What's in a name? (Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, scene two, act two.)
The events between 1775-83 were known to history as the American War of Independence. I have no information when the term American Revolution was first introduced and by whom but it has since overshadowed the early appellation. Any help from historians on this point would be welcome. The early documents relating to these events did not mention the word revolution, nor did the new government refer to itself as a revolutionary government. First of all, American colonials were not indigenous natives who are distinguished as colonial subjects in colonialism nomenclature. Kipling was a colonial while the people of India were British colonial subjects. It a very important distinction, in view of post-war American tendencies to claim for her an anti-colonial root. Anti-colonialism refers to the struggle of indigenous natives against foreign occupation and subjugation. The oppressors include the colonials or expatriates, as they are called in modern post-colonial societies. The Sons of Liberty called the Stamp Act Congress to protest that Parliament was violating the rights of true-born Englishmen, not the structural injustice of colonial society. The battle cry was: "No taxation without representation", not "Land to the Indians". British policies of 18th-century mercantilism split the economic interest of the home country from that of the colonialists. Opposition to the Navigation Act provided the rationalization for smuggling as an honorable profession among otherwise law-binding colonials. Thus it can be argued that American colonials, to legitimize an economic dispute with home authoritites, co-opted democratic precepts as a cover for embarassing material incentives, employing arguments based on John Locke's theory of natural right to ennoble their cause of narrow economic self-interest. The tyranny assigned to George III was entirely taxation based. The British did not engage in systemic oppression in colonial America in the same way the Bourbons, or the Muanchus or the Romanovs did, nor the way British imperialism did in non-white colonies. The American founding fathers were privileged, property and slave owning and rich, and they had enjoyed extensive political rights and freedoms. Their initial beef was really just a tax revolt. Many colonials regarded the war of independence as a civil war, rather than a popular uprising based on democratic principles. Benjamin Franklin's own son, William Franklin, remained a loyalist. The revolt movement was floundering ideologically, until Thomas Paine wrote a revoluntary pamphlet, Common Sense, which endorsed the patriotic cause. Paine was the father of the American revolutionary movement, while Washington was the father of the nation. In drafting the new Constitution, debates were held on the need of an American King and the efficacy of constitutional monarchy. Many revolutionary ideologues, including Paine who would leave to participate in the French Revolution, were disappointed with the turn toward conservatism which contributed to the new government's ready diplomatic recognition by most European monarchies which did not consider the new government as a revolutonary threat. The People's Republic of China was not recognized by the U.S., a bastion of modern anti-revolutionary forces, for 26 years after its founding. French aid to the American colonials was geo-politically rather than ideaolgically motivated. The Treaty of Paris of Sept 3, 1783, the true independence day, marked the formal end of the War of Independence, and Great Britian's official acknowledgement of the independence of the United States. No other revolution in history was sanctified by a peace treaty.
Henry C.K. Liu
Louis Proyect wrote:
> >So, I would say the "standard" Marxist
> >answer is that the Am. Rev. was a
> >truly great rev.
> >
> >
> >Charles Brown
> >
>
> Lenin's remarks to American workers was not a Marxist analysis of the
> American revolution. It was instead a typical revolutionary greeting that
> the Comintern trotted out on special occasions, to greet delegations, etc.
>
> A more interesting discussion of the American revolution would involve the
> degree to which social-economic forms were transformed. Revolutions are
> supposed to abolish one form of property ownership and institute another.
> In Cuba the army and police marched into privately-owned plantations,
> factories and banks and announced that they now belonged to the people.
>
> In point of fact nothing like this occurred in the French Revolution or the
> American Revolution. Furthermore, Europe generally evolved peacefully
> toward modern capitalist relations as the aristocracy happily joined the
> bourgeoisie in exploiting the working-class. Everything that was
> revolutionary about 1789 and 1776 can be traced to the plebian elements
> like the sans-culottes or Tom Paine, who struggled against the so-called
> "revolutionary" bourgeoisie.
>
> I have attempted to debate Charles on these questions on the Marxism list,
> but he seems to lack the time and interest to dig into the historical
> detail. Quoting a speech or article from Lenin to make a point is the curse
> of Marxism. It is the sign of dogmatism. Burford is fond of this practice
> as well.
>
> If we can't get past this type of "holy scripture" approach, then we might
> as well leave politics to bourgeois ideologists, who seem much more
> motivated to dig beneath the surface. Can you imagine Francis Fukuyama
> quoting Adam Smith to make a point? No wonder the left is in such horrible
> shape.
>
> Louis Proyect
>
> (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)