Revolution Review: Part One, The French Revolution

He looks remarkably calm for someone whose head had just been Lopped off.

We all know we can go to reviewers for opinions on whether a movie is worth seeing or an album is worth buying don’t we? And critics play an informative role in our interpretations of contemporary art (without them no-one would be able to work out whether a piece of gum stuck to the ground in a gallery is a work or not). This reliance on critics is somewhat problematic in that the scope of their reviewed material is somewhat limited. A critic never evaluated whether or not you might like the revolution, there’s a lot of tomes out there containing in depth analysis of the revolution, but in this post-modern age of fragmentation and instant gratification picking up such a tome without first knowing whether you’re going to like the revolution or not isn’t something many people are likely to do.

This series of posts is inspired by the format of film reviews but deals with the subject of revolutions, its tongue in cheek and will probably tend to be simplistic and general, but that’s ok for the sake of satire.

Like a film review there will be Criteria:

Context will evaluate how interesting the social cultural and historic context of the revolution and how well the revolution was timed as a means of alleviating tensions associated with the context, Plot will evaluate the progression of the revolution in terms of key moments, uprisings, battles riots and wars,  the characters will be evaluated in terms of individuality, memorability and interest, and the quality of the imagery and iconography associated with the revolutionary ideals will be evaluated.

Revolution Review: France

Have you ever been frustrated by aristocratic characters in Books and films that enjoy wealthy power and privilege without seeming to work at all? Do you sometimes find yourself wishing that Characters like Emma Woodhouse (from Jane Austen’s Emma) would be killed in  violent peasant uprisings? Do you hate oppression and wish for an enlightened means of achieving Liberty, Equality and Fraternity? If so then you might want to check out the French Revolution.

Some would say that the French Revolution was history’s first true revolution.

Yes that’s right, I know the American Revolution happened first, but it’s not really a proper revolution is it? They didn’t rise against a deeply ingrained and oppressive social order, they simply had a different idea to how the new world should be run so they had a bit of a tiff over tea and embarked on what has been described by Oscar Wilde as ‘The greatest social experiment ever undertaken.’

The French revolution was, for want of better words, very different. It was a bloody period filled with mass executions, massacres, assassinations, a lot (and I mean a lot) of political clubs, and conflicting outlandish radical ideologies.

Context:

The Nobility and Clergy look shocked as the Third Estate break their chains.

The old social order in France consisted of three distinct groups or estates. The esteem of the estates was closely tied to their association with god. Preceding 1789 France’s government was strongly influenced by religion. Their monarch, Louis XVI, ruled by divine right and all power political or otherwise came from god.

As such the first of the three Estates was the Clergy (or church) ranging from upper echelon members of the Catholic Church to lowly parish priests.

The Second Estate was the Nobility who, try as we might, no-one can actually ascertain their pragmatic function. They were nominally involved in politics which preceding the revolution was pretty much just a matter of nodding and smiling and generally agreeing with whatever whimsical notion the king may have come up with.

The Third Estate was everyone else and comprised the vast majority of the population; they ranged from peasants through to craftsmen up to lawyers and wealthy merchants. The upper Third Estate became known as the Bourgeoisie and while these people enjoyed affluence greater than some of the nobility they could not wield political power within the constraints of the old regime. They felt rather narky about this and an atmosphere of malcontent descended upon France.

The French revolution is perfectly contextually placed and the radical and symbolic acts are timed perfectly so as to sate the dissatisfaction of the proletariat at the most tense and dramatic moment possible. Disappointingly However, the economic factors that contributed to the French revolution are complex and economically inaccessible which leads to confusion in the early stages, the Compte Rendu is not blockbuster material.

Four stars

Plot:

One of the many poor people who lost aquaintance with their head throughout the Terror

This is where the French revolution really shines. The French revolution is spattered with iconic events that build tension and express the sentiments of the downtrodden proletariat with sublime nuance and brilliance of execution. Moments such as the Tennis Court Oath, the Capture and destruction of the Bastille, the execution of Louis XVI, the assassination of Marat are revolutionary genius. The only qualm one can have with the plot of the French revolution is the waning of intellectual intrigue throughout the period popularly known as The Reign of Terror this period can be slightly numbing, as images of guillotines beheadings and massacres tend to lose potency through repetition, the period lacks dynamic and focus as it consists almost solely of accusations and executions in a repetitive cycle. This period, however, is brief and can be tolerated, especially considering its appeal to a younger demographic. Concerned individuals may like to tune out any information pertaining to Robespierre’s execution, the bit about him trying to kill himself but missing and instead shooting his jaw off is rather disturbing and perhaps was overkill on behalf of the revolutionaries.

The ideological journey of the French Revolution is fascinating and is visually stunning in its delivery (Jacques Louis David’s portrayal of the Tennis Court Oath is flawless in its stylised realism) and also very witty and fresh (the use of the Pamphlet War as a means of communicating ideology was a stunning and interesting was of quickly communicating key points). Sadly however the culminate moments of the revolution are rather disappointing as the Thermidorian reaction to Jacobin radicalism led to the reestablishment of royalist conservatism and eventually Napoleon was instated as emperor, so in many ways France ended up where it came from.

Three and a half stars.

Characters:

The French revolution has some of the most memorable characters of any revolution.

Including:

Possibly one of the most amazing hook noses in history

The Philosophes of the enlightenment period: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Voltaire. Intellectual men who embodied ideas of rationalism and objective contemplation and proposed pioneering models of democracy. Unfortunately some of these ideas were used as the racist justification of colonialism as is was suggested that despotism could be justified by a hot climate. Don’t ask me how that makes sense, sometimes people will believe what they want to believe.

Early revolutionary leaders such as Lafayette are important as their enlightened reformation of France into a constitutional monarchy serves as a point of reference for the ridiculous radicalism of the later stages of the revolution. A brilliant plot device here as the juxtaposition of these elements serves as an illustration of the excesses of the revolution.

The Popular Movement is probably the best Mob in any of the revolutions that I know of, renown for not wearing pants and liable to kill anyone who stood in their way, they weer a force to be reckoned with.

Danton, the most dramatic name in the French Revolution.

The Girondins who were a group of loosely-affiliated individuals rather than an organized political party with a clear ideology. This political group serves as the devils advocate for the radicalism of the Jacobin endorsed Reign of Terror though their constant conservatism and lack of impassioning ideas or dialogue is draining. Key members included: Pierre Victurnien Vergniaud, Marguerite Élie Guadet, Armand Gensonné, Jean Antoine Lafargue de Grangeneuve and Jean Jay.

The Jacobins are one the real driving force behind the characterisation of the French revolution as their actions serve the purpose of defining people perceptions of the revolution in a holistic sense, when you think of the revolution you think of heavy blades falling through the necks of nobility, we have the Jacobins to thank for that. When considering the Jacobin club one cannot overlook Robespierre, perhaps one of the most misguided political leaders of all time. The terror completely ran away from him and for the most part he was out of control, the public feared the machinery of terror he instated, his political brethren feared him paranoia might turn to them and all political opposition despised his despotism that compromised the fundamental ideals of the Revolution. Needless to say of course he was eventually humiliatingly executed.

The only issue with the characters of the French Revolution is that they are predominantly male and there tends to be an unhealthy lack of romanticism among the revolutionary leaders as they were far more concerned with legislation than brainwashing the masses into believing their political leaders to be godlike. This may have helped the consolidation of the revolution on a practical level but doesn’t help with the development of larger than life memorable characters.

Three stars.

Imagery:

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

The imagery and symbolism of the French Revolution is rich and diverse. The All Seeing Eye (a symbol of enlightenment period thought), the equilateral triangle of equality (The three sides symbolising liberty equality and fraternity), the Bonnet rouge (a tribute the headwear of Grecian slaves) and the Tricolour… and the list goes on. No other revolution could possible hope to rival such diverse iconography.

The period also enjoyed some entertaining and effective propaganda.

Five stars.

Do I think you should get into it?

Definitively yes.

All in all France is a very fulfilling revolution. You name it the French revolution has it: Political intrigue, action, bloodlust, destruction of an imbalanced social order, social egalitarianism, philosophy, war and royal scandal.  This is one revolution this reviewer can recommend without question, check it out today.

Recommended Material:

Basic:

Fenwick and Anderson, Revolution France, HTAV: This book is basically an effective overview of revolutionary events and figures. A good starting point

Advanced:

Simon Schama, Citizens: A chronicle of the French revolution, Penguin books: revisionist historical perspective, lots of focus on details, good as a subsidisation of another text, not one to sit down and read all the way through.

Entertaining:

Mark steel, The Mark Steel Revolution: episode one, the French revolution, BBC: Simply the best lecture on the French revolution I have ever heard.

Reverse Racism?

The most ludicrous term has recently come to prevalence in the collective western vocabulary. It is ‘Reverse Racism‘ a phrase that is applied to the act of a ethnic group who discriminate against or deride a racial majority. The phrase has also been applied to the perceived positive effect of being part of a minority group such as an increase in the likelihood of winning a scholarship (the instances of which have not been clearly quantified). However, this article will discuss the term as it is used in the contemporary Australian context and that is when the phrase is used to describe an ethnic minority discriminating against a majority.

 

Here’s a simplistic worked example demonstrating the perceived difference between racism and reverse racism.

 

Racism: ‘You black folks aren’t allowed on this dance-floor, go somewhere else or we’ll get rough with you.’

 

Reverse Racism: ‘Give up playing the drums now son, you know white people don’t have rhythm.’

 

Any distinction between the two is ridiculous; you can reverse the races and the same derogatory quality remains.

 

Reverse Racism: ‘you white folks aren’t allowed on this dance-floor, go somewhere else or we’ll get rough with you.’

 

Racism: ‘Give up playing the drums now son, you know black people don’t have rhythm.’

 

The implications of the term are terrible in that they suggest that racial discrimination and derision are somehow justified by the oppression a race has suffered in the past. This simply isn’t the case. Racism is defined in a literal sense as: ‘a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others. ‘ There is no limit to which races can be labeled racist when they deride another. In light of this definition it is clear that ‘Reverse Racism‘ is a misnomer that only serves the purpose of deepening rifts between different cultures and ethnic groups by creating a fundamental distinction in acceptable behaviors. Racism can literally propagated against anyone, regardless of their race.

 

You will probably remember in December 2005 there was a series of riots south of Sydney in Cronulla. These riots were initiated by a group of deluded bogans who allowed a few negative instances inform their perspective on an entire race. These nationalistic riots (which were in actuality a bit more like an angry BBQ) were universally condemned by the media and definitively labeled racist. Interestingly when the middle eastern community responded in a similar angry manner where they demeaned the Australian identity and defaced the Australian flag the violence was rationalised in terms of an offended cultural identity and the riots were popularly referred to as ‘Reverse Racist’. I’m not talking about justification for the riots because that has no bearing on the issue at hand, rather I’m talking about the acts perpetrated by both factions throughout the period, all of which can be termed racist. Both instances are terrible occurrences that are affronting to a sense of decency. No faction was better or worse than the other, there is no distinction between what was termed ‘Racism‘ and what was called ‘Reverse Racism.‘

 

The term ‘Reverse Racism‘ effectively suggests that what is OK for one group of people may not be acceptable for another; effectively facilitating segregation. It might have be true that what is OK for for one group of people is not OK for another if one looked at the issue in a more general abstracted sense as many factors (such as cultural context, and age) contribute to acceptable social behavior. However, this issue of racism transcends the subjectivity inherent in the consideration of cultural context, it is a question of moral absolutes. Is racism OK or isn’t it? I think we all realise the answer to that obviously rhetorical question. If it isn’t OK then neither is the term ‘Reverse Racism‘ which dehumanises people and aggravates existing racial tensions.

 

Its probably important for me to say here that, I realise that Caucasian races haven’t suffered throughout history as much as other racial groups and I don’t intend to belittle the achievements and incredible progress that has been made in achieving racial quality universally. What I am saying is merely that the phrase carries some profoundly negative inferences that are probably best left un-inferred.

 

Racism is racism, no prefix changes that.

 

Nails in Mr Turnbull’s Prodigal Coffin

Poor Turnbull he never stood a chance

Malcolm Turnbull’s political demise seems inevitable. There’s only so much shame and humiliation a politician can weather before breaking down into a gibbering heap, giving up politics to write a successful biography driven mainly by dubious defamatory claims about other politicians. (Cough cough Mr. Latham)

Such a judgement might seem premature, however based on observation of publicity and policy such a statement is warranted. Over the last week the Liberal Party has been a centre of profound dissidence, the main point of contention being the proposed compromise between Liberal and Labor on the Emissions Trading Scheme that Turnbull has placed nominal support behind. Such support for the scheme has the Liberal party room divided, Turnbull’s support for this progressive policy has many of the Liberals questioning whether he adequately represents the conservative ideology of the party.

Traditionally Liberals are primarily concerned with economy, actually the use of primary is probably unnecessary as it sort of connotates that they have other concerns, it would probably be more appropriate to say they are only concerned with economic matters, it might seem that they have policies and vested interests outside economics but usually these projects are economically motivated at the core. Whichever angle you look at it Liberal involvement in any sort of project, whether it’s infrastructure or symbolic reconciliatory action, is motivated by economic ramifications.

Turnbull’s support of this scheme flies in the face of this ideology as its application may lead to substantial slow downs in the heavy industry Australia is so reliant on.  While these measures have the potential to effect the way in which society consumes resources, the initial slowdown it has the potential to cause is a sacrifice that many Liberals are not willing to make. This perspective has possibly been exacerbated by the fact that the mining industry was Australia’s saving grace throughout the Global Economic Crisis, consciously slowing the industry down is seen by many as a betrayal of the industry that saved us and has been described by economists as having the potential to ‘jeopardise the solidity of Australia’s economic growth.’

Turnbull’s support of the bill is probably a last ditch attempt to garner environmental credibility for the Liberal party, who in the last decade have become notorious for incredible levels of indifference. Really all his support has achieved is the illustration of the profound flaws in the cohesion and unity of the Liberal party as three Liberal parliamentary secretaries have resigned because of strong objections to the policy, leaving the Liberal front benchers looking rather isolated. Those who haven’t resigned have busied themselves with loudly voicing objections to Turnbull’s actions and the discourse in the Liberal party room increasingly exudes division almost reminiscent of Williamson’s Don’s Party in its triviality and bitterness.

Another of the reasons the dissent from the Liberal party has been so substantial is that Turnbull’s action undermine a fundamental premise of Australian parliamentary politics. Unlike the American system, where a cabinet is built around a politicians ideologies and the candidate for each of the partisans is elected by popular vote, the leaders of Australian political parties are elected by the party members themselves, as such they are expected to espouse the ideology of the party, not vice versa. Turnbull’s actions in regards to the Emissions Trading Scheme were individualistically autonomous and Party members saw this as an attack on an important precedent, especially when Turnbull aggressively challenged party members to try to stand against him. These tensions resulted in a spill vote which came close to deposing Turnbull as leader; even despite there being no clear replacement. Retrospectively Joe hockey commented ‘We do not have an emperor who imposes his view without contradiction and without question.’ When asked about the role of a party leader in Australian politics.

Liberal politicians oppose the scheme based on more than mere principal, some see the need for such legislation but, like the greens, believe that the proposed scheme is heinously flawed in that its basic premise: “By allowing Australian citizens to use cheap government subsidized fuel emissions will be reduced by 40%”. It just doesn’t make sense, but the nuances of the policy are Rudd’s problem and we’re talking about Turnbull.

This instance of political tension and instability in the Liberal party alone is not enough to base a prediction of the fall of a leader on, but it is just one of many fiascos that Turnbull has been involved in, the supposed Ute-Gate scandal, in which Turnbull displayed the extent to which he plays the partisan game by calling for Rudd’s resignation based on documents that turned out to be forgeries, is perhaps the best example of another crippling political failure on Turnbull’s behalf.

Turnbull is not a man with conviction, his support for this legislation is damaging to its perception in the public eye as association with party politics and discord in the Liberal party room taints the perceived general benevolence of such environmental measures.  Turnbull doesn’t seem to care about the effect of his actions on public and parliamentary reception of these policies, he is simply concerned with maintaining a progressive enough façade so he can remain competitive in Australian politics.  He effectively treats politics as a game to be won; not a means of affecting positive reform.

A front bench that looks like an unsuccessful game of leap frog, stagnant and outdated policies that no-one can agree on, repackaged rhetoric. What a wonderful treasure trove it is that Turnbull has hoarded for himself.

Maybe Turnbull should pay a Latham a visit; perhaps he could put him in touch with his publisher.