1783 Volcano fun.

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

Hello, long time no post (it's so slow these days on a non-Intel Mac!). Dunno if this news has travelled worldwide, but European airspace is currently unusable because of the dust cloud from an Icelandic volcano. If the eruption goes on much longer it's going to cause imported food shortages here and severe hardship for - for example - African farmers who depend on air freight to the European market. Hundreds of skeletons from a medieval mass grave were recently dug up near my friend's workplace in Spitalfields, London, dead from starvation after a volcano caused failed harvests, and I heard discussion of the 1783 eruption today, and found this in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/15/iceland-volcano-weather-french-revolution

Comments

[maelicia.livejournal.com]

Is this a meteorological problem?
No, this is a sociopolitical mess ahead.

[maelipstick.livejournal.com]

Just over 200 years ago an Icelandic volcano erupted with catastrophic consequences for weather, agriculture and transport across the northern hemisphere – and helped trigger the French revolution.

See there I was thinking it was the unfair division of taxation and political representation coupled with runaway royal expenditure and an governing system that was unable to implement change in a controlled and structured manner.

But you know, it could just have been a volcano. Everything seems to be their fault (http://climaterealists.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=490) these days.

Now how do I explain the concept of "carbon footprint on an orange" to a Robespierre muse?

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

The Black Death destroyed the feudal system, the Lisbon Earthquake gave the Enlightenment a big boost, Yellow Fever had a role in ending French rule and slavery in Haiti (and, indeed, in the whole slavery/colonial system), Napoleon's army was hit by an unusually early winter on the retreat from Moscow, Typhus helped the French Republican armies and fear of Typhus (gaol fever) gave impetus to the Terror...there's still debate about the temperature and rainstorm on 9 Thermidor...I think natural phenomena often get written out of the script. Even now I'm hearing bad economic figures for January blamed on the Labour government - it's only a few weeks later, but everyone seems to have forgotten that for two weeks Britain was iced up and transport, even by foot, ground to a halt...

[maelipstick.livejournal.com]

I think natural phenomena often get written out of the script.

Maybe so, but unsustainable social phenomena are still unsustainable.

Say, for example after the skies clear companies re-evaluate, governments re-think and there is a massive shift away from just-in-time airfrieght deliveries. Then in two hundred years time a peice in the Guardian claims the Eyjafjallajökull volcano was the cause of this massive change in Europe's eating habits, I'd say it was a massive oversimplification, factoring out peak oil, the rise of the Green lobby as an organised political force, anti-poverty campaigns by mainstream and Church based charities, riots by migrant workers paid starvation wages to pre-package fruit salad. The volcano might have blown the lid off, but the can of worms was there all along.

there's still debate about the temperature and rainstorm on 9 Thermidor

There is ... but does anybody truly believe that if the weather had been a bit milder France would still be on its First Republic? Does it account for the Robespierrist's political isolation? The difficulty in sparking an insurrection when government policy for the last year or so had been to promote stability and prevent insurrection? I'm not sure - to me it seems at the most drier weather might have bought them a few more hours. They had just made too many powerful enemies. But that's my take.

I'm certainly not saying we should discount natural phenomena and other wildcard events, I just get increasingly cheesed off when they are used to write off all human social and political impacts, the sort of "geez we're so little and puny how can we have any effect on this big ol' world," statements that are currently passing for wisdom.

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

The Guardian piece isn't saying it's a cause, but a contributing factor. I go for a sort of Chaos Theory approach to history - a meshing of factors and knock-on effects that every so often come together in a 'perfect storm' to create seismic (in the political sense of the word) events. Wet weather screws up a military campaign, a dry summer and the rivers run so low the mill wheels can't grind corn.

Are you American? You seem to be relating this to the way the US climate change debate has become politicised. I'm not from that cultural background (here I think generally climate change is accepted as a man-made or at any rate human-influenced phenomenon) and at no point in all the hours of TV discussion on the volcano has anyone said anything about it proving/disproving climate change, not even on the Murdoch-owned channels. The subject hasn't even been raised. I certainly wasn't relating the point in any way to that debate. If anything, though, volcanic eruptions make the case that climate change can be influenced by humans stronger: a discussion of the effect of atmospheric ash on historical famines can be related to the similar effect of human-created atmospheric pollutants.

[maelipstick.livejournal.com]

I go for a sort of Chaos Theory approach to history - a meshing of factors and knock-on effects that every so often come together in a 'perfect storm' to create seismic (in the political sense of the word) events.

I think I might just be a little too paranoid for that. I agree up to a point, and I certainly think its interesting to know about random factors that have influenced things and curious coincidences. Maybe I'm just a grumpy old school Marxist who needs to get with the times, but I do think the Chaos Theory approach to history taken to its logical extreme leads to total apathy, the idea that it's all random, so nothing really makes a difference, as man's actions are at best atoms colliding in the void.

Are you American?

Not especially, no. I can understand how my phrasing might have made you jump to that conclusion. But the "aw shucks, what can we do?" attitude, which I'm not sure why I can't put in a British accent, is a common enough response to any large issue - poverty, HIV pandemics, what have you. So we just go on with laissez-faire and chalk it up to freak events when things go wrong.

I think generally climate change is accepted as a man-made or at any rate human-influenced phenomenon

I think that's quite an optimistic assessment of the state of things in the UK. There's a good chunk of the right wing press like The Spectator (http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml), The Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146138/Climate-change-Reasons-listed) a fair few staff writers at The Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html), Britain's biggest broadsheet, and a good percentage of the hacks at Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1260191/Science-Museum-change-new-climate-change-museum.html), Britain's biggest midrange. That's a fair amount of climate skepticism. And things haven't really got to crunch time yet.

in all the hours of TV discussion on the volcano has anyone said anything about it proving/disproving climate change

No, not as hard evidence I can't see it being used either way. But I'm fairly sure a Daily Express/Daily Mail "The wiles of nature, who are we to intervene" header is in the post. Motes in the wind of providence, I tell you.

Anyhow, going back to the French Revolution, yes, poor harvests were a flashpoint, but France was still a semi-subsistence agrarian economy so poor harvests were going to be a fairly regular occurrence, volcanos or no. And if failed harvests and food riots were fairly common throughout Europe in the eighteenth century, what made 1789 different? I still think the answer was a sequence of man-made events.

[celine-carol.livejournal.com]

I've been reading this for awhile now, and I really find this discussion interesting...

I can't help but wonder if one of the two factors (Nature or man) would have caused it without the interference of the other... I mean, would the people have revolted against the monarchy if Louis had not been such a schlub, and rather, had been able to provide food? And if the volcano hadn't happened, and harvests had turned out fine, would they have done anything? I've got to say, I really doubt it... I can't think of an instance in history where a people have revolted when all their basic needs are being met. Usually hunger or lack of medical care play a role (yes, there are instances of widespread militant suppression of free will causing uprisings, but it's not as common as you'd think...)
But I really think there's something about seeing a leader flounder in the face of a natural event that emboldens people.. After an 8 year economic tailspin, lying us into 2 wars, and generally behaving like an imbecile, nothing caused Bush's approval ratings to tank like hurricane Katrina (and those poor ratings for Reps across the board lead to Obama's election and a filibuster-proof Dem senate and house!). But you could blame that final rating-dip on the hurricane, or on his previous bad reputation, or both... idk, I hope that was pertinent and not too ramblesome!

[maelipstick.livejournal.com]

I've been reading this for awhile now, and I really find this discussion interesting...

Thank you, I'm glad I'm semi-legible at least ;).

I can't help but wonder if one of the two factors (Nature or man) would have caused it without the interference of the other.

It's interesting. My take is - the famine cycle had been going on for hundreds of years and hadn't changed much. What did change was man's reaction to it, that there was a growing, although rather nebulous idea that fairer political representation could be linked to more food for hungry people. I'm not an expert on pre-revolutionary harvests and I'm sure there are a lot of people here who could set me straight, but I seem to remember reading somewhere harvest failure being a fairly common occurrence - something like every six years or so. A political system that is at mortal peril from something that happens as regularly as that seems to me a little screwed.

I can't think of an instance in history where a people have revolted when all their basic needs are being met. Usually hunger or lack of medical care play a role Of course, absolutely. We're selfish buggers and if it's all hunky-dory there's not much motivation to risk your life and livelihood for a principle. But all to often hunger or lack of medical care is not a natural event but something man had a role in, particularly when we get to the last 200 years of history. Oh and this point I can't stop harping on, sorry! Hunger and lack of medical care have been fairly endemic in the world for most of its history and yet revolutions have been relatively rare.

I mean, would the people have revolted against the monarchy if Louis had not been such a schlub

Yay! That's my favourite wildcard argument, the whole but what if Louis had been more of a go-getting enlightened despot kick-ass sort of monarch who could have battered through tax reform and not gone through finance ministers like silk stockings. Because I genuinely don't know and I'm quite interested when the better informed argue it either way.

To me though it does highlight a bit of a flaw in the monarchy system, rather like the famine cycle there also seems to be a schlub cycle of kings, every three monarchs or so one gets thrown up that really, really shouldn't be put in charge of a puppy, let alone 25 million people. Also I'm not necessarily one for cod psychology but I do think the limitations you must put on your thinking to believe it is your right/duty to rule irrespective of merit or performance must cause quite serious difficulties in how one deals with one's fellow humans if one's natural temperament is not that autocratic. Again, my knowledge of history is fairly holey but I do seem to recall I think the schlub factor was also an element in the Russian revolution too, and it certainly was in the War of the Roses. So I think monarchy as a political system has this severe inbuilt flaw and at some point that weak link in the chain was going to come around just at the wrong point in time.

[celine-carol.livejournal.com]

"Hunger and lack of medical care have been fairly endemic in the world for most of its history and yet revolutions have been relatively rare."

True, but it'd be interesting to know why certain crises cause revolutions and why many do not. I believe there have been a great many power shifts or takeovers (that fall short of actual revolution) within existing governments during times of stress, when the people want governmental change. However, if an alternate government presents itself during this time, then people generally seem more willing to give them a chance and, by the time the new government's grace-period has run out the crisis has ended, and there is little real change. (Probably a bad example, but kind of like how the Confederates during the American Civil War used to be part of the Union government, so they already knew what they were doing as far as ruling and organization went).

"but what if Louis had been more of a go-getting enlightened despot kick-ass sort of monarch who could have battered through tax reform and not gone through finance ministers like silk stockings."
Haha.. 'The Schlub cycle', so true... I've wondered that too. I tend to think it had something to do with it. I mean, Robespierre wouldn't have been as successful as he was without his reputation for being 'virtuous' and leading a fairly low-key lifestyle (er, well.. when he was doing government things anyway). Maybe Louis wouldn't have failed so miserably if the people had seen him as sympathetic rather than being so exorbitant... Just seeing the standard of life royalty had back then is sickening, especially comparing it to everyone else's!

On an alternate note, I've noticed a great many revolutions and government overthrows seem to happen during summer (July 14th is especially popular.. I found several historical government takeovers when I put it into wikipedia). I wonder why that is, because it seems like food is at its lowest during winter...

[maelipstick.livejournal.com]

. However, if an alternate government presents itself during this time, then people generally seem more willing to give them a chance and, by the time the new government's grace-period has run out the crisis has ended, and there is little real change.

I don't quite understand what you are getting at here. Are you suggesting that if there's an option to change leadership in a peacable and orderly fashion people usually take it rather than revolt? Because, yes that seems fairly obvious - most revolutions are acts of desperation to some degree, people do generally like order and revolutions are frightening and unpredictable.

Maybe Louis wouldn't have failed so miserably if the people had seen him as sympathetic rather than being so exorbitant...

I think people did see him as sympathetic, just not much use. If he had had the courage to make himself damn unpopular - by forcing through tax reform, abolishing the parlements, cutting state expendature etc he might have stood a chance.

Just seeing the standard of life royalty had back then is sickening, especially comparing it to everyone else's!

Well yes, although I wonder what they would make of us flying stawberries to another continent to be chopped up and then flown back just so we don't have to chop our fruit ourselves. It's easy to condemn the past, after all.

I wonder why that is, because it seems like food is at its lowest during winter...

In Northern Europe, I think April/May is usully the hungriest time as grain stocks are just about used up but fruit etc has not yet ripened. By July, one generally knows if the harvest had failed or not, and in 1789 it was obvious that the harvest had been bad, so the price of grain went up, and then bread. I think.

[(Anonymous)]

There used to be some grafitti near where I grew up: "summer's here - let's riot". I think generally people were more concerned wsimply with survival in winter - keeping warm and fed during short winter days. There isn't the energy to spend on anything else. In summer the days are long, people can be outdoors and heat makes people more energetic and spirited, specially when mixed with alcohol, and more gregarious (levels of violence would go up noticably on hot days in the inner city London area I used to live in). Food can be scarce in summer, too, though, not just from crop failure, but also because a dry summer means no water, so watermills can't grind corn/stored grain, and food is more difficult to transport on low rivers or roads with deep dust.

[maelipstick.livejournal.com]

There used to be some grafitti near where I grew up: "summer's here - let's riot"

Ah ha ha. That's true of London. I seem to remember that grafitti, is it in Notting Hill?

I think generally people were more concerned wsimply with survival in winter - keeping warm and fed during short winter days.

True. I was going to make that point - that cold and hunger can make people more apathetic. The Russian Revolution rather scuppers that theory though, March and November must be rubbish times to hang around on the streets of St Petersburg.

[(Anonymous)]

There was a comment on QI (BBC2) that in some areas medieval French rural peasants would almost 'hibernate' like bears to conserve energy. There was a teacher interviewed on Radio 4 last week about the effects of having a power station built in the area (one of the Southern English coasts, I think) recalling that new people moved into the village to work in it, including Scots, and that when their children came to do P.E. in winter, it turned out they had been sewn into their underclothes in the medieval way!

St Petersburg had tenement blocks which were very overcrowded (presuming Dostoevsky's painting a true picture) so I could imagine men might hang around on streets or in pubs, keeping the cold out with vodka, and there'd have been more artificial lighting by that time, I suppose.

[maelipstick.livejournal.com]

medieval French rural peasants would almost 'hibernate' like bears to conserve energy.

Absolutely, makes sense. Around here where people were still practicing transhumance in the 18th century, upland farmers would get their flocks down and expect to get snowed in for a couple of weeks, so everyone just huddled tight. Not much revolutionary potential there.

St Petersburg had tenement blocks which were very overcrowded (presuming Dostoevsky's painting a true picture) so I could imagine men might hang around on streets or in pubs,

Wasn't it the women who kicked off the February revolution?

[celine-carol.livejournal.com]

"I don't quite understand what you are getting at here. Are you suggesting that if there's an option to change leadership in a peacable and orderly fashion people usually take it rather than revolt?"
*btw, can you tell me how to make things show up in italics? Technology and myself don't get along well...*

Not exactly.. What I'm saying is that, most governments that appear after power-turnover aren't what you could call a 'people's revolution' by any means, regardless of whether the turnover is peaceful or not. Sort of like American Civil war compared to the American Revolution (sorry about the American reference; I'm not up on my European history enough to really talk about it without sounding like an idiot 8P); in both instances the civilians expected armed conflict and serious loss of life, and both were caused by serious economic issues and anger over representation (or lack thereof). But the difference was that, during the Revolution, there was a dramatic overhaul, and an entirely new governmental system was created, with most of the major players not having had a big part in the old government (similar to the French Revolution). During the Civil War, the Confederacy was structured very much like the Union government, and most of the leaders were former members of the old government. And that seems to have happened much more often than Revolutions. I was just wondering what factors have to come together to cause a revolution rather than just a hostile takeover/split, because both are caused by similar factors, and in most cases they have similar consequences.

"Well yes, although I wonder what they would make of us flying stawberries to another continent to be chopped up and then flown back just so we don't have to chop our fruit ourselves"
This is why we should all follow Robespierre's example and eat fruit that does not require chopping (er... Nevermind that people in 3rd world countries are selling them for like 13 cents a day). Good point though... I suppose that it's easy to forget about the 'unseen' consequences of consumption, especially living in a country where the vast majority are middle-class, and there are systems in place so that even people who are homeless have food and shelter.

[maelipstick.livejournal.com]

*btw, can you tell me how to make things show up in italics? Technology and myself don't get along well...*

[i]italic text[/i] Replace the [ ] brackets with < > brackets.

I'm not technical in any way either, but a good basic guide to HTML for text effects at livejournal is here. (http://www.livejournal.com/support/faqbrowse.bml?faqid=72)

ut the difference was that, during the Revolution, there was a dramatic overhaul, and an entirely new governmental system was created, with most of the major players not having had a big part in the old government (similar to the French Revolution). During the Civil War, the Confederacy was structured very much like the Union government, and most of the leaders were former members of the old government

I'm no expert on American history, at all. I assume the fact that most people in the British colonies were profoundly unhappy with the political system ie, pay a loy of taxes, get nothing in return, be subject to a distant monarch who treated them with disdain etc. When the monarch went, the whole political system went and had to be started over. Plus I'm guessing a fair amount of previous leaders had to get the boat home.

In the Civil War the confederaes were largely happy with the political system they just wanted to keep slavery. So the confederates could just copy/paste the American constitution onto their own states.

[celine-carol.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link :)

I see what you mean, though I do sort of have an issue with the Civil War thing...
The primary reason for the Civil War was actually a lack of Southern representation in national government (it started due to Lincoln's election, because he got less than 40% of the popular vote) and was spurred on by the fact that there was a pretty big North/South economic divide to begin with; with the North having built all their industry on Southern agriculture, while the South as a whole was still economically disadvantaged. The whole thing was about money, and the Union didn't really use slavery as a plank until it was thrown out as a hail-Mary to get other free countries to shut down the South's cotton trade, effectively bankrupting them (not that it was that hard; most southerners actually manufactured their own weaponry). In fact, Robert E. Lee was actually against slavery, though fought for the South. Also, the Confederacy had a very different take on states' rights, with each state behaving almost as a separate country (for lack of a better description) rather than being as subject to federal control. (This isn't to say that there weren't lots of ardent abolitionists around; just that it certainly wasn't the main political reason for the war).

Haha..It's really interesting how differently history is taught in areas that are historically considered 'the bad guys' (er, or 'the losers' I suppose? Kind of synonymous...) :P

[celine-carol.livejournal.com]

Also, I apologize that every conversation I get involved in seems to take one hell of a left turn! I need to practice staying on topic... :)

[sneerbite.livejournal.com]

I would like to point out - though I am not sure what purpose this information serves - that volcanoes and volcano references much preoccupied the 'French revolutionary mind' (if such a thing existed). For example, members of the Convention often alleged that 'la sainte Montagne' had a force similar to that of Mount Vesuvius. Meaning: that it could, and would, erupt at any point in the direction of moderates and counter-revolutionaries. Still during the Restoration Montagnards such as M.-A. Baudot stressed the the Mountain-volcano had the potential to erupt once more!

[(Anonymous)]

That's an interesting point - Pompeii was rediscovered in the early-mid 18thc and was on the 18thc 'Grand Tour'and the idea of a mountain destroying a (decadent?) society appeals to the 'sublime' imagination, so maybe that's why (?). Tiger imagery also features a lot, a wild force as opposed to the 'monarchical' Lion with its pride-hierarchy ('Tyger Tyger burning bright' - written in 1793/4, full of Promethean imagery - the animal equivalent of the volcano!).