Hmmm, I'm fairly sure that in history class we did learn of these riots as "the Revolution of 1905" or something like that, I can't remember exactly....obviously it was nothing like the big one, but the phrase sounds familiar. And I did do a fair bit of reading on that period of Russian history for my IB History Internal Assessment (research paper on Nicholas II and the extent to which his authoritarian views contributed to the Russian Revolution of 1917). I mean, it's all a matter of terminology, I don't think that's the biggest historical error on BTVS, lol. The dinner stuff is bad though
( ... )
I hate that so much. In some of our textbooks it was called that too. But there was no revolution - nothing revolutionary happened! If you look up the definition, the events of 1905 don't match up to what revolution means. *sigh
( ... )
Lol, I don't think Revolutions have to succeed in a change of government to be a Revolution. Hell, nothing much changed after the Mexican Revolution, sad as that is, many of the same issues continued...revolutions can fail, and still be called revolutions, I think. In short, however, it IS commonly called "The Revolution of 1905", so I can't fault them for doing so as well, that is correct, even if regrettably some of the less historically savvy might get the wrong idea from it. (Though I don't think it's the show's problem if people don't know the Russian Revolution happened in 1917, or the teens in any case, SUCH a big thing, and hell in the "Anastasia" cartoon movie it starts in 1916! :p). Though you're right about people thinking that about the 1917 revolution, as someone who studied the events and problems leading up to the February/March Revolution (since of course there were multiple ones within the "Russian Revolution"!) in detail, that definitely would be a grievous oversimplification
( ... )
Lol, well we call the actual day "Bloody Sunday" just that in the States as well--but the Revolution of 1905 was more than just one day of riots, more than just Bloody Sunday--to quote Wikipedia (and yes I know, but this is right given when I recall from history class), it was "wave of mass political and social unrest that spread through vast areas of the Russian Empire. Some of it was directed against the government, while some was undirected. It included terrorism, worker strikes, peasant unrest, and military mutinies"...AND "it led to the establishment of limited constitutional monarchy, the State Duma of the Russian Empire, the multi-party system, and the Russian Constitution of 1906"--those seem like some political changes to me, and pretty revolutionary in theory at least if not in practice. The important thing about revolutions is that they involve people fighting/protesting (political unrest) in favor of revolutionary ideas, fighting for change--like they did in Mexico, for instance, even though the status quo in the end
( ... )
I hate Anastasia because it's so typical for Hollywood/Disney (I forget whether Disney did it or not) to completely ignore the people's suffering and need for a fairer system and say that it was all the fault of a bad guy, instead of a flawed autocracy. Because they can't possibly say that anyone in power is ever wrong, and that communism might be a good idea.
I just don't like it because the truth is so much more exciting, and I think it could have been simplified for children. As it is, there are kids (and grown ups) that now think that Nicholas was a great guy and just a victim, which isn't true.
But you're right - Anastasia is written as a fairytale, and I get even more pissed off at films that pretend to be historical (*cough* The Other Boleyn Girl *cough*).
And no we studied government and things like that. Religion was mentioned, but we were looking at foreign and domestic policy, mostly. It was insanely boring.
(Lol my last comment was too long, so here's part 2!)
But I notice stained glass all the time. When I was little I watched a documentary on the progress of stained glass (I thought it was pretty), so I have a vague idea of what it should look like in each era. One of the things that put me off Merlin, actually, was the stained glass. There is no way that in the Dark Ages stained glass would look that good and detailed.Lol, there's no way that that ENTIRE CASTLE PERIOD would exist in the Dark Ages, it's such a 16th/17th century castle, it's laughable! ;) Then there's the black "noble family" knights and New World tomatoes being thrown at Merlin. After the first episode I realized that nothing was going to be remotely historically accurate, and that I'd just have to treat it all like the purely fantasy world it was and remove history from it altogether to enjoy it! :p Believe me, "historical inaccuracies" in an unhistorical show like Merlin is the least of its problems....(shitty writing and character development and continuity--or
( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I just don't like it because the truth is so much more exciting, and I think it could have been simplified for children. As it is, there are kids (and grown ups) that now think that Nicholas was a great guy and just a victim, which isn't true.
But you're right - Anastasia is written as a fairytale, and I get even more pissed off at films that pretend to be historical (*cough* The Other Boleyn Girl *cough*).
And no we studied government and things like that. Religion was mentioned, but we were looking at foreign and domestic policy, mostly. It was insanely boring.
Reply
But I notice stained glass all the time. When I was little I watched a documentary on the progress of stained glass (I thought it was pretty), so I have a vague idea of what it should look like in each era. One of the things that put me off Merlin, actually, was the stained glass. There is no way that in the Dark Ages stained glass would look that good and detailed.Lol, there's no way that that ENTIRE CASTLE PERIOD would exist in the Dark Ages, it's such a 16th/17th century castle, it's laughable! ;) Then there's the black "noble family" knights and New World tomatoes being thrown at Merlin. After the first episode I realized that nothing was going to be remotely historically accurate, and that I'd just have to treat it all like the purely fantasy world it was and remove history from it altogether to enjoy it! :p Believe me, "historical inaccuracies" in an unhistorical show like Merlin is the least of its problems....(shitty writing and character development and continuity--or ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment