Monday, January 19, 2009
Hungry Times
While reading the section in the book on “The Hungry Forties,” I was reminded of the American Great Depression. Based on the hardships that people faced, the measures that they went to during the 1840s to survive seem completely justified to me. Now that I think about, with the very similar conditions, it is amazing to me that there wasn’t a revolt during the Great Depression in the United States. As the book says, hunger is one of the greatest tests of a government’s effectiveness. It made me glad and proud to know that unlike Louis Philippe, FDR was able to cope with the problems the nation was facing and implement the public relief that was needed. Rather than suppress the workers as Louis Philippe did, FDR created the New Deal, to provide the needed relief for the economy, thereby gaining favor among the workers. By implementing the New Deal, FDR created new organizations to provide reform and relief for all workers. Louis Philippe did the opposite of this; rather than try to help the workers, he tried to shut them up by declaring their organizations and clubs illegal, thereby alienating the people and forcing them to rebel. FDR prevented the type of disorganized revolution that could have easily broken out in the United States as it did in France and then spread across the rest of Europe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
And I wonder what you might think of why revolution never happened in Britain? Wasn't this situation as dire as that of the US in the 1930s? So what pattern do you see there?
ReplyDelete