Why is French Revolution of 1789 usually portrayed in Anglophone (especially American) popular media as something bad, or, at best, as something highly controvercial (i.e., "the nobility has brought the revolution upon themselves, but the Louis execution and Terreur were going too far")? Is it the echo of the British 19th century propaganda, or just a modern view on its events?
Yes, it's echo of propaganda.
Because it was a failure at the end of the day. It didn't result in a more egalitarian society but ended up with proto-commies in charge leading to the Terror and eventually a dictatorship of Napoleon
>proto-commies eventually get icepicked by proto-stalin
like pottery
Thr British aristocratic classes didn't want the peasants getting any funny ideas from those Frenchmen across the channel
Because the new regime was about as tyrannical as the old one and executed tens of thousands of people for capricious reasons while brutally oppressing all opposition.
This thread is about you.
True, but it's still an accurate portrayal. It's telling that no one in this thread is bothering to proffer substantive points in defense of the guillotine happy nutjobs who gained power.
It was fucking bad
T.frog
Napoleon crowning himself Emperor basically sours the whole thing, as it is seen as just a bunch of bloody chaos which ultimately cumulates with going back to square one.
BEFORE YOU GET TRIGGERED, I'm describing how normies perceive it, obviously Napoleon wasn't the same as a Bourbon king, but Stacy and Chad on the streets aren't Napoleonfags like people on this board, normies never read outside of class.
I also disagree with the notion that it's viewed negatively at all, exactly because as mentioned, normies just don't care to even have strong opinions. All they know is "King got decapitated by peasants", and usually that's seen as a positive, especially in the republican USA.
The jacobins did way worse than kill the king. They killed everyone including themselves. There’s a reason France was without a dictator for only 20 years and it’s because the new government they formed was all passion and no reason.
>BEFORE YOU GET TRIGGERED
Phew, I almost started ringing the tocsin bells and summoning the sans-culottes to CHIMP
Its figureheads were people like Robespierre or Marat who were bloodthirsty lunatics. They believed systematic death of those who disagree with them was less oppressive than a king who was kinda shitty. After they utterly failed to form a competent government, Napoleon came in and reminded everyone why monarchy worked which lead to the restoration of the original monarchy before eventually being dropped. Basically the original French Revolution set the country back 50 years and it wasn’t until more moderate thinkers stepped in did you see a true and healthy revolution.
Why wouldn't it be seen as controversial? It was exceptionally cruel. People generally don't look favourably on paranoia induced mass murder. Contemporarily or historically.
The forces of reaction eventually won and had a long time to spread propaganda about it.
It’s failure was self evident when it was replaced by a new monarchy almost instantly.
The warning shot of the judeo-masonic-knights templar takeover, with WWII being the final worldwide victory.
Because for all the blood and carnage it didn't do shit except put a dictator and eventual king back on the throne
>it didn't do shit except
Except give all frenchmen the vote
>Why, it was like reading about France and the French, before the ever memorable and blessed Revolution, which swept a thousand years of such villany away in one swift tidal-wave of blood—one: a settlement of that hoary debt in the proportion of half a drop of blood for each hogshead of it that had been pressed by slow tortures out of that people in the weary stretch of ten centuries of wrong and shame and misery the like of which was not to be mated but in hell. There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
— 'A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court' (1890), Chapter 13: "Freemen", Mark Twain.
it was early soviet union experiment, failed and gone rogue and thus vilified