revolution_fr | TERROR, on YOUTUBE!

He does :( I HEARD HIM!It was.."the republic consist in the extermination of all who oppose it!" dammit >.

Thank you! I do my best. I just wanted to point a few things out to anyone who might be using the programme as a study guide to write a school/college essay! The person who posted it is, I think, someone who seems to post a lot of Zizek stuff, so presumably the poster himself doesn't agree with the thrust of the programme, as Zizek seemed to be the sole defender (albeit very incoherently!) of the Revolutionaries'position.

Though i have to say, I think i'm liking the emo St. Just..too much xD I'd just go back and watch it for him, even though it's a complete fail.

For myself, I know enough about what is going on in that video not to want to know more.

That is worse, decidedly. At least he moderated himself a little bit in the essay I read. As far as I can tell, he thinks we're living c. 1850, with an analysis like that. Oh and, re the invention of thought crime, does anyone else think it's ironic when they blame the Revolution for things the Church did?

Yes, the original quote, in context, was: "Vous avez voulu une République ; si vous ne vouliez point en même temps ce qui la constitue, elle ensevelirait le peuple sous ses débris. Ce qui constitue une République, c'est la destruction totale de ce qui lui est opposé. On se plaint des mesures révolutionnaires ! Mais nous sommes des modérés, en comparaison de tous les autres gouvernements." (From his report of 8 Ventôse Year II, p. 659 of his Oeuvres complètes, edited by A. Kupiec and M. Abensour, and published by Gallimard in 2004.)

To compare both quotes in the same language, an English translation of the sentence in bold in the preceding paragraph:
"What constitutes a Republic is the total destruction of that which is opposed to it."
If Schama's version were translated into French, it would probably go something like this:
"Ce qui constitue la République, c'est l'extermination de tous ceux qui lui sont opposés."
...Which is really not the same thing at all.

No, really not... Everybody knows what the use of "extermination" very unsubtly hints at. Also, I couldn't remember in what speech it was yesterday, so thanks. >_>

Seriously: there's no way that "translation" is in any way a coincidence. (Although Schama's French probably isn't very good either...) Sure thing. I couldn't remember either, so I googled it and then checked the reference.

It's certainly not. But then, they keep on making up quotes that Saint-Just never said in English (like that one with the liberty bedded on corpses... or, I don't want to remember it okay) and, like Sophie Wahnich said in her essay on terrorism, they even quoted (in French however) something from Büchner (in which he compares the revolution to the plague -- which is a quite Thermidorian image indeed -- LIKE ALL THE MACABRE IMAGES ANYWAY) and historically attributed it to him.

Also, I must rant, did you see the comment right after victoriavandal's on the first part on youtube? Some idiot calls it "an honest, thought-provoking progressive critique". Schama. Progressive? With all the sophisms and false representations constructed by our so very modern speech, we're not far from totalitarism, as someone said in the comments, indeed.

Wait, is there really a condemnation of alcohol in there? Because not only would it never occur to any of the Revolutionaries to propose that (Robespierre drank his wine with water, but how the hell could anyone think that was anything other than a personal preference when none of his friends or supporters did likewise?), it would be pretty near impossible for anyone to propose it in the 18th century, considering the general quality of the drinking water.

Also, I think I caught that EMO!NOT!Saint-Just called UGLY!NOT!Robespierre "Maxime". Oh dear. *eyerolls*

After all, Schama is openly defending cynism and corruption and condemning idealism as potentially totalitarian. So why not to manipulate a couple of quotes? If you point out to it, you are probably a fundamentalist who claims there is only one Truth and thus a potential Hitler :-D Sibylla

I don't know whether I have got it right, or it was a paranoic interpretation of mine, but when they introduce Saint-Just as puritan he is talking about prohibiting liquor in the Convention. Maybe it is supposed to be a sign of SJ's sense of humour, I am not sure.

I've seen the defense of corruption already: last year (all those things are always so recent), there was an essay published in France by a psychanalyst, Marie-Laure Susini, who wrote an "éloge de la corruption" in which she copies Gallo's most ridiculous psycho-historical delirium to bash Robespierre as "the voice of the superego" and calls his incorruptibility (or all incorruptibility in general) a totalitarian trait, because obviously it aims at an impossible purity, of something ridiculous like that which echoes the so-called "fatal purity" once more. As for the defense of cynicism, that dates back to Wajda all right. I've never seen so much ideological manipulation of history used to denounce the totalitarian ideological manipulation of history! (Well, that is, until that BBC docudrama!) I don't know why the speakers of such destructive ideologies, which are directly responsible for the threat that is actually coming upon us -- and no, it's really not communism! -- are still given such a leading space. How long will that last still? And when will the generational overthrow happen?

But they keep on drinking wine in all these scenes? Or maybe it's really because then Saint-Just proposed they should be drinking blood instead.

And the consequence of this distrust of virtue and praise of the corruption is that we get the government we deserve, composed of those who become politicians in order to change laws so they don't get to prison, who use our taxes to pay prostitutes for themselves and their guests, who are convinced that using the politics to promote the interests of those who give big money for their electoral campagnes is perfectly legitimate, even if it means dragging a country to war etc.

All I read once was a random education project to ban wine (and coffee, and sugar) for children. I think I also read that the type of regime Maxime had of drinking wine mixed with water was what they gave children, but I'm not sure.

In combination with a time-travelling machine that would be a great idea. He could travel to the present, get Schama and apply revolutionary justice on him so the evil CPS can have a good bloody toast to Virtue ;-)

I have no idea on the revolutionary part of the info, but I do know something on the watered wine use in children's -and adults' - diet in Early Modern Europe. It was actually a method used to make water healthier, to "kill the diseases" with the alcohol :-O

I remember that. D:< They think people will buy anything they want to cram down their throats...

...which, it seems, they will. I gave that commenter a thumbs-down, for all the good it will do. >.>

He did. I watched a couple of seconds of it with the sound on to see what everyone on the CSP was laughing about--as it turns out, it's just the kind of joke Schama and co. would imagine Revolutionaries would spend all their time making. *rolls eyes*

Hm, I don't know. I've certainly never heard that before, but I do know people would eat and drink in the Convention. Perhaps someone suggested that that wasn't particularly dignified. I can't imagine that it had anything to do with alcohol per se (historically speaking; the documentary could be saying who knows what kind of nonsense).

It is also very interesting how extremely hard times the anti-R movies have showing Thermidor. It is so hard for them to fit in Collot, Billaud, Fouché and company to the picture...However, as cynism is being praised, soon Fouché will become a very acceptable hero, so the problem for the filmmakers might be solved.
Another difficulty they seem to have with the Thermidor is Saint-Just's speech: either it is necessary to make it disappear (RF - Les années horribles) or it is totally misinterpreted as in the BBC shit where SJ is a "schoolboy", or his master's voice, who is simply insisting on Robespierre's purging intentions from the previous day's speech.
Another unsurprisingly common thing is invisible Le Bas and Augustin - of course, the triumvirs were evil and thus had no friends...
I also have hard times understanding why SJ is always depicted as a loner, totally dependent on Robespierre. Ok, they might not be willing to mention unimportant people as Gateau and Thuillier, but the non-existence of Le Bas is eloquent.

That would make a lot more sense. And they did typically give children watered wine, the way some people now give children milk with a bit of coffee in it...

And what was that joke they were laughing about? (Coz they seem to be laughing a lot, really, and Hérault does say strange things about copper coming from between the legs of the Habsbourg emperor or something (?????????) and the place where I heard that pseudo-SJ calling that pseudo-Robespierre "Maxime" was at 0:18 at the beginning of the first vid, in the "Thermidor" sequence, if you can call it as such.)

TERROR, on YOUTUBE!

no subject

Re: Great comments of Victoriavandal on youtube

no subject

no subject

Re: Andress's classism

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject