a) Explain ONE difference in the arguments expressed in the two sources regarding the effect of revolutions on the global political order. b) Explain ONE development from the period of the Atlantic Revolutions that grounded "social relations for the first time on the principle of formal equality" as claimed in the second paragraph of Source 1. c) Identify ONE way in which empires in the nineteenth century (other than those mentioned in the passage) successfully resisted revolutionary change, as suggested in Source 2.
a) Explain ONE difference in the arguments expressed in the two sources regarding the effect of revolutions on the global political order. b) Explain ONE development from the period of the Atlantic Revolutions that grounded "social relations for the first time on the principle of formal equality" as claimed in the second paragraph of Source 1. c) Identify ONE way in which empires in the nineteenth century (other than those mentioned in the passage) successfully resisted revolutionary change, as suggested in Source 2.
Related questions
Question
Transcribed Image Text:Use the passages to answer all parts of the question that follows.
a) Explain ONE difference in the arguments expressed in the two sources regarding the effect
of revolutions on the global political order.
b) Explain ONE development from the period of the Atlantic Revolutions that grounded "social
relations for the first time on the principle of formal equality" as claimed in the second
paragraph of Source 1.
c) Identify ONE way in which empires in the nineteenth century (other than those mentioned in
the passage) successfully resisted revolutionary change, as suggested in Source 2.
![Source 1
"More than in any other era, politics in the [late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries] was
revolutionary politics. It did not defend 'age-old rights' but, looking ahead to the future,
elevated particular interests such as those of a class or a class coalition into the interests of
a nation or even of humanity as a whole. ... New political orders came into being, with new
bases of legitimacy. Any return to the world as it had been previously was barred; nowhere
were prerevolutionary conditions restored. ...
Whereas previous violent overthrows had merely led to external modifications of the status
quo, the American and French revolutionaries expanded the whole horizon of the age, opening
a path of linear progress, grounding social relations for the first time on the principle of formal
equality, lifting the weight of tradition and royal charisma, and instituting a system of rules
that made those in political authority accountable to a community of citizens. These two
revolutions.., however different from each other in their aims, signaled the onset of political
modernity. From then on, defenders of the existing order bore the mark of the old and
obsolete."
Jürgen Osterhammel, German historian, The Transformation of the World: A Global History of
the Nineteenth Century, 2014
Source 2
"The French revolution and those in North and South America have been transformed into
founding myths in their respective countries and are thought to mark the emergence of
citizenship, of national economies, of the very idea of the nation. But in their own time, the
revolutions' lessons were inconclusive.... The revolutions of the Americas began by drawing
on ideas of [liberty and citizenship] ... to redefine sovereignty and power within imperial
polities but ended up producing new states that shared world space with reconfigured
empires. The secession of states from the British, French, and Spanish empires did not
produce nations of equivalent citizens any more than it produced a world of equivalent
nations.... Popular sovereignty was far from the accepted norm in western Europe and
within empires' spaces overseas it was unclear whether the idea of [individual rights] would
be a contagious proposition or one [restricted to] a select few. ... The nation had become an
imaginable possibility in world politics. But the leaders of [empires] did not want to limit their
political compass to national boundaries."
Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper, historians, Empires in World History, 2010](/v2/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcontent.bartleby.com%2Fqna-images%2Fquestion%2F9c8f60c8-0e6b-4dfd-8761-02961214ab97%2F8e62eb83-44f3-4d2a-9bd0-5e0ddf1313f1%2F9y9o54q_processed.png&w=3840&q=75)
Transcribed Image Text:Source 1
"More than in any other era, politics in the [late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries] was
revolutionary politics. It did not defend 'age-old rights' but, looking ahead to the future,
elevated particular interests such as those of a class or a class coalition into the interests of
a nation or even of humanity as a whole. ... New political orders came into being, with new
bases of legitimacy. Any return to the world as it had been previously was barred; nowhere
were prerevolutionary conditions restored. ...
Whereas previous violent overthrows had merely led to external modifications of the status
quo, the American and French revolutionaries expanded the whole horizon of the age, opening
a path of linear progress, grounding social relations for the first time on the principle of formal
equality, lifting the weight of tradition and royal charisma, and instituting a system of rules
that made those in political authority accountable to a community of citizens. These two
revolutions.., however different from each other in their aims, signaled the onset of political
modernity. From then on, defenders of the existing order bore the mark of the old and
obsolete."
Jürgen Osterhammel, German historian, The Transformation of the World: A Global History of
the Nineteenth Century, 2014
Source 2
"The French revolution and those in North and South America have been transformed into
founding myths in their respective countries and are thought to mark the emergence of
citizenship, of national economies, of the very idea of the nation. But in their own time, the
revolutions' lessons were inconclusive.... The revolutions of the Americas began by drawing
on ideas of [liberty and citizenship] ... to redefine sovereignty and power within imperial
polities but ended up producing new states that shared world space with reconfigured
empires. The secession of states from the British, French, and Spanish empires did not
produce nations of equivalent citizens any more than it produced a world of equivalent
nations.... Popular sovereignty was far from the accepted norm in western Europe and
within empires' spaces overseas it was unclear whether the idea of [individual rights] would
be a contagious proposition or one [restricted to] a select few. ... The nation had become an
imaginable possibility in world politics. But the leaders of [empires] did not want to limit their
political compass to national boundaries."
Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper, historians, Empires in World History, 2010
Expert Solution
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
This is a popular solution!
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 4 steps
