Poor Choices by English Government

In the 1760's America was facing Civil challenges such as disagreements with the Paxton Boys and the revolt of North Carolina "Regulators." Controversies like these weakened and further disorganized the Colonies, making difficult for them to make coordinated attacks against British authority. In this era of American dispute, divided local governments had less power than they would united, and the British had much more control over a divided 'nation' than a united one. Instead of utilizing this key advantage, the unstable British government did one of the worst things they could possibly do: unite and empower the people of America. By putting in place legislation such as the Sugar and Stamp Acts, the British only further angered the American population. Colonists thought these acts were taxing not only their businesses and property, but their freedom and as a result, were able to put aside their differences and recognize the need to unite and stand up to the current injustice. This anger only led to further outcry against the British government. The strongly voiced disapproval of the Stamp Act forced parliament to repeal it in 1766, but this was only a small, first step in the direction of freedom. From then on, Americans began to challenge and reject the English laws, and eventually English government, which led to the ultimate rebellion: the Declaration of Independence (1776). The poor choices made by leaders such as King George III and George Grenville to unreasonably tax and anger Americans gave the colonists power and desire to rebel against British. It was these decisions that ultimately brought about American Revolution, and the eventual declaration of independence from England.

Racism in the Age of Enlightenment

The age of enlightenment was not only the age scientific progress, but was also the age that defined racial differences and the battle of the sexes.  Jean-Jacques Rousseau stated that since women are naturally passive, they should assume a passive role in society.  Immanuel Kant and David Hume used scientific reasoning to propagate the idea that the white race is superior.  They analyzed the way that the white society had always been superior in advancements in science, arts and literature.  They assumed that other races must have been incapable of achieving the same level of advancements as the whites because of their inferior race.  Do you think that modern day racist individuals use the same rationale as Hume and Kant to justify their racism?  Or do you believe that society has always put another race below theirs to justify their actions?

Bernard de Fontenelle

Many great accomplishments and people were mentioned in the reading about the Enlightenment, however what one man did really stuck out to me. I thought it was enticing how Bernard de Fontenelle incorporated science with witty and entertaining pieces of literature. Nowadays, I know that I, as well as many others, do not keep up with the latest scientific accomplishments because they are confusing, hard to understand, and rather boring. I feel that if information was presented in this way for just about any topic, science included, the information would be received and absorbed with much more enthusiasm, and thus effectiveness. This had a similar effect on people of Fontenelle's time.
However, after rethinking this, I felt as if some information presented in Fontenelle's style might be slightly skewed in order to provide a more entertaining plot. This is especially relevant in the play Galileo, that we just read. While basic concepts and theories were presented factually in the play, much of what actually happened in real life was changed to make the play more entertaining, as stated in the introduction. Also, works of literature can often be tainted to fit the views of the person who created it, in order to promote the authors ideas. Do you think the way Fontenelle presented information was positive or negative? Nowadays, do you think it would be okay if someone were to present information in a similar fashion?

Edward Bozik's Post

Learning that Newton was very religious may have surprised most but it did not come as much of a shock to me. Most people see science and religion being polar opposites and both of them can not strongly co-exisit within one person but I disagree. I feel that it is quite possible for one of the greatest scientist to also be very religious but what do you think, do you think religion and science can co-exisit within a person, what about a society?

One of the causes of the Scientific revolution was the development of the medieval university. Within the university there was a small but independent study of philosophy ( or science) that stood right alongside law, medicine and theology. I feel that this was a big step for science to start to be independent from theology. Being independent would mean that science could come up with its own ideas and not be influenced by religion. Also this created a way for scientists to share their ideas to large groups of people and be able to answer questions. What do you think the most important part of the development of the university was?

Towards the end of the reading it talks about the scientific community. The scientific community allowed knowledge to be shared and for people of like interests in science to work together. But now the government often gets involved and tells scientist what to research. This can restrict the freedom of the scientists. This is even going in todays world. President Obama issued an order for more fuel efficient cars. I think this was a good way to use the scientific community. This provided incentive to research something but did not require all scientist to research something. What do you think? Do you think the government should be involved in the scientific community?

Corruption in the Catholic Church

During class a few people mentioned how the Catholic Church during the 15-1600's was extremely corrupt. I also believe that to be true. It is hard to disagree that the church, at the time, held complete power over the public. The appeal of the Catholic Church had to do with the fact that everyone was a part of it and everyone openly believed in what the clergymen said, because there were no other options. When Copernicus flagrantly admitted his contradicting views in 1543 (on the day of his death), the Catholic Church did not immediately proclaim his ideas as false. The church waited until 1616 to openly denounce the ideas of Copernicus. In my opinion, they waited those 73 years for a reason... When the people of the Catholic Church found out about Copernicus' new theory they realized that it conflicted with their beliefs. Most likely, it took 73 years for a scientist with loyalty to the Church to find out that Copernicus' ideas are valid and consequently proved the notion of divine creation to be false. I know that sounds far fetched... so what do you guys think? I am a Roman Catholic and I have heard about confirmed corruption in a Westfield Parish five years ago. Last summer I closely followed the articles regarding the Catholic Church rape scandals and other serious allegations surrounding the Church. If we think of the Catholic Church as a profitable company with the priceless Vatican collections, it is difficult to comprehend why the Church does not spend more money on feeding the poor and educating our youth. They should embrace progress and science represents progress.

This is an article I found this summer—what are your takes on it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/opinion/27kristof.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=sister%20margaret’s%20choice&st=cse

Welcome to Revolutions Honors

Welcome! This is the class blog for Revolutions Honors, block 7. You should use this blog to post your thought piece on the night's reading (when it's your turn) and to comment on others' thought pieces. I look forward to some stimulating conversation. Enjoy!