العودة   منتديات طلاب الجامعة العربية المفتوحة > منتديات المشرفين والمنتديات المساعدة > أرشيف المواد والمواضيع القديمة > A123b

إضافة رد
 
أدوات الموضوع انواع عرض الموضوع

قديم 05-04-2012, 01:37 AM   #1
malak14 malak14 غير متصل
طالب فعال
 
الصورة الرمزية malak14
هام اهم النقاط التي ركز عليها اخي امرؤ القيس للميدتيرم A123b






اهم النقاط التي ركز عليها اخي امرؤ القيس


نقطة مهمة 1



انتبهوا لهذا السؤال




Question :

“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”

This ringing slogan from Rousseau’s first chapter of The Social Contract was used to explain the change that took man from living in the state of nature and unlimited freedom to living in the civil state and its laws.

Why should such a change occur? What are its assumed benefits and what can render it legitimate?

Student answers should include the following:

• Reasons for leaving the state of nature
• Reasons for wanting to live in the civil state
• Issues on legitimacy - when would these "chains" not be regarded as such ( this point entails a discussion of the particular will of the individual and the general will of the state)?
• Rousseau’s line of thinking on why individuals should accept the general will and put aside their particular wills.

The above quotation comes from the first chapter of The Social Contract (1762) in which Rousseau explains the move from the state of nature to the civil state. Man has unlimited freedom in the state of nature. This may sound very tempting; however, the right to own everything means ownership of nothing, as everyone owns everything. In the state of nature, the rule of the jungle applies whereby power decides ownership.

Laws and regulations need to be devised to protect freedom and the right of ownership. Thus, the need to move away from living in the state of nature to living in the civil state becomes necessary in order to preserve one's rights and freedom. However, if man decides to live in a civil state, he is forsaking his unlimited freedom in the hope of gaining more benefit from the civil state. This inevitably means that we need laws to make us free. The unlimited freedom of the state of nature is really very limiting since in reality, one is not free to own anything.

The social contract is the agreement between the individual and the state whereby the individual enters into a contract in which he abides by the laws of the state, and these laws in turn will protect him. If the laws are chains on the individual then there is a conflict between the individual’s particular will and the state’s general will. Here the problem of legitimacy arises. The will of the state should represent the will of all its citizens. Individuals should know what is best for the state and forsake their individual particular wills in order to adopt the general will of the state, which is in the interest of the individual. If they can do this, then the state’s authority is legitimate because in obeying the general will of the state, individuals are really only obeying themselves.

In order for the chains that control the actions of the individual to become legitimate, the individual must adopt the general will of the state so that his particular will is the same as the state’s general will. Rousseau’s line of thinking is as follows:
• The particular will is the product of appetite
• The general will is the product of reason
• To act on appetite is slavish and bad
• To act on reason is noble and good
• We should be noble and good
• We should obey the general will

If individuals put aside their particular wills and think instead according to the general will, there would not be a clash of wills. What the individual wants and what the state wants would be the same. In this way, man can live in a state and yet remain free.


أخوكم


أمرؤالقيس





نقطة مهمة 2


وهذا شبه سؤال مؤكد في الاختبار




Look at Colour Plate 39, The Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies of his Sons, 1789 in your Illustration Book. Write an essay in which you discuss how it could be argued that this painting by Jacques-Louis David reflects the spirit of the French Revolution politically, Rousseau's ideas philosophically and the cultural and social climate artistically.

Suggested Answer and Marking Emphasis:
Student answers should include all the elements of this question. This entails a discussion of the painting:

a.) politically (French Revolution)
b.) philosophically (Rousseau)
c.) artistically (cultural and social climate)
d.) obliquely (no proven link)

Students should be able to:
a.) display knowledge of the required background information-i.e. some events of the French Revolution, the language of art, Rousseau’s particular and general will, and so on.
b.) Connect political, philosophic and artistic elements.

Politically, this painting could be connected to an especially active year during the period leading up to the French Revolution in 1789. Brutus could stand as a parallel to the revolutionaries, both known for rousing oratory skills, or as a parallel to the National Assembly in his opposition to the King (The Roman King Tarquin whom Brutus opposed and took an oath to overthrow could stand in for the tyrant Louis XVI against whom the National Assembly took an oath demanding a constitution.) This painting fits into a growing politicization of art, where art seems to reflect the social, cultural and political moods of the populace. It also represents David’s own growing revolutionary activities. The painting seems to be the beginning of David’s revolutionary status (ending of course with his becoming first painter to Napoleon). But, it also reflects the social, cultural and moral values of the time which seem to have nourished the painting. The painting reflects and is perhaps shaped by the ideas and values of Rousseau and became a vehicle for expressing revolutionary views in visual form, such as the idea that heroism entails putting the interests of the state and society ahead of those of the individual. The painting seemed to appear at the right moment of the people’s dissatisfaction with the monarchy, and Brutus became a revolutionary symbol.

Philosophically, the point of the focus David creates is to draw a sharp contrast between the group of women in the painting and Brutus. Brutus displays the heroic, desired reaction, and represents the sacrificing stoicism of the classical ideal which Rousseau saw as the necessary feature of persons who go through a remarkable change when faced with political transformation. Brutus sits in the left foreground in a chair, under a statue symbolizing Rome, tensely holding a piece of paper, which seems to be the letter that proves the pro-royalist treason of his two sons, a treason incited by their mother’s family; their mother now stands mourning her two sons, executed by an order of their anti-royalist father, the magistrate. The Lictors, who obey the order of the magistrates, are now returning the bodies of the two sons. David imagined this moment (since Brutus actually attended his sons’ execution) and presented it in a painting. This imagined moment dramatized the contrast between political duty and family allegiance. Political duty to the state is the more important here, embodied in the figure of Brutus. He acts with reason, courage, steadfastness and thinks of the general will and the good of the state rather than with his emotions, instinct and family affairs. He is ennobled in the face of this serious, testing and extreme experience.

Artistically, this painting can be seen as fitting into the neoclassical artistic movement of the time. David’s choice of a Roman character not only had many precedents but was actually commissioned and requested frequently by the government. The themes of heroism, nobility and bravery were especially demanded. David might simply be following a well-established artistic tradition in France at the time of dealing with subjects from Greek and Roman history (as well as the Bible or mythology). This was called “Grand Art” or “Grand Style.” Such art was supposed to be morally uplifting and intellectually challenging. The “Grand Manner” in which it was painted was supposed to be reflected in style (smooth brushwork, rich drapery and Roman or Greek architecture) as well as subjects who demonstrated noble thoughts and feelings during serious or significant experiences. The painting classicizes moral concerns. Although the painting follows closely traditional classical techniques, David provoked surprise and criticism in the way that the painting deviates from certain aspects of the classical style: the difference between the background and foreground is too stark and abrupt; the hero is placed in the dark rather than in the spotlight, and the major characters are separated (Brutus and his wife and daughters). Hence, the painting lacks the typical harmonizing effect of the classical style which would aid in seeing the painting as a whole rather than seeing it as made up of discrete elements or spaces. This lack of harmony, created by the painting’s formal features, such as colour contrast, lighting and angle of vision, helps the viewer focus on discreet groups.

Firstly, the illusion of depth and dimensionality created by perspective lines in the tiles of the floor, the bricks and the tops of the columns, are extended towards a vanishing point right above the standing women’s heads. These lines immediately draw our vision towards them, especially as the horizontal lines and the head-on angle of vision create the effect of making the viewer feel as if he/she is standing at a similar height to and parallel with the tall female figure. The effect of backstage and front stage, created by the curtain and perspective lights, make the women appear closer to us, as if they are the center of a dramatic staged event. Ultimately, the female group’s viewpoint and reactions become the central focus. The use of light and colour also draws our focus to the group of huddled women. Although there is light on the columns, the chair and the feet of Brutus, the spotlight effect is on the group of standing women; they are brought into sharp relief in contrast with the dimmer background and surroundings. The contrast between the colours of the women’s clothes and everyone else’s, as well as the colours of the columns and curtains create a contrast between oranges/reds and blues/greys, between warm and cool colours. This also has the effect of placing the women in focus and in also making them appear closer; although Brutus is actually in the foreground, the huddled standing women in the middle ground appear closer to us, and are the first thing we see when we look at the painting. It seems that all of these formal elements come together to make the focus the tragic reaction of the women in contrast to the sombre stoicism of Brutus.

David, then, uses contrast and separation to highlight the difference between family loyalty, particular will, emotionalism and weak sentimentality as represented by the women on the one hand, and stoicism, reason, loyalty and obedience to the state and the general will as represented by Brutus on the other.

أخوكم

أمرؤالقيس


malak14 غير متصل   رد مع اقتباس
قديم 05-04-2012, 01:43 AM   #2
malak14 malak14 غير متصل
طالب فعال
 
الصورة الرمزية malak14
افتراضي رد: اهم النقاط التي ركز عليها اخي امرؤ القيس للميدتيرم A123b


نقطة مهمة 3

وهذه مهمة




“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”
Rousseau explains the move from the state of nature to the civil state. Man has unlimited freedom in the state of nature. This may sound very tempting; however, the right to own everything means ownership of nothing as everything is owned by everyone. In the state of nature, the rule of the jungle applies whereby power decides ownership. Laws and regulations need to be devised to protect freedom and the right of ownership. Thus, the need to move away from living in the state of nature to living in the civil state becomes necessary in order to preserve one's rights and freedom. However, if man decides to live in a civil state, he is forsaking his unlimited freedom in the hope of gaining more benefit from the civil state. This inevitably means that we need laws to make us free. The unlimited freedom of the state of nature is really very limiting since in reality, one is not free to own anything. The social contract is the agreement between the individual and the state whereby the individual enters into a contract in which he abides by the laws of the state, and these laws in turn will protect him. If the laws are chains on the individual then there is a conflict between the individual’s particular will and the state’s general will. Here the problem of legitimacy arises. The will of the state should represent the will of all its citizens. Individuals should know what is best for the state and forsake their individual particular wills in order to adopt the general will of the state, which is in the interest of the individual. If they can do this, then the state’s authority is legitimate because in obeying the general will of the state, individuals are really only obeying themselves. In order for the chains that control the actions of the individual to become legitimate, the individual must adopt the general will of the state so that his particular will is the same as the state’s general will. Rousseau’s line of thinking is as follows:
• The particular will is the product of appetite
• The general will is the product of reason
• To act on appetite is slavish and bad
• To act on reason is noble and good
• We should be noble and good
• We should obey the general will
If individuals put aside their particular wills and think instead according to the general will, there would not be a clash of wills. What the individual wants and what the state wants would be the same. In this way, man can live in a state and yet remain free.




If we don’t have unanimity, the way we discover general will is to take a vote. Rousseau, put three constrain on the vote; 1.People vote to discover general will rather than their particular will by consulting reasons.2. There is no fixing of the vote through factions so to avoid corruption. 3. There is some measure of equality of wealth and power rich and powerful people should not sway on poor people thinking. This can be achieved by reducing differences between rich and poor people, otherwise people will not discover general will.



أخوكم

أمرؤالقيس





نقطة مهمة 4


هذا سؤال شبه مؤكد





1. Explain the meaning and the difference between Witting and Unwitting Testimony (pg 16 – 18).

Historians have always recognized that primary sources, as well as containing many kinds of imperfection, also contain many types and many layers of evidence.
The crucial distinction is between the ‘witting’ testimony and the ‘unwitting’. ‘Witting’ means ‘deliberate’ or ‘intentional’; ‘unwitting’ means ‘unaware’ or ‘unintentional’. ‘Testimony’ means ‘evidence’. Thus, ‘witting testimony’ is the deliberate or intentional message of a document or other source, and the ‘unwitting testimony’ is the unintentional evidence that it contains about the attitudes and values of the author or about the ‘culture’ to which he/she belongs.
Actually, it is the writer of the document or source who is intentional or unintentional, not the testimony itself, so these phrases are examples of a figure of speech. An understanding of the nature of unwitting testimony, often the most valuable evidence for a historian, might have guarded against the fashion for invoking anthropology and postmodernist theory.
From at least the time of Frederick Maitland (1850-1896), historians have been using unwitting testimony to establish the beliefs and ******s of past societies. No one is more familiar than the historian is with the problems of language to be encountered in primary sources, which abound in obscure technical terms, words, and phrases that have changed their meanings over the centuries, as well as attitudes and concepts that no longer exist today, and may be scarcely (rarely) expressible in the language of today.



أمرؤالقيس

malak14 غير متصل   رد مع اقتباس
قديم 05-04-2012, 01:46 AM   #3
malak14 malak14 غير متصل
طالب فعال
 
الصورة الرمزية malak14
افتراضي رد: اهم النقاط التي ركز عليها اخي امرؤ القيس للميدتيرم A123b


نقطة مهمة 5

وهذا مهم


Explain what a Primary Source is ).

The only way we can have knowledge of the past is through studying the relics and traces left by past societies, the primary sources. Primary sources, or the basic ‘raw material’ of history, are the sources that came into existence within the period being investigated. The articles and books written up later by historians, drawing upon these primary sources, converting the raw material into history, are secondary sources.
The distinction between primary and secondary sources is a critical one, and there is always some excitement about being in contact with a genuine primary source, but one will not learn very much from a single source. If the ordinary reader, or history student, wants to learn quickly about the role and status of women during the Renaissance, or about the causes of the First World War, they will be well advised to go to the secondary authorities, a knowledge of the principles of history being useful in separating out the more reliable from the less. However, if he/she is planning to make an original contribution to historical knowledge, he/she is unlikely to stick strictly to other people’s work, that is, the secondary sources - to which, it should be stressed the re****** historian will frequently return throughout all stages of re****** and writing.
Historians do not rely on single sources, but they are always seeking corroboration, qualification, correction. The production of history is very much a matter of accumulating details, refining nuances. The technical skills of the historian lie in sorting these matters out, in understanding how and why a particular source came into existence, how relevant it is to the topic under investigation, and, obviously, the particular codes or language in accordance with which the particular source came into being as a concrete artefact. Philosophers, and others ignorant of history, get confused because they think ‘primary’ means ‘more truthful’, and ‘secondary’ means ‘less truthful’. That is not the distinction at all. A good secondary source will be as reliable as the historian can possibly make it. Primary sources are full of prejudices and errors. They were not written to serve the interests of historians but the interests of those who created them.
You need to understand not just the distinction between primary and secondary sources, but also the different types and levels of secondary source. These range from the most highly specialized re******-based work, through high-quality textbooks which incorporate some personal re****** as well as summarize the work of others, to the simple textbooks, and then on to the many types of popular and non-academic history.
Historians use two main types of sources in their re******, primary sources, and secondary sources. Primary sources consist of documents and other records produced during the period being studied. They include books, diaries, letters, and government records. Motion pictures and tape recordings may serve as primary sources for events of the 1900’s. Secondary sources are materials prepared later by people who studied the primary sources. Historians choose the documents that reveal most accurately the facts they wish to know. Therefore, they prefer primary sources to secondary ones, and confidential reports to public ones. Historians who study recent events use a special type of source. They go to participants in those events and record their oral testimony. Such oral history supplements documentary history.
The scarcity of sources is a great problem for historians, whose work sometimes resembles that of detectives. Many activities and thoughts of ordinary people, plus other useful data, were never recorded. Much of that was written down has been lost or destroyed through the years, also, historians often must rely on the writings of only a few people. Such writings are mere fragments on which to base a reconstruction of the past. Historians analyze the documents with which they work to determine the reliability of these sources. They compare documents with other sources and check for such flaws as errors in the order of events or variations in writing style. In addition, the historian must determine whether the author's account of events can be trusted. Basic historical facts are data generally accepted by all historians because the evidence for them seems unquestionable. However, historians often disagree about the meaning and significance of such facts. These experts try to be as unbiased as possible, but their own beliefs and prejudices influence their interpretation. For example, a historian's social, economic, and religious views help determine what he or she accepts as ‘normal’ in another person. This judgment, in turn, determines what the historian accepts as reliable testimony or as a likely sequence of events. Such interpretation explains why historians who use the same data may disagree about events and their significance.
أخوكم

أمرؤالقيس




نقطة مهمة 6

وهذا تعريف مهم جدا مع الشرح



Classicism is a philosophy of art and life that emphasizes order, balance, and simplicity. The ancient Greeks were the first great classicists. Later, the Romans, French, English, and others produced classical movements. Each group developed its own unique characteristics, but all reflected certain common ideals of art, humanity, and the world.
Classicism contrasts with the philosophy of art and life called romanticism. Classicism stresses reason and analysis, while romanticism stresses imagination and the emotions. Classicism seeks what is universally true, good, and beautiful. Romanticism seeks the exceptional and the unconventional. Classical art looks to the past for its models. It often revives ancient Greek and Roman values, and it is then called neoclassicism. Romanticism is often sympathetic to revolutions in society and art. Classical artists follow formal rules of composition more closely than romantic artists do.
Classicists know that reality is complex, but they try to approach it through simple structures. For example, the classical playwright concentrates on essentials by restricting a play to a single line of action that could happen within one day, in one place, or in
nearby places.


أمرؤالقيس




malak14 غير متصل   رد مع اقتباس
قديم 05-04-2012, 01:48 AM   #4
malak14 malak14 غير متصل
طالب فعال
 
الصورة الرمزية malak14
افتراضي رد: اهم النقاط التي ركز عليها اخي امرؤ القيس للميدتيرم A123b


نقطة مهمة 6 : مراحل الثورة الفرنسية

وهذا سؤال مؤكد عن مراحل الثورة الفرنسية



Name and explain the 8 phases of the French History, 1750 – 1815 .

a. Introduction: The French Revolution was a period of major political and social change in the political history of France and Europe as a whole. The revolution, which lasted from 1789 to 1799, also had far-reaching effects on the rest of Europe. It introduced democratic ideals to France but did not make the nation a democracy. However, it ended supreme rule by French kings and strengthened the middle class. After the revolution began, no European kings, nobles, or other privileged groups could ever again take their powers for granted or ignore the ideals of liberty and equality. For the next 75 years, France would be governed as an empire, a dictatorship, a kingdom, a constitutional monarchy, and a republic.
b. Background: The revolution began with a government financial crisis but quickly became a movement of reform and violent change. In one of the early events, a crowd in Paris captured the Bastille, a royal fortress and hated symbol of oppression. A series of elected legislatures then took control of the government. King Louis XVI and his wife, Marie Antoinette, were executed. Thousands of others met the same fate in a period called the Reign of Terror. The revolution ended when Napoleon Bonaparte, a French general, took over the government. Various social, political, and economic conditions led to the revolution. These conditions included dissatisfaction among the lower and middle classes, interest in new ideas about government, and financial problems caused by the costs of wars. Legal divisions among social groups that had existed for hundreds of years created much discontent. According to law, French society consisted of three groups called estates. Members of the clergy made up the first estate, nobles the second, and the rest of the people the third. The peasants formed the largest group in the third estate. Many of them earned so little that they could barely feed their families. The third estate also included the working people of the cities and a large and prosperous middle class made up chiefly of merchants, lawyers, and government officials. The third estate resented certain advantages of the first two estates. The clergy and nobles did not have to pay most taxes. The third estate, especially the peasants, had to provide almost all the country's tax revenue. Many members of the middle class were also troubled by their social status. They were among the most important people in French society but were not recognized as such because they belonged to the third estate. The new ideas about government challenged France’s absolute monarchy. Under this system, the king had almost unlimited authority. He governed by divine right--that is, the monarch’s right to rule was thought to come from God. There were checks on the king, but these came mainly from a few groups of aristocrats in the parliaments (high courts). During the 1700’s, French writers called philosophes and philosophers from other countries raised new ideas about freedom. Some of these thinkers, including Jean-Jacques Rousseau, suggested that the right to govern came from the people.
c. The Financial Crisis: The financial crisis developed because the nation had gone deeply into debt to finance fighting in the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763) and the Revolutionary War in America (1775-1783). By 1788, the government was almost bankrupt. The Parliament of Paris insisted that King Louis XVI could borrow more money or raise taxes only by calling a meeting of the Estates-General. This body was made up of representatives of the three estates, and it had last met in 1614. Unwillingly, the king called the meeting.
d. The Revolution Begins: The Estates-General opened on May 5, 1789, at Versailles, near Paris. Most members of the first two estates wanted each of the three estates to take up matters and vote on them separately by estate. The third estate had as many representatives as the other two estates combined. It insisted that all the estates be merged into one national assembly and that each representative have one vote. The third estate also wanted the Estates-General to write a constitution. The king and the first two estates refused the demands of the third estate. In June 1789, the representatives of the third estate declared themselves the National Assembly of France. They gathered at a tennis court and pledged not to disband until they had written a constitution. This vow became known as the Oath of the Tennis Court. Louis XVI then allowed the three estates to join together as the National Assembly, but he began to gather troops to break up the Assembly. Meanwhile, the masses of France also took action. On July 14, 1789, a huge crowd of Parisians rushed to the Bastille. They believed they would find arms and ammunition there for use in defending themselves against the king's army. The people captured the Bastille and began to tear it down. At the same time, leaders in Paris formed a revolutionary city government. Massive peasant uprisings against nobles also broke out in the countryside. A few nobles decided to flee France, and many more followed in the next five years. These people were called émigrés because they emigrated. The uprisings in town and countryside saved the National Assembly from being disbanded by the king.
e. The National Assembly: In August 1789, the Assembly adopted the Decrees of August 4 and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. The decrees abolished some feudal dues that the peasants owed their landlords, the tax advantages of the clergy and nobles, and regional privileges. The declaration guaranteed the same basic rights to all citizens, including "liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression" as well as representative government. The Assembly later drafted a constitution that made France a limited monarchy with a one-house legislature. France was divided into 83 regions called departments, each with elected councils for local government. However, the right to vote and hold public office was limited to citizens who paid a certain amount of taxes. The Assembly seized the property of the Roman Catholic Church. The church lands amounted to about a tenth of the country's land. Much of the church land was sold to rich peasants and members of the middle class. Money from the land sales was used to pay some of the nation's huge debt. The Assembly then reorganized the Catholic Church in France, required the election of priests and bishops by the voters, and closed the Church's monasteries and convents. Complete religious tolerance was extended to Protestants and Jews. The Assembly also reformed the court system by requiring the election of judges. By September 1791, the National Assembly believed that the revolution was over. It disbanded at the end of the month to make way for the newly elected Legislative Assembly.
f. The Legislative Assembly: The new Assembly, made up mainly of representatives of the middle class, opened on Oct. 1, 1791. It soon faced several challenges. The government's stability depended on cooperation between the king and the legislature, but Louis XVI remained opposed to the revolution. He asked other rulers for help in stopping it, and plotted with aristocrats and émigrés to overthrow the new government. In addition, public opinion became bitterly divided. The revolution's religious policy angered many Catholics. Other people demanded stronger measures against opponents of the revolution. The new government also faced a foreign threat. In April 1792, it went to war against Austria and Prussia. These nations wished to restore the king and émigrés to their positions. The foreign armies defeated French forces in the early fighting and invaded France. Louis XVI and his supporters clearly hoped for the victory of the invaders. As a result, angry revolutionaries in Paris and other areas demanded that the king be dethroned. In August 1792, the people of Paris took custody of Louis XVI and his family and imprisoned them. Louis's removal ended the constitutional monarchy. The Assembly then called for a National Convention to be chosen in an election open to nearly all French males age 21 or older, and for a new constitution. Meanwhile, French armies suffered more military defeats. Parisians feared that the invading armies would soon reach the city. Parisians also feared an uprising by the large number of people in the city's prisons. In the first week of September, small numbers of Parisians took the law into their own hands and executed more than 1,000 prisoners. These executions, called the September Massacres, turned many people in France and Europe against the revolution. On September 20, French forces defeated a Prussian army in the Battle of Valmy. This victory, which prevented the Prussians from advancing on Paris, helped end the crisis.
g. The National Convention: The king's removal led to a new stage in the revolution. The first stage had been a liberal middle-class reform movement based on a constitutional monarchy. The second stage was organized around principles of democracy. The National Convention opened on Sept. 21, 1792, and declared France a republic. The republic's official slogan was "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity." Louis XVI was placed on trial for betraying the country. The National Convention found him guilty of treason, and a slim majority voted for the death penalty. The king was beheaded on the guillotine on Jan. 21, 1793. The revolution gradually grew more radical--that is, more open to extreme and violent change. Radical leaders came into prominence. In the Convention, they were known as the Mountain because they sat on the high benches at the rear of the hall. Leaders of the Mountain were Maximilien Robespierre, Georges-Jacques Danton, and Jean-Paul Marat. Their bitter opponents were known as the Gironde because several came from a department of that name. The majority of the deputies in the Convention, known as the Plain, sat between the two rival groups. The Mountain dominated a powerful political club called the Jacobin Club. Growing disputes between the Mountain and the Gironde led to a struggle for power, and the Mountain won. In June 1793, the Convention expelled and arrested the leading Girondists. In turn, the Girondists' supporters rebelled against the Convention. Charlotte Corday, a Girondist sympathizer, assassinated Jean-Paul Marat in July 1793. In time, the Convention's forces defeated the Girondists' supporters. The Jacobin leaders created a new citizens' army to fight rebellion in France and a war against other European nations. A military draft provided the troops, and rapid promotion of talented soldiers provided the leadership for this strong army.
h. Terror and Equality: The Jacobin government was dictatorial and democratic. It was dictatorial because it suspended civil rights and political freedom in the emergency. The Convention's Committee of Public Safety took over actual rule of France, controlling local governments, the armed forces, and other institutions. The committee governed during the most terrible period of the revolution. Its leaders included Robespierre, Lazare Carnot, and Bertrand Barere. The Convention declared a policy of terror against rebels, supporters of the king or the Gironde, and anyone else who publicly disagreed with official policy. Hundreds of thousands of suspects were jailed. Courts handed down about 18,000 death sentences in what was called the Reign of Terror. Paris became used to the rattle of two-wheeled carts called tumbrels carrying people to the guillotine. Victims included Marie Antoinette, widow of Louis XVI. The Jacobins, however, also followed democratic principles and extended the benefits of the revolution beyond the middle class. Many workers participated in political life for the first time. The Convention authorized free primary education, public assistance for the poor, price controls to protect consumers from rapid inflation, and taxes based on income. It also called for the abolition of slavery in France's colonies, but most of these reforms were never fully carried out because of later changes in the government.
i. The Revolution Ends: In time, the radicals began to struggle for power among themselves. Robespierre succeeded in having Danton and other former leaders executed. Many people in France wished to end the Reign of Terror, the Jacobin dictatorship, and the democratic revolution. Robespierre's enemies in the Convention finally attacked him as a tyrant on July 27 (9 Thermidor by the French calendar), 1794. He was executed the next day. The Reign of Terror ended after Robespierre's death. Conservatives gained control of the Convention and drove the Jacobins from power. Most of the democratic reforms of the past two years were abolished in what became known as the Thermidorian Reaction. The Convention replaced the democratic constitution it had adopted in 1793 with a new one in 1795. The government formed under this new constitution was called the Directory, referring to the five-man executive directory that ruled along with a two-house legislature. France was still a republic, but once again only citizens who paid a certain amount of taxes could vote. Meanwhile, France was winning victories on the battlefield. French armies had pushed back the invaders and crossed into Belgium, Germany, and Italy. The Directory began meeting in October 1795, but it was troubled by war, economic problems, and opposition from supporters of monarchy and former Jacobins. In October 1799, a number of political leaders plotted to overthrow the Directory. They needed military support and turned to Napoleon Bonaparte, a French general who had become a hero in a military campaign in Italy in 1796 and 1797. Bonaparte seized control of the government on Nov. 9 (18 Brumaire in the revolutionary calendar), 1799, ending the revolution.
j. Conclusion: The French Revolution brought France into opposition with much of Europe. The monarchs who ruled the other nations feared the spread of democratic ideals. The revolution left the French people in extreme disagreement about the best form of government for their country. By 1799, most were probably weary of political conflict altogether. However, the revolution created the long-lasting foundations for a unified state, a strong central government, and a free society dominated by the middle class and the landowners.


أخوكم

أمرؤالقيس



malak14 غير متصل   رد مع اقتباس
قديم 05-04-2012, 01:52 AM   #5
malak14 malak14 غير متصل
طالب فعال
 
الصورة الرمزية malak14
افتراضي رد: اهم النقاط التي ركز عليها اخي امرؤ القيس للميدتيرم A123b


نقطة مهمة 7 وهي الأهم



أهم هذه النقاط هي الايمان بالله ثم الثقة بالنفس فحينما تعلم أن الله لا يضيع عمل عامل ولا جهد مجتهد ثم تثق بنفسك وبقدراتك فسيكون نتيجة ذلك هي الاستعداد التام والتقديم الرائع في الاختبار


يجب أن تعملوا على رفع معنوياتكم وان تقنعوا أنفسكم بأن الامتحان سيكون ان شاء الله سهلا وأسهل من شربة ماء


وأن يكون طموحكم الحصول على a ولن نقبل بأقل من ذلك ويجب أن يكون فكري محصورا بأن أكون الرقم 1 ولا أحد أفضل مني في الاختبار

لا تيأس ولا تقنع نفسك أبدا لأن مستواك ضعيفا أو مستحيلا فنحن أمة تثق بربها وانفسهم

نحن أمة قادرة على بناء الذات والارتقاء الى القمة

تأكدوا تماما أنكم نخبة الناس وصفوتهم في العلم ولولا ذلك لما سهرتم حتى هذه الساعة بحثا عن معلومة هنا وهناك


منذ سنوات وأنا أدرس في عدة أماكن وعدة أشياء مختلفة ودخلت عشرات الامتحانات لكني لم أدخل يوما وأنا قلق أو خائف لأني مؤمن بأني فعلت كل ما علي فعله فيكون عقلي صافيا وقلبي مرتاحا وذاكرتي نشيطة لذا لا أذكر يوما أني لم أكن راضيا عن أدائي ودرجاتي ...

علينا أن نرفع معنوياتنا ونستعد للرقم 1 ونكون في قمة السلم ...



أخوكم


أمرؤالقيس






ولاتنسوا اخوي امرؤ القيس من صالح دعائكم

التعديل الأخير تم بواسطة malak14 ; 05-04-2012 الساعة 01:56 AM
malak14 غير متصل   رد مع اقتباس
قديم 05-04-2012, 06:29 AM   #6
حافيه القدمين حافيه القدمين غير متصل
طــالب

 











افتراضي رد: اهم النقاط التي ركز عليها اخي امرؤ القيس للميدتيرم A123b


ما تقصر اخ امروؤ القيس دايما متميز باطلالاتك ربنا يشفيك ويعافيك وينولك اللي فبالك يارب



التوقيع

حافيه القدمين غير متصل   رد مع اقتباس
قديم 05-04-2012, 08:57 AM   #7
PylsaN PylsaN غير متصل
مشرفة سابقة
 
الصورة الرمزية PylsaN
افتراضي رد: اهم النقاط التي ركز عليها اخي امرؤ القيس للميدتيرم A123b


الله يكتبلك الخير أينما ذهبت ،

شكرا أختي ع النقل والافادة



التوقيع

بِقَدر ما نَرتفعْ وَنعلو


نَبدو صغاراً
للذينَ لا يَعرفون أن يَطيروا ..!
فريديريك نيتشه .،

PylsaN غير متصل   رد مع اقتباس
قديم 05-04-2012, 11:50 AM   #8
PylsaN PylsaN غير متصل
مشرفة سابقة
 
الصورة الرمزية PylsaN
افتراضي رد: اهم النقاط التي ركز عليها اخي امرؤ القيس للميدتيرم A123b


الله يسر لكم الخير في كل خطوة

موفقين
PylsaN غير متصل   رد مع اقتباس
قديم 06-04-2012, 07:59 PM   #9
malak14 malak14 غير متصل
طالب فعال
 
الصورة الرمزية malak14
افتراضي رد: اهم النقاط التي ركز عليها اخي امرؤ القيس للميدتيرم A123b


العفو خيتوووطبعا للامانه انا نقلت لكم من منتديات سما لطلاب الجامعه العربيه المفتوحه
malak14 غير متصل   رد مع اقتباس
قديم 06-04-2012, 10:46 PM   #10
kinz kinz غير متصل
طالب جديد
 
الصورة الرمزية kinz

 










افتراضي رد: اهم النقاط التي ركز عليها اخي امرؤ القيس للميدتيرم A123b


شكرا لك انتي والمنقول عنه الكلام لكن باين المهم عندكم اكثر من الكتاب
ركزو على الكتاب والكتابه في المنتدى فقط عطونا الصفحات كي نستطيع التركيز ولا نتشتت
اشكركم مره ثانية
kinz غير متصل   رد مع اقتباس
إضافة رد

مواقع النشر (المفضلة)

أدوات الموضوع
انواع عرض الموضوع

تعليمات المشاركة
لا تستطيع إضافة مواضيع جديدة
لا تستطيع الرد على المواضيع
لا تستطيع إرفاق ملفات
لا تستطيع تعديل مشاركاتك

BB code is متاحة
كود [IMG] متاحة
كود HTML معطلة

الانتقال السريع


الساعة الآن 04:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. TranZ By Almuhajir
جميع المواضيع والمشاركات تعبر عن وجهة نظر أصحابها
ولا تعبر باي شكل من الاشكال عن وجهة نظر منتديات AOUA
تصميم وتطوير : التكنولوجيا الماسية