• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What are your opinions of the French Revolution?

NaturallyChill

New member
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
24
Reaction score
15
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
So in my European History class we just reached the French Revolution, and we've covered through Robespierre thus far. I'd just like to know what you guys thought about e.g. the effects and what was good/bad about it.
 
So in my European History class we just reached the French Revolution, and we've covered through Robespierre thus far. I'd just like to know what you guys thought about e.g. the effects and what was good/bad about it.

Absolutely excellent question.

From the general outsider's point of view, no matter how gloriously the french revolution is taught in schools, it is still the largest organized crime ever that was successfully pulled off.

The french revolution invented the ideology of nationalism that culminates in the ideology of nazism. One of the most notable crimes Roberspierre and his likes introduced into legal systems is the legalized theft of people's businesses, starting with stealing the lands of the french aristocracy.

This is what happens when states/governments collapse. Criminals begin writing laws and the rest of the world calls it history and achievement.

As a far reaching consequence of the french revolution (legalized crime), we can see today's map of Europe. The number of countries has trippled in 20th century Europe, each new country being in some war with its neighbors on and off all the time, across division lines that had never existed before. This is the "achievement" and the legacy of the french revolution, a shameful and criminal act, that got so much power that it wrote the laws we live under today.
 
Avoidable, if the French had decent economists at the time.
 
So in my European History class we just reached the French Revolution, and we've covered through Robespierre thus far. I'd just like to know what you guys thought about e.g. the effects and what was good/bad about it.

Yo! I'm gon let you finish but America had the greatest Revolution of all time!

kanye-taylor-swift.jpg
 
Absolutely excellent question.

From the general outsider's point of view, no matter how gloriously the french revolution is taught in schools, it is still the largest organized crime ever that was successfully pulled off.

The french revolution invented the ideology of nationalism that culminates in the ideology of nazism. One of the most notable crimes Roberspierre and his likes introduced into legal systems is the legalized theft of people's businesses, starting with stealing the lands of the french aristocracy.

This is what happens when states/governments collapse. Criminals begin writing laws and the rest of the world calls it history and achievement.

As a far reaching consequence of the french revolution (legalized crime), we can see today's map of Europe. The number of countries has trippled in 20th century Europe, each new country being in some war with its neighbors on and off all the time, across division lines that had never existed before. This is the "achievement" and the legacy of the french revolution, a shameful and criminal act, that got so much power that it wrote the laws we live under today.

I was tempted to stop reading this once the "French revolution led to nazism" bit came out at the beginning. That comparison is beyond ridiculous. (the US founding fathers are responsible for violence in Latin America because once they showed that independence from Europe was desirable it was only a matter of time until we see the violence of today. Yes, I'm saying your comparison is that ridiculous.)

Speaking of robespierres crimes, unlike the aristocracy you seem to pity the revolution introduced, for the first time in France, that the common man and the aristocrat be judged by the same set of laws. That a nobleman was not given a god given right to do what he wished, but instead must do what is in the interest of his people and follow the rule of law. When robespierre forgot this, he paid the price.

Your babbling about the revolutions effect on Europe is most juvenile, and shows a deep lack of understanding I'm afraid.

Blame the revolution for europes wars? Try looking up the war of Spanish succession, the war of Austrian succession, the 7 years war, the 30 years war and that should be a decent start in removing your incorrect notion that the revolution led to more war that what previously had been happening. Also, German and Italian unification came after the revolution, and while the revolution may have sparked nationalism in many places, these two events alone placate any theory that the revolution led to a breakup of European states. Also, world war one and the collapse of the austro-hungarian empire certainly played as large a role as the French revolution in giving birth to new states.

The revolt was very violent and bloody, but absolute rule by a horrible leader is best ended by revolution.
 
I was tempted to stop reading this once the "French revolution led to nazism" bit came out at the beginning. That comparison is beyond ridiculous. (the US founding fathers are responsible for violence in Latin America because once they showed that independence from Europe was desirable it was only a matter of time until we see the violence of today. Yes, I'm saying your comparison is that ridiculous.)

Speaking of robespierres crimes, unlike the aristocracy you seem to pity the revolution introduced, for the first time in France, that the common man and the aristocrat be judged by the same set of laws. That a nobleman was not given a god given right to do what he wished, but instead must do what is in the interest of his people and follow the rule of law. When robespierre forgot this, he paid the price.

Your babbling about the revolutions effect on Europe is most juvenile, and shows a deep lack of understanding I'm afraid.

Blame the revolution for europes wars? Try looking up the war of Spanish succession, the war of Austrian succession, the 7 years war, the 30 years war and that should be a decent start in removing your incorrect notion that the revolution led to more war that what previously had been happening. Also, German and Italian unification came after the revolution, and while the revolution may have sparked nationalism in many places, these two events alone placate any theory that the revolution led to a breakup of European states. Also, world war one and the collapse of the austro-hungarian empire certainly played as large a role as the French revolution in giving birth to new states.

The revolt was very violent and bloody, but absolute rule by a horrible leader is best ended by revolution.



its a shame the French then went and handed power to another horrible leader....
 
If they had not had the revolution we wouldn't have the statue of liberty so way to go France.
 
I'm not sure what I think of it .. I know it involved the French ...

And I'm pretty sure that's when Marie Antoinette remarked, "Now that's a fancy lookin' vegetable chopper -- how's it work?"
 
Absolutely excellent question.

From the general outsider's point of view, no matter how gloriously the french revolution is taught in schools, it is still the largest organized crime ever that was successfully pulled off.

Let me guess, you are home schooled? I have yet to see any history text book, American or British or Danish that glorifies the French revolution.

The french revolution invented the ideology of nationalism that culminates in the ideology of nazism. One of the most notable crimes Roberspierre and his likes introduced into legal systems is the legalized theft of people's businesses, starting with stealing the lands of the french aristocracy.

The French Revolution emulated the American Revolution. In all revolutions the land and property of those who got kicked out of power are sized.. it was so in France, Russia, the US Colonies, Iraq, Egypt and so on and so on. You can call them thieves if you want, but that only means you are on the side of the looser.

As for inventing the ideology of nationalism.. hogwash. Nationalism has been around since the dawn of time. In fact if anything, American Nationalism had far far far more influence on the rise of the Nazi's in Germany than the French nationalism. For one the US and Germany were kindred spirits when it came to eugenics and race laws.

This is what happens when states/governments collapse. Criminals begin writing laws and the rest of the world calls it history and achievement.

So you are saying you US founders were criminals? Are you saying the US is a mafia country?

As a far reaching consequence of the french revolution (legalized crime), we can see today's map of Europe. The number of countries has trippled in 20th century Europe, each new country being in some war with its neighbors on and off all the time, across division lines that had never existed before. This is the "achievement" and the legacy of the french revolution, a shameful and criminal act, that got so much power that it wrote the laws we live under today.

Okay here you confirm that you are home schooled.

First off have you even ever seen a map of Europe at the time? Italy did not exist, and was in fact 11 different countries. Germany did not exist and was at least 15+ different countries. And even if you take into consideration that the Austro-Hungarian Empire later split into 4 different countries and the Ottoman Empire in on the European mainland created another 10 maybe, and you add the 3 baltic states, free Norway from Denmark, Finland from Sweden, Ireland from the UK, and then you still would never get any where near a tripling of countries in Europe in 2012. If anything there are fewer.

Secondly... division lines that never existed before? Seriously? Again, I refer you to the map of Europe in 1792... Are you seriously saying that because the Ottoman Empire controlled Bosnia and Serbia at the time then the divisions between these peoples is a new division brought on because the French threw out their dictator and that eventually lead to the Ottoman Empire crumbling?

And finally.. you do realize that you are basically saying that every revolution is shameful... the American included.. and should never have happened.
 
If they had not had the revolution we wouldn't have the statue of liberty so way to go France.

its price was paid by ottomans ..:mrgreen:

i regard the french revolution as an important development for enlightenment age,but it didnt invent nationalism , it introduced the nationalism to europeans................
 
Last edited:
i regard the french revolution as an important development for enlightenment age,but it didnt invent nationalism , it introduced the nationalism to europeans................

I regard the French revolution as more important than the American in regard to the spreading of world freedom. How does one construe a modern democratic revolution (the first of them) as the birth of European nationalism given centuries of monarchist land-grabbing slaughter and dehumanization?
 
empires ,kingdoms and their aristocrats tried to colonize this world without respect to any nationalistic idea..they just cared about their own royal benefits...and it is the reason why revolutionists attempted to create a real nation state which just protects the rights of all people of that nation..it is a good thing...
 
Last edited:
So in my European History class we just reached the French Revolution, and we've covered through Robespierre thus far. I'd just like to know what you guys thought about e.g. the effects and what was good/bad about it.

Wow...French Revolution is a pretty complicated subject. There were both a lot of good and bad about it. The ideals were important...the implementation turned into a Salem style witch hunt and they replaced the monarchy with an emperor who though more capable was just as power crazed as his predecessor.
 
empires ,kingdoms and their aristocrats tried to colonize this world without respect to any nationalistic idea..they just cared about their own royal benefits...and it is the reason why revolutionists attempted to create a real nation state which just protects the rights of all people of that nation..it is a good thing...

I'm pretty sure you are using the word 'nationalist' wrong.

You seem to be using it as "pertaining to the good of the nation, and not just monarchy". In modern context, nationalist means thinking ones nation is best in every respect, that the needs of ones nation supercedes the needs of all other nations and that the party's (usually fascist) ideology is perfect and beyond debate. They are generally anti-multi/interculturalism (immigration) and often anti-gay (based on the nation's traditions) and anti-women (again, based on the country's oh-so-valuable traditions).

See: modern nationalist parties.


Referring to democratic revolution as nationalist doesn't really make sense in modern context/word use because democratic revolutions are progressive while nationalist ideology or nationalism today is reactionary.
 
Last edited:
So in my European History class we just reached the French Revolution, and we've covered through Robespierre thus far. I'd just like to know what you guys thought about e.g. the effects and what was good/bad about it.

This guy wants us to do his home work for him. What do you got an essay to write or something?
 
I'm pretty sure you are using the word 'nationalist' wrong.

You seem to be using it as "pertaining to the good of the nation, and not just monarchy". In modern context, nationalist means thinking ones nation is best in every respect, that the needs of ones nation supercedes the needs of all other nations and that the party's (usually fascist) ideology is perfect and beyond debate. They are generally anti-multi/interculturalism (immigration) and often anti-gay (based on the nation's traditions) and anti-women (again, based on the country's oh-so-valuable traditions).

See: modern nationalist parties.


Referring to democratic revolution as nationalist doesn't really make sense in modern context/word use because democratic revolutions are progressive while nationalist ideology or nationalism today is reactionary.

french revolution was a reaction against injustice,too ,and positive nationalism was an element of it . The word nationalism is not wrong,it is not like fascism or racism, it is used in a positive meaning.but ,yes ,ethnic nationalism is a kind of racism.
 
Last edited:
Nationalism is like fascism. It is wrong. It is an artificial belief resulting from dogmatism that denies diversity and, fundamentally, individual will.
 
Nationalism is like fascism. It is wrong. It is an artificial belief resulting from dogmatism that denies diversity and, fundamentally, individual will.


Atatürk's nationalism advises ' peace at home ,peace in the world'

and I dont regard my nation as a superior one than the other nations..
 
Last edited:
Your nation is superior to many. Why deny that? I judge based on freedom.
 
Some nations are better than others. Personally, I judge according to democracy, human rights, environmental rights, economic liberty and such. I'm not one of those "everything is equal" guys.
 
no ,but nations are just different from each other

do you judge turkey based on freedom?

but turkey is as democratic as the other nations.....
 
Were talking about it now tooo. My real thoughts on it is that wow. A shift in power. France went from a Abosult State. " Yes they believed that the king was only accountable by god in that form of goverment to a consititional state. (( England was one, they still have no written form of a consitition. Yet they still make sure the leaders are accountable by law. Thats what i think of the french revolution. Is a transion period of a King state to one focused more on the people. Which is something i feel should be universal.... Infact i think that we should all be under one goverment. The united Federatio Of earth. (( We need to move from being seperated and to more equal... As we are not even a type one civilization..... We need to work on this.... We can elove to Type 1 once we end are hostilitys on this planet... We are working on becoming Type 2 now. Which is life support outside of earth. By that i mean living on the moon...
 
no ,but nations are just different from each other

do you judge turkey based on freedom?

but turkey is as democratic as the other nations.....

Nations are different (and here I refer only to governments, people and cultures are all interesting). Even if some cultures have grotesque traditions, I figure those archaic things will be gone in the next couple generations. Anyway, governmental difference can be qualified and quantified. I consider democracy superior to monarchy, theocracy and dictatorship. Therefore, a country that is a democracy is, in my opinion and judgement, better than a monarchy.

Of course I judge Turkey based on freedom, just like I do every country. How do you qualify countries, according to longitude? Turkey is a member of NATO, that's big points in my book. They also have a (at least on paper) sectarian democracy to some extent. Is it as democratic as any other country? Well, more goes into that decision than merely voting.

We need to consider freedom of the press, of religion and the amount of economic liberty enjoyed by the people (that being, how much of their earnings do they get to keep and decide themself how it should be spent/invested). In addition to those things, we must look at minority rights and state-sanctioned discrimination. We also need to consider environmental rights. People cannot be free without the ability to control their physical environment (as well as governmental). Where the commons are being destroyed, society is fundamentally eating itself and those on the bottom of the food chain suffer first. I think the death penalty is reflective of freedom from government coercion; it could be construed as state-perpetrated domestic terrorism. There are so many issues to consider after the existence of voting stations (and presuming that all adults can vote, in private). Even basic (public) education quality might be considered, as an uneducated populace is not such a good democracy.

What about travel ablity? Can you do the same thing with a Turkish passport as I can with a US... no. I buy my visas at the destination's airport.


Is Turkey as free as the US and Europe? Not quite, but it seems to be on the right path. As long as Turkey stops caving to radical Arab interests in regard to Israel, I expect it to rise into fully developed status in the few decades, one or two generations.
 
Last edited:
Nations are different (and here I refer only to governments, people and cultures are all interesting). Even if some cultures have grotesque traditions, I figure those archaic things will be gone in the next couple generations. Anyway, governmental difference can be qualified and quantified. I consider democracy superior to monarchy, theocracy and dictatorship. Therefore, a country that is a democracy is, in my opinion and judgement, better than a monarchy.

Of course I judge Turkey based on freedom, just like I do every country. How do you qualify countries, according to longitude? Turkey is a member of NATO, that's big points in my book. They also have a (at least on paper) sectarian democracy to some extent. Is it as democratic as any other country? Well, more goes into that decision than merely voting booths.

We need to consider freedom of the press, of religion and the amount of economic liberty enjoyed by the people (that being, how much of their earnings do they get to keep and decide themself how it should be spent). In addition to those things, we must look at minority rights and state-sanctioned discrimination. We also need to consider environmental rights. People cannot be free without the ability to control their physical environment (as well as governmental). Where the commons are being destroyed, society is fundamentally eating itself and those on the bottom of the food chain suffer first. The death penalty to be relective of freedom from government coercion; it could be construed as state-perpetrated domestic terrorism. There are so many issues to consider after the existence of voting stations (and presuming that all adults can vote, in private). Even basic (public) education quality might be considered, as an uneducated populace is not such a good democracy.

What about travel ablity? Can you do the same thing with a Turkish passport as I can with a US... no. I buy my visas at the destination's airport.


Is Turkey as free as the US an Europe? Not quite, but it seems to be on the right path. As long as Turkey stops caving to radical Arab interests in regard to Israel, I expect it to rise into fully developed status in the few decades, one or two generations.

we have a goverment which is both liberal and religious(!) but,turkey's nationall policy is not caving to radical arabs.,this state is still governed by secular rules but great middle east project tries to build a moderate islamic turkey!, we are not arabian,this project will fail soon....and nobody is put into prison for claiming ' armenian genocide'....yes turkey seems more democratic than so many european countries..

death penalty has already been abolished in turkey whereas it still exists in some states in US ,

passport case is related to being policeman and world power ,not to democracy...

our education system is not different from america's system

turkey is a little america

i have to say that ı dont find any superior nation in this world.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom