Could this timing have been a conscious decision on the part of supporters of Algerian liberation? Did they choose to attack the occupying military and police on November 1st because they knew that the presiding French government was expecting smooth sailing in their colonies given the recent success of the French government in Indochina?

Faure's inclusion of both an Arabist and an Aurès specialist seems like a significant victory for Algerian representation in the cabinet.

Does the French media's reaction to the events of November 1st reflect low media attention to French colonies? Or did they simply underestimate the intentions of the Algerian National Liberation Front?

This is a key quote for understanding Marx' view of the Commune. He acknowledges that, while the Commune may never have had a chance at becoming a sustainable form of government, it played a significant role in dismantling the class hierarchy that had sourced working class oppression since the Ancien Regime.

This idea that with the expulsion of conservatives and corruption from Paris to Versailles directly resulted in the migration of other groups, such as prostitutes, with them. And while rhetoric used to describe French prostitutes is well-known for being misogynistic, Watkins and Marx have both expressed more provoking descriptions of female Communards with more of an appreciation for their impact on the progress that the Commune achieved.

It's interesting because this became one of their major shortcomings; the working class did not have the qualifications or resources to effectively run a social democracy in a nation that has always had a central figure or figures in charge. I find it impressive that the Commune was as successful as it was, though for a short time, and that social democracy could be partially achieved where an absolute monarchy was in power just a century before.

I think understanding the political events leading up to the Commune's creation emphasizes the sentiments of the working class after the Republican Bourgeoisie caused France to lose to the Prussians and leave the state of the Republic far worse than they had found it. The Commune was really quite an amazing feat of solidarity that resulted from the continuous suffering and oppression of the lower class and a valiant effort at using collective action to establish their somewhat idealized, unorganized, and unstable form of government.

Hugo places a certain scrutiny onto riots, and here argues that, even those who think that the June 1832 insurrection was a riot, "cannot speak of it without respect." I understand Hugo's distinction between riots and insurrections, but is a riot against injustice not a noble act to him? Why must an uprising be an insurrection in order to gain our respect? Yes, riots are violent and seemingly random, but they also serve a purpose in society and are one viable option for the oppressed.

Hugo states that the riot begins out of the blue. Is he arguing that insurrection is an improvisation? I would guess based on his descriptions of rioting and insurrection, that he would consider riots to be the improvisations?

I think this analysis of riot versus insurrection is very interesting. Hugo sees riots as being emotional and violent responses to a fact, which he sees as less justified than the motivation behind insurrection. He argues that insurrectionists are fighting against a moral dilemma being imposed upon a people, and that insurrection is the people's mechanism for ameliorating oppressive situations. However, he does clarify that even riots can have justified causes, but he asserts that riots are "vicious" and "violent" and seemingly random in their targeting.

The Catholic Church clearly plays such a huge part in the legislative process in Haiti, such that it banned the practice of other religions. Much of the justifications for these Titles, especially III and IV, is tied directly into the beliefs of the Catholic church.

Can anyone help me with what "Ancien Regime differentialism" is referring to? Is that just another word for segregation?

Within the first two articles of L'Ouverture's orders parallel the Declaration of the Rights of man. Both refer to the relationship between the people and the law or the state. The Fifth article separates St. Domingue from Paris in that the Declaration of the Rights of Man does not include laws about the agricultural industry, but St. Domingue produces several cash crops that make the agricultural industry much more crucial. The Sixth article surprised me; it seems somewhat socialist in nature to require participation in the workforce by law. This makes me want to go back and read the first chapter of The Black Jacobins to see if that cultural difference is explained by the author's ethnography of the inhabitants of St. Domingue.

Every relationship the tyrant has is built on a power dynamic, and I think La Boétie acknowledges here that the tyrant's need for power encroaches on every aspect of his life.

I feel like La Boétie isn't really analyzing the mind of the tyrant here and is going more for just a broad insult. Would a tyrant not have to be pretty intelligent in order to come to power?

Is La Boétie suggesting that those that are granted their food by their ruler and are not forced to work to obtain it more likely to succumb to tyranny because of their blind trust in the authority that rules over them? It seems as though the leader of the Spartans chose to nurture the characteristics of the hard working dog for this reason, if true.

A recurring point that La Boétie emphasizes is the power of the people, and here I wonder to what extent can we place blame on those people who chose to give their power over to a tyrannical ruler?

Is La Boétie suggesting that even democratic means of determining who should have political power are tyrannical because they lead to a desire to stay in power and pass this power along one's bloodline? I think this may loosely tie into Trump's loss of the 2020 presidential election and thus the January 6th insurrection against our government.

This is a really interesting point that takes the power away from the oppressor and gives it to the oppressed. It suggests that nothing can be taken from you that isn't rightfully yours, and your oppressor gains his power from you. This means that the people inherently have the power, and it is in their lack of resistance against tyranny that these oppressors grow more powerful.