Suchergebnisse

Δεν παρατίθεται περίληψη στα ελληνικά. ; Spyridon Ploumidis, The notion of 'death' in the Greek Revolution (1821-1832): Ideological perceptions and political practice The evolution of Greek nationalist ideas signified the passage from patria to the nation. The eruption of the revolution influenced the way the Greeks perceived the notion of 'death'. Since, the struggle for independence was massive, death also became collective. The Greek revolutionaries claimed that the Sultan was intent on slaughtering the entirety of the Greek nation. This was not true, yet the death toll of the Greek Revolution exceeded the traditional limits of earlier Christian rebellions, and the number of dead is estimated between 230,000 and 600,000. Massacres occurred beyond the limits of the Peloponnese (in Constantinople, Smyrna, Chios at el.), and every Greek-speaking Orthodox individual became a potential victim of the revengeful Ottomans. The Ottoman atrocities drew the imaginary geographical boundaries of the Greek 'national' space. Nevertheless, Greeks were not the only victims of the War of Independence. By 1833, around 63.000 Muslims ('Turks') were either killed or expelled from the territory of the Greek state. Vengeance and hatred against the 'Turks' was a tenet of the Greek revolutionary agenda. In addition to its new collective nature, the notion of 'death' acquired during the Greek Revolution a new, political meaning. Koraes and Rigas had already prepared the ground for the grounding of their fellow-Greeks in this new perception. 'Death' came to describe 'slavery', 'tyranny', 'oligarchy' and submission to the 'Turks'. Natural death came to be seen as preferable to a meaningless life without Koraes' 'natural rights' (equality, rule of law, etc.). To this end, the Third National Assembly of the Greeks pronounced in 1827 the notion of 'political death'. The term 'death' in the revolutionary motto 'Freedom or Death' (Ελευθερία ή Θάνατος), which drew on the French maxim La Liberté ou la Mort, had by and large this political significance. The determination of the Greek revolutionaries to achieve freedoms and rights at the cost of their life is found in several official declarations and statements. General Spyromilios clarified that (life or) 'death' was hence forward a matter of 'national existence' and not of 'personal existence', i.e. it was primarily a collective and political issue. This ideological development was an outcome of secularization. Secular freedom was deemed to be hierarchically a superior value to the religious tolerance, which the Orthodox enjoyed within the Ottoman millet system. For that matter, the attainment of independence in 1830 was hailed by the protagonists as the 'resurrection' of the Greek nation.

Nikos Potamianos, The Radical Right and the Agrarian Question in the Early 20th Century. The Case of Christovassilis and the "Hellenism Asosociation"The subject of this article is an aspect of the history of the radical right in Greece, namely its intellectual and political response to the agrarian question which emerged in Greece at the end of the 19th century after the incorporation of new provinces where large landownership was predominant. In particular, the arguments and theses of a cadre of the biggest nationalist league of Athens in 1907 are examined, in contrast to its earlier views on the agrarian question and in contrast to the discourse of the radical supporters of the sharecroppers as well as the landowners. Christovassilis adopts a pro-peasant stand, attacking capitalist landowners and indirectly proposing the purchase of the land by its cultivators with the assistance of the state. However, his main aim was to prove that parliamentary democracy was incapable of improving the sharecroppers' situation, a task which only an authoritarian state could accomplish. Crucial in Christovassilis' arguments was the use of nationalist discourse in order to legalize sharecroppers' demands: he linked the peasants' struggle for land in the past with the national conflict with the Ottoman conquerors, equating land with fatherland and, therefore, the ownership of land of Thessaly with the peasants' participation in the nation. Christovassilis' earlier views which put emphasis on the social aspects of the agrarian question gave way to the pre-ponderance of the nationalist argument, which was in turn related to other aspects of the ideology of the radical right. "Hellenism" followed a strategy of appealing to the mobilized subordinate classes — but without totally adopting their point of view. It was always clear that the viewpoint of the association was that of paternalism, not of emancipation. One of the points of its criticism against the democratic state was that the latter was not powerful enough torepress the impending peasant revolt. The restoration of law and orderwas for the radical right more important than the improvement of the living conditions of the lower strata. And the adoption of popular demands, in general, proved to be merely rhetoric: when the class struggle became more intense, especially in the case of the agrarian movementof 1910, "Hellenism" remained aloof. ; Nikos Potamianos, The Radical Right and the Agrarian Question in the Early 20th Century. The Case of Christovassilis and the "Hellenism Asosociation"The subject of this article is an aspect of the history of the radical right in Greece, namely its intellectual and political response to the agrarian question which emerged in Greece at the end of the 19th century after the incorporation of new provinces where large landownership was predominant. In particular, the arguments and theses of a cadre of the biggest nationalist league of Athens in 1907 are examined, in contrast to its earlier views on the agrarian question and in contrast to the discourse of the radical supporters of the sharecroppers as well as the landowners. Christovassilis adopts a pro-peasant stand, attacking capitalist landowners and indirectly proposing the purchase of the land by its cultivators with the assistance of the state. However, his main aim was to prove that parliamentary democracy was incapable of improving the sharecroppers' situation, a task which only an authoritarian state could accomplish. Crucial in Christovassilis' arguments was the use of nationalist discourse in order to legalize sharecroppers' demands: he linked the peasants' struggle for land in the past with the national conflict with the Ottoman conquerors, equating land with fatherland and, therefore, the ownership of land of Thessaly with the peasants' participation in the nation. Christovassilis' earlier views which put emphasis on the social aspects of the agrarian question gave way to the pre-ponderance of the nationalist argument, which was in turn related to other aspects of the ideology of the radical right. "Hellenism" followed a strategy of appealing to the mobilized subordinate classes — but without totally adopting their point of view. It was always clear that the viewpoint of the association was that of paternalism, not of emancipation. One of the points of its criticism against the democratic state was that the latter was not powerful enough torepress the impending peasant revolt. The restoration of law and orderwas for the radical right more important than the improvement of the living conditions of the lower strata. And the adoption of popular demands, in general, proved to be merely rhetoric: when the class struggle became more intense, especially in the case of the agrarian movementof 1910, "Hellenism" remained aloof.