a mix of chemicals and fear
Apr. 18th, 2007 04:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hathycolI love Naptime Wednesday. Okay, yesterday became a Naptime Tuesday based on the fact that I decided I didn't care about the historiography of the Third Reich (also, I have great trouble understanding lectures given by Riccardo Bavaj, who is German and Italian and therefore apparently incomprehensible in any of his three languages) but still, today I do not have to leave the house at all. I have trawled through an Eric Hobsbawm book with the awed hush of finally encountering some of this infamous Marxist history (and I agree with all of it, which, er, should say a lot) and I am slowly Forumlating An Argument about the pros and cons of studying revolution as a whole compared to a set of seperate events.
Of course, the problem with all this is trying to establish what a revolution is. In 1688 they thought it was a literal revolution, where things return to the way they should be; 1789 made them dramatic, 1793 made them horrific, 1848 made all of Europe skittish before bitchslapping it down and feeling victorious, 1917 made them worldwide.
But, of course, that's just the political revolutions. What about the Industrial Revolution? The Military Revolution? The Sexual Revolution? OH WHAT DO I CHOOSE TO DO. Luckily, reading Les Miserables (nothing has actually happened, 800 pages in, but it's still a bloody good read) means that I'm going to focus on the French. After all, Lenin said it inspired him, Mao infamously said about the outcome of the French Revolution "It's too earlier to say" so, you know, you have to look at it as the basis of modern revolution. But do you need to? Really? All the revolutions are different, and have different outcomes for different places and different bits of history. It all depends on why you're studying history: if you're a political, and you're trying to cause/prevent a revolution, it might help to see the common denomintor. However, is there a common link? I'm tempted to argue 'no,' because the people and the places are different. If, however, you think that people and places aren't important, the real importance is the economics, the models, the base and the superstructure, all that, then that doesn't matter. The Russia of 1917 and the Paris of 1789 were such different places, though; can you honestly argue they were the same? And look at the outcomes! Every revolution ends differently. Or does it? Compare Stalin and the Reign of Terror; but other than the killing, there's no real similarity. Robespierre, Danton, Saint-Just, they are very different people to Stalin. The Sans-Culottes are not the Bolsheviks.
Of good lord, that was a ramble. Well done if you stuck with that; I think I just had a brain-splurge so it was written down for purposes of writing my essay. Basically, historiography is eating my brain, but I need to get all this reading done this evening. Naturally, I'm instead updating LJ and ignoring the ohgod three books I still have to get through today.
I am also still in my pajams, courtesy of Naptime Wednesday. One might assume I should go to bed earlier; however, in order to apparently get the right amount of sleep, I would have to go to bed at about 8pm in the evening.
On the bright side, I didn't destroy DocSoc last night. People laughed! We had food! And drink! And Iron Brew which is like Irn Bru in colour and nothing else! And prizes! And the society still exists! Which came as a rather embarrassing surprise. Ho hum.
I am also not sleeping at night because I sort of miss Simon more than I was expecting and the knowledge that it's going to be over a month due to a bad timing of respective exams makes me a unhappy bunny. At least it doesn't impinge on my daytime sleep...
Of course, the problem with all this is trying to establish what a revolution is. In 1688 they thought it was a literal revolution, where things return to the way they should be; 1789 made them dramatic, 1793 made them horrific, 1848 made all of Europe skittish before bitchslapping it down and feeling victorious, 1917 made them worldwide.
But, of course, that's just the political revolutions. What about the Industrial Revolution? The Military Revolution? The Sexual Revolution? OH WHAT DO I CHOOSE TO DO. Luckily, reading Les Miserables (nothing has actually happened, 800 pages in, but it's still a bloody good read) means that I'm going to focus on the French. After all, Lenin said it inspired him, Mao infamously said about the outcome of the French Revolution "It's too earlier to say" so, you know, you have to look at it as the basis of modern revolution. But do you need to? Really? All the revolutions are different, and have different outcomes for different places and different bits of history. It all depends on why you're studying history: if you're a political, and you're trying to cause/prevent a revolution, it might help to see the common denomintor. However, is there a common link? I'm tempted to argue 'no,' because the people and the places are different. If, however, you think that people and places aren't important, the real importance is the economics, the models, the base and the superstructure, all that, then that doesn't matter. The Russia of 1917 and the Paris of 1789 were such different places, though; can you honestly argue they were the same? And look at the outcomes! Every revolution ends differently. Or does it? Compare Stalin and the Reign of Terror; but other than the killing, there's no real similarity. Robespierre, Danton, Saint-Just, they are very different people to Stalin. The Sans-Culottes are not the Bolsheviks.
Of good lord, that was a ramble. Well done if you stuck with that; I think I just had a brain-splurge so it was written down for purposes of writing my essay. Basically, historiography is eating my brain, but I need to get all this reading done this evening. Naturally, I'm instead updating LJ and ignoring the ohgod three books I still have to get through today.
I am also still in my pajams, courtesy of Naptime Wednesday. One might assume I should go to bed earlier; however, in order to apparently get the right amount of sleep, I would have to go to bed at about 8pm in the evening.
On the bright side, I didn't destroy DocSoc last night. People laughed! We had food! And drink! And Iron Brew which is like Irn Bru in colour and nothing else! And prizes! And the society still exists! Which came as a rather embarrassing surprise. Ho hum.
I am also not sleeping at night because I sort of miss Simon more than I was expecting and the knowledge that it's going to be over a month due to a bad timing of respective exams makes me a unhappy bunny. At least it doesn't impinge on my daytime sleep...
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 05:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 07:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 11:12 am (UTC)Lack of sleeping-at-night sucks very muchly. *hugs* But this is where being a student wins for the fact that sleeping during the day is a perfectly valid alternative. Naptime Wednesday ftw (and crazy are all these people who think Wednesday afternoon is for sports).
no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 12:13 pm (UTC)Sports! On a Wednesday! Okay, I went to LaserQuest last Wednesday BUT I also had a nap! I TOTALLY WIN AT NAPTIME WEDNESDAY. It's the nutters that do debating training on a Wednesday afternoon that frighten me...
no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 09:02 pm (UTC)i totally don't understand. well done.
also, at some point might i pick your brains about the church's opinions +/or restrictions on music?
xx