====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Tom wrote: >Obviously what the media said or didn't say about it is not >dispositive,let's not be naive. Obviously what that extensive media coverage represents is an invaluable primary source of the social impact of the American Revolution in Europe. Shall we agree about the need to use primary materials as a basis of historical inquiry? You could, of course, restrict yourself to Howard Zinn but if you ever tire of reading "A People's History of the United States' may I suggest something that actually involves both original research and footnotes? How about Vol.1 of 'The End of the Old Regime in Europe' by Franco Venturi available in English from Princeton. Here is sample quote from the preface: >With the beginnings of the American Revolution, and >particularly with the Declaration of Independence in 1776, >the decisive crisis began. The empires of the West-Great >Britain, Spain, even Portugal, and France-were shaken, in >different ways but always deeply, by the ideas of the American >Insurgents and by the passionate discussion these aroused >everywhere. There was a progression from the problem of >independence to the right to determine one's own constitution, >from the will to resist to the proclamation of the rights of >man, from the affirmation of freedom of commerce to an effort >to combat the mercantile system in all its manifestations and >institutions, which just at that moment was defined and >denounced by Adam Smith. Are you really so naive as to believe that the French Revolution is unrelated to the American Revolution? Do you believe that while the French Revolution was indeed a revolution that what happened in America was just a racist coup? Tom continues: >There was no so such fundamental change in >the wake of 1783: more or less the same society >that existed before remained except no longer under >the political subjugation of Britain. > Except of course that titles of nobility were explicitly prohibited by the Constitution and that the whole rancid, culture of religious hatred was dealt a profound blow. Did I mention that the feudal prop of an established church and with it institutionalized religious hatred was abolished outright? Anti-Catholic bigotry would rear its head again in the 1840's and later but by and large the relations between Catholics and Protestants has been remarkably free of conflict given the English roots of American society. Would this be important to a multi religious working class swelled by the ranks of Catholic immigrants? Want to take a tour of Belfast with me? >As to monarchy, please don't forget the dispute was with >Parliament and its taxation of America, not with the monarchy >or George III personally,although as ceremonial head of state he took the flak, During this time George II was one of the weakest Kings in Europe but he was not quite just a ceremonial head of state. Yon may remember that the list of crimes in the Declaration of Independence is specifically directed against him because the parliament functioned in his name and he did he did provide the executive authority to order British troops into action. As weak a monarch as George was, he was still at the apex of a system of aristocratic privilege resting on the assumption of social inequality. The Treaty of Paris that ended the war begins: >In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity. >It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose >the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince >George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great >Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, >duke of Brunswick and Luxembourg, arch- treasurer >and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., >and of the United States of America... The preamble of the US Constitution begins. "We the people of the United States..." Had George Washington become the king of America and a native aristocracy assumed the role of a parasitic and debilitating drag on the social development of this country you could then make a plausible claim there was no revolution and just a political separation. That did not happen and your claim is ludicrous. >Previously the only time I've gotten into this issue >was in the"comments" section on Amazon with right wingers >whose sense of blind patriotism was outraged by my views >seeking to debunk the sterile myth and cult of >"The Founders" with their attitude being "slavery?", >so what? This is one of the stupidest things I have read on Marxmail and that is quite an achievement. Are you accusing me of being a right wing racist? If so then do it directly, now, and I will give you the proper Artesian response. Let's see, you get in a pissing contest with idiots on Amazon because they think the American founders were all saints and you think they were all demons. Tell me what does that childish exercise have to do with historical materialism? Are you familiar with the term? Is their anything in your intellectual universe besides moral righteousness counterpoised to unalloyed evil? If so, it is no wonder that you feel more comfortable with the sermons of Jeremiah Wright than with the rigors of historical analysis. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
