January 22nd, 2026

Today for my seminar we discussed pieces about the American and French Revolutions. This relates to migration due to many emigres making their way to America. There was also a piece that compared American Loyalists who migrated to Britain and the French Emigres that went wherever they could. You may be a bit proud of me due to the fact that I actually did speak in this class at least twice. Although sitting at the front next to my professor is difficult regarding people being able to see me more, it is useful in telling my professor I would like to speak without having to signal as much. I will show you how I managed this as I continue through the post. Do not worry, this will be a short one.

Before class started my classmates were talking amongst themselves, it was very… enlightening. To hear them talk about politics, specifically the US, and act like this is all new and not predictable is a little distressing if a bit annoying. I heard them complimenting a previous President (Biden, I think) because he was a respectful debater and spoke much better than Trump, a student said that was not a high bar to jump over. Hearing them speak just reminded me of how Canadians look down on American issues as if we are not doing the same. It is fascinating but also quite troublesome.

While I was waiting or my professor I was accidentally misgendered by a fellow classmate, he was pointing at the people he was familiar with and I was one of them. I wasn’t mad or anything because it was an accident but damn, I wish I knew how to better prevent this. My hair is short, I wear “masculine” clothes, I have yet to get top surgery yet (I am on the wait list) but I try to hide that as much as I can. HRT has to wait too. My voice is definitely a problem factor. Oh well, enough of my whining and let’s get onto the content.

Before we discussed the readings (we were assigned quite a lot of pages), we talked about the differences between the Anglo “land of liberty” and the French “terre d’asite.” The Anglo statement has a pull factor, it is advertised as a place for opportunity, there is a sense of choice when moving, and there is an acceptance of permanent immigration. The French one has a push factor, people are pushed to move due to circumstances (mainly some sort of conflict), this also leads to a temporary stay rather than permanently resettling. I did not write much about what others said regarding the readings since I want to keep these seminar posts short, I will however write what I had to say.

When I first spoke in class I had to whisper to my professor next to me as two students were talking to each other because I wanted to say something but did not know how to insert myself. She asked if I wanted to speak, I said yes, and then she signalled for me to go when the other students were finished. I then brought up how the French migrants to America were not successful in cultivating many crops, they were successful in growing grapes, thus setting up vineyards and making wine. This was a display of their French culture being brought to America as drinking wine is a very French thing to do. The students and my professor laughed, which was what I was going for. Although my heart was pounding like crazy when I was speaking.

Rousseauean ideology regarding the “noble savage” was big with these French emigres who went to America, wanting to live off the land and whatnot like Rousseau stated. This was peculiar to me as I was aware that the French Revolution had two phases: the Liberal Voltaire phase and the Radical Rousseau phase, but I forgot during which phase these emigres moved out of France. I brought this up because if the emigres were so obsessed with Rousseau then it was strange that they might have left during his phase of the revolution. My professor answered that the Noble Savage Rousseau was different from what he wrote regarding the Social Contract, which was the Rousseauean philosophy that defined the Radical Phase. Although me bringing this disparity up is important, it highlights the contradictions. So apparently I make good points and ask good questions, so that was validating to hear.

Since I sit next to my professor I can see what she is doing when student are speaking, whether they are doing the reading presentations or just engaging in the discussion. I could see that she would have our names written on the paper in the same position where we are sitting, and putting check marks under our names to show how many times we contributed.

Anyway, we were told that the French felt betrayed by the US during the war with the UK, the US took a neutral stance and did not get involved. In turn, many years later, the US felt betrayed when France refused to support the invasion of Afghanistan. During the Cold War, Historians came together to link the American and French Revolutions, they were labeled as the two founding events of democracy. Why? I wanted to answer that this had all to do with Cold War politics, opposing the USSR through flimsy solidarity. I was unheard and need to be louder, clearly.

A student spoke up asking who wanted these two revolutions to be merged. He said that during this period (Cold War) Americans were anti-imperialist so was it left wing people? No, my professor said, it was an anti-communist move. Historians use the French and American revolutions to create the illusion of democratic revolutions to contrast the “un-democratic” communist revolution that established the USSR. My question is, why the fuck did this student say that Americans were anti-imperialist? Is this not ass backwards?

Before our 30 minute break, my professor showed us two Hamilton songs to show us the relationship between the French and American Revolution: “Guns and Ships” and “Cabinet Battle 2.” When I was reading the pieces I actually did make a note for myself about how Hamilton did have a song based on the split in American politics on whether they should support the French or not.

After the break not much was written down, I wanted to ask about the language factor that may have played a part in people migrating but was unable to.