Question about Robespierre and The Terror

[fromrequired.livejournal.com]

 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. 

Comments

[fromrequired.livejournal.com]

It's refreshing to hear different historical evaluations!

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.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

I understand your incredulity; when one has grown up in a society with a history of racism (and as I'm sure you know, the development of the concept of race happened differently in the English colonies and in yet another, third way, in the Spanish colonies), it's difficult to conceive of racism as being anything but a universal instinct that has to be overcome. But the evidence is there, if one is willing to examine it. I gave one particular example, but I could multiply them. When the segregationalists in the colonies started to gain the upper hand in the 1750s, many mixed raced members of the dominant class sailed for France where they had no problem integrating into the larger society - and by that I don't just mean that they were able to marry, but that there is no evidence that they encountered any kind of discrimination or harassment.

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.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Also, re: Pitt the Younger. It's ironic that he should be considered as the philanthropic abolitionist of the slave trade. Well, that is, his contemporaries would have considered it quite ironic. The list of what we would call his human rights violations and what the French Revolutionaries and the "patriots" and "radicals" of his own country would refer to as violations of natural rights and the droit des gens (ius gentium) is not a short one. Of course, Pitt didn't believe in human rights (that's what makes him a counter-revolutionary), but there was a form of the droit des gens that was generally considered as established by the 18th century, even by traditional monarchies. Here is one principle: when two powers are at war, one power has the right to seize shipments of weapons to the other aboard neutral ships; otherwise neutral ships were to be left alone under the principle of free ships, free goods. Pitt extended the goods liable to be considered as weapons and confiscated to foodstuffs, thereby creating the "right" to starve a population of non-combattants. This was important not only because this was exactly the policy that he pursued (in this particular case by seizing American grain shipments to France), but also because by his declaration he turned this violation into a principle.

[fromrequired.livejournal.com]

Indeed, each European colony had a different construct of race. And yes, slavery can exist without racism; I won't argue against that.

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.