The American Revolution was not listed not because it was not "great". It was indeed a very important event in history. Its just that from my perspective and in the context of the theme in the postings, the American "Revolution" was really a cessationist movement for local independence rather than a struggle for fundamental social change, as evidenced by the postponement of the slavery issue for a century after independence. In fact, some tried to inject revolutionary spirit into the movement, but did not get very far. Some brought the unfulfilled ideas back to France and contributed to the French Revoultion. Many nations fought independence wars after World War II, but they were not revolutions in the historic sense. That it was not a revolution of course does not belittle the American experience, nor reduce its influence on world history.
As to the other points, I may very well be guilty as charged. Please see my last posting on language imperialism. I am far from perfect, but I am trying the best I can.
Henry
K wrote:
> Henry wrote:
>
> >Of the 3 great revolutions in modern history: the
> >French, the Chinese
> >and the Russian,
>
> I've seen this written before. Why is the Am
> Revolution not considered 'great' on the same order by
> some folks? This doesn't seem to be true for all,
> since I've seen some include the Am
> Revolution?
>
> >(To K: if you are
> >reading this, you now know why I think being deleted
> >is serious.)
>
> Did you think I didn't think it was important? I only
> thought it silly that you would think it would mean
> something on a List and two, that you felt the
> pressing need to declare that you were deleting me
> publically without stating good reasons. It was
> especially troubling because I took your complaint
> seriously and tried to find out why you were concerned
> and what motivated your complaints.
>
> Afterall, to ignore or delete someone without exactly
> explaining why does very little good. But, more
> importantly and, again, my reply to you was well
> considered, thoughtful, and quite profound if I do say
> so myself. You deleted me in response to those
> queries, not my jokes or snide comments. So I'd
> really like an explanation as to why those questions
> couldn't possibly be taken seriously and were,
> instead, ignored as if they weren't dignified enough
> for
> a response.
>
> But some more thoughts about your posts, just picky
> weenie things, but anyway.
>
> First, you wrote:
>
> >Both socialism and fascism, in the quest for
> guaranteed material welfare
> >for the people, would strip them of their individual
> will, and in the
> >process rob them of their creativity and initiative.
> Unfortunately,
> >material welfare, even if absolutely guaranteed, is
> always a poor
> >compensation for loss of individuality.
>
> Only under those particular historical
> circumstances. I'm not sure that there is,
> necessarily, a tradeoff between
> creativity/individuality and guaranteed material
> welfare.
>
> >Fascism, because of its contempt for equality as an
> ideal, would not
> >hesitate to enslave the masses to create an efficient
> state that would
> >deliver glory to the nation and an improved living
> standard to the
> >dutiful masses. Socialism, on the other hand,
> obsessed by its belief in
> >the myth of equality, would willingly suffer
> inefficiency in
> >wealth-creating processes, even if it should result
> in less income
> >either for use by the state or for fair distribution
> among the people.
>
> Of course, that might be why the goal should be
> *equity* and not *equality* Which is to say, *fair*
> as opposed to *equality* w/ regard to
> distributive justice
>
> In all that, too, I was unclear as to what exactly you
> were concluding w/ regard to the reputed tradeoff
> between individuality and what I would think might be
> better conceived of as equitable or fair (not equal)
> distributive justice.
>
> >In the silk banner, demons of
> Mara the Temptress,evil goddess,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> >The fact that these weapons are shown to be used only
> >by
> >evil demons
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Specifically, evil *female* demons guilty, as per
> usual in these stories, of
> distracting boys away from the good life. This
> section reminded me of the old days when I was
> reading up on world religions and the death of the
> goddess.
>
> >Even if capitalism should succeed in eliminating
> material
> >poverty, it would do so only at the price of a
> poverty of the spirit.
> >It is when questions of responsibility to one's
> fellow
> men and the
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> >The Chinese concept of civilization is centered on
> ideas, and the most
> >important ideas are those concerning the affairs of
> man, namely politics.
> ^^^^^^^
>
> Yes, well of course, the affairs of MAN are always the
> most important.
>
> SnitgrrRl, who otherwise found this post very
> Enlightening