suggest checking out the research of fellow MEH bloggers JED, Natewozere, and Sam.) The moog is far from militant; it is, simply, a machine for synthesizing and innovating sounds. The Berlin School's extensive use of the moog was not only a method of expression but also a way of emphasizing technological nonviolence after WWII. Tangerine Dream, especially, used the moog to produce peaceful, ambient sounds--sounds which no one could have imagined coming from a machine.



Naturally, the moog was quickly replaced by digital synthesizers; the Trip Hop movement centered in Bristol skipped the moog completely. However, the idea of spreading a philosophy through innovating sound persisted and allowed for future artists to expand the impact of electronic music throughout Europe (and the world).

There Was Legitimate Culture in Postwar Europe?

After the fall of fascism, Europe was left open to a new way of life. The tragedy of the Holocaust left many individuals and governments in shock, and measures were taken that ensured the prevention of further extremist activity in government. The sudden lack of censorship in allowed both revolutionaries and artists to speak out in new (or perhaps forgotten) ways. In France, this renewed freedom of expression enabled the production of avant-garde film and philosophy. As the existentialists wrote in Montmatre, filmmakers set about depicting the modern world. The most famous French filmmakers of the era were Jean-Luc Godard and Francois Truffaut--the former, an absurdist; the latter, and existentialist romantic.



The Soft Skin (1964) was Truffaut's first dark film. His previous works operated on a certain joie de vivre which French audiences found refreshing. However, in the story of a writer who leaves his wife for an airline stewardess, Truffaut captured the unsettling reality of "modern romance." The reality of two women and a man in a postwar world struck viewers too close to home, and despite the film's acceptance to Cannes Film Festival, it flopped at the box office. Critics today assert that Truffaut's darkest film is one of his best efforts, accurately depicting the personal conflicts of postwar Europe.

Camus and Literary Existentialism. (Love at First Sight?)

In his essay "The Myth of Sisyphus," Albert Camus tackles the existentialist conundrum of choice. Sisyphus, according to Camus, accepts his punishment because he chose it in the most vague sense--through his actions. Thus, the action of choosing itself is rendered meaningless, and since one cannot consciously choose the course of one's own life, then life is also meaningless. However, Camus was not one of the purists of existentialism; rather, he was more concerned with the literary intrigue of existentialist ideas than with the philosophy itself. Camus' tendency towards existentialism as a literary device is not clearly seen in his essays, but in The Stranger, this unique use of existentialist principle is clearly seen in the protagonist Meursault.

For most of the novel, Meursault can be described as an "existentialist nightmare." He feels, but in abstract, detached, almost inhuman ways. He does things simply because they are vaguely interesting to him. He reiterates that life means nothing, achievement means nothing, emotions mean nothing. He is neither bad nor good, and then, just because he was confused by the sun or wanted to take a walk or felt uncomfortable around crying women, he ends up killing a man. He is convicted, and his conviction is reasonable to both the audience and Meursault himself. Even though he "didn't mean" to kill a man, his actions clearly led him to do it, and thus he chose to commit murder, whether he realized it or not. However, Camus breaks from existentialism after the verdict in a very subtle manner. In a scene where Meursault is lying on his prison bed, contemplating his oncoming death, he is suddenly subsumed by true feeling; he appreciates the former beauty and happiness of his life, finds (at least superficial) value in it, and feels fear at his imminent end. a hardcore existentialist would maintain that everyday life is meaningless, even in the last moments of one's life, but rather than turning Meursault into a didactic example of existentialism, Camus portrays the essential humanity of his character in these moments. Camus saw that in such a fatal situation, ideology would become irrelevant. Whether or not Meursault chose his fate through his actions, the fear of dying would still be present. Thus, Camus reveals a glaring fault of existentialism: even if life and choice are trifling matters, we as humans will always find greater meaning in living because living is what makes us human.

The Synthetic Sound: Portishead

Arguably the most well-known trip hop group in the world aside from Massive Attack, Portishead revolutionized the international perception of the electronic sound. In a review of their second, self-titled album, Rolling Stone Magazine described Portishead's unique style as "...an instantly identifiable essence: bleeps transmitted from outer space, familiar syncopation and turntable scratches." Atop these signature "beats," if one can identify them as such, Beth Gibbons' "detached" vocals further distinguish Portishead from its contemporaries. (Early hits include Glory Box and Numb.) Recently, with the long-awaited release of their third album, aptly titled Third, Portishead has become more avant-garde than before, abandoning their usual brooding melodies to explore disjointed, sharp sounds.

Despite Rolling Stone Magazine's claims that their music originated in "outer space," Portishead was born from its immediate surroundings. Founded in Bristol, United Kingdom in 1991, Portishead drew inspiration from the geography of the region. The band's namesake, the town of Portishead, is so small that it is not usually referenced without connection to Bristol or North Somerset. Mostly known for its railways and docks, Portishead was never known as a cultural center before the band came along. However, despite its bland history and negligible art scene, there is a compelling atmosphere in Portishead; amidst the generic industrial buildings are sculptures that border on the bizarre. How such a small town came upon the funds to commission public art is a mystery, and the works seem out of place--they neither relate to Portishead's extensive seafaring history nor establish a sophisticated artistic tradition. It is apt that an innovative band such as Portishead would draw inspiration from a typical UK town with a quirky public spirit. Although not a direct mission of the band, Portishead attempts to capture this spirit in its truest form.


Portishead - Machine Gun from vruz on Vimeo.

Just Another Cold (War) Day: Reflecting on the Simulation

Red and blue are more than just opposites on the color wheel; once these hues were adopted by the USSR and the West, they went from being a child's finger painting colors to highly politicized indicators of territory. In the simulation today, as a member of the US/Western Europe interest group, I was intensely interested by how much influence a single color could have. When we had no communication with the Soviet Union and only speculation about USSR actions, the huge block of red in the east seemed more and more ominous. As the (mild) paranoia mounted, the desire to contain the communist "threat" seemed increasingly more reasonable. (We never even considered protecting the United States by confining ourselves to the western hemisphere...hence the scuffle for Mexico in the last three or so rounds.) By placing bases near to the heart of the USSR--or as close as we could come--we felt more secure in our offensive capabilities. However, our policy of containment was ineffective, even though our strategic prowess seemed to be right on target. Why? I suspect it had something to do with our lack of information. We were making moves based on our Western conception of how the Soviet think-tank works, and yet we were not familiar enough with their strategy to possibly know their goals, actions, and philosophies. Therefore, our good moves were simply flukes. We left too many holes in our geographical strategy to be of any real threat to our opponents. It's no wonder that our ultimatum fell short of the desired effect--so what if we had nukes in Japan? They slipped through the many gaps we left open, take Mexico, threaten us with close-range missiles. We did not establish ourselves as a formidable force, so why should they treat us like one?

Ultimately, bombing on a whim--or perhaps a fear--seemed like a pointless solution to our color problem. It would not only be a waste of power but also a meaningless exercise. Nuclear warfare would do nothing to establish us as the better faction, and if our bat-like strategy wouldn't work, brute force wasn't going to be much of an improvement.

The Synthetic Sound: A Sociogeographical Examination of Electro in Europe

Finally, I have returned to the blogverse with a unique research offering in collaboration with P. Diddy Kong and Elizabeth. Introducing our work on Europe's relationship to the "synthetic sound," or electronic music. Our research questions are not just about techno, however; we are much more interested in why electronic music has gained so much social acceptance on the European scene. In order to understand the popularity of electro, we will each be studying a region in depth. I will be looking at the climate in the United Kingdom, with specific focus on Bristol, where the genre of Trip Hop was born. Mr. P. Diddy Kong will be studying France, and Elizabeth will be focused on northern Europe (Denmark, Sweden, possibly Germany). The anthropological landscape, cultural identity, and history of each place will be taken into consideration as well as the countries' relationship to technology, music, and poltics--the elements that influence the art itself. We hope to come to a cultural understanding about why electro became such a phenomenon in Europe (at the very least).

Nazism Today

Nazism is by no means dead. Although fascism is no longer popular and is usually considered taboo, there are still people who adhere to its doctrine. These (usually young) radicals are known to us colloquially as "skinheads," although their formal name is the Neo-Nazi Party. The Neo-Nazis are not quite organized enough to constitute a political group, and because of anti-totalitarian laws in Germany, radical representatives cannot get elected anyways. However, they still operate in fairly large numbers spread out all over the globe.

The following videos are excerpts from a Japanese anime series called "Black Lagoon" about a group of pirates running a shipping business in the Pacific Ocean. Although such a series seems unrelated to the topic at hand, the following three episodes deal directly with Neo-Nazism, classic fascism, and the racism that still exists in our modern world. It's also interesting to take into consideration the Japanese perspective, especially since Japan was well-respected by Hitler and supported him in WWII. WARNING: The following contains graphic violence, strong language, and fanservice. If the videos don't work, let me know and I will link you to others. (Yeah, I'm a geek.)



Black Lagoon Episode 5

Too Much Talk About Hitler Makes Lolotte a Dull Girl (919-926)

In 1928, the struggling Weimar Republic finally went sour. An election was held that year which shifted the political poles from right to left, making it impossible for the Republic to drum up any more support. In addition to this loss of support, alienated voters, mostly of the peasantry, started backing "specialized interests" such as those of the Nazi party. The Nazis identified this electoral splintering as profitable, and with the stunning propaganda of Goebbels, their party led the way towards the inevitable splintering of the Weimar. They painted themselves as a young, hip contingent concerned with Germany's well-being, and even during the Depression they were well-funded enough to organize the rallies that won them 18.3 percent of the vote early on. The presence of the Nazi party in the Reichstag prevented other groups, such as the National Socialists, from becoming an overpowering majority; the Nazis only followed Hitler, and refused to partake in other areas of government. Hitler, however, could not win the majority required to become president electorally. Thus, after a Dutch anarchist and pyromaniac did his worst on the Reichstag, Hitler seized the opportunity to create "The Third Reich" under Nazi jurisdiction.

In 1933, Germany officially became a one-party Nazi state. The left was crushed by Hitler's regime, and all non-Nazi organizations were forced to assimilate. If the Nazi state was efficient, perhaps the autocracy would be justified, but the bureaucracy was so complicated that very little was accomplished. In fact, Hitler's biggest challenges came from within the Nazi party at the end of his first term; these internal difficulties led to the creation of the infamous Nazi secret police, the SS. Headed by Himmler, the most feared Nazi next to Hitler, the SS invented the Nazi concentration camp. Still, the regime enjoyed a certain amount of popular support that cut across class lines. Hitler admired and emulated Mussolini in this regard by attempting to infuse a universal nationalism into the German people and reaching out to the country's youth. The main staple of the party's politics was racism, and for this issue I recommend reading the two posts preceding this one.

Introducing the Reich

Unfortunately, Hitler's ideology did not stay confined to the incendiary pages of Mein Kampf. A series of Nuremberg Laws were drawn up in to enforce the "protection of German blood and German honor." The first law separates Jews from Germans and establishes harsh consequences for those who refuse to acknowledge legislative xenophobia. It's a perfect case of the "separate but equal" syndrome; the law prevents Germans from marrying Jews, Jews from employing Germans, and German-Jew extramarital sex. However, Jews can display their own flag if not the German one, which is apparently a protected "exercise of right." Thus, some pretense of legality is established, only to be further deconstructed by subsequent laws denying Jews as citizens of the Reich. The third Nuremberg measure replacing the German flag with the Nazi swastika fully incorporated xenophobia into the sociopolitical structure of Germany.

If You're Smart, Go Die Now

Dear Comrade Elizabeth,

Intellectuals have an odd habit of stating their opinion. (Trotsky is a good example of such brazen behavior. I doubt he ever imagined his outspokenness would merit an ice pick in his cranium.) The intellectuals who supported the USSR may have been highly influential, but they also lived the most dangerous lives of any of the comrades. When the Bolsheviks first identified the educated, wealthy class as a threat, they began to mobilize against them immediately. There were only two courses of action: either openly support communism or get the hell out of the country, and fast. (Fortunately, an escaping intellectual could use their incredible mental faculties to evade the policemen at the border.) Great-great grandfather on my mother's side was a professor at the University of St. Petersburg and the owner of the Ural Gold Mining Company in Tsarist Russia. Once the Bolsheviks began a series of non-proletariat killings, he realized the urgent need for smart people to flee the country. He split his family in two; my great-great grandmother escaped through Europe with her two eldest children, and he escaped through China with all the young ones, eventually making his way to the United States. Right after they left, there was an attack on St. Petersburg elite. Few survived to see the USSR, although those that did played a huge role in shaping it; in order to enforce the success of the communist state, there couldn't be enough intellectuals to constitute a dissenting class. (God forbid that there would be communist leaders other than Stalin gathering support in the USSR. *cough*Trotsky*cough*)

PS: Our family still doesn't know what came of the people that escaped into Europe. it is possible that we have relatives in France descended from the eldest son, the only member of the family to survive the ordeal.

Mein Kampf.

In Hitler's mind, there was only one type of people in the world: the Aryan race. The rest, well, they're not quite human, and therefore they are not protected by Hitler's fascism. (He also happened to admire the Japanese for their racial purity. In his mind, their island home and lack of genetic exposure to the outside world mad them superior to their fellows, although not equal to the Germanic greatness of the Aryans.) In his text Mein Kampf, he bluntly and clinically outlines the threatening inferiority of two specific races--the Slavs and the Jews. Fate, apparently, has sent Hitler a sign of Germany's future action through the Prussia's submission to Bolshevism, and this sign indicates the eminent fall of the Russian state. "For centuries Russia drew nourishment from this Germanic nucleus of its upper leading strata," Hitler says. He attributes the construction of the Russian state not to Slavic but Germanic leadership of "the inferior race." Once Germanic leadership let go of the Slav's hand, the Jew immediately snatched up a position of leadership and began to demolish all of the glorious work of the master race, thus leaving Russia "exterminated and extinguished." In fact, he goes as far as to label this process "Jewish world Bolshevization."

In these (extremely racist) statements, Hitler proves his knowledge of German history. As we examined during World War I, Tsar Nicholas and Kaiser Wilhelm III were first cousins; hence, Hitler claims that the Tsardom was, in fact, a position held by traditionally Germanic leaders. However, his connection between Bolshevism and Judaism is far from accurate. Fortunately, Hitler's aim in Mein Kampf was not political accuracy; the purpose of the text is to rationalize and construct xenophobia. Poland and Russia found Hitler's claims to be frightening and offensive, but to many German fascists who were still experiencing the shame of WWI, his arguments were inspirational. The idea of a misunderstood yet superior Germanic race was a glorious dream that negated the failure of the Weimar Republic, incredible debt, and loss of the Great War. Plus, this superiority was effortless--it came of Fate and lineage rather than merit. Hitler's seemingly rational presentation of his ideas only added to the appeal of Nazism for Germany. Hitler seemed like the kind of assertive leader a weakened and embittered Germany needed, and lo, they were stuck with him.

From the Weimar Republic to Today: Made in Germany

In the early 1920s, after the Great War, the German people overthrew the imperial government. After such an extended and horrible conflict, this political overhaul was relatively painless; however, the resulting Weimar Republic was too weak to support an unstable, losing Germany. During the decade-long attempt at a German democracy, hyperinflation plagued the economy as well as the $33 billion war debt. (The economy seemed to improve for a short period of time, then a state of financial crisis in 1930 caused the Weimar Republic to implode, unable to function because of severe debt.) The humiliation of having lost a war caused the German people to become embittered, blaming the failure of their armies on the plotting of minority groups such as the Jews and socialists. Thus, nationalism became militant.



Now, Germany is experiencing similar economic troubles. Thankfully, militant nationalism is not driving the country toward extremism as it once had; instead, stimulus packages are being distributed in an attempt to jump-start the economy. However, the economic hardship parallels that of the Great Depression in a rather disturbing way. This is the insider's view from Deutsche Welle's Made in Germany. (I would post a RAI Italia video about the present economy in Italy, but Silvio Berlusconi regrettably owns that TV station.)

Lenin's Legacy Continued, or Killing People

Dear Esteemed Partner in Crime AKA Elizabeth,

It's true that the kulaks and Russian intellectuals were not treated as the same kind of population. Stalin would eventually put Kulaks into concentration camps, a measure that was never taken for the educated, noble elite. The elite were still dealt with harshly, in fact, the Bolsheviks adhered to a strict policy of quick arrest and quiet execution. However, both groups proved to be opposition for the new communist regime. This opposition meant that in true communist style, little distinction was made between them. Intellectualism and resources often generate the same sort of power for the lucky holders, so the government's violent course of action seemed quite straightforward. The groups had to be removed. Out of this apparent need came organizations such as the Checka and KGB; such organizations would be most effective after the Kulaks and intellectuals were disposed of because they specialized in picking off dissenting individuals/budding groups. Thus, the communist regime annihilated entire classes without giving the least thought to what distinguished them--in this they accomplished their goals.

Our Least Favorite Moose in the World (913-919)

Italy may have been one of the winners of WWI, but severe debt and loss of life still left it in a difficult predicament; Italy was a much poorer nation than Britain and France, and therefore the debts were more crippling. The country had never been economically strong, and as the debt accumulated, Italy's long standing economic issues were only aggravated. Inflation and unemployment wracked the economy, and soon striking became frequent. On top of these financial troubles, Italy's gains from the war were far fewer than promised. The lands on the west coast of the Adriatic were hotly disputed by Yugoslavia, and even the Austrian territories Italy gained were not enough to compensate for the copious losses. Thus, as a result of the political and financial turmoil, radicalism began to take hold in the hearts of the people, and they turned to socialism for their fix of revolution.

Enter Mussolini, AKA Fascism. The son of a socialist blacksmith, Mussolini went into journalism and was able to rally support among like-minded colleagues. These groups, coincidentally, were called fasci and idealistically preached intense nationalism. When the Fascist Party went public, it held many surprising ideals, such as universal suffrage (for men and women), an eight hour workday, and inheritance taxes. Another platform dropped economic reform, but neither were successful, and it was only their aggressive determination that led to the ultimate success of the party. Once Mussolini began transforming the fascist government into a one-party dictatorship, he built a political foundation in Italy composed of statism, nationalism, and militarism. It was only a matter of time before this new political structure would spread to Italy's unstable neighbor, Germany, which was being upheld by the Weimar Republic. Mussolini's supported dictatorship, in particular, would appeal to a little boy with a taboo mustache...

Welcome to the Blogging Trinity!

Dear Elizabeth and Mr. P Diddy Kong,

Welcome to our "blogging trinity"! (Mr. Diddy Kong, since you are an atheist, we are perfectly willing to refer to this group as a "trio" or "threesome" instead. :P) I am looking forward to writing this experimental research paper with all of you.

On to Lenin's legacy:



In Lenin's Hanging Order (1918), he commands the Bolsheviks to mobilize against one of the largest, most problematic classes in Russian society: the Kulaks. The Kulaks were a wealthy group of peasants, usually landed, with more education that the liberated serfs and strength in numbers. The Kulaks had benefited from the existence of the Tsarist state and would be opposed to its destruction; they had enough resources to actively fight a Bolshevik revolution. Thus, Lenin decreed that the entire class should be disposed of as soon as possible; the nobility and intellectuals would soon follow. The violence of the Bolsheviks would become a commonly used tactic in the USSR and modern-day Russia. Although there is no longer a Kulak class, the intellectual targets have remained the same over the years. The above report on Deutsche Welle illustrates the progression from Lenin's order to the modern day.

Life's All About Sex and Death. Gotta Love Freud.

Setting: the modernist era. A time when individual interests were both emphasized and degraded, art became virtually unrecognizable, and survival of the fittest permeated society. Thinkers began to explore the idea of humans as irrational beings, abandoning the conventions of the Enlightenment to explore the darker side of the psyche. This new intellectual sensibility was manifested in Nietzsche's nihilism, a singular doctrine which lacked the optimism of religion and the (rather ridiculous) approach of perspectivism. However, Nietzsche's philosophy is not untouched by the reaches of imperialism and Romantic exoticism. His theories about repeated lives and divine death echoed Hindu and Buddhist doctrine; thus, western philosophy began to take on a distinctly eastern feel.

Although Nietzsche influenced many high profile people, only one literally internalized his teachings--Sigmund Freud. Freud, a pop culture icon in his own right, is commonly associated with sex, death, and therapists. These associations are not altogether incorrect, but Freud's thoughts are (naturally) more complex, and he probably had quite a few unconscious philosophies which he failed to share with us. Unconsciousness aside, Freud attempted to use his theories to define "the human." Freud's human is base, unthinking, aggressive, repressed, governed by intricate levels of consciousness and egotism. On a superficial level, Freud doesn't seem to have missed the mark. We all have socially unacceptable thoughts and feel the influence of social conditioning. However, between all the uncontrollable forces that govern the human psyche, Freud somehow loses sight of the physical, real individual. A human is much more than a series of synapses and warring instincts. Freud was so caught up in the complex terrain of the psyche that he lost sight of the overall delicacy of the body. He does not explain the physical actions that seem automatic, like blinking and breathing, perhaps attributing them to the activity of an infinite subconscious. He trivializes conscious thinking and self-consciousness--the very qualities that define the human condition. After all, are we not afraid of dying because we consciously acknowledge the inevitability of our death? Don't we define humanity as impermanent because we recognize death? If Thanatos governed our non-erotic selves, as Freud suggests, we would not understand mortality, and our death instincts would simply lead us to "simplicity." Yet, this is not the case. We are painfully aware of our time, and we think we understand what it means to die. Instincts do not allow such lucidity. Freud seems to have forgotten, momentarily, that we are not wolves, and that the anxiety of the human condition comes from knowing what we are.

Russia Today: Global 3000

With our recent debate about Russia, I thought this was a very timely Deutsche Welle report. Although not directly connected to revolution, the plan for the city outside of Moscow seems to be a classic manifestation of the Russian desire for expansion and modernization. The currently bankrupt project hearkens back to Peter the Great's ambitious founding of St. Petersburg, or at least that's what the Russian government's saying. Thoughts?

Raging Hard for Counter-Imperialism

Dear Classier Hoeing,

I largely agree with your argument. To a certain degree, imperialism has allowed us to lead a "first world" lifestyle in the United States, Europe, and other "select" parts of the globe. Economies stagnate without new markets, raw materials, and resources; imperialism allowed Europe to jump start the long process of globalizing. However, I don't believe that standards of living would be less had the invisible hand not extended itself over the "unoccupied" territories of Africa, the Orient, and the Americas. Every region of the world had experienced the flux of empire. China, Egypt, the Aztecs and Incas. I think that had the natural rise and fall of isolated empires continued, new technology would gradually emerge, and the process of forming the so-called "global village" would arise from the integration of these disparate technologies.

This counter-imperialistic theory is by no means all about flowers and peace signs and cute furry animals living together in uninterrupted harmony. There is no way to avoid the violence that would inevitably come of power play. In fact, without European imperialism, some attempt at integration and conquer would most likely be made, and the world's wealth would still become heavily concentrated on select regions. (If Africa stayed in control of its plentiful resources, they would prove to be a major power in the world market, perhaps even an imperialist one.) So would much change? Perhaps there would be an equalization of world power. Perhaps there would be less oppression, racism, and debt. Regardless, allowing the rise-and-fall cycle of empires to continue without intervention would not drastically alter the contemporary standard of living. We're not eating the cake that we somehow have. This is just the way things happened.

I Sound Like a Broken Record

This week, the focus has been imperialism and its effects, outside and within Europe. We all know what the products of imperialism are and now questions are being asked about how the world would have progressed differently sans outside intervention. Over at the MEHness, racism in relation to imperialism took the stage while Declan Conroy focused on individual efforts to bear "the White Man's Burden." In class, we also reviewed the economic implications of imperialism. Hobson and Lenin, naturally, believed that imperialism was the "highest form of capitalism" and indicative of the inherent contradictions of the system. London was, after all, becoming the Banker of the World, and most "colonized" territories were rich in resources that bolstered the European economy after extensive wars. I have a theory that globalization begins right with the imperialists of old, and I'm curious to see how the imperialist effort will begin the interdisciplinary process of international integration.

Taking the High Rhodes: The White Man's Burden. (Ha. Ha.)

Pre-Script: February 4 was King Leopold II's birthday. We should have had a party in class with little pointed hats and streamers and a cake decorated with bloody frosting. How festive! Moving on--

Dear Mr. Conroy,

It would be rather boring to say that I agree with your argument, but I do. However, I think that we are being far too modern in our consideration of Rhodes' morality. Now, his divisive actions seem immoral, narcissistic, and violent, but at the time he was considered to be quite the hero. His accomplishments are rather amazing, if one thinks of them objectively; he traveled to "the Dark Continent" all on his lonesome and somehow managed to successfully imperialize a large chunk of southern Africa. He was the intrepid personification of Daring and Adventure, two qualities that were highly thought of in the imperialist age. At the time, the Africans were seen as much less than human, and so his less-than-humane conquering would have been largely ignored. Naturally, the Dutch would have been outraged at the role he played in the Boer War, but since Britain was such a huge imperialist presence, their collective anger did little to tarnish his image. Rhodes was Kipling's poster boy. Even after Rhodes' actions became morally unacceptable in the eyes of society, it would be politically unfair for Britain to discredit the man who single-handedly expanded their empire. The scholarship is proof of this; Rhodes had money, and the scholarship can be seen as Britain's way of honoring his vast, nationalistic wealth. He did a lot for the Motherland, and in return, they have to keep his good name good.

Hey Belgium, Way to [censored] Up The Congo! (806-816)

Although European presence in Africa was not foreign by the 19th century, as "new imperialism" became further ingrained in the hearts of capitalists and politicians, the "Dark Continent" became prime real estate. By 1914, the entirety of Africa save Ethiopia had been, shall we say, colonized by various European powers. (Quick Note: Ever wonder why Ethiopia is considered to be the Rastafari Valhalla and the source of pan-Africanism? The fact that the Ethiopian Empire was able to completely resist imperialist pressure has a lot to do with it. I'll address this more in my next post.) The French claimed a huge chunk of northwestern Africa as well as Madagascar and a relatively small portion of equatorial Africa. The British, never to be outdone, focused imperial efforts mostly on eastern Africa, from Egypt all the way down to the Union of South Africa; some territory on the Gold Coast was also claimed. The Italians, Germans, and Spanish followed behind with smaller territories. The African map was more colorful than the rainbow, and a lot less attractive; the White Men clearly heeded Kipling's call and went about their burden with ease.

Right in the middle of the European-rainbow-melee, Belgium under King Leopold II laid claim to a large chunk of land that was known as the Belgian Congo. In 1876, the International Association for the Exploration and Civilization of the Congo set out from Belgium to exploit resources in middle Africa such as rubber, palm oil, and diamonds. After facing opposition from other European countries such as Portugal and Germany, Belgium set about committing atrocities in the Congo which are no doubt the root of the current Republic's problems. Labor was either forced or close to it, and the conditions were horrible. Famine, disease, and overwork killed off hundreds of thousands of African workers. George Washington Williams, in a visit to the Congo, was appalled by the confiscation of lands from the native Africans as well as the lack of organized "civilization effort." Williams' concerns were uncommon at the time since Africans were considered to be inhuman, but they were legitimate, and he was not willing to be a passive observer of lying on behalf of the IAECC. Naturally, his address to King Leopold II did little to improve the atrocious conditions for African laborers.

I guess that's what they get for burdening the White Man. By the way, Belgium, good job [expletive gerund] up the Congo. They've thanked you for it, I'm sure.

Tired of Your Neighbors? Just Take Over the World! (783-93)

The European imperialist urge first emerged in 1869 with the opening of the Suez Canal. Over 100 miles long and connecting the Mediterranean and Red Sea, the Suez Canal not only opened up an easier trade route with then-Bombay; the canal was tangible evidence of the Europe's increasing financial, political, and commercial involvement outside of the mainland. Egypt, through which the canal cuts, was a semi-autonomous Ottoman state steeped in debt and political hardship. It was not long after the opening of the foreign-funded Suez Canal that European interests (namely Britain) decided to intervene before the Suez Canal itself was at risk of damage from internal conflict. Thus, "new imperialism" was born. Unlike "formal imperialism," also known as "colonialism," new/informal imperialism refers to a more subtle exercise of power in which a stronger state allows a weaker state to maintain its independence despite a reduction in the latter's sovereignty (789). Such was the nature of British rule in Egypt, and although imperialism itself was not new to the European powers practicing it, this 19th century practice allowed for the advent of a second empire built on the back of industrialization, liberal revolutions, and the establishment of nation-states. The imperialist powers in Europe took a very utilitarian view of their international intervention; with just a little external push, these non-European countries would surely improve, and thus the international community would also benefit. The result of such utilitarian and interventionist thinking was the spread of informal rule of which Britain was the champion.

Imperialism was not without its opponents, however, the most influential of which were the social critic J.A. Hobson and the Marxist Vladimir Lenin. Hobson equated imperialism with capitalism and the financial monopolies to indirect rule. In Hobson's view, the bankers were as key to imperialism and governments; he observed that once Britain established power outside of its borders, London became the banking center of the world. Naturally, the Marxists were opposed to this unapologetic spread of capitalism. Lenin, as acutely aware of the economics of imperialism as Hobson, argued that imperialism was a product of the "internal contradictions" of a capitalist economy (790). However, non-European markets proved to be too poor to meet European needs, a fact which negates the economically based criticisms of Hobson and Lenin. Advocates of imperialism saw it as more essentially rooted in nationalism and cultural improvement, pioneering a 19th century sense of European supremacy which only hinted by Romantic exoticism. The various motivations for new imperialism worked with each other in such a way that the geographic and cultural landscape of the world would be forever changed; thus, the international community began the long process of globalization which would establish some powers, diminish others, and integrate races.

Repetition Repeated - Another Week-End Summary

After a very eventful week ending with a DBQ on the perspectives leading up to German unification in 1848, I think we are all ready to move onward and outward--which is just what Europe is about to do. The final discussions that were had this past week mostly revolved around the Bismarck and German unification; most notably, connections were drawn between the German "archconservative" and Machiavelli (our favorite Italian). Attention was also paid to the unification efforts of Italy, and the views of Mazzini, Cavour, and Victor Emmanuel took center stage. All of this took place against the dramatic backdrop of Romanticism and did very little to please the so-called architect of European peace until WWI, Klaus von Metternich, because the balance of power that was so carefully measured in Europe was about to be upset. (He was right.) The Crimean War and Russian expansionism also factored into our review of 19th century Europe, both of which are events that have defined Europe to the present day. Expansionism in general will define the next era of European history as the continent becomes too small for the lot of them.

Blame it on Napoleon

Dear Mr. Conroy,

The lack of a woman's suffrage movement in England actually goes all the way back to the Terror during the French Revolution. Although English development politically, socially, and economically has progressed at its own rate through much of history, the losses sustained in France at the time set back collective European feminism by about 20 years. First, the execution of the playwright-polemic Olympe de Gouges deprived women of an authoritative advocate of gender equality; Mary Wollstonecraft died in childbirth within two years, thus depriving the movement of a calculative supporter of equal education. Without the two strongest women of the era, no one advocated powerful representation of women as Napoleon drew up his Codes. In the Codes, women were expected by law to occupy a very specific role in the private sphere. Thus, the revolutionary spirit that allowed women to come into the public sphere was dissipated, the remaining women repressed. Had France taken a revolutionary stand and granted women (at least) some of the rights outlined in de Gouges' Declaration of the Rights of Woman and Citizen, then perhaps the rest of Europe could have followed suit. Unfortunately, nothing happened. Women were denied, and the movement would not start up again until the early 20th century. Who wants to give the vote to those people who are occupied with housework?

That is not to say that women had no advocates in post-Napoleonic Europe; in England, the utilitarian Mill was an uncommon male ally, publicizing his belief that the education of women would embody "the greatest good for the greatest number." However, Parliament was wary of working class men voting, let alone an entire "domestic" population. Why was this the case? Wasn't the prospect of wealthy women voting better than granting the vote to a poor, uneducated man? The 19th century answer would be that women are only suited for the private sphere and should have nothing to do with the public one their husbands occupied. In the 1970s, feminists would develop a theory that the so-called domestic/public spheres that were thought to separate men and women actually related to genital structure. In short, a claim was made that women were denied the vote based on "biological discrimination." A woman's reproductive system is internal, so she shouldn't be bothered with politics and the world and human rights. Naturally, it's all Napoleon's fault for throwing woman's rights out the window in 1800.

Let's just say that we're lucky to have moved on from all that.

At The Risk [At the Risk] of Repetition

This past week, conversation in our little MEH blog ring has been dominated by nationalism, conservatism, and the critical theory behind modern national identity. From theories that globalization has redefined the boundaries of a nation to the idea that racial and linguistic differences have little to do with defining a nation, the most basic composition of our larger communities has come into question. In addition to this self-reflection on nations and nationalism, we have all started thinking more deeply about how the economy will affect our futures. Not all of us believe that the proletariat is truly willing or able to jump start the apocalypse, but the morose musings about the future of the bourgeoisie in class certainly got us thinking about Marx (also known as Mr. Presumes-A-Lot). From Bismarck to Engels, this week has been all about those larger philosophies in our lives, the ones that bind us together and define the political and social sensibilities of our generation.

In Case You Thought Politics Were Fake (754-767)

Nationalism, it seems, is quite useful to the discerning politician; it can be manipulated from the top down or the bottom up. It can be divisive. It can be unifying. The most successful leaders during the period following the 1848 revolutions utilized nationalism to the fullest extent, regardless of whether or not they believed in nationalist ideology. Two examples of fruitful unification efforts were Italy and Germany. In Italy, competition between nationalist doctrines created a turbulent but effective climate in Italy in which unification became possible. From the vision of the third Rome painted by Mazzini to the top-down ministrations of Cavour, national pride was used to expand the scope and the influence of the unifying Italian state. For a divided country, one concept of nationalism could not be as effective; if Mazzini, Cavour, and Garibaldi all shared the same ideology, it would fall on deaf ears in some regions and be widely lauded in others. Therefore, the competition between them (although often violent) accommodated Italian diversity in such a way that the need to unify was universal. By 1871, after many conflicts between Cavour and the grassroots nationalist Garibaldi, Italy was geographically unified and the subsequent steps toward nation building could be taken. In Germany, Realpolitik defined the power dynamics that would allow for unification of the German state under Bismarck; it was the building of "national feeling," consideration of middle-class interests, diplomacy, violence, and regime struggles that would define this consolidation effort. The success claimed in Versailles, 1871, came not of the direct work of a leader, but rather the Realpolitik that the German Empire found universally appealing. Nationalism in these instantiations proved to be of more help than hindrance to the cause of unification, but if misused (as it was in many cases), it could drag out the conflicts between regions for indefinite periods of time.

Further Contemplations of Modernity

This post is a continuation of the discussion here.

This is where we could start getting into an argument about modern vs. contemporary. I disagree that the term "modern" is empty when separated from the modernist movement. Not every age is modern in the scope of history, nor does modernist doctrine make this claim. (Although according to the Cult of Postmodernism, it is possible that every era since the beginning of time has been postmodern.) Classicism, for example, was in no way modern. It was a reversion to a previous artistic period, and the fact that it came to be in a revolutionary climate does not make it any more avant-garde than the technique merits. However, classicism at the time of its conception was contemporary--momentarily modern. Of course, in the scope of history, such contemporaneity is cast aside, and the more enduring traits of an era become its defining points, traits that determine the objective modernity of a time.

Modern vs. Modernist

Dear Classier Hoeing and Natewozere,

I would first like to make the important distinction between "modern" and the modernity implied by "modernism." In my previous post, "The Mean Nurse Returns," I assert at the end that Romanticism can be considered the first modern period in the long progression of European history. By calling Romanticism "modern," I was not relating it in any way to the subsequent modernist movement; as you both have pointed out, Modernism and Romanticism are completely different animals, and any relationships between them are most likely due to the fact that one happened to follow the other chronologically. To conflate the two is a mistake, but should they have to be related to rationalize Romantic modernity?

I agree that Romanticism was not the pinnacle of artistic and social individualism; one can identify the so-called Romantic art and poetry with practiced ease. In some ways, the Romantics have become the well-known cliches of the present day--which would not be the case if Romantic artists were radically different from one another. (Perhaps the contemporary conception of the Romantic cliche is also what impedes our understanding of Romanticism as a form of the avant-garde or the modern.) Despite the inadvertent homogeneity of Romantic technique, the irrevocable shift in attitude towards the nature of the individual is ultimately what labels it as a modern movement. Prior to Romanticism (even during the Enlightenment), a philosophical assumption was made that humans are fundamentally good, rational creatures. With the advent of thinkers such as Nietzsche and Freud in the 19th century, the perception of the individual emphasized the irrational and animal in us--hence, the Id. Romanticism may not have artistically demonstrated the full potential of individualism, but the simple reconsideration of the nature of the individual pegged Romanticism as a heterogeneous movement. A modern movement, even, since it was more experimental than those that had preceded it.

The Mean Nurse Returns (725-732)

Oft called the "most significant cultural revolution in the 19th century," Romanticism was an eclectic reaction against the Classicism that was pioneered by David (alone) during the previous century (725). Artistically, there was a noticeable shift away from the (homogeneous) style embodied by David; suddenly, style was individualized and permeated by decidedly non-classical subject matter such as the exoticism of the Orient embodied in Ingres' La Grand Odalisque. Paintings were no longer confined to strict representational subject matter or composition. It was as if, as Constable wrote, "it is the soul that sees." Constable's assertion was not his own, but rather that of the Romantic poet Wordsworth; Romanticism was highly interdisciplinary, with poets striving to capture the visual essence of their life and times and painters attempting to depict the poetry of the rainbow. Thus, the limits of reason and human emotion were tested; humans were no longer assumed to be rational, but rather highly intuitive and irrational creatures steeped in subjectivity. This temporal shift in belief fueled not only the artistic community, but also early 19th century nationalism and politics. Romantics could be intensely liberal--

VICTOR HUGO: "Romanticism, so often ill-defined is only...liberalism in literature. Liberty in Art, Liberty in Society, behold the double banner that rallies the intelligence."

Romantics could also be highly conservative--

CHATEAUBRIAND: "I wrote a book called The Genius of Christianity. Need I say more?"

Romanticism marked the movement away from the Enlightenment that would facilitate the development of a modern society; perhaps even the Romantic era could be considered modern in and of itself, although by no means modernist. Perhaps rather than measuring our cultural progression in regards to modernism, we should be considering it in relation to Romanticism. Wouldn't we all prefer to live in a Postromantic era?

Wherein I Stake My Claim as an Individual of the Bourgeoisie

As enamored as I am with the word "proletariat," I must admit that ideologically speaking, I favor the establishment of the bourgeoisie--despite the plethora of "class antagonisms" that the latter supposedly creates. I find my identification with the bourgeois community to be humorous; I'm not attached to the "modern bourgeois" notion of private property, nor do I believe that the abolition of nations/nationality is an evil suggestion. No, what so irks me about the communist definition of the proletariat is that it denies the value of the individual to the greater community. "To be precise, it is...the negation of the individual as existent within the universal," Hegel argues. Therefore, according to Hegel, not only is the reality of the individual negligible when faced with the whole of collective human experience, but to acknowledge some value in this negligible entity is useless: "The sole work and deed of universal freedom is thus death...which has no inner amplitude and no inner fulfillment, since what is negated is the unfulfilled empty 'point' of the absolutely free self." Of course, no one wants a cold, empty death borne of individualism, so Marx and Engels wrote the manifesto for a society that could guarantee warm, full deaths for everyone.

One of the fundamental problems with Hegelian philosophy is that, like Kant, Hegel refuses to consider the effect of human instinct on human sensibility. Intellectually, he lays out a scintillating argument; in a way, our bourgeois, sociopolitical definition of "freedom" can be construed to mean the absence of guidance or human impact. However, freedom is not widely recognized as a canceling force in our lives because human instinct causes us to gravitate towards it, just as instinct allows for self-preservation, a hallmark of individual interest--the type of interest that Hegel would gladly negate. Predictably, individual interest is generated by none other than the self, to be precise, the intuitive, unconscious self which is not considered in the "highest actuality." Why not? Could it be that the self-consciousness which supposedly deconstructs universality informs the self-unconsciousness which composes it and vice versa, therefore leading even the least individualistic of people to a purely chemical individualism? Even by organic means, one can be lead back to the self; even in the work of Marx and Engels, there is room for the establishment of a new, possibly more organic self that both defies and supports the proletariat community.

At least bourgeois society recognizes the inevitable presence of the individual. "Class antagonisms" aside, the bourgeoisie allows an individualist to remain an individual, therefore creating a much more realistic society in which the self rationally contributes to the larger community.

I Hope This Concert is Worth the Money (709-717)

The period between 1815 and 1830 illustrated a trend that most of western Europe had been afraid of since the start of the French Revolution—an outward spread of revolutionary sentiments that would eventually extend overseas. Even though the Terror had seen a (bloody) conclusion and Napoleon’s imperialistic military campaigns had been brought to a halt by the defeat at Waterloo, the innovative rebelliousness of the French caught on as new splinter groups formed to challenge the imposed peace of the European establishment. In 1815, this “imposed peace” came in the form of the Congress of Vienna, a gathering of the major European powers seeking to restore “legitimate authority” to France, Spain, and the Sicilies; once more, the political landscape of Europe was dramatically altered by the monarchical forces of the restoration and the Quintuple Alliance. Naturally wary of crusades and non-representative governments, the restoration quickly gained opposition in the Carbonari, a group of tastefully disguised Italians who claimed to uphold democratic ideals while squelching Austrian rule. Although the Carbonari were by no means as elegant as Robespierre’s crew, there is a certain echo of the Terror in their uprisings, from their democratic claims to the violent nature of their revolts. Other revolutionary groups, such as the Decembrists in Russia, clearly learned from their run-in with Napoleon in 1812; they had no definite political program, but their extensive military experience and genius timing allowed them to affect a change in Russian authority that would shape the future of the nation. None of the aforementioned revolutions could compete with the sheer magnitude of the one in France, but France had surely left its mark on each incendiary effort that would follow.