History of Civilization 2

2006-05-08T03:07:00.000-07:00

The Cold War International History Project disseminates new information and perspectives on the history of the Cold War, in particular new findings from previously inaccessible sources on the former Communist world:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=topics.home&topic_id=1409

The Cold War Files: Interpreting History Through Documents, available at:
http://coldwarfiles.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.flash

From the 1940s until the 1990s the rivalry between the `two worlds` affected Americans' daily lives and events throughout the world. This "Cold War" actually became a "hot" one in Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War but generally took the form of espionage and diplomatic maneuvers, with the United States, the Soviet Union and China as the major combatants. The Cold War Museum seeks to memorialize the people and events of those years and educate future generations about that era:
http://www.coldwar.org/museum/museum_features.html

Video and audio news reports of the cold war:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/themes/world_politics/cold_war/default.s

Centralized data about the events, people, states and agencies of the Cold War, available at Cold War Guide:
http://www.cold-war.info/

2006-04-26T02:39:00.000-07:00

World War II in the movies:

*Cabaret 1972
Dir. Bod Fosse. With Lisa Minelli and Michael York
A musical set in Weimar Germany and based on the "Berlin novels" of Christopher Isherwood.

*Triumph of the Will 1934 [Triumph des Willens]
Dir. Leni Reifenstahl
A "classic" presentation of Nazi Germany in the most romantic way possible. The prime example of the propagandistic use of film.

*Mephisto 1981 [In German]
Dir. István Szabó (I). With Klaus Maria Brandauer
-About an actor and his pact with the Devil ini the shape of the Nazis.

The White Rose 1982
Dir. Michael Verhoeven, With Leno Stolze and Wolf Kessler.
True story of the resistance to Nazism by some students at Munich University.

*Mrs. Miniver 1942
Dir. William Wyler. With Greer Garson.
"Mrs. Miniver" won the Oscar for Best Picture of 1942. It's portyrayl of a gritty British family facing the war was a major propaganda coup.

*Battle of Britain 1969
Dir. Guy Hamilton.
The film was made with real WWII aircraft, and has great air fight footage, not to mention wonderful theme music.

*The Winning of World War II: Why We Fight 1943-45 [link is to vol I]
Dir. Frank Capra
A series of documentaries made during the War by the US government to explain what the war was about. Uses Reifenstahl's filsm against the Nazis.

Bataan 1943
Dir. Tay Garnett. With Robert Taylor
- Long considered one of the great war movies.

*The Longest Day 1962, 180 mins
Dir. Ken Annakin.
First telling of the story of D-Day. The real mover behind the movies was Darryl Zanuck, who saw it as an anti-war movie. Sometimes consider the greates ever war film.

*Saving Private Ryan 1998
Dir. Steven Spielberg. With Tom Hanks.

*Fat Man and Little Boy 1989)
Dir. Roland Joffé. With Paul Newman.
The story of the Manhattan project that created the atom bomb.

Judgment at Nuremberg 1961
Dir. Stanley Kramer. With Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster, Marlene Dietrich, Maximilian Schell, Judy Garland, Montgomery Clift.

Nuremberg 2000 (TV mini-series) 140 mins
Dir. Yves Simoneau. With Alec Baldwin

2006-04-26T02:35:00.000-07:00

Several documents relating to the World War 2 is available at the webpage of the Avalon Project at Yale Law School:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/wwii.htm

& here is another site:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ww2.htm

-------------------------------------------------

From war-time stories to galleries offering hundreds of documents, here is a project by the BBC to gather the stories of ordinary people from World War II:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/

-------------------------------------------------

Here is the multimedia map of the war that covers the war from the invasion of Russia to the fall of Berlin:

http://english.pobediteli.ru/

-------------------------------------------------

Thousands of World War II photographs and movies, available at:
http://warphotos.basnetworks.net/

2006-04-19T02:03:00.000-07:00

Benito Mussolini, What is Fascism (1932)

Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) over the course of his lifetime went from Socialism - he was editor of Avanti, a socialist newspaper - to the leadership of a new political movement called "fascism" [after "fasces", the symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in ancient Rome].

Mussolini came to power after the "March on Rome" in 1922, and was appointed Prime Minister by King Victor Emmanuel.

In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) and entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism.

Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...

...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....

...iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it.

(c)Paul Halsall Aug 1997
halsall@murray.fordham.edu

2006-04-19T01:57:00.000-07:00

The original Nazi documents relating to the extermination of Jews and others available at:
http://facultystaff.vwc.edu/~dgraf/nazidocs.txt

A collection of over 3,700 videotaped interviews with witnesses and survivors of the Holocaust:
http://www.library.yale.edu/testimonies/homepage.html

Also for Gypsies in the Holocaust, see:
"Accounting for Genocide: Victims - and Survivors - of the Holocaust" (New York: Free Press, 1979) Helen Fein

2006-04-19T01:56:00.000-07:00

Weimer Republic at: http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/hist/weilin.html

2006-04-19T01:53:00.000-07:00

The 25 points: An Early Nazi Program

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1708-PS

Edited by: Dr. Robert Ley
Published by: Central Publishing House of the N.S.D.A.P.
Franz Eher, successor Munich

The program of the NSDAP

The program is the political foundation of the NSDAP and accordingly the primary political law of the State. It has been made brief and clear intentionally.

All legal precepts must be applied in the spirit of the party program.

Since the taking over of control, the Fuehrer has succeeded in the realization of essential portions of the Party program from the fundamentals to the detail.

The Party Program of the NSDAP was proclaimed on the 24 February 1920 by Adolf Hitler at the first large Party gathering in Munich and since that day has remained unaltered. Within the national socialist philosophy is summarized in 25 points:

1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.

2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.

4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.

5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.

6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.

9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.

25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

Adolf Hitler proclaimed the following explanation for this program on the 13 April 1928:

Explanation

Regarding the false interpretations of Point 17 of the program of the NSDAP on the part of our opponents, the following definition is necessary:

"Since the NSDAP stands on the platform of private ownership it happens that the passage" gratuitous expropriation concerns only the creation of legal opportunities to expropriate if necessary, land which has been illegally acquired or is not administered from the view-point of the national welfare. This is directed primarily against the Jewish land-speculation companies.

Source:
Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression Volume IV
Office of the United States Chief Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality
Washington, DC : United States Government Printing Office, 1946
USMARC Cataloging Record

(c)Paul Halsall Aug 1997
halsall@murray.fordham.edu

2006-04-19T01:51:00.000-07:00

Here is a website that you can find several documents relating to the inter-war period:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar.htm

2006-04-19T01:49:00.000-07:00

An Age of Anxiety: The Inter-War Years

Oswald Spengler:
The Decline of The West, 1922

The future of the West is not a limitless tending upwards and onwards for all time towards our presents ideals, but a single phenomenon of history, strictly limited and defined as to form and duration, which covers a few centuries nd can be viewed and, in essentials, calculated from available precedents. With this enters the age of gigantic conflicts, in which we find ourselves today. It is the transition from Napoleonism to Caesarism, a general phase of evolution, which occupies at least two centuries and can be shown to exist in all Cultures. The Chinese call it Shan-Kwo, the "period of the Contending States." In the Gracchan revolution, which was already [133 B.C.] heralded by a first Servile War, the younger Scipio was secretly murdered and C. Gracchus openly slain---the first who as Princeps and the first who as Tribune were political centers in themselves amidst a world become formless. When, in 104 B.C. the urban masses of Rome for the first time lawlessly and tumultuously invested a private person, Marius, with Imperium, the deeper importance of the drama then enacted is comparable with that of assumption of the mythic Emperor-title by the ruler of Ch'in in 288 B.C..

The place of the permanent armies as we know them will gradually be taken by professional forces of volunteer war-keen soldiers; and from millions we shall revert to hundreds of thousands. But ipso facto this second century will be one of actually Contending States. These armies are not substitutes for war---they are for war, and they want war. Within two generations it will be they whose will prevails over all the comfortables put together. In these wars of theirs for the heritage of the whole world, continents will be staked---India, China, South Africa, Russia, Islam called out, new technics and tactics played and counter-played.... The last race to keep its form, the last living tradition, the last leaders who have both at their back, will pass through and onward, victors.

The idealist of the early democracy regarded popular education as enlightenment pure and simple---but it is precisely this that smooths the path for the coming Caesars of the world. The last century [the 19th] was the winter of the West, the victory of materialism and scepticism, of socialism, parliamentarianism, and money. But in this century blood and instinct will regain their rights against the power of money and intellect. The era of individualism, liberalism and democracy, of humanitarianism and freedom, is nearing its end. The masses will accept with resignation the victory of the Caesars, the strong men, and will obey them. Life will descend to a level of general uniformity, a new kind of primitivism, and the world will be better for it.....

Source: From: Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, 2 Vols., trans. Charles Francis Atkinson, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1922)
Scanned by Jerome S. Arkenberg, Cal. State Fullerton. The text has been modernized by Prof. Arkenberg.

2006-04-15T02:27:00.000-07:00

Dear all, here are some sites on World War 1 with numerious visual materials:

http://www.firstworldwar.com

http://www.greatwar.nl

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/

http://ozhanozturk.com/content/view/157/47/

2006-03-18T07:39:00.000-08:00

Was the Revolution the Beginning of the End?
By Philip Atkinson, available at http://www.ourcivilisation.com/french.htm

2006-03-18T07:37:00.000-08:00

Imagining the French Revolution, essays, images and discussions on the Revolution available at: http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/imaging/

2006-03-18T06:57:00.000-08:00

Here are some movies on the French Revolution:

*La Marseillaise 1938 [In French] 135 mins.Dir. Jean RenoirThe story of the French Revolution from the perspective of the Marseilles volunteers.

*Danton 1982 [in French] Dir. Andrzej Wajda, with Gerard Depardieu.This film by a polish director caused a sensation in France for its perceived criticism of the Revolution.

*La Nuit de Varennes 1982 [In French] Dir. Ettore Scola, With Marcello Mastroianni, Hanna Schygulla, Harvey Keitel

*La Révolution française 1989Dir. Robert Enrico, With Klaus Maria Brandauer, Jane Seymour, Sam NeillDramatizes the revolution from 1789 through 1794.

2006-03-18T06:49:00.000-08:00

Here is the most popular song of the French Revolution, Ça ira, (literally means "that will go (well)"!]

Ça Ira!

Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,Le peuple en ce jour sans cesse repète:Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,Malgré les mutins tout réussira!
Nos ennemis confus en restent là,et nous allons chanter Alleluya!Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Quand Boileau jadis du clergé parlaComme un prophète, il a prédit cela,En chantant ma chansonnette,Avec plaisir on dira:Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Malgré les mutins tout réussira.Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Pierrot et Margot chantent à la guinguette,Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Réjouissons-nous, le bon temps viendra.Le peuple français jadis "a quia"L'aristocratie dit: "Mea culpa."Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
e clergé regrette le bien qu'il a.Par justice la nation l'aura,Par le prudent LaFayetteTout trouble s'apaisera,Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Malgré les mutins tout réussira.Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Petits comme grands sont soldatsdans l'âme,Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Pendant la guerre aucun ne trahira.Avec coeur tout bon Français combattra,S'il voit du louche, hardimentil parlera.Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Lafayette dit: "Vienne qui voudra."Le patriotisme leur répondraSans craindre ni feu ni flamme,Les Français toujours vaincront,Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Malgré les mutins tout réussira.Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Les aristocrates à la lanterne!Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Les aristocrates, on les pendra!Le despotisme expirera,La liberté triomphera,Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Nous n'avions plus ni nobles, ni prêtres,Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,L'égalité partout régnera.L'esclave autrichien le suivra,Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Et leur infernale cliqueAu diable s'envolera.

WE WILL WIN!
"We will win, we will win, we will win",The people of this day neverendingly sing"We will win, we will win, we will win,In spite of the traitors, all will succeed"
Our confused enemies are staying lowBut we are going to sing "Alleluia!""We will win, we will win, we will win",
When Boileau once spoke about the clergy"Like a prophet he predicted as much.,By singing my ditty,With pleasure I will say:"We will win, we will win, we will win,
In spite of the traitors, all will succeed""We will win, we will win, we will win,"
Punch and Judy sing at the show"We will win, we will win, we will win,"
Let us rejoices, for the good times are comingThe French people were once nobodiesBut now the aristocrats say "we are guilty""We will win, we will win, we will win,"
The clergy now regrets all its wealth .Through justice the nation will have it all,Through the wise LaFayetteAll trouble will be quieted,"We will win, we will win, we will win,
In spite of the traitors, all will succeed""We will win, we will win, we will win,"
The weak as well as the strong are soldiers in their souls"We will win, we will win, we will win,"
During the war, not one will be a traitor.With their hearts, all good Frenchmen will fight,And when he sees a slacker, he will boldly speak up"We will win, we will win, we will win,"
Lafayette says, "Let he who will follow me!"And patriotism will respond,Without fear of fire or flame.The French will always conquer"We will win, we will win, we will win,
In spite of the traitors, all will succeed""We will win, we will win, we will win,"
Let's string up the aristocrats on the lampposts!"We will win, we will win, we will win,"
We'll string up the aristocrats!Despotism will die,Liberty will triumph"We will win, we will win, we will win,"
And we will no longer have nobles or priests"We will win, we will win, we will win,""Equality will reign throughout the land/worldAnd the Austrian slave will follow it."We will win, we will win, we will win,"
And their hellish cliquewill be sent to the devil.

Translation: Paul Halsall, 1998, with suggested corrections from William W. Kibler,Superior Oil - Linward Shivers Professor of French University of Texas at Austin.

You can also listen it here: http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/sounds/ca-ira.ra

2006-03-11T06:18:00.000-08:00

For more articles, please visit:

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volindex.html

2006-03-11T06:05:00.000-08:00

The Philosophical Dictionary,
Voltaire
Selected and Translated by H.I. WoolfNew York: Knopf, 1924
Scanned by the Hanover College Department of History in 1995.
Proofread and pages added by Jonathan Perry, March 2001.

Reason
At the time when all France was mad about Law's system, and Law was controller-general, there came to him in the presence of a great assembly a man who was always right, who always had reason on his side. Said he to Law:
"Sir, you are the biggest madman, the biggest fool, or the biggest rogue who has yet appeared among us; and that is saying a great deal: this is how I prove it. You have imagined that a state's wealth can be increased tenfold with paper; but as this paper can represent only the money that is representative of true wealth, the products of the land and industry, you should have begun by giving us ten times more corn, wine, cloth, canvas, etc. That is not enough, you must be sure of your market. But you make ten times as many notes as we have of silver and commodities, therefore you are ten times more extravagant, or more inept, or more of a rogue than all the comptrollers who have preceded you. This is how I prove my major."
Hardly had he started his major than he was conducted to Saint-Lazare.
When he came out of Saint-Lazare, where he studied much and strengthened his reason, he went to Rome; he asked for a public audience of the Pope, on condition that he was not interrupted in his harangue; and he spoke to the Pope in these terms:
"Holy Father, you are an antichrist and this is how I prove it to Your Holiness. I call antichrist the man who does the contrary to what Christ did and commanded. Now Christ was poor, and you are very rich; he paid tribute, and you exact tribute; he submitted to the powers that were, and you have become a power; he walked on foot, and you go to Castel-Gandolfo in a sumptuous equipage; he ate all that one was so good as to give him, and you want us to eat fish on Friday and Saturday, when we live far from sea and river; he forbade Simon Barjona to use a sword, and you have swords in your service, etc., etc., etc. Therefore in this sense Your Holiness is antichrist. In every other sense I hold you in great veneration, and I ask you for an indulgence in articulo mortis."
My man was put in the Castello St. Angelo.
When he came out of the Castello St. Angelo, he rushed to Venice, and asked to speak to the doge.
"Your Serenity," he said, " must be a scatter-brain to marry the sea every year: for firstly, one only marries the same person once; secondly, your marriage resembles Harlequin's, which was half made, seeing that it lacked but the consent of the bride; thirdly, who has told you that one day other maritime powers will not declare you incapable of consummating the marriage?"
He spoke, and was shut up in the Tower of St. Mark's.
When he came out of the Tower of St. Mark's, he went to Constantinople; he had audience of the mufti; and spoke to him in these terms :
"Your religion, although it has some good points, such as worship of the great Being, and the necessity of being just and charitable, is otherwise nothing but a rehash of Judaism and a tedious collection of fairy tales. If the archangel Gabriel had brought the leaves of the Koran to Mahomet from some planet, all Arabia would have seen Gabriel come down : nobody saw him; therefore Mahomet was a brazen impostor who deceived imbeciles."
Hardly had he pronounced these words than he was impaled. Nevertheless he had always been right, and had always had reason on his side.

2006-03-11T06:02:00.000-08:00

IMMANUEL KANT
An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? (1784)

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment.
Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men, long after nature has released them from alien guidance (natura-liter maiorennes), nonetheless gladly remain in lifelong immaturity, and why it is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians. It is so easy to be immature. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me. The guardians who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully seen to it that the far greatest part of them (including the entire fair sex) regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous, not to mention difficult. Having first made their domestic livestock dumb, and having carefully made sure that these docile creatures will not take a single step without the go-cart to which they are harnessed, these guardians then show them the danger that threatens them, should they attempt to walk alone. Now this danger is not actually so great, for after falling a few times they would in the end certainly learn to walk; but an example of this kind makes men timid and usually frightens them out of all further attempts.
Thus, it is difficult for any individual man to work himself out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature. He has even become fond of this state and for the time being is actually incapable of using his own understanding, for no one has ever allowed him to attempt it. Rules and formulas, those mechanical aids to the rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural gifts, are the shackles of a permanent immaturity. Whoever threw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over the smallest ditch, since he is unaccustomed to this kind of free movement. Consequently, only a few have succeeded, by cultivating their own minds, in freeing themselves from immaturity and pursuing a secure course.
But that the public should enlighten itself is more likely; indeed, if it is only allowed freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable. For even among the entrenched guardians of the great masses a few will always think for themselves, a few who, after having themselves thrown off the yoke of immaturity, will spread the spirit of a rational appreciation for both their own worth and for each person's calling to think for himself. But it should be particularly noted that if a public that was first placed in this yoke by the guardians is suitably aroused by some of those who are altogether incapable of enlightenment, it may force the guardians themselves to remain under the yoke--so pernicious is it to instill prejudices, for they finally take revenge upon their originators, or on their descendants. Thus a public can only attain enlightenment slowly. Perhaps a revolution can overthrow autocratic despotism and profiteering or power-grabbing oppression, but it can never truly reform a manner of thinking; instead, new prejudices, just like the old ones they replace, will serve as a leash for the great unthinking mass.
Nothing is required for this enlightenment, however, except freedom; and the freedom in question is the least harmful of all, namely, the freedom to use reason publicly in all matters. But on all sides I hear: "Do not argue!" The officer says, "Do not argue, drill!" The tax man says, "Do not argue, pay!" The pastor says, "Do not argue, believe!" (Only one ruler in the World says, "Argue as much as you want and about what you want, but obey!") In this we have examples of pervasive restrictions on freedom. But which restriction hinders enlightenment and which does not, but instead actually advances it? I reply: The public use of one's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among mankind; the private use of reason may, however, often be very narrowly restricted, without otherwise hindering the progress of enlightenment. By the public use of one's own reason I understand the use that anyone as a scholar makes of reason before the entire literate world. I call the private use of reason that which a person may make in a civic post or office that has been entrusted to him. Now in many affairs conducted in the interests of a community, a certain mechanism is required by means of which some of its members must conduct themselves in an entirely passive manner so that through an artificial unanimity the government may guide them toward public ends, or at least prevent them from destroying such ends. Here one certainly must not argue, instead one must obey. However, insofar as this part of the machine also regards himself as a member of the community as a whole, or even of the world community, and as a consequence addresses the public in the role of a scholar, in the proper sense of that term, he can most certainly argue, without thereby harming the affairs for which as a passive member he is partly responsible. Thus it would be disastrous if an officer on duty who was given a command by his superior were to question the appropriateness or utility of the order. He must obey. But as a scholar he cannot be justly constrained from making comments about errors in military service, or from placing them before the public for its judgment. The citizen cannot refuse to pay the taxes imposed on him; indeed, impertinent criticism of such levies, when they should be paid by him, can be punished as a scandal (since it can lead to widespread insubordination). But the same person does not act contrary to civic duty when, as a scholar, he publicly expresses his thoughts regarding the impropriety or even injustice of such taxes. Likewise a pastor is bound to instruct his catecumens and congregation in accordance with the symbol of the church he serves, for he was appointed on that condition. But as a scholar he has complete freedom, indeed even the calling, to impart to the public all of his carefully considered and well-intentioned thoughts concerning mistaken aspects of that symbol, as well as his suggestions for the better arrangement of religious and church matters. Nothing in this can weigh on his conscience. What he teaches in consequence of his office as a servant of the church he sets out as something with regard to which he has no discretion to teach in accord with his own lights; rather, he offers it under the direction and in the name of another. He will say, "Our church teaches this or that and these are the demonstrations it uses." He thereby extracts for his congregation all practical uses from precepts to which he would not himself subscribe with complete conviction, but whose presentation he can nonetheless undertake, since it is not entirely impossible that truth lies hidden in them, and, in any case, nothing contrary to the very nature of religion is to be found in them. If he believed he could find anything of the latter sort in them, he could not in good conscience serve in his position; he would have to resign. Thus an appointed teacher's use of his reason for the sake of his congregation is merely private, because, however large the congregation is, this use is always only domestic; in this regard, as a priest, he is not free and cannot be such because he is acting under instructions from someone else. By contrast, the cleric--as a scholar who speaks through his writings to the public as such, i.e., the world--enjoys in this public use of reason an unrestricted freedom to use his own rational capacities and to speak his own mind. For that the (spiritual) guardians of a people should themselves be immature is an absurdity that would insure the perpetuation of absurdities.
But would a society of pastors, perhaps a church assembly or venerable presbytery (as those among the Dutch call themselves), not be justified in binding itself by oath to a certain unalterable symbol in order to secure a constant guardianship over each of its members and through them over the people, and this for all time: I say that this is wholly impossible. Such a contract, whose intention is to preclude forever all further enlightenment of the human race, is absolutely null and void, even if it should be ratified by the supreme power, by parliaments, and by the most solemn peace treaties. One age cannot bind itself, and thus conspire, to place a succeeding one in a condition whereby it would be impossible for the later age to expand its knowledge (particularly where it is so very important), to rid itself of errors,and generally to increase its enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature, whose essential destiny lies precisely in such progress; subsequent generations are thus completely justified in dismissing such agreements as unauthorized and criminal. The criterion of everything that can be agreed upon as a law by a people lies in this question: Can a people impose such a law on itself? Now it might be possible, in anticipation of a better state of affairs, to introduce a provisional order for a specific, short time, all the while giving all citizens, especially clergy, in their role as scholars, the freedom to comment publicly, i.e., in writing, on the present institution's shortcomings. The provisional order might last until insight into the nature of these matters had become so widespread and obvious that the combined (if not unanimous) voices of the populace could propose to the crown that it take under its protection those congregations that, in accord with their newly gained insight, had organized themselves under altered religious institutions, but without interfering with those wishing to allow matters to remain as before. However, it is absolutely forbidden that they unite into a religious organization that nobody may for the duration of a man's lifetime publicly question, for so do-ing would deny, render fruitless, and make detrimental to succeeding generations an era in man's progress toward improvement. A man may put off enlightenment with regard to what he ought to know, though only for a short time and for his own person; but to renounce it for himself, or, even more, for subsequent generations, is to violate and trample man's divine rights underfoot. And what a people may not decree for itself may still less be imposed on it by a monarch, for his lawgiving authority rests on his unification of the people's collective will in his own. If he only sees to it that all genuine or purported improvement is consonant with civil order, he can allow his subjects to do what they find necessary to their spiritual well-being, which is not his affair. However, he must prevent anyone from forcibly interfering with another's working as best he can to determine and promote his well-being. It detracts from his own majesty when he interferes in these matters, since the writings in which his subjects attempt to clarify their insights lend value to his conception of governance. This holds whether he acts from his own highest insight--whereby he calls upon himself the reproach, "Caesar non eat supra grammaticos."'--as well as, indeed even more, when he despoils his highest authority by supporting the spiritual despotism of some tyrants in his state over his other subjects.
If it is now asked, "Do we presently live in an enlightened age?" the answer is, "No, but we do live in an age of enlightenment." As matters now stand, a great deal is still lacking in order for men as a whole to be, or even to put themselves into a position to be able without external guidance to apply understanding confidently to religious issues. But we do have clear indications that the way is now being opened for men to proceed freely in this direction and that the obstacles to general enlightenment--to their release from their self-imposed immaturity--are gradually diminishing. In this regard, this age is the age of enlightenment, the century of Frederick.
A prince who does not find it beneath him to say that he takes it to be his duty to prescribe nothing, but rather to allow men complete freedom in religious matters--who thereby renounces the arrogant title of tolerance--is himself enlightened and deserves to be praised by a grateful present and by posterity as the first, at least where the government is concerned, to release the human race from immaturity and to leave everyone free to use his own reason in all matters of conscience. Under his rule, venerable pastors, in their role as scholars and without prejudice to their official duties, may freely and openly set out for the world's scrutiny their judgments and views, even where these occasionally differ from the accepted symbol. Still greater freedom is afforded to those who are not restricted by an official post. This spirit of freedom is expanding even where it must struggle against the external obstacles of governments that misunderstand their own function. Such governments are illuminated by the example that the existence of freedom need not give cause for the least concern regarding public order and harmony in the commonwealth. If only they refrain from inventing artifices to keep themselves in it, men will gradually raise themselves from barbarism.
I have focused on religious matters in setting out my main point concerning enlightenment, i.e., man's emergence from self-imposed immaturity, first because our rulers have no interest in assuming the role of their subjects' guardians with respect to the arts and sciences, and secondly because that form of immaturity is both the most pernicious and disgraceful of all. But the manner of thinking of a head of state who favors religious enlightenment goes even further, for he realizes that there is no danger to his legislation in allowing his subjects to use reason publicly and to set before the world their thoughts concerning better formulations of his laws, even if this involves frank criticism of legislation currently in effect. We have before us a shining example, with respect to which no monarch surpasses the one whom we honor.
But only a ruler who is himself enlightened and has no dread of shadows, yet who likewise has a well-disciplined, numerous army to guarantee public peace, can say what no republic may dare, namely: "Argue as much as you want and about what you want, but obey!" Here as elsewhere, when things are considered in broad perspective, a strange, unexpected pattern in human affairs reveals itself, one in which almost everything is paradoxical. A greater degree of civil freedom seems advantageous to a people's spiritual freedom; yet the former established impassable boundaries for the latter; conversely, a lesser degree of civil freedom provides enough room for all fully to expand their abilities. Thus, once nature has removed the hard shell from this kernel for which she has most fondly cared, namely, the inclination to and vocation for free thinking, the kernel gradually reacts on a people's mentality (whereby they become increasingly able to act freely), and it finally even influences the principles of government, which finds that it can profit by treating men, who are now more than machines, in accord with their dignity.

I. Kant Konigsberg in Prussia, 30 September 1784

2006-03-10T03:40:00.000-08:00

European Expansion and Colonization in the Movies

*Christopher Columbus 1985 (TV) Dir. Alberto Lattuada, With Gabriel Byrne, Faye Dunaway, Oliver Reedthere are many other Columbus movies to chose from.
*Christopher Columbus: The Discovery 1992 Dir. John Glen, With Marlon Brando, Tom Selleck, Rachel Ward
1492: Conquest of Paradise 1992 149 mins.Dir. Ridley Scott. With Gerard Depardieu.
*Royal Hunt of the Sun 1969Dir. Irving Lerner.The conquest of Peru by Francisco Pizzaro.
*Aguirre: The Wrath of God 1972Dir. Werner Herzog, With Klaus Kinski and Ruy Guirra. The story of Gonzalo Pizarro and his fellow fortune hunters in Peru.
*The Mission 1986 Dir. Roland Jaffe. With Robert de Niro, Jeremy Irons.The Jesuit plantations in Paraguay.
*Black Robe 1991, 101 mins.Dir. Bruce Beresford.Jesuit missions in Quebec.
*Yo, la peor de todas 1990 [in Spanish] [I, the Worst of All]Dir. María Luisa Bemberg. With Assumpta SernaThe life of Sister Juana Ines de la Cruz.
*Seven Cities of Gold, 1955, Robert D. Webb, 103 minsThe story of the 18th century expedition of Father Juniper Serra and the founding of the California Missions - especially the first at San Diego.

2006-03-10T03:38:00.000-08:00

Reformation in the Movies:

*Martin Luther 1953 Dir. Irving Pichel, With Niall MacGinnis-probably better than the 1993 version with Stacey Keach as Luther, but which was produced by the American Lutheran church and makes Luther a complete hero.
*Luther 1973 Dir. Guy Green. With Stacey Keach-based on John Osborne's play of the same name, which was a theatrical version of Erik Erikson's effort at psychohistory, Young Man Luther.
*Loyola: Soldier Saint 1948, 100 mins.Dir. José Díaz Morales.The story of St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits)
*The Last Valley 1991, 125 minsDir. James Clavell, With Michael Cain, Omar SharifSet in 1641, the twenty-third year of the Thirty Years' War. Sharif plays Vogel, a teacher who is now a wandering beggar since his entire family was slaughtered. He encounters a group of ruthless mercenaries who are riding toward a nearby village.

2006-03-10T03:35:00.000-08:00

Here is the anthem of Reformation, Ein Feste Burg (A Might Fortress Is Our God)

http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/sounds/feste.ra

2006-03-10T03:31:00.000-08:00

Welcome to Guide for History of Civilization 2 !
This guide has been created to assist you to prepare yourself for your history classes, History of Civilization 2, and to make your time in class more enjoyable and efficient. In this website, you will find extra materials for your studies, sample quiz questions and points for discussion.

History of Civilization 2

Oswald Spengler:The Decline of The West, 1922

Oswald Spengler:
The Decline of The West, 1922