So in honor of it being fourth of July and all, I picked up Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" and read about the revolutionary war. All I can remember from American History in high school was the famous phrase, "taxation without representation." And that's bad, right? Well as is usually the case, war is more complicated than a simple phrase and the Revolutionary War was no exception.
Before the colonists' dissent was directed at Britian, it was directed at the upper class here at home. In fact a study of the Boston tax lists of the early 1770s shows that 5% of the population was controlling 49% of the city's assets. This imbalance led to many riots and ransacking of private property. This made the people with the private property - the rich - understandably nervous. As a whole, the colonists had a huge amount of natural resources, were tired of fighting wars against the Spanish and French in the name of Great Britian, and the ruling class in the colonies was worried about losing their own wealth due to this growing dissent. It is no wonder then that their main objective was to direct this animosity towards Britain. In fact this redirection of anger was so tenuous, many of the poor in the army were forcibly enlisted and there was often mutiny, abandonment, and riots. The few who did join the army on their own will did so out of a necessity to advance their financial position - just as is done today. We likely would have lost the war if it were not for the support of France.
So this fourth of July, when you're barbecueing and drinking your beer, definately enjoy them. But remember what you are celebrating - a successful redirection of animosity at a time when real revolution may have actually been possible. For the common man, the Revolutionary War was no different than any other war. The poor have the "priveledge" and "duty" of protecting the wealth and assets of the rich. Sound familiar?
2 comments:
Such a downer -
There *were* valid reasons to be angry with the British - and there *was* some redistribution of wealth at the time due to the war. I'm skeptical as to how much redistribution could have occurred at the time, anyway. While we think of socio-economic class as (in theory, anyway) fluid, there wasn't the mindset in the 1700's. It was ingrained in the European mindset that you were born into what you should stay in and what you deserved. India is fighting a similar battle now. You can give the untouchable class rights and wealth, but as long as they still view themselves as less than those above them, there will be no real change.
Real revolution sometimes takes hundreds of years - and the path to American revolution is no exception. We are getting there and will get there. I'm not always proud of our progress, but I know that we're making some.
Such a downer -
There *were* valid reasons to be angry with the British - and there *was* some redistribution of wealth at the time due to the war. I'm skeptical as to how much redistribution could have occurred at the time, anyway. While we think of socio-economic class as (in theory, anyway) fluid, there wasn't the mindset in the 1700's. It was ingrained in the European mindset that you were born into what you should stay in and what you deserved. India is fighting a similar battle now. You can give the untouchable class rights and wealth, but as long as they still view themselves as less than those above them, there will be no real change.
Real revolution sometimes takes hundreds of years - and the path to American revolution is no exception. We are getting there and will get there. I'm not always proud of our progress, but I know that we're making some.
Post a Comment