History Channel: The French Revolution

History Channel

[KC Burke]

Some of our best descriptions of conservatism come from Russell Kirk. He always took the trouble to second Burke and Plato and affirm that Politics is always the Art of the Possible and that Prudence was its highest virtue.

Conservatism is something more than just politics. And to adhere to conservatism is a much greater task than just being a politician that is conservative.

That is our problem is evaluating all of them. And it impacts no mater what flavor of conservatism we subscribe to in our analysis. Adherence to principle should be firm; but also not the only standard if one expects to be a politician. Philosophers and commentators can stay right on their narrow path, because they always get to analyze after the fact and they never have to run for elective or appointive office.

[Sam Cree]

"Adherence to principle should be firm; but also not the only standard if one expects to be a politician."

Agreed on both counts, they say that politics is the art of compromise.

IMO, our government was founded with the idea that almost its sole purpose was to protect our liberty, since anything else a government can do is likely to infringe on liberty. I'm not too convinced Bush sees it that way - he is kind of a "rationalist conservative" as far as I can see.

Am not familiar with Russell Kirk, you recommend him I guess? - isn't Plato the philosoher who started that whole "utopia" thing?

[nicmarlo]

Robespierre, Marat and the rest of their gang were nothing less then brutal totalitarian mass murderers.

Weren't they, though? I was shocked....I either didn't pay much attention in history class while in school, or I never learned about this gore....absolutely disgusting.

[KC Burke]

--isn't Plato the philosoher who started that whole "utopia" thing?

The usage by Plato of the Philosopher King concept is more illustrative of what he could see of Athenian Democracy and its limitations then of his thinking in general. While he has not been one I have studied to any real degree, I am familiar enough to know that it inprudent to ignore his and Aristotle's work.

Russell Kirk is a giant. If you haven't read him, I suggest you find some of his stuff.

[Sans-Culotte]

I finally caught a repeat of this. It was OK, in that it was a good overview. But, as with all these History/Discovery documentaries, they are kind of boring if you know the subject well.

I wish they would do away with the constant formula of having a formal-sounding narrator followed by some talking head (usually a history Prof, or in one instance in this show, the author of "In Defence of Marxism"). Edward Hermann narrated well under the "re-enactment" visuals, but then some talking head would come on and basically regurgitate what Hermann had said, but in a more colloquial manner. I find this approach terribly boring. They could have added more material had the talking heads added something rather than rephrasing what we already had been told. I was annoyed, for instance, the the only name among the executed Dantonists worth mentioning was that of Danton himself.

If they do one of these shows about something I know little of, then I usually enjoy it. If they do something on the French Revolution or Napoleon, I find the show slow and sparse on detail. Try to avoid these shows if they cover a period in which you've read several or more books about it.

[Sam Cree]

I didn't get to see it, not having cable, but I did enjoy the discussion on this thread.

I agree with most of the posters that our revolution and theirs were different on the most fundamental levels, but there's really no denying that they were linked to some degree.

There are reenactments of the French Revolution?

[Petronski]

It's a serviceable account, but it reminded me of a Krispy Kreme donut: it looks huge, but it's mostly puffed full of air.

Not much substance.

[Sans-Culotte]

Most recent documentaries on the History and Discovery channels feature re-enactors. I watched one on Hannibal last week on Discovery that combined actors in costumes and computer animations. The actors are like silent movie actors, though. You never hear them actually say something. The narrator will tell us what they are saying while we see them say it.

The French Revolution one showed lots of shots of Robespierre ot other revolutionaries addressing the assembly, or of various victims mounting the guillotine steps, the blade falling, blood running, etc.

Again, if one is new to a subject, these shows are pretty good.

The original goal of liberty, equality, and eternity certainly resembles Jefferson's "all men created equal" pronouncements in the declaration. After the bloodbath of the terror was over, they were a more "equal" society. During the Empire, aristocratic titles returned, but they were bestowed for services (usually military) rendered. I suppose the difference in their revolution and ours was that class warfare figured in to theirs, while ours was a colony breaking off from the parent stem.