French Revolution Dbq Essay

Violence is one of the most exaggerated forms of physical aggression and it can exist for a series of reasons. It involves a person or a group of persons acting against another person or groups of persons with the purpose to achieve one or several diverse goals. In many cases violence results from individuals perceiving the acts of other people as hostile and thus wanting to act against these people before it is too late. Depending on the situation, more or less individuals might get involved in an act of violence, especially when they consider that it would be essential for them to do so.

Liberty, a virtue promised to countless groups and individuals throughout history, was temporarily achieved during the French Revolution. Unfortunately, it was stripped away from those who needed and wanted it most rather shortly after it was obtained. In 1789, when the people of Paris stormed the Bastille, they acted as catalysts for what would evolve into the Revolution. Shortly thereafter, a group of poor, brawny, enraged parisian women stormed Versailles,

During the late 18th century, France was divided into two different social classes of people.  One, were the first and second estate who were very wealthy and yielded political power.  They consisted of the clergy, nobles, and royalty.  The rest of the population of France, the 97%, were poor common people that had poverty and high tax imposed on them, and they were known as the third estate.  The third estate wanted democracy, and the first and second estate wanted a monarchy, which caused the French revolution.  Napoleon Bonaparte, a returning general of France from a successful military campaign in Egypt, seized power and became first consul of France in a coup d’etat.  The people’s desire for change and Napoleon’s charisma helped him in

The French Revolution was a time of turmoil in which an uprising for equality turned into a massacre. The poor became poorer, King Louis XVI lost power, and hundreds of thousands of people would end up losing their lives. Over the course of the revolution, there were two phases of the government that occurred that each had different causes. The economic and ideological cause of the liberal phase of the government was due to the disputes over inequality among the estates and dismantling of the old regime, while the cause of the radical phase of the government was based off of the belief that the revolution did not meet the original revolutionary beliefs.

Not only is the king attempting to restore wealth by solely taxing the lower class but he is also living luxuriously in his palace while years of bad harvest brings starvation to most of the country. Known as a symbol of the monarchy's dictatorial rule, the Bastille is attacked by a bellicose mob initiating the French Revolution. A few months later, a large group of women marches to Versailles, making allies with revolutionaries along the way, and together they besiege the palace. The crowd victoriously presses their demands and returns the following day to force the monarch to move to Paris. The remainder of the revolution and a couple years after, however, are politically and economically unstable. Although France does not achieve all of its goals, the war influences the development of many nations by conveying the power vested in the will of the people which is demonstrated by their

History, as Karl Marx suggest, is defined by human suffering. When a man is oppressed, his natural recours is rebellion. Most ost restiance movements of the past incorporated violenve. Violence has been a mean to an end for centurys. Even today our lives are chronicled through violence and human suffering. However, a paradox ensues when revolutionaries use violence to free themselves from oppression, as a mean to an end. By replacing violence with violence, you are only contuining a destructive cycle that can in no way liberate everybody. It oppresses the oppressor and depresses the depressed. Martin Luther King jr. sought to remedy this unhealthy cycle by prescribing a new approach to rebellion. Not only did he

In my opinion, violent means to achieve an end are only justifiable when all other conceivable options have been tried or have become impractical. Trying to affect change by starting out with violence tends to alienate the populace, the very people you want to convince to support your cause. Even within non-violent protests or actions affecting things like the local economy, you risk alienating people from your cause. For instance if the fire service refuses to attend the scene of a fire unless they receive better wages, the people who pay their wages may turn against them. Resistance from slaves was often seen as a threat, and because owners and overseers relied on violence for control, fighting

History has been, and continues to be, revolved around the concept of violence. Violence is an unescapable subject that people, leaders, and countries are faced with whenever any conflict occurs. Everyone has their own opinion on whether or not violence is the solution to every problem. Specifically looking at Mohandas Gandhi’s Satyagraha, Frantz Fanon’s chapter titled “Concerning Violence” from his novel The Wretched of the Earth, and Benito Mussolini’s “The Doctrine of Fascism”, we gain a clear understanding whether or not they supported the use of violence and what their objectives were within their time period. Although Gandhi, Fanon, and Mussolini acknowledge violence as a widely used force to deal with political, social, and economic

The story of revolution and resistance in 18th-century France is a complicated one, and no two historians tell the story the same way. However, it is clear that for the revolutionaries, Marie Antoinette’s significance was mainly, powerfully symbolic. "She and the people around her seemed to represent everything that was wrong with the monarchy and the Second Estate: They appeared to be tone-deaf, out of touch, disloyal (along with her allegedly treasonous behavior, writers and pamphleteers frequently accused the queen of adultery) and self-interested"( Moore 17 ). What Marie Antoinette was actually like was beside the point; the image of the queen was far more influential than the woman herself.

The arguments in favor of using violence are that it produces very obvious results stemming from the use of force and weapons and the associated death and destruction. The heinous nature of the crimes grab media attention, the demands or position of the aggressors are made public, and their targets are willing to negotiate with them quickly, in order to bring an end to the violence. The arguments against violent action claim that violent action causes many deaths, and is very costly to support since each participant needs to be armed. Participation in violent action is usually limited, appealing mostly to those who are young, fit and able to sustain much physical activity. Since most of the groups pursuing violent action are often radical extremists, they are rarely able to convert large numbers of outsiders to believe in their cause. Violent actions can also escalate into wars, and at times, the action can produce an unintended reaction. For example, while the 9/11 attacks by al-Qaeda were positioned as the start of a holy war against the US and western values, the worldwide reaction was sympathy towards the US, and a condemnation of the actions by world powers, including those traditionally "unfriendly" towards the US. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda is not the only organization targeting others with violent

Before the French Revolution, France was ruled and governed by the king, his Grand Council of ministers, and 13 courts called parliaments. King Louis XVI ruled by “divine right,” believing that he had been put on the throne by the grace of God. France then was one of the most powerful and wealthiest countries, and had a strong army, and even stronger cultural influence. (Plain, 5) Louis XVI and his wife Marie-Antoinette were shielded from the daily lives of the ordinary people in France. When Louis XVI inherited the throne in 1774, he also inherited many problems left behind by the previous king, King Louis XV. The country had been involved in the Seven Years War, also known as the French and Indian War, and was left with many debts of the

We use violence in war, to make citizens follow laws, and to show hierarchy. Then does it mean that violence is the key to making changes and “win”? This is a controversial point as history shows how through violence a great amount has been able to become better, but nowadays we have media and other factors that can allow points to be made without violence and rather with peaceful protesting to get out an important message. This is shown by Erica Chenoweth who found out that “Violent campaigns succeeded partially in about 10% of cases, again comparing unfavorably to nonviolent campaigns, which resulted in partial successes over 20% of the time”(Violent Versus Nonviolent Revolutions: Which Way Wins?). The reason why peaceful resistance to laws are actually more efficient and long term is it allows more participants and a moral

It is clear violence is used as a means of limiting people’s choices in life. In addition, it can drastically affects people actions. In the play Hamlet, violence affects the amount of choices these characters have. It is thou Father...I am thy father spirit, Doon’d for a certain term to walk the night and for the day...” (Shakespeare

A few days ago, I asked the question in class, how would Marx view the lack of violence in the Indian revolution? Knowing that Marx believed violence was necessary for a successful revolution, I wanted to understand why. I did some research on Marx and Engels’ views on violence in revolutions. I found this Jstor article very helpful in

First of all, violence will always be provoked by some action. Whether it's the unjust social stratification of France in the late 19th century, or the current division of people by their identities and culture; there will always be a reason for conflict and therefore, violence. Which leads into the first point: violence will only lead to more violence. If someone is being harassed, they