Images of Savate (also known today as boxe française)in the 19th and early 20th century, clearly referencing its maritime roots.
The name “Savate” derives from the French for “old shoe/boot”. chausson was also used as an early associated name (and appears in Grantaire’s description) - it means “old slipper”, named for the footwear sailors wore. As far as I can tell, chausson has now been largely amalgamated into savate and is not a separate discipline. During the 19th century development of it as a discipline adopted by the middle classes, there is reference to “chausson” techniques being incorporated. In its original form it involved kicks and slaps - one theory has it that it freed the hands so sailors could hold on to something stable if they were fighting on a rolling ship, and that it was open handed to avoid penalties for striking with a closed fist (which was accounted as assault with a weapon). I have read one theory that French sailors might have seen a form of what we know as muay Thai in Thailand (then Siam) and developed it from that, but as far as I know the main support for this idea comes from the similarity in kickboxing techniques.
Michel Casseux opened an establishment in 1825 to formalize the discipline, but it still had a somewhat negative reputation among the bourgeoisie associated with its origins in streetfighting. His student, Charles Lecour, incorporated English boxing techniques after 1838 to bring us closer to modern Savate/ boxe française.
So during the period the Amis knew it and Grantaire (and possibly Enjolras, who we know was a Bâtonist) were learning/practicing it, it was still under development as a martial art, and the boxing element that later came to be integral had yet to be introduced.
Given its origins in Marseille, and the fact that all the Amis except Bossuet came from the South, there’s some interesting room for headcanonning there.
“This was an artistic experimental performance
people were much more concerned that I wanted a boob job rather then the fact that I was begging for money with a cardboard sign on the side of the street in the dead of winter… in fact, I was wearing a see through shredded sweater with nothing but a bra on underneath.. no one was even concerned if I was freezing or not..
…. I learned something today….. It’s degrading for women to have cosmetic surgery… but begging on the streets is totally acceptable”
Well because most people begging for money don’t have dyed hair and make-up on.
People can see when other people actually need and and when they’re fucking around.
And fake beggin for money is degrading to people who actually need it.
tl;dr people trying to make something out of nothing with faux “social experiments”
…you’re experiment was flawed and it failed because of this. Try doing that with looking like you’re ACTUALLY homeless and see what happens.
Fashion of the 1830s!!!! One of the weirdest styles in the entire 19th century (in my opinion)!
From The Metropolitan Museum of Art
ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHERS
ONE OF THESE THINGS IS RED
Also a true wealth of Sleeves! My own favorite designs are the ones that poof up over JUST THE ELBOWS like they’re built for some sort of elaborately jointed doll. What’s yours?
The really exciting thing about the French Revolution is that it wasn’t a massive clusterfuck! It was massively complicated, that’s for sure. But it’s complicated for the same reasons that the present-day world is complicated. Popular engagement with the government! Wrangling over the basic nature of rights, and the purpose of government! Taking conscious control over culture and ideals!
Uh, I have to politely disagree. I’m going to assume you seem to be functioning under the assumption that for it to have been a clusterfuck, the term automatically negates any good it did.
Certainly, they were trying to do a good thing with the revolution, but that doesn’t change the fact that it started to fall apart after the king was deposed.
In the words of Edmund Burke,
This king, to say no more of him, and this queen, and their infant children, (who once would have been the pride and hope of a great and generous people,) were then forced to abandon the sanctuary of the most splendid palace in the world, which they left swimming in blood, polluted by massacre, and strewed with scattered limbs and mutilated carcasses. Thence they were conducted into the capital of their kingdom. Two had been selected from the unprovoked, unresisted, promiscuous slaughter which was made of the gentlemen of birth and family who composed the king’s body-guard. These two gentlemen, with all the parade of an execution of justice, were cruelly and publicly dragged to the block, and beheaded in the great court of the palace. Their heads were stuck upon spears, and led the procession; whilst the royal captives who followed in the train were slowly moved along, amidst the horrid yells, and shrilling screams, and frantic dances, and infamous contumelies, and all the unutterable abominations of the furies of hell, in the abused shape of the vilest of women. After they had been made to taste, drop by drop, more than the bitterness of death, in the slow torture of a journey of twelve miles, protracted to six hours, they were, under a guard composed of those very soldiers who had thus conducted them through this famous triumph, lodged in one of the old palaces of Paris, now converted into a Bastile for kings.
Obviously Burke was way off mark about their motivations and rights, but that doesn’t change the fact that he totally called the results of it.
There were riots on all sides as the country fell to pieces.
You want to tell me that the Reign of Terror (aka a dictatorship that was a democracy only in name), thousands of people being killed, a new calendar being introduced that started over from year one in 1792, an anti-clerical law that made it possible for priests to be killed on sight, and getting rid of their citizen’s rights because the government must be “revolutionary until at peace” was all just “complicated”?
That’s stupid. That’s as stupid as saying “oh, the Red Scare here in America was just complicated.”
No. People were being murdered for their beliefs, or even just perceived beliefs.
Olympe de Gouges, well-known feminist, guillotined during the Reign of Terror (post-success of the Revolution).
Madame Roland a supporter of the French Revolution, guillotined during the Reign of Terror.
Marquis de Condorcet, an advocate for a liberal economy and equal rights, died a “mysterious death” in prison after trying to escape French Revolutionary armies.
It’s really not that complicated. What may have started out as an honest desire to help France devolved into a single man so terrified of losing his power that he killed anyone and everyone that may have had sympathies for political opinions that weren’t his own.
Well—first, I think you didn’t quite take my point. My point, which I think I expressed reasonably clearly, was that it isn’t incomprehensible, isn’t something to be waved off as a “clusterfuck” where everyone “went insane.” It’s not a dismissal to call the revolution “complicated.” “Complicated” means you have to dig down pretty deep to understand what’s happening. But the message many people seem to take home from the brief nod that high school education gives them (and sometimes the slightly longer look from a university class) is that the events of the French Revolution are so bizarre and excessive that there is no possible comprehension…other than the conclusion you come to, “a single man so terrified of losing his power that he killed anyone and everyone that may have had sympathies for political opinions that weren’t his own.”
I’m going to assume you mean Robespierre here? Not one of the numerous other people with considerable power from the years 1789-1794? Because that’s who people generally mean when they try to wrap the Revolution into one man.
The thing is, “it’s all Robespierre’s fault” is a thesis that requires ignoring far too many people and events for me to accept it. You have to ignore his conflicts with other Committee members like Billaud and Collot—conflicts that he frequently lost. (See for instance, their frustration with his hesitation in the conflict with the Dantonists. See also Thermidor. Their immediate complaint on Thermidor was not Robespierre’s excesses, it was his moderation.)
You have to ignore the pre-existing violence against Jacobins (and all republicans) that created the Terror. And I do mean murderous violence, it’s not like the Jacobins woke up one morning in a paranoid sweat.
You have to ignore an entire class of people, the Paris sans-culottes, if you want to make the downfall of the Girondins (see Condorcet, de Gouges, Roland) into Robespierre’s fault. Do you know why the urban poor were frustrated with the Girondins? Those Girondins—often held up as ideals of moderation—were indeed moderate, particularly with suffrage rights. Do you think it’s okay to have financial requirements for voting? I think it’s pretty lousy, myself. So did the Parisians who surrounded the Convention and demanded the arrest of 20-some Girondin representatives. (Incidentally, Olympe de Gouges, often noted for her anti-slavery stance, was also pretty moderate about that, along with Brissot et. al. She appears to have gone along with the “clusterfuck” theory, regarding the Haitian Revolution, tut-tutting over how hard they were making it for “those who would prepare for them, through temperate means” a better life.)
So no, I’m not going to agree that the Revolution “devolved into a single man” doing anything.
I don’t quite follow where you’re going with Edmund Burke there. That shitty things happened? God yes. I’m the last person to deny it. It was a violent revolution. But a violent revolution is by no means incomprehensible.
I’d also note, when it comes to the Girondin/Jacobin conflict, that where Jacobins such as Marat and Robespierre had been against entering the war, the Girondins were pretty gung-ho. Y’know, so they could have a crusade of liberty - and, y’know, force their beliefs onto other nations. It had the added bonus, as Brissot himself noted, that the more radical men of Jacobin sympathies would be more likely to enlist, safely sending them across the borders and away from the political campaigning in Paris.
So the Girondins used a bayonet instead of a guillotine when it came to forcing their beliefs on others. I’m afraid I see little difference, except for where the bayonet was employed in a time of peace the guillotine was enforced in a time of crisis…a crisis that the bayonet, in no small part, started.
And, of course, once this war was declared (incidentally, boiling the Revolution all down to “one man seized power” completely omits this war) the Girondins absolutely refused to take any war-time measures in order to win it - this is another of the catalysts that led to their expulsion from the Convention. French men were dying and the Girondons wanted to do nothing but moan sadly about how Robespierre was a little annoying.
As to their trials and executions…yeah, pretty unfair stuff. I mean, if we just talk about the procedure. But I think it’s also pretty unfair how they had previously riled up angry mobs to lynch Robespierre, Marat, and Danton - you know, before the Terror, before even their most rabid of detractors can really accuse them of killing anybody. Pretty unfair how they tried to bundle Robespierre and Marat up and send them before the Tribunal. Pretty unfair how the Girondins are the first ones to abuse the Tribunal, shamelessly manipulate the ‘mob’, and spill first blood (Chalier, to just name one individual?), but it is only when the Jacobins react that anyone sings woeful songs about justice.
It’s probably a stupid question, but wouldn’t the war have happened anyway, after the King was deposed? I don’t mean to justify the Girondins, but I don’t see how they could have had peace and a Republic.
It’s rather difficult to say, though I don’t think the war was as inevitable as is commonly supposed. Most of the eventual coalition powers didn’t really want war. The major exception is Britain, which had started covertly preparing for war since at least 1790, but the former king’s execution (and not his mere deposition) was really only a pretext and they might have left France alone (with their armies that is; I’m sure they would still be attempting to sabotage the Republic from within, war or no war) if France had left Belgium alone. Even assuming that war with all the coalition powers was inevitable, delaying its start would have given France time to prepare itself better.
But, of course, the king’s being deposed was not inevitable either; or at least not in the time frame in which it happened (and maybe not at all). Part of the reason it became possible is that it was clear that the king was sabotaging the war effort. Just sabotaging the internal functioning of the constitution would not necessarily have given the necessary urgency to the republican movement - again, at least not as rapidly.
Reblogging for everyone’s awesome contributions.
Fast food workers “occupying” Wall Street. #imlovinit
If you can’t fucking survive on fucking $7.25 go to fucking school and get another fucking job. Those people who run the fucking restaurants and shops who fucking give out minimum fucking wage need to make a fucking profit too. Get off your lazy fucking ass and make way for the fucking high school students and college students who fucking need that job that pays $7.25.
Funny thing: the workers who are stuck in minimum wage jobs (many of whom have degrees… and huge amounts of debt racked up getting them, because of the myth that going to school is THE path to a high-paying job) are also the biggest single customer base for these sorts of corporations, and most other ones.
You know the thing that’s really going to imperil corporate profits?
The way they pay their workers.
The news keeps saying things about “consumer confidence” being low. Supposedly, it’s low “confidence” that is depressing sales of big ticket items like homes and cars, and if the current trends continue, it’s taking bites out of things like… eating out. Going to the movies. And other things that drive the minimum wage sectors of the economy.
Funny thing: people have to have money to spend money. Right now, most revenue goes straight into the accounts of the major stakeholders in the company. What does it there? It… accrues. It… adds up. What doesn’t it do? It doesn’t circulate. It doesn’t get spent. It doesn’t do anyone any good.
If you gave everyone working at McDonald’s another dollar an hour out of the profits that are currently just being pocketed, those dollars… well, they’d be spent. Almost immediately. And in the end, they’d probably end up being stuck in some millionaire’s low risk, steady return, not-at-all entrepreneurial portfolio, which is where most money ends up.
But just by the magic passing through more hands before it comes to rest, those same dollars would each be spent several more times. MAGIC, right? Same dollar, getting spent again and again and again. And every time, someone benefits. In effect, every time, everyone benefits.
When money goes to the top, it stops moving. Money that isn’t moving isn’t really money any more. It’s as useless as the high score of a video game.
This is why the places in the world—even just in this country—with the best minimum wage and the best social safety nets also have the lowest unemployment, and why unemployment grows or stays stable the more we “tighten belts”. This is just how the world works. This is how the world has always worked. If conservatives would give up their fairy tale fantasyland logic and join the rest of us in the real world, we could have the economy on its feet in no time.
And you are living in a fantasy land. You are. What jobs? What jobs are these people supposed to get? If they had no job, you would tell them “McDonald’s is always hiring.” and act like that’s an answer. Well, they’re working at McDonald’s. And they had to beat ten applicants to get those jobs, because only in your magical fantasy land does “always hiring” mean “has enough job openings to magically accommodate everybody who applies”. Your logic literally requires magic to work.
What are you doing with your life? What are you doing that is so noble and great an endeavor that you can tell people who bust their backs to do a job you probably couldn’t do and definitely wouldn’t want to that they’re lazy for working for $7.25. Would you take $7.25 an hour to do what they do? No? Then they’re being underpaid. The invisible hand of the free market is apparently taking a vacation.
Let me tell you how things work in the real world. In the real world *everyone has to* make a living wage. Has to. If businesses aren’t paying living wages, then they should inevitably go under since no one could afford to work for them. Fortunately or unfortunately, the economy… like an ecology… is all interconnected. So instead of these businesses suffering alone for what should be a fatal decision on their part, they drag everyone else down with them in a slow death spiral that poisons the whole economy.
See, if these business owners aren’t paying their employees a living wage but they’re not going out of business, then their incompetence or greed (pick one, or both) is being subsidized by everyone else. Their incompetence or greed is being paid for by everyone who pays ABOVE a minimum wage so that their employees can afford to eat out and shop and see movies, and by everybody who pays the taxes that go to the public assistance programs that allow their employees to keep scraping by.
Of course, the employees themselves are bearing the brunt of the death spiral, because they’re trapped between an immovable object—a job that against all real-world logic expects full time employees to accept wages that won’t get them through the week—and an inexorable force—the fact that human beings have basic needs that require more money than they’re getting to meet.
Since we actually do live in the real world, it’s inevitable that a system that is unsustainable will fall apart, and this one will… it will reach a breaking point where we’ll either have to acknowledge the problem and fix it, or… well, it will just break. It would be better to fix it sooner rather than later, especially since there are actual people being literally worked to death while smug jerks like you who don’t understand how the world works and who wouldn’t be able to do what they do lecture them about how their plight is somehow their fault.
On the 4th day of Christmas Zack Snyder gave to me: Wonder Woman
You know, asking people to move would be more effective than passive aggressively blogging. Or maybe ask for a sign to be put up in the train station. But you’d accomplish a hell of a lot more by doing any of those than by running a blog dedicated to pictures of men’s balls.
Ask….. People….. To…… Move?????
Wow… It’s almost like you didn’t even read that handy-dandy FAQ.
P.S. There’s nothing “passive” about my aggression.
So you think they might get aggressive/flirty with you if you ask them to move, but what if they notice you taking pictures of them? Wouldn’t that be much worse? ://
*hugs* let me know if there’s something I can do (
also give me your url so I can finally follow you if I’m not following already)
les mis fancast 2.0 → idris elba as jean valjean
i’m pretty sure ethnically french people are white..
in that case, i suggest you educate yourself. there are thirty-three official francophone countries today, located all around the world. medievalpoc.tumblr.com is a good resource for evidence of poc in europe in the middle ages, which, though it obviously predates les mis, does a great job of addressing the general erasure of poc in history and may also help provide some background info. loads of people smarter than me have already addressed the specific topic of poc in les mis, and i suggest you look them up (poclesmis.tumblr.com reblogs some good meta posts here and there, and I’m sure I’ve reblogged some good statistics somewhere down the line). there are also numerous books on the subject, which you can find through a quick google search. repeat after me, friends: people of color are not an anachronism.
furthermore, i don’t give a flying fuck if valjean is “ethnically french”. none of the cast of the 2012 movie are french. over and over again white people play people of color in movies (cloud atlas and the lone ranger are two recent examples). if you care more about preserving your precious all white club than the media representation of traditionally underrepresented groups I’m afraid I’ll have to ask you to reexamine your priorities.
This picture is a map of the distribution of races before 1940 (speaking of natives of that colour) So whites are native from Europe and POC not! Valjean was french and he was damn white! If there was “free” POC in the middle ages in Europe, their ancestors must have been slaves taken from other continents in Ancient Times (Roman Empire, Greek World…etc) If you read on Wikipedia, it says
…people with ancestors who lived predominantly near the Ecuador have darker skin than those with ancestors who lived predominantly in higher latitudes.
Of course, initially, when we were born in Africa we all were black. But races arise when the humanity is distributed around the globe.
If Les Mis characters were french, they were white.
oh sorry, who’s the title character of Shakespeare’s othello? a black guy? who’s a relatively rich and powerful dude in Europe? and when was the play written? 1603?
right, zero people of color who weren’t slaves in europe before 1940
Uh, there were lots of French citizens in the 1800s who were black, some whose families had lived in France for many generations. Are they…not French? Yes, they were a minority, but minority does not mean non-existent. There’s at least one explicitly named character of color in Les Misérables (“Homère Hogu, nègre,” a Patron-Minette member, who is not specifically noted as an immigrant—unlike fellow Patron-Minette member Gueulemer, a “creole” and thus very likely an immigrant from the colonies*—so there’s no reason to think he wasn’t born in France).
[*There’s some debate over whether “creole” referred only to white French colonials or whether the usage had expanded to include black and mixed-race people from French colonies, but I’m not going to go into that here because I can’t access the kinds of sources I’d need and it’s tangential to my main point.]
If some black people in France had ancestors who were slaves, I fail to see how that’s remotely relevant to anything. Lots of white people in France probably also had ancestors who were slaves, given that the Romans practiced widespread slavery throughout Europe and did not base it along racial lines. (It is also a whopping huge assumption that any POC in Europe in medieval times or earlier must have been the descendants of slaves: the Roman Empire had plenty of free black people who settled throughout the Empire, as well as plenty of slaves of all ethnicities, because Roman slavery didn’t operate along racial lines). What does being descended from slaves or not in the very distant past have to do with the price of tea?
A few black and mixed-race French people of note in late 18th to 19th centuries (not all born in France, no, but curiously enough, immigrants often have children in their new countries, and France was a colonialist power):
- Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, a general during the French revolution (son of a black woman)
- His son, Alexandre Dumas, père, author and friend of Victor Hugo
- His son, Alexandre Dumas, fils, author
- Chevalier de St-George, a noted composer, conductor, and violinist
- Louisy Mathieu, Cyrille Bissette, Pierre-Marie Pory-Papy, three politicians from the West Indies who served in the French National Assembly after 1848 (at least Mathieu was mentioned by Hugo in his memoirs)
This is of course a non-comprehensive list and only includes people who were famous for some reason. There were lots more black people in France who were not famous: working-class black people, students, etc.
American politician Charles Sumner, who visited Paris in 1837-1838 described black students at the Sorbonne, noting one lecturer who “had quite a large audience among whom I noticed two or three blacks, or rather mulattos—two-thirds black perhaps—dressed quite à la mode and having the easy, jaunty air of young men of fashion…”
They were standing in the midst of a knot of young men and their color seemed to be no objection to them. I was glad to see this, though with American impressions, it seemed very strange. It must be then that the distance between free blacks and whites among us is derived from education, and does not exist in the nature of things.
France today has the largest black population in Europe, in part because it was a colonialist power for so long. While there weren’t as many black people in France in the 18th and 19th centuries, they certainly were there in noticeable numbers, particularly in port cities and in Paris.
How far back does someone’s ancestry have to go for them to be “native”? The text only states that he comes from a poor peasant family of Brie. It does not state his ethnicity, or assure us that his family has lived in Brie since prehistory. In fact, I don’t remember anywhere in the Brick where Hugo endorsed anyone’s ancestry back to prehistory.
In addition, 19th century concepts of race were not the same as ours, and at no point in Les Misérables does Hugo make any kind of big deal about people being “ethnically French,” whatever the hell that means (how many generations back does your family have to have lived in France to qualify? If your grandmother was Spanish or Chinese or black but from a French territory, does that disqualify you? How much more racist can this thread get? We just don’t know).
Finally, regardless of what Hugo meant (yeah, I think if Hugo meant characters to be read as POC he said so, see Homère-Hogu), it is not historically implausible for most of the characters in Les Misérables to be recast as black, either in fancasting or fanfiction or in musical and movie adaptations. Frankly, adding some racial diversity could make it more historically representative, on account of how there were actually quite a lot of black people in France in the late 18th century, and France’s history of colonialism is intimately connected to the themes of poverty and class that Hugo explores in Les Misérables.