Comments on: The American Revolution: A Waste of Time?

By: Amy Phillips

Amy Phillips — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that Canada, Australia, et. al. would be in the position they’re in today were it not for the American revolution. It’s not just that we broke away from England, something that almost no one had accomplished before. We set up a country based on the principles that all people should be equal and respected before the law. That was unheard of at the time. It was always assumed that the masses needed leaders to tell them what to do, and that without a king or some similar leadership, no nation could survive. We proved that it could, and our example is what encouraged nations like England to allow democracy to flourish in their kingdoms.
That said, I much prefer to live in the US than in Canada, and I’d be mighty angry if we turned into Canada. There’s already a Canada, and if you like it there, I’m sure they’d be glad to have you. Me–I like living in a place where I can choose my own healthcare, where I can donate my money to those charities and causes I find worthy rather than those politicians can agree on, and where I can dream of becoming a rich CEO. I agree with you on the military thing, I think we should pull out. But that’s not a result of our revolution so much as it is of our historical military and technological superiority. We went into most of those nations because they needed what we had to offer, and most of them asked us to, or would have if their leaders had allowed them to. But now that we’re not needed, you’re right, we should bring them home.

By: Kevin Moore

Kevin Moore — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Damn. Amy beat me to it. I’ll just say, “ditto.”

Although I should add—good post! Heretical thoughts are good and necessary.

By: Ampersand

Ampersand — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Wow, Amy Phillips and Kevin Moore agreed on something. There’s a snowball fight in hell today!

Seriously, I disagree with ya both, but I’m too busy drawing to go into why right now. More later, I hope.

By: Ampersand

Ampersand — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

(Actually, I’m sure that you two would agree on a lot - disliking the national security state, liking freedom, etc. There’s that entire crossover area between leftists and libertarians which never seems to translate into actual alliances which we all have in common….)

By: Janis

Janis — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I wouldn’t say it was a waste of time — think of it this way. We’re the beta release: Democracy 1.0. We tried it first, and of course the first time you do something, you’re going to fuck up in some ways.

The rest of the world was able to take the best of the first attempt at a democratic republic, and build on it without letting their own systems self-desctruct. What Amy said is true: the American attempt to build a democratic republic was the first modern attempt to put through a government where there was no inherent ruling class. Don’t overestimate the impact of an aristocracy.

The plain fact is that, when it came to a government that empowered the ordinary people, we tried it first. Other nations could watch, get an idea in their heads, and give it a shot within their own systems. I think that without the example of the American system, other systems might not have even bothered to enfranchise all those unwashed commoners.

We were the beta release. Everyone else has been able to install the bug patches before implementation. That’s why they’re better at it than we are.

By: Janis

Janis — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Think of it this way — the Russian revolution simply did not work. They tried to implement a communist system, and it simply did not work well.

By example, THEIR revolution compelled US to implement a smaller, more watered-down version of communism in our own system (the worker’s rights movements of the 1930s). Without the example of a country where a full-scale communist revolution had taken place, there would have been no such worker’s rights revolution here … but the original system still didn’t work well.

This is the same. We tried it first, and it’s wonky as hell. Others saw the example and picked and chose what they wanted from it, implementing them within already established systems. Of COURSE that would work more smoothly.

By: Joe Buck

Joe Buck — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

It’s important that the ideals of the American Revolution, those words we regularly fail to live up to, inspired people all over the world. It’s not as important as some would make it that many of the founders were hypocrites: slave-owners who talked about freedom. As Matthew Arnold said, hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, and if a hypocrite’s words are inspirational enough, then people will be inspired to make those words come true.

By: Joe Buck

Joe Buck — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Oh, by the way, Amy, Canadians have more choice about their health care providers than many Americans (those in HMOs, for example. not to mention those without insurance), do; are free to give to charities and causes, and have much the same opportunities to start businesses and try to get rich as Americans do (though the level of difficulty can be somewhat greater, many succeed). Certainly in many places Canada is way too dependent on resource extraction industries and it’s tough to start other businesses, but the same is true in many parts of the US (say, Montana or Idaho).

By: --k.

--k. — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Personally, I’d forgo dreams of being a rich CEO for a culture that honors gay relationships as much as straight any ol’ day of the week. But I’m funny that way, and hey, Canada doesn’t force that choice–you can have your gay marriage and your feelthy lucre, too!

Yay, Canada!

By: Avram

Avram — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I’m sure many Canadians will be surprised to hear that they can’t choose their health care, that they can’t choose to donate to charity, and that they can’t dream of becoming (or even actually become) wealthy CEOs.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Perhaps the nations of Latin America might have remained colonies much longer had it not been for the American Revolution and the Monroe Doctrine.

By: David

David — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I don’t know if the American example was necessary, but I do know that it inspired the French revolution, which I think didn’t turn out so well. In fact, it seems to me that the number of violent revolutions that have turned out well is rather small, whereas the number of countries that have become freer fairly peacefully is rather long.

By: David

David — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

change “long” to “large,” I guess.

By: David Schaich

David Schaich — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

>Will’s assertion that “we get dead people in
>distant countries,” seems remarkably insulting
>to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Those
>countries suffered heavy casualties “in distant
>countries” in the World Wars, of course. More
>recently, Canadians have died in service in
>Afghanistan, and Australia participated in the
>recent war in Iraq.

Well, it doesn’t really seem so insulting to me. Will is only trying to come up with a colorful way to say that the United States spends too much on the military, compared to the other countries, which are able to spend taxes on social programs. Of course, I happen to agree, and happen to not be Canadian, Australian or a New Zealander, so that might be coloring my reaction.

>They get universal health care for their
>taxes, while we get dead people in distant
>countries.

I am unable to read into that anything denigrating the martial prowess of the Canadians etc. Just an argument that too large a proportion of American taxes are dedicated to the goal of dead people in distant countries (who don’t have to be American), as opposed to other countries, where tax money goes to (for instance) universal health care and less is spent on the military.

Which doesn’t seem so bad to me.

In terms of the central issue of the American Revolution, I like Janis’s Democracy 1.0 (Beta) idea. The American Revolution did play in influence in encouraging other revolutions (most clearly in Latin America and France, though those didn’t turn out too well, in the short run) and more generally (and in my view more importantly) advancing general principles of representative government, equality before the law, etc. throughout the world.

One last note - American troops are stationed in about 140 countries. In case you were wondering.

(No relation to the previous David)

By: Kevin Moore

Kevin Moore — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

It might also be considered a mistake to view the revolution as over. I know it’s kinda hotsy-Trotsky of me to say it, but the struggle keeps on keepin’ on. When the Revolutionary War ended, we were still years away from forming the Constitution and decades away from enfranchising men without property, freeing slaves and over a century from enfranchising women. Along the way Jim Crow reared its ugly head and I think we’re still trying to kill the beast.

By: Janis

Janis — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Kevin, your comments remind me of something I once heard about the constitutional government being something that each succeeding generation of Americans bears the responsibility for completing. Even the founding fathers couldn’t form the thing as they envisioned it, and each generation of Americans gets closer and closer.

Lately, though, we seem to be getting further and further away. :-P

By: Al-Muhajabah

Al-Muhajabah — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Actually, England at the time of the American Revolution was well on the road to democracy; one of the major problems was that they weren’t extending the same rights to colonists as they allowed to Englishmen.

By: Amy S.

Amy S. — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I’d swap on the “dream” of being a rich CEO for the “dream” of having guaranteed healthcare. Someone whip out the appropriate contract and my signature is yours…

By: Amy S.

Amy S. — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

“…Along the way Jim Crow reared its ugly head and I think we’re still trying to kill the beast…”

Hell, I’m still trying to get the apathetic, shopaholic fuckwits I work with to tear themselves away from the freakin’ boob tube and come to a damn Union meeting once a month. Bleah.

By: Janis

Janis — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

The problems between Britain and her colonies were a little strange, and not just a matter of extending rights, though. Partly, the American revolution was the product of the jitters that come with a guilty conscience. The language that’s used by the colonists to describe what they fear from England uses the word “slavery” a lot. When you are surrounded by it and are doing it to other people, the first thing you fear is that it will be done to you. We saw slavery around us every day, so when we feared it was going to happen to us, we freaked. A guilty conscience makes you jittery and defensive.

Also, the colonies were in a strange relationship to Britain. We weren’t really British soil; we were more of a … factory, as far as they were concerned. A place that turned out lots of yummy raw materials. This made the people who lived there seem almost like factory staff instead of actual Britons who believed themselves to live on British soil. The state that the colonies were in relative to Britain was not a stable equilibrium. They were in a strange limbo-land in terms of definition (were they British soil or a British possession, and what were the people?), and sooner or later this grey area was going to have to be nailed down. It got nailed down in our favor pretty much because colonial warfare is notoriously unwinnable. Even Washington realized that, along with some of his best generals; as long as they could stretch the war out, they knew they were going to win.