-
What is your opinion of the American Revolutionary War my opinion is that while many
What is your opinion of the American Revolutionary War my opinion is that while many Americans think that the American Colonists and George Washington were heroes for fighting a war against the British but in my opinion the American Revolutionary War when it was won America just took the American Indian's or the Native American's land they became an empire which they themselves fought the British empire they became an American empire in my opinion it is no different from the Boer War in South Africa the White South African Colonists got their Independence than started to oppress the Black South Africans the Zionists in Palestine got their Independence from the British and started to oppress the Palestinians what do you think ?
-
That sounds about right. There is a lot of good to be learned there. But people forget what happened in the aftermath.
-
It was merely American bourgeoisie at war with British bourgeoisie from what I can see.
-
If you don't mind me asking could you please explain how the war was
If you don't mind me asking could you please explain how the war was
It was merely American bourgeoisie at war with British bourgeoisie in my opinion it was also the American empire at war with the British empire. Empires fight each other for power to oppress the people it always happens the American Revolutionary War was no different America was and is an Empire I know you all already know this but many Americans have this belief in Nationalism and Patriotism.
-
That essentially means the same thing
-
It was a war in which an imperialistic state went on its path of downfall,and the other started to rise.Quite simple actualy.Personaly i have no interest in this subject,nor do i care about America.
-
I know that in the book A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn does a great job analyzing the war. Essentially, the people wanted independence as well and a far more directly democratic government than the one that was established. However, the revolution was highjacked by American Bourgeoisie and allowed them to push competing British business out of the region. Over time, the American government became more and more oppressive under the control of the American upper class. In respect to the American people, it replaced one group of rulers with another.
-
Quote:
In respect to the American people, it replaced one group of rulers with another.
Yes, but this was in 1776, back when nationalism was actually a progressive force.
The American War for Independence was a good thing.
-
I also do not care about America I just want to point out that America is not the goo
I also do not care about America I just want to point out that America is not the good guy America is an evil empire. the American War for Independence was not a good thing if you were an Native American/American Indian or a Black Slave or Mexican America took Mexico's land too.
-
Quote:
I also do not care about America I just want to point out that America is not the good guy America is an evil empire.
But back in 1776, Britain was the "evil empire". The war for independence was a blow against England, you see?
-
I cant post links yet but I recommend people google J. Sakai "Settlers". It is a very controversial book that makes a lot of people very uncomfortable. He has a lot of interesting things to say about this period.
-
Ok I see your point now I agree on that the British empire was evil and that it was g
Ok I see your point now I agree on that the British empire was evil and that it was good that they lost wars.
-
I'm surprised that so many Marxists fail to truly look at the American Revolution from a Marxist perspective. Karl Marx said that the transition from feudalism to capitalism was a positive and revolutionary when the bourgeoisie overthrew the Monarchs and nobility. The American Revolution was a very positive thing and made a lot of progress even though we may look at it as ruler overthrowing other rulers, the first thing a Marxist should know is at that time capitalism was a revolutionary force that was making things better for people. Now that capitalism has reached its peak, it's time for socialism to replace capitalism just as capitalism replaced feudalism and communism will replace socialism. It's all about progress.
-
That's a bit out of context. Karl Marx also wrote that the "freedmen" became "sellers of themselves" that were robbed of "all their own means of production" by the capitalist state and thus lost "all the guarantees afforded by the old feudal arrangements." "And the history of this, their expropriation, is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire."
Some people on this forum, like the anti-environmentalist guy (I think we know who I mean) constantly say that Marx was pure pro-technology. This is somewhat true. He also said that technology in the hands of the elite could be used to oppress workers etc., standard leftist criticism. In the communist manifesto he writes "The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors," and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment." He later writes that through the use of machinery and to division of labor workmen become merely "appendages of the machine" who are useful only so long as they contribute to profits.
Engles was even more condemning. Here is Engles on the matter:
Quote:
"Before the introduction of machinery, the spinning and weaving of raw materials was carried on in the workingman's home. Wife and daughter spun the yarn that the father wove or that they sold, if he did not work it up himself. These weaver families lived in the country in the neighborhood of the towns, and could get on fairly well with their wages, because the home market was almost the only one and the crushing power of competition that came later, with the conquest of foreign markets and the extension of trade, did not yet press upon wages. There was, further, a constant increase in the demand for the home market, keeping pace with the slow increase in population and employing all the workers; and there was also the impossibility of vigorous competition of the workers among themselves, consequent upon the rural dispersion of their homes. So it was that the weaver was usually in a position to lay by something, and rent a little piece of land, that he cultivated in his leisure hours, of which he had as many as he chose to take, since he could weave whenever and as long as he pleased. True, he was a bad farmer and managed his land inefficiently, often obtaining but poor crops; nevertheless, he was no proletarian, he had a stake in the country, he was permanently settled, and stood one step higher in society than the English workman of today.
So the workers vegetated throughout a passably comfortable existence, leading a righteous and peaceful life in all piety and probity; and their material position was far better than that of their successors. They did not need to overwork; they did no more than they chose to do, and yet earned what they needed. They had leisure for healthful work in garden or field, work which, in itself, was recreation for them, and they could take part besides in the recreations and games of their neighbors, and all these games - bowling, cricket, football, etc., contributed to their physical health and vigor. They were, for the most part, strong, well-built people, in whose physique little or no difference from that of their peasant neighbors was discoverable. Their children grew up in the fresh country air, and, if they could help their parents at work, it was only occasionally; while of eight or twelve hours work for them there was no question. "
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...class/ch07.htm
Quote:
"The death-rate is kept so high chiefly by the heavy mortality among young children in the working-class. The tender frame of a child is least able to withstand the unfavourable influences of an inferior lot in life; the neglect to which they are often subjected, when both parents work or one is dead, avenges itself promptly, and no one need wonder that in Manchester, according to the report last quoted, more than fifty-seven per cent of the children of the working-class perish before the fifth year, while but twenty per cent of the children of the higher classes, and not quite. thirty-two per cent of the children of all classes in the country die under five years of age.
[11] The article of the
Artisan, already several times referred to, furnishes exacter information on this point, by comparing the city death-rate in single diseases of children with the country death-rate, thus demonstrating that, in general, epidemics in Manchester and Liverpool are three times more fatal than in country districts; that affections of the nervous system are quintupled, and stomach troubles trebled, while deaths from affections of the lungs in cities are to those in the country as 2 1/2 to 1. Fatal cases of small-pox, measles, scarlet fever, and whooping cough, among small children, are four times more frequent; those of water on the brain are trebled, and convulsions ten times more frequent. To quote another acknowledged authority, I append the following table. Out of 10,000 persons there die"
From Havet:
Quote:
The Industrial Revolution led to a population increase, but the chance of surviving childhood did not improve throughout the industrial revolution
I don't think we should glorify the industrial revolution all that much - as Marx and Engles certainly didn't think it was a complete improvement in all areas, and in some cases, for many people it was definitely worse than feudalism.
All that said, tradeunion, you should make a post on the CIVIL WAR. Marx also did some interesting journalism on that.
-
Quote:
I know that in the book A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn does a great job analyzing the war. Essentially, the people wanted independence as well and a far more directly democratic government than the one that was established. However, the revolution was highjacked by American Bourgeoisie and allowed them to push competing British business out of the region. Over time, the American government became more and more oppressive under the control of the American upper class. In respect to the American people, it replaced one group of rulers with another.
Can you quote where he said this? I read that book perhaps almost over a decade ago but I don't remember him saying it exactly like that. Specifically this:
Quote:
...the people wanted independence as well and a far more directly democratic government than the one that was established...
What I remember him saying was that many people were indifferent to the whole thing and large numbers of them had to be drafted into the American Revolution - something left out in many history books I do believe.
I'm sure many people volunteered, though I don't know the exact figures. Thousands of men volunteered in the North to put down the South, though.
-
It wasn't really a war of 'tyrants versus heroes', more like 'disgruntled people an ocean away fighting other people an ocean away'. The worst we did to the colonists was tax them a bit higher than usual (these taxes only arose after we saved them from French invasion).
True, it was imperialists vs. non-imperialists, but for starters, the Revolution itself was led mainly by wealthy, imperialistic businessmen in the colonies, so you can't justify it as 'heroes fighting imperialists'. Secondly, we hadn't exactly 'tortured' the colonies under our rule. Rather, they had quite a large degree of autonomity until the taxes.
-
Well,for non-imperialist's,the Americans sure started their own imperial program soon after they defeated the English.So much for a difference.The lesser evil replaced a greater evil only to grow into a grand ~flambe devil~ evil with a red tail and nuclear bombs.
-
Plus, the way the Revolution has been distorted by American historians is also quite strange. What was in reality a general curbstomping until France intervened has been portrayed as a handful of farmers slaughtering 5,000,000 Redcoats then instantly winning freedom.
It's quite disrespectful to the country that created the Colonies in the first place and defended them in several wars.
-
True the colonies were founded and defended by the British.
True the American Colonies were founded and defended by the British.
-
Quote:
True the American Colonies were founded and defended by the British.
You have to remember, although yes, we Brits possessed imperialistic rule over the Colonies, it actually turned out for the better of them. Not only did they have almost total autonomity anyway, but we defended them numerous times from other powers with far more tyrannical governments. Many times, they came close to being taken over by France or Spain, absolute monarchies, and were saved time and again by us, allowing them to keep more democratic ideals. We sacrificed tens of thousands of men and massive amounts of funds over 2 centuries to keep our brethren across the pond alive, and they repay us with riots, protests, and revolution.