theorahsart

[theorahsart]

Paupers Prince 12 pt 17

John maybe made a mistake in brining his secretly-a-prince friend to a place where everyone would hate him based on his titles alone lol

Please see #paupersprince12 for future and previous pages~

[theorahsart]

Incorruptible Chap 4 pt 7

I think probably much more than in present day, there must've been a huge amount of pressure to supress/downplay/project certain feelings, if you were an especially anxious person...

[theorahsart]

[theorahsart]

This is legitimately one of my fav quotes from him

[theorahsart]

I know I say that I'm kinda nuts for doing the amount of visual research I do, but at the same time: Specificity is SO much more compelling and real feeling, and imo not getting references often makes things look more amateur.

Eg. drawing a sofa- my mental image of a sofa is something like this:

Like. Its a sofa. It works. But it's not very convincing, the pillows are kinda wrong at the back, and it's not really giving any information about the owner. Even if you want a basic sofa... What kind of basic.

comfy and cheap?

kinda rigid?

inherited? ------

who does this comfy cheap ikea sofa belong to anyway?

guy living alone?

teenage girl?

Grandma?

Anyway I'll get off my soapbox but specificity is sexy and fun and it can do your storytelling for you!

[theorahsart]

girondins + furry art

[theorahsart]

[theorahsart]

Hi have a preview of next Incorruptible update/ expression of how I feel rn

[theorahsart]

Sport. Written by W. Bromley-Davenport. Illustrated by Henry Hope Crealock. 1888.

Internet Archive

[theorahsart]

THIS IS SO PERFECTLY ROBESPIERRE

Thinking about the sexual tension in La Terreur et La Vertu, between Robespierre and everyone else...except Danton

[theorahsart]

obsolete

[theorahsart]

Thinking about the sexual tension in La Terreur et La Vertu, between Robespierre and everyone else...except Danton

[theorahsart]

some things

[theorahsart]

Reading every non-Robespierre French revolutionary biography is such a funny experience because there they are gallivanting around in their early years and then inevitably 1789 hits and soon after, Maximilien Robespierre will show up in their life to stir up drama and be annoying (affectionate). No one else was doing it like him.

[theorahsart]

On Olympe de Gouges, Albert Camus, and the Limits of Revolutionary Solidarity

Warning: mention of torture, so sensitive souls should refrain.

I’ve already spoken about Olympe de Gouges before, and @mathildeaquisexta explained very well the problem she had when it came to the struggle against slavery. De Gouges condemned Black slaves for their revolts and put them in the same category as the slave owners—something that is both untrue and appalling. She was disconnected from the reality on the ground and displayed a clear double standard: condemning revolutionary violence on one hand and, at times, not condemning it at all in a very confusing way.

She wrote: "[Her play] will bring men back to their duty, awaiting from the colonists and the French nation the abolition of the slave trade and a more fortunate fate." This quote is discussed in the post linked here, where you can see just how flawed de Gouges was when it came to the Black liberation struggle: https://www.tumblr.com/mathildeaquisexta/780925698140405760/i-agree-with-pretty-much-everything-that-has-been?source=share

At this point, I even wonder whether she was truly in favor of the abolition of slavery or just of the slave trade.

The real issue is that several revolutionaries who risked and often lost their lives under horrific conditions fighting slavery have been deliberately forgotten—likely because they were more radical or supportive of revolutionary movements outside Europe. This is evident when looking at figures like Kirwan Alexandre, Barse, Millet, and Barbet: Tumblr link – Slave revolts (Warning: sensitive content)

Meanwhile, Olympe de Gouges alone is celebrated—a more convenient figure for those who seek to instrumentalize her image.

Similarly, we have a 20th-century writer who is also presented as faultless and as being on the right side of every fight: Albert Camus. Today, some claim his only fault was "being ahead of his time"—just like they say about Olympe.

Camus is constantly cited, praised, and—above all—used by every political faction. He’s often called a genius and a reference point for understanding the Algerian Revolution, and his name appears frequently in academic work. Yes, he wrote important articles on poverty in Kabylia, but the root problem was colonialism itself. A colonial system that allowed someone like Camus, from a modest background, to rise—while systematically blocking access to education and mobility for even the brightest colonized people.

Camus did denounce the massacres of May 8, 1945, and some of his positions were courageous—he was even pelted with tomatoes by French Algeria hardliners for them. However, he disappointed many, and I don’t believe his refusal to support the Algerian revolution was solely due to concerns about European civilian casualties.

Let me explain why.

Gisèle Halimi, in her memoirs, expressed her disappointment that Camus no longer spoke up for her clients—some of whom were innocent Algerians used as scapegoats and executed for crimes they did not commit. Take Badeche Hamidi, for example: tortured into making false confessions implicating himself in the death of Amédée Froger (an ultra of French Algeria and president of the Federation of Mayors in Algeria). Camus, despite his fame, remained silent. He later claimed he tried to help discreetly some algerians, but that meant nothing to the condemned men awaiting execution as they needed public support during these time .

At the trial of El Halia, Algerians were charged for a riot in August 1955 that led to European civilian deaths. The accused, however, were all innocent—something clear to anyone who studied the case. Yet, the judicial system sought public approval, not justice. Lawyers like Matarasso and Halimi revealed contradictions in the testimonies, presented solid alibis, and demonstrated how torture had extracted false confessions. Still, the prosecutor demanded death sentences for nine men—citing Camus' writings to justify this.

And still, Camus said nothing. Not one statement to condemn the misuse of his work to justify a mock trial and send innocent people to death.

He claimed he’d never support actions harming innocents. But I believe that was just an excuse to avoid taking a public stance on the Algerian revolution.

According to Annie Thuraud, Camus refused to publicly ask for clemency for Fernand Iveton—a pied-noir CGT delegate, member of the Algerian Communist Party, and supporter of the FLN who always condemned civilian deaths regardless of the side. He was nonetheless sentenced to death and executed in a climate of public lynching. Roblès begged Camus to intervene, but Camus didn’t, at least not publicly.

Fernand Iveton gave his life for a cause. All it would have taken from Camus was a few lines of support—lines he never wrote.

Likewise, when Henri Alleg—editor of Alger Républicain—was arrested in 1957 and recounted the torture he endured at the hands of the French army in his book La Question, Camus stayed silent again. The book was censored by Michel Debré’s government. Writers like Sartre, Mauriac, Roger Martin du Gard, and Malraux protested the censorship and torture. But not Camus.

At that point, Camus had already received major literary prizes and entered the political arena. He had a duty to take a stand. But he didn't.

It’s not even fair to say that Camus supported “French Algeria” and that’s why he stayed silent. Lawyer Lainné, who defended Iveton, wanted Algeria to remain French but still denounced injustices and defended FLN militants. Germaine Tillion, though initially opposed to the FLN, also condemned the atrocities of the french army during these time and protected many FLN supporters. Jeanson even collaborated with the FLN while calling for protection of French civilians ( who lived in metropolitan France). That’s something Camus could have done—had he not been entrenched in his personal stance.

Frankly, Camus is not the best author to understand Algeria and colonization. Writers like Jean Amrouche, Kateb Yacine, or Mouloud Feraoun are far more illuminating. And among French philosophers, people like Francis Jeanson are more relevant. Not Camus, despite what many films and books suggest. Kateb Yacine already pointed out the limits of Camus' work regarding Algeria—and I agree with him.

As for those who say Camus was “ahead of his time”? Perhaps they mean his criticism of the USSR and his break with communism. But even Fernand Iveton came to understand the flaws of the Soviet regime—thanks to his wife Hélène, a Polish woman who distrusted communism due to her past suffering even if he had remained a communist until the end of his life

Henri Alleg claimed that Camus actually left the Algerian Communist Party when it began to show interest in Algerian independence.

Ironically, Camus is now posthumously used by those he would have despised—like OAS sympathizers (who were behind the assassination of his friend Mouloud Feraoun, among others).

I’m not saying Camus was all bad—far from it. He was genuinely outraged by the misery Algerians endured, shocked by the 1945 massacres, and participated in the Resistance in 1943, which required real courage. But it does no justice to his legacy to depict him as a saint—or to let him be weaponized by people he would have abhorred.

In the end, I think the reason Olympe de Gouges and Camus are so “acceptable” in the media and so idealized is because their revolutionary commitment had limits. Both supported European revolutions—within boundaries—but seemed disconnected from or critical of anti-colonial revolts in non-European contexts (Saint Domingue who will become Haiti for Olympe, Algeria for Camus). And unfortunately, many prominent figures today—whose actions and beliefs stand in direct contradiction with those of de Gouges or Camus—exploit their images to promote distorted, self-serving narratives.

To learn more about Fernand and Hélène Iveton, here’s a thread I wrote: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/790904697165840384/fernand-and-h%C3%A9l%C3%A8ne-iveton-a-couple-in-the?source=share

And a detailed article in French on the El Halia trial, with excerpts from Gisèle Halimi's writing: https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1988/11/A/41287#:~:text=LE%2020%20ao%C3%BBt%201955,Il%20faut%20des%20coupables.

[theorahsart]

@cheeri1yfrancis oh no you're ttly right, I was thinking of Starmer too (or y'know all of Labour party) He's perfectly suited as someone once upon a time on the Left, who felt ttly fine with compromising once in power by ass kissing those on the Right, whilst criticising and ostracising former friends who actually have a backbone and consistently stand for something (ie. Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn)

Do you ever see a politician saying/doing some bullshit and think to yourself "they'd be a Girondin back in the day"

[theorahsart]

Do you ever see a politician saying/doing some bullshit and think to yourself "they'd be a Girondin back in the day"