Why oh why do they call it a revolution? Watch

Jjj90
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
This is something that really irks me. Why do Americans insist on calling their war of independence a revolution? It wasn't a revolution, they didn't overthrow a government, they just split away from one.

Is there any justification for calling it a revolution or is this just a case of history being written by the winners? Is calling it a revolution meant to infer some greater sense of righteousness? Are they trying to hide their history, that they were indeed a product of Britain?

It just seems odd, especially considering American historians do tend to call it a war of independence...

So was it or was it not a revolution?
0
reply
the mezzil
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Because they are retards?

It was a war of Independence.
1
reply
Arbolus
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
It's a revolution in the sense that it replaced one government with another. The fact that the new government was based in Washington and had no desire to rule Britain itself is irrelevant.
1
reply
John Stuart Mill
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
It was a revolution, they completely overthrew the political system in America and replaced it with another, it's called the: 'American revolution' not to the 'British revolution'.
0
reply
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by Jjj90)
This is something that really irks me. Why do Americans insist on calling their war of independence a revolution? It wasn't a revolution, they didn't overthrow a government, they just split away from one.
They didn't even split away from one. American independence was all smoke-and-mirrors by members of various Masonic fraternities. Those who were actually promoting the "revolution" were members of Masonic fraternities with their roots in European Freemasonry, that of Rothschild and Weishaupt of Bavaria.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
I've seen both used. And strangely, that goes for both conservative and radical historians.
0
reply
AntisthenesDogger
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
It wasn't revolutionary, but it was a revolution away from their origins. Yes the term revolt is more pertinent but oh well.
0
reply
Oldcon1953
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by Jjj90)
This is something that really irks me. Why do Americans insist on calling their war of independence a revolution? It wasn't a revolution, they didn't overthrow a government, they just split away from one.

Is there any justification for calling it a revolution or is this just a case of history being written by the winners? Is calling it a revolution meant to infer some greater sense of righteousness? Are they trying to hide their history, that they were indeed a product of Britain?

It just seems odd, especially considering American historians do tend to call it a war of independence...

So was it or was it not a revolution?
Was not Boston the seat of government for the"Crown"? England didn't rule by dispatch ya know. Many of the governors of major cities were British loyalists who fought on the side of England as did Benjamin Francklin's son. Not sure how your defining a revolution as opposed to a war of independence. Not sure if I know the difference. Probably both are correct because we formed a new country with a new political philosophy,(revolution), after ousting the old government,(independence). Maybe.
0
reply
Oldcon1953
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by Martyn*)
They didn't even split away from one. American independence was all smoke-and-mirrors by members of various Masonic fraternities. Those who were actually promoting the "revolution" were members of Masonic fraternities with their roots in European Freemasonry, that of Rothschild and Weishaupt of Bavaria.
LOL !! Washington was a Free Mason . As were 75% of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Some see a sinister plot. I say God Bless the Free Masons.
0
reply
Oldcon1953
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by the mezzil)
because they are retards?

It was a war of independence.
retards !!!
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
If we can call the Glorious Revolution a revolution than the Americans can call their Revolution a revolution.

You might be interested to learn that the meaning of 'revolution' being that of a fundamental break with the past is very much a recent one, certainly post-French revolution. Before then it merely meant a significant change, whether new or reverting to old.
0
reply
Dante Gallo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
Because revolution sounds cool...
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by Jjj90)
So was it or was it not a revolution?
You're confusing two concepts.

A revolution is a complete change from one constitution to another; the war of independence was the means by which the American colonists achieved that revolution.
0
reply
Jjj90
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by MostUncivilised)
You're confusing two concepts.

A revolution is a complete change from one constitution to another; the war of independence was the means by which the American colonists achieved that revolution.
Oh really, I never thought of it like that. I'm not sure it's true though, it's the same event, merely a different title. I suppose it could be a revolution and a war of independence, they're hardly mutually exclusive.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by MostUncivilised)
You're confusing two concepts.

A revolution is a complete change from one constitution to another; the war of independence was the means by which the American colonists achieved that revolution.
Not necessarily, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the 1936 Spanish Revolution are still often called revolutions despite their failure.

Also, many historians of the US, both conservative and radical, often try to emphasise what they perceive as the lack of change brought about by independence.
0
reply
Fezzick123
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by Jjj90)
Oh really, I never thought of it like that. I'm not sure it's true though, it's the same event, merely a different title. I suppose it could be a revolution and a war of independence, they're hardly mutually exclusive.
The Revolution and the War of Independence are two distinct things. They started at different times and ended at different times. The Revolution was the formation of the United States while the War of Independence was years of tension between the Thirteen Colonies and Great Britain boiling over into violence.
0
reply
Fezzick123
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by anarchism101)
Not necessarily, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the 1936 Spanish Revolution are still often called revolutions despite their failure.

Also, many historians of the US, both conservative and radical, often try to emphasise what they perceive as the lack of change brought about by independence.
Yes and other historians emphasis the amount of change brought about by independence. Read Gordon S. Wood's 'The Radicalism of the American Revolution': he goes against the view that the Revolution was merely a political break with Great Britain, arguing instead that the effects of the Revolution permeated every aspect of American life.
0
reply
Jjj90
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by Fezzick123)
The Revolution and the War of Independence are two distinct things. They started at different times and ended at different times. The Revolution was the formation of the United States while the War of Independence was years of tension between the Thirteen Colonies and Great Britain boiling over into violence.
I don't know enough about it to counter that. But I think you're right, the revolution started 10 years before the war, both ended in 1783, the revolutionary war and the war of independence are one and the same, the revolution is distinct.
0
reply
DanB1991
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by Jjj90)
This is something that really irks me. Why do Americans insist on calling their war of independence a revolution? It wasn't a revolution, they didn't overthrow a government, they just split away from one.

Is there any justification for calling it a revolution or is this just a case of history being written by the winners? Is calling it a revolution meant to infer some greater sense of righteousness? Are they trying to hide their history, that they were indeed a product of Britain?

It just seems odd, especially considering American historians do tend to call it a war of independence...

So was it or was it not a revolution?
Your actually correct.

'A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution:
1) Complete change from one constitution to another
2) Modification of an existing constitution
'

As such it was not a revolution or even civil war. It was a war of independence.

Also the american 'civil war' was neither a civil war nor revolutionary war. Technically it was another war of Independence.

However keep in mind it is rather common for people's claiming independence to call it a revolution... it kind makes it seem more 'just' or democratic.

The glorious revolution would be a rare example where an invasion was called a revolution to hide the fact it was really an invasion. However ironically it does fill the criteria for a revolution.
0
reply
DanB1991
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by Fezzick123)
The Revolution and the War of Independence are two distinct things. They started at different times and ended at different times. The Revolution was the formation of the United States while the War of Independence was years of tension between the Thirteen Colonies and Great Britain boiling over into violence.
Errr complete rubbish... the revolutionary war, and war of independence is a different name for the same thing.

Akin to the second american revolution, second war of independence, war of northern aggression, war of succession, war of southern independence, war of the rebellion, war between the states, war of southern rights.... or as it's most common name... the american civil war.... different names, same thing.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How old were you when you first saw porn?

I've never seen it (2)
15.38%
Before I was 12 (7)
53.85%
13 (1)
7.69%
14 (2)
15.38%
15 (0)
0%
16 (1)
7.69%
17 (0)
0%
18 (0)
0%
Between the ages of 19 - 24 (0)
0%
Over 25 (0)
0%

Watched Threads

View All