Well, there goes my point on Robespierre's age at death. XD;
Oh, for people who's job it is to write about the Revolution, it's absolutely inexcusable. But for everyone else, I understand the temptation not to think about it, or to, as you put it, want the candy without the tooth-rotting. And that's the problem, I hate it because it makes it so difficult to convince them to consider the Revolution and especially figures like Robespierre in a more critical fashion, but I understand why they want to cling to it. It's so much easier, after all, to accept the narratives you're given; to praise the early Revolution and unequivocally condemn the Terror.
People who have essentially been corrupted by the comforts of their elevated place in society make use of this too, of course; not everyone who says "I'll have the Revolution without the violence, please" is in good faith but merely lazy. It's fairly easy to use that view as a cover.
All this is not to say that the opposite view is exactly ideal either. I mean, I would hardly agree with I-can't-remember-which-reactionary, who claimed that if we want the Declaration of Rights, we must also be willing to drink the (probably apochryphal) glass of blood with Mlle Sombreuil. But surely there arne many happy mediums between the two. (Even if it remains almost impossible to even begin a rational conversation on the subject, even with otherwise rational people. People tend to shut down the moment they here "Terror" or "Robespierre" or even just "French Revolution" in general. It's a shame.)
The Freudian analysis of Robespierre is truly what made me hate the use of Freud in history. (Well, that and Lynn Hunt's argument that in executing the king, the revolutionaries were just following the script of Totem and Taboo.)
I love Robespierre's notion of surveillance. I think we need more of it. All surveillance is not equivalent, after all: with Fouché's variety you get a police state; with Robespierre's you get democracy, as it should operate.
As for some people's notions of "freedom"... That's a whole other rant.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: Saturday, 29 May 2010 05:31 (UTC)Oh, for people who's job it is to write about the Revolution, it's absolutely inexcusable. But for everyone else, I understand the temptation not to think about it, or to, as you put it, want the candy without the tooth-rotting. And that's the problem, I hate it because it makes it so difficult to convince them to consider the Revolution and especially figures like Robespierre in a more critical fashion, but I understand why they want to cling to it. It's so much easier, after all, to accept the narratives you're given; to praise the early Revolution and unequivocally condemn the Terror.
People who have essentially been corrupted by the comforts of their elevated place in society make use of this too, of course; not everyone who says "I'll have the Revolution without the violence, please" is in good faith but merely lazy. It's fairly easy to use that view as a cover.
All this is not to say that the opposite view is exactly ideal either. I mean, I would hardly agree with I-can't-remember-which-reactionary, who claimed that if we want the Declaration of Rights, we must also be willing to drink the (probably apochryphal) glass of blood with Mlle Sombreuil. But surely there arne many happy mediums between the two. (Even if it remains almost impossible to even begin a rational conversation on the subject, even with otherwise rational people. People tend to shut down the moment they here "Terror" or "Robespierre" or even just "French Revolution" in general. It's a shame.)
The Freudian analysis of Robespierre is truly what made me hate the use of Freud in history. (Well, that and Lynn Hunt's argument that in executing the king, the revolutionaries were just following the script of Totem and Taboo.)
I love Robespierre's notion of surveillance. I think we need more of it. All surveillance is not equivalent, after all: with Fouché's variety you get a police state; with Robespierre's you get democracy, as it should operate.
As for some people's notions of "freedom"... That's a whole other rant.