8 Dec 2022 2:03 pm
Nope. It was freedom from the tyranny of a monarch. French nationalism already was in the bank. Again though, the point is the brainless legacy of the two sided, left/right political split we live with, derived from how people arranged themselves in a chamber.FOS » 08 Dec 2022, 1:54 pm » wrote: ↑ Their concrete meaning was nationalism. That is concrete.
We have obfuscated that fact with platitudes like liberty because nationalism is a dirty word now.
Because nationalism was supposed to be defeated with the fascists.
It wasnt.
You must have a very hard time understanding why the very same people who revoled against monarchy were willing to embrace and be loyal to napoleon...and make him a 'fat cat'.
lol well it is easy to understand if you note that napoleon was a nationalist, willing to lead the French in their destiny of building a great French empire.
Or how do you explain it, young grasshopper? Were the French really just mengsovik communists who forgot that napoleon was a dictator?
i think I understand the sidetrack with Napoleon. The Revolution got back on the main track for a while in 1848. Revolutions often yield unintended results, of course. Russia in 1917 for one, Cuba in 195...8 was it?, getting Castro but not the Castro they bargained for. p.s. I doubt I’m as much of a grasshopper as you imagine,