Paragraph on Britain
Historiography
My opinion
In total honesty, do you believe that all revolutions begun in "hope and moderation? This could be considered as euphoric, because did they all begin in moderation or wasn't it more like this sudden attack that took everyone by storm? There's one thing we're all certain of though: each of these revolutions have ended in something similar to dictatorship, which just brings all the revolutionary rebellions back to point A. Three of the four revolutions have experienced this cycle, except for one, of course: the American Revolution. Now, the cool/brainy stuff comes in; why would the American Revolution be isolated out of this category? Was it not a revolution? In my opinion, this Revolution stands neutral on Brinton's scale; it's not your run-of-the mill revolution. The following paragraphs take into consideration of other's perspectives and opinions upon whether or not the American Revolution was actually a revolution.
Brinton’s Anatomy of Revolution states:
The Whigs (19th Century)- This political party portrays the American Revolution as though it were some fairy tale that got passed down for several generations without truly knowing what actually happened. It was like repeating the tale of Cinderella's phenomenal moment of meeting Prince Charming, but completely avoiding the fact that she got terrible foot fungus after losing her shoe. They claim that the Revolution did indeed spark up "progress, advancement, and improvement", but reference to a work of literature by Ray Raphael, who claims a “good deal of the conventional understanding of the American Revolution is based not on factual accounts or evidence but on the dubious creativity of these 19th century biographer”. To sum this up, we all idealize the American Revolution to be some grand step in mankind, even though we greatly praise it for the mere fact that they stood up for their rights and fought for what they believe in; no one cares about the political, government-related stuff, people don’t make movies about that. Later within the 1800s, the dreadful, not-so-fairytale side of the Revolution is focused on. “More rigorous uses of evidence and analysis were used” such as analyzing the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. These documents were considered the end to Western philosophy, democracy, and liberalism, which allowed the American’s to finally obtain their perpetuate desire for freedom and progress.
Side note: Historians that contributed to the advancement of the Whigs perspective included George Bancroft and John Fiske.
The Progressives (early 1900s)- “The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution” is one of many sources that the Progressives used to attack the Whigs’ perspective upon the Revolution. Schlesinger’s interpretation of the American Revolution reveals that although there was a good deal of revolutionary “sentiment” within the 1760s and 1770s, the entire thing was the result of American businessmen (or women, for the modern feminist) that were eager to increase their personal profits with the only way they knew how: oppressing the British trade regulations and obtaining power within “British-dominated markets”. Merrill Jensen proceeded to argue that the “economic slump of the 1780s” was the consequence of the wars that took place. These historians were capable of altering the view that others had about the American Revolution, which eventually left the Whig idea abandoned.
The Imperial School (early 1900s)- In contrast to the previous articles’ views about the American Revolution, this group of historians takes the British Empire’s point of view into perspective and allows us to grasp both sides of the story. They focused on the growth, management, and mismanagement that occurred within the Empire, but did not deem mercantilism and the Navigation Acts to be “oppressive or restrictive”; if they had been either of those, then the American colonies wouldn’t have been as notoriously successful as they were.
Despite the several opinions that were formed based upon Brinton’s anatomy of a Revolution, historians will forever debate whether it is correct to actually classify the American Revolution as a revolution. The prominent historians that have the leading, most persuasive arguments are The Whigs and The Progressives, in my opinion. They both allow the reader to comprehend every aspect of the revolution: political, financial, liberalism etc. The Neo-Whigs lacked sufficient evidence, in my opinion, so I did not take their opinion into consideration. All in all, as I said earlier, the American Revolution stands neutral on the scale of Brinton’s anatomy.
Historiography
My opinion
In total honesty, do you believe that all revolutions begun in "hope and moderation? This could be considered as euphoric, because did they all begin in moderation or wasn't it more like this sudden attack that took everyone by storm? There's one thing we're all certain of though: each of these revolutions have ended in something similar to dictatorship, which just brings all the revolutionary rebellions back to point A. Three of the four revolutions have experienced this cycle, except for one, of course: the American Revolution. Now, the cool/brainy stuff comes in; why would the American Revolution be isolated out of this category? Was it not a revolution? In my opinion, this Revolution stands neutral on Brinton's scale; it's not your run-of-the mill revolution. The following paragraphs take into consideration of other's perspectives and opinions upon whether or not the American Revolution was actually a revolution.
Brinton’s Anatomy of Revolution states:
The Whigs (19th Century)- This political party portrays the American Revolution as though it were some fairy tale that got passed down for several generations without truly knowing what actually happened. It was like repeating the tale of Cinderella's phenomenal moment of meeting Prince Charming, but completely avoiding the fact that she got terrible foot fungus after losing her shoe. They claim that the Revolution did indeed spark up "progress, advancement, and improvement", but reference to a work of literature by Ray Raphael, who claims a “good deal of the conventional understanding of the American Revolution is based not on factual accounts or evidence but on the dubious creativity of these 19th century biographer”. To sum this up, we all idealize the American Revolution to be some grand step in mankind, even though we greatly praise it for the mere fact that they stood up for their rights and fought for what they believe in; no one cares about the political, government-related stuff, people don’t make movies about that. Later within the 1800s, the dreadful, not-so-fairytale side of the Revolution is focused on. “More rigorous uses of evidence and analysis were used” such as analyzing the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. These documents were considered the end to Western philosophy, democracy, and liberalism, which allowed the American’s to finally obtain their perpetuate desire for freedom and progress.
Side note: Historians that contributed to the advancement of the Whigs perspective included George Bancroft and John Fiske.
The Progressives (early 1900s)- “The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution” is one of many sources that the Progressives used to attack the Whigs’ perspective upon the Revolution. Schlesinger’s interpretation of the American Revolution reveals that although there was a good deal of revolutionary “sentiment” within the 1760s and 1770s, the entire thing was the result of American businessmen (or women, for the modern feminist) that were eager to increase their personal profits with the only way they knew how: oppressing the British trade regulations and obtaining power within “British-dominated markets”. Merrill Jensen proceeded to argue that the “economic slump of the 1780s” was the consequence of the wars that took place. These historians were capable of altering the view that others had about the American Revolution, which eventually left the Whig idea abandoned.
The Imperial School (early 1900s)- In contrast to the previous articles’ views about the American Revolution, this group of historians takes the British Empire’s point of view into perspective and allows us to grasp both sides of the story. They focused on the growth, management, and mismanagement that occurred within the Empire, but did not deem mercantilism and the Navigation Acts to be “oppressive or restrictive”; if they had been either of those, then the American colonies wouldn’t have been as notoriously successful as they were.
Despite the several opinions that were formed based upon Brinton’s anatomy of a Revolution, historians will forever debate whether it is correct to actually classify the American Revolution as a revolution. The prominent historians that have the leading, most persuasive arguments are The Whigs and The Progressives, in my opinion. They both allow the reader to comprehend every aspect of the revolution: political, financial, liberalism etc. The Neo-Whigs lacked sufficient evidence, in my opinion, so I did not take their opinion into consideration. All in all, as I said earlier, the American Revolution stands neutral on the scale of Brinton’s anatomy.
No comments:
Post a Comment