Edmund Burke welcomed revolutions but despised the one in France. To him, it was a murderous, bloodbath that displayed the ugliness of man. In his writing, "Reflections on The Revolution in France, 1791", Burke is scathing in his attack of the leaders of the Revolution by calling them highwaymen and murderers and provides us with a contrary view of the Revolution's importance; all before the real terror consumed France from 1792-1794.
In the Burke excerpt from Perry (154-155) comment on what he accuses the French citizens of acting as. What are his criticisms?
In "Reactionary Prophet", Christopher Hitchens, in his piece on Burke writes, "Edmund Burke understood before anyone else that revolutions devour their young—and turn into their opposites."
What does Hitchens mean by this? Comment please
Finally,
Burke writes," By following those false lights, France has bought undisguised calamities at a higher price than any nation has purchased the most unequivocal blessings! France has bought poverty by crime! France has not sacrificed her virtue to her interest, but she has abandoned her interest, that she might prostitute her virtue. All other nations have begun the fabric of a new government, or the reformation of an old, by establishing originally, or by enforcing with greater exactness some rites or other of religion. All other people have laid the foundations of civil freedom in severer manners, and a system of a more austere and masculine morality. France, when she let loose the reins of regal authority, doubled the license of a ferocious dissoluteness in manners, and of an insolent irreligion in opinions and practices; and has extended through all ranks of life, as if she were communicating some privilege, or laying open some secluded benefit, all the unhappy corruptions that usually were the disease of weal"
What does Burke mean by this? Why did Burke find the Revolution so appalling and destructive? Please comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Burke accuses the French citizens of acting like they have never been moulded into a civil society before. Burk criticizes the French by saying that they are lustful and that they despise everything that belonged to them. The French also took the society into anarchy; instead of a normal revolution, this one was a blood bath.
ReplyDeleteHitchens is right in saying that Burke understood that revolutions devour their young- and turn into their opposites. A revolution, although supposed to civil, can turn into a horror scene if left unattended. The point of a revolution is for something to change, whether that be government or social hierarchy. Hitchens says that Burke understood how revolutions worked and that is partly true. Revolutions do not always have to end in bloodshed, but for that to actually happen, people have to be willing to change. During the French Revolution some people were not ready and did not want to change at all thus leading the people turning against each other. What Hitchens says about Burke is right. Burke did understand that revolutions devour their young –and turn into their opposites, but it all depends on the type of revolution and the severity of it for that to actually happen.
What Burke means by this is that France has gone about achieving a revolution in all the wrong ways. Even though it was a little late for them to start a revolution, they still went about it in the wrong manner. France lost sight of their interests and substituted in anything that seemed fit at the time. This draws a direct line as to why Burke found the French revolution so appalling and destructive. Burke felt this way because this is not how we would envision the proper Revolution. The vision of a revolution involves some sort of revolt whether it is violent or not. Burke did not like this revolution because the French people took it a step father and just butchered a mass number of people on a daily basis and in Burkes eyes, this is not the way to go about a revolution.
First question: First of all, Burke states that following the tradition or their predecessors is a great way to begin their journey into the future. However, Burke states that these citizens are too ignorant and have neglected the power of tradition. Also, he states that the nature of man is too intricate and complicated for a simple power to suit it. Overall, he states that on top of having a very complicated disposition, these citizens are unwilling to cooperate and are too ignorant to get advice from the past.
ReplyDeleteSecond question: When Hitchens says this, he is first praising Burke for his insight into the revolution. Also, he is stating that a revolution has to be controlled by the more experienced people. When he says this, he is implying that a revolution is very influential. Because a revolution is very powerful, it will influence the inexperienced citizens and brainwash them into conforming with the majority or what the revolution has to say.
Third question: Burke is saying that while all the other nations have achieved what they were striving for, France hasn't because France took all the wrong ways to achieving their goals. He is stating that France was basically blind during the process of this revolution. Burke finds this revolution very destructive and appalling because it does not coincide with his vision of a revolution. Burke's vision of a revolution has to result with a change for the better of the society. However, the French Revolution only massacred thousands of people and did not have a result that was satisfying. Therefore, French Revolution took it way too far and only destroyed its on nation.
the one above is jc
ReplyDeleteBurke says that the nature of man is intricate because the French citizens are acting like they have never been in a civil society before. They uprooted the established authority, traditions, and institutions, which made France turn into an anarchy. Burke says that if the French followed the wise examples before them they would have given new examples of wisdom to the world.
ReplyDeleteHitchens is saying that Burke is right because the people that came before the French left many things for them to follow. The French decided not to follow their practices, which caused them to turn into the complete opposite. By turning into the complete opposite everything went down hill because they wanted to have their own practices.
Burke means that the French's ancestors left so many practices for them to follow and they didn't. By not following their ancestors practices they wanted to have their own and they didn't work. After the French tried to follow their own practices they caused many problems, which they could'nt solve.
I should tell you that Burke thought the American Revolution was a worthy endeavor so clearly he had a specific problem with the one in France. Where did he French stray? What would Burke like to see the revolution in France move?
ReplyDelete1st: Burke believes that the French are acting ignorant and childish, they act like they have never lived in a civil society before. Also he criticizes the French citizens of bringing anarchy upon a society that was supposed to be better than the previous one.
ReplyDelete2nd: Hitchens is saying that Burke is right, andhe is very knowledgeable in Revolutions.When he says that the young turn into the complete opposites, he means Revolutions have very strong impacts on society, and can easily be changed or molded a different way from the original way, and if that happens then everyone will move away from the orignal and follow something else.
3rd: Burke means that thr French Revolution was nothing more than a giant bust, because all the people who iniated the French Revolution did not know what they were doing. They wanted change but didn't know how to have a successful one. Unlike other societies who were having succesful Revolutions. Basically the French believed that through killing many people that they could have a successful religion, but they faled in doing so.
He accuses them as uncivilized and inflexible because they are unwilling be satisfied with society.No matter the situation,he says that the citizens owe it to the ancestors who lived by this society, to continue it.He says that society shouldn’t go to war just because they’re unhappy, and the new complex society may even be worse.The French shouldn’t be impulsive.He feels they created the bloody situation.However,the revolutionaries didn’t just revolt to war to kill, they did because they didn’t like the monarchy and even wanted peaceful reforms, at first.The stubborn king did not compromise.Sometimes they need to reform society,hopeful of a better country.(Hitchens)- The revolutions aren’t as easy and may go to far.Their children may suffer their experiment,while the radical chaos is still lasting for a whole generation.They werent as prepared as they thought.(Hitchens #2)-The revolutionaries had good ideas to put in place-Right of Man,Parliament,equality-but once the Monarch was overcome,the unorganized terror soon began to destroy these high hopes of the new France.It gave the powers of terror, and forgot about the new ideas.It lost its direction that other nations,according to Burke, kept throughout.In the end,it was the same as before(monarch)-but they suffered the chaos of the revolution.
ReplyDeleteAll great comments, especially the idea that Burke was disgusted that these "civilized" men resorted to acting like animals. As a conservative, Burke likes stability, order, and tradition. Remember, he wrote this before the violent phase of the Revolution---something Hitchens makes clear when he says that perhaps Burke was not incorrect.
ReplyDeleteBurke accuses the French citizens as acting like "wild-eyed fanatics." He then goes on to say that the revolutionaries despised everything that they already had (Old Regime), but instead of making things better, they sent France spiraling downwards. They act on impulse rather than reason, and they do not consider the wisdom that was given to the world through the Old Regime. Burke wants a revolution, but does not want it to be as radical as Robespierre and his followers would.
ReplyDeleteIn this quote by Hitchens, Burke believes that revolutions, when taken too far, can kill and destroy the youthful leaders of the time. When the French turn a complete 180 degrees away from the Old Regime, it is too drastic of a change. Emotions take over, and blood is shed. People tire of the old way of government and social structure, and they will do anything for change.
Burke means that usually when there are revolutions, there is usually a base standard or way of thought that the revolution acts on. However, the French overthrew the Old Regime with no plan. They became so fed up with the old way of life that their emotion took over and they acted without thinking. Once it was time for the rebuilding of the country, they did not know what to do. Therefore, violent leaders stepped up and decided to kill anyone who spoke out against the new revolution. There was no morality during the French Revolution, only anger and blood.
burke says the french are acting like animals. This means that they are acting like brutal warriors, killing everyone in sight for no apparent cause. They were acting uncivilized to somehow create a peaceful society. The whole thing was preposterous. Also, hitchens is saying that revolutions completely kill the old and turn it 180 degrees to form a completely opposite new. Finally, burke says that France is completely wrong. He feels that they are going completely in the wrong direction. He says all other societies have succeeded but since they are acting like barbarians, they are clearly going in the wrong direction.
ReplyDeleteJeff Loube
Like everybody already stated above, Burke found the French to be impulsive and animal-like, "wild eye fanatics". Burke did not agree with the radical and freelance reform of the French Revolution. Like Rousseau's Social Contract, the direction of the Revolution was uncertain and vague. Burke foresaw this as dangerous. He was right, for the Revolution devoured France's youth from the inside and turned many into virtue-lacking brutes ("their opposites"). Burke must have favored the American Revolution for its organization and clear purpose, stated in the Declaration of Independence.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1st: Burke says the french citizens are acting like wild and savage animals. The citizens use non-instruments of reason, rather than the instruments of reason. Burke valued tradition and stability, which he felt is something the revolutionaries did not value in their efforts to create a new government. Burke feels that the French Revolution was a blood bath, and no progress was made because Robespierre and his followers went about changing the government the wrong way.
ReplyDelete2nd: Hitchens means that revolutions are very strong and can sometimes be detrimental to a society. Revolutions can make people kill the young political forces (or leaders). Also, revolutions can be altered and switched so that they are flipped into the opposite of what the people were initially trying to accomplish. This case was evident in the French Revolution where the revolutionaries tried to instill a new form of government and tear down the old regime to make a better one. This in turn, switched in the opposite direction and many citizens were murdered as the outcome with no political or government progress.
3rd: Burke means that France, through neglegance and ignorance lost their interest and showed off their virtue in an effort to feel they were right in what they were doing. Also, Burke says that in all revolutions, the people lay down a "blueprint", so to speak, as to which they follow. The French Revolutionaries did the opposite, and they had no clue as to what they were going to do. They felt the Old Regime was incorrect, and flawed, so they grew tired of it. As an effect, they tore down the old regime and attempted to build a new one with no foundation. These mistakes by the revolutionaries turned France, at the time, into a place of war, terror, and murder.
Burke accuses the French citizens of uprooting all established authority, tradition, and institutions, thereby plunging France into anarchy. He also accuses them of reverting to savagery.
ReplyDeleteHitchens meant that the revolution kills the young even though they don't know what they're fighting for. Also, the revolution has turned them from good, civilized people into savage, murderous animals. They have forgotten what they were fighting for and fail to see the big picture.
Burke is saying that France attempted to achieve their goal, but in all the wrong ways. They killed thousands of people because they had a slightly different opinion. This is worse than a monarchy. It is a totalitarian dictatorship where there is very little freedom which is the opposite of what a revolution should be. A revolution is a complete change from one constitution to another. However, the French revolution actually made things worse and was definitely not a complete change. By killing the king, everyone thought it was for the best. However, things just got much worse from there. The revolutionists did not know what they were doing. The revolution made the state worse in Burke's eyes because everyone did not know what they were revolting for. They were clueless.
Burke accuses the French citizens as acting as savages and destroying everything that they had already established. He says that they destroyed the "compass" to govern them. By this he means that the Revolution destroyed any kind of government established in France, sending it into a state of anarchy.
ReplyDeleteWhen Chistopher Hitchins says "Revolutions devour their young - and turn into their opposites", he means that revolutions make those who lead them to turn radical and the only outcome of them is the opposite of what it intended. The only outcome of revolutions is detrimental to society. They should be avoided at all costs. Hitchins obviously agrees with Burke on all fronts that revolutions are terrible to the advancement of society. But, since Mr. Heubeck said that "Burke thought the American Revolution was a worthy endeavor," he may've believed revolutions progressed society only when states seek indepedence, and not change in the way their internal system of government works.
Burke believed that the Revolution was so destructive because it destroyed everything France had already established. Other states were reinforcing their governments and making strong foundations that would support their growing nations. With the French Revolution, the French abolished all of their foundations, forcing themselves to start from scratch to form their ideal country. Burke was probably mad at that the most, that the people of France were too stupid to realize that they were destroying everything they had already established.
1. Burke is truly ripping on the leaders of the French Revolution for their childish acts. They killed for the sake of killing, the punished those who had nothing to do with what was going on around them, and finally the became to greedy.
ReplyDelete2. Hitchens agrees with the knowledge of Revolutions that Burke has and does understand the idea that the French Revolution was disgusting and intolerable. In the second part of the quote, Hitchens states "revolutions devour their young—and turn into their opposites." This very seriously means that the youthful people of the society are being murdered by those that trying to change the ways of the Old Regime because they can simply not stand it anymore and the need change.
3. Burkes quote stands for the idea that the French society took a much more savage and caveman like mentality for the reformation/change of the French government. Burke found the revolution so appalling and destructive because of the mentality of the people. He exemplifies this idea, by stating France prostituting her virtue. This simply means France letting her good qualities become abused by the public.
Burke believed that the French Revolutionists were plunging France into anarchy. He saw them as uncivil savages who killed for no purpose, and are disrespectful to their ancestors who fought for real causes.
ReplyDeleteHitchens agrees with Burke that revolutions can be corrupting to the young if it isn't handled correctly. The French Revolution was, in their opinion, taken too far, and all the bloodshed was unnecessary. If the source of the unbalanced social chain was the king, wouldn't it be sufficient enough to just kill him? A war that could have been avoided, is one that wastes the innocent lives of the young, who are the ones fighting it.
Burke means that while other nations had their sights on their future and thinking progressively for their state, France is backtracking and destroying everything they had developed. They acted without reason and by their emotions, and if when they destroyed the government, they didn't go anywhere from there, instead they just left a chaotic anarchy. It is appalling to him because they almost acted as if they were proving their valor and manliness by killing everyone, when this just made them look like idiots rather than heroes.
Burke finds the Revolution appalling because of its incredibly destructive nature. Normally Burke welcomed revolutions, but he despised the French Revolution. The purpose of a revolution is to rebuild and instate a different point of view for the better of the society. However, what Burke found so repulsive about the French Revolution was that it had become exactly what it was revolting against. The revolutionists were fighting for equality and liberty, but the leaders of the revolution had become as terrible, if not more, than the previous leaders. While they were being killed unmercifully, the followers of the revolution had as little say in their beliefs as they had had when they were being unfairly taxed by the nobles a few decades before.
ReplyDeleteBurke accuses the French citizens as acting as savages. He claimed that they had uprooted all established authority, tradition, and institutions. By undermining venerable institutions, the French revolutionaries had opened the door to anarchy and terror. Again, according to Burke, they had become something ugly, the very thing they attempted to revolt against. Christopher Hitchens wrote, "Edmund Burke understood before anyone else that revolutions devour their young—and turn into their opposites." Hitchens meant that in many instances (the French Revolution) the goal that is fought for is lost along the way. During the process of fighting for equality and liberty, the revolutionaries became blinded by their bloodthirsty ambition, thus turning into their opposites.
First: Burke thinks of the revolutionaries as fanatics, and has a problem with them since they have experienced a civil society prior to the Revolution but during which all of the progress that had formed the civilized society tumbled. Their society is no longer civilized, which annoys him. He specifically has a problem with the way that the government is run, since during the Revolution it becomes completely unorganized.
ReplyDeleteSecond: In Hitchens's piece on Burke, he truly means that there is no such thing as a sure outcome in a revolution; the outcome might even be the exact opposite of what was intended. The idea that revolutions "devour their young" signifies both that there are bound to be casualties in a revolution and that the first generation after a revolution is bound to have troubles adjusting since they are the first to experience an entirely different society.
Third: Once again, Burke thinks of the Revolution as unorganized, and the revolutionaries as fanatics. He finds the Revolution so appalling because there is no "legal authority." While other countries went through many renovations and reformations to form their new governments, the French people decided to start a completely new way of governing. Burke finds this idea appalling, as well as the fact that there were so many deaths for the cause that could have been approached without such a destructive mindset. He wished that the Revolution had been calmer like the ones of other countries.
In the Burke excerpt from Perry (154-155) comment on what he accuses the French citizens of acting as. What are his criticisms?
ReplyDeleteBurke accuses the French of being barbarians- people who've never lived in civilized society. He believes that French society has become Anarchistic which completely goes against the original intent of their ancestors.
In "Reactionary Prophet", Christopher Hitchens, in his piece on Burke writes, "Edmund Burke understood before anyone else that revolutions devour their young—and turn into their opposites."
What does Hitchens mean by this? Comment please.
Hitchens means that the young are so caught up in fighting the man, they've lost the true sight behind their cause. The Revolutionaries original intent was for equality, however, the means by which they obtained this equality turned them into the same people that they were trying to fight. However, it could easily be argued that such a tactic, balanced with the opposite, has worked, exemplified in the "By any means necessary" crusade of Malcom X. The violence and hate showed towards African Americans was thrust right back upon the white majority. This was balanced by Martin Luther King's peaceful tactic.
Finally,
Burke writes," By following those false lights, France has bought undisguised calamities at a higher price than any nation has purchased the most unequivocal blessings! France has bought poverty by crime! France has not sacrificed her virtue to her interest, but she has abandoned her interest, that she might prostitute her virtue. All other nations have begun the fabric of a new government, or the reformation of an old, by establishing originally, or by enforcing with greater exactness some rites or other of religion. All other people have laid the foundations of civil freedom in severer manners, and a system of a more austere and masculine morality. France, when she let loose the reins of regal authority, doubled the license of a ferocious dissoluteness in manners, and of an insolent irreligion in opinions and practices; and has extended through all ranks of life, as if she were communicating some privilege, or laying open some secluded benefit, all the unhappy corruptions that usually were the disease of weal"
What does Burke mean by this? Why did Burke find the Revolution so appalling and destructive? Please comment.
Burke sees the revolutionaries as losing sight of their original cause and becoming just as bad, if not worse, than the members of the first estate and the monarchy.
1) Burke accuses the French of acting as barbarians. Their revolution does not accomplish anything but anarchy. With the oath of the tennis court, and their constitution, they established progress and stability. Yet this was not good enough for the French people, and they blindly dove into the depths of chaos in the hope of coming out better on the other side.
ReplyDelete2)Hitchens means that by the chaos of revolutions and all that they fought for, they only turn into what they fought against. Rather than turning into a democracy, France returned to the stability of a monarchy (Napoleon). It was all for nothing.
3)Burke means that such an empty-minded and unorganized revolution will not build up a nation, but destroy it. He states how France should have created change with order and stability, and that by destroying these two quintessential elements, France has destroyed itself.
1) In the excerpt from pages 154-155 Burke criticizes the French for acting as if they had never lived in a civilized society and that they had no idea on how to act in such a society. He says that they had a good society/government in place and that there revolution destroyed the foundations of a civil society. He says that people should act with "infinite caution...to venture upon pulling down an edifice which has answered in any tolerable degree for ages the common purposes of society..." In this statement he is saying that the people of France made a poor decision in destroying a stable government for an anarchial society, which was the result of the revolution.
ReplyDelete2)Hitchens is saying that Burke understood there was going to be a falling out of the high principles set forth by the initial revolution and that this would cause emotion to take over. After emotion takes over greed and ambition will set in and run rampent through the revolutionaries and all the liberties aquired by the revolution will be lost because of these inait evils in human qualities. Burke also understood that the young would suffer the most from a failed revolution since they would be left to clean up an anarchial society, which would be even less inclined to listen to the youth. Hitchens is pointing out that Burke understood what would happen in the revolution through an understanding of human values, much earlier than anyone else.
3)Burke is saying that the French revolution occured for all of the wrong reasons, and the revolutionaries went about establishing their new form without a plan or a basis for their ideas. Burke finds the revolution so appalling because he sees that their was no planning done, that the revolutionaries acted because they wanted to destroy the old regime not establish a new one. Burke sees this as a barbaric act which disgraces the french people. He is disgusted because the people act on emotion and do not allow logic to guide their revolution.
Burke explains how the French citizen life is very unique because they act as if they have never been in a civilized society. He calls the revolutionaries of France, "Fanatics." He also says that the French people are acting like savages.
ReplyDeleteHitchens is saying that Burke is very correct in his statements of the Revolution. He is saying how the ways of the revolution is will not always come out the way you want or think it will. These revolutions have a very good chance of finishing in bloodshed and death.
What Burke is saying is that many revolutions go on a basis of some common theme throughout history.He also says that the French Revolution is not based on a proven plan or theme. He is appalled because he notices that there is no planning in the management of this revolution. He states that the French people are being savagery and barbaric.
1) Burke accuses the barbarians (French) of acting completely uncivilized, savage, and abnormally. Most other cultures view France as a very sophisticated, traditional society, but during the Revolution the French were anything but that. The brutal killings, treachery and thievery that occurred were, in Burke's opinion, the WORST way the French could have possible settled their problems and just downright shameful and disrespectful. They were barbarians, not Frenchmen.
ReplyDelete2) Hitchens was basically another Burke in that his views on the French Revolution were similar and his predictions of what France would become as a nation were also comparable. In his opinion, when the innocent and harmless french youth begin to mature and take in the turmoil occurring around them, all they will see is killing, not who is right or who is wrong. They themselves didn't live through the pains that their fathers and forefathers are fighting to abolish. Because of this, they won't have a preference as to which side should win or lose, they will just want to stop all of the fighting and hatred and bloodthirstiness occurring around them. Therefore, the revolters will appear to be the "bad guys" in this instance because they are the ones that seem to be killing for no reason. The youth will be disgusted with what they see in their future leaders and will not want to be a part of such a society when they age and mature.
3) Burke is saying that the leaders of the French Revolution revolted for all of the wrong causes. All they saw were people in power that they disagreed with, so instead of trying to be more rational and work things out, they decided to overthrow the king, kill everyone that sided with him and take control for themselves. This was primarily an awful idea because they had no idea or experience with how they were going to run France if they won control. Additionally, instead of bringing more freedom to the people, they were slaughtering anyone that disagreed with their new method. In essence, they were no better than the absolute monarch they hated: they had become the beast they were trying to destroy.
Burke accuses the French revolutionaries of being ungrateful for their blessings, rejecting their image, and giving the ideas of liberty and revolution a bad name. He addresses the Frenchmen rejecting their blessings with the phrase, "because you began by despising every thing that belonged to you," he goes on to adress the second part with, "you would have been taught to respect yourselves. You would not have chosen to consider the French as a people of yesterday, as a nation of low born servile wretches. he addreses the last part with, "you would have given new examples of wisdom to the world. you would have rendered the cause of liverty venerable in the eyes of every worthy mind.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Orwell said something similar in 1984, "One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship." Orwell and Hitchens are trying to say that revolutions destroy smaller revolutions and become the thing they were trying to overthrow, in the case of the French revolution, a tyranny.
Burke means that not only did the revolution cost France its deepest core values but it also only gave France destruction and chaos. France gave everything it had and got worse than nothing in return.Burke found the revolution so appaling because all the bloodshed and war did not improve France but made it worse. There was a great cost but only negative results
1. Burke is criticizing the French revolutionaries for being a group of uncivilized, bloddthirsty, people who when given the choice when beginning anew, they chose the path of "ill."
ReplyDelete2. Hitchens is saying in his quote that Burke was the first one to realize that revolutions can eat you alive! The analogy of devouring the young is very interesting here. The young are, in this case, the new thinkers and government of France as a result of the revolution, but in turn, the people became power hungry, and thirsty for blood, and the revolution itself, devoured the new policies of France. The quest for power in the revolution caused the 'young to be devoured.'
3. This quote of Burke again shows how he thinks of the result of the revolution: a bloodthirsty waste. The original ideals of positions given to men of talent, and the rights of the individual were very good. However, in their quest to get these freedoms, the amount of blood spilled was so large, that it resulted in a France of histeria and chaos. The results of these quests for power ended in a worse France then before!
Burke says that the French never had a clear goal that they wanted. The people were killing in the name of progress they were just not really sure what that progress meant or was. They were after destroying authority for the sake of change and turned into anarchists. As long as heads were flying, the french were happy and thought that equaled progress.
ReplyDeleteHitchens is saying that in the French Revolution the people were angry and wanted change, only to reinstitute what they were mad about in the first place. They destroyed an abusive monarchy, which took advantage of its citizens and gave unfair advantages to its nobles, only to put the same thing in place. The only difference was it was their monarchy.
Burke is saying while other countries like the US had revolutions that followed things like the constitution and declaration, the french was all just wasted bloodshed centered on nothing just an idea of change with no stipulations on that change.
Burke accuses the french revolutionaries of acting as if they had never been a part of civilized society, comparing them to savages. He is critical of them for how quickly they chose to despise everything they grew up with. In addition he criticizes them for disgracing the name of the french people, turning france into "a nation of low born servile wretches". Burke is very critical of the revolutionaries for abondoning the civil and polite ways of their ancestors and sending the once great France into a free fall towards lawlessness and savagery.
ReplyDeleteThis Christopher Hitchins excerpt makes it very clear that Hitchins agrees with Burke's main point, revolutions make things worse rather then better. Hitchins praises Burke for seeing revolutions as they really are. Not as bold movements that propel the virtues at the core of the revolution but rather as destructive attacks against the government that destory the ideas of the reformers and in turn send the nation into disarray.
Burke's qoute is a clear reitteration of his views on the French Revolution. Burke is critical of the revolution because he believes the way it was carried out destroyed the fabric of French society. Instead of reforming government by improving on the old as fellow European countries did, the French people decided to participate in a complete overhaul of their government and start over. Burke shows through this qoute that he believes this caused the horrible terror and bloodshed that swept across France during the revolution. Burke believes that the French Revolution turned the French into a group of miserable, thieving, savages. He does not say that reform of the French system was a bad idea but he blames the radical way in which it was executed for the appalling collapse of France.
Burke sees the French Revolution mindset as a mindless slaughter, not as purposeful killings. These men who were previously able to use logic and reason to get their points across were now using heads on stakes and burning people to negotiate.
ReplyDeleteThe Revolution was about wanting liberation and changes from what was currently going on. Once all the people that were standing in their way were dead, some of the people at the top of the Revolution began acting similarly to those of the people they killed.
Similar to the first question, Burke is disgusted with the way that the French went about taking care of business. Men who could have easily avoided that much conflict instead got used to the blood and gore, and fed off of it.
First Question: Burke says that the French people are acting as if "They had never been molded into civil society, and had everything begin anew." He thinks this because France was considered the pinnacle of European society, and because of the revolution, its "perfection" (as Burke sees it) was destroyed. He says that the people should have acted "infinite caution...to venture upon pulling down an edifice which has answered in any tolerable degree for ages the common purposes of society..." He thinks that the destruction of the Old Regime has brought on an anarchichal society.
ReplyDeleteSecond Question: Hitchens is saying that revolutions result in a significant amount of casualities and he is praising Burke for implying that the destruction of a stable state is not worth the amount of deaths needed to create it. Further, he is saying that revolutions destroy the stability that people know, and in that process, the people can lose sight of their ideal. This is shown when France submits itself to the military rule of Napoleon. The country needed stability and they once again, placed their trust in one person.
Third Question: Burke is saying that by trying to make France better, the condition of the state and of the people has worsened. While other European countries have succeeded by sticking with tradition, France has shown that by leaving its core principles, it has uprooted the foundation of the state and had negative consequences. Burke is saying that every successful society needs to have some form of a higher power/religion. By not having one, the people France has become apathetic and uninterested in the destruction of their state.
Burke says that the French were killing basically for no purpose at all. They thought that they were killing with reason, but soon lost sight of that reason when they got deep into the killing. They wanted change, so they destroyed most of the stability in the society, and as long as they were killing everything that was evil, then they were okay with it.
ReplyDeleteHitchens is showing that Burke was correct in what he said. That the killings lost sight of their purpose and led to complete chaos and they just ended up creating the same thing that they had set out to destroy.
Burke is upset with the French revolution because he saw it as completely pointless and that all the other revolutions were with purpose but that the French revolution got lost in the bloodshed and that nothing good came of this revolution.
Through the eyes of Burke the Revolution is a mess. The Revolutionaries remind him of savage people that do not know what a civilized world is like. Burke does not approve of the way the Revolution has changed logical human beings into aggressive and belligerent people
ReplyDeleteHitchens is saying that Revolutions always produce something that the originators had not expected. The phrase "devour their young" means that the ideals that the Revolutionaries set out with soon as lost as problems they had not for seen or new ideas come into play. Hitchens is describing revolutions almost as a machine that accepts an idea and puts it through its paces and then spits something completely different out.
Burke is so upset by the French Revolution because he is a man of reason and logic yet he sees none in the French Revolution and this upsets him. He sees the revolution as something that can't work because of the absence of reason and logic
(I don't have my Perry book, so I googled Edmund Burke...not sure if that will suffice.)
ReplyDeleteBurke accuses the French as acting barbaric and monstrous, with complete lack for morals and ethical values. He sees France as backwards and at a loss from this failure at progress.
Christopher Hitchens’ remark that “revolutions devour their young—and turn into their opposites" is perfectly applicable to the French Revolution. By essentially brainwashing the majority, or the “youth” as Hitchens would put it, leaders such as Robespierre were able to fuel their ambitious dreams for the nation. However, through this hypocritical and duplicitous ploy, France’s quest for liberty ended up right where it started in the hands of a power-crazed autocrat.
Burke found this particular revolution so grotesque as it was founded not on core values such as liberty, fraternity, equality, but found solace in the sickening vices habitual of a tyranny: violence and fear. France had created something marvelous in 1789; change from corrupted traditions that brought hope and inspiration to the western world. Yet the selfless supporters of this reform ultimately fell victim to the temptations of ambition and selfishness. He sees the French Revolution not as an influential story of success, but as a downfall marked by tragedy.
First, Burke points out that the citizens of France are acting in a way that implies that they have not lived in a civil society before, their actions are very uncultured and show that they are leaning away from tradition, they seem to be regardless of all natural traditions, and just basically being bunch of villains. they have turned France into a heathen environment. he feels that Robespierre and the people who believed in his ideals were actual breaking the government and turning it for the worse. He felt that no good came from the revolutionaries, who he felt lusted for the destruction of tradition.
ReplyDeleteSecond, Hitchens means to say that revolutions are a catalyst in any society it is a part of, not just specifically the French revolution. They are big forces to contend with, and can sometimes be even harmful to a society if driven in a wrong direction. There is always the potential for the plans and wishes of the people to backfire and go wrong, as in this case. the people were trying to tear down the old regime, and set up a new one in the hopes that it would give them further liberty and justice. however, all that they accomplished was needless bloodshed with really almost no accomplishments of their goal. they fell short, as the new regime didn't answer their problems.
third, Burke tries to say that France was really not right in setting up a revolution. He feels that a revolution should be a very carefully planned operation with specific goals set in mind with specific plans and agendas to address. however, it seems that in the French Revolution the people just grew tired of the old regime. they felt that it didn't work for them as a people anymore so that they needed to replace it. they did not have clear cut goals in mind, they only thought of replacing the old regime. as a result, the new regime was basically a big mistake made by revolutionaries who turned France in that time into a land of chaos, bloodshed, and political confusion.
1: Burke explains how wild the French citizens are. The citizens do not use instruments of reason. Burke valued tradition and stability, which he felt is something the revolutionaries did not value in their efforts to create a new government. Burke feels that there was no progress made in the French Revolution because Robespierre and his followers went about it all wrong.
ReplyDelete2: Hitchens explains that Revolutions do not go according to plan. . Hitchens explains that the revolution takes an idea that is accepted and completely manipulates and twists it into something the people did not accept before.
3: This quote shows that Burke considers the revolution a bloody mess. The original ideals of positions given to men of talent, and the rights of the individual were very good. Even though these were good, there was much blood shed in order to attain these ideals resulting in a France left in chaos.
1st. Burke states that the French citizens acted like savages and were never part of a civilized society. He called them a band of highway men. Burke believed change was necessary but he was against the way the rebels went on achieving it.
ReplyDelete2nd. That results of Revolutions are never planned and usually stray from what the original goal might have been.
3rd. He thinks the revolution is straight up chaos. He supported the original ideals but the way they achieved them were wrong
1: Burke accuses the French citizens of acting as savage, violent creatures for taking down the Old Regime, which was rich with tradition. Burke states You [revolutionaries] choose to act as if you had never been moudled into civil society," demonstrating his opinion that progress is based on tradition rather than values. He criticizes the "new" French for abandoning the Old Regime, which exhibited "a free constitution;a potent monarchy; a disciplined army; a reformed and venerated clergy; a mitigated but spirited nobility, to lead [their] virtue."
ReplyDelete2: In this statement, Hitchens makes it clear that he agrees with Burke's views on the French revolution. Hitchens believes that the revolution is purely destructive; it's only result is "devour[ing]" the previously effective establishments that contain tradition.
3: In this statement, Burke further displays his hatred of the French revolution and his belief that the only result of the French revolution was many casualties and the abolishment of an effective, traditional, and authoritative government that had successfully ruled its citizens. Now, France has turned itself into an anarchical society and stripped itself of its humanity, which is quite ironic, considering the fact that the French were fighting for their humanity. Unlike the other European societies, France made a big mistake by eliminating the tradition of their culture and consequently eliminating the stability of their country.
1st: Burke says that the citizens of France are acting like "wild-eyed fanatics," or in other words, completely uncivilized animals. Burke then says that the revolutionaries have done nothing but make everything worse. Instead of fixing their problems, they made France significantly worse. The revolutionaries refrained from using reason to make their decisions, but instead used impulse, a bad human emotion. Burke wanted positive progress, what a Revolution should be, not a blood bath.
ReplyDelete2nd: In Hitchen's quote, Burke tries to express that Revolutions can be a terrible thing, killing the youth (future leaders). The French revolution was one of those revolutions, being too drastic and turning into a murder scene. When a revolution like this happens, people stop using reason and stop being rational, and instead let their emotions take over. Burke's point being that people will go to any extent to get rid of an old social structure or government if its not working.
3rd: In this quote, Burke tries to say that a revolution needs to have a structure, or something to run off of. The French revolution, however lacked that, becoming complete chaos and resulting in the bloody mess. Leaders that shouldn't have been leaders became leaders because of the simple fact that the people of France acted on purely emotion then.
1) Burke says that the French are acting as if they have never been civilized. Instead of looking at their forefathers and following in the rich tradition of France they acted without reason and destroyed everything that France had stood for.
ReplyDelete2) Hitchens says that no matter what leaders of a Revolution intend to happen the revolution strays from that plan. He says that this is what happens to the French revolution as it became a destructive event that did not help France.
3)Burke says that a revolution should not involve completely tearing down a government and putting up a new one overnight. He believes that instead a government already in place should be reformed by adding on to the tradition it already holds or by following a precise plan.
Burke states that the French are acting like savages and believes that the French were not making any progress at all in the revolution because they were not putting the most important traditional values first which is what he values most and therefore led them to failure.
ReplyDeleteHitchens means that no matter how perfect the ideas of a revolution seem to its vulnerable subjects, the ideas will always go different ways to whatever the leader of the revolution truly wants and because of this it collapses the moral structure of the country and ends up hurting itself in the long run.
Burke does not believe in a revolution the same way others do. He understands it takes time and not everything will end up perfectly yet he doesnt think that it has to be as bad as the french revolution was. He believes that the French were setting themselves up for something worse than they already had and they were just obtaining more and more negative values
Burke's thoughts on the french revolution were that although the french had a worthy cause, their methods were wrong. Their goal was to replace a monarchy with a republic. The problem with this goal is that it is too broad and without specific problems to address, the process was drawn out and bloody. This is where the Americans got it right. They declared independence after many diplomatic attempts to reslove their issues and eventually moved to war.
ReplyDeleteWhat Hitchens means in his quote is that revolutions have a tendency to change from what they were intended to be to their opposites. The French attempted to replace a monarchy and they got bloodshed and more monarchy.
Burke thought that the revolution was unguided and accomplished nothing. He saw the waste of everyone who died in the process and he knew that the revolution, with no specific goals was destined to fail and achieve nothing.
1. First of Burke is begins by criticizing the French Revolutionaries and portraying the idea that they are bloodthirsty and out of control through the many violent acts and decisions they have made since they have rose to power.
ReplyDelete2. In Hitchens response to Burke he writes, "Edmund Burke understood before anyone else that revolutions devour their young—and turn into their opposites." I personally believe that he means is that essentially due to the savage and animalistic behavior of the revolutionaries it has resulted in the death of many of their loved ones, and by saying turn into their opposites I think that he is describing how the citizens of France have gone from civilized and in order to complete chaos and disorganized.
3. In this quote it would seem that although Burke agreed that the French Revolution was a realtive good move because the overall outcome of a monarchial rule was wrong he shows that the way the Revolutionaries achieved a "victory" was wrong. Because of the way the revolutionaries had acted it resulted in massive destruction and the loss of many lives.
Burke accuses the French as acting as if they have never been a real society because of the murderuous, trecherous actions of the people of france in order to change theri government. The culture and traditions of france have been thrown away in an attempt to better the society, only to lead them into power hungry, deranged madmen.
ReplyDeleteHitchins believes The French revolution and others alike kill the soldiers fighting against the power, ie: the young ones. When people hope for a revolution, they often get the opposite of what they intended. A perfect example being the French Revolution. they hoped for a change, a good change, one that would better their society, but emotions got in the way and gave them the opposite, without them realizing it.
Burke believes the Frensh revoltuion forgot the culture and history of its government. when they did this the reins of soceity were let go and the people went wild. they brought destruction and evil into their society and forgot tradition and reason.
Burke accuses the French citizens of acting as barbaric animals and fanatics. He describes the revolutionaries as people who "chose to act as if you had never been molded into civil society." He accuses them of ignoring the values and customs of their ancestors. Had they respected tradition, they would have learned to respect themselves as well as the honor and integrity of the French people. However, by emancipating themselves, they leave behind the opportunity for liberty and a well run monarchy to protect and guide their virtues. In addition, he criticizes government's ignorance to the intricacies of the human race. By loosening the reigns of control, the people of France were left to make themselves impure in all ways of life. When tradition is ignored, according to Burke, society loses two tremendously important principles:the spirit of a gentleman and the spirit of religion.
ReplyDeleteBoth Hitchens and Burke believe that nothing good can come out of a Revolution that completely uproots the status quo for something that does not prove to be a better solution. Issues that can be solved easily must not be inflated to the point of a revolution. Revolutions cause much more pain than progress. Burke and Hitchens believe that Revolutions destroy those who do not know any better. he young, ignorant to the issues at hand, are dying left and right. Burke recognizes the fact that there is a time and a place for a Revolution. People don't consider the toll and consequences of such an event.
In this excerpt, Burke means that there is a certain way to go about making changes to society and government. The French Revolution was a prime example of the incorrect way of dealing with problems. Instead of providing a more severe code of morality or instituting stricter sanctions on the people, as other nations have done, France loosened the reigns and let the people abandon tradition and other values and principles. Other countries have solved similar issues without violence. Growing tired of the Old Regime, the government allowed the people to seek change however they wanted. In doing so, the good vales and aspects of the Old Regime that were present throughout many generations were eliminated completely. In the emotion crazed pursuit of a new way of life, the French threw out all of their admirable characteristics. Burke suggests that this, as well as the deaths, could have been avoided easily.
1) Burke essentially is stating that the revolutionaries have turned into blood thirsty savages, not progressive thinkers which revolutionaries should be. Burke was angered because those involved in the revolution were not acting on traditional values, rather they contributing to negative emotions and reactions such as impulse, and when this happens people do not take time to use reason to solve critical issues.
ReplyDelete2)Hitchens is clearly agreeing with Burke's ideas on the revolution, saying that the "young ones" who start a revolution often end up creating a worse situaation for themselves. Like Burke, Hitchens thinks that all revolutions start with a goal that is never fully accomplished and often cause detrimental problems greater than the ones the revolution originally wanted to solve.
3)Burke believes that out of the oppressed state that they were in, the french people revolted for the wrong reasons. They simply overthrew their leader and embarked on a bloodbath that created more problems than before. Had the french people rationalized the situation and delt with it properly, the result would have been greatly altered
SORRY I POSTED THIS SO LATE, EVERYTHING HAS BEEN REALLY CRAZY FOR THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS.ILL PICK IT UP.
ReplyDeleteUNO)Like my fellow class mates said above, Burke is accusing the French citizens of blind ignorance and stupidity that "plunged" France into anarchy. he goes on to criticize them saying, "they began ill, by following false lights, they have bought undistinguished calamities at a higher price" Also that they did not respect tradition, and if they did, thing would of turned out better and they would of learned to respect themselves.
********************************************************************************************
TWO) "Edmund Burke understood before anyone else that revolutions devour their young—and turn into their opposites." i believe that Hitchens in explaining exactly what happened in the French revolution. A revolution does not happen over night, in fact, it can last through generations and generations of families. the creators of the revolution have brought war, violence, and death upon their children. soon their lives too will be devoured by it all. thats is what Hitchens means on the 1st part. secondly, he is saying that almost all revolutions start with more peaceful people. like the Geronodins of the French revolution. They were the more moderate of the bourgouese, but as time progressed and the revolution began to happen, what they wanted quickly turned against them. all that they had worked for was twisted.they became the oppisite of what they wanted to be.
********************************************************************************************
THREE) Burke is saying that while all other counties are laying down correct,good bases for their political future, the French have gone about it all wrong. They could have been a template for others to follow but instead they dug themselves a deeper hole. This correctly explains Hutchins quote above, the revolution devoured humanity and regressed them. the opposite of what was intended.
PS. RETEST ON THE LISBON EARTHQUAKE?
1) Burke believed that the French citizens were acting as "wild-eyed fanatics" who destroyed the foundation of France, plunging it into a state of anarchy. He believed that without a strict authority, the citizens revert to savagery.
ReplyDelete2) Hitchens meant in that quote that revolutions destroy people and turn them into savages, which is the opposite of what people should act.
3) Burke means that all other nations use religion to form the fabric of a new government or reforming an old government, yet France is not using religion, so France is losing control of her people. Burke finds the Revolution so destructive because he feels as if all of France's people are blindly flailing about, creating pandemonium that only religion can fix.
1. Burke says that the people of the revolution were acting uncivilized and that they were reshaping society into a bad place to live. His criticism is that the revolution has no good consequences and is bad for society.
ReplyDelete2. In that comment, Hitchens means that revolutions start out by engulfing all of society and getting the young generations to buy into the ideals of the revolution, and then the revolution becomes a problem. It becomes what it began as protesting and fighting.
3.Burke means by his comment that France is not doing a good job of establishing a new government. He says that other nations have done a better job thoroughly instituting or reforming their governments and France is instead just losing all its virtue and glory and creating bloodshed for no purpose. He finds the revolution so appalling because of the great trouble it is causing everyone and not solving the problem they set out to solve. It is only destructive to society because its only result to that point was a thinning of the population.
1)Burke says that the french revolutionists were acting like "murders". That if they continue to have any power France will eventualy fall apart, and France needed a strict goverment.
ReplyDelete2)Hitchens is saying that a revolution will eventualy turn into exactly what it was revolting about in the first place, and that the people who were apart of it in the first place will either die or exit from the revolution
3)Burke is saying that France's goverment is not built on religion, even though all other country's goverments are. He goes on to say that France will fall because of this.