Read either:
ROBESPIERRE AND THE TERROR
-or-
Of Anglo-Saxons and Revisionists: A New Interpretation of the French Revolution Emerges
In what way does your article reflect the idea of "living history" or the fact that history is not static? Briefly compare to any other period of history where ideas, views and opinions have evolved over time.
Due Friday 2/17
46 comments:
Many things can factor into the reality that history is always changing. It can be an election, a natural disaster or revolution. In Robespierre and the Terror, the author explains the life of Robespierre. It is surprising how dynamic his life was. Since he was a young lawyer in his hometown, he fully supported freedom for everyone. Later in his career, he supported the idea of restricting the people; he definitely changed as history progressed. Everyone’s ideals are different in some way. They can also change which can lead to more changes in history through people’s choices and actions. Robespierre changed because his ideals changed due to the events happening around him. His environment was dynamic and was always changing. People reacted differently to what was happening and lead to them making different choices that would affect the events they were involved in.
Over the last couple of decades, the popularity of environmentalism has skyrocketed. The sciences have developed, creating a better understanding and ability to fight for their cause. They are creating a new topic that has changed not just personal actions, but also new legislative actions. This change in culture has and will continue to show how history is dynamic. With new discoveries and events that take place, change is imminent.
Throughout the history of humanity, the views of the people have been constantly changing. From one day to another, people see new perspectives of past events and change their viewpoints on major historical happenings. For this reason, history will never be set in stone. The changes in people’s points of view, coupled with the fact that people are constantly learning new information about our pasts, makes it impossible for historical events to be completely understood.
After reading Robespierre and the Terror, it is quite easy to see that history is ever changing. For example, at the start of the French revolution, Robespierre was hailed by many as a national hero. He ruled France for a short period of time from 1793 to 1794. Generally, he was well respected and loved by many in France. However, in France in the present day, Robespierre is practically ignored. Only one subway station in a run-down Parisian suburb is named after him. When he first began the “reign of terror,” Robespierre was seen as a step in the right direction for the revolution. His entire job was just to protect the revolution from any who wanted to end it. Unfortunately, the way went about this was not good at all. He decided to guillotine over 15,000 people to protect his revolution from any who wished to harm it. History now views Robespierre as one of the most violent men of the revolution, as opposed to the hero he originally was.
A perfect example of this idea of an ever changing history would be Adolf Hitler. When he first rose to power in Germany prior to World War II, he was seen as the man who could save Germany. He was respected by the majority of the population, and was supposed to be the man that brought Germany into a new era of prosperity. When he first began the ruler of Germany, nobody associated the name Adolf Hitler with anything but national pride and heroism. However, after the horrors of the Holocaust, Hitler has forever been known as one of the most evil men ever to walk the Earth. History will never see him the same was as it did before the Holocaust, and due to the actions he took during his lifetime, all historical information about him was rewritten.
Every day, different factors contribute to changing people’s views of history. What has happened in the past is viewed differently and ideas about what happened can change dramatically. There will never be any true point of view for how something in history happened. This is evident in the article “Robespierre and the Terror.” Robespierre was born into the lower classes and was orphaned at a young age. He represented many lower class people in pre-Revolutionary France. Robespierre became a small town lawyer and was summoned as part of the Estates-General. In the beginning of the Revolution, Robespierre was a key figure that all of the Revolutionaries looked to. He was admired by many French people. Now his name is associated with death.
Throughout his life, Robespierre’s views and political ideas changed constantly. As a key Revolutionary figure, his political ideas were different from what he thought should be done when he was a small-town lawyer. Although his policies were admired at first and the revolutionaries wanted to stamp out resistance, people began to realize that this would not solve their problems. Robespierre was viewed well at the time because he did what the people wanted but looking back he is disliked because of all the death and destruction that he caused. People’s views of Robespierre were constantly changing, showing how history is constantly changing.
The fact that history is always changing is also shown through the changing views of the Industrial Revolution. The laborers who worked during the Industrial Revolution hated it and wished that it had never happened. The conditions were terrible and many died young. However, as society has developed, people began to realize that although it was a terrible time to work in, the Industrial Revolution has given us the society that we have today. People started out hating the Industrial Revolution then became thankful because it gave us our modern world.
People change their minds everyday. Because of this, no one idea will always be viewed the same way. An idea or principle that was presented years ago will not be viewed the same way it was viewed in that time era due to the difference of time periods and principles that went along with the change of time. The circumstances in the French Revolution and the present day French government situation are very different. Therefore, the way we look upon the French Revolution and the way it was looked upon in its own time are extremely different. History will never be completely understood or agreed upon due to the world’s ever changing knowledge and point of view.
Robespierre and the Terror is a prime example of our rapidly changing history. France’s view of Robespierre has changed drastically over time. At the beginning of the French Revolution Robespierre was seen as an influential hero that everyone of his time looked up to. He even ruled France from 1793 to 1794 before people’s views upon him began to change. Robespierre was an icon for his country, but that changed over time. Today in France, Robespierre is almost even frowned upon. At the beginning of his “reign of terror” citizens of France thought that he was headed in a positive direction for the revolution. The way he went about his task, to protect the revolution from anyone who wanted to end it, upset the people and gave him a poor reputation. He thought the best idea was to behead over 15,000 people to “protect” the revolution. Looking back on it we see him as an evil, violent man. But in that time period he thought he was doing what was best for his country.
The way Robespierre is viewed by France now demonstrates how different people’s point of view can change over time because of new facts we learn from history and advancements that we have today that were not available to people in the 1700s.
Certain historical events are still similar to modern day society and represent living history. These characteristics include violence and human nature during times of terror and threatning events toward a country or group of peoples lives. This can be seen and observed not only in the French Revolution and it's reign of Terror figure head Ropespeierre, but in modern day events and social unrest.
One modern day example that is similar to social unrest and uprisings is the rebellion in and protesting in Syria similar to Egypt a year ago. Although the extremity was not as quite forceful as the french revolution, it still held the same principal of the general population threatning and using terror as a tactic to sway or show their resentment toward the Syrian president Bashar al-asad. In response to public protesting and rioting the an astonishing 7,000 civil officers and civilians have been killed as result of a revolutionary and radical movement using violence to fight opression from the government and president.
In the Ropespierre article Maximillen is a prime example of this same action in the past that still ravages on today in the modern world. Maximillen initally started out extremely poor without either of his biological parents but still managed to temporarily be the most prominent figure of the committee of public safety which in reality used a reign of terror similar to the syrain government. He used public violence and the guillotine as in instrument to terrorize all oppostion period.
Overall the ropespierre article directly relates to modern day society as today and always there are social uprisings and violence when general populations fear for their survival similar to the current day Syria and other war stricken countries that are fighting people in their same country. Generally speaking there will always be violence and opression linked together, as its human nature rebel in times of danger and stress toward peoples lives.
In the course of history, viewpoints of events and people greatly change and alter themselves continuously. New facts are learned, morals change, and new generations continuously take the place of the old. In this way, it is safe to assert that history is never static, and is always changing from one era to another. In the article Robespierre and the Terror, the fact that history is always changing becomes quite apparent.
When Robespierre came to power through the National Convention in the 1790’s, he had the reputation of a celebrity in the political world. He was well versed, his messages were clear, and he connected greatly with the lower estates. Robespierre was viewed by nearly all radicals as an amazing politician, destined to change the course of history. The soon to be member of the Committee of Public Safety was adored and admired my many, and rode to the top based off of claims of his humble beginnings, and rise to success. However, his intentions were much different than what he allowed his small town lawyer persona to unveil to the public. Within the span of a couple years, the once adored Robespierre found himself on a guillotine which he himself had used to order the deaths of his personal and political enemies. The Reign of Terror shows just how shifting the tides of history are. Within a relatively short time, Robespierre went from having everything he could have possibly wanted, to facing the people who once adored him in his own public execution. This change in history is still seen today in modern France, who loathe the man who tarnished the reputation of their beloved revolution.
This idea of living history was also shown during the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. The Bolsheviks, similar to Robespierre, were portrayed as the heroes of Russia; destined to save the citizens from the evils of the tsar. When they took power and overthrew the old government of Russia, the people were happy for a short time, until the evils of the party became revealed by Stalin. People were sitting on the street, starving and freezing, awaiting a state supplied ration of bread, prisoners were tortured, and genocide began taking place in the country the Bolsheviks swore to fix. Even to the United States, the irreplaceable Soviet allies of World War II soon became one of the most hated and despised countries of the east, and united the west against the Russians. This sentiment from both inside and outside influences began growing until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989; in which the Soviet Union is now regarded by many Russians as one of the most glorious, but horrifying periods of their country’s history.
After the passing of many days and years, history has evolved into different aspects of viewpoints and there is no actually correct answer of how it began. One historian could argue a completely different opinion and could also contribute to other opinions; which is why people’s judgments and beliefs are important when it comes to discussing the factors or causes of history. In addition, while more judgments are being contributed to the world, everybody will eventually learn more and more information will began to spread. Moreover, as time goes by people will still add more points to their historical belief, and in no way will there be any accurate or exact point as to how history has developed.
The idea of changing different viewpoints in history contributes to the reading called, “Robespierre and the Terror”, due the fact that it explains how one person has put their effort to assist another, but then can be held liable for many corruptions that happened. For example, at the beginning, everybody enjoyed having Robespierre around, but then many people’s perspectives about him adjusted, due to the fact that he was actually no help to people. This shows that overall people change according to how history grows and improves. Also everybody’s values change due to the choices they make. Lastly, this article connects to present day history because when one person takes power in our nation, other people understand the fact that they will change our government; but, when the leader fails in doing so, everybody’s reputations are ruined, which leads to making different choices. Generally, when new information is revealed, we learn from it, which causes us to advance in the history.
The article “Robespierre and the Terror” provides many examples of how history is not static. It demonstrates how people’s views of time periods change, whether it is change over a short or long term.
This article demonstrates short term change in the views of history by describing the life of Robespierre. Robespierre had a tough life growing up, with the death of his parents and him having the responsibility of taking care of his siblings. Even though he was poor, he managed to study hard and successfully become a lawyer. Soon, he began to have a prominent position in the Jacobins. He was a strong advocate for voting rights and equal rights among all classes. In addition, he was a vehement opponent of the death penalty. However, as the revolution progressed, Robespierre realized violence was necessary in order to pursue his ideas and beliefs. He then became the leader of a mass execution. That is an example of how Robespierre’s views changed in an instant, which therefore changed the ultimate fate of France.
This article also demonstrates how views of history change over long periods of time. During the French Revolution, the leaders of the Reign of Terror may have been feared, but they were not looked upon as terrorists. They were considered the government, and were only terrorizing people to preserve the revolution. However, today, one would consider the leaders of the Committee of Public Safety terrorists, and their actions would never be acceptable in society.
After reading ROBESPIERRE AND THE TERROR it is obvious that history is not static. Robespierre was admired by the people of France in the beginning. People, especially lower class and middle class people, respected him because he could relate to them because he had grown up as basically an orphan in poor conditions and had made his way up to the top of the ladder and was now helping to represent the average person in government.
However, the French people eventually changed their minds about how they felt about Robespierre. Robespierre sent thousands of people to their death using the guillotine. War, revolts, and civil wars broke out. There was trouble all over the country. The troops were inexperienced and unorganized. There were food shortages. People were extremely upset and concerned when the government began using violence to achieve their goals. By the end of the Terror there had been over 16,000 deaths. Everything the people had admired in Robespierre had taken a dramatic turn after a few years, which is an example of how history is not always static.
The Holocaust and the reign of Adolf Hitler is another example of how history is not static. The people of Germany believed that Adolf Hitler had all of the answers. He would help the nation recover after the Depression. The majority of people supported him. However nowadays people recognize that what Adolf Hitler did was terrible and unjustified.
Over time, the way that history is viewed is shown to be constantly changing. This happens as a result of many factors such as changes in the knowledge of the people as well as their morals from generation to generation. Because of these changes in the people who are observing history, their observations on history is inevitably going to be living and changing. The reality that history is in fact living and not static is quite prevalent in the article "Robespierre and the Terror."
As the story is told in the article, when Robespierre ascended to power, he was at the hight of his popularity and notoriety. His tale of rising to prominence from impoverished beginnings was ate up by the people and thus his ascent was made easier. Nevertheless, it eventually became quite apparent to the people that Robespierre's values and intentions were either not what he sold them or had drastically been altered. This is a rather concentrated example of the concept of living history as usually the change is thought of as taking place over a rather extended period of time. During the Terror, however, the perception of Robespierre did a complete 180 in just a few short years.
One example that exemplifies this concept of living history is the Industrial Revolution. Nowadays, people view it very positively for the most part. The general consensus is that it was a time of technological advancement that launched us into modern times. This was not the perception of the changes at the time when they were occurring, however. At that time, people were generally extremely negative about the new emphasis on manufacturing and having to work in the factories. The conditions, both working and living, were terrible and disease was rampant, leading to numerous premature deaths. However, as time has passed and we have become more detached from the situation, most have realized the benefits of the situation and are thankful for it.
Living history is evident throughout the French Revolution. Robespierre and the Terror is a perfect example of the dynamic lifestyle of Robespierre and the transformation of France's governemnt from a monarch to a republic.
France's history is far from static according to the article. The Revolution to overthrow the French monarch began when the bourgeois, the third estate, became upset with the monarch raising taxes on the poor and ignoring the calls for peaceful reforms. This lead to an all out fight against the monarch. When Louis XVI was dethroned and executed the first new government of the "republic" was the National Convention. At first it was led by Girondins. However, eventually the public became annoyed with the Girondins and wanted more drastic reform so they put Robespierre and the Jacobin party in charge. Under Robespierre and the Jacobins, the Reign of Terror began and ended shortly after Robespierre was removed from his position. It is clear from the French Revolution that ideas and opinions change through the changing of the government. With each paradigm shift, a new group found themesleves leading the Revolution and trying to gain control over a chaotic France.
A similar situation in history occured in America during the Civil War. Originally, America declared itself independent so that it could form a less strict government, but as time passed many Americans realized the need for a strong centralized government. This led to fighting in America because some people still feared government so while it was not a total paradigm shift there was a shift in some peoples' beliefs.
Both the Frech Revolution and American Civil War show how history is dynamic and people constantly change their views.
History is never static, and neither is it ever one-dimensional. Simply reading a record of an event is not enough to understand it; one must look at when the record was written, and who wrote it, to understand the impact of an event or person had on history over time. In fact, one can often learn more from historical accounts about the writers than the subjects themselves.
A particularly striking example of this can be found in the figure of Robespierre. The article “Robespierre and the Terror” gives an account of his life that shows that it is not simply what a man does that history records, it is what the writers think about him that we learn, and how those opinions change over time.
In his early life, Robespierre was the oldest of several abandoned siblings, a hard worker and an idealist. Records from this early part of his life emphasize his insistence on standing up for the poor and his opposition of the death penalty. It is likely this positive opinion that allowed him to get the position in the third Estate delegation of the Estates General that launched his political career. Even as a politician, Robespierre managed to hold on to so much of his idealism, viewing the Revolution as a method of achieving an ideal state based on reason and virtue. His ideas of universal civil rights were viewed as extremely leftist, and completely idealist, scorned by the majority of the more conservative revolutionists.
But after Robespierre became a part of the Committee of Public Safety, history’s record takes a much darker turn. But it is likely not the man who changed, but the political situation that reversed the world’s perception of a man whose name is forever tied with terror and bloodshed. As a prominent member and main spokesman for the Committee, Robespierre was the face of the new government; and as it is the face that is most seen, it is the face that received the public reaction. The Committee proceeded to control France with a reign of legalized terrorism, with thousands beheaded and hundreds of thousands dead by the end of their reign. Despite the fact that Robespierre continued to wish for an idealistic, virtuous France, the public became increasingly disillusioned with the inherent hypocrisy in Robespierre’s earnest logic. Eventually, the escalating atmosphere of suspicion and distrust led to his overthrow, and his beheading at the hands of more suspicious and ambitious men.
Robespierre was perhaps the least vicious of the men of the Committee, or at least the least intentionally so. He was not greedy or deceitful, but he was dogmatic and extremely calculating. And that was enough, along with his role as representative of the Committee, for the people to place on him all of the violence and terrorism his government perpetrated. As such, it is his name that is forever associated with terror and disgust in France, over men probably far more deserving of that reputation. Not because of what he did, but because of the world he lived in, and what the people needed to perceive him as; an image that changed throughout his lifetime, and left him in his death with a polar opposite reputation than that of his pleasant, idealistic youth.
But Robespierre is not the only man to face both sides of history’s whims. Another figure, steeped in perhaps even more terror than Robespierre himself, is Adolf Hitler. At the beginning of his career, Hitler was revered by the German people as a savior, a revolutionist who would save their country from the economic and political mire it was in, for the average citizen, to bring it to a new area of glory: a description almost identical to our first man. And like Robespierre, Hitler took that image and destroyed it, becoming a symbol of hatred and mass genocide. Both men took power in a wave of glory, and were pushed out of it to their deaths with a record of bloodshed and horror; history living with them to change as dramatically as their own lives.
Maggie Kulpa
It is clearly seen when looking at events over a period of time in history and the world around us today that views and opinions change. When reading the article "Robespierre an the Terror" the idea of shifting ideas and morals is shown. When Robespierre was first elected for the Third Estate in the Estates General in May of 1789, he had many supporters and always seemed to have a growing "fan club". He gained the support of both slaves and poor as well as those in higher classes. Yet, one turn of ideas on Robespierre's part changed the countries view and ideas of him as well. Soon he became an advocate for death, killing over 16,000 for reasons so small or unidentifiable. In this case the ideas of someone or many have changed throughout a period of time, just as other times in history as well.
One other example of this would be the recent argues with technology and the internet. While it is not a person like Robespierre, there has been much controversy and change of ideas with the internet today. When the internet first came into general, everyday use people were astonished and excited, using it for basic researching. Yet, as time went on the internet evolved into a place were almost anything became available, eventually reaching the point that it is at today. Yet, today the view of it is not always good like it was in the past, like peoples' view of Robespierre had changed. Recent attempts to shut down sites for copyrights laws and threats to shut down media sites for illegal activities have been occurring. These suggestions have led to the down side of views to the internet, just had the killing of Robespierre.
In “Robespierre and the Terror” it is clear that history is not static, rather, it is constantly evolving as a result of new ideas, opinions, and views over time. Robespierre has been vilified, labeled as the repellent figure at the head of the most radical phase of the French Revolution. His name brings to mind the deaths of thousands of people at the guillotine, and his memory is despised. The English and French alike fear his legacy, with not one national monument dedicated to him in France. Unfortunately, this negative view is one-sided, representing a narrow and static view of history. This article makes it clear that other viewpoints exist, making the true history of Robespierre subject to change, and in no way set in stone. Though involved in manufacturing the terror in France, Robespierre was originally an opponent of the death penalty. He had tried to oppose war, believing that an invading army would divide the French people. He believed sincerely that the terror had a deeper moral purpose, beyond winning the civil war. He dreamt of a society in which people sought the happiness of their fellow humans rather than their own material benefit. Compare Robespierre, for example to Napoleon. The latter was to lead millions to death simply to augment his own glory, yet he is portrayed as the hero, and Robespierre as the ultimate villain. Essentially, this proves that the views and opinions in history are never static. The opinions and bias of certain historians can often paint a picture with inaccuracies. Even the most conscientious account of history can hardly hope to portray the truth of an event in all its complexities. Causes and effects of events are rarely clear cut. Beliefs as to the true motivations of historical figures, like Robespierre, are constantly under debate, and as new opinions and views emerge, the picture of living history is revised. The combination of various opinions and beliefs with the continuous emergence of new evidence guarantees that history will continue to be revised. This article clearly represents a view of Robespierre that differs from the many accounts of his utter brutality, demonstrating that his legacy is not exclusively negative or positive. These contrary opinions prevent history from being static.
This principle is also evident in the legacy of Columbus. As elementary school students, we were taught to admire the bravery of Columbus, as he sailed into uncertainty, ultimately discovering the continent we now call our home. Yet this view has been revised, subject to the evidence that paints a much more unpleasant picture. Many now view Columbus as a cold-blooded murder, slaughtering natives and ultimately providing the source of slavery. In this way, history has evolved as new opinions reshaped the view of a monumental figure.
Overall, even the most comprehensive study will contain bias. And as hundreds of differing accounts of the same events combine with new evidence and unique viewpoints, history will forever be alive and capricious.
History is something that is always changing. Views and opinions change often because of significant events or discoveries. What happens in the past can be viewed differently in the present because opinions on the past change. This is often caused by a change in living conditions. Historians have to take the conditions of the time period into account when forming opinions on historical events. For example, it is unfair to say that past inventors were not ahead of their time or geniuses because we have their inventions implemented in our everyday lives. It would be unjust to belittle Thomas Edison’s invention of the light bulb because we are not fascinated by how they work. You have to consider that when the light bulb was invented it was a brilliant discovery that would change society forever. It would be ignorant to say that the invention of the light bulb was not “special” or “impressive.”
An example of somebody whose reputation changed throughout history is Maximilien Robespierre. He was a cruel ruler who lived in the French Revolution. Robespierre was responsible for thousands of deaths during the Terror period. Some of these deaths that he was responsible for were even of his own personal friends. Many of the deaths were also of innocent people that did not have official death statements from the court.
While this sounds awful, Robespierre was viewed positively by many during the French Revolution. That is because the French Revolution was a time of madness. The deaths of thousands of people were not as appalling as they are now. The French needed somebody to step up as a leader, and Robespierre did just that. Robespierre’s reputation changed through history because the deaths of thousands of people are viewed as cruel and unjust today. However, the French Revolution was so frenetic that people during the time were not as disturbed by the deaths as they are now. Cleary, the opinions of Maximilien changed over time.
Since the American Revolution, America’s view of the United Kingdom has dramatically changed. During the American Revolution, we viewed Britain as an enemy that we desperately tried to break away from. We tried to end our association with them. Now, Britain is one of our best and most reliable allies. We have strong relations with Britain and their citizens. We are proud and happy to be allies with Britain.
After a period of time history is viewed in many different ways and it keeps changing because every present day is history twenty years from now. This happens because many changes in the facts people are exposed to as well what they believe in changes from generation to generation. The fact that history is living and not stagnant is dominant in the article "Robespierre and the Terror."
As the story goes on in the article, Robespierre arose to power, and he was at the peak of his esteem and dishonor. His story of rising to status from disadvantaged beginnings was taken by the people immediately and because of this his rise was made easier. It ultimately became very apparent to many people that Robespierre's morals and aims were either not what he had made people believe or completely changed them. This is a rather determined example of the concept of living history as usually the change is thought of as taking place over a rather extended period of time. During the Terror, the picture of Robespierre did a complete in just a few years. These days, people see it very surely for the most part. The general agreement is that it was a time of technological advancement that helped us start into modern times. This was not the view of the changes at the time when they were occurring, though. During the time period, people were generally exceptionally pessimistic about the new importance on manufacturing and having to work in the factories. The conditions, both working and living, were terrible and disease was rampant, leading to abundant hasty deaths.
“Living” is an accurate way to describe history. This statement reinforces the fact that history is always changing, based on new ideas, people and events. The article “Robespierre and the Terror” shows how history is not static. The article shows how people’s views of different events change over time. Whether it is long or short periods of time, people’s perceptions and opinions tend to change.
The article describes a period of short term static history where views change during the lifetime of Robespierre. Robespierre had a difficult childhood, his mother died when he was only 6 years old and he was abandoned by his father shortly after that. Robespierre was left having to take care of his siblings while living with his elderly relatives. Eventually he was able to work himself up and became a public speaker for the Assembly. Robespierre originally was in opposition of the death penalty and a critic of the government. Later in life Robespierre changed his beliefs and became an advocate of terror. Robespierre was also originally in opposition to war because he thought it would divide France. Eventually he realized that violence and war was helpful in the revolution. Robespierre eventually became a leader of a mass execution which changed the fate of history.
A more long term change in history was the use of terror. During the revolution terror became legal and was used to achieve a higher political goal. At this time people who committed acts of terror were not considered terrorists because the government allowed what they were doing. The article “Robespierre and the Terror” shows how history is static and does change over time.
After reading Robespierre and the Terror, the idea of living history and paradigm shifts comes to mind. During the time directly after the death of Robespierre, people saw him as a violent, tyrannical sort of political leader. Many people, especially those who were closely intertwined with the plots and ideas of Robespierre, immediately put the blame of the Terror solely on Robespierre. These people saw Robespierre as a villain, as if he was the single unit behind the mass murders simultaneously going on due to the Terror in France. According to the people who lived through the era of Robespierre, it was right and just to put him to death and place the blame on him. When looked back on from a different point of view, however, one can see that Robespierre was not the absolute villain the people of France once thought he was. Marisa Linton portrays this optimistic outlook of Robespierre by saying his motivation and reason behind the Terror were whole-hearted. Granted the actions were vile and inhumane, but Robespierre did have a positive intent to the actions; He was trying to protect the Revolution. This shows that the views of the Robespierre era changed dramatically, from villain to man who accepted the fault for actions not solely done by him. This article is proof that history does not remain the same and is absolutely not static. Rather, history evolves based on new discoveries and views and the opinions of history changes entirely.
Another event that further displays this "living history" is the Industrial Revolution that occurred in Europe. After researching this topic during the first quarter of the semester for a literature review, it is apparent that the views of the era differ from one historian to the next. During the time of the Industrial Revolution, most people worked in factories under harsh and unsanitary working conditions. The people of the time period who were working did not realize the extent to which their work would mean to the future of Europe and the rest of the world. Obviously, the Industrial Revolution was a time period of extensive discovery and production. When discussing the Industrial Revolution however, these two major trains of thought are separated by the time periods during which these ideas were brought up. Directly after the Industrial Revolution, the time period was seen as horrendous. When historians began to analyze it later in the twentieth century, they saw the era as a time of advancement for society as a whole. Again, this is a plain rationalization of how the views of history change over time. Although the Industrial Revolution was in fact a time period of despair, it also led to rapid advancements in technology and the manufacturing of goods. The opinions of the Industrial Revolution changed as time changed itself, and may shift once again in the future. That is why history is what it is: it has the ability to change as time moves along.
No, history is never static and never will be. It seems incredibly common that right after great change for a certain ideal, the very opposite of that ideal is enforced. Robespierre was once in staunch opposition to the death penalty, but we all know that this did not last. Not long after the United States got its independence, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798, similar to the laws that were passed by Robespierre, which were entirely against the Constitution and America's view of justice. Going back to the previous blog about the use of violence, India and Pakistan were founded on pacifist principles. But, they were afraid that the bloodshed of WWII would reach them, and they decided to arm themselves. Pakistan was also created to be a secular nation, but it eventually turned into an Islamic republic.
Vladimir Lenin promised to fight against the tzar and what he believed to be the zenith of oppression. He was, actually, arrested for plotting to kill the tzar in the late 19th century. But Lenin was so caught up in the revolution that he desperately desired that he allowed countless people to die.
Another good example is Alberto Fujimori, former president of Peru. he was elected to uproot terrorism, in particular the Peruvian terrorist organization "the Shining Path." He did do that, capturing its leader Abimael Guzmán, but in the act of fighting terrorism, he became a terrorist. He was sentenced to 25 years for the killings and kidnappings of death squad, the Grupo Colina. Thus, he, like Robespierre, became created a government that was a terrorist group in itself.
History is full of constantly changing ideas and beliefs. There are a multitude of factors that can change the ideas of someone or a group of people such as revolution and even natural occurrences. When looking back on history, there are feelings about certain events that are always changing with new knowledge learned and new evidence brought forth. With this happening, history will never start one way and end the exact same way because even though the event occurred in the past, feelings about it will never stop shifting. When reading "Robespierre and the Terror" that is supported perfectly through Maximilien Robespierre's life.
During the French Revolution, Robespierre was regarding as one of the most infuential and inspiring heroes alive. People looked up to him consistently because he did what the people looking for reform and change wanted, no matter how much blood needed to be shed. Due to this, as most French people look back on the period of the French Revolution, a name they have grown to dislike is Maximilien Robespierre because of his Reign of Terror where thousands were publicly slain in order to satisfy the wants of revolutionaries.
A perfect modern day example of history changing is Hitler and how he was regarded during the 2nd World War and today. At the time of World War 2, Hitler was greatly loved in admired by millions in Germany because of his great leadership and promises of solving all of Germanies problems. With our knowledge of the incredible wrongs he has committed, it is nearly impossible to have that same view of him. Today he is widely hated and regarded as the man who viciously slaughtered millions of innocent people because of his twisted view of what he believed the world should be. Both Hitler and Robespierre, although different, express how history is constantly changing and ideas and beliefs of the past are influenced regularly and changed.
Robespierre is not the only man in history credited to be the underlining villain of a historical event that turned out negatively. Modern day France obviously doesn't appreciate the 'terror' that Robespierre created, as illustrated by the article. However the author of the article believes that people may have laid a little to much blame on Robespierre for the mass killings during the 'terror'. History shows us that a hero of history one day could be the bad guy the next. Its all about opinion and perspective. To a person who lives in France today Robespierre probably looks like a murderer, but to an outsider like myself I feel like he was blamed for many things that his counterparts did. Before I read this article I thought he was merely just a murder and now my opinion has changed like so many over time. History is never as simply as dates in a text book; opinions vary and evolve over time.
Another historical figure similar to Robespierre is Christopher Columbus. Elementary school students are taught that Columbus bravely navigated the Atlantic and discovered the Americas. What teachers fail to address is the thousands of people Christopher Columbus was thought to have killed directly or indirectly (as argued by historians). People think he is both a hero and a 'hitler' type character. He's not defined as either in text books. Whether he discovered a New World or simply got lost is up to interpretation. People are now wondering if we should even celebrate Christopher Columbus. History is never 100% because historians did not live in the time period in which they're studying. Assumptions and opinions have to be made that many people inevitably disagree with.
We know that Robespierre killed many people and that Christopher Columbus made one of the most significant discoveries of humanity, but historians are constantly unraveling more information and forming opinions that until the end of days will be evolving.
The idea of living history or more simply put, the fact that history is not static was reflected in the article 'Robespierre and the Terror' as it outlined his rise and fall from power as well as the general public view of him, and how it has changed and evolved over time. Perspective of people or events can change due to changes in thought or catalystic events or revolutions. Robespierre began as a man of the people, a man of the revolution, who lead revolutionaries head on into change. That is hardly the case anymore as his name is not seen except for a subway station in the outskirts of a town. His name only brings about the horror of the mass executions he led, often meaningless and unporvoked deaths.
As new facts are learned,morals change, and history becomes indepthly analylized, opinions evolve over time. For example, Hitler was seen by many as the hope of a new prosperous era and leader to a golden age. As time passed and people uncovered the manipulative force Hitler was that had been covered up by propaganda and restrictions on the press, the public saw hitler through a completely different perspective. His great leadership and ability to instill hope into the hearts and minds of the German people soon became overpowed by his hanus acts.
Just as the history regarding Robespierre, from his rise to power and position in the Committee of Public Safety, to his exectution by those he walked side by side with at the beginning of the revolution, to his lack of recognition today and rather tainted name. history and opinions of people in the past have, and will always change.
Throughout history, the ideas and views of people, from peasants to dictators have changed. Each generation tends to look back in time with a different sense and conjure different ideals. This is evident in the article “Robespierre and the Terror.” Robespierre represented much of the lower class people in pre-Revolutionary France. However, later in life he became a lawyer and soon enough a member of the Estate-General. At the dawn of the revolution, Robespierre was admired by many French people. His deeds, ideals, and actions spoke for themselves in the eyes of the people and his agenda was clear from the start. However, Robespierre’s views and political ideas changed constantly. When he became a key leader of the revolutionary cause, his views differed drastically from the times when he was simply a lawyer. Although his ideas were admired at first and the revolutionaries wanted to wipe out all the resistance, people soon realized that this would not solve their problems. Robespierre was looked up to at the time and acted as a role model because he did what the people wanted but at the same time was loathed by many for the deaths he caused. People’s views of Robespierre were constantly changing.
The idea that history is very much alive and changing all the time can also be seen through the industrial revolution. At the time of it’s existence, there were many who frowned upon it due to the amount of labor forced on the workers and the conditions citizens were put through. This sentiment lasted all throughout the era. However, nowadays looking back, we admire the era and regard it as one of the most important and “wonderful” things that happened in our history.
The future is forever unknown to us and with only knowledge of the present, our views of current issues will no doubt be largely different from the people of the next generations.
It is obvious that history is always changing. Without the change we see so frequently a society would not be able to progress. By learning and making mistakes societies and people shape themselves in order to create a better future. Most importantly people and their opinions change because of the events around them. An experience such as a recession that we are in now, can turn the most frivolous spender into the most frugal. If history was static then no progress would be made. Change is inevitable and it is that way for a reason.
After reading the article "Robespierre and the Terror" you can see that history is not static due to the development of Robespierre. Born poor, and suffering the loss of his parents Robespierre was of course influenced by his surroundings and the French Revolution. He became a radical and politically worked himself up until he was the head of the Third Estates General. His roll in society allowed him to be a perfect candidate to advocate for the average frenchman, again showing how a person is impacted by their community. The publics opinion changed on Robespierre when he resulted to violence. He claimed to be the voice of the people, and now he was murdering them in order to get his way. He allowed The Revolution and all of the events occuring around him to define his morals in what he believed in. Previously the voice of the people, he turned into their villain. Again proving how people and the environment are constantly changing.
A modern day example of the change in history and opinions are the president and the election. Prior to becoming president, and filled with promise the people love who their new leader is going to be. However shortly after it seems as though every president has a negative reputation. It is impossible for the president to do all he has promised because he is affected by the environment around him. He must change his plans, and even what he believes in, in order to adapt to the current situation. This does not always promise positive feedback. History and people are constantly changing because new things are always happening. Every day something new occurs and order to learn and grow we must change our behaviors to create a better society.
Humans generally do not stay with one train of thought for their entire life. This is prevalent in every aspect of a person's life. It can be seen through changes in minor aspects of life such as musical likes and can range to how people perceive historical happenings of the past. New information is uncovered and the values of society gradually change over time. Because of this fact, it is a safe bet to say that history is not static, in fact it changes quite a bit. After reading the article, “Robespierre and the Terror”, this idea becomes quite clear indeed.
In the beginning of Robespierre and the Terror, the rough life that Robespierre had to grow up with was discussed. With the death of his parents forcing him to grow up quickly, he had to take care of his siblings. Through his incredible will power he worked hard to overcome their deaths while still trying to better himself. He overcame adversity and worked to become a lawyer which he used to help defend his ideals. His ideals were changed over the course of the revolution in France. He started out being a strong opponent to the death penalty, but as time went on he discovered that violence was a viable option to take. He even went as far as to lead the execution of countless lives. He learned that if he wanted to go out to achieve his goals and ideals, there had to be some assertion of power and in this case he chose violence to illustrate he was serious in his ideas. This is a direct example of how history isn't static because he changed his views. Another example of this is during the Industrial revolution. At the time, many people were skeptical of the benefits of it because of the issues with labor and pollution. However, nowadays we tend to recognize how the growth of industry was actually beneficial to society even though there were some aspects of it that caused great controversy.
History is ever changing. New opinions and views are constantly being formed. New information is being discovered which will allow for these new thought processes to be created. History is not static and that's the fact of the matter.
The progression of humans is almost solely dependent on our shift in morals. Like many things in society, we can only progress if we question the choices and decisions of our predecessors.
Robespierre And The Terror focuses on Robespierre's life. He, like many of us, showed that history is not static. He tried to the best of his ability to uphold the idea of revolution. He killed all those who opposed it, which contributed greatly to the overall death toll.When the people realized that he wanted to keep France in a state of panic so that he would be in charge, they decided to kill him. He exemplifies the idea that history is not static through his personal experiences in which he was killed for trying to keep France in the revolution.
Many of our ideas have changed over time. There was once a time where all African Americans and women were considered to be inferior to white males. Nowadays such an idea is considered to be radical and reserved only for the most scummy of people.
In Robespierre and the Terror, there is a clear example of the fact that history is not static. Robespierre began as a man who did not believe in the death penalty, but ended up being the reason for thousands of innocent peoples executions. People change their minds all the time, and Robespierre did because he believed that it would help improve the country. That is usually what causes one to change their views. For example, during the same period, citizens began to think about their rights and their representation in government. Before this period, people questioned the type of government they had infrequently. Just as Robespierre changed his mind on the Revolution and the ‘cleansing’ of France, many people in Europe and the colonies of European countries began to question the limited rights they had and they began to support democracy and natural rights.\
History is very dynamic. From the basic culture of everyday activities to the reforming of a country’s government, history is a constantly changing thing. In Robespierre and the Terror, it describes how Maximilien Robespierre was originally strongly disagreed with the death penalty, but later in his life he had tons and tons of people sent to the guillotine for disagreeing with his political views. This is just one small example of change in history. Another example of change was the government of France shifting from a monarchist government to a democracy, and this was not done easily and without bloodshed. Another instance that shows how history is very dynamic and ever changing was the discovery of the Americas. The discovery of North and South America was a major change in history. It opened up new opportunities for many preexisting countries to expand and gain more resources. It was a constant battle between European powers in North and South America over who gets what land. Even over the last century there have been great advances and changes in science and medicine. People went from puzzling over the structure of DNA in 1962 to completely sequencing the human genome only 30 years later. People went from thinking that the Earth was flat to putting a computer into something the size of your palm. History is very far from being static, and has changed a great amount, and will continue to do so.
This article greatly reflects the idea of living history and the idea that history is not static. Robespierre and the Terror is an excellent example of the dynamic nature of history. The article demonstrates the changing feelings and actions of those over the course of history. The life of Robespierre is one, which must be taken into consideration when responding to this particular question. Robespierre had overcome several obstacles in his life before becoming successful. With this great success came an admiration from the people of France. Those of the lower and middle class respected Robespierre, particularly because they were aware of his life in the past. Not only was his story uplifting to those unhappy with their lives, but also made his actions affecting the middle and lower class more justifiable because he had once experienced a lifestyle like theirs at one time. But it seemed that this story and his previous ways of living had little impact on Robespierre’s actions once in power. Robespierre sent thousands of people to their death and misused his power, causing a breakout in violence and eventually his own execution. His actions are an example of the changing ways of people and actions over the course of time. This idea can be further supported by the Industrial Revolution. In its earliest stages, middle class workers disliked the revolution. With terrible working standards, deplorable living conditions, and low pay, people were dissatisfied with their new ways of living. But over time, with slow improvements and modified technology, the opinion of several people was changed and the Industrial Revolution evolved and helped to shape todays modern society.
Brittany 'Oz' DiSorbo
Contrary to popular belief, history is not set in stone. This is due to the fact that
there is always more to discover, and therefore, theory on the past are always subject to
change; this is evident after reading the 'Of Anglo-Saxons and Revisionists: A New Interpretation
of the French Revolution Emerges' article, in which it discusses how the conception of even the
cause of the French Revolution has changed over time. It talks first of the Marxist version,
where the belief is that the revaluation sprang out of purely class competition, before going
on to state that that is now viewed as incorrect, as it is known that more than that contributed
to the anger that spurred the revolution. The article sides with the Tocqueville-Furet thesis, which
takes into count the old government, and how it influenced the change, and brought about revolution.
These ideas of the French Revolution are not unlike the ideas of the American Civil War.
Both were originally over the difference in class, be it slaves or peasants. But both developed into
much much more, affecting even the way the government works. However, while France dwelt in the
Terror of the Revolution, the United States split apart into the Union and the Confederacy. Both
however, would ultimately solve their problems after years of violence. Yet still, depending on who
you go to for the stories of the past, the tales are diffrent. History is still alive, seeing as
everyone interprits it in their own way.
History is not static because opinions are constantly evolving. In "Robespierre and the Terror", Robespierre went from being an opponent to capital punishment to supporting the execution of King Louis XVI. This was because Robespierre and the Convention believed that "Louis must die in order for the Revolution to live". Opinions and views change with reason and cause, and these reasons are based on external events, like actions being put in place by the government.
The division of the estates in pre-revolution France was what was accepted for years until the peasants erupted into rebellion, after elongated periods of frustration with an ignorant king and unjust living conditions. Without this rebellion, the Third Estate of France - 97% of the population - may have continued to suffer for much longer, and Louis XVI would have still been on the throne.
Women's suffrage is a solid example of how opinions and views change throughout time. Women went from being tied to their homes and children by ball and chain to active government figures, doctors, and lawyers - all positions traditionally held by men and sometimes forbidden to women. In present day, women are allowed to have a voice and are often times expected to speak out because they are men's' equal. Sixty years ago this was not the case, and five-hundred years before that it was an even more bland, colorless world for women. But as time went on and men made an effort to accept women into society, everyone's opinions began to change. The status quo shifted as more people changed their ideas.
Does every man (or woman) have a right to change? Whether or not they have the right to, one certainly cannot avoid change in character. This law of change, if you will, is also applied to the general populace. How a community views history now will almost certainly change at some point, this idea being made apparent by the article, “Robespierre and the Terror.”
Robespierre had a story that many politicians would envy. The revolutionary had an extremely tough childhood, as he was born to a mother who died when he was six, and a father who soon after abandoned his children. Living with his grandparents, he studied hard and went from a poor orphan to a successful and well-known lawyer, regarded as a fighter for the poor. Robespierre quickly rose through the ranks of the revolution because of his inspiring speeches, humble beginnings, and leadership ability. Unfortunately, his complete lust for blood in the later part of the reign of terror and disregard for human life caused his fans to turn against their leader and execute him. The speed at which an angry mob can turn against their own leaders is astonishing, especially when they had been the rally point just a few years earlier, as Robespierre had been.
The unfortunate situation of Maximilen Robespierre is not the only example of a rapid turn of public opinion and general viewpoint. The public opinion and approval of Christopher Columbus has also changed dramatically over the past decade. Once new evidence that Columbus had been a genocidal maniac, very bad at math, and not even the first European to reach the Americas, Americans have been more and more disapproving of the celebration of the Italian explorer.
To make the assumption that history is static would be completely obsurd and ignorant to all the examples throughout history of change and evolution. After all, the actions and events set into motion that create our history were all bred by humans, and humans themselves are prone to change, development, and evolution. The article, “Robespierre and the Terror” is a prime example of how history and the figures that make up history, are hardly ever static.
In this article, we are introduced to Robespierre as a member of the bourgeois who was orphaned at a very young age. After the tragic loss of his parents, Robespierre grew to be a very liberal and progressive thinker. He was a radical and a democrat, and someone that defended the rights of all men and greatly valued the liberty that was granted to a country’s citizens. In the early years of the unrest in France, Robespierre did not support armed liberals marching around demanding freedom. He claimed that “no one welcomes armed liberators.” Robespierre was also very strongly against the death penalty. However, as time passes and the tension in France rises to the point of spilling over, Robespierre ends up claiming that the only way for the rebellion in France to thrive and live and reign victorious is for Louis XVI to die. This is something that was completely counter to what he had originally believed, but nevertheless, Robespierre found himself joining in chants for the head of Louis. With the support of Robespierre, the years of 1793 to 1794 were drenched and saturated with blood. This is a clear example of how Robespierre was not a static character in the book of France’s history; his values and priorities changed when he got into the game and realized what needed to be done.
This kind of non-static change throughout history can also be seen during the period of history when President Abraham Lincoln was in charge of the Untied States. In our elementary texts books and history classes, we are taught that old Honest Abe was a great man who fought off the mean slave holders. At the time, northerners praised Lincoln as their savior and a noble man who had no flaws. This view of Lincoln, while correct, also may have painted him as a little too perfect. While it is true that Lincoln did do wonders for this country to keep it together in times of desperation, it cannot be overlooked that the methods Lincoln used to issue pieces of legislation and mobilize militias often went beyond his restricted abilities. At times, Lincoln would trample over his restrictions as the head of the executive branch and exceed his abilities. This abuse of power is often overlooked when evaluating the life of Lincoln. However, it should not be. His actions were a part of him and made up his very foundation, and because no one human is static, it would make sense that his actions and views would also be dynamic and ever changing.
The way people view situations throughout history is always changing. The way that someone originally sees a topic can drastically change over the course of time, due to a gain of knowledge, a personal experience, their surroundings, etc. This is evident in Robespierre and the Terror. His original views at the beginning of his adult life sharply contrast with his views in his later years. Also, the way in which he was perceived by the French population was dramatically altered from the start of his political career to the end of his reign.
In his early life, Robespierre was faced with a lot of adversity through the loss of his parents and his new role as the leader of his family raising his sibling- with very little money. After he became a lawyer and a significant figure in the Jacobins, Robespierre began forming his own opinions surrounding certain issues. He was a strong proponent for voting rights for people of any rank in society, he also was a strong advocate for poor people, as well as a strong opposer to the death penalty. However, it is very obvious that over time peoples opinions can drastically change. Throughout the duration of the French Revolution, Robespierre gradually became more accustomed to the idea of using violence to instill his belief system in France. Robespierre eventually ended up killing tens of thousands of people via the guillotine, giving the Reign of Terror its name.
At the beginning of his reign, Robespierre was admired by the French- mainly lower class citizens. However by the end of his reign, hundreds of thousands of deaths later, the people of France were very frightened of Robespierre, an extremely different viewpoint than they had originally had.
Another example of this in history would be the opinions surrounding Adolf Hitler. At the beginning of Hitler's political career, he was admired by those he spoke with. He was thought of as a hero who could bring Germany back to the top and help them out of their economic and social crisis. This opinion changed greatly over the course of his reign in Germany. Eventually people became aware of Hitler's real motifs and ideals, and became terrified of him. This is yet another example of how history is not static, and how people's views on a subject can drastically change with time, much like those of the French Revolution.
The article “Robespierre and the Terror” offers a prime example on how perspectives on certain individuals and ideologies can shift dramatically throughout history. The French peasants and bourgeois who had endured devastating working conditions throughout their entire life initially looked to Maximilien Robespierre who vigorously defended the rights of the poor and worked his way up from poverty as hero they can directly relate to. However, this cult of idealism surrounding Robespierre faded all too quickly when he actually rose to power as the leader of the Commune. Once the idealistic reformer rose to power as the leader of the Committee of Public Safety, he unconsciously became more concerned with his preserving his political power in the same manner of the very leader he took a great role in overthrowing. He went as far as to bombard and starve out the city of Lyons that had rebelled against the increasingly tyrannical and authoritarian Committee. In this single instant, Robespierre shifted from an idealistic man who initially only wanted to averts the wrongs of a reactionary monarchy into the ruthless tyrant that he once campaigned against. History judges leaders for the decisions they made as a political leader, rather than their motivations for said decisions or their life before they took political power. It is because of this that Robespierre is now commonly depicted as an irrational radical who threw his country into chaos rather than the admirable ideals of justice that he held before taking power.
Men such as Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler who were initially nothing more than outspoken reformers went through the process of being corrupted by absolute power in the very manner Robespierre was. These men were viewed by heroes who wanted to overthrow an incompetent and corrupted government that did not represent the interests of the people before they came to power. In order to realize their ambitions of creating their version of a utopian society they did not hesitate to resort to extremist policies that would result in the deaths of millions of their own people. From their Machiavellian perspectives, the sacrifices of some were necessary for the greater good of society. In the end, their ideals were corrupted with a unsatisfiable desire for conserving their political power as opposition grew against their ruthless and seemingly meaningless tendencies for violence, ruining the reputations they once held as idealistic reformers.
In "Robespierre and the Terror" "living history" is reflected through the change in French public opinion about him, as well as his own actions. French public opinion about him changed as time went on and as the revolution gained intensity. Robespierre's actions also changed as the revolution morphed his opinion of France.
Robespierre's rise in power was mostly because of his supporting of the plight of the sans-culottes, or "urban workers", one of the largest groups of people in France at the time, and he came to be a spokesperson for them. Because of this, opinion of him was high throughout the revolutionaries in France and he was well respected. However as time went on, Robespierre's reputation fell. He deserted his previous factions for others, thinking it was the right decision. Today, he is one of the least honored revolutionaries in France. Only having an old subway station in the poor suburbs to his name.
Secondly, Robespierre and the Terror reflected the fact that history is not static in that at first it tells how he was a Lawyer at 30 who largely fought for the poor and people of the 3rd estate. He believed strongly in preserving the rights of men and he presented himself as an opponent to the death penalty. However, this all changed after the revolution intensified. Robespierre began to execute by guillotine anyone who was seen as or accused of being an adversary to the revolutionary cause. He himself sent thousands of parisians to the guillotine, many of whom were of the 3rd estate, the people who he fought for as a lawyer and whose rights he defended at the beginning of the war. This shows the changes of his actions throughout a short time in history and describes the volatility of history as a whole.
A similar period of history in which opinions evolved over time was during World War I. The United States took on a policy of Non-Intervention meaning under no circumstances would they be directly involved in the fighting. Citizens as well as the government agreed that a war was unfavorable and they would only help to fund the allies with money and weapons. However the non-intervention policy was retracted after the Germans began to practice unrestricted submarine warfare, sinking American ships. At that point, the United States felt as though it had been openly attacked. Declaring war on Germany and ultimately joining World War I, the United States did exactly the opposite of what they said they would just years before. This shows how opinions evolved over such a short period of time and the fact that history is in no way static.
People are constantly changing their views and opinions on history. What were considered “radical” changes years ago are now considered very conservative by todays standards. Similarly, “modern” developments, even a few years later can be outdated. This goes for scientific developments as well as our view on historical figures. To the people that he represented Robespierre was a hero.
Robespierre made his way up in the world and represented the highly under-represented third estate. He was born into the lower class but became a lawyer and the mouthpiece of the lower class in the Estates-General. During the time of the revolution, he was the people’s hero. Now he is viewed as the bringer of discord and death. Looking back at the French Revolution we can see the astounding amount of bloodshed - and Robespierre, the hero, played a huge role in this.
Another paradigm shift that is similar to how people viewed Robespierre then and now was another hero who was seeking to reform his country - Hitler. Although what Hitler did was an attempt at genocide, and was on a much greater scale that what Robespierre did, he was still committing murder in order to “reform” and help improve his nation (in his opinion). Robespierre was the one who sent people to the guillotine in order to improve the nation. Both had similar goals in mind and both were hailed as heros by their people. Now we look back and see them (one more than the other) as bringers of death. Our views on events change as time passes - and so do our opinions on our historical “heros.”
History changes all the time just as things in everyday life are always changing. Through evolution people's ideas and theories are always changing. With new information always being found, new ideas and ways of thinking are always happening. Reading Robespierre and the Terror allows one to see that history never stays still and that it always is changing. This idea of changing viewpoints in history can explain how people put energy to help one, but in the process are liable for other problems. Robespierre was thought to be very inspiring during the French Revolution. He was looked up to for what he did with reform despite any other issues. However, because he was involved in killings, people’s opinions on him changed as time went on. A modern day connection to the changing history would be the focus on the president and the elections. Before presidency, the promises are made and the campaign goes on, but after the president is elected, if the president does not do something right, he is automatically criticized. Then the people want a new president to change the ways. This consistently happens due to the consistent change in information and ideas. New events happen and people change as they grow.
History never stops moving, a fact that after reading over “Robespierre and the Terror” only confirmed. From the very start the article discusses Robespierre’s upbringing which, after being orphaned at age six and having to live with his elderly relatives, frankly does not foreshadow a successful life for young Maximilien. Yet, within the first few paragraphs, Robespierre had built himself into a respectable individual. He became a deputy for the Third Estate in the Estates General, a position from which he would watch the beginning of the revolution unfold. As a reflection of “living history”, “Robespierre and the Terror” highlights the changes in belief that create Robespierre into a powerful figurehead in the early phases of revolution, and then into a threat that was quickly executed.
In the beginning, Robespierre quickly rose from an abandoned orphan, to a driving force behind the French Revolution. As an example of history not being static, there is no better example than Robespirre’s initial position regarding violence, versus where his career took him. The article describes Robespierre as passionately against the death penalty in his early years. However, under Robespierre, nearly 17,000 death sentences were issued under his control during the Terror. In just years, he had shifted from a peaceful politician, hugely opposed to death and violence as a means of revolting, to the leader of an entity that would take the lives of over 17,000 individuals. Robespierre started his career as a near national hero, but his progression through time did not treat him well, as today he is remembered solely for the execution of 17,000 people (and for being a horrible marksman). I found such drastic change very similar to the McCarthy era beginning in the late 1940s in the United States. What began with Senator Joseph McCarthy heroically accusing 205 names from a list of being Communist sympathizers in a nation that was petrified in fear of Communism spreading throughout the world, ended with his rejection. Originally a national hero in an ongoing fight against Communism, McCarthy’s fame was short lived. Much like Robespierre his initial actions gave him the national spotlight. McCarthy was a hero. But, upon his accusation of high ranking United States Officials being Communist sympathizers, his ideas immediately lost support. He had simply gone too far. While Robespierre shifted from a hero to a mass murderer in the eyes of the French, McCarthy’s transformation was much less dramatic. He simply lost massive amounts of support as a result of his ridiculous claims.
Both the article “Robespierre and the Terror” and the McCarthy Era within the United States highlight and support the idea of “living history”. Each demonstrates the great shifts in opinion that keep history forever going. Whether it be a shift from a Communist fighting hero to an insane moron, or from a heroic leader of revolution into a gruesome killer, the idea of “living history” is clearly emphasized.
History has shown that over time opinions, views, and people's way of thinking can change over time. History is constantly happening and changing every second. The world is not a static place and therefore history cannot possibly be static. Views and opinions change over time due to events and knowledge that change. As a result, history changes courses, in often very extreme ways.
Robespierre is a terrific example of how quickly the path of history can change. When he came to power he was loved and adored by almost everybody. People who desired change trusted him to do it and his intentions seemed very good. However, it just a matter of years, the people turned and Robespierre ended up with is head in the guillotine and was made an example by the people of how they can have power over the government and how they are able to invoke change in society. How could this have happened to the amazing and trusted leader? Robespierre was not a supporter of the death penalty, but when people started rising because of their desire for change, he knew he only had one option if he was going to remain in power. Execution. He needed to kill all the revolutionaries who stood in his way of keeping power. He killed thousands upon thousands of people, some without legitimate reason. He, in many ways, became power-hungry and the people would not stand for it. This dramatic shift in the balance of power made the opinions of the commoners change in just a matter years. This ended up with Robespierre being decapitated.
The views of people change based on the views around them. Today in the United States, we can compare this to the President. Many people vote for a President they think will do the best job, and if they don't do what they want, they don't kill the president, but rather the people can get rid of the President after one term and elect somebody else, who they think will do they job they wanted done all along.
People just want what they are promised, and if that happens, their opinions and actions change. This is how history changes to quickly and changes the world forever. History, opinions, views, and people are constantly changing and evolve over time.
Over the course of history, history changes. It may sound confusing, but this statement is indeed true. As people are living in the time where history is being created, they will see the events unfolding in a certain way. This view will be based on the amount of information they have, added onto any sort of bias that comes with living in the ages. It will also be based on the culture, morals, and lifestyle of the time period. However, as time goes on, these same people will be better informed. They will know more of the events of the time period, and not just what the media has told them or what the government has made available to them. This will then change their opinion on the events that had occurred previously. As more time goes on, the ideals and opinions of society will change as well. This will then change the viewpoints of the people on these same events. In one hundred years, the proceedings that happen today will be better understood, and therefore seen very differently, by scholars and common people alike.
Robespierre, during his time as head of the Committee running the French revolution, was originally viewed as a hero. He would save France from monarchical rule and would stop anyone that got in his way! Unfortunately, Robespierre chose to do this by publically executing tens of thousands of ordinary people by the guillotine. He was later blamed for all the bloodshed of the revolution, once the people changed their minds about it being a good idea, and was ironically guillotined himself. How did Robespierre go from being a hero to a villain? The people’s view of him had changed. He had not done anything differently, other than killing more and more people each day. However, he came to a brutal end after he was sentenced to death himself.
This holds many parallels to Germany and Adolf Hitler in World War II. Adolf Hitler was viewed as the one who would save Germany from its economic depression and raise them to again be one of the highest powers in the world. He chose to make the Jewish population the scapegoat for all of Germany’s problems, and gradually began eliminating them. Hitler killed millions of people in his concentration camps throughout Europe. However, the German people, nor anyone for that matter, knew exactly what Hitler was doing. Once time went on, and they were better informed, people now view Hitler as an extremely evil and sadistic man. At the time, though, people did not know any better.
It’s amazing how history can change, especially due to lack of information available at the time.
Ideas and people's opinions change dramatically with the changing times and it is this aspect of humans that makes us able to adapt to changing environments and cultures. People have been changing their opinions vastly over the years especially about people. For example during his election, Obama was hailed as the president that would reform American and return it into a great nation. Now at the end of his term some of the people have not seen significant change and are now calling for his replacement. The same occurred for Robespierre. After reading Robespierre it shows clearly how people's opinions have changed. For example, Washington is still remembered today by the American public, but now by little is remembered about Robespierre even in France. Now the only things to remind the people about him is a measly train station that was named after him as well as a mention ins history book or an article about the French Revolution. Times have changed and someone who was incredibly important during their time fades into the background now. During the French revolution he was one loved for being a person that could change the views of any crowd with his words. He was extremely influential to the French populace. In the beginning the revolution it's self was regard as a great thing, finally the third estate was rising up assert their influence and power in government and Robespierre was well received by the public as someone that was striving to protect the revolution, however as the revolution became more and more bloody, the people's ideals of the revolution also changed. Everything spiral down eventually to his execution. The people's opinion of the revolution had changed with the happenings of the revolution, as it became more bloody, the way people viewed Robespierre also changed. And thus over centuries the way people view certain situations had changed vastly over the years.
There are many different aspects of life that can contribute to the "living history" concept. In the case of the French revolution however, this life changing event was the rise of robespierre and his bloody guillotine regime. From then on, models of constitutions have been formatted to what the French revolution brought to the world. All the way from his humble beginnings in a tiny town Robespierre was about equality for all and how every man deserves equal opportunities and lives. Every oppression or disastrous reign is usually always topped off with a shift in power or an outcry by the citizens. History changes over time by clear and evident ways specifically in France with Robespierre establishing equality and visions of a better French society. And as events transpired the visions and ideals have changed used to help better or advance the civilization even more.
Another prime example of views in history changing would be the reign if Adolf hitler in Germany and how people believed he would better germany and leave it in a better state after the economic recession. They needed someone to turn to in order to help them dig themselves out of the hole they previously dug. History went to prove that hitler did not better germany and instead left it hated,broke, and shattered with destruction. The new found war reparations now left them shambled and broken in order to pay for the devastation brought forward by hitler and the third reich.
History is the exact opposite from math or science in the fact that it is always changing. What people might see as moral one day might be viewed as immoral the next. An example of this would be in the field of crime and punishment. It was once okay to torture prisoners for their wrongdoings and make their lives miserable as repentance for their faults. However today torturing prisoners is viewed as immoral and wrong.
In the article, Robespierre was a much loved and admired military hero during the days of the french revolution. People saw him as this great man who could do no wrong. Today, his "reign of terror" is seen as an abomination to modern ideals about life and death. He is no longer seen as a hero in france because of his killing of some 15,000 people using the ever efficient but deadly guillotine. He did this to "protect" the revolution. To members of the third estate during the time this was seen as noble, people today would most likely see him as a mass murderer with no soul.
Post a Comment