Dark Puckered Blogs @kat-scribbles - Tumblr Blog

Posts

Hello!!!! I'm Kat and here I post artwork and ramble on about my many obsessions and fandoms

I don't really have a schedule I just upload whenever I feel like it :D

Also I am a beginner artist so helpful tips and suggestions are much appreciated <3

Welcome and please enjoy the content I have to offer!

#Kats lil scribble #Teehee welcome :D #Kats lil thought

janellefeng

Some behind the scenes work for my thesis film.

In the beginning, I was frustrated with the storyboard, so I drew a comic instead to plan out the film.

scootscoot69

they’re so cute… i need them to explode…

historicalshroe

bookwyrminspiration

starting a new fuck/marry/kill called aro/crack/attack where you take three characters and decide who you're making aromantic, whose egg you're cracking, and who you're doing grievous bodily harm

tommypw

sorry for being so inactive these days…! I’m cooked (just like Camille in the last pic)

theorahsart

historiaetal

He also did kill a lot of people

theorahsart

Okay, let's have a little history discussion!

We need to break down your sentence quite a bit- do you mean that he directly killed people?

(Like in this very historically accurate illustration?)

If this is this what you mean, then no, he didn't do this- in fact Robespierre was never present during any executions- he couldn't hack the violence (in fact, he tried to get the death penalty abolished in 1791)

But maybe in your sentence you mean that Robespierre directly ordered the executions during The Terror?

But he didn't do this either- he wasn't in charge of deciding who died and who lived- this was the role of The Revolutionary Tribunal.

But maybe you mean that Robespierre set up The Revolutionary Tribunal and it was only made up of people under his control?

Nope again, the Tribunal was set up before Robespierre came into any direct power. But I will note here that many of his allies were on the Tribunal, make of that what you will!

So actually, most of the mechanisms that contributed directly and indirectly to The Terror were set up before Robespierre had any power- I'm talking about The Law of Suspects, the CPS, the Vendee conflicts, the Representatives on Mission, the culture of paranoia/anxiety/instability born from multiple betrayals and threats of violence made since very early on in the Revolution.

But maybe you mean that Robespierre was directly in charge of all the arrest warrents that eventually led to some of the arrested getting charged with execution via the Tribunal?

well, no again- Robespierre's signature was one of many signatures on the arrest warrents given out by the CPS (because he was one person on a committee of 12. Where power was distributed between everyone. And you voted every month on who took part in the committee.)

But, you can find here the number of documents Robespierre actually signed- I believe most of them are arrests, so I won't downplay his role during the Terror in this way. I wouldn't say he killed lots of people personally, but he did sign lots of arrest warrents!

But maybe then, we can still down the line attribute the largest numbers of deaths during The Terror to Robespierre's arrest warrents?

For me at least, this is another 'no'. The majority of deaths that took place during The Terror happened outside of Paris through the counter revolution war, where Representatives On Mission were more directly deciding who lived or died.

Robespierre also had a lot of health problems that year, and when I've crossed checked the numbers of executions per month vs Robespierre's presence at the CPS duiring those same months, I've found that much of Robespierre's absences coencided with the largest numbers of executions, meaning he wasnt present during them. So for me at least, we can't even indirectly attribute the majority of the executions during The Terror to Robespierre, just as we can't directly.

Although my original post is about 'defending Robespierre's memory', and that's my goal with this reply, I will add for the sake of some balance that after some assassination attempts, a very panicked and paranoid Robespierre did help to create The Law of 22 Prairial, which lasted between June-August. So to an extent, although its complicated and lots of people were involved, we could atribute the executions made in Paris during this time more directly to Robespierre.

Interestingly, the largest amount of deaths per month that took place whilst all these laws were set up, supposedly (I haven't crossed checked this so I cant be sure...) happened after Robespierre's death during The White Terror, ironically as part of the Thermidorian reaction where all these myths around Robespierre being the mastermind behind the terror took shape.

.... as Marisa Linton says in her excellent book 'Choosing Terror' says:

I hope you enjoyed this lil history ramble, I dont set out to say that Robespierre was perfect because he DID partake in the Terror in many ways.

But he also during the same year, strongly opposed the persecution of Christians during this time, which many suggest contributed to the conflicts leading to his death (although I think this is all basically up for speculation to an extent).

He partook in the first Western government to abolish slavery. He added to the 1793 constitution, global peace policies that look very similar to the kind of UN laws we (unsuccessfully) use today in order to prevent war and genocides. He proposed but didnt successfully add policies that hoped to ensure that property rights shouldn't take priority over people going hungry.

So you see how it's more complicated than just 'he killed lots of people' - I will continue to defend his memory for the sake of defending truth and critical thinking when examining history 😄

secondjulia

"no man has the right to build up mountains of wheat beside his fellow man dying of hunger. What is the first object of society? It is to maintain the inalienable rights of man. What is the first of those rights? That of existence.

The first law of society therefore is that which guarantees all members of society the means of existence; all the rest are subordinate to that one..."

—Maximilien Robespierre, December 2, 1792, Robespierre: a Revolutionary Life by Peter McPhee

sieclesetcieux

I think some people are confused about what a representative on mission was.

They were not military.

They were civilians with extreme oversight, supervision and direct control of the military.

It was the very deputies of the Convention, - the elected members of the Assembly - being sent to the front lines not to play soldier but to keep an eye on the officers for any Cesarist impulse or treasonous whim. They were all obsessed with the fear that someone would rise as a Caesar - and they were right to be. Both Robespierre and Saint-Just warned against celebrating military victories so it didn't inflate the ego of any general. The reason they debated battle plans with generals is because they wanted to keep a firm legislative control on military operations.

Remember what you might have heard about at one point in class, the three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial? The Convention had literally decapitated the executive (that was the king) and left that seat vacant, then drained the powers of the ministers, who they no longer trusted, and transfered them to the Committee of Public Safety. The CSP emanated from the legislative but acted like a de facto pro-tem (temporarily appointed) executive. (Important note: the CSP had power over everything but the police i.e. who was arrested and sent to the Revolutionary Tribunal - it was the Committee of General Security who was in charge of that, which was the source of tension with the CSP and led to a crisis in late Spring/early Summer 1794.)

(Nowadays, executive power is usually in the hands of either presidents or still of monarchs in parliamentary monarchies though it's mostly symbolic.)

According to Michel Biard, there were 426 representatives of mission (out of a total of 749 deputies in the Convention). (See here Annexe #1, p. 1.) Almost everyone on the CSP but Barère and Robespierre were sent on mission. Saint-Just had the same amount of power as his colleagues. I know that he and Le Bas were sent "extraordinarily" in Alsace but I would need to check what that actually meant legally for the other representatives operating there - as in, if it actually impacted their powers. However, I know it means Saint-Just and Le Bas had discretionary powers that superseded the local authorities in Alsace and the standard military hierarchy. The Committee of Public Safety, invested by the power of the Convention, made decrees that sent the representatives, usually in pairs, to every département or region currently ravaged either by the external war (the English, the Prussians, the Austrians, etc.) or the two types of internal war: 1) the Northwestern départements i.e. the Vendée and Bretagne regions and 2) the federalist insurrection caused by the Girondins ex: Lyon. They were given the power to take all measures to ensure the salvation of the Republic. It was essentially a state of emergency mandate. The Terror was one for Paris in practice and all of France in theory: since it was actually extremely hard to have centralized power in a time when communication circulated by the speed of a horse, the representatives on mission had the mandate of a micro-state of emergency on a given territory - and because the CSP didn't necessarily have the strictest of control, atrocities occurred.

Just in case this is too vague, I'm going to use a modern analogy:

Imagine if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) or any member of "The Squad" (if you're USAmerican) or Rima Hassan (I know she's a European deputy not a French one but try to follow my analogy here, I'm struggling to find radical leftist politicians who actually get an impact so insert here any radical-ish leftist elected member of a legislative house). Imagine one of those, and they were sent to Iran (or Iraq and Afghanistan in a very close past) (and yes the fact they're women of color and some of MENA origin is actually very relevant in terms of social power struggle for the analogy here), and they could directly decide on battle plans, they could demote or promote any member of the military, and they had the power of life and death on not just regular soldiers but the generals themselves.

That's how fascinating a representative of mission was.

I don't know for AOC but I know for sure that if Rima Hassan had the power equivalent to a representative on mission in 1793-1794, she would be leading a war against Israel in the name of Gaza. (Remember, the Montagnards/Jacobins were actually, sincerely, genuinely leading a war in the name of Universal Rights against the "Coalition of Kings and Tyrants". It wasn't a hollow, cynical slogan hiding a need for oil or, in their case, wheat - though this did become a matter of debate when the armies started being victorious.) That's how much power they had to change the course of history. And that's why they were "terrifying" to the establishment.

Much cooler than just another military dude IMO.

vendemiairism

@cheeri1yfrancis what does the textbook say about representatives on mission that's incorrect? Sorry I don't really use the textbook except to write notes pointing out mistakes so I've forgotten what they said.

cheeri1yfrancis

not representatives, but the role of the cps vs cgs, and the executive/legislative/judical split!! it claims the cps was a complete dictatorship with control over the executions…… which is a bit of a stretch lmao

vendemiairism

Yeah... the role of the CGS is certainly overlooked in the textbook. And the idea of a total CPS dictatorship is a bit of a stretch even with the emergency government.

guardianofscrewingup

My favorite part of the movie.

melandrops

the aroace read of ryland grace is so personal and haunting. "you don't even have a dog." was it not enough to love the world for the sake of living in it. was it not enough to live for the thrill of discovery. was it not enough to smile at your students. was it not enough to be afraid.

hannibal-lecters-cock

trying to explain hannigram to someone who hasn’t seen the show is like: “okay so he’s a hot cannibal psychiatrist and the other one is an empath with slutty glasses and seven dogs and they fall in love via psychological warfare.”