Search results

"Der Demokrat" has imprint" [Berlin] W. Fähndrich & Co. ; Mode of access: Internet.

The national and cultural activities of the Lusatian Serbs in the period of the revolution of 1848-1849 are one of the brightest and most controversial pages of the past of this small Slavic people ofGermany. During the revolution, the Lusatian Serbs, through their ideologues, with their locallyprovincial patriotism, were oriented towards supporting paternalistic relations with the royal authorities. To the main factors of the participation of the least numerous Slavic people in the revolutionary events of the middle of the XIX century national-cultural and ethnopolitical should be considered. During the revolution of 1848-1849, Serbs from the broad democratic program chose the path of humanization and moderate social liberalization. The first met the national and cultural needs of the people, and the second did not set the ethnic group in opposition to the monarchical power and democratic forces of Germany. In our opinion, the assumption of a possible ethnic minority of wider national rights or autonomy, subject to decisive action during the revolution, is unfounded. Already at the beginning of the XIX century the Lusatian Serbs ethnic group was a statistical minority in its ethnic region, which was divided between the two European states (Prussia and Saxony), therefore calls for more determined national requirements in ethnically mixed areas were not widespread, and the radicalization of thenational movement could lead to ethno-lateral consequences. ; Національно-культурна діяльність лужицьких слов'ян періоду революції 1848-1849 рр. – одна з найяскравіших та найсуперечливіших сторінок минулого цього малочисельного слов'янськогонароду Німеччини. Під час революції лужицькі серби через своїх ідеологів, з їхнім локальнопровінційним патріотизмом, були зорієнтовані на підтримку патерналістських відносин ізкоролівською владою. До головних чинників участі найнечисленнішого слов'янського народу у революційних подіях середини XIX ст. необхідно віднести національно-культурні та етнополітичні. Протягом революції 1848-1849 рр. серби з широкої демократичної програми обрали шлях гуманізації та поміркованої суспільної лібералізації. Перше відповідалонаціональним та культурним потребам народу, а друге не ставило етнос в опозицію до монархічної влади та демократичних сил Німеччини. Припущення щодо можливого отримання етноменшиною ширших національних прав або автономії за умови рішучіших дій під час революції, на нашу думку, є безпідставними. Вже на початку XIX ст. серболужицький етнос був статистичною меншістю у своєму етнічному районі, який поділявся між двома європейськими державами (Пруссією та Саксонією), тому заклики до рішучіших національних вимог у етнічно змішаних районах не мали поширення, а радикалізація національного руху могла призвести до етнолетальних наслідків.

think it is true to say that few people realize how closely the history of Malta was interwoven with the Italian Risorgimento. Without delving deeply into the parallel history of Malta and the Italian states for practically half a century, one cannot fully appreciate the immense contribution Malta gave toward the achievement of the unification of Italy, and the considerable influence of the Risorgimento on Maltese politics. Malta's input took firm root and flourished as soon as the freedom of the press was granted by the colonial government (Ordinance IV of 1839) after almost four decades of absolute censorship and government monopoly of printing. Throughout this long period the claims of the Maltese for the abolition of censorship were consistently refused notwithstanding Charles Cameron's Proclamation of 15 July 1801, which solemnly declared that "His Majesty grants you full protection, and the enjoyment of all your dearest rights". When all these rights were denied to the Maltese by his successor as Civil Commissioner, Sir Alexander Ball (1802-1809), an agent in London, John Richards, was appointed by the Maltese leaders to represent them with His Majesty's Ministers. In their Instructions to Richards, dated 28 February 1810 in furtherance of those of 1806, they asked him to request the restitution of their dearest rights, the principal ones being a free representation of the people, independent tribunals and "a free press, but not licentious, nor offensive to religion". A petition to His Majesty, signed by about 100 prominent citizens, repeated the same demands, while condemning Ball's despotism. ; peer-reviewed

The Revolution of 1848 is a favorite subject for historians of Germany because, in so many ways, it inaugurated contemporary German history. It is a Significant "watershed" in political, social, and even intellectual history. But our understanding of this great upheaval is nonetheless still vexingly deficient. In particular, the political impact of pre-March social change, though it is the subject of much recent inquiry, is not well understood. German society was so complex, so diverse, and in such a bewildering state of tranistion that general observations are hard to make; what is true in one place is often false in another. So there is no comprehensive study. for example. of the agrarian uprisings of 1848, and opinions differ widely on their scope, intensity, and siginifcance. The role of the working class is also murky and unclear, partly because that class was beginning its long-term transformation from a traditonal guild artisante to a modern factory proletriat, a process which gratly complicates sociological definitions.

This study investigates the three main waves of political regime contention in Europe and Latin America. Surprisingly, protest against authoritarian rule spread across countries more quickly in the nineteenth century, yet achieved greater success in bringing democracy in the twentieth. To explain these divergent trends, the book draws on cognitive-psychological insights about the inferential heuristics that people commonly apply; these shortcuts shape learning from foreign precedents such as an autocrat's overthrow elsewhere. But these shortcuts had different force, depending on the political-organizational context. In the inchoate societies of the nineteenth century, common people were easily swayed by these heuristics: jumping to the conclusion that they could replicate such a foreign precedent in their own countries, they precipitously challenged powerful rulers, yet often at inopportune moments - and with low success. By the twentieth century, however, political organizations had formed. As organizational ties loosened the bounds of rationality, contentious waves came to spread less rapidly, but with greater success

TheRevolution of 1848 has proven to be a continuously interesting field for historical research. Whether one sees it as a turning point where German history failed to turn, as an uprising bungled by a bunch of impractical professors, as a revolution undermined by ethnic hostility, or as a revolution which failed because it ignored the problems of the lower classes, the question of its failure has been almost as fruitful a focus of research as other countries' successful revolutions. Historians have also been attracted to it because it seems to provide outlines and previews of future events in German history. It marks, we are told, the growing politicization of the masses, the birth of social conflict, the inception of national struggles, or the first sign of the liberals' political cowardice.