http://fromrequired.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
fromrequired.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
revolution_fr2011-03-27 12:19 am
fromrequired.livejournal.com) wrote in revolution_fr2011-03-27 12:19 am
Entry tags:
Question about Robespierre and The Terror
I don't have much knowledge about the French Revolution (as you can tell by looking at my userpic, I'm more of a WWII fangirl) but I'm greatly interested in it.
So in my AP Euro History class, we had to watch this documentary about the French Revolution. I'll post a part of it below:
I'm sort of lost because I thought Robespierre originally was for the rights of the poor and the ordinary people? It doesn't seem plausible to me that he can just turn into a sanguinary dictator overnight. Even in my textbook it says that Robespierre killed everyone whom he deemed unfit for his "Republic of Virtue," but history is never that simple. I know, I study WWII ;)
Anyways, can y'all people enlighten me about the cause of The Terror and Robespierre's role in it? Sorry if I'm asking too many questions.
EDIT: Here's the part that succeeds it. It basically describes the fall of Robespierre and says he inspired later dictatorships and revolutions.
So in my AP Euro History class, we had to watch this documentary about the French Revolution. I'll post a part of it below:
I'm sort of lost because I thought Robespierre originally was for the rights of the poor and the ordinary people? It doesn't seem plausible to me that he can just turn into a sanguinary dictator overnight. Even in my textbook it says that Robespierre killed everyone whom he deemed unfit for his "Republic of Virtue," but history is never that simple. I know, I study WWII ;)
Anyways, can y'all people enlighten me about the cause of The Terror and Robespierre's role in it? Sorry if I'm asking too many questions.
EDIT: Here's the part that succeeds it. It basically describes the fall of Robespierre and says he inspired later dictatorships and revolutions.
no subject
Don't worry, that was a rhetorical question. But yes, the concept of civic virtue has its origins in Antiquity, before being developped by everyone from Machiavelli to Milton to Montesquieu. (You see why this deceptively simple question quickly becomes complicated.)
That's awful. I would say this is a result of teaching to the test, but of course, the model of standardized testing is only a symptom of the greater problem of the purpose of public education. The prevailing view in the US and increasingly elsewhere, unfortunately, is that one get's an education to find a good job and make as much money as possible, which is, of course, only one possible application of education and not the one that those who first theorized and put into place public education had in mind. For them (and I confess to subscribing to this view as well), the purpose of public education is to create citizens, and part of that process is creating people who can think critically. From the point of view of your classmates, and, it seems - and what is more disturbing, considering her career choice - there is no reason to study history at all. What they're really saying when they say that Robespierre's place in history doesn't matter because he's dead is that there's no reason for the class they're taking/teaching to even exist, which is a far graver problem.
That said, I highly doubt that even within this system, should you write something more historically informed than your textbook on your AP exam, you would get points off. Alas, if you did, you would have no way of knowing because of the lack of transparency regarding standardized testing in general...
no subject
My teacher loves history enough to name her children after Prussian generals, but she seems somewhat, er, utilitarian?
I thought public education was implemented during the Industrial Revolution to supply the workforce with a somewhat educated population of workers who did not need to run to their manager every time when they came across a simple mathematical problem. Or is this just another one of the many things that my class is getting wrong? That said, I cannot agree more; it's disappointing to hear students proclaim their utter disdain for their AP classes. Obviously they only signed up to polish their college resumes, but why sign up for an AP class you have absolutely no interest in?
no subject
I read somewhere that what separates the discipline of history from simple, sterile antiquarianism is the realization of its relevance. I wouldn't presume to say I know from the little you've told me what your teacher's view of history is, but there's loving history and there's understanding its significance. It's possible to have the one without the other (notably, people who view history as a collection of neat facts tend to love history without understanding it). In my view, whatever else history is, it is first and foremost our only real means of contextualizing ourselves (insert Cicero quote here - I'm sure you know the one I mean).
Naturally, the question of the institution of public education is more complicated than either what I've just suggested or what they teach in your class. But the French Revoluionaries were some of the earliest theorists of free, mandatory, (more or less, depending on the project in question) secular public education, for them, and for their 19th century emulators (at least in France and in the US), forming citizens was a large part of the goal. Did others take up the idea for other reasons (including and especially the ones you mention)? Of course. Was the practical element absent from the Revolutionary educational projects? Of course not. Is there ambiguity within and overlap between the two currents (particularly in the 19th century)? Naturally. It's worth noting that in less democratically inclined countries, there was far greater emphasis on the second current than the first, which tended to disappear entirely. That said, the first current really is first in a chronological sense and it could be argued that the second current is a much a perversion of the original idea as the modern American educational system.
As for why your classmates would take an AP class they're not interested in? I'm afraid you've just answered your own question: they're taking it for the sake of their college admissions prospects. Which goes back to the perversion of the educational system; their goal is what the educational system as it stands tells them it should be: to make as much money as possible, not to be better citizens or to enrich their minds or to understand the world around them. And no, not even to learn something interesting (ie, the "neat facts" school of history - which can also be applied to other disciplines, although ironically, the terms are flipped in a discipline like math, where those who think purely of its practical applications, extremely useful though they are, tend to miss an important part of its significance).
no subject
I don't think I have ever thought this deeply about history, but you're quite right. Out of curiosity, are you pursuing a history major at the moment?
Some of the modern institutions that we tend to take for granted seem to all come from the French Revolution - granting citizenships to ethnic minorities, for example. I read that Robespierre argued for granting French citizenships to freed blacks, but they will never teach us those facts in history classes, as the mere thought of a bloodthirsty despot embracing open-minded ideals is mind-blowing to most historians.
Such attitudes disgust me. Although it's indisputable that good career prospects are important to students, far too many students take a class only so that they can get into Rice or Vanderbilt (I live in the South).
no subject
Interestingly, according to the law, free blacks already had citizenship. Which is to say, the Code noir of 1685 only recognized two statutes: "free subject of the king of France" and "slave". Everyone in the former category became a citizen with the Revolution. However, there was a powerful segregationist party in the French colonies that was (quite illegally) depriving them of their rights and trying to confirm this injustice legally and that was what Robespierre spoke out against. He was also for the abolition of slavery, which as a result of the Revolution of Saint-Domingue, the most important of the French colonies, was abolished by the representatives of the National Convention on mission there, Sonthonax and Polverel, the Convention itself later ratified this decision and extended it to all the other colonies (though application was not universal, due to difficulties involving the counterrevolutionary colonists, who joined forces with the British and the Spanish against France to keep slavery in place), on 16 Pluviôse Year II (4 February 1794).
Robespierre also argued for the rights of full citizenship for religious minorities and actors and against the Constituent Assembly's decrees dividing the population into "active" and "passive" citizens, in which system, levels of citizenship were determined by wealth as indicated by direct taxation (the equivalent of 3 days pay to vote, 10 to be an elector, and a silver mark - a great deal of money - to be eligible for election). This last qualification was never put into effect, but the Legislative Assembly was elected by only "active" citizens. These qualifications were abolished for the election of the Convention.
I don't mean to say that economic considerations are not important, but contrary to what this society would have us believe, they're not everything. It's a shame how easily people buy into the system. Easy enough to do when that's all you've ever been exposed to, I suppose.
no subject
That's interesting. Citizenships for blacks in 18th century? And I thought Pitt the Younger was such an amazing human rights activist for advocating the abolition of slave trade.
Yes, I read that he stood up for the rights of the Jews and Protestants, quite contrary to the absolutist kings that brutally persecuted the Huguenots.
I had no idea actors were deprived of their rights in 18th century France however, especially when considering that one of the members of the Committee of Public Safety was a former actor. The improvements in human rights in France after the Revolution are remarkable, but I would imagine that such legal advancements were promptly retracted by Napoleon. Do you know if free blacks in France had voting rights as well? Just curious.
Oh, indeed. The fact that so many people hate their occupations is quite sad.
Part 1
Actually, the interesting thing about those who wanted the abolition of the slave trade is that many of them were not for the abolition of slavery and certainly not of colonialism. Most of them were not in it for particularly humanitarian reasons, but rather because it was becoming too expensive to continue with the old system, under which large numbers of captives were expected to die, if not en route, then within an average of ten years on the plantations - in other words, they were were expendable. They became much less expendable when the demand for new captives began to outpace the supply. At that point, advocates of the abolition of the slave trade began looking for alternatives for keeping the colonial system going, some advocating "breeding" slaves on the plantations (which would require a higher level of investment in them and which would, yes, in some ways improve conditions for them, but only to increase their life expectancy and ensure their ability to have children). Other, more "far-sighted" theorists began to realize that wage-slavery is far more efficient than actual slavery (you haven't actually invested in the workers, so if they starve on the pittance you pay them it's no longer your problem - charming, right?) and began to advocate for the gradual abolition of slavery, over eighty years, for example (Condorcet was among these last).
The National Convention's program was entirely different: the slaves were freed and made citizens immediately and at the same time. In fact, the decree of 16 Pluviôse Year II that I just mentioned was voted after the reception of the very symbolic deputation of Saint-Domingue into the Convention : one black deputy (Belley), one métis deputy (Mills), and one white deputy (Dufay).
In France itself, there was no slavery, even under the Ancien Régime - if a colonist brought his slaves to France and they decided they didn't want to serve him any more, there was nothing he could do about it - and discrimination based on skin color was virtually non-existant. For example, Julien Raimond, one of the founders of the Society of Citizens of Color which played a big role in enlightening public opinion as to what was going on in the colonies during the Revolution, was the son of a "white" plantation owner and his legitimate "black" wife. (This was extremely common in the colonies and the class of plantation owners was largely mixed - which complicated segregationalist efforts, let it be said in passing - when you hear about "free blacks" in the colonies, this is really, for the most part, referring to members of this dominant class that their rivals in the segregationalist party are trying to shut out of it.) Raimond was his father's heir and he and his siblings were sent to France to be educated. His sisters stayed in France and married wealthy merchants (clearly, it mattered much more to them that they were the daughters of a wealthy plantation owner than whatever the color of their skin was). Raimond returned to Saint-Domingue, where he was harrassed and discriminated against by the segregationalists, so he returned to France to lobby against them, under the protection of the minister de Castries, who was forced by the more powerful segregationalist lobby to resign. Because he could scarcely go back to Saint-Domingue after the failure of his project to reform, he remained in France (on his wife's lands - again, regardless of his skin color in France itself he's hardly a victim of the Ancien Régime), where he could still be found in 1789... And where, naturally, he gained the same voting rights as everyone else upon the arrival of the Revolution.
Part 2
Oh, and re: actors under the Ancien Régime? They had much the same handicaps as religious minorities in terms of rights. (Of course, we're speaking of rights in terms of privileges here, so even if you were lucky enough to have a wider range of "rights"/privileges under the Ancien Régime, you were still subject to the arbitrariness of the system - even the most powerful aristocrat was subject to the king's whim.)
And yes, one has to work to live, of course, but it would certainly be better if any given person could make enough to live comfortably on (without being encouraged to always want more, as we all are currently) pursuing whichever career would be most fulfilling to him or her.
no subject
I find it a bit hard to believe that there was little racism and certainly no "one-drop rule" in France at that time. I really hate to sound like the stupid American that I am, but wouldn't applying the "one-drop rule" make more sense in economical terms, especially considering that (as you've mentioned) slave trade was becoming less profitable? I suppose that was a frustrating and close-minded question, but it's a little bit hard to believe that there was little racism in France on the basis that interracial marriages were recognized (marriages between Native Americans and English colonists were common, but I'd hardly say that there was little racism towards Native Americans in English colonies), especially considering the attitudes of some contemporary thinkers towards blacks.
Oh Napoleon... And I wonder why he is so beloved, although Napoleonic enthusiasts might argue otherwise.
That's precisely the reason why French Revolution is so interesting. They got rid of one of the most absolutist monarchies in Europe at the time (although the notion that Louis XVI was a powerful despot like his great-great-great grandfather is rather questionable) and established a republic, all the while defeating just about every country in Western Europe that tried to suppress them.
no subject
As I'm sure you've had occasion to observe, racism can exist without slavery, but so too can slavery exist without racism - in fact, it did for thousands of years. The concept of race as we know it was just starting to be developed in the 18th century and didn't really take on all the characteristics that we still ascribe to it until the 19th - even in the US, where because of specific historical contingencies, it developed earlier than in the French colonies (an example of one of these contingencies: when your colony is on a large continent, it's very easy for slaves to run away and, if you don't have some way of differentiating them, disappear into the surrounding population; when your colony is on a tiny island, as was the case for the French colonies, this problem is virtually non-existant - which is not to say that slaves never ran away, just that they were reduced to hiding out in the mountains, at which juncture it didn't matter what they looked like).
I should also note that there is a difference between racism and xenophobia or discrimination based on the belief in one's cultural superiority. That belief that someone is a savage (whether of the noble or the to-be-killed/converted-on-sight kind), while repulsive, is not necessarily always racist and I would argue that whatever any given group of European colonists politics concerning them (ranging from intermarriage to extermination, though, again, for particular historical reasons, the French and Spanish were - on average: no need to cite early Virginia or Columbus, I am aware of them - more receptive to intermarriage and the English more inclined to extermination) had much less to do, at least in the beginning, with their looks and much more with their cultures and beliefs.
Bonaparte is also beloved for very specific historical reasons, involving a complex mixture of his propaganda, his military genius, contradictions in his policies (eg, remember how I said he restricted the rights of French Jews? He's more often remembered as the emancipator of the Jews, because he forced the governments of occupied countries to give them basic civil rights) and the fact that, with the 19th and (especially the first half of the) 20th centuries being the heyday of racism and imperialism, very few people knew or cared about his colonial policy and if they did they tended to think of it more as being for the greater glory of France than for its eternal shame. That said, credit where credit is due: Bonaparte was largely responsible for the success of the siege of Toulon.
no subject
no subject
I really appreciate your input! Yes, it must be harder for me to understand as an American...
I admit that I don't know much about the social trend during that time, as 18th century France is not exactly my historical focus, but I would imagine that racial boundaries similar to that of modern ones did exist. Even before the 19th and early half of the 20th century, thinkers and scientists such as Hume, Cuvier, Voltaire and Kant were already commenting on the innate inferiority of blacks, in many cases, linking their phenotypes to inferior traits, especially intelligence. While I would not generalize millions of people based on the writings of a few, it does indeed seem to substantiate that racial distinctions did exist at that time.
Racial construct is not always followed by racial discrimination, but it's highly possible. Could it be possible that the mixed emigrants were accepted because they had some white ancestry? As you know, the racial construct in French and Spanish colonies were different from that of the English, and they seemed to have recognized people of mixed black and white ancestries as a separate class at best (mulattoes and metis), while the English just viewed them as "black." And well, I'd like to think of the French revolutionaries (most of them, anyway) as more socially enlightened than the average European at the time. I'm largely ignorant on this issue so I apologize if I'm sounding close-minded or not making any sense.
As for my original comment regarding Pitt the Younger, I should have added that I thankfully no longer hold that view. I used to when I was much younger and irrational, when my social studies teacher made us watch Amazing Grace in which he is depicted as an effective (not to argue that he wasn't) and altruistic Prime Minister played by attractive Benedict Cumberbatch.
I do realize that many of his policies were not the most humane. However, I admit that I lost a whole lot of respect for him when I read your comment about his role in sanctioning France. Oh God.
While Napoleon seems more enlightened than most of the other European monarchs at the time, I'm personally irked by the fact that he effectively reduced women - whom proved themselves to be intelligent and strong enough to be actively participating in French Revolution - to housewives with little legal rights and preached divine right. Although I wholeheartedly agree- he had some major accomplishments and made some progresses.