The French Revolution… what can one say about an event with such repercussions on modern thinking? Revolution is not a strong enough word to describe how it has affected the ideas and moral standards of today’s society. Aside from completely changing modern interactions, the French Revolution was rather useless, as they became the monster they set out to destroy. The reason for this is as Popkin puts it “Long‐term trends had made a major crisis in France possible, but it took a specific set of events to make it unavoidable.” The people noticed that years of unjust and unfair governments had plagued France and they planned to do something. However, it took a certain event to cause a chain reaction in society to initiate a revolution. Sound similar? This same pattern of events took place during the American revolution.
We can start to understand Popkins statement “Long‐term trends had made a major crisis in France possible, but it took a specific set of events to make it unavoidable.” by first breaking down each segment. He opens with “long term trends”, which are, as stated, trends that have occurred over a long period of time. However a much deeper meaning can be uncovered if you look deeper. A trend is a general direction in which something is developing and changing. Short term trends like fashion or internet memes, can fully develop in a matter of months or even days, but the long term trends that Popkin is discussing develop over many years. As the French are watching these trends unfold over many years, they are beginning to see the eventual downfall of their society. A few long term trends that Popkin mentions are that the upper class poorly treats the lower classes, and that France was going bankrupt and food supplies were running low. As history has made clear, when the upper class mistreats everyone below them, they are usually overthrown and executed. Additionally hungry people tend to be angrier than people who just ate a four course meal. As Popkin states next, these long term trends made it possible for a major crisis to happen. Notice that here, he doesn’t say that these long term trends caused the crisis but allowed the crisis to happen, but only a specific set of events made crisis inevitable. The most important event leading to a revolution according to Popkin, on page 19, is that by late 1786 the French Government was finally on the verge of complete insolvency. This was critical to the crisis as France was unable to pay back debts and people started to panic as they were unsure as to what their country’s future would entail. Another event that made the crisis unavoidable was the assembly of nobles. When the third estate was established through the assembly of notables, the lower class was given a voice and political power. At this point they became thirsty for change and would continue to push against the establishment. Assembling such a large group of mistreated individuals together in a position of political power is not a good thing for the first and second estate. The third estate is driven by emotion and rage and even though they might not be the most politically intelligent they have both the strength in numbers and a powerful mindset towards change. Imagine how determined a person of wealth who doesn’t have to work or break a sweat will defend his power, he will simply use money and influence to keep him in power. However when these rich individuals are put on the same level as the mistreated third estate, they are no longer able to pull strings and it becomes simply a battle of wills which the third estate will win.
Popkin’s statement breaks down the cause of the French Revolution but it is also applicable to the American Revolution. In the case of America, we can still see long term trends causing the possibility of crisis and then specific events making crisis inevitable. In the American Revolution, most of the United States were the third estate. We were all oppressed by the British and we noticed trends such as, the king not involving us in decisions. A rally cry of “No taxation without representation” best shows this. As soon as the British started taking advantage of us, crisis was unavoidable and revolution was inevitable. Popkins statement can be rewritten “Long‐term trends had made a major crisis in the American colonies possible, but it took a specific set of events to make it unavoidable.” and still maintain its truth and impact. It would remain true. The American Revolution however, was more successful at establishing a new form of government, but long term trends still made revolution possible and specific events made it happen. When I read Popkins statement, I imagine a roller coaster. There is a long ride up to the top but when it reaches the top in only takes a small force to push the cart over the edge. This is similar to Perkins statement as many long and slow events cause tension and uprising, but when the people have reached the peak, it only takes a few events to hurdle society into a rebellion. This can be demonstrated by both the French and American revolutions and this is why I believe that Popkins statement applies to both revolutions.
Popkins statement is most definitely true. It almost perfectly describes the steps of revolution and can be applicable in many a revolt. I agree with Popkins statement for sure, many factors influenced the french revolution but I believe that this statement is an amazing general overview of the start to almost any revolution. The French revolution was caused by long term trends such as discrimination towards the third estate and a general loss of money and resources, and specific events do make crisis unavoidable. He almost perfectly shows how France came to chaos and why this occurred.
All in all, Popkin has created a statement that is able to summarize the start of the French Revolution. He presents the idea that “long‐term trends” such as oppression and improper management of resources make crisis possible, and that “specific set of events” such as assembling all of the mistreated individuals and giving them political power, caused these revolutions to be unavoidable. His statement is so clever that when applying the same steps to the American Revolution, it still works. Popkin is an ingenious writer and has presented me with a beautiful statement that has provided in depth knowledge and an excellent guide into the start of revolutions.