On the Loius XIV thing... As I understand it, his reign sort of went to hell after Colbert died... right? I mean, Colbert was a genius... I never saw Loius as really "enlightened." Anyone? (let's all ignore johnheath now... please!)
The only thing I could find in MacBeth's post that you could be talking about was this Please tell me this is not what you are refering to "comparing Bush to Hitler". Is it?
Louis XIV's reign as a paralell to America's "empire" was indeed under discussion, so I'm not quite sure what your problem is with me bringing it up... In any case, it has to be better than trying to talk to someone who watches NBC and FOX news for four hours a day and actually believes that it is unbiased.
There was a study done back in the early 80's on a behavioural pattern called Socialized Fixed Action Response...I think it was a collaberative effort between Oxoford and the University of Chicago...not sure. Anyways, the point of this was to determine our reactions to socialized stimuli without engaging our ability to discriminate or reason. Ironicaly, Adolph Hitler was one of the primary stimuli used to test reactions. Testers would go up to people on the street and ask a simple close ended question; " Would you agree that Adolph Hitler was a persuasive public speaker? Yes or no?"...No questions raised about his role in history, about his morality, or about his politics. Just a simple 'was he a persuasive public speaker?' Now there is little objective doubt that the man was that, if nothing else, and most people would admit as much...but the amazing thing found in the study i that almost all of them would have to answer unasked questions. Responses would normally be something like " Yes, I suppose he was...but he was an evil man." or " Yes, but he was a monster!"....when nothing related to that had ever been asked! The point being that we are so socialized to react to certain stimuli that we do so without even thinking about whether it applies...and the study showed that there was a greater tendancy to respond this way in both less quantifiably intelligent people, and in less educated people. John...for the record, what I said was "I do not fear that we will become a terrible nation like Nazi Germany...but I do fear that we are moving closer to that kind of miopic (sic) mass priorization of power/pragmatism over principle than I ever would have thought possible for an extended period of time." In your minds that statement made this an uncivil discussion? Without bothering to explain what should be completely to anyone even half trying to look, I actually want to examine this weird procilivty john has for names being compared with each other. What if I had actualy compared Bush with Hitler, like you said? What if I had said that Bush was.....taller than Hitler? Or that Hitler was a better public speaker? What if i said that Bush, like Hitler, had two legs? Have I made my point, john, or would you like some more?
MacBeth, one prevailing thought you must remember is the preservation of our way of life (defending it from real or perceived dangers). That should be a common goal. But you are right. As time goes on, you will see more of a manipulation of the "masses" because they completely trust their President. A lot of people enjoy being told what they want to hear (CNN/FOX, etc...). They don't want to hear the bad things that happen. So, they don't worry about it. It's those people that end up being easy to manipulate. If you want mass change, make money. If you have the money, you have the power to influence. money = billions But let me ask you a question. Would you put power in the hands of the ignorant (masses)? That's the dilemma the Founding Fathers had.
So did Plato...amd now officially too plastered to make any real sense ...where's johnheath when i need him? Will give your post the response it deserves tomorrow, my foirend...Oh, and where in tarntation did you come up with my being a Sports Illustrated writer?
whooo..thought maybe I'd been screwed over by SI...was going to demand my royalties plus a month in St. Kitts with Heidi Klum as damages...am drunk...whooie...
Yes, you have made your point about this one instance. My Hitler comment was unfair, and I retract it gladly, with apologies. The rest of my comments, disregarded widely by the participants in this thread in favor of ad hominem arguments, still stand unchallenged. Your argument, though well written, is torn to shreds by recent news from the Middle East.
Mrs. JB, Louis was, indeed, a fancy boy. You know you have him to thank for high heels, right? Thank you for posting THE standard for imperial portraiture. MacB, Ugh, whatever sissy boy. Misguided? Please. As for your question, I have not read Lynn's book and I have read a bit of Furet - I don't really go for revisionist Revolution history and I think better works have been written more recently. So, not really a fan. Drexlerfan, Colbert was a political genius (as were Richelieu and Mazarin) and he definitely did drive a great deal of Louis's reign until he died in the mid 80's. He was one of the key factors behind the propaganda machine. My argument, though, is that France was doomed from the beginning. You can't spend all of that time to set someone up as an absolute monarch and expect the monarch notto ever get out of hand. Louis XIV was strong and had the personality to be successful - in both the good an bad way. Louis XV was weak so his absolutism was not the same, and Louis XVI was just an idiot so he got his head lopped off.
This thread is hysterical. I can't stop laughing. "Four score and seven years ago..." "Stick to the point, Zoolander" "Yeah, but what about the Civil War?!" "What does that have to do with this thread?" "Louis was RuPaul before there was a RuPaul pal!" "Oh my god, now it's a thread about Louis XIV?!" "Only a real man can be confident in high heels, na meen?" "Hitler?" "Sorry... not Hitler, I take that back" "I'm drunk" "Plato man, Plato"
I'm impressed by your knowledge in French history.You ppl seem to know more about it than I do and I live there! ALA
rimb...haven't fogotten, man of my word, will follow up. Just didn't want you to think I'd forgotten, just off to see a friend. Night, budy.
rimbaud, Impressive. johnheath, You get 10 points for sheer tenacity. DoD, Ain't that the truth? That's about the extent of my meaningless contributions nowadays. Too busy...I'm tired...off to bed...
Not to keep bringing things back to Louis the XIV but... The guy was strange. I mean the reason that Versailled ended up being the way it was is because he was jealous of Fouquet, and his Chateau de Vaux-le-Viscomte. He even hired Levau the architect of it to work on Versailles, and I think Lenotre also who did the gardens for both. I understand that an absolute monarch doesn't want to be outdone by one of his ministers, but it's a little strange to then take the designers of his house and build up your own place so that nothing will outshine it. I don't really know that much about Louis the XIV, because I never really liked him. Too damn dandy for my taste. Now Louis XIII. I think was cool. He won't go down as big of a player in history, but I liked him much better.
That is all true, but not the full story. Vaux-le-Vicomte was a great masterpiece and, I think, much better than Versailles. Louis was invited to Fouquet's "grand opening" of his palace and did indeed get jealous. Despite the fact that Louis had only recently had Le Louvre expanded and made fancier, he wanted some new digs. So, yes, he had Versailles started, which had previously been a small hunting lodge. That is not all, though. He trumped up some charges against the minister to get him arrested (I don't remember what they were - something like fraud or treason) and imprisoned. This, by the way, was still in the early years of Louis's reign, as V-l-V was completed the same year he took the throne, 1661 and Versailles was begun in 1669. So, again, this shows he was not a nice guy from the beginning. Also, he did start with the same core of Le Vau (architect), Le Brun (interior design & painter) and Le Notre to convert a huge plot of forest into a controlled garden, however, he literally added an army of others to assist (and later with the architect Mansart doing some major work). Every day, le levée would occur. Since Versailles was on the sun's axis (of course) Louis would rise from bed when the sun broke the horizon, and then make a little procession directly into the hall of mirrors and once the sun shone through its large windows, the mirrors would illuminate the whole hall and especially the ceiling paintings which depict scenes of aopollo and divine power, etc.. It should also be noted that Louis enjoyed forcing country nobles to be his attendants (basically, servants) at Versaille in order to intimidate them. That Louis didn't really do anything. First, he was dominated by his mother, Marie de Medici, then he gives her the boot for about five years, brings her back, and then agrees to let Richelieu (and later Mazarin) basically run the show. Both cardinals knew he wasn't the best candidate for an absolute monarch (even though they had been setting the groundwork for one since 1610), so it wasn't until the next Louis that it could blossom. So, yeah, he is no big deal...
So if people disagree with you, you ignore them? Would it make a better discourse if everybody agreed?
