Criticisms of the 1871 Paris
Role of British and American
C. Jamieson, Emory
Commune de Paris
has a revolution more surprised the revolutionaries.
Malon, member of
the Commune Council 
The story of
Commune begins with the conflicts of the Franco-Prussian War.
Following the defeat of Napoleon III on the 4th
of September 1870 by the Prussians, French Republicans created a
National Defense in order to continue war with Prussia.
As the Prussian army further encroached on
the city, all Parisian men between the ages of twenty and forty were
into a citizen’s militia known as the National Guard. After a
four month long siege by the
Prussians, the Government of National Defense, led by Adolphe Theirs,
an armistice on the 28th of January 1871.
A general election was held on the 8th of February, where Thiers became
leader of the overwhelmingly monarchist National Assembly, prompting a
heightened level of fear amongst National Guardsman and the
citizens in Paris.
In the early
the 18th of March 1871, Theirs attempted to quietly disarm the National
by sending his troops to the top of the Butte Montmartre
in order to capture several cannons and armaments stored on the hill by
National Guard since February. Much to
the surprise of Theirs, a group of Parisian citizens noticed the
soon a large crowd developed around the hill in Montmartre.
Primary accounts describe a slow, but
developing group of onlookers and protesters near the bottom of the
hill. Louise Michel was a local activist who
experienced the events firsthand and described them later in her
Versailles soldiers were trying to seize the cannon, men and women of
Montmartre warned up the Butte in a surprise maneuver. Those
people who were climbing believed they
would die, but they were prepared to pay the price. The Butte of
bathed in the fist light of day, through which things were glimpsed as
were hidden behind a thin veil of water.
Gradually the crowd increased.
The other districts of Paris, hearing of the events taking place on the
Butte of Montmartre, came to our assistance.
describes the morning as the build up to a climax where two French
were shot and killed by the crowd.
Fearing further conflict, Theirs and his
government retreated to Versailles and the Central Committee of the
Guard instituted self-rule in Paris and held elections on March
26th. On March 28th, the government known as the
Paris Commune was officially born and Paris was under
1871 until the end of May 1871, Paris was ruled independently of
France. The history behind the revolution and its
government is by no means of minimal importance. Historians
have spent a great deal of time
recounting every event and action of the Commune in an attempt to
understand the complex forces at work. A
growing trend has developed in recent years in regards to historical
scholarship on the Commune, however.
Historians have become enamored with detailed issues of historiography
in an attempt to better understand and qualify the biases of early
journalists, and writers on the events in Paris.
Additionally, historians have also begun to
reinterpret the reporting of the Commune that occurred in various
periodicals, and primary accounts.
that the Paris Commune was at the center of international news in
1871. “The origins, evolution, improvisations, and
the final collapse of the Commune were observed with keen fascination
international community,” Albert Boime writes.
American and British daily newspapers,
periodicals, and journals are a fascinating vehicle to explore the
to understand foreign opinion of it. We
see several prevailing attitudes and common themes throughout these
writings. Additionally, the differences,
in terms of national origin and publication type, prove interesting in
understanding and categorizing these attitudes.
the focus of
this article will not so much be on correcting—or even
history of the Commune. Rather it will
focus on identifying and characterizing common themes in
reporting. Through this analysis, we can see several
distinct elements of Anglo-American journalism on the Commune: first,
emphasis on the centrality of Paris within French politics and culture
consequent criticism of rural French citizens; second, a sharp
France’s national character and a well-developed view of Frenchness;
third, a heightening fear of Communism at home and
abroad and; fourth, the sharp criticism and “dispassionate objectivity”
the roles French women played. By
means does this article represent a comprehensive study of foreign
on the Commune, as it limits itself to two countries and a small
publications. The examples chosen for this article, however, are
the larger reporting themes of their respective groups. Thus,
the primary intention of this article
is to highlight central themes within this journalism and to bring to
similarities and differences between these publication’s reports,
Back to Index
Emphasis on the Centrality of Paris in French Culture
American news sources and journals emphasize the centrality and
Paris within French politics and culture.
Additionally, many, if not most, take the opportunity to criticize the
rural peoples of France while depicting Parisian society as ‘snobby.’
no doubt that Paris was a central component to French politics and
before the Commune and long after.
Paris, following the French Revolution of 1789 and the 1848 revolutions
across Europe, became increasingly separate from France. As
historian Robert Tombs notes, “The
[national] government…intended to assert its authority over
Paris. The Montmartre expedition was the outcome.”
This separatism was of interest to many
journalists. Not only did journalists see Paris as politically unique
France, but they also viewed its turmoil as similar to other Western
such as America during the Civil War.
Journalist Frederic Harrison, in London’s liberal Fortnightly Review,
in May of 1871 wrote, “The principle of
decentralization is one peculiarly necessary to France, and is
applicable to Western Europe.”
Harrison sees the “history of France for
generations” as the “oppression of the cities by the country.”
Additionally, Harrison could have noted that
Paris’ desire for independence and its differences from France could be
similar to the conflict in America a decade earlier with much of the
seceding from the Union and forming the Confederacy.
as a representation of “French intelligence, French genius, [and]
Publications highlighted the differences that
Paris had from the rest of France in order to convey a larger idea of
superiority. Within this commentary was
also a comparison between urban and rural French peoples. London’s
characterize those people involved in the Commune in a poor light—as
lesser people than other Parisians: “It seems intolerable and unjust
a city should be thwarted or overborne by the votes of the uneducated
Other writers sought to place Paris on a
pedestal high above most European cities.
“There are cities, and cities large and small,” Frederic Harrison wrote
for the Fortnightly
Paris is not a mere city, but is a special social organism, animated
nature and passions of men, but of a nature not precisely homogeneous
with man’s.” Further, some publications
even saw Paris as
more detrimental to the French Republic. Harper’s
Magazine, a New York-based weekly, claimed “there can be
no republic in
France so long as Paris is the capital.
The mob of that city can and will overawe the
Government, and an army strong enough for security against the mob
would be too
strong for the safety of a republic.”
their criticism by often using other countries as points of comparison
France. As British journalist F.M. Whitehurst
commented, “In America they are clever, hard-headed, and have not three
dynasties watching on the hills of exile for the proper hour to swoop
the property of the nation.”
Uttering a similar tone, an editorial in The Nation, an
noted that the Parisians “care nothing about ‘checks and balances,’
independence of the judiciary, the freedom of the press, the protection
personal or local self-government, personal liberty, or any of the
questions over which the Western world has so long contended. They care
even about a republican form of government, as Americans understand it.”
Emphasizing the centrality of Paris in French
culture and politics was one distinct way that journalists commented on
own country’s views of Frenchness.
Larger Commentary on French National Character
the opportunity of covering the Commune in order to comment more
their own nation’s views of France’s national character.
Special attention should be paid towards the
types of publications these criticisms appeared in. In a
general sense, both British and American
periodicals and weeklies were far more critical of France than their
newspaper counterparts. Historian
Phillip Katz furthers this point by writing that illustrated weeklies
“special mention” in the American context of covering the
Commune. Every week these publications printed
sensationalist headlines and “especially common were crude portraits of
‘celebrities’ and bird’s-eye views of Paris in flames.”
Additionally, many of the illustrations in
these weeklies were simply replicated from the weeklies in England and
France. On the American
front, Harper’s Weekly
is exemplary of negative analysis on French national character. The
magazine took the
opportunity to characterize the people of France as “ignorant, angry,
without the habit of political patience and methods, torn by furious
and inflamed by crude theories.”
scathing illustrations of the events to complement their
articles. Painting a picture of the French people as
irresponsible, naïve, and unintelligent was very common for the
weekly. As the publication saw it, the people of
France and Paris were “ignorant and unaccustomed to responsible
action,” which “teaches them to prefer order at any cost—order even at
price of liberty.”
therefore expressed their
hope that the Commune would be a failed experiment. For the
publication, the demise of the
Commune would only confirm the suspicions they espoused in their
writings. In a June 10, 1871 editorial, the publication
wrote: “The effort of the Commune ends, therefore, without the least
or respect. If there were men interested
in it whose views were positive, humane, and reasonable, they were
of illustrations in American periodicals were replicated from British
French periodicals. Most likely though,
the American periodical writers were also greatly influenced by other
that they viewed and often replicated or reiterated similar viewpoints.
Nation echoed similar tones in its editorials on the Commune to
“In fact, it would be
difficult to produce from history an expression of selfishness narrower
material, more short-sighted and more devilish in its intensity, than
organization which has just perished in the flames of Paris, and we do
anything more repulsive in its accompaniments than the apologies made
The American journalists
critical of the Commune, and Harper’s
appears frequently throughout this essay as it editorialized and
sensationalized almost all aspects of the events. Other
American publications wrote in a
similar fashion on the Commune as well.
were equally critical of French national character. Fraser’s
Magazine commented: “In French cities, as observers have often
there seems to be some spontaneous generation of irrationality and
which rapidly grows to absolute lunacy; each man contributes his quota
wrong-headedness, credulity, and viciousness, and the aggregate of such
contributions is multiplied by some unknown factor, til the sum total
transcends conception.” Additionally, the author goes on to
“unfortunate national temperament” of France that has “a habit of
ending, not in
compromise, but in conflict.”
A major goal of this commentary was to demonstrate British cultural,
political superiority over the French.
Another writer saw the revolution surrounding the Commune as “abortive”
and argued it “must fail.” It
becomes clear that many journalists were
interested in the failure of the Commune so they could later justify
writings. British journalists often used a condescending tone as well.
correspondent described the situation in Paris on April 4th as
“grotesque.” In a similar fashion,
journalist D. A.
Bingham reported, “the streets were filled with swashbucklers who
fanciful uniforms and quaint denominations, and appeared to be under no
control.” Historian Gay L.
Gullickson analyzes this
statement arguing that at the time, different military groups in Paris
unique uniforms, thus the descriptions are
unfounded. Ultimately, Bingham’s words
should be read
as a caricature
in lieu of fact.
Additionally, many of these articles should
be looked at under the same microscope, as we see that common insults
by these writers are often slanderous.
“Baracade in Paris,” Harper's
May 6, 1871
journalists saw the opportunity to comment on
French national character through the comparison of the Commune to the
French Revolution and the Reign of Terror.
historian notes, “Major newspapers gave their readers the impression
anarchy ruled in Paris, with bloodthirsty mobs sweeping the streets in
of innocent victims. Visceral images of
the revolution of 1789 were recalled, suggesting a return to the
rule, and the guillotine.”
juxtaposition of images from the Reign of
Terror and the Commune was no accident, and arguably
intentional. A British correspondent writing for the Times
Connecting the horror of the French
revolution that was less than a century old with the events of the
only sensationalized the stories, but also brought fear to many readers
unfamiliar with the happenings. reported, “Last night, many
people were half expecting a Reign of terror, in
the best style of the last century, and dire was the consternation of
of Reds, Communists, and Fear
in America, were becoming increasingly worried about the rise of what
perceived as a Communist movement in Paris.
This ‘red fear’ was based on both fascination and anxiety over the
ideology. Because of the Commune’s close
ties with labor unions, the International Working Men’s Association,
socialists, and Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the Commune thus
reinforced the bourgeois notion of class war,” as Gay Gullickson
notes. “Journalists regularly referred to the ‘Reds’
in Paris and used ‘communist’ as a synonym for ‘communard’….”
Some journalists even used all three terms
interchangeably. Both American
newspapers and periodicals followed a similar path in criticizing the
and exposing it to the rest of the world.
One historian notes that, “[t]he chorus of abuse in the American press
quickly mounted as the Commune unfolded, and after its destruction it
frequently used to epitomize all the horrors of ‘communist’
Commune [brought] out [people’s] worst anxieties about the family,
property, and social order.”
Paris Commune became the great fear of
anti-Communist Americans who saw the actions of the working class in
a major threat. It is important to note
that there were varying degrees of sensationalism present in these
“Paris Under the Red Flag - Scene in front
of the Hotel de Ville,” Harper's
May 20, 1871
and weeklies tended to go more in-depth on the worries of the Commune,
by no means should exclude daily publications such as the New York
Times, which was a sounding board for anti-red sentiments
period. As Katz notes, “[n]ot surprisingly, American
newspapers followed the line that the whole thing had been plotted by
and the International Working Men’s Association.”
A common theme in the
New York Times was to instill red
fear in the headline of the story. There
was an apparent obsession with
red. Even on the three year
anniversary of the
Commune government in Paris, the New York Times titled
an article “Recalling the Paris Commune: An Assemblage Where Every
Shade of Red
Could be Seen.” In the article, the
newspaper lamented: “Flaming programmes, deep scarlet entrance tickets,
boutonnieres of red immortelles and ribbon….Children wore red sashes,
dresses, and red hats, and men adorned themselves with satin neckties
approved roseate hue. Many of the young
girls present, who took part in the ball afterward, had seized the
in their Communistic sympathy, to spread the patriotic color on their
faces.” U.S. papers also carried
headlines such as
“Red Flag Floating over the Louvre and Tuileries” and “The Rouge
Revolt.” Red was
an easy way to quickly identify Communist sentiments with the Commune
headline of a newspaper or article.
had an equally revolting
context for the Times. It is important to note the
between the Commune
As discussed earlier, many confused the Commune as being associated
with Communist ideals, but the two were by no means mutually exclusive
in overarching philosophies. The
New York Times published articles such
as “Paris Under the Communists.” The
paper lamented in the article: “Unfortunately, the approaching
the Commune in Paris is only the beginning of the worst….It is not easy
how a sanguinary civil war can be averted under conditions like
conflict, even if long and bloody, would be better than this.”
York Times, however, was not the only paper to criticize
in Paris. The New York Herald
featured more shocking headlines and as Gullickson argues, was by
“pro-Commune newspaper.” The paper often
referred to Communards
in an attempt to incite fear
and false information on the spread of international Communism.
periodicals were highly critical of the French Commune, publishing
illustrations and in-depth stories about the horrors of
Weekly took on the Commune as a central issue. Harper’s
criticized the Commune in April of 1871, writing, “The despotism from
for a moment it sometimes emerges is self-perpetuating. For,
by keeping the people ignorant and
unaccustomed to responsible political action, it teaches them to prefer
at any cost—order even at the price of liberty.” The weekly published
such as “A Club of Paris Reds” on April 22nd, “The Communists in
Paris,” on May
6th and “Paris Under the Red Flag,” on May 20th.
took on a far less critical role than their American
counterparts. While the country’s publications were
critical of the Commune and used
frequently and some presented a similar tone to the American papers, it
less prevalent. A London newspaper,
the Daily News, published an
editorialized article about the Commune titled “The Red Republic in
March 29th of 1871. Additionally, Reynold’s Newspaper,
London, published “An Interview with the Red
Government of Paris,” on April 2nd.
Moreover, The Pall Mall
Gazette reported on the end of the
Commune in an article titled “The Suppression of the Red Revolution: A
Reign of Terror,” on May 30th.
the most part though, London papers
remained less partisan than their American counterparts.
Dailies outside of London, however, presented
a different and more biased look at the events going on in
Paris. In Preston, England, a city about forty miles
outside of Liverpool and well over two-hundred miles from London, the
paper, the Preston
Guardian etc, newspaper’s
coverage on the Commune. “There is chaos
in Paris; and the end is not yet,” the paper lamented in its article
New Enemy in Paris—The Reign of Anarchy and Murder.”
Rural British publications, in general,
reflected similar sentiments to American publications. The
main difference between the British view
and the American view was the use of the word Communist
incite fear. British publications might
have been critical of Communism,
their criticism was not as explicitly spelled out as it was in American
publications. typified rural British.
on the Role of Women in the Commune
only recently explored topic is the actual role of women in the
Commune. Women’s roles in the political order marked a drastic change
from the private sphere they traditionally occupied.
Historians have begun to uncover the similar myths
that originated in early historical reports by primary observers and
news publications. Historian Gay Gullickson argues in her
study of the Paris Commune that “dispassionate objectivity has often
historians of the Commune.”
Gullickson’s research suggests that early historians have
even neglected to mention some history of the Commune in order to
negative female stereotypes. Journalists
often advanced these stereotypes in order to portray women as
creatures. American and British newspapers and periodicals in the weeks
months following the Commune were no exception to this
The role of these female participants, or, Communardes, and the false
of wrongdoing, were common amongst Anglo-American publications at the
time. Unlike earlier distinctions that
can be drawn between American and British sources, or daily and weekly
publications, inaccuracy about women’s roles appears everywhere.
no doubt that women played central roles on the
18th of March and throughout the Commune’s short history.
“Dispassionate objectivity,” on the part of
journalists, however, has over exaggerated and libeled that
role. As Gullickson notes, “composite or
stereotyped female figures are liberally sprinkled through the
histories and memories of the Commune.”
These composite women play a dual role; they both “reflect cultural
assumptions about woman’s nature and appropriate behavior,” while they
“assign meaning to women’s actions and embody judgments of them and on
Commune.” Again, sensational
illustrations, and falsified eyewitness reports surround the story of
Parisian women. More-over, they
represent a larger judgment similar to other themes of journalism on
“Women of Paris,” Harper’s
May 27, 1871.
reduced the women of the Commune to several different
stereo-typical positions within common French and nineteenth-century
society. Journalists relied on what
cultural historian Marina Warner calls “a lexicon of female types.”
This group of women consisted of symbolic
caricatures and compilations of actual women’s actions and does not
portray the role of women during these events.
Essentially, the lexicon “defined and limited understanding of the
Commune,” as Gullickson notes. Many
women were depicted by multiple
sources to be amazons.
known as the “amazons of the Seine,” the “amazons of Paris,” and the
of the Commune.”
implies a certain raw and brutal
characteristic of the women. It
symbolizes a move into yellow journalism. The use of the word is beyond
quick to use the term to describe the character of the French women
participating in the Commune. As the
magazine described in “Women of Montmartre,” “[t]hese are the Amazons
Commune, and give us an idea of what the warrior-woman really
brawny, unwomanly, and degraded; picturesque certainly, but by no means
This type of characterization of women as masculine, unsexed, and
quite common amongst publications.
British papers followed the same trend.
As reported in an article titled “The Suppression of the Red
A New Reign of Terror,” The
Pall Mall Gazette reports that “one gaunt
Amazon had a sort of uniform coat with a white band and red cross upon
and when she arrived, we were told, she wore epaulets.”
numerous articles with women as the focus such as “Women of
a large and almost vulgar drawing of a horde of angry Parisian women
with the flag of the Commune to the beat of a drum.
In articles specifically relating to women of
the Commune, Harper’s
included a lurid illustration.
Additionally, the magazine commented
on women’s roles in a larger sense: “Every Paris revolution has
particular class of female patriots, who, ten times more cruel and
than men, spur their masculine compatriots on to those unnecessary acts
vengeful cruelty for which the Parisian revolutionists are so
notorious.” U.S. daily publications
such as the New
York Herald characterized the
Communardes as “debased and debauched
creatures, the very outcasts of society.”
The characterization of women in this vulgar
sense is by no means accidental.
this article has been an exploration into the
common themes amongst the reporting on the Commune. It should
be noted, however, that some
journalists during this period did condemn what was being written on
Commune and cried foul on inaccuracy and sensationalism.
While these journalists represented a small
majority, historians should recognize them.
John Russell Young was an American journalist who had been sent to
in May of 1871 by the State Department.
Young wrote about his experiences extensively for the New York
Standard. Young discovered though,
as Boime points out, that “the Communards and their experiment had been
viciously libeled and slandered.”
Boime continues, writing that “Young
recognized that his report ran counter to the popular version, and he
that it would have been easier for him to have seconded the wild
Even further, as Young wrote, “The newspapers do little more than
you wade through column after column with much of the feeling of
through a morass or a field of biers.”
Young was one of the sole eyewitnesses to
understand the current effects of sensationalized journalism while
simultaneously having a forum to voice his concerns. Another
correspondent from London, writing for
the Standard, lamented a similar idea on May 30th. “How
grossly these newspaper correspondents
have exaggerated. Had I not been in
Paris myself….I should certainly have myself been of the opinion that
accounts of what had taken place had been, to say the least of it,
coloured….the damage is exceedingly partial.”
Calling foul on reports coming from Paris
during the months of the Commune was only done by a few. It
is important to note discontent and
recognition of a lack of journalistic integrity by a few peers of those
journalists who espoused the opinions and lies discussed in this essay,
qualified, at the very least, that it is
impossible to be fully objective.
Certainly, foreign correspondents were especially critical of French
politics and culture because they could be and perhaps their readers
read this criticism. Foreign
correspondent’s views also help identify the prevailing attitudes of
and Brits on the Commune. These biases suggest that American and
citizens were highly critical of the Commune because of the detrimental
a successful outcome could have on their political and social
spheres. In a larger sense, virulent anti-Communism on
the American front helps to foreshadow the events of the Cold War
century later. It also helps show fears
over the changing role of women in Britain during the Victorian era.
attempts to characterize different types of publications under central
philosophies and methods of reporting.
Through it, commonalities in reporting begin to emerge. In
general, periodicals provided more
in-depth analysis and were more sensational than dailies. We
see that both American and British
periodicals were equally critical of the French national character, and
even attempted to connect the Commune with the French
Revolution. Additionally, we see both presses interested
in advancing the false stereotypes of the Communardes
out of fear that the social position of women in their own countries
altered. The biggest difference that
emerges out of this essay is on the issue of Communism.
Americans were virulently anti-Communist
while the British were not nearly as concerned.
In addition to seeing these sources as a lens to understand foreign
attitudes on the Commune, it is equally important to see them as a
historians are faced with the difficult task of
identifying what is correct and what is not; what is exaggerated and
understated. And like journalists,
historians also cannot fully escape bias themselves. By understanding
biases that are almost inherent in the majority of these publications’
treatment of the Commune, however, and the themes these publications
envelop, one can better qualify their own writing on the history of the
a senior in History at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. His
interests primarily lie in the history of the proslavery argument in
South. His current project investigates how prevailing societal
race and slavery were taught and learned in and outside of the
Southern Evangelical colleges in the antebellum. He plans to attend law
I would like
Walter Adamson, Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Intellectual History
University, for his invaluable support and mentorship on this
project. I would also like to thank Alain St. Pierre,
European History Librarian at the Robert W. Woodruff Library at Emory
University, for assisting me in locating the primary materials for this
project. Additionally, many thanks to
Andy Urban, postdoctoral Research Fellow at Emory University, for his
on a draft of this article.
Gluckstein, The Paris
commune: a revolutionary democracy
(London: Bookmarks Publications, 2006), 11.
acknowledge that the French Republicans were by no means united under a
political faction. As Collette Wilson
notes, many in France believed a republican form of government should
re-established, but as to specifics, there existed a wide range of
opinions. See Collette E. Wilson,
Paris and the
commune, 1871-78: the politics of forgetting, Cultural
history of modern war (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007),
The hill that
the site of the Basilique du Sacré Coeur in the Montmartre district of
Louise Michel, Bullitt
Lowry, and Elizabeth Ellington Gunter, The Red Virgin: memoirs of
Michel (University, Ala: University of Alabama Press,
See also Edith Thomas, Louise Michel (Montreal: Black Rose Books,
and Olin Levi Warner, “Olin Levi Warner's
Defense of the Paris Commune,” Archives
of American Art Journal 29, no.
I use the
term “Frenchness” here to indicate a unique
understanding of French politics and culture by outsiders during the
uses the term “dispassionate objectivity” to refer to the work of
historians on the Commune, especially in regard to the earliest
histories. I have chosen to apply this term more
broadly, to implicate both early historians and early journalists,
journalist’s accounts and articles played an important role in the
the history on the Commune. See Gay L.
Gullickson, Unruly women
of Paris: images of the commune (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1996), 9.
expedition” refers to the actions of French people on the morning of
1871 in the neighborhood of Montmartre in Paris. See Robert
Tombs, The Paris
Commune 1871 (Essex: Pearson Education Limited, 1999),
Harrison, “The Revolution of the Commune,” Fortnightly Review,
“The Condition of French Politics,” Fraser’s Magazine,
“The Revolution of the Commune,” 562.
not explicitly affiliated
with a political party at the time, it leaned heavily towards
Weekly, April 8, 1871, 306.
Whitehurst, “The Second Siege of Paris,” Belgravia, May
was strongly loyal to the Republican Party at this time.
Assembly and the
Commune,” The Nation,
no. 309 (1871):
Mark Katz, From
Appomattox to Montmartre: Americans and the Paris Commune
Harvard University Press, 1998), 71.
Victory of France,” Harper’s
Weekly, June 10, 1871, 522.
Assembly and the Commune,” 379.
Commune of Paris,” Times
(London), April 6, 1871, 10.
the Paris Commune: An Assemblage Where Every
Shade of Red Could be Seen,” New
Times, March 24, 1884, 5.
Floating over the Louvre and Tuileries,” New York Times,
April 2, 1871,
Rouge Revolt,” as cited in Katz, From
Appomattox to Montmartre, 67.
Under the Communists,” New
York Times, March 28, 1871, 4.
“A Club of Paris Reds,” Harper’s
Weekly, April 22, 1871; “The Communists in Paris,” Harper’s Weekly,
6, 1871; “Paris Under the Red Flag,” Harper’s Weekly,
Paris,” Daily News,
“An Interview with the Red Government of Paris,” Reynold’s Newspaper,
April 2, 1871; “The Suppression of the Red
Revolution: A New Reign of Terror,” The
Pall Mall Gazette, May 30, 1871.
Enemy in Paris-The Reign of Anarchy and Murder,” The Preston Guardian
etc, March 25,
Gullickson uses Warner’s analogy to describe
contemporaries and historians, but it can be argued that the “lexicon
types” was equally portrayed by journalists at the time because of the
categories of women journalists wrote about.
The oversimplification of complex historical actors is the main point
behind this analysis. Historians have
relied on these early reports produced by journalists for information,
continuing these stereotypes portrayed by many journalists. See
often uses the word “caricature” to describe how
women were portrayed by both historians and journalists.
Weekly, July 8, 1871,
Suppression of the Red Revolution: A New Reign of
Terror,” The Pall Mall
Gazette, May 30, 1871, 5.
See image detail, p.
Weekly, May 27, 1871, 485.
publications see, Frank Luther Mott, American
journalism: A history of newspapers in the United States through 260
to 1950 (New York: MacMillan, 1950).