|
Rumda posted:You'll probably not be first but definitely up against the wall in that first week If by that you mean "in one of the middle rows in the revolutionary death coaster."
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
he's just a standard gen x centrist nerd, nothing to see here
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
aardwolf posted:I'm really good at saying "he's just a quiet, harmless fellow" with a straight face so please don't liquidate or reduce me :( I imagine some sort of revolution is inevitable but I suspect I would probably be zapped or splatted with all the other rich people* fairly early on. Given that it is inevitable, I see no sense in harbouring any romantic notions about it, and instead amuse myself by speculating how it could be handled most efficiently. * By global standards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
The revolution will happen, and then it will descend into the same backbiting and settling accounts and dictatorship and corruption as every single other time the revolution happens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:The revolution will happen, and then it will descend into the same backbiting and settling accounts and dictatorship and corruption as every single other time the revolution happens. That didn’t happen in the United States? Wait corruption poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
Wasn't being broken on a wheel* a common execution method before the guillotine? *They break your arms and legs in several places and then thread them through the spokes of a wheel and raise that wheel on a pole where you spend the next few hours or days dying from shock as the crows eat your flesh. If you're lucky they smash your head in first so you're probably not conscious for the really nasty part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
Not unless they were making an example of you no.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
Yeah the more gruesome types of execution like that were generally saved for heinous crimes like treason or the equivalent. Even then, particularly for the noble class, it would often be commuted to just being beheaded. Actual drawing and quartering, breaking on the wheel type punishments were by far the exception rather than the rule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
Victorians in particular like to invent fictional medieval execution and torture devices, then show them off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I imagine some sort of revolution is inevitable but I suspect I would probably be zapped or splatted with all the other rich people* fairly early on. Given that it is inevitable, I see no sense in harbouring any romantic notions about it, and instead amuse myself by speculating how it could be handled most efficiently. This guy gets it. He’ll be seated at the back of the revolutionary death coaster, the funnest seat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:The revolution will happen, and then it will descend into the same backbiting and settling accounts and dictatorship and corruption as every single other time the revolution happens. god forbid the us become a corrupted dictatorship run by backbiting morons
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Victorians in particular like to invent fictional medieval execution and torture devices, then show them off. This seems to have lead to a lot of confusion and disappointment but also some funny Vincent Price type movie props so eh
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
aardwolf posted:P.S my brother works with Goodwill and can help you dispose of all those tiny shoes ...never worn 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
Mister Mind posted:...never worn 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 07:11
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Wasn't being broken on a wheel* a common execution method before the guillotine? CharlestheHammer posted:That didn’t happen in the United States?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 07:37
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Victorians in particular like to invent fictional medieval execution and torture devices, then show them off. The Victorians were a reeaaal hosed up bunch by all accounts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 07:40
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Lol someone is insanely mad, some leftist on twitter make fun of you or something Edgar Allen Ho posted:You have certainly owned all the 18th-century revolutionaries posting here, as well as the modern people who genuinely believe that mass guillotine executions are imminent. Rumda posted:You'll probably not be first but definitely up against the wall in that first week hawowanlawow posted:he's just a standard gen x centrist nerd, nothing to see here turn on your monitors.  The September Massacres in 1792 (a year before the Reign of Terror) also mainly killed, wait for it, wait for it, common criminals, prostitutes and thieves, who had the misfortune of being in jail when a enemy army was marching towards Paris, the justification being that their lack of moral virtue would make them likely to work for the counter-revolutionaries, and that the public believed they were just waiting for a chance to break out from the prisons to attack the "good citizenry." Of the 1,400 or so executed, 230-some were clergy, around 100 were Swiss mercenaries who were waiting to be deported IIRC, several dozen children, and perhaps 250 nobles at the upper extent, including that one woman in the pike comic by Kate Beaton.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 07:44
|
|
|
Then maybe they shouldn't have been so oppressive if they didn't want a bloody revolution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 07:56
|
|
|
Or been better at it. Or had more circuses. You have to be missing on all cylinders
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 08:41
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Then maybe they shouldn't have been so oppressive if they didn't want a bloody revolution. No no, this was the Paris Commune and the National Guard (plus some mobs) doing the killings. The Ancien Regime had ceased to exist in 1789, and Louis XVI had mostly been relegated to a figurehead with some marginal powers. And in mid-1791 he'd attempted to flee the country but was recaptured and placed under house arrest, shortly after which the monarchy was abolished entirely. He wouldn't be executed until several months later in early 1793. The "reign of terror" was, to use a more modern/relatable analogy, Stalin going after the Old Bolsheviks and the military purges in the 30s. But because so much was going on in the French Revolution, years of stuff gets condensed down to Food Shortages > Bastille > Reign of Terror > Napoleon > Victor Hugo, and you miss out on all the interesting stuff like how one of the figureheads of the early revolution (the comte de Mirabeau) secretly working as a consultant for the king (he died of natural causes and was buried a national hero) or that when the Bastille was stormed it only housed a few criminals, a couple mentally disturbed people, and a nobleman who'd apparently been accused of incest and arrested as part of a conspiracy by his family to steal his property and money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 08:59
|
|
|
Meanwhile, Charles de Talleyrand managed to stay on as foreign minister all the way through the Revolution, the Directorate, Napoleon, the Restoration, and the 1830 Revolution. Dude had an insane talent for switching sides just at the right time to end up on the winning side.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 09:56
|
|
|
Kinda reminds me of Adolf Heusinger, a German career soldier who served in the German Empire, the Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, West Germany and even had a stint as chairman of the NATO military committee in the early 60s, although I guess he didn’t so much switch sides as make himself indispensable instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 10:02
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:No no, this was the Paris Commune and the National Guard (plus some mobs) doing the killings. The Ancien Regime had ceased to exist in 1789, and Louis XVI had mostly been relegated to a figurehead with some marginal powers. And in mid-1791 he'd attempted to flee the country but was recaptured and placed under house arrest, shortly after which the monarchy was abolished entirely. He wouldn't be executed until several months later in early 1793. Apparently the average height of those who stormed the Bastille was only around five foot. Malnutrition is a hell of a thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 10:23
|
|
|
All this discussion does is proves just how great the French Revolution was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 11:34
|
|
|
Also those Swiss guard were the remainder of a force of five hundred that had fought a fairly bloody battle with the revolutionary national guardsmen, they were probably boned no matter what The French Revolution was extremely good and the various excesses of the terror seem like they were typically in response to perceived real existential threats by the mob or were, like killing the king, borderline necessary I've been listening to Mike Duncan's Revolutions on the Revolution and while I think his historiography is pretty Liberal in a bad way he gets the details right
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 13:22
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:Also those Swiss guard were the remainder of a force of five hundred that had fought a fairly bloody battle with the revolutionary national guardsmen, they were probably boned no matter what What makes you say his historiography is Liberal in a bad way? I'm no historian so I would like to hear why you think so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 14:21
|
|
|
I remember when he was talking about Frances attempt to go more free market approach to selling bread. he said that it failed because of bad timing that a famine happened at around the time the policy was introduced which is a weird opinion as time really wouldn’t have changed much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 14:31
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:The Victorians were a reeaaal hosed up bunch by all accounts. When you surpress sexual urges I guess it has to come out somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 14:37
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:What makes you say his historiography is Liberal in a bad way? I'm no historian so I would like to hear why you think so. I'm not really a historian but I did do my master's in history which involved some historiography classes, which often emphasize being aware of the degree to which you reify or perpetuate social discourses when you report on even ostensibly objective historical narratives. Like another poster alluded to, he has a tendency in revolutions to essentially accept socioeconomic truisms emanating from late-19th and 20th century interpretations of the French revolution as something that went off the rails when its Liberal ethos embodied by noble reformers like Lafayette was overtaken by the Paris communes and their implementation of a more "radical" agenda. This manifests itself in a few ways, mostly things like unsophisticated acceptance of things like intentionality or possible economic consequences of market reform - bread is a good example. He talks about the notion that lifting price controls on bread would have the effect of leveling the market and thus making it more affordable even though the country was in the midst of a crisis that diminished the harvest and drove the price of grain up considerably, and so even within the context of price controls the average Parisian was spending the majority of their wages on just bread, the most basic staple. He acknowledges that, but always qualifies the poo poo out of it by treating the Parisian commune as a baying mob unable to take a macroscopic view like the enlightenment nobles. He also really downplays the basic brutality of the ancien regime while taking time to emphasize the (admittedly accurate) brutality of the revolutionary cadres. The ancien regime was unbelievably cruel and absurd, but he glosses over the context that produced the radical reformers and instead focuses on the intellectual mileu that created the philosophes and other enlightenment thinkers. I specifically studied them a lot for my thesis in intellectual history and while I'm a big fan, actually, of Hume and Rousseau at one point he talks about how Hume was his favorite social thinker because bland Liberal positivism is more likely to effect change then revolution, which I felt was really bizarre coming from a guy doing a podcast on the most significant revolution in history. I could go on but basically he is so immersed in a relatively orthodox Liberal historiographic discourse that it comes out unconsciously (and sometimes explicitly) in his interpretations of subjective events. A Marxist doing the same podcast would cover the exact same events, even with similar intepretations, but with a critical acknowledgement of detail and subtlety I think Duncan sometimes misses. That all being said he's clearly not into political philosophy so much as he's into teaching history so its sort of understandable but in many ways I think he just has a somewhat unsophisticated perspective
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 15:06
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:I think he just has a somewhat unsophisticated perspective This is probably true, and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. Duncan's simple and easy-to-digest approach to relating the history is what drew me in and kept me paying attention. It got me interested in the French Revolution at all. If he had talked about it on the academic level that you studied it, I probably would've tuned out early because the French Revolution was a giant black hole of ignorance for me and that poo poo would've gone straight over my head.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:[...] being aware of the degree to which you reify or perpetuate social discourses when you report on even ostensibly objective historical narratives. [...] No offense, but I'll stick with Mike Duncan, thanks very much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Zopotantor posted:No offense, but I'll stick with Mike Duncan, thanks very much. I don’t think anyone was saying you shouldn’t? Just be aware of his biases. He doesn’t give you actively wrong info just know what he says is not objective truth. Mike has flaws that does not make him unlistenable. In conclusion don’t be so defensive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
Yeah I don't wanna trash Duncan cus he's ultimately a very good explainer, better than many other popular historians, articulate, succinct, and mostly accurate but it's good to be aware of where the historical narrative he's relating comes from, because it certainly reflects his predisposition towards the enlightenment and it's exponents but I think he might deny that Either way I still recommend it to people all the time because my little quibbles with his narrative crafting having certain historiographic issues is meaningless compared to the utility of having interesting non insane, non fascist popular history Ed: more concretely when I say historigraphic stuff I don't just mean weird rhetorical postmodern nuance. A good example is "what caused the Pueblo revolt of 1680", a great book that relays exactly the same objective narrative from three perspectives surrounding a native revolt against Spanish rule. It's written for a popular audience if you want to find it online Less for a popular audience but one of the most important academic works in interpretative historiographic analysis is History in Three Keys, which uses three separate discourses to outline three academically distinct methods of interpreting the Boxer rebellion. It is a life-changingly well-written book and if you only read one history book a year (or decade), read History in Three Keys https://www.amazon.com/History-Three-Keys-Boxers-Experience/dp/0231106513 Frog Act has a new favorite as of 20:15 on Oct 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
to be fair Duncan is radicalizing him self slow over the course of revolutions just look at the essay from last week compared to the actual coverage of events of the end of the porfiriato
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
Lafayette should have taken the military dictatorship when they offered it to him. e: as long as the king still died Grem has a new favorite as of 06:31 on Oct 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
Rumda posted:to be fair Duncan is radicalizing him self slow over the course of revolutions just look at the essay from last week compared to the actual coverage of events of the end of the porfiriato The only proper conclusion to the podcast would be for Mike Duncan to overthrow a government during a live episode
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 08:04
|
|
|
Zopotantor posted:No offense, but I'll stick with Mike Duncan, thanks very much. We have a loose cultural discourse here on SA about goons being awful but goon groups in video games being astonishing and cool (even if in some games the goon guild is actually mediocre at best). This gets reified (or made from abstract to concrete) by people founding goon groups or creating Discords for new games that come out, and perpetuated when people bitch about loving pubbies, or indeed refer to each other as goons. Similarly, many somewhat-older people have reflex hate of "those loving goons" from antics undertaken fifteen years ago, or in EVE, and extend this to the goon group in other games, even when no actual trolling, raiding or whatever occurs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 08:46
|
|
|
CommunityEdition posted:The only proper conclusion to the podcast would be for Mike Duncan to overthrow a government during a live episode Don't spoil the ending!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 08:48
|
|
|
CommunityEdition posted:The only proper conclusion to the podcast would be for Mike Duncan to overthrow a government during a live episode Really you think a guy versed in Roman and revolutionary history, currently in self imposed exile in France may lead a revolution. Who ever would link those trait together?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 12:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
sigh
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 13:42
|
|