7 ms·

That is bit too paranoid, some people want to live, not just protest. 18th century Paris was filthy place and needed makeover. Cairo is very congested and dirt

That is bit too paranoid, some people want to live, not just protest. 18th century Paris was filthy place and needed makeover. Cairo is very congested and dirty city. Protests are last problem in there.

BiteCode_dev 6y ago
And, and we killed those kings out of loving kindness. That's just how we do things in France.
- gerikson 6y ago
  Eh, it was one king. Only Legitimists consider Louis XVI's son to have been king, and his death was from illness (perhaps hastened by neglect), not a formal execution.
  - BiteCode_dev 6y ago
    Sure, you can s/kings/nobles if you prefer precision over humour.
    - rsj_hn 6y ago
      s/nobles/farmers,nuns,priests,kids * 200,000 farmers in the Vendee * tens of thousands of priests and nuns * ordinary people, children, and eventually themselves. The stench of the bodies was so great they moved the guillotines outside the city. One day after beheading a convent of nuns that refused to stop praying, next up was a young boy caught stealing. As he was led up to the guillotine, a shout could be heard from the crowd "Please, no more children!" But hey, at least they replaced their King with an Emperor.
      - BiteCode_dev 6y ago
        We didn't call that period the terror for its joyful tenderness.
        rsj_hn 6y ago
        No, it was an orgy of terror by which France replaced a weak king with a strong emperor. The lesson being, don't become a weak king or these forces will be unleashed again.
    - gerikson 6y ago
      I do prefer precision in my humor, yes. Seriously though, I find the entire period fascinating (mostly via the Revolutions postcast, and reading Hilary Mantel's A Place of Greater Safety). The French Revolution is such a pivotal point in Western history that I believe that precision is important.
      - mrwh 6y ago
        Just another plug for A Place of Greater Safety: it's a wonderful book, rather overshadowed by Wolf Hall.
      - skrebbel 6y ago
        Why was it pivotal? I mean, all I know is some proto-marxists overthrew the king, murdered everybody who looked at them funny for 5 years straight, went crazy, got overtaken by Napoleon who was basically the next king again. That's a few years as a republic, and an extremely bloody and dysfunctional one at that, how was that pivotal? Was it "just" because it was the situation let Napoleon take power? I'll definitely agree that Napoleon was pivotal :-) But I'm very shallow wrt this topic, I'd love to learn how (besides the bloodshed), the revolution changed matters.
        gerikson 6y ago
        > Why was it pivotal? Countries were transformed from feudal holdings under a monarch into nation states. I sincerely urge you to learn more. It's much more complex than a few fanatics overthrowing a king and then falling apart. Specifically, it's about how the full military power of France was unleashed upon Europe, and crucially, this was a power driven by ideology - people should govern themselves, not be beholden an ancient royalty and church. Napoleon could probably never had risen as far as he did under the monarchy. And crucially, he took power in part because he was so successful in waging the Republic's wars.
        skrebbel 6y ago
        Woa thanks, good tldr. I never understood the revolution as causing the Napoleonic wars, and I had always gotten the idea that Napolean waged his wars for the much more mundane reason of an Emperor wanting to expand his borders, because ego. I never understood that so much of the revolution's ideas persisted into Napoleon's rule and conquest. Also I've always had a bit of a beef with people celebrating the French Revolution as some glorious victory of "the people" over their evil oppressors, without mentioning the Terror that followed. Maybe that's made me a bit blind to how much of the good parts persisted :-) I'll dig deeper, thanks!
  - saalweachter 6y ago
    You can advance the science of chemistry, you can set up a democratic republic, you can establish the metric system, but you execute ONE KING, and all that people will remember--
    - garmaine 6y ago
      > You can advance the science of chemistry The revolutionaries were quick to behead Lavoisier, who was a member of the establishment and tax collector for the king. He did his best work under the monarchy. Not sure you can give revolutionary France credit for that field.
      - saalweachter 6y ago
        Yeah, but I needed hendiatris to make the joke work, and couldn't think of a better third.
    - saghm 6y ago
      To be honest, the historical stereotype of France that I've heard mentioned most as an American is their surrender in WWII, not the regicide in the French Revolution. I imagine it might be different in Europe, though.
ceilingcorner 6y ago
Egypt literally had a revolution a decade ago.
- ComputerGuru 6y ago
  Failed revolution. The military then immediately seized control in a coup d’état and threw the new and popular president in jail planning to execute him before he died of a heart attack.
  - DSingularity 6y ago
    Allegedly a heart attack. Send mighty convenient for him to die for those in power.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - alpha_squared 6y ago
    Popularity was and continues to be heavily disputed. The citizens voted for democracy and got yet another backslide to autocracy.
    - ComputerGuru 6y ago
      It’s hard to suggest with a straight face that the Sisi junta is more democratic or less autocratic than Morsi’s legitimately elected government had been, regardless of the latter’s shortcomings (not that he was there long enough to even really pass judgement). Or that Morsi was not strictly an improvement from a due democratic process perspective as compared to Mubarak’s monarch-like status.
      - alpha_squared 6y ago
        I'm not suggesting that either. I'll accept Sisi as more democratic when he actually steps down; until then, some problems, different face. Morsi was certainly there long enough to pass judgment. I'm not old enough to remember the Muslim Brotherhood, but older family members are and they were fairly concerned about their rapid political rise. I didn't share that concern at the beginning, but quickly realized the dangers of it with the theocratic bend of the newly-formed government.
zucker42 6y ago
I suggest you look up the history of Kazakhstan's capital move. Capital moves are often used by authoritarian leaders to consolidate their power by using the move as an excuse to punish and reward underlings, isolating themselves from threats to their power, and using geography to keep politically influential people under their control.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  The move of the capital from Almaty to Astana wasn’t just about Nazarbaev increasing his own personal power. It was also an attempt to keep the country viable in its current borders by lowering the chances of the ethnic-Russian-dominated north seceding. Also, most of Kazakhstan's political elite continued to reside in Almaty and just flew back and forth from the new capital for business, so Astana wasn't even an example of a capital built to secure the rulers from the population.
tjalfi 6y ago
> That is bit too paranoid, some people want to live, not just protest. 18th century Paris was filthy place and needed makeover. Parisian urban revolts were a regular occurrence[0]; it was an explicit goal to make them more difficult. The following quote is from the SlateStarCodex review[1] of Seeing Like a State. "This was a particular problem in Paris, which was famous for a series of urban insurrections in the 19th century (think Les Miserables, but about once every ten years or so). Although these generally failed, they were hard to suppress because locals knew the “terrain” and the streets were narrow enough to barricade. Slums full of poor people gathered together formed tight communities where revolutionary ideas could easily spread. The late 19th-century redesign of Paris had the explicit design of destroying these areas and splitting up poor people somewhere far away from the city center where they couldn’t do any harm." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Paris#Overcrowding,_disease,_crime,_and_unrest_in_the_centre_of_the_old_Paris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Pa... [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/16/book-review-seeing-like-a-state/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/16/book-review-seeing-lik...
- baud147258 6y ago
  > splitting up poor people somewhere far away from the city center where they couldn’t do any harm it sure worked really well in 1871, considering the dommage which were done during the Commune

BiteCode_dev 6y ago

And, and we killed those kings out of loving kindness. That's just how we do things in France.

gerikson 6y ago
Eh, it was one king. Only Legitimists consider Louis XVI's son to have been king, and his death was from illness (perhaps hastened by neglect), not a formal execution.
- BiteCode_dev 6y ago
  Sure, you can s/kings/nobles if you prefer precision over humour.
  - rsj_hn 6y ago
    s/nobles/farmers,nuns,priests,kids * 200,000 farmers in the Vendee * tens of thousands of priests and nuns * ordinary people, children, and eventually themselves. The stench of the bodies was so great they moved the guillotines outside the city. One day after beheading a convent of nuns that refused to stop praying, next up was a young boy caught stealing. As he was led up to the guillotine, a shout could be heard from the crowd "Please, no more children!" But hey, at least they replaced their King with an Emperor.
    - BiteCode_dev 6y ago
      We didn't call that period the terror for its joyful tenderness.
      - rsj_hn 6y ago
        No, it was an orgy of terror by which France replaced a weak king with a strong emperor. The lesson being, don't become a weak king or these forces will be unleashed again.
  - gerikson 6y ago
    I do prefer precision in my humor, yes. Seriously though, I find the entire period fascinating (mostly via the Revolutions postcast, and reading Hilary Mantel's A Place of Greater Safety). The French Revolution is such a pivotal point in Western history that I believe that precision is important.
    - mrwh 6y ago
      Just another plug for A Place of Greater Safety: it's a wonderful book, rather overshadowed by Wolf Hall.
    - skrebbel 6y ago
      Why was it pivotal? I mean, all I know is some proto-marxists overthrew the king, murdered everybody who looked at them funny for 5 years straight, went crazy, got overtaken by Napoleon who was basically the next king again. That's a few years as a republic, and an extremely bloody and dysfunctional one at that, how was that pivotal? Was it "just" because it was the situation let Napoleon take power? I'll definitely agree that Napoleon was pivotal :-) But I'm very shallow wrt this topic, I'd love to learn how (besides the bloodshed), the revolution changed matters.
      - gerikson 6y ago
        > Why was it pivotal? Countries were transformed from feudal holdings under a monarch into nation states. I sincerely urge you to learn more. It's much more complex than a few fanatics overthrowing a king and then falling apart. Specifically, it's about how the full military power of France was unleashed upon Europe, and crucially, this was a power driven by ideology - people should govern themselves, not be beholden an ancient royalty and church. Napoleon could probably never had risen as far as he did under the monarchy. And crucially, he took power in part because he was so successful in waging the Republic's wars.
        skrebbel 6y ago
        Woa thanks, good tldr. I never understood the revolution as causing the Napoleonic wars, and I had always gotten the idea that Napolean waged his wars for the much more mundane reason of an Emperor wanting to expand his borders, because ego. I never understood that so much of the revolution's ideas persisted into Napoleon's rule and conquest. Also I've always had a bit of a beef with people celebrating the French Revolution as some glorious victory of "the people" over their evil oppressors, without mentioning the Terror that followed. Maybe that's made me a bit blind to how much of the good parts persisted :-) I'll dig deeper, thanks!
- saalweachter 6y ago
  You can advance the science of chemistry, you can set up a democratic republic, you can establish the metric system, but you execute ONE KING, and all that people will remember--
  - garmaine 6y ago
    > You can advance the science of chemistry The revolutionaries were quick to behead Lavoisier, who was a member of the establishment and tax collector for the king. He did his best work under the monarchy. Not sure you can give revolutionary France credit for that field.
    - saalweachter 6y ago
      Yeah, but I needed hendiatris to make the joke work, and couldn't think of a better third.
  - saghm 6y ago
    To be honest, the historical stereotype of France that I've heard mentioned most as an American is their surrender in WWII, not the regicide in the French Revolution. I imagine it might be different in Europe, though.

ceilingcorner 6y ago

Egypt literally had a revolution a decade ago.

ComputerGuru 6y ago
Failed revolution. The military then immediately seized control in a coup d’état and threw the new and popular president in jail planning to execute him before he died of a heart attack.
- DSingularity 6y ago
  Allegedly a heart attack. Send mighty convenient for him to die for those in power.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- alpha_squared 6y ago
  Popularity was and continues to be heavily disputed. The citizens voted for democracy and got yet another backslide to autocracy.
  - ComputerGuru 6y ago
    It’s hard to suggest with a straight face that the Sisi junta is more democratic or less autocratic than Morsi’s legitimately elected government had been, regardless of the latter’s shortcomings (not that he was there long enough to even really pass judgement). Or that Morsi was not strictly an improvement from a due democratic process perspective as compared to Mubarak’s monarch-like status.
    - alpha_squared 6y ago
      I'm not suggesting that either. I'll accept Sisi as more democratic when he actually steps down; until then, some problems, different face. Morsi was certainly there long enough to pass judgment. I'm not old enough to remember the Muslim Brotherhood, but older family members are and they were fairly concerned about their rapid political rise. I didn't share that concern at the beginning, but quickly realized the dangers of it with the theocratic bend of the newly-formed government.

zucker42 6y ago

I suggest you look up the history of Kazakhstan's capital move. Capital moves are often used by authoritarian leaders to consolidate their power by using the move as an excuse to punish and reward underlings, isolating themselves from threats to their power, and using geography to keep politically influential people under their control.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
The move of the capital from Almaty to Astana wasn’t just about Nazarbaev increasing his own personal power. It was also an attempt to keep the country viable in its current borders by lowering the chances of the ethnic-Russian-dominated north seceding. Also, most of Kazakhstan's political elite continued to reside in Almaty and just flew back and forth from the new capital for business, so Astana wasn't even an example of a capital built to secure the rulers from the population.

tjalfi 6y ago

> That is bit too paranoid, some people want to live, not just protest. 18th century Paris was filthy place and needed makeover. Parisian urban revolts were a regular occurrence[0]; it was an explicit goal to make them more difficult. The following quote is from the SlateStarCodex review[1] of Seeing Like a State. "This was a particular problem in Paris, which was famous for a series of urban insurrections in the 19th century (think Les Miserables, but about once every ten years or so). Although these generally failed, they were hard to suppress because locals knew the “terrain” and the streets were narrow enough to barricade. Slums full of poor people gathered together formed tight communities where revolutionary ideas could easily spread. The late 19th-century redesign of Paris had the explicit design of destroying these areas and splitting up poor people somewhere far away from the city center where they couldn’t do any harm." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Paris#Overcrowding,_disease,_crime,_and_unrest_in_the_centre_of_the_old_Paris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Pa... [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/16/book-review-seeing-like-a-state/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/16/book-review-seeing-lik...

baud147258 6y ago
> splitting up poor people somewhere far away from the city center where they couldn’t do any harm it sure worked really well in 1871, considering the dommage which were done during the Commune