Can the Fate of One Average Man change history?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Uneducated? 😕

Actually the British would ridicule the conlonists as being "simple". In fact, they created the song "Yankee Doodle" to ridicule them. Ironically, the colonists used what was meant for their ridicule and made it their own.

The modern day progressive is akin to the British powers that enslaved the colonists. In fact, all we see are similar tactics.

Originally posted by CliffLandin
I guess the fact that the American colonies had an estimated 95% literacy rate in 1776 doesn't count for being educated.

My point was that even though the colonists may have been able to read, they were not as educated as the Founding Fatehers. Basically the colonists relied upon the Fonding Father for their study of political philosophers as well as their economic affluency to acheive success.

Of course, I do realize it is hard to invision a world where 95% of the population could read, however, do realize this was before the department of education changed all that. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
Actually the British would ridicule the conlonists as being "simple". In fact, they created the song "Yankee Doodle" to ridicule them. Ironically, the colonists used what was meant for their ridicule and made it their own.

The modern day progressive is akin to the British powers that enslaved the colonists. In fact, all we see are similar tactics.

enslaved???, you ungrateful wretch, we spent a fortune protecting you and your interests and when we dared to recuperate some of it back with a little meagre taxation your went crazy and started a revolution. Its now self evident that you cannot govern yourselves!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
enslaved???, you ungrateful wretch, we spent a fortune protecting you and your interests and when we dared to recuperate some of it back with a little meagre taxation your went crazy and started a revolution. Its now self evident that you cannot govern yourselves!

So you would compare the Founding Fathers to that of the modern day Tea Party?

Originally posted by CliffLandin
I guess the fact that the American colonies had an estimated 95% literacy rate in 1776 doesn't count for being educated.

Oh indeed - quite comparable to education levels in Tunisia then, oddly enough. Did you not notice the reference to the education of Boazizi and his family? The fact that he was working on a market stall was not due to lack of education. Had you not noticed that much of the protest is about the lack of opportunity and unfair treatment of the graduates from what is quite a respected education system? Had you not noticed the role in Egypt of students? Where do you get your patronising attitudes from? American education standards are not a model for the World these days - they are a warning.

Originally posted by whodey
So you would compare the Founding Fathers to that of the modern day Tea Party?

The early settlers could read their Bible which is a dubious level of education. Useful for reading simplistic and effective propaganda (Tom Paine was a good propogandist and great spin doctor, able to describe every Washington defeat as another victory until that emerged as the reality. Curious how his ideas translated to the French Revolution and the constitution adopted there - Americans have never learned to be careful when exporting their ideas of government and yes, I know Tom Paine was English before he became American, and then French, and then neglected). That Puritan streak remains central to American life and is indeed reflected in much of the Tea Party output.

Originally posted by finnegan
The early settlers could read their Bible which is a dubious level of education. Useful for reading simplistic and effective propaganda (Tom Paine was a good propogandist and great spin doctor, able to describe every Washington defeat as another victory until that emerged as the reality. Curious how his ideas translated to the French Revolution and the cons ...[text shortened]... streak remains central to American life and is indeed reflected in much of the Tea Party output.

So would you say that Tomas Paine was their modern day Rush Limbaugh?

Originally posted by whodey
So would you say that Tomas Paine was their modern day Rush Limbaugh?

No, Paine wasn't an idiot.

Originally posted by finnegan
The early settlers could read their Bible which is a dubious level of education. Useful for reading simplistic and effective propaganda (Tom Paine was a good propogandist and great spin doctor, able to describe every Washington defeat as another victory until that emerged as the reality. Curious how his ideas translated to the French Revolution and the cons ...[text shortened]... streak remains central to American life and is indeed reflected in much of the Tea Party output.

I suggest you read Rights of Man; distaste for Paine must be popular in Brit revisionist historians but is hardly intellectually defensible. The idea that monarchies should be overthrown might have been shocking to aristocrats in 1770-1790 but is a bit surprising to hear posters criticizing it in 2011.

Originally posted by whodey
So you would compare the Founding Fathers to that of the modern day Tea Party?

No i would say the tea Party is a hybrid of sadomasochism and the Spartan oligarchy.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I suggest you read Rights of Man; distaste for Paine must be popular in Brit revisionist historians but is hardly intellectually defensible. The idea that monarchies should be overthrown might have been shocking to aristocrats in 1770-1790 but is a bit surprising to hear posters criticizing it in 2011.

I suspect Paine has limited impact in Britain, but on the Left he is probably seen in a vague way to be one of the good guys. His assault on monarchy is indeed potent and his demand for Liberty hard to counter. However it is perfectly possible to criticize Paine as well even from a Left position (whatever that means!).

Where, arguably, the British stand back from Paine is in the critique adopted by Burke, a great Irish orator and Parliamentarian. Burke gave his political career to attacking privilige and seeking to make Government accountable - his leadership in the impeachment of Hastings for his corrupt and vile role as Governor of India had huge beneficial effects, eventually. What Burke did object to in Paine was his over simplification of politics and his conviction that the World can and should be turned upside down in pursuit of an idea. Burke specifically predicted that in France this would lead to mob rule and extreme violence and nothing that happened in France after the Revolution proved him mistaken. Burke is accused of being a "revisionist" and variations on that theme but his passion for accountable Government and his revulsion against corruption never wavered in his long and effective career. Indeed, he became one of the stoutest Parliamentary supporters of the American Revolution and arguably was the one individual who did most to force King George to accept American independence. The point being that in America the move to independence was not derived from the overthrow of all social norms and values - in many respects, it entailed very conservative social goals. In this respect, Paine was carried away with his own rhetoric until he encountered the hard rock of the French Revolution.

It is one thing to offer a critique of society - quite a different thing to shape an alternative and Paine was certainly less reliable a guide than Burke in the path to Liberty. We love him for his conviction and passion, and we do not dispute his arguments as such, but the British have a nervous fear of extremes and seek change more incrementally because WE DO NOT TRUST LEADERS (contrary to current fashionable chatter) and do not follow ideology very far.

Originally posted by finnegan
I suspect Paine has limited impact in Britain, but on the Left he is probably seen in a vague way to be one of the good guys. His assault on monarchy is indeed potent and his demand for Liberty hard to counter. However it is perfectly possible to criticize Paine as well even from a Left position (whatever that means!).

Where, arguably, the British stan ...[text shortened]... T TRUST LEADERS (contrary to current fashionable chatter) and do not follow ideology very far.

Burke was wrong, Paine was right. The French Revolution was justified and necessary. It took the enlightened Brits 150+ more years and significant bloodshed before they were forced to abandon their Empire (except for their continued occupation of a part of Ireland where they created a pro-Brit population by ethnic cleansing) which was responsible for a vast amount more suffering than the French Revolution. Brits seemed to trust their leaders just fine to exploit and dominate subject peoples the world over.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Burke was wrong, Paine was right. The French Revolution was justified and necessary. It took the enlightened Brits 150+ more years and significant bloodshed before they were forced to abandon their Empire which was responsible for a vast amount more suffering than the French Revolution.

It's difficult to see how Burke's objections to the French Revolution are invalidated by the cruelties of British Imperialism, since these two sets of atrocities were not dependent on each other. Nor did the French Revolution prevent the French too from establishing a colonial empire which caused great suffering to subject peoples from Africa to Indochina.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
It's difficult to see how Burke's objections to the French Revolution are invalidated by the cruelties of British Imperialism, since these two sets of atrocities were not dependent on each other. Nor did the French Revolution prevent the French too from establishing a colonial empire which caused great suffering to subject peoples from Africa to Indochina.

Another non sequitur. I suggest you read the post I was responding to; in no one way did I claim that continued British imperialism had anything to do with the validity of Burke's criticisms of the French revolution. Burke's criticisms are invalid for the reasons well argued by Paine in the Rights of Man. Continued British imperialism does refute the rosy assessment of the supposed "incremental change" preferences of the British national character claimed by finnegan, however.

Originally posted by finnegan
Oh indeed - quite comparable to education levels in Tunisia then, oddly enough. Did you not notice the reference to the education of Boazizi and his family? The fact that he was working on a market stall was not due to lack of education. Had you not noticed that much of the protest is about the lack of opportunity and unfair treatment of the graduates from ...[text shortened]... rom? American education standards are not a model for the World these days - they are a warning.

I think you misunderstood what my post was in regards to. You should read back a bit farther, perhaps to the beginning of the thread. I was not comparing U.S. education to anything. Whodey tries to equate everything to the U.S. My post was simply in response to his statement that the soldiers in the revolution were a bunch of uneducated louts. Save your speech about American condescension for someone else. I know all about the level of education in the U.S.