Why was the American Revolution so successful? Why has almost every other revolution throughout history resulted in infighting, corruption and tyranny?
Decentralized government, wealth, and FREEEEEEDUMMMBB sure help. Can't revolt against what you can't see, don't need to revolt when you have food on the table, and revolting sounds like a shit idea when you realize despotism is the inevitable product of revolt in a republic.
>>451309
>Why was the American Revolution so successful?
Whiskey Rebellion
John Brown
Bloody Kansas
Machine Politics
Civil War
Radical Reconstruction
KKK
Pinkertons
Sounds like infighting, corruption and tyranny to me.
Learn your fucking history. Given how fucking dumb you are, start with Zinn, because recommending Dubofsky is a bridge too far for your ignorance.
>>451330
>Says American Revolution wasn't successful
>Lists events which happened years AFTER the revolution was successfully completed
>>451330
>start with Zinn
Zinn is a bad place to either start or stop.
The American Revolution was the overthrow of British rule in the colonies. It wasn't an attempt to completely restructure society from the bottom up like it was in Britain. Even if you want to make the case that it was such a transformatory utopian project, the Constitution was the most progressive document ever written at its time (after the Declaration of Independence). You're a fucking faggot if you want to claim that the fact that immediate absolute universal equality didn't emerge when the Constitution was signed is a sign that the American revolution was a failure. It was a success: America stopped being a British colony.
>>451360
>Britain
I meant France, obviously, but it really didn't have much in common with the Glorious Revolution, either.
>>451309
Lebensraum.
There was always the frontier if you didn't like what the feds were doing.
>>451347
>>451360
>The American Revolution was the overthrow of British rule in the colonies.
Theoretical liberalism. Great job. The result is the hypothesis.
By the way "the terror" happened after the revolution in France by your definitions. I guess the French Revolution was bloodless.
>>451360
>if you want to claim that the fact that immediate absolute universal equality didn't emerge when the Constitution was signed
Idealism, seriously. Revolutions aren't events, they're processes, and the process of the US revolution completed around 1936 when the basis of the Whiskey rebellion was finally checked.
>>451347
>says Russian Revolution wasn't successful
>lists events which happened years after revolution ended
STALIN WASN'T REALLY THAT BAD UNTIL A COUPLE YEARS LATER.
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION WORKED OUT OKAY.
>>451309
Filling the three branches of government and establishing beaurocracy, Presidential term limits, later maintaining a huge military. Much more stable than a single dictator.
>>451309
Because it wasn't a revolution. It was an independence war.
>>451379
>Revolutions aren't events, they're processes, and the process of the US revolution completed around 1936 when the basis of the Whiskey rebellion was finally checked.
What? I'm sorry, I don't mean to reject your claim out of hand, but I've literally never seen this argument before.
>>451384
bureaucracy
>>451381
Now you're getting it
>>451330
>Zinn
>Good history
>Howard Zinn
>as in, that dumbass who wrote "A People's History of the United States"
>which should really be called "a socialist edgelord's history of Amerikkka"
>he's so stupid that he claims FDR was a conservative
>claims American entry into WW1 was a capitalist plot to distract the working class from domestic issues
hecan'tbefuckingserious.jpg
Holy shit anon. You're way too stupid to post here. Zinn is so fucking trash tier. To quote acclaimed Harvard historian Oscar Handlin:
"Hence the deranged quality of this fairy tale, in which the incidents are made to fit the legend, no matter how intractable the evidence of American history. It may be unfair to expose to critical scrutiny a work patched together from secondary sources, many used uncritically (Jennings, Williams), others ravaged for material torn out of context (Young, Pike). Any careful reader will perceive that Zinn is a stranger to evidence bearing upon the people about whom he purports to write. But only critics who know the sources will recognize the complex array of devices that pervert his pages. ... On the other hand, the book conveniently omits whatever does not fit its overriding thesis. ... It would be a mistake, however, to regard Zinn as merely Anti-American. Brendan Behan once observed that whoever hated America hated mankind, and hatred of mankind is the dominant tone of Zinn's book. ... He lavishes indiscriminate condemnation upon all the works of man — that is, upon civilization, a word he usually encloses in quotation marks."
>>451309
The revolution happened before the war. The USA already had the institutions it wanted and it merely needed to defend its autonomy and continue at usual. The powerful people then remained powerful. There was no sudden change of the social order or anything revolutionary with the war. It was merely a successful secession.
>>451309
John Adams and James Madison were probably the greatest political philosophers in American history.
>>451402
Yes but the people who replaced them were mostly well established and not random revolutionary fighters.
>>451402
It was still a successful secession. That's the basic claim about the success of the American revolution, or as it's also known the American war of independence. The names are synonymous because we've had the same Constitution since we scrapped the Articles of Confederation, which were the biggest failure of the Revolution.
>>451402
Oh I read it just fine. But the only thing Zinn is good for is teaching children how to spot bias in history textbooks. Which is exactly what my AP US history teacher did with it when I was in high school.
>>451414
>Yes but the people who replaced them were mostly well established and not random revolutionary fighters.
This holds no problem for the Marxist. The people who replaced the ancient regime were mostly noblesse de robe.
The people who replaced the aristocracy and bureaucracy of the Russian Empire were mostly intelligentsia and bureaucrats and capitalists.
This isn't a definitional problem unless you've got a particularly skewif liberal conception of "revolution."
>>451415
>secession
>Why was the American Revolution so successful? Why has almost every other revolution throughout history resulted in infighting, corruption and tyranny?
I have a common theoretical ground of analysis which is the transformation of society by the replacement of one ruling class with another, one mode of production with another, and the unleashing of new cultural and material forces. This places the American revolution has significantly happening between 1720 and 1890.
From the same perspective the British revolution is between 1620 and 1850.
>>451417
Yeah, but you realise why I'm recommending a pædogogic text in reference to OP's ignorance? See how I also recommended a follow up text that would be worthwhile?
>>451440
>I have a common theoretical ground of analysis which is the transformation of society by the replacement of one ruling class with another, one mode of production with another, and the unleashing of new cultural and material forces.
There's the problem, you're analyzing the event in the wrong way. That's a time period that contains way more than the war of independence. That's what OP was asking about, not the progressive development of the American state, economy, and society after and before it became an independent nation. Give me a reason to think your framework should be applied universally.
>>451440
You have a retarded conception of what a 'revolution' is that seems to think that every single event referred to by that name necessarily has to consist of a transition from one mode of production to another.
>>451462
>There's the problem, you're analyzing the event in the wrong way.
Hot opinion bro.
>That's a time period that contains way more than the war of independence. That's what OP was asking about, not the progressive development of the American state, economy, and society after and before it became an independent nation.
Yes. And that's the fucking revolution.
>Give me a reason to think your framework should be applied universally.
Volume of value overturned in the proto-United States and the rapid development of concentrated manufactories in the North. The well accepted framework of modes of production analysis and world-systems theory in historiography. The role of the Boston Mob as a proletarian multitude in the long run revolution and the difficulty in putting them down throughout my specified time period. Jacksonianism and the Civil War as obvious continuances of the failure of the bourgeois state to contain the productive forces.
>>451474
>Hot opinion bro
You're one to fucking talk, Mr. 'You Can't Reasonably Object to Marxist Metanarratives'
>And that's the fucking revolution.
No, that's a fucking history.
>The well accepted framework of modes of production analysis and world-systems theory in historiography.
Yeah but I want you to provide an argument, not just appeal to authority.
>The role of the Boston Mob as a proletarian multitude in the long run revolution and the difficulty in putting them down throughout my specified time period.
Eh, how is that the American revolution? I want to understand why you think the whiskey rebellion is a sign of failure; it was settled by the court system pretty quickly.
>Jacksonianism and the Civil War as obvious continuances of the failure of the bourgeois state to contain the productive forces.
The bourgeois state came out on top in every event you've named.
>>451499
>Yeah but I want you to provide an argument, not just appeal to authority.
My "authority" is disciplinary acceptance.
>I want to understand why you think the whiskey rebellion is a sign of failure; it was settled by the court system pretty quickly.
>infighting, corruption and tyranny
>>451499
>The bourgeois state came out on top in every event you've named.
Same with the long run British revolution. I'm not seeing how this is a problem for claiming the American revolution transformed from a pre-capitalist to a capitalist state, unleashing the latent productive forces of the whig squatocracy.
King James Bible.
This is a comfy thread
>>451309
>descendants of the English
there's your answers.
>>451309
The initial goal, independence, was broad enough to keep people united. Once the government was established checks and balances ensured that one man wouldn't have too much power like in so many other revolutions.
The colonies had a lot of autonomy. Some of them had been running their own affairs for almost two centuries before the Revolution kicked off. That's also why they were so upset about not being granted equal representation in Parliament.
>>451660
You're an idiot
>>451309
1:If you look at the men who lead the revolution, these where very well educated men.
2: The times. France (Spain liked to play ball as well) and England were huge rivals and France liked to take advantage of the opportunity to poke wholes in their long time rival. The support for the Americans was well established before France decided to put boots on the ground
3: At the time the British Empire (Although was at the top of its game) was not really paying attention to the American Colony. This allowed the movers and shakers of the Colonies to spread its propaganda and ability to influence the masses relatively unchecked.
4: The Leadership of the Revolution. From Washington to Adams to Madison to George Mason. These men knew law. They new how to push and idea to be as fair and impartial as possible (Slavery was fixed later because reasons) They did their best to construct a government that not only required the cooperation of the masses but between the branches and states as well. This general loop of required cooperation created a unified presence that was both propaganda and reality.
5: After Valley Forge (December of 1777-78) Washington realized that he didn't need to fully win just not lose. Washington new even in a fight to a stalemate Britain would not and could not maintain the 13 colonies with this amount of political upheaval. Although America would have achieved less of their aimed goals if they stalemate won it would have still achieved much of their goals.
It boils down to thus. The people involved the ideals pushed, the propaganda, and the timing.
>>451956
I did my best to take out the "These were men of virtue" because Virtue (in my eyes) is subjective.
>>451506
>My "authority"
Yeah
>Same with the long run British revolution. I'm not seeing how this is a problem for claiming the American revolution transformed from a pre-capitalist to a capitalist state, unleashing the latent productive forces of the whig squatocracy.
The problem is that you see history as a march toward socialism or Communism when that isn't the case
>>451309
>Why was the American Revolution so successful?
because it wasn't revolution, just secession. There were no dramatical changes in social order, Americans were led by the same wealthy elites.
>American Revolution didn't resulted in infighting, corruption and tyranny
kek
>>451956
>how to push and idea
plus they knew hot to rock and roll
Because it didn't happen.
British aristocracy was replaced with colonial gentry and nothing else changed, it was nothing but an oligarchic coup.
>>453260
>Why are you assuming that analysis of a revolution has to involve analysis of a change in modea of production, then?
Because it is a fruitful gestural assumption of the theoretical tendency, one well approved by the discipline, that I follow. Concretely the US seems to have gone through a change in mode of production, one who's superstructural expressions included removing overseas and local Tories from government.
>And how do you define oppression?
I don't, I think it is a vacuous term. You're the first person to use it in this thread. I prefer the much more concrete exploitation, which involves the extraction of social surplus.
>Why do you choose 1936 as the end point?
The New Deal and the greater acceptance of the CIO than the IWW terminating the attempts by the working class to "fulfil" the previous revolution.
>>454232
You are stupid and you use thick prose to try to hide this.
>Why was the American Revolution so successful?
Britain's navy/military was focused elsewhere.
>>454433
Possibly. Then again I know the difference between stupidity and being good at historiography.
>>451309
because the American revolution wasn't a revolution, it never aimed to create some Utopian society or destroy any old order like the French revolution did.
English society has already been moving in the direction of democratic governance and the colonies themselves had been practicing it for years prior anyways, as well liberal economics were common in both England and the Americas.
really all it was, was an independence movement by which the colonists would be unrestrained by British meddling in their affairs.
all this is obvious since Britain and the other Anglo nations all became liberal democracies anyways.
>>451330
There was "infighting", but almost all of it was solved through Democratic processes. The notable exception being the Civil War, which is obviously a huge, huge failure on that front that stemmed back to the founding. I see you've already been thoroughly chewed out for suggesting that anyone read Howard Zinn for any reason ever, so I'll let that be.
>>454517
And yet no cunt in this thread knows who Dubofsky is to mention it.
I think I'll take your opinion on Zinn and put it where the cat shits.
>>451330
ahh... to be 15 again.
>>454522
I don't need to know all of your favorite pet historians and philosophers to know that Howard Zinn was an absolute fraud. His goal in writing was not to present an accurate portrayal, but to demonize a nation with whom he had ideological differences. Nobody with any integrity would take him seriously, so I know what kind of person with whom I speak.
>>454546
You apparently don't need to use historiography or the documentary record of the past to know Zinn was "an absolute fraud." It seems to spring ab initio.
>Nobody with any integrity
And you've got strong opinions on the AHA I see.
You're going to have a very hard slog convincing people of your readings of the past.
>>454562
Using half-truths and narrow context to forward an inconsistent, ideologically-drive narrative does not make one a historian. It makes him a demagogue with a pen. Take your incoherent commie babbling off to tumblr, faggot.
>>454602
>Take your incoherent commie babbling off to tumblr, faggot.
Cool narrative bro. Zinn holds closely enough to the past as it essentially was, in theory, methodology and execution.
He has been reviewed as such.
Your problem is with ideology, not with methodology. There is a place reserved for you on 4chan, a special place, a place which you and yours created by shitposting on /b/ until it was returned to you. Go henceforth from here and return unto there and therein stay. The power of Christ compels you.
>>454691
>Zinn holds closely enough to the past as it essentially was, in theory, methodology and execution.
>Zinn's assertion that African Americans were largely indifferent to the outcome of World War II. That claim, Wineburg explains, is based on three anecdotal bits – a quote from a black journalist, a quote from a black student and a poem published in the black press – and excludes any evidence to the contrary.
>while Zinn pulled his anecdotes from a secondary source, Lawrence Wittner's 1969 book Rebels Against War, Zinn ignored evidence in that same book that undermines his claim. Among the examples Zinn overlooks is Wittner's point that 24 percent of the registrants eligible for the war were African American, while the percentage of draft-evasion cases involving blacks was only 4.4 percent of the total pursued by the Justice Department.
>Zinn roots his argument that the Japanese were prepared to surrender before the United States dropped the atomic bomb on a diplomatic cable from the Japanese to the Russians, supposedly signaling a willingness to capitulate. Wineburg writes that Zinn not only excludes the responses to the cable, but also that he fails in the later editions of the book to incorporate the vast new scholarship that emerged after the death of the Emperor Hirohito with the publication of memoirs and new availability of public records, all of which support the position of Japan's resolve to fight to the last.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/december/wineburg-historiography-zinn-122012.html
I could go on but there are numerous biases and inaccuracies. enjoy your feel good pop history.
>>454232
It's clear that you've studied French history too much and other histories not enough.
>>451309
>Why was the American Revolution so successful?
Because of Thomas "The French Connection" Jefferson.
>>451309
> Secession
> Not as bad as an actual civil conflict
No shit
The most powerful people in both America and Britain before the war were the same as the ones after the war. It wasn't a 'true' revolution and hence it didn't have the same loss of power structure and stability that you see in other revolutions.
>>454484
You apparently don't, since your historiography isn't very good. Portraying the American revolution as a proletarian struggle can't be anything but misleading.
>>454746
I've done barely any French history, friendo.
>>454772
I didn't portray it as a proletarian struggle, I portrayed it as a fucking bourgeois revolution.
I know some of this discussion has been technical, but you seem to be functionally illiterate.
>>451384
There technically was no term limit. It was just a tradition set by Washington
>>451330
John Brown did literally nothing wrong
>>454778
Then why end it in 1936 and not in 1789 when the bourgeois Constitution was firmly established?
>>454793
Because the bourgeois constitution wasn't established as the Whiskey rebellion or Civil War demonstrate. Bourgeois revolutions don't end with a document.
>>454798
>Because the bourgeois constitution wasn't established as the Whiskey rebellion or Civil War demonstrate
But that Constitution is still in place and established today. It's literally an identical legal framework. Things have been added to it but it's the same document and the same government. I really don't understand your argument. Could you clarify instead of insulting the rest of us for not privileging the narratives of two New Left historians to the same extent that you do?
>>451309
Because despite what PPP history tells you, the American Revolution was near unique in that it won independence through conventional forces fighting set piece battles over a period of several years.
This is in contrast to the two usual alternatives, a sudden uprising that sweeps away the old government with little resistance (think French Revolution) or a decades long guerrilla struggle. (Chinese communist revolution)
It ensures the new state is wealthy and organized to create, maintain, and control a regular military, while at the same time not wrecking the place over decades of struggle.
>>454819
The constitution of a state or country is not a document, but rather the living action of power in that state. Every time the Supreme Court has ruled, the constitution has been modified. Every time Congress failed to debate when they had the right to check the Presidency or Executive; or extended a power to the Presidency by law, the constitution—the living manner of governance—changed.
The Civil War was about whether states possessed a right not described nor circumcised in the constitution, but which had been variously ruled around by the Supreme Court, so as some states could maintain slavery. It is hard to say that even the legal document is stable when there are so many dead over the interpretation of the document.
I know this is difficult for a Code Civil type mind to wrap their head around. It is pretty fucking commonplace for the common law crowd.
The argument which I put is that revolutions are not matters of paper or people being cycled one for another, but of the habits and ways of being of societies. The British revolution, which began in the 17th century over the issue of what would become effectively Whiggery and the right for loyal opposition, largely to protect agricultural capital from attainder ("no taxation without parliament") was also present in the American colonies, though with Reaction restricted to Torydom rather than Absolutism.
As the revolution continued in Britain (including North America), the Tory fetters on increased agricultural, trade, finance, and manufacturing capital became an affront to most Whig and many Tory americans. It was also an affront to the proletarian mobilities, such as the Boston mobility or mob.
In North America, the peculiar exploitation of the colonial capitalists by finance capital in London, through parliament, encouraged a transformation of the legal system. But this new legal system had problems with the mobility (Whiskey Revolt), with the generality (Jacksonian "democracy") 1/2
>>454819
2/2
problems with the slaveholding whig elite (The Civil War), and with the industrial working class (Battery, IWW).
By 1936, capital in the US was triumphant, the written legal constitution had so been modified that capital's power in strength and in crisis was unfettered. The bits of the New Deal that passed the Supreme Court and failed is indicative of the state's subservience to capital, but also of the state's capacity to fully incorporate all of the complaints of capital and pacify the proletariat.
>>454873
>the American Revolution was near unique in that it won independence through conventional forces fighting set piece battles over a period of several years.
Vietnam.
>>454879
>>454888
All right, you're beginning to make more sense, but I still have some questions. D you not see any events after 1936 as having anything to do with the revolution? Do you think that "American war of Independence" and "American Revolution" are synonymous? If not, why should I believe you over those who think they are?
>>454891
Vietnam did not have set piece battles that ended well for the Vietnamese. Rather, it featured a guerrilla struggle which sought to impose control while avoiding enemy forces as much as possible.
>>454903
>D[o] you not see any events after 1936 as having anything to do with the revolution?
Echoing and revisiting, but I think that the core project of the bourgeois revolution was achieved. I would describe the USA as having completed a successful bourgeois revolution, second in time only to England, later followed by many of the European powers, largely in the 1970s.
>Do you think that "American war of Independence" and "American Revolution" are synonymous?
I don't think they're synonymous, but I will probably post in Independence threads because others use them synonymously. Probably with a lot less effort than in this thread because this is the first time I've done this on /his/.
>why should I believe you over those who think they are?
Now that's a good comparative historiographical question.
The advantages of my interpretation are that it explains a long run of history with a deep and abiding contextualisation, that it explains the unique union of characters and thoughts surrounding the drafting of the US constitution and the independence war without relying on an idea of "exceptional individuals." Because it contextualises the colonies through Britain's own bourgeois revolution, rather than producing an artificial geographical separation that did not exist in the movements of capital to and from the colonies. And because it makes the 19th century of the United States comprehensible through the work of the founders as a continued legal, moral, political and social project of the freeing of capital, rather than, once again, treating the revolutionary confluence involving the seizure of power as the result of "exceptional individuals," but rather seeing it as an exceptional moment that made those individuals.
>>454914
>Vietnam did not have set piece battles that ended well for the Vietnamese.
Neither did the United States. France did the lifting there.
Also, obviously, Dien Bien Phu, set pieces in '63 and early '64 before the conventional US force intervention. Giap argued for '68 as a conventional offensive and was shot down. '72 achieved significant gains against air supremacy and '75 was set piece.
As early as 1960 Giap was arguing that set piece battles would win the war. And the party didn't fucking listen did it?
>Rather, it featured a guerrilla struggle which sought to impose control while avoiding enemy forces as much as possible.
Read about the ARVN's war sometime. It will open your eyes.
>>454951
So it's a Marxist narrative?
>>454951
>"exceptional individuals"
Are you really saying that this is the best alternative because it doesn't stress the roles of the Founding Fathers in independence? I understand your desire to focus on the movement of capital and the development of new modes of production, but I think you're conflating a lot of historical movements here. I'm not saying g you're wrong, I'm just saying a lot of the things that happened in this time shouldn't be seen as part of the American revolution or war of independence. As you note, most of this is a continuation of trends in the British economy and state. I get the impression that you're trying to conflate American and British history in an interesting way, but it seems like you're roping too much into a series of events that most people would say ended with the drafting of the Constitution.
>>454951
You can accomplish essentially the same goal in layman's terms without all of the convoluted language and technical seperation of periods of history. The founding fathers of the U.S. were heavily influenced by social theories stemming from the enlightenment, did not foresee every possible problem that might arise due to weaknesses in their new government, and intentionally put certain things on the backburner because they needed to establish a secure state rather than forcing an issue that had the potential to tear the states apart before they were ever truly a union.
>>455014
The phrases "bourgeois revolution" and "mode of production" often give it away, don't they?
Yes it is a Marxist narrative, but it isn't a schematic one.
>>455029
Methodological individualism is attended to with a great deal of distaste in the discipline. It isn't illegitimate, but it is viewed with frank suspicion.
I am not saying that the founding fathers weren't exceptional individuals, but rather, am saying that their exceptionality was caused by the long revolutionary movement, rather than the revolution being caused by their exceptionality. I've heard a good summary from a mate, who is quoting I know not whom, "History will find its Corsican."
>>455082
This has the disadvantage of failing to deal with the pecuniary interest of the colonists and Parliament which as we know even if we limit sourcing to expressions was of great interest and importance, "No Taxation without Representation."
>>455110
>Methodological individualism is attended to with a great deal of distaste in the discipline. It isn't illegitimate, but it is viewed with frank suspicion
I know, but do you really think *this* is the *best* alternative narrative? Denial of the existence of individuals and their roles in the larger historical processes they're involved in is even less methodologically sound than focusing on Napoleon as the singular embodiment of revolutionary and Imperial France.
>>455110
>This has the disadvantage of failing to deal with the pecuniary interest of the colonists and Parliament which as we know even if we limit sourcing to expressions was of great interest and importance, "No Taxation without Representation."
Can't that be fixed by adding literally one sentence to his post? Keep flexing your verbal IQ if you must but don't get mad when plainspoken people who know about these things roll their eyes at your narrative.
>>455115
I don't think that reducing the role of the individual to the particularities and peculiarities of their time is problematic. For example, lacking a Washington the US main force would have failed in retreat or cantonment, the revolution would have failed, and recurred in about 20 years time.
>>455125
I'm posting between lectures and readings.
On here I'm not being paid to give a fuck. And I'm not being paid to lie to the Dean's tune. And I'm not being paid to not call you a cunt when you're a cunt.
Don't get mad when I poke holes in exceptionalist narratives that can't explain Jacksonianism without putting big period brackets up.
>>455157
>On here I'm not being paid to give a fuck. And I'm not being paid to lie to the Dean's tune. And I'm not being paid to not call you a cunt when you're a cunt.
I'm surprised you're being paid at all
>>455174
You must be a constantly astounded person.
>>454525
This. Fuck reading his self glorifying sperg post almost gave me cancer
>>455157
Frankly, you're too eager to dismiss the notion that human beings are influenced by anything other than the culture and circumstances that they live in. Essentially the nature vs. nurture argument and siding 100% on the side of nurture. The truth is rarely so objectively one-sided. Whether or not another revolution would have occurred had the first one failed is obviously just speculative. Maybe the British go through and execute the ring leaders of the revolution. A good deal of the populace wasn't particularlly fond of the idea of squaring off with the Brits in the first place. Maybe they kill off the spirit of dissent, the colonists deal with some taxes on imports, and we go something more akin to the Canada route. Or maybe it stokes the flames and people get even more pissed off. It's honestly impossible to say, and I don't think your social and economic theories are truly as predictive as you want them to be. But, I do thank you for presenting your point of view. Just don't recommend garbage like Howard Zinn to people and we can keep the tone more along the lines of respectful discourse and less, "Go fuck yourself."
I wouldn't call the Articles of Confederation successful, but it certainly puts Haiti to shame.
>>455528
>Frankly, you're too eager to dismiss the notion that human beings are influenced by anything other than the culture and circumstances that they live in.
Not for a historian.
>Essentially the nature vs. nurture argument and siding 100% on the side of nurture.
History? The discipline of reading the textual remains of the past?
>truth
…
Again, given your manifest inability to comprehend the discipline of history, when you suggest that I do not recommend Zinn as a text to teach people how to read history go fuck yourself.
>>455562
Where did you get your degree from? What papers or books have you published? If you're such a qualified historian you should be proud to share some of your accomplishments with us.
>>455564
Don't be fucking stupid, this is 4chan. I know what we do to people.
>>451309
It triggered a world war that got everyone to fight against England, forcing it into a defensive war where maintaining control of the colonies was secondary to making sure you don't get your fucking country burned to the ground by a million butthurt nations looking for a reason to do so.
>>455569
I'm sorry, but I don't see any reason to think you're an expert historiographer. Your arguments are overly verbose, your analytical framework is too narrow ("The American Revolution must be analyzed as a transition from one mode of production to another") and too broad ("The American Revolution took place in Britain and the Colonies over the course of about 300 years") at the same time. The only two historians you've mentioned are Zinn and Dubofsky, both of whom have been criticized heavily (and with good reason) ITT, and whose methodology and arguments you've failed to adequately defend. Literally everybody in this thread disagrees with most of your core points. This shouldn't be something you take pride in. You should see it as a sign that your method is deeply flawed and your arguments are wholly unconvincing, largely because of your apparent need to use the large vocabulary you've gained by reading Marxian theorists and the fact that you're on 4chan. I know what website we're on, but I really see no reason to sing your praises.
>>455582
Not to mention your total disregard for the history of the American legal system in favor of an (admittedly understandable) analysis of the development of the dynamic constitution of the country.
>>455562
No, I completely understand that a primary goal for historians is to attempt to contextualize historical events amongst a bigger picture. That being said, it's not necessary to equate every individual's every thought and action with some kind of convoluted environmental determinism. It's an overvaluation, although I suspect it makes it easier for people like you to justify your value to society. And Howard Zinn is still a hack and you still suck dicks for taking him seriously.
>>455582
You're the only other person to have mentioned Dubofsky in this thread chap. Are you illiterate or just dishonest. Which ever it is, why should we trust you?
>>455598
>>455582
>Zinn and Dubofsky, both of whom have been criticized heavily (and with good reason) ITT
Both of whom.
>>455600
>>454700
I don't see Wittner's point regarding registrants as being significant given the wage differential between service and non-service. Draft evasion is more significant.
Revision on reprint of monographic publications is fucking rare in history, normally a work stands on its first publication date and subsequent work is incorporated by a subsequent scholar.
>feel good pop history
I've never claimed that it was anything more than an adequate text book to support learning. My suggestion that the chap upthread read Zinn was meant to be taken in the sense, "You are at the stage with history that reading Zinn will be of a benefit to you."
>>455615
>I don't see Wittner's point regarding registrants as being significant given the wage differential between service and non-service
What about his point about Zinn's almost exclusive use of cherrypicked secondary sources?
Who are some authoritative historians you'd recommend?
>>455625
>What about his point about Zinn's almost exclusive use of cherrypicked secondary sources?
It. Is. A. Textbook.
It's historiographic purpose was to counter a dominant narrative with a counter narrative. If you haven't been educated in the US schools system, or read one of those appalling "Settlement to Washington" textbooks, then you're not reading Zinn in his context.
As Zinn was telling a reasonable (ie: disciplinarily acceptable) narrative, he should have felt, and did feel, free to pick sources to suit. The "originality" is the presentation of the narrative in a form fit for the general reader. The secondary sources that Zinn used are the base research which allows for the synthetic presentation.
>>455625
>Who are some authoritative historians you'd recommend?
Thompson, Hill, NOT HOBSBAUM unless it is for Bandits.
Dubofsky.
Terry Irving. Ian Turner. Not Brian Fitzpatrick.
Simon Pirani. Sheila Fitzpatrick. Andrle.
Bill Lomax.
I quite like Overy.
I think Federici is really interesting but I suspect sloppy.
Kuhn. Needham.
>>451385
Yeah, I never understood who called it the "revolutionary war" or why that caught on, other than sounding better than "the American rebellion" or something.
>>455615
>I've never claimed that it was anything more than an adequate text book to support learning.
The problem, of course, is that there are many, many entry level entry level history books that could be suggested to someone that aren't full of lies that happen to support your personal political views. And the fact that you've insisted on defending Zinn's credibility despite the fact that he really has none as an objective observer of historical events. I get the feeling that you're really just throwing out a point and attempting to sharpen your debate skills through arguing in favor of a poor platform.
>>455667
Revolution in America means nothing anymore. It should be called more often "The American Independence War"
>>451385
This
Nothing changed except power shifting from overseas oligarchs to local colonial oligarchs. In fact the US didn't live up to the ideals of the Founders until 1865 and some will argue it wasn't until the 1960's.
>>455670
>full of lies
…
>objective
………
All works of history are biased. It is impossible to evade your own biases. What you actually mean to say is either or both of:
* You dislike Zinn's bias
* You believe Zinn failed in a disciplinary sense to restrain his bias to the appropriately acceptable levels of the discipline
The scholarly reviews I have read in peer reviewed discipline appropriate journals disagree with the second point.
>>455714
So you don't think historians should try to provide accurate narratives?
>>455719
Really, his defense of Zinn is as if I, as a conservative leaning individual, tried to debate the merits of that conservative Indian cunt that makes the goofy God bless America-type movies. It's ridiculous the lengths to which leftist "intellectuals" will go to defend someone so thoroughly inaccurate and biased, rather than just say, "Yeah, he's a hack, and an embarrassment to my position. Here's my point of view though."
>>455719
Not if they're supporting the correct political narrative.
>>451309
OP, I'm confused. All the historic evidence points towards the American Revolution resulting in infighting, corruption, and tyranny.
>>455740
Kill yourself
>>455738
I'm becoming more conservative every day for this and other reasons.
>>455719
I think it is impossible. I'd like to say "even in its impossibility we should strive," but….
If "accuracy" is impossible because the past is unknowable, how can we strive towards an unknowable? I mean I use Kierkegaard's hermeneutics to get to knowledge in day to day reading, but the concept of "accuracy" requires knowledge of whether there were determinate causes in the past. Something documents can't completely uncover.
I try to be not untrue to what I perceive is a valid reading of the documentary record of the past. However, this requires theoretical tools in the reading, which means that I expose my theoretical tools used. And I also seek out collections of documents likely to challenge my claims. My claims are also conditional and limited to the archives that I've read.
But I don't think that this method is adequate to claim "accuracy," let alone "truth."
>>451381
the french revolution worked out pretty good, fuck the monarchs
>>455764
>I try to be not untrue to what I perceive is a valid reading of the documentary record of the past. However, this requires theoretical tools in the reading, which means that I expose my theoretical tools used. And I also seek out collections of documents likely to challenge my claims. My claims are also conditional and limited to the archives that I've read.
Do you ever find yourself consciously making things up and filling in holes where you have no evidence or reason to believe the words you write?
>>455783
>Do you ever find yourself consciously making things up and filling in holes where you have no evidence or reason to believe the words you write?
In simple words, no.
But the act of reading is an act of interpolation and interpretation: its an act of invention.
Here's a simple example.
We want to know how common it was for men to be buggered.
The only sources talking about buggery are Church Law promulgations.
Bishops pass a law against buggering a man.
Reading this source you'd probably say that state power restricted male buggery, to some extent, right?
And what if you these sources, spaced over 200 or 300 years?
Bishops pass a law against buggering a man.
…
Bishops pass a law against buggering a man.
…
Bishops pass a law against buggering a man.
…
…
…
Bishops pass a law against buggering a man.
Obviously buggery is so common that they have to keep passing laws against it, right? But we've interpolated that. We have "making things up and fill[ed] in holes." And my evidence and reason is reasonably strong here, right? One person's evidence and reason is another person's lies and eisegesis.
>>455779
Except the time that they literally just put more Monarchs in power.
>>455802
Would you say it's worth researching numbers? Even knowing that you can't get perfectly accurate numbers, you'd have to be an absolute autist to insist that you shouldn't try to be correct? Emphasis on that: the alternative is*not* trying to be correct, i.e., by any sane logic you would lose points for being wrong, so you should try to be correct.
>>455820
>We want to know how common it was for men to be buggered.
>The only sources talking about buggery are Church Law promulgations.
This was an actual paper I read. They don't have "numbers," we will never have "numbers." The archive is this limited.
I mean sure, when the archive has numbers, we're bloody interested. Entire papers based on gentry death roll taxes because it lets us model the economy of the middle order in England in two parishes, because that's fucking interesting.
But for the late Dark ages if we want to know how common sodomy was, our only source is the failed repeated attempts to repress it.
>>455831
>This was an actual paper I read. They don't have "numbers," we will never have "numbers." The archive is this limited.
That wasn't the essence of my question. Would you try to be correct, if including a quantity would make you more correct?
>>455833
I think I dealt with more correct above, but if it were possible to extract a number, or estimate, which I had reasonable faith reflected a valid reading of the archive, then yes I would. Mostly because people like numbers in their narrative.
>>454691
>Go henceforth from here and return unto there and therein stay
Stop. Your grasp of the English language is not as good as you think it is.
You're embarassing.
>>456481
Yeah, nah, ur a cunt.
>>456741
What's your mother tongue?
>>451330
This guy is an autistic, I feel bad for him :(
>Zinn
>my particular brand of postmodernism has never been tried
>>451330
It sounds like you're talking about the American Civil War rather than the actual American Revolution.
>>455803
The French revolution successfully killed feudalism in Europe
A bunch of commoners were in charge of one of Europe's biggest country for two fucking decades and they even managed to make it so powerful it conquered Europe in the process
The myth that only royal dynasties could rule was forever crushed and monarchies collapsed in the following century.
>>451368
>Nobody has said this yet
It's this.
Nobody was really living "at the whim" of the revolutionary gov't in the US like people in the Vendee were subject to Paris during their revolution. You could literally just move West and live however you liked if things weren't to your taste. It also helped that the US gov't would back up these "frontier citizens" should they get into trouble (and were helpable).
It wasn't until we neared the close of the frontier that there was the Civil War, because no longer was the West a panacea for all national ills. Laws regarding the creation and admission of new slave territories were a very big deal, and suddenly the South found itself cornered.
>>458013
The West was still very open during the Civil War, and we considered southward expansion. Lebensraum didn't cause the Civil War. Tie in Free Soil and you've got a better argument.
>>458032
I did tie in free soil, that was the bit about slave territories. That was the "near closing of the frontier", when going West no longer meant "live however the fuck you want".
>>451330
>start with Zinn
>>451309
Material reality.
>>451330
>Why was the American Revolution so successful?
>KKK
>>451399
>>451466
>>454772
>>455082
>>455528
>>455125
All this
>>451309
To wind back into a simpler concept; nuance is important when distinguishing what base philosophies resulted in what contemporary consequences. The success of the revolution can in essence simply be said to be a result of what makes America unique and great in the first place.
In http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AduC5MsRzdc Whittle outlines 3 'ingredients' which were and are the driving force behind ALL of the successes America has ever achieved, including the Revolution.
They are:
Judeo-Christian Morality
Greco-Roman Philosophy
Anglo-Saxon Law
This is the all important framework to remember to form all observation with when presented with this line of questioning.
>>451330
>Given how fucking dumb you are, start with Zinn
Oh god the ironing
>>455699
>In fact the US didn't live up to the ideals of the Founders until 1865 and some will argue it wasn't until the 1960's.
You have to be kidding.
>>457001
Australian cunt. I'm guessing you've not read enough 16th and 17th century sources.
>>451360
The guy you're replying to did say "Given how fucking dumb you are, start with Zinn". Clearly you're too stupid to understand the qualifier he appended to the Zinn recommendation. Maybe you should go back and re-read Zinn, you moron.
>>451394
Wow you are a fucking moron
>>458122
How did you fail to see the part where he said start there if you're retarded?
Oh wait
You're retarded
>>457882
I feel bad for you because you're a faggot
>>458664
It was all a shitpost?
>>458857
Most of "American" history is the revolution. I've given my definition of revolution, one shared by the historiographical ground that primarily deals with revolutions.
YMMV
>>451398
Are you even considering the Constitutional Convention? The autonomy was nowhere near developed at the end of the war. Due to the state's bickering and the Enlightenment-influenced idea for the removal of a monarchy, it took a period of 4 months to actually set up a system of government that applied to all states. So no, it was not just a simple secession, it was a long term process.
>>458875
But that isn't what OP meant or what most people mean. You're applying too broad a definition to "revolution" and it's because of your unquestioning acceptance of dogmstic Marxist analytical frameworks. Note the numerous objections to your treatment of the event this thread is about. People find your claims inflammatory, misleading, and inaccurate, and you've done nothing to change their minds.
>>458890
>You're applying too broad a definition to "revolution"
No, mate, just no.
>because of your unquestioning acceptance
If you only had a brain you'd cease from making strawmen.
>dogmstic
Stop phone posting, it makes you look like a cunt.
>Marxist analytical frameworks
It I were dogmatic I'd be looking for a commercial bourgeoisie fully formed doing the lifting instead of positing a Whig squatocracy. I don't think you actually know the differences between schematic and not schematic Marxisms, nor the differences between theory driven and document driven approaches to "History."
Thompson, Poverty of theory
Marwick (1995) Two Approaches to Historical Study: The Metaphysical (Including 'Postmodernism') and the Historical
>Note the numerous objections to your treatment of the event this thread is about.
Yes, they look like juvenile pained nationalists, with the exception of one poster who disputes the theoretical content of my longue duree but doesn't disagree with the viability of the narrative. I'm sorry that you knotted your knickers in high school.
>People find your claims inflammatory, misleading, and inaccurate, and you've done nothing to change their minds.
>done nothing to change their minds.
But if I'm a dogmatic marxist then ideology is the result of relationships in the base of the material relations of social reproduction and I can't change their minds.
Make up your fucking mind.
The majority of my interlocutors can't read the insult in my suggestion to read Zinn—why should we believe they can sustain a valid or viable reading of the history of the transformation of the mode of production in North America to have the ability to have an opinion on the leading or accuracy of my narrative.
Well done, mate. You should do well in second year. Consider a field where evidence and argument aren't required, like sociology or political science.
>>459100
I'm sorry you don't recognize that there are competing definitions of revolution at work in this thread, and that you choose to see the entirety of American history as a single prolonged revolution. I'm sorry you think your Australlian Marxism makes you more of an expert on American history than Americans who have studied numerous perspectives on our own history. Numerous counterarguments have been made in this thread. Most of them made more sense than yours, which you draw mostly from Zinn, whom you suggested as an insult in the first place. Enjoy your dogmatism.
>>459127
>I'm sorry you think your Australlian Marxism makes you more of an expert on American history
Again with your fucking straw men.
I think it's more the 1.5 years I spend undergraduate in straight American history and the subsequent readings.
>Numerous counterarguments
Arseholes, opinions. Notice how this wasn't a quality statement.
>Most of them made more sense than yours, which you draw mostly from Zinn
You haven't actually read Zinn have you?
>I'm sorry you don't recognize
I do, it is just that they're theoretically puerile shit.
>>458419
I would recommend to all who decide to watch this to ignore the obvious modern political element which is the point of this video and focus solely on the 'structural' part which is why he posted this. Two sentences before he mentions "morality" first.
On a side note while Whittle generally isn't /pol/ enough for me, the way in which you used one of his sub points to tie together you're argument was well done. Also fuck you for sending me down that rabbit hole with the posts you quoted.
>>451330
Pretentious fags like you is why /his/ is somtimes unbearable.
>>458875
>Most of "American" history is the revolution.
No, it's fucking not. The American Revolution refers to a specific period of time between 1765 and 1783. After 1784, the Revolution was over.
>>459162
>Again with your fucking straw men
not him and fallacy fallacy
faggot
>>459162
>1.5 years
Most Americans study American history for most of our lives. Your readings have badly misinformed you about what Americans mean by 'American Revolution,' leading to your absurd assertion that, rather than being completed when the Crown no longer controlled the Colonies, it continued until 1936.
>Arseholes, opinions
>>459162
I don't think you know what a strawman is. You constructed one when you complained about Great Man theory after being asked about the significance of the signing of the Constitution.
>>459162
Shut the fuck up fifel you wanker.
I can detect your obnoxious posting style instantly, even if you did get rid of your dumb name.
>>459127
Since when does being American give you a greater ability to be an expert on the American Revolution?
Hell, being stupid hasn't even helped you in shitposting on 4chan because you even fucked that up
>>459218
What the fuck are you on about? Most Americans don't even know who the current President is. How can you honestly say that "Most Americans study American history for most of our lives"? Are you fucking retarded?
Look I'm just a dumb engineer but even I know that y'all are getting way too hung up on "HURR DURR 1775 to 1783". And you're also getting too hung up on his 1936 date. Just chopping a line at when the Treaty of Paris was signed doesn't tell you when the social and economic processes that began well before 1775 actually came to a climax or conclusion.
If you'd actually pay attention the man has an interesting point, but no, all you faggots can do is throw up strawmen. Fuck, this is why people don't major in history, because they'd be surrounded by absolute mouthbreathing morons like what have posted in most of this thread.
>>459198
Nice job. Feel good about yourself. No really.
>>459218
>Most Americans study American history for most of our lives
I'd really like a citation for this one. Probably out of census data.
>Your readings have badly misinformed you about what Americans mean by 'American Revolution,'
This is an appeal to popular opinion. Appeal to historiography instead.
>>459231
>You constructed one when you complained about Great Man theory after being asked about the significance of the signing of the Constitution.
I also dealt with the significance of the constitution by saying, well within my accepted disciplinary discourse, that great times produce great men and secondly by observing the actual nature of the constitutions of states and societies not being a "code civil" conception of a document but of a living practice.
>>459306
Well, at least you can read.
>>459401
>Fuck, this is why people don't major in history, because they'd be surrounded by absolute mouthbreathing morons like what have posted in most of this thread.
This is one of the reasons why I wish we excluded non-majors from at least part of our curriculum.
>>459394
The point is that anybody claiming that the American Revolution wasn't over after 1784 is wrong, regardless of nationality.
>>459443
A better question is why anyone would think that a war of independence would continue for centuries after that independence was gained and asserted in very obvious ways, like the Louisiana Purchase, to name just one.
>>459443
You're the one insisting that revolutions are defined as transitions from one mode of production to another without considering the fact, asserted numerous times ITT, that this is not an uncontroversial opinion.
>>459451
The revolution and the war are two separate but related things. Revolutions can continue even after formal conflict ceases.
Christ.
>>459443
The Treaty of Paris was signed by Benjamin Franklin & John Adams in 1983, thus Great Britain recognized the American colonies as an independent nation and the American Revolution was concluded.
>>459422
>that great times produce great men and secondly by observing the actual nature of the constitutions of states and societies not being a "code civil" conception of a document but of a living practice.
Have you even once mentioned the Supreme Court or any other significant organs of the American government that operate according to the principles outlined in the document? If you've mentioned them, have you given them the credit they should have in a narrative about American history?
>>459443
>it's a shame that you want to be an exclusionist
Not from all courses, but you get tired of teaching the equivalent of Calculus for Engineers and would rather teach Calculus? At least in PART of the curriculum.
>>459451
>that a war of independence
There's a difference between the war of independence, a war which functionally ended with the war of 1812, and the revolution.
I'm quite happy to stipulate that the war of independence finally concluded in the 1812 war as the United States had asserted its sovereignty in an absolute way. But "the revolution" depends on a theoretical category of "revolution." The Marxist category of a change in the mode of production is a strong, fruitful one which has great applicability to the situation of economic social and legal change in the United States.
My interlocutors have not supplied a theoretical definition of revolution, other than by implication in:
>>458419
>Judeo-Christian Morality
>Greco-Roman Philosophy
>Anglo-Saxon Law
>>459457
>that this is not an uncontroversial opinion.
And as I have repeatedly said, it is well accepted in historiography even while being disputed. It is certainly not an undisciplinary opinion.
>>454879
>The constitution of a state or country is not a document, but rather the living action of power in that state. Every time the Supreme Court has ruled, the constitution has been modified. Every time Congress failed to debate when they had the right to check the Presidency or Executive; or extended a power to the Presidency by law, the constitution—the living manner of governance—changed.
>>459466
>Have you even once mentioned the Supreme Court or any other significant organs of the American government that operate according to the principles outlined in the document?
Might help if you read the thread.
>>459464
Uh...The Treaty ended hostilities, but why does that have to be the end of the ideas and processes of the Revolution?
>>451309
They had a demagogue leading them that actually agreed to curtail his own power.
>>459462
But that isn't what people mean by 'American revolution' 99% of the time. You're referring to the whole of American history as if it were a revolutionary endeavor. It really wasn't. It's embarrassing that you think it was.
>>459468
>Not from all courses, but you get tired of teaching the equivalent of Calculus for Engineers and would rather teach Calculus? At least in PART of the curriculum.
Ah yes, Physics for Poets. It is tiring on the Engineering end, I can see why the History end would get exhausting
>>459468
>I'm quite happy to stipulate that the war of independence finally concluded in the 1812 war
YIKES
I
K
E
S
>>459473
The American Revolution was a WAR. It was not an abstract concept. It was, literally, people shooting each other. Once people stop shooting and the killing stops, the revolution is over by any reasonable standard.
That's why it is called the Revolutionary War.
>>459478
Dude, this is a board about history, if you aren't willing to understand that the colloquial use of a term might gloss over actual history then I would advise you to leave. And I said nothing about the whole of American history. News flash: I'm not the Aussie that you're angry with. Fuck's sake
>>459468
A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in political power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time when the population rises up in revolt against the current authori
Yes, this is from Wikipedia, but it's what the 'revolution' in 'American revolution' always refers to: the process where y a government was overthrown and the existing Constitution was replaced with a new one.
>>459490
Yes, there was a war, but why do you insist that the war and the revolution were synonymous? Just because they happened at the same time? Come on man, that's a pretty weak argument. Just because the shooting stops, that doesn't mean the revolution is over, or even successful.
>>459506
Why do you insist on seeing my country's history as one long attempt to overthrow an existing economic system?
>>459506
>why do you insist that the war and the revolution were synonymous?
Because in the case of the American revolution, they were?
>>459510
I'm an American too, dude, and I want to know why you insist that a war and a revolution are exactly the same thing
>>451309
Cuck
>>459516
You said you were Australian. I want you to answer my question before I answer yours.
>>459486
>YIKES
>I
>K
>E
>S
Ancient regime France wasn't there to wipe the state's bum in 1812. You fought that one to a stand still as an independent sovereign state and would never face a reactionary Britain again.
Sounds like the achievement of independence to me.
>>459490
>Once people stop shooting and the killing stops
Whiskey Rebellion. Anti-mob shootings.
>>459495
>from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around"
>dicdef
Really? A dicdef?
>>459495
>but it's what the 'revolution' in 'American revolution' always refers to
I think I've demonstrated that in at least some autonomist marxist historiographical and (by side reference I believe above, but if not, for the first time) some tankie marxist historiographical discourses.
Revolution in history generally deals with more substantive changes. Chris Hill's "Century of Revolution" to my left makes this point. Bill Lomax behind me questions if Hungary 1956 was a revolution because of the limited development of post-"soviet" economic relations. Can't see my Georges Lefebvre on the French revolution, but Lefebvre takes yet another position.
>>459510
>Why do you insist on seeing my country's history as one long attempt to overthrow an existing economic system?
I don't. Before 1620 this wasn't the case. I've suggested that after 1936 that the efforts to destroy Torydom were effectively ended. I remember some cunt saying once that the history of all hitherto societies is the history of class struggle. This opinion has been VERY well received in the discipline of history. There are other valid opinions, only one (a whig history of Anglophilism) has been put here.
>>459521
He ain't me, he ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son. He ain't me, he ain't me, I ain't no senator's soooooooon.
>>459513
Why? Simultaneity != synonymous
>>459521
Dude, there's an Australian (WHO IS NOT ME) here also. I had a different question than him.
>>459527
There have been bloodless revolutions. The American revolution wasn't one of them. It was a war.
>>459464
Fuck, Disco died before that treaty was signed?
>>459526
>Sounds like the achievement of independence to me.
Sounds like a different war to me. De jure and de facto independence existed prior to 1812.
>>459542
I'm happy to disagree amicably with you on this point. The US tried to liberate Canada during 1812 remember.
>>459535
There was a war, and a revolution. The war had a definite end date, but how can you confidently say the same for the processes that were underlying it?
I never said it was bloodless.
>>459547
What does that have to do with anything?
>>459551
>There was a war, and a revolution.
And they weren't separate events.
>>459555
History is not about dates. Repeat this as many times as it takes to sink in.
>>459560
So you say, but until you offer evidence to support your belief that they are completely and totally the same thing, you're just repeating the same tripe you learned in 10th grade US History class.
>>459561
>History is not about dates.
U wut m8
>>459565
>until you offer evidence to support your belief
Pic very related
>>459575
Yup, history isn't simply about dates. How you can believe otherwise boggles my mind.
Oh, and yes, that's the treaty that ends the war, but that doesn't logically mean that the war and the revolution were the same thing. How can you seriously post that and think it absolutely proves your point?
>>459554
MAYBE LIBERATING AMERICANS FROM TORY RULE IS PART OF WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE AND REVOLUTION?
>>459584
>>459603
Hey, you even underlined that sentence but you still don't understand what it says. It ended the REVOLUTIONARY WAR. THAT IS NOT THE REVOLUTION ITSELF.
Fucking. Learn. To. Read. You. Fucking. Moron.
>>459603
Dicdefs and now Wikipedia?
Try some historiography.
>>459611
The goal of the American Revolution was to establish the American colonies as an independent nation from Great Britain. That goal was achieved in 1783 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris.
>>459619
Holy fuck, how did any of you guys pass a history class if this is the level of your thinking?
Again, learn to read. It says "ended the Revolutionary War". That page doesn't even talk about the causes of the Revolution. Did the treaty actually address the underlying causes fo the war?
>>459619
Which is strange because Canada was not part of the United States, that the Caribbean wasn't liberated from Tory misrule, that the United States was dependent upon ancient regime Europe for military defence.
And your suggestion of a "goal" is quite curious. Did you poll every colonist alive in 1783? 20% of the liberated colonies were Tories / Loyalists and forced out as political refugees and in many cases murdered by revolutionaries.
Sure, that was the goal, the one binding National Geist demanded it. EIN VOLK EIN STADT KAISER WASHINGTON.
>>459624
You're the only one claiming that the Revolutionary War and "the revolution" are magically separate events.
>>459635
A (i..n) and i are partly co-extensive, but not identical.
>>459635
Yes, because they aren't the exact same thing. No, I'm not saying they are independent. What I am saying is that just because the war ended doesn't mean the revolution was finished. Instead of telling me that I'm wrong by posting lameass screenshots of shitty encyclopedia articles that you obviously don't even understand, why don't you think for a minute?
>>459643
>What I am saying is that just because the war ended doesn't mean the revolution was finished.
Then when did it end?
>>459654
>>Why do you choose 1936 as the end point?
>The New Deal and the greater acceptance of the CIO than the IWW terminating the attempts by the working class to "fulfil" the previous revolution.
This is a compelling argument for when it ended
>>459654
>Then when did it end?
To answer that, one must have an idea of what the revolution was. My idea of a revolution is relatively clear: a change in the mode of production.
Why don't you think of what disciplinary and theoretical idea of the revolution you hold is, and then explore that fully against sources.
The other theoretical conception we've seen has been one of a whig progression of Anglo culture, in this sense the US revolution has never ended but is a permanent revolution.
If you believe the establishment of bourgeois parliamentary institutions is central, why one date over another? Why is the Federalist fights up to 1812 about the action of the state not part of the development of the institutions?
What was the US revolution?
>>459547
>The US tried to liberate Canada during 1812 remember.
Fucking delusional Canuck.
>>458483
Well the south did have colored seating areas
>>459671
>Well the south did have colored seating areas
But you could fit more in, because the seats were 3/5ths the size.
>>459591
Care to explain what you mean?
>>459677
Why only 13? There were revolutionary colonists elsewhere. The French and American wars were both part of the Vietnamese revolution.
>>459673
Funny guy
>>459680
Maybe because you're ignoring the development of the American state in your analysis of American history...? I've literally never seen the claim that Americans wanted to spread their revolutionary values to Canada.
>>459690
At least not in 1812
>>459680
>Why only 13?
>>459700
Can you provide some of the sources you keep alluding to?
>>451330
>start with Zinn
Haha what a fucking faggot you are
>>451330
>>459704
>>459162
>I think it's more the 1.5 years I spend undergraduate in straight American history and the subsequent readings.
As I said, it was a year and half on US history in undergraduate. This was a good 18-20 years ago.
Langley 1996 The Americas in the age of revolution http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/pdf/0300066139.pdf (free online)
167 cites.
p37
>New Englanders had already taken the offensive with the dramatic seizure
of Crown Point and Ticonderoga, strategically placed British forts along the
Hudson–Lake Champlain waterway. In the fall came the invasion of Canada,
undertaken to prevent a British assault from the north and, John Hancock declared,
to “open a Way for Blessing of Liberty, and the Happiness of wellordered
Government to visit that extensive Dominion.”5 A thousand volunteers
from the Continental Army landed at Newburyport, Massachusetts, to
join New Englanders for the invasion. They marched gloriously through the
town and into church, stacked their arms in the aisles, and listened as the minister
quoted Moses: “If thy spirit go not with us, carry us not up hence.”6
Inspired by revolutionary slogans, the invaders expected to garner the support
of presumably disaffected French Canadians. In 1774, in a “message to
the Canadian people,” the continental congress denounced the undemocratic
character of the Quebec Act and suggested the Swiss example of Protestant
and Catholic confederations as the model of government it would adopt if
French Canadians rallied to the American cause.
>>459750
Are you saying that the desire to liberate Canada was a primary cause of the War of 1812? I'm really just trying to figure out why you said
>The US tried to liberate Canada during 1812 remember.
in the first place. I don't see any reason to see the War of 1812 as an extension of the War of Independence. This looks like the kind of rhetoric America whips up for every war it fights.
>>451330
/lit/ please go and take your commie propaganda with you
>>451360
>Using Zinn's People's history of America
I cringed
>>451368
>this so much this
>>459783
>Are you saying that the desire to liberate Canada was a primary cause of the War of 1812?
Of course it fucking wasn't. But the US still tried to liberate Canada. Why should we consider their desire as inauthentic just because they always present ideological excuses for wars to 1989? Expansion and rhetoric of liberation aren't in contradiction especially when expansion is, to the minds of the elite, liberation.
>>459673
>underrated post
>>459643
>hurdurr revolution is a process
What do you think happened to the tea totters after the revolution? Id venture to guess they either fled to Canada, changed their tone, or were killed. The colonies were no longer under British rule, the average business owner was no longer getting fucked by the bank of england. There was no longer a king, but a form of government where anyone could participate.
>>459815
But what was your point? I still don't understand what you're trying to get across. It seems like you're disregarding the Napoleonic context of the War of 1812 in all of this, too, aside from your acknowledgement that Louis XXX wasn't around to fund the American side. Whether or not America tried to annex Canada is beside the point. Why did you mention this in the first place if you admit that American revolutionary ideology wasn't a primary driving force behind the War of 1812?
>>459826
>anyone
3/5ths of some's owner's white sharecroppers.
>>459830
>primary
Do you think that "eingentlich" in wie es eigentlich gewesen means that the essence is only the primary cause? Are you going to reduce the complexity of causation to a single point?
Was the attempt to form an independent liberal republic the inspiration of the Boston rioters in the mid 18th century? Of course not.
>>459847
I don't speak German so I don't know what any of that meants. Could you answer my question?
>What was your point?
And could you comment on the Napoleonic context of the war?
>>459526
>uses whiskey rebellion as evidence
>uses other inter-fighting conflicts as example
So I guess the Revolution is still occurring because of the recent Baltimore riots?
Very loaded logic.
>>459859
He's a diehard Marxist, until one class exists on Earth there will be an ongoing revolution, in his mind.
>>459850
>I don't speak German so I don't know what any of that meants. Could you answer my question?
wie es eigentlich gewesen means "To tell the past as it essentially was" it is a dictum of importance to the historian, because the first real historian Leopold Ranke coined it as our mission.
Why mention the continuing revolution if it continues, even when it isn't the central cause... because it is clear evidence of the continuing revolution.
>>459859
Did you read the thread? Search for CIO.
>>459865
1936, up thread, as an example of the end of the bourgeois revolution in the United States.
You don't seem to be very clear on Marxist conceptions of revolution friend.
>>459657
>>459661
Still a poor argument.
My definition for 'Revolution' is an alteration in government forms. This is a generally accepted definition.
However, I don't agree with this imbecile that the war ends a revolution. The revolution ended when the constitution was drafted with a Bill of Rights and adequate checks and balances in the Federal Government.
>>459872
But you're presupposing that every single action in American history is revolutionary. I haven't even accepted your exclusive definition of 'revolution' as a change in mode of production. Nor have many other people. But my point about your bringing up this conflict wasn't even about your 'ongoing revolution' argument, it was about the War of Independence. Can you explain why the War of 1812 should be seen as conclusion of the War of Independence, and why the de facto and de jure independence of the Colonies from the Crown shouldn't be seen as the conclusion?
>>459872
>You don't seem to be very clear on Marxist conceptions of revolution friend.
That's probably because I'm not a Marxist
>>459890
>Facts
>Laws
Anon, these things are irrelevant to the study of history
>>459872
So you define a faction of people supporting our past president FDR as the 'end' of the Revolution? I'm a little unclear.
If we're applying modes of production and economy to this, the American Revolution ended promptly after the war when the United States broke from Mercantilism and took up Laissez-Faire (Adam Smith's ideas).
Another thing, is that you harp on and on about the fighting that occurred after the Revolution, but again, it's a very vague argument. Not everyone was content with the federal government, and in those days Locke's ideas of rising against the sovereign were still fresh after the revolution so the states were an obvious hotbed of discontent (ie. Whiskey Rebellion). I think applying your marxist framework is just counterintuitive and generally only accepted by a small segment of historians.
Now, on that same note, I could be convinced that the Civil War was the end of the Revolution. When: "The United States are nice to visit" became "The United States is nice to visit"
>>459884
>My definition for 'Revolution' is an alteration in government forms. This is a generally accepted definition.
So Jefferson initiated a revolution? The Fraser coup was a revolution? Weak in theory and basically a dic def. You need to work on this. There are respected approaches that relate to your initial conception, keep working on it.
>The revolution ended when the constitution was drafted with a Bill of Rights and adequate checks and balances in the Federal Government.
>adequate
Is this a weasel word? Do you mean de jure? De facto? Every time a Bill of Rights case comes up before the Supremes, has the revolution restarted?
>>459890
>But you're presupposing that every single action in American history is revolutionary.
No, no, as indicated up thread, repeatedly. I haven't talked about church governance, army administration, or the function of capital in open sectors. I've been talking about the content of the revolution.
>I haven't even accepted your exclusive definition of 'revolution' as a change in mode of production.
This is again an appeal to popularity. And a pissweak one.
>de facto
Reliant on French Arms? That isn't de facto.
>>459891
Then maybe you shouldn't open your mouth in ignorance.
>>459912
>So you define a faction of people supporting our past president FDR as the 'end' of the Revolution? I'm a little unclear.
No, I'm talking about the system of relations in the United States. The CIO weren't attempting to fulfill the liberal rights of man in the way the IWW were: the CIO had moved on from attempting to complete the American Revolution.
> I think applying your marxist framework is just counterintuitive and generally only accepted by a small segment of historians.
>Making of the English Working Class
>Cited by 10635
Marxism isn't a small segment of historiography.
>>459931
>I haven't talked about church governance, army administration, or the function of capital in open sectors. I've been talking about the content of the revolution.
Are you saying that governments aren't related to the content of a revolution?
>This is again an appeal to popularity. And a pissweak one.
I'm asking you to beef up your definition. You're just saying 'muh historiography' and talking about how 'historians' accept your definition. It's a hot debate topic, I'm sure, but you're literally refusing to consider the idea that a change in government is a kind of revolution. It's almost as if you don't want to use an English vocabulary.
>Marxism isn't a small segment of historiography.
Marxist definitions and narratives are hardly universally accepted, though. You should back up your own arguments instead of appealing to authority.
>>459941
>Are you saying that governments aren't related to the content of a revolution?
Misread your post. Disregard this.
>>459943
No worries mate, we all do, I've done it too.
>>459941
>Marxist definitions and narratives are hardly universally accepted, though. You should back up your own arguments instead of appealing to authority.
I'm appealing to disciplinary authority (for example the extraordinary cite count). Attempting to establish the validity of Marxism in analysis in this thread would be a monumental task (normally over multiple volumes) and secondly would probably and fairly be construed as /pol/itical. If you want a cite, try Thompson, Poverty of Theory.
>I'm asking you to beef up your definition.
I'm refusing to accept that "a change in government" is a kind of revolution because it is really grossly deficient. Did you enjoy the revolution when Reagan dismissed that secretary? Government changed. Did you see that UK by-election of the 1960s, what a revolution.
In contrast with the obvious difficulties of the change of government definition, the focus on modes of production is pretty clear. It is very uncomfortable for adolescent nationalists with limited reading, as demonstrated in this thread, but it provides a coherent narrative in context, from an accepted and wide spread disciplinary approach.
>>459960
>Attempting to establish the validity of Marxism in analysis in this thread would be a monumental task
Get to it, then, faggot. None of us are going to accept your argument until we accept your definitions.
>>459966
Only after you show language means something mate.
>>459960
>Did you enjoy the revolution when Reagan dismissed that secretary? Government changed. Did you see that UK by-election of the 1960s, what a revolution.
Oh God what the fuck, you actually think people consider anything Reagan did to be 'revolutionary' in the same way the actions of the colonial independence movement were revolutionary? This isn't the kind of 'change in government' that was being referred to, you're the one building strawmen here. I remember you're Australian, I'm going to make a generalization here and assume you're just shitposting. Nobody is this stupid.
>>451956
This is the answer. Also, Britain was more focused on maintaining its Caribbean sugar colonies than America.
>>459973
In all my years on 4chan I've never been as angry as I am right now. Congratulations, you fucking faggot. Go fuck a kangaroo with a boomerang. I'll feed your fucking children to dingos. I'll swim across the fucking Pacific and shove my foot up your asshole. I can't believe the level of sophistry you just brought this thread to. I hope I'm done responding to you.
>>459707
oh my god learn to read you useless shitposting faggot, he said start with Zinn if you're fucking stupid. Guess where I think you should start?
>>459960
>the focus on modes of production is pretty clear
It's as clear as any reductionist fairy tale piece of shit.
>>451309
>Why has almost every other revolution throughout history resulted in infighting, corruption and tyranny?
>every other
>other
>>459975
Nobody is, except for you and your definition.
