How revolutionary was the American revolution?
>american revolution
>power structures are the same post war
>>1063886
dumb anime poster
You go from farmers being ruled by a King on the other side of the ocean to an elected monarch ruling from the other side of the country
>>1063886
Really the only thing that is closely as epic is the French Revolution it terms of it's historical impact and to make sense of either of them you have to compare them side by side.
In terms of scale there's probably no denying that the American Revolution was vaster, involving huge portions of the British colonies from Florida and the Caribian to parts of British held Canada. The French Revolution happened in bascally, well, France.
So the Americans were throwing off the shackles of an entire empire spanning much of the globe, whereas the French Revolution, which had all the good ideas, was more of a civil war kind of scenario.
The French Revolution had revolutionaries who didn't want to dissolve France as a national identity, whereas the American rev was all about establishing a new national identity, which is way more revolutonary.
>>1063886
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dwz_Z62e0s
might be relevant but not sure. If not I am sorry.
>>1063942
Wasn't the British empire at the time pretty much the American colonies and Caribbean island? I thought the really impressive empire with India came after.
>>1063942
pretty sure the french revolution had a stronger impact on more people's life
When it ended in the mid 1930s the US revolution had ensured bourgeois rule.
>>1064150
So this is an incendiary comment designed to stir up a reply.
Here is your reply. Why do you say that the American Revolution ended in the 1930s?
It wasn't revolutionary at all and that's a good thing. Actual revolutions suck.
>>1065450
Because in the 1930s a strong federal government was created which nullified the desires of the founding fathers for a descentralized power structure? But then he is probably a commie since he uses the term "bourgeois" so he probably see this as a good thing.
I don't know what he is talking about either.
>>1064003
No, I know the British had a good bit of India then too and I (think) South Africa, not sure
>>1065462
This.
A revolution is conflict from within the country/society/whatever. The American Revolution was essentially a war with a foreign oppressor. Revolution as a word doesn't really fit because the structure of the society remained the same afterwards, just with the British removed.
>>1063886
Very. It de-legitimized monarchy and lineage as a moral basis for governance. It also led to the setting of parameters on what a representative government should look like. The British Parliament was largely based on patronage. There were whole sections of Britain that were still being represented there that hadn't even existed anymore for centuries. One had even fallen into the sea that was still being represented. While other sections weren't even represented because they didn't have the clout.
It also created this grand, secular egalitarianism in the Western mind that has spread like a meme ever since. It had it's both good and bad consequences.
The only thing the French Revolution gave us was the militant Leftism that's been that's been slowly strangling us to death ever since.
It served as a role model for other New World counties-to-be, so there's that.
>>1064003
Pretty much the North American colonies and a carribean island, including some posts in India (Mattress and Bengal).
>>1065827
t. butthurt bong
The fact that historians either makebthe 19th century start in 1789 or more rarely 1815 should tell you enough about the usa independance war relevancy
>>1063899
> /hist/ is /int/ without flags
> /int/ is /a/ with flags
>>1065450
>>1065480
Because by the 1930s the possibility of a reactionary lapse into planter-aristocratic feudalism was entirely void, and no movement for social change phrased itself through the "restoration" of planter society. The last movement to do so, the second KKK, faded in the 1920s.
Also by the 1930s neither faction of the rich could control the possibility of an independent proletariat, and one faction was forced to buy off the proletariat as an independent social force instead of just crushing it (as with the IWW).
The class, economic, social revolution which started in the 17th century ended in the 1930s.
>>1063942
Yeah as much as our revolution was pretty exciting, the French revolution is more important in terms of global impact. I mean don't forget its influence on our own country alone immediately after we got independence.
>>1066950
>nonsense i heard from my greasy political science professor
this is 4chan, kid. you're not writing your midterm essay
>>1068266
Mate, you have no coherent theory of class or revolution. Fuck off.
>>1068274
and why is it that i need to look at history through the lens of your particular theory?
that would make you an elitist, and nothing more
>>1063886
Don't you mean the
>"""""American"""""
>"""""Revolution"""""
?
It wasn't revolutionary at all.
It was conservative, as the founding fathers saw that democracy was conservative and conformist, therefore being suitable for upper-class men like themselves.
>>1065539
>It de-legitimized monarchy and lineage as a moral basis for governance.
Sounds like a cancer then
>>1068288
1) All exegeses are theoretical.
2) Doing what is necessary cannot be elitist, as all people do it.
3) My theory happens to be right.
I would say, french revolution I
Had more impact because of the nationalism, which, for whatever reason, people on this board think is a good thing.
>>1069351
Please state why nationalism is a bad thing. Although i can already guess what you'll say but impress me.
>>1069398
Because it treats a ethnic groups (as in englishmen etc.) as a political subject. And it today's world it's all about globalization.
>>1069415
And unlike patriotism, it's dangerous to your country, people get unimaginable aggressive when they are "defending their nation"
>>1069415
Ethnic nationalism is not the only form of nationalism. And yes, i agree with you that ethnic nationalism is a useless ideology.
ยจ
>globalization
Nationalism is in no way against globalization.
>>1069429
It is, it wants your nation to became the main political subject, while globalization is about political decisions being made somewhere far. It's literally what stirring up nationalism in Europe (my country at least).
Just got done watching The Patriot.
How historical was this? Even if it was completely hollywooded, it was a great fucking movie.
I'm gonna go drink some Sam Adams and punch a Brit in the mouth.
>>1069441
>It is
But it really isn't. Nationalism and its opposite multiculturalism are both movements that react to globalism.
One says that globalism is best tackled by having a multicultural earth but relatively homogenous nation states to avoid conflicts.
Even the idea of an united earth is not against nationalism, though at that point the name should probably be changed. The European union for example is largely a new manifestation of nationalism (creating an european national identity), like it happened a few centuries ago. With increases in communications, transporting and so on the concept of nationalism will expand.
>>1069442
>How historical was this?
It wasn't
>>1069456
All this might be true, but the point is, you shouldn't, IMO, treat your nation as a political subject but rather as a history and heritage if you must. That's why there is this important distinction between nationalism and patriotism, both arguably love their country, but one takes it too far.
>>1069442
Talk about effective product placement.
>>1069442
Lets just say one thing.
That scene where the British unit locks up the local villagers into a church and burns it down?
In real life, that was actually done by the REBELS
>>1063886
Triggered various revolutions across the New World, and reinvented the republic to as the globe knows it now
>>1069940
People always forget the inspiration the US gave to basically destroying Spain's holdings in the New World.
