The 1789 French Revolution - Should it Inspire Awe or Contempt?
France happens to be one of the few countries in modern Europe where the common man doesn't go about kowtowing and calling it a curtsey or calling anyone their Majesty. It just so happens that France is a modern republic, a country where a monarchy is not even retained in name, where a publicly elected government and a well-thought-out constitution hold sway and not the individual authority of a king or queen.
How is it that other countries around Europe that were just as developed were left behind while France took bold strides into the modern world? The answer lies in the eruption of the ten-year-long 1789 French Revolution.
Everyone knows that the 1789 French Revolution was this great deal that practically changed the political landscape of all of Europe. But what was it like for the people that they should have gone off the deep end and slaughtered the royal family and brought about such stunning change? France at the time was hopelessly caught in the grip of an autocratic monarchy and a terribly fundamentalist Catholic influence. Inept kings and queens have existed before without provoking their citizens like this; but France had the misfortune of suffering a series of terrible famines too at the time; now hunger, economic mismanagement, fundamentalism and an apathetic monarchy surely sounds like a potent brew.
Exactly what was it that the monarchy did that was so awful? Well, to begin with, there were Portuguese slaves, and Jewish people and Muslims who were forced to live with no rights. Women were not allowed to divorce their husbands or to inherit property, education was virtually nonexistent, scientific thought was discouraged and Catholic dogma was enforced, and the country was run into the ground fighting unnecessary wars all around.
Here in this country, it is not uncommon to hear the 1789 French Revolution vilified and the American civil war glorified in comparison. What the French Revolution achieved is quite remarkable even by today's standards. It started that society down the path of racial equality, gay rights, feminism, and emancipation for slaves all the way back then. And in achieving all this, the French Revolution took the lives of fewer than 20,000 people.
Of course any war or revolution is bound to visit some horrors on all concerned and as in any popular revolt, law and order inevitably broke down and anyone suspected remotely of being a sympathizer of the royalty was sent to their death. Often, the mobs, drunk on the power of lawlessness would easily switch to killing anyone in sight and justifying their actions in any way they could. There was a saying attributed to Dostoyevsky "If there is no God, everything is permitted." Perhaps that explains the good parts of what shapes an event like the 1789 French Revolution
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Special 4th amendment and your right to avoid illegal searches
The 4th amendment of the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights, the bill of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The 4th amendment itself guards against "unreasonable search and seizure," as well as requiring arrest warrants that are supported by judicially confirmed probable cause.
In many ways, it's the 4th amendment upon which groups like American Civil Liberties Union, which most consider to be left-leaning, build their causes. Yet while the 4th amendment is the legal foundation for the ACLU, it's right-leaning demagogues and voters who most often cite the 4th amendment as one to be held dear.
It's a bizarre juxtaposition, one that's wrapped up in what's called "identity politics." People who identify themselves as part off the "main group" - in the United States, that traditionally means white and middle class - tend to exhibit a fear of groups who identify as "other." Traditionally that's meant immigrant groups, blacks, American Indians, even women.
Once one of these groups organizes and creates and identity, they become a threat to the status quo. What usually then ensues is a good old fashioned "identity politics" fight, in which the "other" group fights for equality in one way or the other.
So in the eyes of many Americans, the 4th amendment empowers "other" groups and becomes a thorn in the side of movements like the Know Nothings of the nineteenth century, or even this current century's Tea Party movement.
For people like the tea partiers, they claim that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are sacred, but they want to eviscerate any rights (like the 4th amendment) that protect people of all races, ethnicities, religions and backgrounds.
This really began to become an issue in the 1960s, with the coming of desegregation, the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and the general integration of black Americans into the middle class.
One of the keystone rulings was 1967's Katz vs. United States, in which Charles Katz had been convicted of illegal gambling through use of a local public payphone. Unbeknownst to Katz, the FBI had tapped the phone and used the tapes in the hearing.
When the case made it all the way up to the supreme court, the court ruled that the 4th amendment protects people, not places. "Therefore, the rights of an individual may not be violated by the government, regardless of whether or not there is a physical intrusion into any given area."
In many ways, it's the 4th amendment upon which groups like American Civil Liberties Union, which most consider to be left-leaning, build their causes. Yet while the 4th amendment is the legal foundation for the ACLU, it's right-leaning demagogues and voters who most often cite the 4th amendment as one to be held dear.
It's a bizarre juxtaposition, one that's wrapped up in what's called "identity politics." People who identify themselves as part off the "main group" - in the United States, that traditionally means white and middle class - tend to exhibit a fear of groups who identify as "other." Traditionally that's meant immigrant groups, blacks, American Indians, even women.
Once one of these groups organizes and creates and identity, they become a threat to the status quo. What usually then ensues is a good old fashioned "identity politics" fight, in which the "other" group fights for equality in one way or the other.
So in the eyes of many Americans, the 4th amendment empowers "other" groups and becomes a thorn in the side of movements like the Know Nothings of the nineteenth century, or even this current century's Tea Party movement.
For people like the tea partiers, they claim that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are sacred, but they want to eviscerate any rights (like the 4th amendment) that protect people of all races, ethnicities, religions and backgrounds.
This really began to become an issue in the 1960s, with the coming of desegregation, the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and the general integration of black Americans into the middle class.
One of the keystone rulings was 1967's Katz vs. United States, in which Charles Katz had been convicted of illegal gambling through use of a local public payphone. Unbeknownst to Katz, the FBI had tapped the phone and used the tapes in the hearing.
When the case made it all the way up to the supreme court, the court ruled that the 4th amendment protects people, not places. "Therefore, the rights of an individual may not be violated by the government, regardless of whether or not there is a physical intrusion into any given area."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)