#The French had many revolutions before the French Revolution

[herunswithscissors]

Don't let your idealism prevent little improvements.

Little changes are better than no changes. Society is a huge ship. It turns slowly.

I think more leftists need to recognize the gap between “this should happen eventually” and “this would be feasible to achieve in the near future”

Like, I’m an anarchist. (Although maybe I’m not according to some people but idk who cares) And I think an ideal world would have no nation states or borders. But that’s not going to happen tomorrow, or next year, or for a long time

So while I wait, instead of endlessly hemming and hawing over what the would should look like, I try to focus on what I can do right now to improve the world in material ways and to lessen the suffering of others

[tamamita]

why do zionists always assume its antisemitic to think that zionism a settler colonial idea

Modern Zionists aren't actually well-read into their own history. I could invoke the likes of Theodore Herlz, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, David Ben Gurion, and many other political Zionists and how they were ardent supporters of settler colonialism, yet it wouldn't get through their head, because they genuinely believe the land of Palestine is their right to claim, despite the people inhabitating the area. But to claim that the establishment of the Settler state was necessary due to antisemitism is not correct.

The pogrom of the Jewish people in the Pale of Settlement in Imperial Russia resulted in the mass displacement of Jews. But most Jews did not flee to Palestine, but to the US and Western Europe to live relatively better lives, due to the French revolution and so on. They had no desire whatsoever to move to Palestine due to its harsh climate and environment. Although the repression of Jews in the 19th century added to Zionism's appeal, Zionism did not emerge because of it as is often portrayed.

Jewish historian Michael Stanislawiski explains:

The first expression of this new ideology were published well before the spread of the new anti-semitic ideology and before the pogroms of the ealy 1880s. The fundamental cause of the emergence of modern Jewish nationalism was the rise, on the part of Jews themselves, of new ideologies that applied the basic tenets of modern nationalism to the Jews, and not a response to persecution.

-- Zionism, a short introduction (Stanislawski, 2017)

As was the case for that time, the doctrine of nationalism became prevalent across Europe. Many versions of it gained hold of European intellectuals and the upper-classes. One of these were ethnonationalism, which emphasised common ancestry. Such a view was popular among Germans, Hungarians, Russians, Poles and etc, who saw their "tribes" as being distinct, and therefore needed to be preserved from foreign threats. Zionism would mirror some of these aspects, which was prevalent in Eastern Europe. The founding father of Revisionist Zionism (and the precursor to the Likud party), Ze'ev Jabotinsky stated:

"The creation of a Jewish majority, was the fundamental aim of Zionism, the term "Jewish State", means a Jewish majority and Palestine will become a Jewish country at the moment when it has a Jewish majority".

-- Zionism, and the Arabs, 1882-1948 A study of ideology (Yosef Gorny, 1987)

However, there was another ideology emerging which was far more popular among the oppressed Jewish people, which would propell them to emancipate themselves where they lived. Revolutionary Socialism.

According Ilan Pappe, the doctrine of Zionism was vehemently opposed by Jewish leaders all around Europe on the basis of Talmudic violations, the rise of revolutionary socialism and the rise of Jewish assimilationism. Additionally, in a conference in Frankfurt, rabbis decided to omit the mentioning of "the return" from Jewish prayers as a reaction to Zionism. However, Zionism would face intense opposition from Socialist Jews, especially the Bundists, who openly declared Zionism to be anti-Socialist, opportunistic and reactionary. Zionism was an alien idea, and revolutionary socialism emphasised the importance of the liberation of Jews where they lived, resulting in an ideological feud between the Bundists and Political Zionists. Even the likes of the Chaim Weizmann, the first president of the Settler state, and David Ben Gurion, the first PM of the settler state, would condemn the Bundists for their opposition to Political Zionism.

[amateurvoltaire]

Exhibition 1793-1794 at the Carnavalet Museum (Part I)

For anyone interested in the French Revolution, a visit to the Carnavalet Museum is essential. Though the museum covers the history of Paris from its very beginnings to the present, it’s also home to the world’s largest collection of revolutionary artefacts. Which makes sense, given that Paris was the epicentre of it all.

Frankly, if you plan to explore it all, you’ll want to set aside a good 3–4 hours. For those focused solely on the French Revolution, head straight to the second floor, where you can get through the collection in under an hour. Best of all, the permanent collection is free, making it a brilliant way to spend an afternoon in the city on a budget.

Currently, though, there’s a special treat on offer. Running from 16 October 2024 to 16 February 2025, the museum is hosting an exhibition dedicated to my favourite (and arguably the most chaotic) year of the revolution: Year II (1).

Now, since the family and I were in Reims for a long weekend, I somehow managed (possibly after too much Champagne) to convince my husband to drive 150 kilometres to Paris just so I could see Robespierre’s unfinished signature. It helped that the kids were on board, too. Yes, the four-year-old fully recognises Robespierre by portrait. The one-year-old is, predictably, indifferent.

So, slightly worse for wear after a ridiculous amount of Champagne tastings, off we went to the museum.

1. Why Year II?

Because it was a catastrophe. No. Really.  Let me explain, in a very overly-simplified summary:

In Year II, France was plunged into an unparalleled storm of internal and external crises that would define the Revolution’s most radical year and ultimately mark its turning point.

Internally, the government was riven by factional divides, economic collapse, and civil war. The Jacobins (2) took control of the Convention, sidelining the federalist Girondins (3), aligning themselves with the sans-culottes (4), and arguing that only extreme measures could preserve the Revolution. Meanwhile, the more radical Enragés (5) demanded harsh economic policies to shield the poor from spiralling inflation and food shortages. The Convention introduced the Maximum Général (6) to placate them, which capped essential prices; however, enforcement was haphazard, fuelling discontent across the country. At the same time, the Indulgents (7) called for a reduction in violence and a return to clemency.

Externally, France’s situation was equally dire, encircled by the First Coalition—a formidable alliance of Britain, Austria, Prussia, Spain, and the Dutch Republic, all intent on crushing the Revolution before it spread further. With the execution of Louis XVI, France found itself diplomatically isolated, and the army was, frankly, a shambles. Most officers were either nobles or incompetent (8), and the soldiers were inadequately trained and equipped. In a desperate bid to defend the Republic, the Convention issued the Levée en Masse (9) in August 1793, sparking revolts in many cities and outright civil war in the West.

Confronted with this barrage of existential threats, the Convention dialled up its response in spectacular fashion, unleashing what we now know as the Terror—a period of sweeping repression backed by some rather questionable legislation. As you can likely guess from the name alone, this was a brilliant idea…

Put simply: by the end of Year II, nearly all the key figures who had spearheaded the Revolution up to that point were dead. And no, they didn’t slip away peacefully in their sleep from some ordinary epidemic. They met their end at the guillotine.

In short, Year II wasn’t just the Revolution's most radical and defining phase—it was also the year the Revolution itself died. Yes, the Revolution, in its truest, purest, most uncompromising form, met its end the moment the guillotine's blade struck Robespierre’s neck.

2. Overview of the exhibition

The visit  opens with the destruction of the 1791 Constitution and closes with Liberty, an allegorical figure of the Republic depicted as a woman holding the Declaration of the Rights of Man in her right hand. In between, the experience is structured around five main themes:

A New Regime: The Republic

Paris: Revolution in Daily Life

Justice: From Ordinary to Exceptional

Prisons and Execution Sites

Beyond Legends

More than 250 artefacts are featured, including paintings, sculptures, decorative arts, historical items, wallpapers, posters, and furniture. The layout is carefully structured around these themes, with a distinct use of colour to set the tone: the first three sections have a neutral palette, while the final two glow in vivid red, creating a very nice change in atmosphere.

What I appreciated most was how the descriptions handle the messy legacy of Year II. The texts actually admit that, while some Parisians saw this year as a bold step towards equality and utopia, for others it was an absolute nightmare. This balance is refreshing, even if things are a bit simplified (because how could they not be?), and it gives a well-rounded view of a wildly complicated time.

In this first part, I'll focus on the first two sections, as the latter three fit together neatly and deserve a deep dive of their own. Besides, there's so much to unpack that I'll likely exceed Tumblr's word limit (and the patience of anyone reading this).

3. A New Regime: The Republic

The first section covers the shift from the Ancien Régime to the First Republic, and, fittingly, it starts with a smashed relic of the old order: the Constitution of 1791. After the monarchy’s fall and the republic’s proclamation in September 1792, the old constitution was meaningless. Though it technically remained in force for a few months, it was replaced by the Constitution of Year I in 1793, marking the end of France’s brief experiment with a constitutional monarchy. In May 1793, the old document was ceremonially obliterated with the “national sledgehammer”—a bit dramatic, perhaps, but Year II was nothing if not dramatic.

This section zeroes in on the governance of the new republic, featuring the Constitution of Year I, portraits of convention members, objects from the Committee of Public Safety and the National Convention (including a folder for Robespierre’s correspondence), and national holiday memorabilia. There’s even a nice nod to Hérault de Séchelles (10) as a principal author of the republican constitution.

3.1 Martyrdom as a political tool

Interestingly, the exhibition places a heavy emphasis on the concept of martyrdom. A significant portion of this first area is dedicated to the Death of Marat (11) and, to a lesser extent, the assassination of Le Peletier (12). It’s a clever angle since martyrs—whether well-known figures or nameless soldiers—have always been handy for rallying public opinion. The revolutionary government of Year II understood this all too well and wielded the concept to its full advantage.

In this spirit, the middle of this section features a reproduction of David’s Death of Marat, several drawings from Marat’s funeral, Marat’s mortuary mask, a supposed piece of his jaw, and more. Notably absent are any issues of L’Ami du Peuple, as though the display suggests Marat’s death was more impactful to the Republic’s narrative than his actual writings. I’d agree with that—the moment he died, he was elevated to a mythic status, and his legacy as a martyr of Year II took on a life of its own.

4. Paris: Revolution in Daily Life

While the first section focuses on the workings of governance, this part delves into Year II’s impact on ordinary Parisians. This period stands out for two reasons: France was in economic and political turmoil (wars, both internal and external, aren’t exactly budget-friendly), yet it also managed to introduce some remarkably forward-thinking legislation aimed at improving the lives of the common people.

4.1 The Paris Commune & Paranoia

To understand life in Paris during Year II, we can’t overlook the role of the Paris Commune (13). Rooted in the revolutionary spirit of the Estates General of 1789 and officially formalised by the law of 19 October 1792, the Commune was the governing body responsible for Paris. Divided into forty-eight sections, each with its own assembly, it gave citizens a strong voice in electing representatives and local officials. Led by a mayor, a general council, and a municipal body, the Commune handled essential civic matters like public works, subsistence, and policing.

From 2 June 1793 to 27 July 1794 (the height of Year II), the Commune implemented the policies of the Montagnard (14) Convention, which aimed to build a social structure grounded in the natural rights of man and citizen, reaffirmed on 24 June 1793. This social programme sought to guarantee basic rights such as subsistence (covering food, lighting, heating, clothing, and shelter), work (including access to tools, raw materials, and goods), assistance (support for children, the elderly, and the sick; rights to housing and healthcare), and education (fostering knowledge and preserving arts and sciences).

All this unfolded in an atmosphere thick with paranoia and intense policing; enemies were believed to lurk everywhere. The display does a solid job of capturing this side of the Paris Commune, featuring various illustrations that urged people to conform to new revolutionary norms—wear the cockade, play your part in the social order, fight for and celebrate the motherland, and so on.

One of my favourite pieces was the record of cartes de sûreté (safety cards) from one of the 48 Parisian sections. Made compulsory for Parisians in April 1793, these cards were meant to confirm that their holders weren’t considered “suspects” in a climate thick with paranoia. This small, seemingly random document—issued or revoked at the discretion of an equally random Revolutionary Committee—had the power to decide a person’s freedom or the lack of it.

At the risk of sounding sentimental, in the study of history, we often focus on broad events and overlook the "little guy" who lived through them. But here, this record reminds us that behind each document was, in fact, a real person. And that this very real person was trying to make their way through a reality that, 230 years ago, must have felt stifling and, at times, terrifying.

4.2 Education

A significant spotlight is rightly placed on education in this exhibition section, given the sweeping changes it underwent during the Revolution.

Before 1789, Paris was well-supplied with educational institutions. Eleven historic colleges and a semi-subsidised university offered prestigious studies in theology, law, medicine, and the arts, drawing students from across France. Inspired by Enlightenment ideals, boarding schools and specialised courses in subjects like science and mathematics had sprung up, mainly catering to the middle class, while working-class children attended charity schools. Private adult education also provided technical and scientific training. The catch? Most of these were church-operated.

Revolutionary policies targeting the Church caused a mass departure of teachers, financial difficulties, and restrictions on hiring unsalaried educators. Military demands, economic turmoil, and protests added to the strain on schools. Even the Sorbonne (15) was shut down in 1792, and by late 1793, nearly all Parisian colleges were closed except for Louis-le-Grand (16), which was renamed École Égalité. With the teacher shortage and soaring inflation, a handful of institutions struggled on.

This left the Convention and the Paris Commune scrambling to find new ways to educate the young, and they rose (or at least attempted to rise) to the occasion. On 19 December 1793, the Bouquier Decree aimed to establish free, secular, and mandatory primary education—a remarkable move, though it never fully materialised due to lack of funding.

With France at war, the Convention turned public education towards the needs of a nation in crisis. Throughout 1793 and 1794, new scientific and technical programmes sprang up to meet urgent demands, combat food shortages, and push social progress. Thousands of students were trained in saltpetre refinement (vital for gunpowder), and scientific knowledge spread beyond chemists to artisans and tin workers. In the final months of Year II, a saltpetre refinement zone was set up, the École de Mars was founded to rapidly train young men in military techniques, and the École Centrale des Travaux Publics (future École Polytechnique) was established to develop engineers in military-technical fields.

The education display features a fascinating array of educational degrees, lists of primary school students, and instructor rosters. Although a bit more context on the educational upheaval would have been helpful, the artefacts themselves are intriguing. Placed in the context of the rest of the exhibit, it’s clear that the new educational system wasn’t just about breaking away from the Ancien Régime; it was also very deliberately and openly crafted to instil republican ideals. Nothing illustrates this better than the way Joseph Barra(17) was promoted as a model for students at the École de Mars.

And, of course, this section also showcases one of the most enduring legacies of the Revolution: the introduction of the metric system and modern standardised measurements.

4.3 The (lack of) Women in Year II

The women of Year II were not real women. They were symbols—or so the imagery from the era would have us believe. There is shockingly little about the actual experiences of women in the collective memory of Year II.

Women played active roles in the Revolution. They filled the Assembly’s tribunes as spectators, mobilised in the sections, founded clubs, joined public debates, signed petitions, and even participated in mixed societies. In many cases, they worked side by side with men to bring about the Republic of Year II. So where are they?

Well, they’re certainly not prominent in this exhibition—but that’s not the fault of the organisers. It’s a reflection of how the time chose to represent them. In revolutionary imagery, women became allegories: symbols of Liberty, wisdom, the Republic, or the ideal mother raising citizens for the state, often reduced to stereotypes and caricatures. Rarely were they depicted as part of the public sphere.

The absence of a serious discourse on women’s rights in this part of the exhibition speaks volumes and is true to the period itself. At the time, there was no cohesive movement for women’s rights, and while specific individuals pushed for aspects of female citizenship, these efforts lacked unity or a common cause. Eventually, being perceived as too radical, all women's clubs were closed in 1973.

4.4 Dechristianisation

In my view, dechristianisation was perhaps the greatest misstep of the various governments from 1789 onwards. Not because I think religion should be central to people’s lives—not at all—but because, in 18th-century France, it simply was essential for most. The reasoning behind this attack on religion was sound enough: no government wants to be beholden to a pope in Rome who had heavily supported the deposed king. But in practice, the application of this principle was far from effective.

By Year II, Parisian authorities were still grappling with the fallout from the Civil Constitution of the Clergy (1790), which had left Catholics split between two competing churches: the constitutional church, loyal to the Revolution, and the refractory church, loyal to Rome. Patriotic priests suspected refractory priests of using their influence to fuel counter-revolutionary sentiment—a suspicion that only intensified the general atmosphere of paranoia.

As tension mounted, it devolved, as these things often do, into outright destruction. On 23 October 1793, the Commune of Paris ordered the removal of all monuments that "encouraged religious superstitions or reminded the public of past kings." Religious statues were removed, replaced by images of revolutionary martyrs like Le Peletier, Marat, and Chalier (19), in an effort to supplant the cult of saints with the cult of republican heroes.

The exhibition presents this wave of destruction with artefacts from ruined religious statues, the most striking being the head of one of the Kings of Judah from Notre-Dame’s facade. These 28 statues were dragged down and mutilated in a frenzy against royalist symbols in 1793. . Ironically, they weren’t even French kings; they were Old Testament kings, supposedly ancestors of Christ—a fact that most people at the time were probably blissfully unaware of. But hey, destruction in the name of ignorance is nothing new, is it?

Many in the Convention and the Commune were atheists and enthusiastically supported the secularisation of public life. Unfortunately, they didn’t represent the majority of the French population. To bridge this gap, Robespierre proposed a "moral religion" without clergy, a way for citizens to unite and celebrate a shared, secularised liberty. In December 1793, the Convention passed a decree granting "unlimited liberty of worship," leading to the Festival of the Supreme Being, held in Paris and throughout France on 8 June 1794.

As with so much in Year II, the "Supreme Being" affair was a logical solution to a pressing problem that ended up blowing up in Robespierre’s face—by now, you might detect a pattern. But that’s a story for Part II of this already very long post.

5. Conclusion to Part 1

Overall, the exhibition presents the first two themes—A New Regime: The Republic and Paris: Revolution in Daily Life—in a balanced way, which I really appreciate. I was expecting a bit more sensationalism, given that Year II is known for its brutality, but instead, it provides a thoughtful overview of how the Republic was structured and the impact this had on Parisians.

The range of media and text offers a good dive into key points, especially on everyday life during the period. I didn’t listen to everything, but from what I saw, the explanations were well done. Naturally, since the exhibition is aimed at the general public, many aspects are simplified.

For younger audiences (pre-teens, perhaps?), the exhibit includes 11 watercolour illustrations by Florent Grouazel and Younn Locard. These two artists attempt to fill the gaps by depicting events from the period that lack contemporary representation (like the destruction of the Constitution with the “national sledgehammer” on 5 May 1793—an event documented but unillustrated at the time). For each scene, they created a young character as an actor or observer, sometimes just a witness to history, to make the scene more immersive. It’s a nice touch, though easy to overlook if you’re not paying close attention.

In Part II, I’ll share my thoughts on the remaining themes: Justice, Prisons and Execution Sites, and Beyond Legends. And yes, a lot of that will involve Thermidor—how could it not?

In the meantime, if you made it this far… well, I’m impressed!

Notes

(1) Year II: Refers to the period from 22 September 1793 to 21 September 1794 in the French Revolutionary calendar.

(2) Jacobins: A political group advocating social reform and, by 1793, strongly promoting Republican ideals. Most revolutionaries were, or had once been, members of the Jacobin club, though by Year II, Robespierre stood out as its most prominent figure.

(3) Girondins: A conservative faction within the National Convention, representing provincial interests and, to some extent, supporting constitutional monarchy. Key figures included Brissot and Roland.

(4) Sans-culottes: Working-class Parisians who championed radical changes and economic reforms to support the poor. The name “sans-culottes” (meaning "without knee breeches") symbolised their rejection of aristocratic dress in favour of working-class trousers.

(5) Enragés: An ultra-radical group demanding strict economic controls, such as price caps on essentials, to benefit the poor. Led by figures like Jacques Roux and, to some extent, Jacques Hébert, the Enragés urged the Convention to fully break from the Ancien Régime.

(6) Maximum Général: A 1793 law imposing price caps on essential goods to curb inflation and aid the poor. Though well-intended, it was difficult to enforce and stirred resentment among merchants.

(7) Indulgents: A faction led by Danton and Desmoulins advocating a relaxation of the severe repressive measures introduced in Year II, calling instead for clemency and a return to more moderate governance.

(8) Incompetence: At the Revolution’s outset, military positions were primarily held by nobles. By Year II, these noble officers were often dismissed due to mistrust, and their replacements—particularly in the civil conflict in the West—were frequently inexperienced, and some, quite frankly, incompetent.

(9) Levée en Masse: A mass conscription decree of 1793 requiring all able-bodied, unmarried men aged 18 to 25 to enlist. This unprecedented mobilisation extended to the wider population, with men of other ages filling support roles, women making uniforms and tending to the wounded, and children gathering supplies.

(10) Hérault de Séchelles: A lawyer, politician, and member of the Committee of Public Safety during Year II, known primarily for helping to draft the Constitution of 1793.

(11) Jean-Paul Marat: A radical journalist and politician, fiercely supportive of the sans-culottes and advocating revolutionary violence in his publication L’Ami du Peuple. Assassinated in 1793, he became the Revolution’s most famous martyr.

(12) Louis-Michel Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau: A politician and revolutionary who voted in favour of the king’s execution and was assassinated in 1793 shortly after casting his vote, becoming a symbol of revolutionary sacrifice.

(13) Paris Commune: Not to be confused with the better-known Paris Commune of 1871, this Commune was the governing body of Paris during the Revolution, responsible for administering the city and playing a key role in revolutionary events.

(14) Montagnard Convention: The left-wing faction of the National Convention, dominated by Jacobins, which held power during the Revolution’s most radical phase and implemented the Reign of Terror.

(15) Sorbonne: Founded in the 13th century by Robert de Sorbon as a theological college, the Sorbonne evolved into one of Europe’s most respected centres for higher learning, particularly known for theology, philosophy, and the liberal arts. It was closed during the Revolution due to anti-clerical reforms.

(16) Louis-Le-Grand: A prestigious secondary school in Paris, temporarily renamed École Égalité during the Revolution. Notable alumni include Maximilien Robespierre and Camille Desmoulins.

(17) Joseph Barra: A young soldier killed in 1793 during the War in the Vendée, whose death was used as revolutionary propaganda to inspire loyalty and martyrdom among French youth.

(18) Civil Constitution of the Clergy: A 1790 law that brought the Catholic Church in France under state control, requiring clergy to swear allegiance to the government. This split Catholics between “constitutional” and “refractory” priests, heightening religious tensions.

(19) Joseph Chalier: A revolutionary leader in Lyon who supported radical policies. He was executed in 1793 after attempting to enforce these policies, later becoming a martyr for the revolutionary cause.

[alpaca-clouds]

Let me talk about Mizrak

Yeah, this with all the entire Nocturne brainrot is going to continue for a couple more days at least. But the show has so many interesting themes and characters and I just love it so much. And after getting all my friends to watch the show, I got surprised by one of them being super angry about Mizrak.

Why? Well, because of the last scene with him and Olrox in the season and his words of: "You are just an animal that lost its soul centuries ago." And the friend considered that "being an asshole" and "cruel".

To which I say: Cruel? Yes. Asshole? No.

Let me explain.

First, let me make one thing clear: No, Mizrak is not a templar. I have seen that one too many times. He is not a templar. He is a monk knight of the order of St. John, so the Knights Hospitaller. Like the templars they were very much tied to the crusades originally, but they are not the same thing. There were a lot of orders and types of knights associated with the crusades. Templars were just one of them. (Do you guys wanna hear more about the templars? I can talk more about them.)

We know from bits and pieces of dialogue that Mizrak originates in Jerusalem (which is also where the order was founded). This is a gentle reminder: Israel as we know it today was not a thing back then. But Jerusalem was always a place of religious conflict as it holds importance in all three Abrahamic religions. Which was, what the crusades were all about after all. Before the time of the French Revolution, though, there was mostly some a conflict between the Ottomans and some Arab forces over Palestine. There were some Christian orders accepted within the city though.

Now, the Knights Hospitaller, who were accepted in Jerusalem, had a strong connection to France. Which... lead to problems, when some of the Arabs and the French got into problems. Which let to the Knights Hospitaller leaving for Malta. This too is referenced in the dialogue. (If you guys cannot tell: I am very happy with the amount of historical research put into this show!)

Mizrak looks to be in his early 30s. So I assume he entered the order in his mid-teens (which was a usual age to enter an order like that) and then probably left for Malta within a couple of years after that when the political situation got more charged. And then from Malta to France.

The Knights Hospitaller back then for all intent and purposes lived as militarized monks. That means they made vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. And this very much shines through with his character in so many scenes.

Of course we see that the entire "chastity" thing does not work out that well for him. But that is also why he clearly is shown to be conflicted about that entire thing. What he tries to uphold, though, is the obedience aspect of his vows. And that is, what his entire conflict is about.

See, what I love about this character is that there is all this delicious conflict.

I will iterate again: I grew up in a very, very conservative, strict, catholic household. Other kids got read fairytales for bedtime. My mother read me the bible. Priests and monks were people we intermingled with a lot. (Heck, the last pope? I met him when he was still a bishop.) And hence I got to make one very clear experience: There are three types of Catholics: Those, who focus on all the horrible things. Those, who focus on the literal stuff written in the bible. And those, who focus on the positive stuff. You know, the stuff with helping people, and being poor, and sharing, and being in general a good person. (Though the three types are not always mutually exclusive.)

And it is pretty clear that Mizrak is of the latter kind. He believes in the good he can do through his faith in God and Christ. But he has also grown up in an Order and a Church that puts a lot of focus on the idea of sin, on the idea of obedience, and the idea of the "natural order".

But there he is, with his Abbot collaborating with demons and vampires to enforce that "natural order", which among other things goes against their own vow of poverty. This is so clearly against Mizrak's believes. Because in his very core, Mizrak is a good fucking man. He is one of the good guys. Who wants to do good through his faith in God. And this conflicts for him.

So by the end of episode 7 he reached the point to go against his vow of obedience, because his faith in doing good was stronger, than his dedication to his vows. He very actively broke his vows in the eyes of his order, standing against his order, to protect those darn kids. Because it was the right thing to do. He is absolutely willing to do the noble sacrifice if that is what it takes to save those kids. And in comes that weird dude and takes this chance from him.

And his entire thing with Olrox... It seems very much that Mizrak is indeed gay. As the series so helpfully points out: Yeah, priests, monks, other clergy, and their vows of chastity were always a thing that rarely worked out. Again, as someone who grew up with close ties to the church: The fact that everyone is secretly fucking is... well known. As well as the fact that yeah, there are a lot of gay clergy. Mostly for the reason that they are shamed for their sexuality and then take the vows to not be tempted into homosexuality. Only to find that a priest school with a lot of other queer supressed men is exactly the place you do not want to be to not be tempted. (And that is all without going into all the non-con, pedophilia and what not. Things that were also already happening back then, I guarantee you.)

So, try to imagine that entire thing from Mizrak's perspective. There he is, already ashamed and suppressed about all of that and in comes this very, very seductive vampire man, who kinda seems to align with some of his values, but not with others. And who is emotionally unavailable as fuck, outright telling him that he does not love our dear Mizrak. Someone, who clearly is not for the vampires and your abbot, but also clearly not willing to take the other side. The side that you in your heart (even though it means standing against your order) know to be right. And this man, who claims to not love you, then comes in and tries to stop you from doing what is right.

Yeah, no fuck, Mizrak is a bit pissed at him. Especially as in that moment Olrox very clearly goes against Mizrak's ideals, that are all about self-sacrificially doing the right thing.

And I do think that Mizrak is right in one regard: Olrox lost his soul. He lost a part of himself. Through the trauma of colonialism, but he lost it never the less.

So, once more: Thanks the team for giving us another interesting, well-rounded religious character! CV already did so well with Isaac and Mizrak is sofar extremely promising in that regard.

[endearing-dalliance]

Another Blow Against Arcane: Antisemitism

Christian Linke posted the original pitch for Arcane, and I'm starting to understand why so many people turned them down before they finally got the project funded.

There's a lot to unpack here, but I got stuck on "svengalis". I wasn't originally going to harp on about this since I had never heard the term before, but I read up on it and OH BOY

apparently Svengali is the name of the villainous character from the French story Trilby. It actually inspired the Phantom of the Opera, which I thought was neat. Many smarter and more eloquent people than I have labeled the character and author antisemetic af

His main role in the story was that he really wanted to train Trilby, a beautiful young woman, but she rejected him. A bunch of stuff happens to her romantically that made her leave Paris with her brother. He later dies, and Svengali takes advantage to sink his claws into her. He hypnotizes her into having a split personality, and in that state she becomes a successful singer like he wanted. Unfortunately, it is physically and psychologically devastating, and she dies because she cannot live without him.

his name has come to mean someone who manipulates or controls another person, usually a young woman, to further his own agenda. There's even the "Svengali defense" that portrays a defendant as a pawn of a more influential criminal mastermind.

his physical description includes a tall and bony middle-aged body, thick black hair to the shoulder, beady and heavily lidded evil eyes, long hooked nose, thin and sallow (yellowish or grayish) face. He wore red and a long cloak, and was described as effeminate and continually filthy.

I know, coincidence right? Surely they didn't create, pitch, get funding for, and produce an updated version of a character that many people, including George Orwell, criticized as antisemetic. That subsequent adaptations have deliberately modified to be less stereotypical and offensive. This cannot be the character so many people enjoy and even admire at times, a symbol of revolution against an oppressive society that literally gases people.

Well fuck. On top of everything else, does this validate the Silco/Jinx shippers?

[fdelopera]

America owes its independence to Haym Salomon, a Sephardic Jewish Patriot

A Jewish American Hero

by Yosef Kaufmann

October 17, 1781. An eerie silence takes hold over the battlefield outside Yorktown, Virginia. After weeks of non-stop artillery shells and rifle fire, the rhythmic pounding of a drum is all that is heard. Through the wispy smoke that floats above the battlefield, a British officer can be seen waving a white flag. General Cornwallis has surrendered Yorktown, ending the last major battle of the American Revolution. The surrender of Yorktown and the nearly 8,000 British troops convinced the British Parliament to start negotiating an end to the war. On September 3, 1783, the treaty of Paris was signed. The war was over.

If not for Haym Salomon, however, the decisive victory at Yorktown never would have happened.

Haym Salomon was born in Leszno, Poland, in 1740. In 1770, he was forced to leave Poland for London as a result of the Partition of Poland. Five years later, he left London for New York City, where he quickly established himself as a broker for international merchants.

Sympathetic to the Patriot cause, Haym joined the New York branch of the Sons of Liberty, a secret society that did what it could to undermine British interests in the colonies. In 1776, he was arrested by the British and charged with being a spy. He was pardoned on condition that he spend 18 months on a British ship serving as a translator for the Hessian mercenaries, as he was fluent in Polish, French, German, Russian, Spanish and Italian. During those 18 months, Haym used his position to help countless American prisoners escape. He also convinced many Hessian soldiers to abandon the British and join the American forces.

In 1778, he was arrested again and sentenced to death for his involvement in a plot to burn the British Royal fleet in the New York Harbour. He was sent to Provost to await execution, but he managed to bribe a guard and escape under the cover of darkness.

He fled New York, which was under the control of the British army, and moved to Philadelphia, the capital of the Revolution.

He borrowed money and started a business as a dealer of bills of exchange. His office was located near a coffee house frequented by the command of the American forces. He also became the agent to the French consul and the paymaster for the French forces in North America. Here he became friendly with Robert Morris, the newly appointed Superintendent of Finance for the 13 colonies. Records show that between 1781 and 1784, through both fundraising and personal loans, he was responsible for financing George Washington over $650,000, today worth approximately over $13 million.

By 1781, the American congress was practically broke. The huge cost of financing the war effort had taken its toll. In September of that year, George Washington decided to march on Yorktown to engage General Cornwallis. A huge French fleet was on its way from the West Indies under the command of Comte De Grasse. The fleet would only be able to stay until late October, so Washington was facing immense pressure to lead an attack on Yorktown before then.

After marching through Pennsylvania, with little in the way of food and supplies, Washington’s troops were on the verge of mutiny. They demanded a full month's pay in coins, not congressional paper money which was virtually worthless, or they would not continue their march. Washington wrote to Robert Morris saying he would need $20,000 to finance the campaign. Morris responded that there was simply no money or even credit left. Washington simply wrote, “Send for Haym Salomon.” Within days, Haym Salomon had raised the $20,000 needed for what proved to be the decisive victory of the Revolution.

Haym’s chessed continued after the war. Whenever he met someone who he felt had sacrificed during the war and needed financial assistance, he didn’t hesitate to do whatever he could to help.

He was also heavily involved in the Jewish community. He was a member of Congregation Mikveh Yisroel in Philadelphia, the fourth oldest synagogue in America, and he was responsible for the majority of the funds used to build the shul’s main building.

He also served as the treasurer to the Society for the Relief of Destitute Strangers, the first Jewish charitable organization in Philadelphia.

On January 8, 1785, Haym died suddenly at the age of 44. Due to the fact the government owed him hundreds of thousands of dollars, his family was left penniless.

His obituary in the Independent Gazetteer read:

Thursday, last, expired, after a lingering illness, Mr. Haym Salomon, an eminent broker of this city, was a native of Poland, and of the Hebrew nation. He was remarkable for his skill and integrity in his profession, and for his generous and humane deportment. His remains were yesterday deposited in the burial ground of the synagogue of this city.

Although there is little proof, many believe that when designing the American Great Seal, George Washington asked Salomon what he wanted as compensation for his generosity during the war. Salomon responded “I want nothing for myself, rather something for my people.” It is for this reason that the 13 stars are arranged in the shape of the Star of David.

[pmamtraveller]

KONSTANTIN SOMOV - THE BOXER, 1933

The Boxer depicts Boris Snezhkovsky, a regular model for the artist. In a letter to his sister, Somov wrote: "Two days ago, I finished a portrait in oil, a 'nu' (half-length), and afterward I painted a 'still life' beside him: a mirror, behind him a chest of drawers, on which lay his shirt and vest, with a pair of boxing gloves hanging on the wall. The painting is not bad." Somov was known to be very critical of himself, so calling the work 'not bad' actually meant he thought highly of it.

Around 1930, Somov met a young man in his twenties who would go on to inspire some of Somov's finest later pieces. He would pose for simple portraits, lovely, subtly provocative oil paintings, and could have been the subject of more sensual watercolors. Somov was a homosexual, but the specific details of his connection with his model and friend remain a mystery. It is known that the artist gave a collection of drawings and paintings to the sitter, which included a self-portrait that the young man requested Somov to create. The artworks depicting the artist's youthful muse were likely made between 1930 and 1937.

Boris Mikhailovich Snezhkovsky was born on July 23, 1910, in Odessa. His father worked as a ship captain for the Russian Volunteer Fleet. During the Revolution, seven-year-old Boris and his mother journeyed across the country, from Odessa to Vladivostok, before eventually making Paris their new home. In 1937, Boris obtained French citizenship through naturalization. Additionally, he tied the knot that year and started serving in the military; he was discharged in 1940 following the Fall of France and got divorced in 1942. At some later time, he got married again to Christiane Karcher, had at least one child, and was listed as working as an accountant and a physical education teacher. He committed suicide on February 24, 1978, at the age of sixty-seven and was buried in the Russian cemetery at Sainte-Geneviève-des-Bois, where many émigrés including Somov, are buried.

[fuck-you-upmusicbracket]

Empty Chairs at Empty Tables (Les Miserables)

Phantom faces at the window/Phantom shadows on the floor/Empty chairs at empty tables/Where my friends will meet no more/Oh my friends, my friends/Don't ask me what your sacrifice was for/Empty chairs at empty tables/Where my friends will sing no more

There's a grief that can't be spoken/There's a pain goes on and on/Empty chairs at empty tables/Now my friends are dead and gone

"In a musical about sad thing after sad thing, this one hits the hardest. I once saw a production of it in Budapest where the stage of the song before it had women in big white dresses literally turning around and around and then disappearing to leave the actor playing Marius alone on the stage and it was just so jarring and heartbreaking"

"This musical never fails to make me cry. Les Mis was the first musical that made me so passionate about the medium, and it still is my favorite. The story is heartbreaking, and it really fucks you up (especially if you're attached to the characters). About the song, at this moment (spoiler alert, I guess?) the revolution just failed (the people didn't come to support the movement, they were fighting alone), and everyone that participated pretty much died. Marius only survived because Jean Valjean saved him, and he finds out afterwards that ALL of his friends were murdered by the french police and that he's the only one left alive. He's drowning in survivor's guilt and on the memories of his dead friends, and is singing in the room they used to have their meetings when they were planning the rebellion. It fucks you up because you spent part of the musical getting attached to all of the Les Mis and you want them to succeed with the barricade, so this really rubs their deaths in your face (and you see Marius getting really fucked up over it)."

"Dude is singing about how his friends all died. If someone says they watched a production of Les Mis and didn't cry at this song they are lying"

Poll runner: I saw Les Mis live a while or so ago and holy fuck... it is the ultimate fuck-you-up musical. This song is especially devastating. It's all about survivor's guilt and the price we pay for a chance at revolution. The way they staged it fucking RUINED me, they had Marius surrounded by all the dead characters, all holding candles, and they slowly raised their candles like glasses, before blowing them out until only Marius was left onstage, candle raised to the sky. It was, as my director friend said, a picture perfect moment. Anyway, this song is absolutely devastating.

The Old Witch Sleep and the Good Man Grace (The Amazing Devil)

'Cause I've been here so many times before/Don't you think I look pretty/Curled up on this bathroom floor/But where you see weakness I see wit/Sometimes I fall to pieces/Just to see what bits of me don't fit/'Cause when I stand, oh all those folks will run/And tell the tales of what I've become/They'll speak of me in whispered tones/And say my name like it shakes their bones

"GIRL (gender neutral). It’s so unbelievably Hannibal (NBC) coded. Even the bio on genius.com is Hannibal coded. I was making up a dance to this song inspired by Hannibal in my room not even five minutes ago and it’s 10 pm my time. I hope that answers the question I’m just very mentally ill."

"Becoming a demon against your demons ("Cos I’m not trapped / With you you see / You’re the one who’s / Trapped with me"), shaping yourself into something dangerous against what hurt you, grasping with claws and teeth to your freedom and truest self. The pain shaped us but we won't let that stop us."

The Old Witch... submitted by @gay-breakdown-central + @saint-oleander + others

[blue-and-gilt]

French Grenadier Officers' Sabre - Petite Montmorency style. Circa 1788 - 1800.

The social upheaval in France during the late 18th century was pervasive through all levels of society. People were abandoning the old and adopting a number of new styles and fashions to display their allegiance to which ever faction the belonged to; the (soon to be executed) king, the revolution, or some variation of the politics at the time.

One of these changes in fashion began around 1784 with infantry officers giving up their model 1767 smallsword in favour of non-regulation sabres, often based on the styles copied from the cavalry. The rotating guard hilts were one such example.

With the Royal decree of April 1788 permitting the use of sabres by the infantry we see another type appear, swords with slotted hilts and sidebars that often feature military emblems such as the light infantry hunters horn or the grenadiers flaming bomb. While others (normally associated with the National Guard) display elaborate political symbolism like Roosters or lions with the Phrygian cap; icons of bravery, the French State and the revolution.

Because these sabres were non-regulation, they don't follow a set pattern; and can be plain or very ornate. Seeking to classify them, collectors of the late 19th Century noted that many swords in this style had blades that matched the profile of the Montmorency Dragoons; a curved blade with a central fuller and a secondary fuller running close to the spine.

Since they were carried by infantry or National Guard officers, on the whole this style of sabre are shorter than the dragoon type, thus earning them the petite montmorency moniker. As with many such arbitrary names, its meaning has expanded in use to cover a wider group of swords that are broadly similar but don't follow exactly the same features. This sword is such an example. The slotted hilt and guard are very typical with the helmet pommel, sidebars and flaming bomb. However because the blade is has no fuller, it can't be said to have a true montmorency blade. Still, it is the best grouping we have for this sword. This sword is a handy weapon, just shy of 80cm long with a 66cm blade. The lack of a fuller means is weighs 750 grams, giving it a lot of presence in the hand. The blade engraved with the word Grenadier on one side and flaming bomb with a trophy and bomb on the other; otherwise it is very plain.

On the spine there is an arrow wrapped in a scroll, which I assume to be related to the maker. I'm sure I've seen this mark before but now I can't find the source. If you know what it means, please let me know.

Stats: Overall Length - 795 mm Blade Length - 655 mm Curve - 15 mm Point of Balance - 140 mm Grip Length - 142 mm Inside Grip Length - 105 mm Weight - 750 grams

[boreal-sea]

The Hamas charters

Hamas has had two charters, the first in 1988 and the second in 2017.

I have posted about this before, where I reviewed the charters and exposed their antisemitism, but I cannot find that post, so I'm making a new one.

The 1988 Charter:

Hamas is also known as the Islamic Resistance Movement.

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" "Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious." "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement." "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad." "In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised."

Hamas was not formed to find a peaceful solution, it is a nationalistic militant group formed to wage what they consider to be a holy war.

Hamas' original charter states that they believe Jews have "infiltrated" all kinds of organizations and have caused several wars, all with the goal of achieving Zionism. When they say "the enemies", they mean Jews. This document does not differentiate between Jews and Zionists and uses the terms interchangeably. Article 22 is where the antisemitism really hits the fan. The following is all one single long paragraph; I've broken it up to single out the individual antisemitic conspiracy theories:

"For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream."

Antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jews are all immeasurably wealthy? Check!

"With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others."

Antisemitic conspiracy theory that that Jews control the media? Check!

"With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there."

Antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jews have caused many wars throughout history? Check!

"With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests."

Oh hey it's the Judeo-Masonic antisemitic conspiracy theory!

"With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there."

And of course the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jews secretly control the governments of major countries around the world. I remind you, all of this was in one single paragraph.

This document is wildly disorganized, so we go back to blaming Jews for wars, this time, WWI:

"They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it."

I just cannot believe anyone who claims Hamas is not an antisemitic organization. Hamas blames Jews for both world wars and is claiming Jews literally "rule the world" and control the UN.

"They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion."

Jews are also apparently behind drugs and alcoholism and want to annihilate Islam. This would almost be funny if this document was not the charter of a real-world organization.

This document goes on and on. It cites the "Protocols of Zion", which is a known fake document written by antisemites and not by Jews:

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

So that's the 1988 charter. THIS IS WHAT HAMAS IS FOUNDED ON. These are their FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS. You cannot separate Hamas from this document, nor all the foulness and hatred it contains.

The 2017 Charter

Let's look at the 2017 charter now. For fairness. Maybe they've cooled down the antisemitism or desire to kill every Jew in the Levant?

"The Zionist project is a racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist project based on seizing the properties of others; it is hostile to the Palestinian people and to their aspiration for freedom, liberation, return and self-determination. The Israeli entity is the plaything of the Zionist project and its base of aggression." "The Zionist project also poses a danger to international security and peace and to mankind and its interests and stability."

Um. No, not really. They've decided to pretend they're separating Zionism from Judaism - "I'm not antisemitic, I'm just anti-Zionist!", but the message is the same.

"Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage."

Uh, that's some major denial of literal history there, Hamas. Islamic and Arab countries have absolutely perpetrated violent antisemitism against Jewish people. Like, a lot of antisemitism.

So, through historical revisionism wherein they claim antisemitism is a "Europe" problem, and by pretending to separate "Zionists" from "Jews", the 2017 charter downplays its antisemitism and focuses more on Palestinian liberation. Notably though, it still calls for violent resistance, and though it cedes they would accept the 1967 borders (aka, full Palestinian control over Gaza and the West Bank), it states over and over that Israel is "illegal", and that it does not recognize it as a legitimate state. It does not, at any point, recognize that Jews are native to the region, of course. Zionists are "colonial invaders" and nothing more. It is more polite about its antisemitism, but the antisemitism is still very much present.

[maaarine]

How accurate is the new Napoleon film? Sorting fact from fiction (Andrew Roberts, The Sunday Times, Nov 19 2023)

"Sir Ridley Scott’s long-awaited movie Napoleon will have a great effect on how the French emperor is viewed in the popular imagination.

So it was with some trepidation that I watched it.

Would it reproduce the old Anglo-American historical stereotype of a jumped-up Corsican tyrant, or might it recognise that in fact Napoleon created the Enlightenment’s institutions, many of which last to this day?

For here was an opportunity to change the tired conventional view of Napoleon put forward by so many postwar Anglophone historians that Napoleon was essentially merely a prototype for Adolf Hitler.

Sadly and somewhat predictably for an 85-year-old whose mindset was formed by the Second World War, Scott has gone for the intellectually discredited stereotype of a dictator who goes mad with hubris. (…)

Scott has remarked before that “f***ing historians” don’t know what happened in Napoleonic times because “they weren’t there”.

But in fact there is a plethora of believable first-hand accounts from people who were indeed there, used by historians to discover what happened.

What these first-hand accounts tell us is that Napoleon was a witty, highly intellectual and attractive personality, whose reforms changed first France and then Europe for the better.

Whenever his armies entered European cities they liberated the Jews from their ghettos, giving them civil and religious liberties.

He was therefore precisely the opposite of the malignant, humourless, Jew-hating Führer. (…)

So firm is the assumption that Napoleon’s psyche had “run wild” that he is given the line to Joséphine: “I must begin my march to Moscow.”

Yet the whole point of the 1812 campaign was that Napoleon had no intention of going more than 50 miles inside Russia, in what was intended to be a three-week campaign.

As he crossed the river Niemen, there was no “march to Moscow”.

There are plenty of people in history who have a Napoleon complex, but Napoleon himself was not one of them, despite what Scott and Kirby might say.

This show also assumes Napoleon lost in Russia solely because the weather got cold in winter, as if the highly intelligent and well-read emperor did not know it would.

No mention is made of the typhus that killed 100,000 men, which Napoleon could not have foreseen.

At one point in the movie, Joséphine forces Napoleon to say: “I am just a brute that is nothing without you.”

Quite apart from the appalling syntax, the line, like so many in this visually stunning but historically tone-deaf film, fails to ring true.

Yet it is not from thousand-page biographies that the mass of people take their history today, but from movies like this.

Henceforth, therefore, Napoleon Bonaparte — the great world force of the Enlightenment who ended the French Revolution and dragged country after country out of ancien-regime torpor and into the vibrant 19th century — will merely be a brute who was nothing without his Joséphine."

[nordleuchten]

Idk if you’ve already answered this but how much English did Lafayette know before he came to the colonies? Did he practice English when he came to the colonies outside of being surrounded by English speakers? Did he speak French while he was in the colonies?

Dear Anon,

thank you for the question!

La Fayette spoke very little English before he came to America. At this point in time and in his circles of society French was the universal and cosmopolitan language and therefor the need never arose for him to learn English, unlike for many of us today. He certainly met British officers in France, and he also spent a few weeks with his uncle-by-marriage in London – said uncle was the French ambassador to Great Britan. It is reasonable to assume that La Fayette caught on to some expressions and phrases but nothing that could be called a substantial understanding of the English language.

He was however determined to learn English as soon as he decided to embark for America – as he told Washington, he came to learn and not to teach and understanding English was vital for getting along with the locals, the troops he hoped to command and his fellow officers – it was also a sign of respect since many French officers who came to America never bothered to learn English.

It took approximately six weeks (depending on weather, the type of ship, etc.) to cross the Atlantic Ocean at that time and La Fayette (after his seasickness abated) used the time to learn English. Therefore, when he finally arrived in America, his English was still very much a work in progress, but he could hold simple conversations. He and his party arrived in America on June 13th 1777, and this is an example of his English skills on August 13th:

Idzerda Stanley J. et al., editors, Lafayette in the Age of the American Revolution: Selected Letters and Papers, 1776–1790, Volume 1, December 7, 1776–March 30, 1778, Cornell University Press, 1977, p. 103.

This is the earliest known letter that La Fayette wrote in English, and it is believed that he had help in writing it. For comparison, here is an excerpt from his first letter known to George Washington from October 14th:

Give me leave, dear general, to Speack to you about my own ⟨business⟩ with all the confidence of a son, of a friend, as you favoured me with those two so precious titles—my respect, my affection for you, answer to my own heart that I deserve them on that side as well as possible—Since our last great conversation I would not tell any thing to your excellency, for my taking a division of the army—you were in too important occupations to be disturbed—for the Congress he was in a great hurry, and in such a time I take my only right of fighting; I forget the others—now that the honorable Congress is settled quiete, and making promotions, that some changements are ready to happen in the divisions, and that I endeavoured myself the 11 september to be acquainted with a part of the army and Known by them, advise me, dear general, for what I am to do—it is not in my character to examine if they have had, if they can have never some obligations to me, I am not usued to tell what I am, I wo’nt Make no more any petition to Congress because I can now refuse, but not ask from them, therefore, dear general, I’l conduct myself by your advices. consider, if you please, that europe and particularly france is looking upon me—That I want to do some thing by myself, and justify that love of glory which I left be known to the world in making those sacrifices which have appeard so surprising, some say so foolish[.] do not you think that this want is right? in the begining I refused a division because I was diffident of my being able to conduct it without Knowing the character of the men who would be under me. now that I am better acquainted no difficulty comes from me—therefore I am ready to do all what your excellency will think proper—you Know I hope with what pleasure and satisfaction I live in your family: be certain that I schall be very happy if you judge that I can Stay in america without any particular employement when Strangers come to take divisions of the army, and when myself by the only right of my birth should get in my country without any difficulty a body of troops as numerous as is here a division

“To George Washington from Major General Lafayette, 14 October 1777,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-11-02-0515. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 11, 19 August 1777 – 25 October 1777, ed. Philander D. Chase and Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2001, pp. 505–508.] (01/02/2025)

You can read the letter just fine and understand what he wanted to say but there are still mistakes and especially when compared to his letter to Hancock.

I could imagen that La Fayette used his convalescence after the Battle of Brandywine to further study English, but I have no hard proof to that. With Washington’s aide-de-camps, particularly John Laurens and Alexander Hamilton, he was surrounded by people who knew both French and English and were willing to help him and translate for him if need be. But by all accounts, being surrounded by English speaking people and very eager to learn (and having a talent for languages in general) La Fayette fairly quickly got the hang of it.

While in America, he also spoke French. He spoke French with some of the Frenchmen there (other officers, soldiers, his own staff) and famously translated for General Washington and General Rochambeau during the Conference at Hartford in September of 1780. He also still wrote some letters in French – there are for example a number of letters to Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson written in French even though the majority of La Fayette���s correspondence with these and other people was in English.

I hope that answered your question and I hope you have/had a lovely day!

[jedi-enthusiasm-blog]

In five millennia, the Mandalorians fought with and against a thousand armies on a thousand worlds. They learned to speak as many languages and absorbed weapons technology and tactics from every war. And yet, despite the overwhelming influence of alien cultures, and the absence of a true homeworld and even species, their own language not only survived but changed little, their way of life and their philosophy remained untouched, and their ideals and sense of family, of identity, of nation, were only strengthened.

Mando'a, wookiepedia.

What kind of utter bullshit is this? This is impossible. Languages are in constant change, and even more so when they interact with others! That's how Spanish, Italian, French, and many others were born from Latin! How German, English and Swedish were born too!

I'm not a linguist so my knowledge of how languages work is limited, but I know this: language is in a constant state of change. I know there are words that are less than four decades old in English.

My own first language has had over a dozen words created in the past two decades. Many of them come from English, or were created for the Internet, and most of our words come from three or four different languages.

My country has many words used exclusively in certain regions. We like to joke about how difficult it is to learn our language, since so many words have multiple meanings and others only exist in limited places. There are over four regions where language is concerned, all of them with different accents and words exclusive to their respective region.

Languages and cultures don't exist in a vacuum, they are formed thanks to experiences and changes communities go through. Interacting with people from different backgrounds is how Ancient Greek philosophy was born! And that philosophy has shaped the whole Western world!

Nuclear family, despite being seen as the norm, is less than a century old. America's (the continent, America is a continent, US is the country) independance happened in recent memory as far as history is concerned, less than two centuries ago (the movement started in the early 19th cetury, but its main points were the 1870's and the 1890's, and it finished in 1898 when Spain's last two colonies gained their independance). The French Revolution that completely altered Europe's governments happened just a little over two hundred years ago, in 1789. World War II started eighty five years ago, and Hitler rose to power ten years before that. My country has been a democracy for less than fifty years, my parents are older than my country's democracy. The cold war finished in the fucking late 1980's. The "schools" in Canada that were used to forcibly convert/assimilate First Nation children were active until the last one closed in the 1990's.

This is just a very small glance at what has happened in the west (which I'm more familiar with, since I'm western) in the past two centuries.

If we have changed so much in just two hundred years, it's impossible that Mandalorians have remained the exact same in five, fucking, thousand.

And the most stupid for the end:

Nation: a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

If Mandalorians don't have a planet to call their own, they are not a nation.

[whencyclopedia]

Marie Antoinette

Marie Antoinette (l. 1755-1793) was the queen of France during the turbulent final years of the Ancien Régime and the subsequent French Revolution (1789-1799). With the ascension of her husband Louis XVI of France (r. 1774-1792), she became queen at the age of 18 and would shoulder much of the blame for the perceived moral failures of the French monarchy.

Early Life

She was born in Vienna on 2 November 1755 as Maria Antonia Josepha Joanna, archduchess of Austria. Her birthdate was an inauspicious one, coming as it did a day after a great earthquake killed 30,000 people in Lisbon, a chilling portent of her unlucky future. But her parents, the Habsburg Empress Maria Theresa of Austria (l. 1717-1780) and Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor (l. 1708-1765), were at the zenith of their own glory and saw no reason not to celebrate the birth of their fifteenth and penultimate child, the future queen of France.

The young archduchess, affectionately nicknamed 'Madame Antoine' by her mother, enjoyed a happy childhood, spending her winters sledding down the hills near the family lodge at Laxenburg and her summers in the comforts of Schönbrunn Palace in Vienna. It was at Schönbrunn where Maria Antonia met child prodigy Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart when they were both seven and where she would take up her own interest in music, playing both harpsichord and flute, and excelling in the art of dancing. In a family so large, Maria Antonia found comfort in the friendship of her sister, Maria Carolina, future queen of Naples and Sicily.

Maria Theresa was never the warmest of mothers, but the death of her husband in 1765 would send the empress into a state of grieving that would last the rest of her life, often taking the form of dissatisfaction with the behavior of her youngest children. This distant and complex relationship with Maria Antonia, who was as much a political pawn as she was a daughter, could best be summed up in the later words of an adult Marie Antoinette, "I love the Empress, but I'm frightened of her, even at a distance; when I'm writing to her, I never feel completely at ease" (Fraser, 22). However, for a family as significant as the Habsburgs, duty would always come before filial love, and so Maria Antonia found herself betrothed to the dauphin of France in 1769.

A Franco-Austrian alliance was certainly a controversial development, as many people in each country hated the other; prior to the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), King Louis XV of France (r. 1715-1774) himself had been an enemy of Maria Theresa. Yet following that conflict, the weakened Kingdom of France had begrudgingly entered into an alliance of necessity with Austria, with both nations agreeing that such an alliance should be solidified with a marriage. It was eventually decided that Maria Antonia would be married to Louis XV's grandson, Louis-Auguste, Duke of Berry (l. 1754-1793) who had become heir and dauphin of France upon the death of his father in 1766. So, after a proxy marriage and a renunciation of all claims to Habsburg lands, Maria Antonia set off for France to meet her new husband and arrived in Versailles on 14 May 1770, aged only 14. Along with the title of dauphine, she also adopted the French version of her name: Marie Antoinette.

Continue reading...

[wrotelovelytears]

Pluto might be in Aquarius

But that's only half the story.

Now I'm not one to believe only the planets inspire change in people but the environment they live in, their disposition and their current state of being impacts them just as much. Astrology without the consideration of culture and context is just astronomy. It has the body but not the soul.

I start with that because of all the current global happenings. I understand the importance of spiritual and religious practices, and they don't exist in a bubble of their own. It is highly related to the cultural movements and ethnic practices of a region. If we are going to be honest religions/spirituality would not exist with out those cultural foundations. Literally there would be nothing if ethnic and cultural differences didn't play a role.

Hoodoo wouldn't exist if African Americans didn't. The Greek Pantheon wouldn't be a thing if the ancient Greeks didn't interact with the Egyptians, Nubians and Macedonians. And it should be very well known the Romans stole their whole flow and rebranded. The same Romans who took Christianity and set the foundation for the many versions we see today.

I say all that because I've noticed a lack of connecting between the social/political climate, traditions and belief systems. We can't pretend that Vedic astrology isn't an actual part of Hinduism because it wouldn't exist if Hinduism wasn't here. And Hinduism is the result of two very different populations interacting with one getting colonized and pushed south and the other needing a system/ belief to justify it. We can't pretend that tropical astrology isn't a more Eurocentric method because the signs, planets and their meanings are not the same outside of Western/Eurocentric ideology. In fact it's heavily based off of Roman and Greek interpretations, the base of Western Society as a whole.

I'm not going to pretend that Pluto moving into Aquarius is the only reason why we suddenly "see" more social changes, more standoffish behavior, more coldness to our fellow human. All Aquarius is doing is putting it on the internet. It sent a tweet out and we all saw it. These issues aren't a magical happening, they are the result of centuries of bs pilling up. Of cultures merging in ways that weren't possible before modern technology. Of colonization. Imperialism. Chattel Slavery. The Arab Slave trade. Ethnic cleansings.

People weren't passive before the shift into Aquarius, people were ignoring it. It's really easy to do when you have no personal reason to care, in fact it's probably something all humans can relate to on one topic or another. Trust me I was heavily into activism spaces a decade ago, everything being talked about in media now was talking about then. It was talkes about when my parents were growing up in the 60s. My grandparents in the 20s/30s and so on. Aquarius just put it in our faces (again, and will continue to do so) and said "now what? ".

I want people to not just lean in to spiritual/religious practices because they are popular but to look into the actual meanings they have. I want people to understand that yes you can be spiritual/religious and your ethnic background does impact how you practice. I want people to understand these changes we see in France (they lost their standing in Africa, literally all their former colonies told it to cope, and that's leading to their collapse), South Korea (this is not the first, and sadly won't be the last time, power has been abused under the name of "anti communism", in fact ask South East Asians how they treated there and you'll see this was going to happen), the United States (a country founded on genocide and racism isn't going to magically be less of those because a Black woman got to run for office) etc aren't solely a shift in the Star positions.

I see people point out the French Revolution happened the last time Pluto was in Aquarius (but they also had lost all the land in the US and Haiti told them to fuck off, so it wasn't just not eating cake, it was the lack of slave labor to fund their empire). Or America getting it's freedom (Britain was getting close to abolishing chattel slavery (again free labor, people hate to lose their free labor), the Irish and Scottish were also giving the English a hard time, they had to pick between the people next door or the ones over the Ocean). At that time it was the lack of free labor that pushed those movements, yeah everyone didn't have slaves but they all benefited from that system.

So many astrologers say don't let the stars determine your life but literally turn around and do that. Astrology is a tool at the end of the day. That's it, because if someone doesn't believe in it that doesn't change what happens. Conformation bias would have us believe differently but that's just part of our nature to lean towards that which supports us, not questions us. It's a practice that spans the globe and millennia because we can all look up and see the same stars at night. Maybe not as bright because light pollution, not the same positions because stars go supernova and the solar system moves, but it's still up for everyone on the planet. It's something that regardless of where you go, there's some meaning to it, maybe not always spiritual but a reason nonetheless. And it's never the same, obviously or else this would be a very boring plane of existence, and there's overlap because humans gonna human no matter where we are.

I implore you to think on your upbringing. Think on your ethnic group(s). Think on your current country of residence. Think on what you were taught in school. Think on your family. Because that's what's impacting you. That's what makes you make the decisions you do. Not just Mars moving through your third house (this is just an example, if that's happening for you good for you or I hope it gets better idk) .

Pluto in Aquarius isn't bring change. It's humans and our individual motives that are and always have.

Aquarius is a sign that puts the spot light on things already in motion. It makes you think because if you don't you can't understand. It makes you detached because if you feel it too much you might get hurt. It makes you remember because this isn't the first, nor the last time it will happen. Aquarius is the personal motive made public part of human nature. The selfish desires that push for survival. The seeking of like mindedness. The drive for community, but only if it's the same as you. Aquarius is the when of the story.

[dolphin1812]

While it is very funny to have this line:

"Although this detail has no connection whatever with the real substance of what we are about to relate, it will not be superfluous, if merely for the sake of exactness in all points, to mention here the various rumors and remarks which had been in circulation about him from the very moment when he arrived in the diocese."

Pop up right at the beginning of a book famous for digressions and details, what follows is just as interesting and relevant to the rest of the novel:

"True or false, that which is said of men often occupies as important a place in their lives, and above all in their destinies, as that which they do."

Much of this, of course, directly applies to Myriel. Whether because of a lack of documentation (or, what is more likely in the aftermath of the French Revolution, the flight and/or death of the aristocrats who knew him and could speak to the rumors about his youth), his factual past is a mystery, and the emotions and experiences that led him to change so drastically are known only to himself.

Spoilers below:

Yet Myriel is not the one most vulnerable to rumor throughout the novel. Fantine loses her job (and thus is plunged into poverty) because of rumors. True, the rumors are confirmed, but the suspicion around her condemns her just as much as the truth itself. Valjean is an even more telling example. Although he condemns himself at the end of the novel with his isolation, what Marius believes about him is based on rumors and misunderstandings that create an outside enforcer of his self-inflicted punishments. While, again, there is some truth to what Marius believes - Valjean is an ex-convict - the rumors about his dangerousness and Marius' belief that he killed Javert are false. And in spite of that, neither one of these characters escapes these rumors before being condemned to death by them.

The image of these characters also determines their "destinies" in that class and gender stereotypes fix their position in society unless they manage to create new rumors and images (like Valjean did with Fauchelevent).

And, just as we see with Myriel's transformation, so much of his life is internal and unknowable to others beyond what he wishes to share. Of course, since this is a novel, we are permitted glimpses into the minds of many characters and therefore can't consider them unknowable in the way they are to each other (or that real people are to us), but it's another point against stereotyping.

On a different note, beginning with what the people around the bishop say about him automatically centers community in the novel. Although this community is not always positive (gossip and rumors are generally harmful in the context of Les Misérables), it is important. Even starting with a character who is not the main one demands of us to consider Valjean's world and his relations to others before we consider Valjean himself. Again, the judgment that comes with this is destructive, but there's also an element of care in it. The bishop deeply cares for those gossiping about him in his community, and his kindness was transformative for Jean Valjean. I don't know that I have fully coherent thoughts on this, but it's fascinating that we begin with all that is good about connecting with others in a meaningful way and the challenges in existing in a community in a book that largely revolves around a very isolated man who is that way because of these issues and who is also defined by his connections to others (Myriel inspiring him with his kindness, Cosette being his main source of joy and his purpose, etc).