The road to democracy was more difficult for France than for England for a few prominent reasons. The first of these reasons was that after the Franco-Prussian war, France had many difficulties when it came to establishing a stable government. There are many changes in government that occurred very often. Many people have different opinions and the majority opinion changed often. After the Franco-Prussian war, France was in a bad spot and many things changed. The country was different and after so long of having such an indecisive government, the people were desperate for a stable government. With their government changing so often and a want for a stable one, the people of France were very satisfied when the national assembly set up the Third Republic in 1875. Because of their strong want for a stable government and order in their nation, the Third Republic lasted over 60 years. Another reason France’s road to democracy was so much more difficult was because in Britain the people demanded rights earlier than the people of France. This was partially because of the Franco-Prussian war and also because of the difference in events between the two nations. In Britain, the primary focus for many years was focused on suffrage and other rights to be available to others outside of the highest class. This started with allowing suffrage to the wealthy middle class and expanded to the point of suffrage and rights for all men. These rights included change in the requirements to be in parliament and the allowing of pay for parliament members. Though many rights were given to all men of England at this time, women were still very limited when it came to rights and this wouldn’t change until after World War I. Before the people of France demanded rights, and even after the third republic was established, there were many groups that wanted power over the government, not rights for all people, like in Britain. Another reason the road was harder was because when France’s democracy was forming, it was a time that involved a huge amount of anti-Semitism in Europe. This caused many issues between the people as one nation and drew people away from the fight for a democracy.
Sec. 1 Question 7:
The primary source by Emmeline Pankhurst is interesting and I think she’s demanding a couple things. The first thing she’s demanding in this primary source is understanding. She wants people to understand that she did this for a reason and not just out of recklessness. I think she wanted people to understand that though it seems wrong there is justification and that this was not their first choice of action, But rather one after many others. She wants people to understand that they have tried everything else and there needs to be change, no matter what. I think the reason she wants this understanding, is because the way she does things may be looked down upon. She wants people to understand that though what she’s doing is not the ideal way to earn equal rights, it what is need to be done. She wants people to understand because some people may be drawn away from the goal of equal rights because of the way she fights for it, but wants to justify herself so people are not drawn away. I also think that Emmeline Pankhurst Is demanding realization in this primary source. She wants people realize that they are tired of how long it has taken for women to get rights. Though all men were given rights, it took an unbelievable amount of time for women to be given rights Pankhurst is demanding that we realize All that women’s rights activists have done and tried to do. She thinks we need to realize that they used militant means justly. She states how the only good reason for any Group, for rights or for not, to damage property and risk the comfort of other human beings is if they’ve Already tried everything else. Pankhurst and Her followers believe that women’s rights activists have tried everything and that it was now dinner time to take non-peaceful action so they could see actual results. I think the reason she wants people to realize, is because many people just don’t understand. She wants her believes to be heard and she wants people to realize what it is she’s fighting for and why it’s positive. Though she is not demanding a lot, these two things that she does demand, are sometimes things difficult to get when doing things forcefully.
Sec. 1 Question 8:
There was a big connection between anti-Semitism and Zionism. This connection is shown in a few ways. The first part of the connection is that though Zionism could’ve possibly happened without anti-Semitism, it’s very unlikely. Zionism directly comes off of anti-Semitism and the want Jews had for a safe homeland. The second part of the connection is that the idea of Zionism is to have a homeland free from persecution exile, and judgment. This would not be needed if anti-Semitism was not a thing. Anti-Semitists persecuted and criticized the Jews which lead them to want a safe place where they could practice their beliefs. Another big connection between Zionism and anti-Semitism was that Zionism grew due to the intense amount of anti-Semitism and unjust acts committed from it. Zionism became well known because Jewish persecution was becoming so common in severe that it was a large issue that needed to be addressed. Mini unfair things occurred from anti-Semitism that lead to such a strong sense of Zionism, but one large thing that happened was the Dreyfus affair and Émile Zola being sentenced. Because of anti-Semitism Dreyfus, one of the few Jewish officers in the French army, was framed by his fellow non-Jewish officers. Being anti-Semitists, They framed Dreyfus with fake evidence that a court used to find him guilty. Many people thought that the case truly was a scandal while many others felt strongly that it was not. Anti-Semitism was so prominent, that when a writer, Émile Zola wrote an open letter that slammed the army for the scandal and proved that the entire situation was a scam, he was sentenced to a year in prison. Because of how prominent anti-Semitism was, the government was able to imprison a man just because of his views on a case against a Jewish man. This is just one of the many things that caused Zionists to want a safe place and lead them to eventually establish the state of Israel, a homeland for Jews and their beliefs.
Sec. 2 Question 6:
Britain’s policy towards Canada In the 1700s was very similar to its policy toward Ireland in the 1900s for a few reasons. One of the first reasons they were similar was because there was conflict between Catholics and Protestants in both Canada and Ireland. In Canada, there was a large amount of conflict between the British Protestants and the Roman Catholic French that originally colonized Canada. In Canada, both groups wanted a bigger voice in the government. To try and fix this issue, British Parliament split Canada in two. In upper Canada, there were many English Protestants, while in lower Canada, there were many French Catholics. Both of these provinces had their own elected assembly, which gave them both the voice in government they wanted. Eventually, Canada also gained what is known as home rule. It allowed Canada to deal with its own affairs and govern how they want while still being part of the British empire. In Ireland, there was also a large amount of conflict between Protestants and Catholics, except in this case, the Catholics were Irish and took up the majority of the population in Ireland. The reason for the conflict this time however, was nationalism. While some wanted full independence from Britain, many wanted at least home rule where they would still in the British empire, but decide and govern on the matters specific to the nation. Like the situation in Canada, Ireland was also slightly split when it came to religion. Commonly, the majority of Protestants lived in Northern Ireland while the majority of Catholics lived in the South. Eventually, though they didn’t want to, England granted home rule to Ireland and it was united. All these reasons show how similar both policies were. Though these policies were formed almost 200 years apart, the similarities are very noticeable.
Sec. 2 Question 7:
The Great Famine had a devastating impact on the population of Ireland. There were a few reasons for this and why it was so devastating. The first reason it made such a devastating impact was because so many people died from starvation. An overwhelming amount of people died due to starvation, and this was for mainly one reason. In Ireland, peasants relied almost entirely on potatoes for a food source. Because of the fungi, there were no potatoes, and with almost no money, the peasants had absolutely nothing to eat most of the time. Because of this, such an extreme amount of people died from starvation. The second reason it made such an impact was because of how many people died from disease. With a fungi spreading everywhere, limited food, and nutrient deprived civilians, disease spread like mad. Many people contracted diseases and couldn’t do anything about it, so it killed them. Between starvation and disease, over one million people died during the famine. The last reason the famine affected Ireland’s population so much is because of the people that left Ireland. Many people fled to other, more prosperous nations like the United States and Britain to avoid the famine. Though these people weren’t dying, Ireland’s population suffered greatly from the almost million and half people that left to escape the famine. In a nation of only 8 million, these 3 reasons caused a huge effect on its population.
Sec. 2 Question 8:
Britain created upper and lower Canada for one large reason. This reason was that there was conflict between the French Catholics and the English Protestants in Canada. They were in conflict for a couple of reasons. The first reason was simply that they both wanted to spread their religion and didn’t necessarily enjoy others that didn’t believe in their religion, especially at this time. During this time, religion was more powerful than now, especially in government matters. The second reason English Canadians and French Canadians were in conflict was because both groups wanted a bigger voice in the government. Both religious groups wanted to make decisions and rule over the other. This conflict gave immediate reason for resolve. To try and fix the issue, the British Parliament decided to split Canada in two. There was an upper Canada and there was a lower Canada. The majority of English Protestants lived in Northern Canada, while the majority of French Catholics lived in Southern Canada. Both of these provinces got their own elected assembly. Having this elected assembly gave them both the voice in government they wanted. The making of upper and lower Canada was important and occurred primarily because of the conflict between two religious groups.