revolution_fr | TERROR, on YOUTUBE!

Current Mood: cheerful
Current Location: in my bedroom
Current Music: The day after by Ibadi

Entry tags:

TERROR, on YOUTUBE!

Yeah, i guess what i found on youtube?

That dreadful Terror! Robespierre and the french revolution..

here's the link -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcZxrb_L0_M

part 1 of 9, hahahah

enjoy =O

and apparently the emo GUY is ST. JUST! GASP!

I'm watching now..=(

now discuss!

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Do we really need so straightforward a propaganda against any kind of idealism? Do we need to be persuaded with such tools to be happy with our cynical consumerism? Do we really need to be convinced once and again that our socially and ecologically irresponsible behaviour and apathy are innocuous and SO MUCH BETTER than any organized effort to make things better. How is this kind of propaganda different from the 'totalitarian' one?
Stalin, an idealist who wanted human happines?
'Robespierre, the first man in history who believed that the road to virtue did not lead throught the persuation, but through the terror' How can any historian appear in a docudrama that says THAT NONSENSE???? Oh yeah, have no one ever hear of the religious conflicts in Early Modern Europe? Ok, if you accept torture as persuasion, then what they say might be true :-)

My feelings on the matter are as follows:

A funny point in the midst of a painful experience: it is really an interesting sign of intercultural misunderstanding, rather typical for the last couple of decades of depicting the revolutionnaries, to interpret the virtue and 'puritanism' as negative attitude towards alcohol and sex. These are the obsessions of other parts of the world and other periods, I am afraid. Virtue meant a very different, more political and social-relational thing in the French Enlightenment than a condamnation of alcohol and aVictorian spinster's idea of decency :-) In times when cultural history is a booming field, such deep misunderstanding is hardly acceptable in a serious docudment of a prestigious public TV channel.S.

So if you are a man from province, you are not 'big enough' to govern well. You may try hard, but it just does not work. Dear Mr.Andress, as I suppose you are not entitled to the proud title of citizen being subject of a Queen, that is the point of the French Revolution you seem to miss: to part with the idea that only men from certain families with silly names, with a particular silly accent or with a lot of money to make other people forget about the lack of the previously mentionned characteristics are entitled to govern, meanwhiles those who cannot put a '-' between two surnames or provide a monstruous stone mansion in the coutryside can only aspire to be HISTORIANS :)

Seconded x1000.

Thank you for mentioning that. This is one of the things that bothers me the most about treatments of the Revolution in the English speaking world, and almost all of them are guilty of it.

My fury will never be lessened. :(

I can't force myself to watch it; I'm afraid my brain would implode. But based on what I've heard, I feel the same. D:

You'd probably know better than I do: does not Schama manipulate his favourite St.Just's quote by saying 'The Republic constist in the extermination of all who oppose it' instead of 'all WHAT opposes it'?

I forced myself to watch and had to repeatedly take breaks. It was that horrible, and even then i wasn't paying much attention. I think I was more interested in the emo St. Just, which kept blowing my mind over and over. I have no words for this program..I'm appalled

and i nearly wanted to throw the laptop (which isn't mine btw) into the wall when i heard old Schama crack, HOW HE WANTED TO BE THERE ON 9th THERMIDOR!

>.>

Andress bothers me. He gets a lot of praise simply for not being a revisionist, which, I'm sorry to say, does not in itself a good historian make. I read his entry in the book of the Rouen colloquium on the Terror and I wasn't impressed. He spends far too much time (especially for a 10 page essay) making sure that no one could possibly construe his analysis as a justification and not enough actually making his analysis, takes a condescending tone toward the Revolutionaries and frequently his fellow historians as well, implies against all evidence that every power that claimed to represent the State was actually under the direct control of the Convention, if not the CSP (as if they could have had that much control even if they wanted it!) and - in a French essay in a book of French essays - a sizable majority of his sources are English!

By the way, when I speak of Andress's condescension, I mean it principally in the way you point out in this comment: of the "of course they didn't know what they were doing, they shouldn't have meddled in affairs of state" variety.

I believe so, but I'd have to check the reference...

I'm thinking of watching it without sound. I should be able to appreciate the utter failure of emo!Saint-Just that way without having to subject myself to all the blather.

Even watching it on mute is painful. And Robespierre's signature never looked anything like that. Considering how much people make of Robespierre's handwriting, you would think they wouldn't miss a chance to use it to make him look bad in some way.

That's a good idea, I just listened to it, and hardly watched it except putting random music to the program. Only to see what was going on, and at some weird point, i got lost @_@ I was like WTF?

Then i had to go back and figure out what was going on. It's still painful..knowing it exists..and knowing how emo St.Just is -_- I couldn't believe that was HIM!

It gets worse!
1) the Law of Prairial introduced thought-crime to the European history? The idea of a sin by thought is a bit older, I would say. And many people has been killed, tortured or expelled from their homes before the FR for what they thought in Europe. Any chıld who ever had Medieval and Early Modern History lectures in school should know that. BBC, what has happened to you?
2) OK, mister Andress aka serious historian of the 21st century: since May 1794, R, SJ and C executed people due to their personal paranoia. How sophisticated interpretation of history...Poor students at Portsmouth is this is the level of scholarship they get from their teachers :-o

Is Zizek on cocaine?

Yes:

too much if you ask me. Are you sure it isn't crack? xd

I think it's cocaine, he keeps touching his nose.
However, Schama does not need either cocaine or crack to talk nonsense and the same is true about the document's authors. Mixing the images - in this case those of Robespierre with those of Stalin, or those of a early 20th century movie on French revolution with the Khmers rouges, Cuban or Iranian revolution- is a classical tool of any propaganda and was used by the bolsheviks and Goebbels. The people who speak in this docudrama have their mouth full of liberty, persuasion (without thinking that the success mainly depends on who is in position to persuade efficiently and who not) and "loyal opposition", but the movie practises the accusation by association in a very similar way that the propaganda of those they criticize...
Et Mantel, elle est insupportable...All the crap she talks about Camille as the last bound of Robespierre with his childhood - What about his brother who, as she might know, died on thermidor 10th? All the silly comments as "Child, sit down!" - Oh yes, a very reasonable and honest way of discussing with people is to oppose their arguments by remarks on their age. Dear Hilary, I am really not much interested whether G. W. Bush was an alcoholic or not or if he killed chicken for pleasure when he was eight. For understanding history it is much more interesting to analyze why the people of a free, democratic country voted for him for second time after his government attacked another country and started a war based on a bunch of lies and false evidence. But it seems less dangerous to talk about the chicken...

oh yeah! He does doesn't he? XD he sounded way toooo excited...(unless he had the sniffles xD but i doubt that..xD)

Yeah Schama just yapped nonsense and now i'm scared that i'll have nightmares about him. It was nonsense. I know, they kind of ignore his brother..I have no idea why they did, because he did join Robespierre. Yeah don't ask me about Bush, we're just too stupid I'm afraid. I wasn't old enough vote..>.> nor would i voted for Bush.

Like it's been said..that docudrama was ridiculous and what did it accomplish? Nothing. Nothing at all but adding more nonsense. Like i said, i got lost and even viewing it for a 2nd time doesn't help. Why do they IGNORE his brother who was in Paris with him and was even elected to the Convention? It's like Robespierre was an only child or something..

>.>
yeah.

I hate this show..i wasted an hour of my life i'm afraid on something stupid.

I did not mean to open a debate on Bush after suffering through the docudrama, we won't be so masochist, will we? :-) I just tried to argument that the way Mantel makes everything personal is not only ridiculous, but also politically irrelevant.

Yeah i know xD Yeah lets not be masochist xD I have no idea, she has nothing better to do than make it personal.

xD

It's okay. Totally okay xD I don't like pain..xD

Well done! Let's hope everyone who watched the document on youtube will read your comment.S.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 4

TERROR, on YOUTUBE!

no subject

no subject

no subject

Andress's classism

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Andress's classism

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Andress's classism

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Great comments of Victoriavandal on youtube