>Marie Antoinette did not say let them eat cake in any way shape or form
>Marie Antoinette's spending wasn't extraordinary for a queen in that time period, didn't actually bankrupt the country, and was even less than some of the other French royal family members at the time
>Marie Antoinette didn't hate poor people and expressed sympathy for the plight of poor people on numerous occasions
>yet the go-to insult for any politician or figure is to call them "Marie Antoinette" and imply that they dislike poor people, are spending to ruin, or otherwise bring up "let them eat cake"
can someone explain this
>not posting the Kirsten Dunst interpretation of Marie
rectify this mistake immediately
>>910552
France was the first country and culture destroyed by militant leftism. Look at modern ejucashen to see why leftists shouldn't be allowed to write history.
>>910571
>ayo teach when we finna learn about when we was kings an shit?
>>910562
I prefer the Norma Shearer version
How could all royal women have such gigantic hips and still look so fit?
What on earth is there to explain? It was propaganda. Are you dim?
>>910552
It's not because she was that much different than the past Queens of France it's just that she was in power during a time of new thinking so she worse light is cast on her. This can be said about many leaders in history
>>910637
>What on earth is there to explain?
Why she is used in modern day as an example of greed/hating the power/etc when the historical records, or even a quick google fact check, show otherwise.
>>910743
Why is Columbus still used as an example of conquering prevailing dogma? Poor education for one thing but the fact doesn't matter as much as what the idea now represents. Referencing things like this is just a tool in other words to express a larger point.
It's like head-over-heels. That doesn't actually make any sense when you think about it but it doesn't matter because the meaning is clear to anyone familiar with the phrase.
>>910635
>Being this fucking stupid
please leave /his/ immediately
>>910552
Because a single person's behavior doesn't change the historical momentum of centuries of oppression. People were probably more familiar with the rapacity of their local nobles. They naturally blamed the source of the nobles' legitimacy, which was the monarchy. It didn't matter at that point what the monarchy actually did. The monarchy was guilty by association.
>>911010
>at that point
But what about now? 2016?
>>911048
It's easier. In ancient times when something bad happened, they would meme it into mythology so people had something to remember. At least the moral of the story remains intact. Antoinnette, the meme, contains all the pertinent information on noble excess, in a digestible format.
>>910552
>caring about some Austrian whore
>>911095
>not caring about history
out
