#this is not about 18c or frev specifically

[frevandrest]

Understanding 18th Century

There's a prevailing problem I've noticed in interpreting frev: people not really understanding that this was 18th century. Oh, they understand it on an intellectual level, but they still apply today's worldview to it. And you can't do that if you wish to understand wtf was going on.

(This is not about anyone here nor a shade at anyone in particular. Just a trend I've noticed, especially in bad takes).

All historical periods have this problem where people interpret things from the point of view of our own time. So that's hardly special about frev and 18c. But a tricky part is that 18c saw the development of things that we still use today (constitutions, voting system, etc.) that it may seem like it's more similar to our world than it actually was.

For example. The voting system. They had it and so do we. Except they were assholes who didn't allow women to vote. (Which is fair criticism, but people often forget that not all men had the right to vote either - so any criticism of exclusion should take that into account. Was it really about women per se, or about their ideas on who can and cannot make a free and rational vote? What is that they saw wrong about women and certain men voting? - Their attitude sure sucks, but if we ask these questions we understand better what was going on vs just going "sexist men", which only explains part of the issue). Or: journalism. They had political slander and so do we. But uuugh, their slander was so openly personal and often ridiculed someone's looks/sexual practices in supposedly serious political attacks - wtf was that? Or: trials. Of course we all know how trials are supposed to be done and what kind of arguments/evidence they should include. The fact they focused so much on character slander is incorrect and ridiculous, and...

Stop. Instead of assuming that they "did it incorrectly", think about: 1) how we do these things today is a product of decades/centuries of development; they didn't have that. They were only inventing it for the first time. 2) They did stuff according to their cultural beliefs. If they focused so much on character assassination as an argument, it means it was significant for their worldview.

You might not like it (and fair enough) but it's not possible to understand what was going on unless we understand how they thought and what they knew and what their worldview was. Which is not easy. It's not simply about knowing the state of scientific thought or what they believed about the world. Understanding how this affected the way they thought and how they interpreted things, or how they build meaning and conclusions - none of that is easy. But we have to question our assumptions, even if we're unable to see things from their pov. Because that's the only way not to arrive at wrong conclusions.

Similarly, many terms what they used had a different meaning to how they are used today (or, at least, they were understood in ways dissimilar to how we use them). Concepts such as despotism, tyranny, dictator, terror; also some seemingly easy to understand terms like "being a moderate" or even "patriotism". If we assume 18th century people used them in the same way that we do, we won't be able to understand wtf they are talking about.

#this is not about 18c or frev specifically #but it's a good example #many bad takes about frev include this lack of understanding #coupled with interpreting past with present #and it's bad #and hey it's not just about frev #royalism too #like i am not a fan of louis or marie antoinette but their actions too have to be interpreted from 18th century worldview #like of course they did stuff that they did #they fought for what they believed in their souls was the truth #natural hierarchies aming humans and the monarch's right to rule etc. #and many of people - not just rich and powerful- also believed that #i don't think any of that is good but it was a worldview they operated under #so to understand their actions we need to know that #or anyone's action #not to excuse it but to understand wtf was going on #because applying our understanding cannot explain it #frev #french revolution

[frevandrest]

Hiii, I read your post about Olympe de Gouges and It opened me a world since everything I was told in school was basically what you say is wrong. Why was she actually executed? Do you know anything I could read to know more about the metter and her figure in general?

Okay, so de Gouges is not my expertise - if anyone knows good sources on her, please let us know.

But I do know she was executed for her political writings about the how the revolution should continue, organization of government, etc. and not for her feminist writings (yes, feminist writings are political, but I will separate them for clarity). She was targeted for things that were deemed royalist sympathizing - disagreeing with the execution of Louis XVI, supporting constitutional monarchy and I believe some things that were deemed pro-Marie Antoinette. We can say bullshit (or if true, does someone deserves to die for that?) - but it opens up wider questions about frev trials in general and political in-fighting (not just Montagnard vs Girondin). But the point is, Girondin men also died for the same reasons as de Gouges.

So, it was not about her "Declaration of the Woman and the Citizeness" or any other specifically proto-feminist writing. She was tried as a Girondin sympathizer (ironically, though morbidly, in an equal way with men)* - this was a push against Girondins, and it mostly targeted men. *She did warn about the inequality of that - a woman can be tried and executed as a man even though she doesn't have his political rights (as in, if a woman doesn't have political rights, then she shouldn't be held responsible and executed for political things).

So it wasn't about feminism (let alone abolitionism). But! - it's not like the whole thing was devoid of general 18c sexism (or, well, timeless sexism that's not just 18c). The way she was talked about or criticized, often had a sexist dimension, because she was a woman and was attacked as a woman. This speaks about general sexism in the society more than her writing or feminism (or even innocence). Marie Antoinette was often ridiculed in sexist (and homophobic) ways, which does not make her a feminist (and she was also guilty af of counter-revolutionary things). But this is something that should be said about de Gouges or, generally, about women at the time - they were subjected to sexism and sometimes dismissed in sexist ways. Madame Roland understood that really well, and she tried defending herself as a proper woman who never deviated from her domestic roles, despite of the fact that she was super influential politically (more than any other woman of the time, and more than de Gouges - Mme Roland participated in high politics even though women did not formally had equal political rights - but she participated informally, and was very influential, more than many men). Sexism, was, sadly, a convenient excuse to use whenever possible, and definitely not something that only Montagnards employed (see Condorcet - generally one of the most pro-gender equality men at the time - criticizing working class women who supported Robespierre in sexist + classist terms).

(Another example is the closure of the women's clubs, namely "The Society of Revolutionary Republican Women" - it's often said it happened because revolutionaries were sexists and did not want to allow women to participate in politics. This is not the reason: they closed the clubs because they were deemed politically dangerous at the time (and often more radical than Jacobins lol). But the explanation was, among other things, "well, women should stay at home" - which is not a true reason, but it was easy to use as an excuse, because the culture of 18c was sexist in general).

tl;dr: De Gouges was executed for royalist sympathizing (not that she necessarily was - I don't know enough about her opinions) and for associating herself with Girondins. She was not executed for being a feminist or abolitionist. (She was both, but she was not the only one - especially when it comes to abolitionism; her enemies were too. I would also say that Montagnards also fought for women's' rights although not in the same way, but that's another topic). The point is, feminism (let alone abolitionism) is not why she was put on trial and executed.

#ask #frev #oh and a few more things #i believe de gouges actually distanced herself from girondins at one point #so idk if it would be fair to call her one

[frevandrest]

I liked your reply to the totalitarian question, but what to say to someone who wants a quick answer?

History =/= quick answers lol But ok. The quickest answer is:

I mean, what else to say? Totalitarianism is a product of specific historical, political and societal circumstances. It did not exist in the 18c. It's like asking "what about feudalism in prehistory?" (And I don't mean to trash that anon. Saint-Just's wiki page mentions his totalitarian views so it's not surprising that people are curious).

That being said... Linking French Revolution to 20th century totalitarianism is an ideologically charged take that is relatively common in certain circles, particularly Anglo circles. But it's not about 18th century or the French Revolution, since it didn't exist back then. Numerous experts in frev keep warning against that ahistorical take, but often to no avail.

That not to say that there were no fuckups during frev - there was a lot of mess. But not really in the way it's commonly believed (especially in those Anglo circles), and not in a 20c-21c way. I really wish the popular narrative about frev could focus on stuff that was really going on. And I mean in the negative sense, too.

#ask #anonymous #frev #french revolution

[frevandrest]

Earlier, you claimed that french revolution was not a violent regime, can you explain it?

I never said anything like that; can you please tell me what post you have in mind? It is utterly incorrect to say that there was one regime during frev (violent or not), because the revolution lasted for 10 years, and it saw many different people and different options in charge. So, with frev, we always have to clarify what period (year, or even month in some cases) we are talking about, because things in 1789 are very different than 1791 than 1792 than 1793 etc.

That being said, the revolution was violent. It is not possible to have a revolution without violence; and revolutions are, in general, caused as a reaction to oppression and violence. Just like reactionary violence and counter-revolutions are a result of revolutions. It's ugly, but this is how it happens, and the French revolution was not an exception. It's important to understand that it was a war (wars), and in a very turbulent century (and near the beginning of another - don't forget that what followed chronologically were Napoleonic wars).

I still don't know what post you meant, tho. I don't remember mentioning a "regime" recently. ? The only recent post where I touched upon the subject of violence is this:

Perhaps I didn't word my answer properly. In the post, I said:

"the revolution was definitely not the only time when “murdering one’s own people” happened. It was going on all the time during the Ancient Regime. It was sure happening during Napoleon (periods before and after the revolution). It was happening - and is still happening - in many different societies, time periods, including today’s ones (and including modern Western countries). But when emphasized like it’s on the screenshot, it makes it seem that French revolution was a particularly bloody and ruthless period in history, something that happens only under horrible tyrants (which also serves as a link to Hitler, Stalin, etc.) Through this, it is implied that Robespierre was a spiritual precursor to those things. Which is also incorrect, in more ways than one."

Is this what you mean? I did not wish to imply that the revolution wasn't violent - it was. But it was not some special, never seen before violence that only happens under anomalies (horrible tyrants). The period preceeding the revolution was violent (in part, hunger and deaths are what led to the revolution, but there are also wars, such as the Seven Year war, fought in the generation before frev). The period after the revolution was Napoleonic wars so again, people died (and at much larger scale).

But I guess frev is perceived as very different. (?) It was a war, too - France was at war with half of Europe. And it's a big reason (although not the only one) that led to the civil war at Vendée, because local population rejected military conscription. And this is where most of people died in frev. I know when people mention the "French revolution", the first thought is "guillotine", but most people did not die by guillotine. The most deaths were a direct result of wars (civil war and general). Which yes, was violent in itself, and it has to be recognized and talked about (and also who was responsible, etc.) But it was not a result of Robespierre's tyranny, or, imo, any specific "regime" (because people from different regimes are responsible AND because the chain of command was so weak that it's akin more to anarchy. However, the last line is my opinion so it's def up to discussion- perhaps there is a better way to contextualize it).

In any case, the point is not that frev wasn't violent - it was. The point is that many time periods are, including contemporary ones, and implying that it only happens during horrible dictators and that such a violence is an anomaly (especially for the 18c and early 19c standards) is incorrect. The French revolution was sure specific in many ways, but violence is not not one of those "special characteristics".

#ask #anonymous #french revolution #frev

[frevandrest]

I am sorry if this sounds controversial or offensive, but how true is that saint just had a girlfriend, and if true why do people talk so much about him being gay?

Ok, so prepare for a rant. It is very true that SJ had a girlfriend when he was a teenager. This seems to be well-established. However, this concludes nothing about his sexual orientation, because, in addition to "sexual orientation" not really being a thing in the 18th century, being attracted to one gender doesn't tell us anything about someone's attraction to other genders. This is not about SJ per se - this is, like, a basic understanding of sexuality. Not to mention that what teenagers do and the relationships they form do not always reflect their adult attractions. So no, SJ having a girlfriend as a teen does not prove that he was straight/not gay.

Now, I personally believe that SJ was honestly in love/attracted to Therese but it's my interpretation of the whole thing, just like my interpretation (based on his writing, etc.) is that the dude was not straight, whether he knew that or not. I hope I don't need to explain how both are possible. I am not claiming that I am correct here - I am just saying that this is something that can and should be discussed, if we are at the topic of sexualities (which I think is a valid topic to be talked about).

The thing with SJ is that he was very private and we know next to nothing about his relationships to people in his life (and I don't mean just in terms of romance and sex. I mean in general. For example, we don't know much about his relationship to his sisters, let alone this).

So, what happened in SJ's love and sex life is up to interpretation, and different people will interpret it differently. One's own sexual orientation often plays a role in interpreting this, including straight people (who often can't read clues that are obvious to everyone else). Like idk how else to put this, but it's a product of the "straight as a default" mindset. I often hear a complaint about queer people "thinking everyone is queer even when it's clear there is no proof", but the opposite is more common - straight people assuming everyone is straight AND seeking some deep reasoning/proof to even discuss the possibility of the otherwise.

This is very clear when it comes to frev personalities: many times, even mentioning a possibility of them not being straight is treated as a hostile attack against historical objectivity, as if this is not 18c men we are talking about, who often had sexual experimentations with other boys in boarding schools, or who were known for intense bonds that transcend today's definition of "platonic friendship". Like, if this doesn't warrant at least a discussion of sexuality, sensuality and cultural norms surrounding it, then I don't know what does. Honestly? You can't do serious history while ignoring this stuff.

But nah. So this is why you have people insisting for a proof that SJ (or Robespierre, or whoever) were gay, as if a) you could get something like that in a homophobic culture they lived in; b) you could get something like that from these specific people who did not leave many traces of anything personal and c) as if anything short of, idk, multiple people catching them in flagranti would be deemed a satisfying proof (or not even that?) for this group of people. (As if “being gay” automatically means having sex or is about sex per se). 

The main issue is that straight is seen as default and a normal state of being that everything else is judged through its lens. Yes, heterosexuality is more common, but it is not about statistical probabilities - straight being a default means that even things outside of that are seen conforming to straight ideas (of how gay people are, for example, or what it means to be gay, etc.) Which is 100%, definitely, absolutely NOT how things are in reality. Not today, and not in the 18th century.

#ask #anonymous #frev #french revolution #saint-just #queer history #not against you anon directly #but i am sick of the take 'sj is proven straight because he had a girlfriend' #as if bi people are not the most common among queer groups #and as if sj was a proven womanizer known for many affairs with women #we literally know of one woman #one #and no other potential love interest #which doesn't mean there were no candidates #it's just that sj was very private so no letters or other traces survive #very notably all correspondence with robespierre is missing #all of it except for his first letter when they didn't even know each other #we literally know nothing #so there are only clues left in political writing #and anecdotes about their lives #and what we know happened #which is not much #but at least warrants a discussion #it is a valid theme #once people stop assuming straight as default many things change #and it is a good exercise and approach even if nothing can be concluded #because it allows us to understand this time period and these people better #and also our world too #yes this was a rant

[frevandrest]

Hello! I am currently doing sustained investigations for my AP Art portfolio and I’m thinking about doing it on the contrast of classes and how they felt during the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror, do you have any advice/recommendations?

Hello and sorry for my late reply!

In general, the understanding between classes and what was going on will be most likely found among the Marxist reading of the revolution. I know many people refuse this approach (because commies, ewww) but even if one disagrees with Marxism, the truth is that not (m)any other approaches talk about classes as a distinctive, important factor. (One downside to this approach is that some authors might view "class" in today's understanding of the word, which was not necessarily the same in the late 18th century).

@johnadams, I believe, is more current on specific literature.

One thing that needs to be emphasized is that the French Revolution lasted for 10 years (the most common given dates). The situation in 1789 will not be the same in 1792 will not be the same in 1795. A common misconception about frev is that it was a revolution aimed to simply replace the nobility with a new ruling class (the bourgeoise), and while it might be argued that this was the ultimate result, it was not necessarily the point nor the goal of the revolution - but also, it depends on the part of the society you ask.

There were revolutionaries who did work for the interest of their own class and would get uneasy/unenthusiastic when the revolution tried to push for the rights of the lower classes, especially if it meant taking away some of their power. We see this happening early, with prominent aristocratic revolutionaries who were not eager of commoners taking charge, and then also later when prominent bourgeois revolutionaries were not eager to have sans-culottes push for their rights. The revolution exposes the class struggle in a complex yet obvious way, and those who refuse to view it through this lens miss a lot. Of course the whole thing seems "illogical" if not viewed through the power imbalances and oppression, and the dominant (or one of the dominant) power imbalances in the French society of the late 18c was social standing/"class".

#ask #anonymous