matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) (04/05/85)
> For those interested in trying a short thought-exercise, try replacing > "Cuban" with "French", "American" with "British", "Contra" with "Indian > and Hessian", "Ortega" with "Washington", and "Nicaragua" with "America"; > now step back a couple of hundred years and north a couple of thousand > miles and ask yourself if it all sounds reasonable. Interesting... > > Bill Laubenheimer > ----------------------------------------UC-Berkeley Computer Science > ...Killjoy went that-a-way---> ucbvax!wildbill Interesting, perhaps, but none too meaningful. America has never had a revolution -- never. The government of post-Independence America was different from the one preceding it only so far as it was independent. The element of civil war and class war was totally absent. Furthermore, the equation of 18th century Enlightenment ideas with those of Marxism and Leninism is an offense to the intellect. Jim Matthews matthews@harvard
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/08/85)
> > For those interested in trying a short thought-exercise, try replacing > > "Cuban" with "French", "American" with "British", "Contra" with "Indian > > and Hessian", "Ortega" with "Washington", and "Nicaragua" with "America"; > > now step back a couple of hundred years and north a couple of thousand > > miles and ask yourself if it all sounds reasonable. Interesting... > > > > Bill Laubenheimer > > Interesting, perhaps, but none too meaningful. America has > never had a revolution -- never. The government of post-Independence > America was different from the one preceding it only so far as it was > independent. The element of civil war and class war was totally absent. > Furthermore, the equation of 18th century Enlightenment ideas with those > of Marxism and Leninism is an offense to the intellect. > > Jim Matthews Funny, as I recall my history the idea of having a Constitutional Democracy *without* a monarch was quite a radical idea at the time. Some have argued that the American Revolution was an inspiration to the French Revolution. Moreover the element of "civil and class war" was not totally absent. Historians I have read argue that 33% of Americans supported the Revolution, 33% supported the British, and 33% were neutral. Moreover after the Revolution was over many Tories who supported the British during the Revolution had their land confiscated. Yet it seems despite this "undemocratic" and "totalitarian" measure that the United States developed a healthy democracy. One can imagine the British arguing that such "totalitarian" moves besides the institution of the "radical" and "extreme" ideology of democracy without a monarch could endanger monarchies all over Europe. "Why this idea might spread throughout the world! What a horror!" How could one invest power in a bunch of representatives of the ragtag masses? Indeed. tim sevener whuxl!orb
matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) (04/09/85)
> > America has > > never had a revolution -- never. The government of post-Independence > > America was different from the one preceding it only so far as it was > > independent. The element of civil war and class war was totally absent. > > Furthermore, the equation of 18th century Enlightenment ideas with those > > of Marxism and Leninism is an offense to the intellect. > > > > Jim Matthews > > Funny, as I recall my history the idea of having a Constitutional Democracy > *without* a monarch was quite a radical idea at the time. Radical, but hardly revolutionary. Besides the absence of a nobility and monarch, our government was almost a copy of the British democracy, with our undemocratic upper house, the Senate, emulating the House of Lords. > Some have argued > that the American Revolution [sic] > was an inspiration to the French Revolution. Yes, but they have nothing besides some similar ideology in common. We did not question the sovereignty of George III, much less behead him. The established governments of the colonies -- the House of Burgess, and all the other colonial legislatures -- stood. There was no terror, and none of the sweeping changes in the daily lives of our citizens. We just stopped paying taxes to England, and stopped garrisoning troops. > Moreover the element of "civil and class war" was not totally absent. > Historians I have read argue that 33% of Americans supported the Revolution, > 33% supported the British, and 33% were neutral. There is no evidence that this followed class lines, and it never turned into civil war. Tories helped the British cause, but they never rose in armed warfare against the leaders of the War for Independence. > Moreover after the Revolution [sic] > was over many Tories who supported the British during the Revolution had > their land confiscated. Yet it seems despite this "undemocratic" and > "totalitarian" measure that the United States developed a healthy democracy. > One can imagine the British arguing that such "totalitarian" moves besides > the institution of the "radical" and "extreme" ideology of democracy without > a monarch could endanger monarchies all over Europe. "Why this idea might > spread throughout the world! What a horror!" The British were more upset at losing the revenue and power that the colonies represented than they were at our non-monarchist ideology. The ideology that did scare them was that of national self-determination, since that was what we were fighting for. I find it incredible that you can throw terms like "totalitarian" around this way. We continued a British tradition of liberal democracy, which is as far from totalitarianism as one can get. This effort to find ourselves in the Nicaraguan situation leads to gross distortions of our history. Jim Matthews matthews@harvard > How could one invest power in a bunch of representatives of the ragtag masses? > Indeed. > tim sevener whuxl!orb *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***