Some interesting points here, but at the same time, I think it’s best to remember that the “Americans” we are speaking of were really all Europeans mostly from Great Britain, a goodly number from the Netherlands, and lost of Germans. This wasn’t a population that lived in complete isolation or came from a different planet - they were Europeans. So I don’t take very kindly to any suggestions that Americans couldn’t possible understand the issues facing Europeans since they were, um, Europeans.It directly established a liberal society. Democracy would have been nice but has nothing on the fundamental shift in societal model. The Revolution effectively got rid of feudalism.
Again, you simply don't seem to realize how profound these changes were. And by the look of it because no one in the history of the American colonies or the US has even encountered them and so have never had to wrap their heads around the implications.
There was a member in here who basically said that the American Revolution wasn’t a real revolution. Not sure why he said that, but my impression is that it didn’t qualify because not enough people lost their heads or were otherwise murdered. Sad.And specifically British Europeans in the C18, the British share the same semi-detached view of the French Revolution as Americans do, because they were going their own way toward proper democarcy, a liberal society, equality under the rule of law etc etc.; and neither take kindly to the view that the world owes all of these things mainly or exclusively to the French Revolution! One notices how touchy some people on the Continent get if casts the slightest aspersion against this precious revolution.
I think that was me, and I believe I explained my view adequately enough. Nothing to do with rolling heads. This is what I wrote (post 155):There was a member in here who basically said that the American Revolution wasn’t a real revolution. Not sure why he said that, but my impression is that it didn’t qualify because not enough people lost their heads or were otherwise murdered. Sad.
Here you go again. Monarchy was no longer the same as before 1789. France and it's society would never return to state of things before 1789.
Whether there were rivers of blood doesn't really matter in definition of Revolution. Look up the term ,, Revolution '' please and see for description of what processes term ,, Revolution'' is used. Trust me, you will never find in any definition a statement : ,, if 10 000 people die in process, it is no longer Revolution''.
Thank you.I think that was me, and I believe I explained my view adequately enough. Nothing to do with rolling heads. This is what I wrote (post 155):
The American revolution was more of a war for independence, not a radical socio-political breakthrough from the past, and in that sense, not a true revolution like the French one. In my opinion, the truly remarkable thing regarding the American revolution is not how and why the Americans won their independence, but what they did with it, meaning the Constitution and Rights setting the political and social frame of their newly founded Republic. But again, influential as those may be, they were not even close to the influence the French Revolution have exerted in European affairs for years to come, ever since. The Americans showed that those Enlightened ideals could be adopted in state creation, but their fight against the British empire, their revolution, was not for these ideals, it was a fight for independence. The French showed that those ideals could and would fight back against those repressing them, forever changing the world around them.
Why do some reject the French Revolution?
If you need any clarifications on my post I would be glad to elaborate.
Who declares that the French Revolution is an example of "democratic revolution"?The US owes the success of its revolution to the French monarchy and the crucial support the French provided. Most Americans are probably blissfully unaware of the vital support received from the French. Of course, the French were acting in their own interests in opposing the British, but any port in the storm was good enough for the Americans. The Dutch and a few others provided vital assistance as well.
The US Revolution - the first of its kind in “modern” times - resulted in fighting on a continental scale, but one thing it did not do was result in the rivers of random blood and chopped off heads during the so-called French Revolution. That level of brutality never happened here.
I’ve never Understood how the French Revolution can be held up as an example of a “democratic revolution”. The French monarchy definitely needed to go, but the manner in which this was carried out did not bring credit to the French and, in fact, ended up with another “monarch” who then proceeded to attack all of his neighbors. Really?
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|Is the use of "Rejected Silver" in Jeremiah 6:30 possible evidence for the knowledge of and isolation of Platinum in the BC era||General History|
|Myths of the American Revolution: George Washington rejected from the British army||North American History|
|Statue of Liberty: Egyptian Reject and French Hand-Me-Down?||Speculative History|
|Why did the U.S reject a French offer of colonies + ten billion francs for airplanes?||North American History|
|Similar History Discussions|
|Is the use of "Rejected Silver" in Jeremiah 6:30 possible evidence for the knowledge of and isolation of Platinum in the BC era|
|Myths of the American Revolution: George Washington rejected from the British army|
|Statue of Liberty: Egyptian Reject and French Hand-Me-Down?|
|Why did the U.S reject a French offer of colonies + ten billion francs for airplanes?|