http://maelicia.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
maelicia.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
revolution_fr2010-06-06 02:21 am
maelicia.livejournal.com) wrote in revolution_fr2010-06-06 02:21 am
Entry tags:
Because Fr Rev Homoeroticism Isn't Just For The Guys
So I'm a bit late for preparing and posting the quotes of the month's challenge, because RL is an organisation mess right now with a trip to England to plan, yadda yadda, so meanwhile, have some nice pics.
Found these, as I was watching one part of thehorrid American docu of the History Channel:
Spot the hands. Tricoteuses Can Has Les Yay? Actually, granted, the one in pink in the first doesn't look that happy... nor a tricoteuse. It might have something to do with that. I'd like to hear the backstory of that image.
So we know what is the first, but I wish I knew what was the art of the second, coz it looks great. :(
Note on the vid I took these from: Seriously, that silly historian is reducing the crowd of women who marched to Versailles as "fishladies" who were "hugely muscular". Hello buying into propaganda stereotypes. Btw, if you watch (it's at 6:45), note the two on a cannon, I love those.
Plus the loser after that with his ultra-simplification "most of them probably couldn't even write their names" and "it's quite extraordinary that these ordinary women suddenly acted as the protagonists of this historical process" -- well, duh. He needs to do some reading on the role of women in revolts. Also: literacy had progressed. They probably could write their names. That might have been the only thing they could write, but that was a start!
Found these, as I was watching one part of the
Spot the hands. Tricoteuses Can Has Les Yay? Actually, granted, the one in pink in the first doesn't look that happy... nor a tricoteuse. It might have something to do with that. I'd like to hear the backstory of that image.
So we know what is the first, but I wish I knew what was the art of the second, coz it looks great. :(
Note on the vid I took these from: Seriously, that silly historian is reducing the crowd of women who marched to Versailles as "fishladies" who were "hugely muscular". Hello buying into propaganda stereotypes. Btw, if you watch (it's at 6:45), note the two on a cannon, I love those.
Plus the loser after that with his ultra-simplification "most of them probably couldn't even write their names" and "it's quite extraordinary that these ordinary women suddenly acted as the protagonists of this historical process" -- well, duh. He needs to do some reading on the role of women in revolts. Also: literacy had progressed. They probably could write their names. That might have been the only thing they could write, but that was a start!
no subject
First is 1789. Second I don't know. And yeah, that would be the theme, and I heard about that/noticed it myself.
no subject
My reaction was because I've red tons of really serious (usually feminist) history that filters everything trough contemporary culture - such as interpreting friendship from earlier centuries as being sexual. Interpreting old letters between friends as love letter etc. Of course the gay-fanfictiony-part of liking history can be fun, but in very, very small dosages...