Industrial revolution.

This chapter already starts of interesting, with the words of Ghandi saying the machinery produces too fast and will exploit the villagers. But once it started, even his hometown couldn't help but indulge in the machinery type of lifestyle. It's kind of like modern times. There are people who think badly of cellphones but there is honestly almost no way around it. Almost every culture and community has embraced it and it is now part of our life, and if you do not have one, it is hard.

There were cons and pros to this industrial revolution. We are where we are in society because of it, well when it comes to technology and all that, but at the same time, where we are isn't such a good thing either. The impact of the industrial revolution of our environment is detrimental and it is only a matter of time before we ALL feel the effects of it. There is only one earth as far as we know, and eventually our environment won't be able to support the amount of people in it. We are ruining our own environment with our advancements.

Echoes

I realize this blog is late, but I am going to post it anyway.

History is something we tend to look at as just the past. It is something that happened and something we need to learn from, although I doubt any learning from history actually takes places in our society, but I digress. So, there are three echoes, and by echoes, the author is saying that there are three things that stemmed from those times and the revolutions that are still prominent in our society and culture today, and will probably be prominent for a really long time. The three echoes are feminism, nationalism, and abolition. Nationalism happens to be my favorite, since I myself am a fellow patriotic citizen! (My car plate cover is that of an american flag, and yes, I cried at the end of white house down when the little girl was waving the american flag). But anyway, I want to focus a little bit on feminism. Feminism then, was literally about getting equality, and getting the rights known to man since man made those laws. So, yeah, good for this women who stood up and stood against men in order to get their rights. But since he does talk about them as echoes, I would like to bring it to the modern times. Feminism now sucks. I am not a feminist, and I will never be a feminist. Feminist now, compared to then, is about being able to do whatever we want, and actually being proud of being sluts and shaming those females who actually are CHOOSING to be stay at home moms, and cater to their husbands.  Which contradicts their whole campaign, which is letting women choose to do what they want, oh, but wait, as long as its within their definition of what a female should do, which is work, and be a slut. Oh man, if feminists back then could see what our feminists are, I wonder if they would stand with them, or against them.

Francoise

I'm going to be writing this as I read, so bear with me.

First thing I notice that caught my eye is that Francoise was raised by her Grandparents, while her parents and her siblings lived nearby. It's definitely different than our society today and one would even say weird. Who knows, maybe that was normal back then. I wonder how that affected Francoise psychology, you know? How different she would have turned out if she was actually raised by her parents and actually lived with her siblings, because living with her grandparents meant that she probably had characteristics matching those of an only child more than that of having siblings.
I mean, my grandparents helped raised me because they ended up living with my parents after we were born, so I guess it's a little like that except for the fact my parents were still my primary caretakers and I lived with them and my sister and brother.

Although Francoise's father was an enlightened thinker, he had peasants, that he actually treated well, but still believed in the differences and ownership between the two. Which, for that time, was actually good. We can't expect people to automatically give up society's way of thinking. It's how they grew up, theo only thing they knew at the time.

Oh, the woes of being a female in those times. Only two options for life: live a virgin life, or getting married, have kids, and be sexually active while taking care of the household or whatever responsibilities came with marriage. I mean, those choices are still okay, but it isn't okay if when they  are the only two options. And Francoise chose the virgin life. and would have rather lived a more simple life than the extravagant life she was born into.

Revolutions

So. Many. Revolutions. I couldn't imagine living in that time where everywhere you looked there was a revolution there. All the Atlantic revolutions had a baseline that was similar, in that they all seemed to help the middle class white men,  but again, each one was distinctly different. 

America's revolution was really about a break away from Britain. Another thing that was noted about our revolution is that we did not really make a new society. the revolution just kind of accelerated the society, which was of a democratic kind. France also seemed to awaken their revolution because of America's. Even though they were having a revolution that was different than ours, America seemed to propel theirs forward. France's revolution had to do with internal political affairs. There were conflicts with the amount of privileges that the elite were getting. You know what was so different about the French revolution and about France in general. Women. Women there were such a prominent part of revolutions and conflicts. They charged, and marched and signed documents, which, you'd think they would get equality, but they did not. In fact, men were starting to feel a little afraid, so they stopped all women's club. You know what else is kind of ironic and funny? The fact that Maximilian Robespierre actually sent thousands and thousands of people to the guillotine, and then he himself was arrested, and accused of tyranny and dictatorship and was guillotined himself. Violence seems to end violence. 

Science

The scientific revolution. Weird to think about when you come from the 21st century. Science and proving things with evidence is so normal, and expected in my time, that thinking about a time when that was not so, kind of makes you step back and realize that changes are constantly occurring. Before this was the normal, it was Religion that was the science. Everything was explained by Religion, and when people started coming out with things that went against the church, it seemed that people started moving toward science for their reasoning. It was things like Copernicus who found that earth was not the center of the universe, as once believed, especially with religion, because it supported the idea of God centering in on Earth and mankind. If I was alive back when that came out, I would have to say that my faith in the church and what I had been learning my whole life would definitely be shaken and I probably would be a confused mess. I guess that's why deism and pantheism came about, because religion is still an important aspect in people's lives, as one can see in these different "regions", but science was kind of an earthquake in what everyone knew religion to be.
And then another thing that stuck out was at the ending of the chapter, when it explained that many ideas and much of our religion now was "borrowing" elements from different ideas and religions into the ones that exist today, like those of North Indian Sikhs.

Religion

Interesting to see the start of science in this chapter. In my lifetime, the adaption to science is normal, but it was not back then. And it is kind of ironic that as that gained global recognition, so did christianity, which seem to contradict and fight against each other. Not to mention, that not too much later, there was a big reformation of Christianity, which had not been challenged like this ever. Martin Luther began this Reformation, when he nailed a paper we call the Ninety-five Theses onto a church door, which criticized the current ways of Christianity. Before Martin, many people believed that God forgave sins by ways that people in authority would say, like by the sacraments of the church, or doing good or buying, if I remember correctly, things called indulgences. Martin Luther said that it was through faith and faith alone that one could be forgiven for his sins and that the bible was to be interpreted by each person individually, not by way of the Church. It seemed extreme back then, but now-a-days, that's almost normal. Yes, we still believe in authority, but we also believe in our own faith, and our own interpretations of the bible, I mean, at least I do.