Was the French revolution evil?

[exnihilo]

A lot of answers in this thread are leaving me baffled. Has it ever occurred to anyone here that, without French revolution, there would still be monarchy? That free speech would be a crime, that classism would be far, far worse than today, that liquid society would not exist, that a king - or worse, a mad tyrant - could exploit us without us being able to say a word, unless we wanted to get killed? To all those who claim it brought only evil and so is democracy…watch your tongue. You have been raised in a free country. You do not - and most certainly do not want to - live under a king’s rule. And I am not talking abount Parliament controlled, British monarchy. I am talking real monarchy.

As for the OP…you must always look at things whithin their context. It was heavily anti religion, but that is because the Church often exploited and vexated, directly or indirectly, society’s lower classes. The violence that stemmed from it was most definately wrong, but it did not come out of nowhere.

France doesn’t have free speech and a mad president or parliament can still exploit the people. Tyranny is not exclusive to monarchy. Democracies can be very tyrannical. The great danger in democracy is that every act is justified as having been willed by the people. But for the oppressed individual or group this really makes no difference. This is why communist countries are all democracies.

 

[tafan]

The ideal of the French revolution that “all men are equal” was very good.

CORRUPTIO OPTIMI EST PESSIMA

scribd.com/document/102993346/Belloc-and-Chesterton-Their-Partial-Reflections-on-The-Revolution-in-France

 

[minkymurph]

So, in other words, you use the word “justified” where other people use “good”, the word “unjustified” where other people use “evil”. And you use words “good” and “bad” to denote, um, something…

That seems to be unnecessarily confusing. I’d recommend to use words “good” and “evil” in the way other people use them.

I don’t think I can make it any clearer.

There are lot’s of people who don’t use the terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’ when critically evaluating historical events. My choice and style of writing is not uncommon, but for your sake I would say the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are good principles, use of unnecessary and excessive force, murder of innocents and terror to establish them is bad. Absolute monarchy is bad form of governance. The the principle rule for the people by the people is good.

That seems to be suspiciously unspecific (one would expect Feuillants, Girondists and Montagnards to be pretty unhappy with anything close to suggestion that they shared philosophy and objectives)… At this point I wonder: how is French Revolution described in Irish textbooks…?

I can’t comment as I have never read a description of the French revolution in an ‘Irish textbook.’ Most of what I have read on the French revolution was in the context of political theory as opposed to historical works, none of which were written by Irish authors.

The connection between Ireland and the French revolution is the 1798 rebellion. Historical works that address that period make reference to the French revolution in terms of shared political ideals.

That seems to go a bit too far from the subject…

South Africa was used as an illustration. Concerning the French revolution historians concur It was one of the most significant events in European history, the most momentous event of the revolutionary age and profoundly influenced future revolutions. Thus, the philosophies on which political ideals of French revolutionaries were founded can’t be fully explored if considered in isolation of the major effects they produced.

 

[MPat]

I can’t comment as I have never read a description of the French revolution in an ‘Irish textbook.’ Most of what I have read on the French revolution was in the context of political theory as opposed to historical works, none of which were written by Irish authors.

The connection between Ireland and the French revolution is the 1798 rebellion. Historical works that address that period make reference to the French revolution in terms of shared political ideals.

I guess that does explain you position.

Sure, if you only know that French Revolution has supported the oppressed Irish and what is effectively some of their slogans (and all slogans tend to sound attractively), of course you’ll conclude “How bad can they be?” even after hearing about “Reign of Terror”. And of course you’ll think absolute monarchy is hopelessly terrible if you’ll only read what philosophers thought about it.

So, I can only advise you to read actual history (not only the part about its influence on Ireland). And then you’ll see that the actual “absolute monarchy” wasn’t all that “absolute”, while the actual “Republic” wasn’t all that “democratic”…

 

[minkymurph]

I guess that does explain you position.

Sure, if you only know that French Revolution has supported the oppressed Irish and what is effectively some of their slogans (and all slogans tend to sound attractively), of course you’ll conclude “How bad can they be?” even after hearing about “Reign of Terror”. And of course you’ll think absolute monarchy is hopelessly terrible if you’ll only read what philosophers thought about it.

So, I can only advise you to read actual history (not only the part about its influence on Ireland). And then you’ll see that the actual “absolute monarchy” wasn’t all that “absolute”, while the actual “Republic” wasn’t all that “democratic”…

I can only advise you don’t make unfounded assumptions about people - particularly where the only reason for the assumptions is they are saying something you disagree with.

I have never read an ‘Irish textbook’ on the French revolution as to my knowledge there is no such thing. What is an ’ Irish textbook?’

I studied Irish, European and American history at foundation level for three years. I was given a reading list - not an 'Irish textbook - and no the authors weren’t all Irish and you have to read contrasting opinions.

I studied law with politics at university. Many of my politics lecturers were historians as it’s not just a matter of knowing what the theories are, but the historical backdrop in which they developed.

I don’t know why you have assumed I have not read actual history, the only thing I know is what philosophers wrote and the French helped the oppressed Irish. I would suspect you don’t actually think this. As for the comment about the reign of terror, nothing I remotely suggests I arrived at the conclusion ‘how bad can they be’ because they helped the Irish and I liked their slogan.

In conclusion, your summary of my position is your version if it basesmd on inaccuracies and assumptions, and not a credible critique - merely a put down. If you want to believe what you have written that us of course your prerogative.

 

[inocente]

The “right” answers there seems to also be the hardest. Balance.

Yes, unfettered philosophical utilitarianism (what used to be called communism until the 20th century gave the term a particular connotation) can be indubitably evil.

I’m sure we also agree that unfettered egoism also produces enormous evil.

So I guess we need to put some “fetters” on them.

This battle is as old as social species. “When do we act for the benefit of the group at cost to individuals” versus “when do we act in the benefit of individuals at cost to the group.”

I guess a line from the Hippocratic Oath applies - “Above all, I must not play at God”.

 

[MPat]

I can only advise you don’t make unfounded assumptions about people - particularly where the only reason for the assumptions is they are saying something you disagree with.

OK, sorry about the misunderstanding.

And the main misunderstanding seems to concern this:

I have never read an ‘Irish textbook’ on the French revolution as to my knowledge there is no such thing. What is an ’ Irish textbook?’

Maybe I should start with some context… I am pretty sure that that, in Irish [secondary?] schools there has to be a subject “History”, discussing at least Irish history and, probably, World or European history as well. If there is a subject, there have to be textbooks as well (and they would be used in Ireland, which would make them, “Irish [history] textbooks”). And I was wondering what do these textbooks say about French Revolution.

You commented:

I can’t comment as I have never read a description of the French revolution in an ‘Irish textbook.’ Most of what I have read on the French revolution was in the context of political theory as opposed to historical works, none of which were written by Irish authors.

The connection between Ireland and the French revolution is the 1798 rebellion. Historical works that address that period make reference to the French revolution in terms of shared political ideals.

From that I conclude that [secondary?] schools in Ireland do not [necessarily?] cover French Revolution as such, but shortly mention it while talking about related Irish history.

That sounds strange (I have just counted six pages about French Revolution (specifically) in one of Lithuanian school history textbooks) and, perhaps, unfortunate, but plausible.

I studied Irish, European and American history at foundation level for three years. I was given a reading list - not an 'Irish textbook - and no the authors weren’t all Irish and you have to read contrasting opinions.

Three years sound as not that much… Anyway, you do not say to what extent the French Revolution was covered, and I have to estimate that indirectly.

I studied law with politics at university. Many of my politics lecturers were historians as it’s not just a matter of knowing what the theories are, but the historical backdrop in which they developed.

Now, if you specifically mention that (and you have already said something similar previously (describing it as “Most of what I have read on the French revolution”)), I conclude that, as far as French revolution is concerned, this dwarfs the “Irish, European and American history at foundation level” and the like.

Now, you describe the subject of the course (courses?) as “politics” and “political theory”. Thus I conclude that the main things covered for “historical backdrop” would be the ideas (or, as I have described them (since those revolutionaries were politicians and not philosophers), “slogans”), with short notes that French Revolution overthrew the king, spread their ideas and the like. Describing the actual process during which king ended up having to convoke the Estates General or the way in which Constitution of 1791 was working would obviously be beside the point in such a course - otherwise the course would soon cease to be “Political Theory” and become some sort of “History” or some sort of “Constitutional Law”.

And my point is that without this “narrative history” French Revolution looks much better that it really was. Leave out, let’s say, the “Parlement of Paris” demanding convocation of Estates General, and the “absolute monarchy” in France starts to look as absolute, as in Russia. Look at “Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen” while leaving out executions of deputies of National Convention, and it will look like the human rights were respected more during the revolution (when in fact they were arguably respected less than under the “absolute monarchy”).

I don’t know why you have assumed I have not read actual history, the only thing I know is what philosophers wrote and the French helped the oppressed Irish. I would suspect you don’t actually think this. As for the comment about the reign of terror, nothing I remotely suggests I arrived at the conclusion ‘how bad can they be’ because they helped the Irish and I liked their slogan.

In conclusion, your summary of my position is your version if it basesmd on inaccuracies and assumptions, and not a credible critique - merely a put down. If you want to believe what you have written that us of course your prerogative.

OK, I have explained my reasoning in a bit more detail. So, which of my conclusions were wrong, and in what way?

 

[minkymurph]

Maybe I should start with some context… I am pretty sure that that, in Irish [secondary?] schools there has to be a subject “History”, discussing at least Irish history and, probably, World or European history as well. If there is a subject, there have to be textbooks as well (and they would be used in Ireland, which would make them, “Irish [history] textbooks”). And I was wondering what do these textbooks say about French Revolution.

I left school in 1980 so I can’t remember what text books where used. I don’t remember studying the French Revolution at school. I didn’t go to a Catholic school. I went to a state or as they are termed here ‘Protestant’ school. In those days ‘Protestant’ schools did not teach Irish history outside the arrival of the Saints and the establishment of the monasteries.

From that I conclude that [secondary?] schools in Ireland do not [necessarily?] cover French Revolution as such, but shortly mention it while talking about related Irish history.

That’s about the height of it. I do know under the current curriculum a history topic for 12-13 year old’s is the ‘Revolutionary Bug’ that discusses the causes and effects of the French and American revolutions and the 1798 rebellion in Ireland as they are linked.

A topic for 11-12 year old’s is slavery and they study the slave trade in an historical and contemporary context.

My youngest son is 13 and he is currently studying the Williamite wars.

My eldest is 15 and he dropped history as one of his topics.

My children attend a Catholic school and thus Religious Education is compulsory. One of the topics 13-14 year old’s study is stereotyping, prejudice and sectarianism. This was introduced into the curriculum post Good Friday Agreement. Part of this topic is unjust regimes - I taught this topic in schools for a while.

That sounds strange (I have just counted six pages about French Revolution (specifically) in one of Lithuanian school history textbooks) and, perhaps, unfortunate, but plausible.

Now, if you specifically mention that (and you have already said something similar previously (describing it as “Most of what I have read on the French revolution”)), I conclude that, as far as French revolution is concerned, this dwarfs the “Irish, European and American history at foundation level” and the like.

I was eluding to fact that when studying the French Revolution I never used a text book. on the French Revolution.

The title of the modules I covered I covered at foundation level were Irish, European and American History. It is virtually impossible to study Irish, European and American history in isolation of the French Revolution.

At university my minor was politics. Obviously you don’t use text books at university, you are given reading lists. The significance of the French Revolution is the contribution it made to the development of political theory in Europe, and it’s influence beyond France in terms of socio-political upheaval; the rise of nationalism, the collapse of Empires and the establishment of self determining nation states. This is the context in which I studied the French Revolution rather than a blow by blow historical account.

 

[minkymurph]

Now, you describe the subject of the course (courses?) as “politics” and “political theory”. Thus I conclude that the main things covered for “historical backdrop” would be the ideas (or, as I have described them (since those revolutionaries were politicians and not philosophers), “slogans”), with short notes that French Revolution overthrew the king, spread their ideas and the like. Describing the actual process during which king ended up having to convoke the Estates General or the way in which Constitution of 1791 was working would obviously be beside the point in such a course - otherwise the course would soon cease to be “Political Theory” and become some sort of “History” or some sort of “Constitutional Law”.

No it’s not just a matter knowing ‘slogans’ and writing short notes. Do you really think students that study politics for three years are obliged to know only popular slogans and write short notes?

As my pathway was law with politics I did study Constitutional Law. . A knowledge and understanding of the actual process during which king ended up having to convoke the Estates General or the way in which Constitution of 1791 was working is not beside the point - it’s essential to Constitutional Law and political theory. I studied History in order to meet the admission criteria to study Law and Politics.

And my point is that without this “narrative history” French Revolution looks much better that it really was. Leave out, let’s say, the “Parlement of Paris” demanding convocation of Estates General, and the “absolute monarchy” in France starts to look as absolute, as in Russia. Look at “Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen” while leaving out executions of deputies of National Convention, and it will look like the human rights were respected more during the revolution (when in fact they were arguably respected less than under the “absolute monarchy”).

OK, I have explained my reasoning in a bit more detail. So, which of my conclusions were wrong, and in what way?

First of all you advised me to read ‘actual history.’ This implies you are of the opinion I did not. As I received the equivalent of an Ivy League education that’s pretty insulting not just to me but our education system - couple with the comments made about text books. Just because people don’t read what you think they should does not mean they have I read ‘actual history’ or are misinformed or inadequately informed.

I don’t understand all this, ‘What is taught in Irish schools and what text books do they use?’ Irish history is obviously taught. Doesn’t make sense not to learn anything about your own nation. Why would an Irish historian write on the French revolution other than it’s relevance to Ireland?

The French Revolution does not receive an in-depth study in Irish schools as we have bigger fish to fry. Irish history was characteristically handed down through narratives in accordance with sectarian divisions that were largely inaccurate. Post Good Friday Agreement schools have attempted to rectify this, and why devote time and effort to the French revolution the aforementioned issues are more significant and relevant? My 15 year old son recently asked me why we commemorated WW1 and 2 as they happened years ago - never mind the French Revolution.

You asked me for sources. As a guess I would say you asked for sources simply to see if I could provide them. I say as guess as I do not know for certain, but you did not comment on them and I have often encountered posters on CAF who ask for sources, but subsequently don’t read them and merely reject them as an authoritative source. The sources I provided are internet sources, but obviously I’m not going to start trawling through hardback copies of historical narratives citing references - particularly where it may automatically be rejected anyway.

You advised me if I read ‘actual history’ (not only the part about its influence on Ireland). And then you’ll see that the actual “absolute monarchy” wasn’t all that “absolute”, while the actual “Republic” wasn’t all that “democratic”… yet you do not cite a source. If you wish to we can discuss the source and this may be preferable to engaging what to me has the characteristics of some form of personal ping pong. Your statements led me to the conclusion you are of the opinion I have only read about the French Revolution in terms of its influence on Ireland which is not the case.

It would interesting to read an authoritative source that argues Louis XVI was not an absolute monarch as you imply, but you cannot assume where I to read it I will automatically conclude he was not, nor that this is the only viable conclusion that could be drawn. You appear to have assumed I think the actual ‘Republic’ was democratic, and that in my considerations of French Revolution executions were ‘left out.’ I did not ignore the Great Fear and the reign of terror in my posts. I don’t think I could have made my position on resorting to armed insurrection and the use of violence and terror to achieve political objectives any clearer.

Your statement the French Revolution looks much better than it really was with this ‘narrative history’ implies I am either oblivious of the atrocities committed during the French revolution possibly due to the fact I haven’t read ‘actual history,’ was inadequately taught or presented only with idealistic notions of the French Revolution because they helped the ‘poor Irish,’ and thus see it through rose coloured glasses. In my view nothing I wrote warrant’s this interpretation.

 

[minkymurph]

From that I conclude that [secondary?] schools in Ireland do not [necessarily?] cover French Revolution as such, but shortly mention it while talking about related Irish history.

That sounds strange (I have just counted six pages about French Revolution (specifically) in one of Lithuanian school history textbooks) and, perhaps, unfortunate, but plausible.

What is ‘unfortunate’ about the fact Irish schools don’t extensively cover the French Revolution? Why should Irish schools devote an extensive amount of time to an historical study of the French Revolution?

What I have said is not plausible - it is a fact.

Three years sound as not that much… Anyway, you do not say to what extent the French Revolution was covered, and I have to estimate that indirectly.

And exactly how long do you think would be sufficient to possess an informed opinion?

If someone is big into the French Revolution and wants to devote eons of time to the topic that is their prerogative, but why make condescending remarks about someone else’s education and education of system of their country simply because they may not have devoted the same amount time to a study of the French Revolution?
I think I can state with confidence I have studied Irish history much more extensively than many others on CAF, but I don’t make condescending remarks about their level of education and the education system of their country as a result. For the record I find people who have not studied Irish history to the extent I have considerably well informed and can present well articulated arguments. In any case, Ireland is not the centre of the universe so why should schools in other countries study Irish history extensively - or in fact at all? They have their own respective rich histories to study. So why should it take more than three years of study to possess and informed opinion on the French revolution?

Is this the sum total of counter argument to anything I have said, 'You didn’t study the French revolution to my satisfaction, the Irish education system is wanting because they don’t devote sufficient time to a study of the French Revolution, and if you read what I think you should read you would think differently? If it is, I would say I wasted my time reading and studying anything as all that appears to be required is to state I’m right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

 

[MPat]

The significance of the French Revolution is the contribution it made to the development of political theory in Europe, and it’s influence beyond France in terms of socio-political upheaval; the rise of nationalism, the collapse of Empires and the establishment of self determining nation states. This is the context in which I studied the French Revolution rather than a blow by blow historical account.

So, I have concluded that you were not studying a “narrative history”, and you agree.

I have said that I saw how your view is reasonable given what you know. Well, what else do you want?

Now, since your view is not my view, that kinda forces me to think that additional information makes all the difference. I also indicated what I expect that “additional information” to be (namely, “narrative history”). Again - what else do you want?

Obviously you don’t use text books at university, you are given reading lists.

As a matter of fact, university textbooks aren’t exactly unheard of - for example, “Springer” publishes “Graduate Texts in Physics” (springer.com/series/8431)…

No it’s not just a matter knowing ‘slogans’ and writing short notes. Do you really think students that study politics for three years are obliged to know only popular slogans and write short notes?

There was also a qualification - “effectively”. No, I was not saying that you merely learned what the slogans were. I meant that political thought of the period (which I expected you to study in such a course) is mostly the meaning behind the slogans (explain just the single “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” fully, and there won’t be much left).

First of all you advised me to read ‘actual history.’ This implies you are of the opinion I did not. As I received the equivalent of an Ivy League education that’s pretty insulting not just to me but our education system - couple with the comments made about text books. Just because people don’t read what you think they should does not mean they have I read ‘actual history’ or are misinformed or inadequately informed.

By “actual history” I meant “history not in context of something else”.

You asked me for sources. As a guess I would say you asked for sources simply to see if I could provide them. I say as guess as I do not know for certain, but you did not comment on them and I have often encountered posters on CAF who ask for sources, but subsequently don’t read them and merely reject them as an authoritative source. The sources I provided are internet sources, but obviously I’m not going to start trawling through hardback copies of historical narratives citing references - particularly where it may automatically be rejected anyway.

I wrote “It would be nice to see the sources, but I see there is something more interesting - and closer to the subject of subforum:”. I was trying to say that I was dropping that part of discussion and concentrating on something else without implying that I completely agree with everything you said. Specifically, “Louis XVI inherited this legacy, and if my memory serves me right wanted to do a Henry VII with the Church in France in that it would essentially be Catholic but with him as the head and not the Pope.” looked suspicious. The sources you have given were not about that, and I didn’t find anything useful to say about them.

It would interesting to read an authoritative source that argues Louis XVI was not an absolute monarch as you imply, but you cannot assume where I to read it I will automatically conclude he was not, nor that this is the only viable conclusion that could be drawn.

Once again, there was a qualification. I was not saying it was not absolute. I was saying it was not “as absolute, as in Russia”. If a source is necessary, I can offer, let’s say, Chapter XI of Book II and Appendix of de Tocqueville’s “L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution” (archive.org/details/oldregimerevolut00tocq).

What is ‘unfortunate’ about the fact Irish schools don’t extensively cover the French Revolution? Why should Irish schools devote an extensive amount of time to an historical study of the French Revolution?

Not knowing something is rarely “fortunate”.

Is this the sum total of counter argument to anything I have said, 'You didn’t study the French revolution to my satisfaction, the Irish education system is wanting because they don’t devote sufficient time to a study of the French Revolution, and if you read what I think you should read you would think differently? If it is, I would say I wasted my time reading and studying anything as all that appears to be required is to state I’m right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

No, nothing close to that can be a “counterargument”, for it would be unreasonable to change one’s position based on just that.

At this point I also think it is unlikely that you will change your opinion after reading “narrative history”. Some time ago I thought that was possible. But at that time I also didn’t think anyone could be that defensive about his countries educational system…

In any case, Ireland is not the centre of the universe so why should schools in other countries study Irish history extensively - or in fact at all? They have their own respective rich histories to study. So why should it take more than three years of study to possess and informed opinion on the French revolution?

Perhaps the question about the usefulness of studying history of other countries should get a separate thread.

 

[minkymurph]

So, I have concluded that you were not studying a “narrative history”, and you agree.

I have said that I saw how your view is reasonable given what you know. Well, what else do you want?

Now, since your view is not my view, that kinda forces me to think that additional information makes all the difference. I also indicated what I expect that “additional information” to be (namely, “narrative history”). Again - what else do you want?

Nothing

Perhaps the question about the usefulness of studying history of other countries should get a separate thread.

You brought it up.

 

[steve93]

The upper classes in the Ancient Regime in France were extremely decadent and immoral.
I fail to see why Ireland would be anti-French revolution, since, had it succeeded, money which under the French monarchy would have gone to fund extravagant feasts and n_de paintings would have gone to help fight the English.
Unfortunately in the US, Adams and those like him betrayed the Revolution and began to side with England. One would think the cases of American sea men being kidnapped would have influenced them toward Napoleonic France.
If the Czar hadn’t stated trading with Britan, then the Continental system would have held and English power destroyed. Of course Russia paid for their stupidity when their lobster coated “allies” attacked them on the side of Turkey a few decades later.

 

[minkymurph]

There was also a qualification - “effectively”. No, I was not saying that you merely learned what the slogans were. I meant that political thought of the period (which I expected you to study in such a course) is mostly the meaning behind the slogans (explain just the single “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” fully, and there won’t be much left).

I don’t understand why you would say that. Do you really believe the only thing university students are expected to be able to do is ‘just’ (as if this is straightforward) explain the slogans of ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ fully? I am also quite sure you know not everyone agrees at how Liberty, Equality and Fraternity should be defined nor how they should be applied in society, and have heard of comparative politics, the history of democracy and many other topics students of politics study.

The sources you have given were not about that, and I didn’t find anything useful to say about them.

I could say I find it amazing in all the information I provided you couldn’t find anything useful at all in any of them, but it doesn’t surprise me you wouldn’t. I have frequently encountered posters on CAF who asks for sources and then say ‘they were not useful.’

At this point I also think it is unlikely that you will change your opinion after reading “narrative history”. Some time ago I thought that was possible. But at that time I also didn’t think anyone could be that defensive about his countries educational system…

Just because I’m prepared to challenge someone who makes condescending remarks about my education and the education system in Ireland doesn’t mean I’m not prepared to change my mind, but you have presented anything that would change my mind other than ‘read narrative history,’ and your posts suggest you have misconceived notions as to what my mind actually is. When I tried to explain you said something like I was being ‘unnecessarily complicated,’ and considered much of what I said irrelevant. As I don’t believe in flogging dead horses I don’t see the point in trying to clarify any further.

 

[MPat]

Nothing

In that case you should probably stop looking for insults.

You brought it up.

Then you could have told me that should go to a separate thread.

Although there is a difference between usefulness of studying history of foreign countries in general and usefulness of studying history of foreign countries for discussions about that history.

I don’t understand why you would say that. Do you really believe the only thing university students are expected to be able to do is ‘just’ (as if this is straightforward) explain the slogans of ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ fully? I am also quite sure you know not everyone agrees at how Liberty, Equality and Fraternity should be defined nor how they should be applied in society, and have heard of comparative politics, the history of democracy and many other topics students of politics study.

And, naturally, things like “everyone agrees at how Liberty, Equality and Fraternity should be defined nor how they should be applied in society” would be required for full understanding of that slogan.

I could say I find it amazing in all the information I provided you couldn’t find anything useful at all in any of them, but it doesn’t surprise me you wouldn’t. I have frequently encountered posters on CAF who asks for sources and then say ‘they were not useful.’

First, I didn’t ask for them. Second, they have little to do with the subject of this thread. Third, I didn’t say I haven’t found them useful, I have said I didn’t find anything useful to say about them.

And fourth, it would sound more persuasive, if you also said you have read all the sources I have offered.

After all, I did give you a link to de Tocqueville’s book, and it didn’t get a response.

And, of course, the reference to “narrative history” was a reference to any source of such a kind. Yet, instead of just reading a Wikipedia’s article and reporting that no, it didn’t change your mind, you chose to complain how unfair such request is…

Just because I’m prepared to challenge someone who makes condescending remarks about my education and the education system in Ireland doesn’t mean I’m not prepared to change my mind, but you have presented anything that would change my mind other than ‘read narrative history,’ and your posts suggest you have misconceived notions as to what my mind actually is. When I tried to explain you said something like I was being ‘unnecessarily complicated,’ and considered much of what I said irrelevant. As I don’t believe in flogging dead horses I don’t see the point in trying to clarify any further.

I am not sure what you have interpreted as “something like I was being ‘unnecessarily complicated,’”.

Anyway, while I did learn things I didn’t know, it looks like discussion is no longer that beneficial. Perhaps it is the time to end it?

 

[steve93]

Wolf Tone

 

[steve93]

The idea that Revolutionary France was more of a threat to the church than Britian is laughable and is what lead to the insanity of the British support of Spain against France.

 

[Clevus]

“The French revolution came about in response to injustice, as did the revolt again British imperialist rule in America and Ireland.”

Not the same. France’s case was a population that was starving and involved an insensitive monarchy and wealthy class. The American case involved a business disagreement on a tax issue, which incited businessmen to foment unrest among the populace who were relatively content has British subjects typically could be in British reality. We recall that at the time of the revolution, the American standard of living was mirrored in Canada, except for the disgruntled business environment.

 

[MPat]

The idea that Revolutionary France was more of a threat to the church than Britian is laughable

If it is laughable, it should be easy to disprove, right…?

Of course, in reality, Britain might have been more of a threat to Ireland, maybe even to Church in Ireland, but it was definitely less of a threat to Catholic Church in France, Spain, Italy etc.

And that is easy to demonstrate: the Church was persecuted (for example, in France) when Revolutionary France was winning, the Church was not persecuted when Britain won.

Now, of course, it does not mean that the Irish couldn’t ally with more distant threat against a closer threat, just as in WW2 Britain supported Soviets against Nazis and Finland supported Nazis against Soviets.

Unfortunately, it looks like in such case one is tempted to “forget” that this alliance is only tactical and to pretend that one’s ally is not “a more distant evil fighting with a closer evil”, but “good fighting with evil”…

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Was it? It was heavily anti Catholic and anti God but seemed to promote democracy.

It is a very peculiar thing. any ideas?

It was unfortunate if the King just sided with the Peoples Congress and against the Clergy and the Nobles there would never have been a Revolution it was simple the common people wanted the Church and Nobles to pay their fair share of taxes and lose privileges they held to some degree. It was a fair thing.

I’m an American but our Revolution wasn’t justified after England fought with the colonies a war adding a lot of land and resources benefitting the colonies they expected us through taxes to pay the costs of the war in part, with new trade bolstering the revenues. Also fair to ask a colonial interest to do and we were largely treated well as a set of colonies.