Jul 4, 2023·edited Jul 4, 2023Liked by Jeff Maurer
George Orwell made some related remarks about revolution. People only demand rights when they have time to think about it. Peasants, workers or serfs whose chief concern is finding food and firewood might occasionally revolt, but that won't escalate into a revolution because they won't have any coherent political program. Once people get a certain degree of control over their life, however, they begin to realize they can manage their own affairs better than the local nobles or the central government, so the boldest of this middle class start looking for ways to take matters in their own hands (such as replacing the old government).
In other words, oppression itself doesn't start revolution. It only does when people consider their rulers unnecessary, in the sense that they could rule themselves better.
The colonies had been de facto independent basically since they were first set up. Pay lip service to the crown and file their paperwork correctly and all that, but govern themselves and tax themselves.
After the seven years war, the home country tried to recoup their losses by introducing a new, tighter, more profitable relationship with their American cousins. It was a noticeable shift- London was trying to rewrite the rules on us. Treat us as a source of raw materials to be extracted and a captive market to sell finished goods to. Our home grown industries will die from cheap foreign goods, and we’ll be reduced from free men to economic slaves, totally dependent on London to even function.
So each tax, each by itself negligible, was a shot across the bow informing them that the hundred years of insulation and organic development was over and now they were just a cash cow for dickheads across the ocean. No more western expansion, no more self-government, no possibility of free trade, can’t even mail a dick-sketch to your GF without cutting London a check.
It’s the principle of the thing, yes, but the principle was that they’d been happy before and now the home country was trying to fuck them raw and rob them blind.
I think in writing about the American revolution the amount of social disorder has been underemphasized. The historian Gordon Wood has written about this. People were arrested -- including William Franklin, Benjamin Franklin's son. People were tarred and feathered and driven out of town. People had their property taken. In teaching about the American revolution, rebels or revolutionaries have been converted into founding fathers. Today in some provinces of Canada they still observe Loyalist day as a holiday.
The ship in Boston harbor that had all the tea on board was an East India Company ship. The Honourable Company had just conquered the French in India and George III was keen to replicate their model of exploitation in North America.
I don’t think it’s correct to call it the “Bolshevik Revolution.” It was as coup-like as they come. Russia had a representative government at that point. The Bolsheviks then collected a lot of guns and used them to take over the weak government.
Yup. Nice piece. It was about power, exactly as you say. Taxes, etc. were the pissers-off, the camel's-back-breaking-straws laid on top the feelings of frustrated powerlessness. But, in a piece in which he actually doesn't be a smart ass, Gopnik argues fairly convincingly that there were deep-seated disagreements about how to parcel out the power, and these 𝒑𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒐𝒑𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒄𝒍𝒂𝒔𝒉𝒆𝒔 were highly motivating. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/15/we-could-have-been-canada
The key thing to remember about the American Revolution is that it is essentially the only time in world history a group of individuals has taken up arms to demand that the most progressive-for it’s time-regime in the world live up to it’s stated promises for it’s citizens. It wasn’t a revolution against slavery or economic deprivation/class warfare, it was Americans demanding civic responsibility. The colonial charter of Connecticut was so liberal/respecting of rights that the future state of Connecticut didn’t bother to replace it as the state constitution/governing document until well into the 19th century. Imagine Finland keeping the old Russian playbook after gaining it’s independence!
That’s not appealing to the type of person who thinks unions at Starbucks or 10 year olds getting gender transitioned are the key to future self satisfaction and social utopia.
Watch 1776. Which, for a light piece of musical theatre, is remarkably historically accurate (it's easier to count where they fudged the history than where they got it right); and contains a lot of direct or lightly-edited quotes from the records and letters.
You might be interested in this prog. If you debt laden govenment who needs to pay for a costly war, came up with a scheme to guaranteed better revenue and reduce tax to the consumer. Surely a Win-Win for all except tax avoiding smugglers who see their profits decline and a Givernment that is not going to rip up its treaties with native for a speculation land grab. Anyone who disagrees is terrorised by bully boy tactics.
Thanks for getting me to read the Declaration of Independence on Independence Day! Well done! Also for cracking me up on a regular basis.
George Orwell made some related remarks about revolution. People only demand rights when they have time to think about it. Peasants, workers or serfs whose chief concern is finding food and firewood might occasionally revolt, but that won't escalate into a revolution because they won't have any coherent political program. Once people get a certain degree of control over their life, however, they begin to realize they can manage their own affairs better than the local nobles or the central government, so the boldest of this middle class start looking for ways to take matters in their own hands (such as replacing the old government).
In other words, oppression itself doesn't start revolution. It only does when people consider their rulers unnecessary, in the sense that they could rule themselves better.
The colonies had been de facto independent basically since they were first set up. Pay lip service to the crown and file their paperwork correctly and all that, but govern themselves and tax themselves.
After the seven years war, the home country tried to recoup their losses by introducing a new, tighter, more profitable relationship with their American cousins. It was a noticeable shift- London was trying to rewrite the rules on us. Treat us as a source of raw materials to be extracted and a captive market to sell finished goods to. Our home grown industries will die from cheap foreign goods, and we’ll be reduced from free men to economic slaves, totally dependent on London to even function.
So each tax, each by itself negligible, was a shot across the bow informing them that the hundred years of insulation and organic development was over and now they were just a cash cow for dickheads across the ocean. No more western expansion, no more self-government, no possibility of free trade, can’t even mail a dick-sketch to your GF without cutting London a check.
It’s the principle of the thing, yes, but the principle was that they’d been happy before and now the home country was trying to fuck them raw and rob them blind.
Being skeptical of tea-drinking dudes' capacity for violence betrays a terrible ignorance of the entire history of China.
I think in writing about the American revolution the amount of social disorder has been underemphasized. The historian Gordon Wood has written about this. People were arrested -- including William Franklin, Benjamin Franklin's son. People were tarred and feathered and driven out of town. People had their property taken. In teaching about the American revolution, rebels or revolutionaries have been converted into founding fathers. Today in some provinces of Canada they still observe Loyalist day as a holiday.
The ship in Boston harbor that had all the tea on board was an East India Company ship. The Honourable Company had just conquered the French in India and George III was keen to replicate their model of exploitation in North America.
I don’t think it’s correct to call it the “Bolshevik Revolution.” It was as coup-like as they come. Russia had a representative government at that point. The Bolsheviks then collected a lot of guns and used them to take over the weak government.
Yup. Nice piece. It was about power, exactly as you say. Taxes, etc. were the pissers-off, the camel's-back-breaking-straws laid on top the feelings of frustrated powerlessness. But, in a piece in which he actually doesn't be a smart ass, Gopnik argues fairly convincingly that there were deep-seated disagreements about how to parcel out the power, and these 𝒑𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒐𝒑𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒄𝒍𝒂𝒔𝒉𝒆𝒔 were highly motivating. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/15/we-could-have-been-canada
As usual, brilliant piece of work.
The key thing to remember about the American Revolution is that it is essentially the only time in world history a group of individuals has taken up arms to demand that the most progressive-for it’s time-regime in the world live up to it’s stated promises for it’s citizens. It wasn’t a revolution against slavery or economic deprivation/class warfare, it was Americans demanding civic responsibility. The colonial charter of Connecticut was so liberal/respecting of rights that the future state of Connecticut didn’t bother to replace it as the state constitution/governing document until well into the 19th century. Imagine Finland keeping the old Russian playbook after gaining it’s independence!
That’s not appealing to the type of person who thinks unions at Starbucks or 10 year olds getting gender transitioned are the key to future self satisfaction and social utopia.
Are you sure? I was under the impression that taxes were just a pretense to “keep ‘er slaves”.
This seems to fly in the face of that! What a novel concept. A revolution over government participation? Sounds sus! I’ll have to look more into this.
Watch 1776. Which, for a light piece of musical theatre, is remarkably historically accurate (it's easier to count where they fudged the history than where they got it right); and contains a lot of direct or lightly-edited quotes from the records and letters.
Happy Fourth!
You might be interested in this prog. If you debt laden govenment who needs to pay for a costly war, came up with a scheme to guaranteed better revenue and reduce tax to the consumer. Surely a Win-Win for all except tax avoiding smugglers who see their profits decline and a Givernment that is not going to rip up its treaties with native for a speculation land grab. Anyone who disagrees is terrorised by bully boy tactics.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01724mf