Wow! This is terrifying and disgusting. It is so overwhelmingly disappointing to see an Israeli officer referring to Palestinian guerilla groups in this dehumanizing way, comparing them to bugs and grubs, when this tactic has clearly been used against the Jews for all of history. I keep learning so much about the truly awful nature of Israel's formation and strategies to maintain territory and I always walk away feeling worse.

This cuts at the debate my roommate and I are always getting into, about whether or not all work is inherently exploitative even if people participate willingly in the system or if the value a skill like organization and management enough to see it as a justification for a person in a position of power to be paid more. Calling this conflict the "sentimental confusion" does make me realize how small minded my view on this question is and how easy it can be to defend unjust systems when you become used to them.

I really enjoy this analysis of the ways various nations view work. It is such a clear dismissal of the way capitalistic worship of painful labor is apart of every facet of life in the US and its done so bluntly. It also breaks the illusion that everyone else feels the same way- that all bow down and value "the grind" the same way Americans do.

This reminds me of a question I had asked regarding the egotistical and selfishly youthful desire to incite revolution. The drama, the need to say "me, me, me!" and the want to be a hero may be what drives movements forward. Whether or not they succeed is a totally separate issue.

Here is that confrontation of the threats to the system again by the oppressive regime. The idea that interests me the most is that there is only intervention when the govt. deems it to be best to do so. There needs to be certainty that the language of revolution they are talking about in their publication is actionable and a true threat to existing capitalism.

I like this distinction and almost dismissal of the government as being entirely reactive to moments of crisis. Nations with growing struggles tend to only be fit to quell insurrection. That's because those doing well in these systems are incentivized to stop change so they remain successful. Confronting minor problems rather than furthering systematic change is like putting Band-Aids over broken bones.

Demonstrations can tend towards overly theatrical (and fail as a result) when there is no real unifying goal but to show strength and flex ego. Rallies and revolts are very different things that each fail for diverse reasons.

I like this quote, it is really humanizing. No person has all of the experiences of the world or of both sides of a struggle that would allow them to act perfectly just or strategically. The comparison of people to players in the extended metaphor of chess reminds me of the segment of the French Dispatch we watched in class.

History is written by the victors. Often painting movements in lights that weren't totally reflective of what actually occurred whether the protests were valiant or overly cruel in their actions as well as their intentions.

Its civil disobedience! A staple of U.S. resistance and movements for political change. Unjust laws must always be defied to prove how unjust they are. Remaining complicit to the edicts of a nation while hoping your complaints will be taken seriously is a surefire way to get nothing done.

This idea that one could just drop out of society is oddly compelling in the midst of a course regarding active resistance to an authoritarian regime. It makes sense that the slow drip, strangulation of a country is more likely to lead to the death of a regime rather than one big movement because nations with an active military presence are prepared to squash these revolts. I wonder if there are any countries undergoing this signing off form of resistance today.

I think this is quite an apt simile. The language is very strong and makes appeals to nature which through association suggests that uprisings are extremely natural. Revolt is human nature to the author, great use of language.

The movement being largely symbolic also undercuts the insurrectionist vibe. I think there needs to be more deliberate choices, calls to action. An anticapitalistic attack has to have greater end goals than destruction but must see the creation of a better, fairer system.

This connects back to the group debate we've been having on the differences between riot and revolution (or insurrection). The spontaneity undermines the organized feeling that that is associated with classically accepted overthrows or revolutionary pushes for change. Is a part of the reason it was so quick and disorganized the sense of boredom across the country?

The idea that a collective cultural disinterest in current events can be the death of a nation is compelling. What is a country if it cannot stand united in the face of moral struggles or international challenges. I wonder if the author of Le Monde is generally against isolationist policies or just on those that stem from a shared "boredom".

Such great prose- a demonstration that re-ups how the failures of riots strengthen societies. Because Paris has seen so many that have not succeeded, the city has become so strong the people barely notice it when one occurs.

Hugo holds that the bourgeois who lack the interest or intellectual nuance to point out the difference between riots and insurrections disingenuously show support for the working class. It's an empty sentiment as these wealthy folk truly do not have any love for the disenfranchised or working class as they view any move to further their social standings as violent and unjustified.

What an apt quote for the course. This sets up the distinction between riots as a violent, emotional outburst and insurrections as ethically motivated movements in the face of oppressive forces.

I love this analysis. It's almost like survivorship bias- when a revolution fails it makes people feel as though their system of government or societal structure is functional. In this way a riot, when put down, can be used as a propaganda tool for the strength of the ruling class.

This aligns with a prevailing American ideal at the time surrounding the importance of public functionaries to not need or accept pay. It links to the concept of civil servant as a caretaker, one who is not a career politician for their own benefit.

This is such a powerful line. I have read it over and over and still feel like I'm unpacking it. I believe it means he is willing to die before he sees France darkened by those who oppose or wish to kill liberty.

The inclusion of this article stands out as it is truly the only one that seems to truly be in response to the immediate international "circumstances" facing France at the time rather than longstanding issues that also required fixing/abolishing. The others seems to be establishing larger social norms with ramifications on the ways citizens treat each other and the land of their nation. Article five is simply a strategic replacing of farmers in a dangerous location.

What a poignant quote. All people cannot be considered equal under the declaration of rights of man if some do not have freedom. It's reflective on power imbalances and rights being infringed upon but it also serves as a call to action- to unify under one message, one goal to free people of color.

I appreciate that the author points out the threats created by their call to action.

A brutal indictment of those who serve tyrants. While they oppress the average person, at least those individuals don't live in service. The choices they make can be completely their own. Or if the common person is asked to make decisions they dislike, at least they could rest assured that it was due to the lifestyle they chose.

It's interesting to use a medical analogy as a part of this analysis of tyrannical nations. This somehow implies that countries work as bodies, one united people in a way that almost connects them limb to limb.

In modern revolutionary rhetoric, law enforcement is often referred to as a standing military working to enforce the laws that benefit the dominant socioeconomic class. Here the author is suggesting the purpose they serve is actually more ornate and merely demonstrate the power a tyrant could use.