The French and American revolutions have a lot in common. Why did the resulting countries end up so different? Please stick to facts not opinions.
Oh, I suppose it might be because they have different histories, different cultures, different demographics, different geographies, different natural resources, different levels of damage wreaked by different wars for a start, but that's just me. Why don't you educate us on why you think there's a difference?
The French and American revolutions have a lot in common.
They have almost nothing in common aside from superficial ideological similarities... The French revolution was originally a domestic revolt by the aristocracy against a modernizing and centralizing monarchy. The "third estate" was just along for the ride, probably against their own initial self-interest and better judgement. The "revolution" was a long series of internal political power struggles that violently fractured France and spawned off foreign wars of aggression. It led to a new nationalism coupled with what was effectively a voluntary military dictatorship, the fullness of the "Napoleonic" wars, and ended with the final rise of a modern state under Napoleon III. It saw coups and counter-coups, dictators, counter-revolutions, the terror, and endless civilian bloodshed.
The American revolution was a band of former colonies waging a war of independence (justified or not) against an aggressive mother country. It consisted of a largely peaceful internal debate, a short defensive war, and a long political evolution that eventually led to the modern US government.
The French and American revolutions have a lot in common.
They have almost nothing in common aside from superficial ideological similarities... The French revolution was originally a domestic revolt by the aristocracy against a modernizing and centralizing monarchy. The "third estate" was just along for the ride, probably against their own initial self-interest and better judgement. The "revolution" was a long series of internal political power struggles that violently fractured France and spawned off foreign wars of aggression. It led to a new nationalism coupled with what was effectively a voluntary military dictatorship, the fullness of the "Napoleonic" wars, and ended with the final rise of a modern state under Napoleon III. It saw coups and counter-coups, dictators, counter-revolutions, the terror, and endless civilian bloodshed.
The American revolution was a band of former colonies waging a war of independence (justified or not) against an aggressive mother country. It consisted of a largely peaceful internal debate, a short defensive war, and a long political evolution that eventually led to the modern US government.
Rym, just for the record, I didn't say they have a lot in common. Rush said that, not me:
The French and American revolutions have a lot in common. Why did the resulting countries end up so different? Please stick to facts not opinions.
You wrote:
The French and American revolutions have a lot in common.
Please forgive me if it sounds like a little thing, but I don't want people thinking I said that. I said that some of the Founding Fathers admired the French Revolution, which I went on to demonstrate was true. I said that because Rush said:
The France who fought beside us in the American revolution is not the same as the France who gave us the Statue of Liberty.
As though somehow "the France who gave us the Statue of Liberty" was not as good as "[t]he France who fought beside us in the American revolution" because of the French Revolution.
No offense, but this sounds like the "Just kidding" defense.
That it does.
This is typical of conservative types. The real Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter do it all the time. They'll say some outrageous shit and when they're called on it, they'll say, "Oh, that was a joke", or "Oh, I was being sarcastic", or "Oh, I was using satire".
No offense, but this sounds like the "Just kidding" defense.
That it does.
This is typical of conservative types. The real Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter do it all the time. They'll say some outrageous shit and when they're called on it, they'll say, "Oh, that was a joke", or "Oh, I was being sarcastic", or "Oh, I was using satire".
Rym, just for the record, I didn't say they have a lot in common. Rush said that, not me:
The French and American revolutions have a lot in common. Why did the resulting countries end up so different? Please stick to facts not opinions.
You wrote:
The French and American revolutions have a lot in common.
Please forgive me if it sounds like a little thing, but I don't want people thinking I said that. I said that some of the Founding Fathers admired the French Revolution, which I went on to demonstrate was true. I said that because Rush said:
The France who fought beside us in the American revolution is not the same as the France who gave us the Statue of Liberty.
As though somehow "the France who gave us the Statue of Liberty" was not as good as "[t]he France who fought beside us in the American revolution" because of the French Revolution.
Well, America was able to come up with a government that was accepted by most and bearable enough to survive. The french overthrew the government, then argued like crazy how to make a new one. So everyone was vying for control and accusing one another of treason, so politicians were put to death when someone could convince the people they were evil.
So think of this: What would have happened if Thomas Jefferson or John Adams were killed for treason because they had different opinions or were opponents of those who got control of the US government?
As for the whole French Revolution the reason the Reign of Terror occurred was because the government at the time was afraid of a counter-revolution supported by the countries that surround France such as Austria and Great Britain which were waging war with France at the same time. The reason the American Revolution never had a bloody period like the Reign of Terror or a Robespierre like dictator was that America didn't have to fear invasion from all sides.
Another reason was that Washington willingly relinquished power. It's hard today to realize just how unusual that was. In fact, it still is unusual for other revolutions. His actions helped give people confidence that the new government could be stable and long-lasting.
Actually, in regards to the real Rush Limbaugh, you can tell when he is using humor to illustrate a point. You can't tell it from a transcript but you can from listening to him on the radio. Sarcasm is one thing that does not translate well on the web.
Yes, the main things that allowed the American government to prosper were the lack of neighboring powers and the fact the GW did not want to be king. That is the one problem most revolutions have. The person in charge of the revolution gets in power and suddenly decides that he likes it there.
Power is a lot like sex in that you don't miss it until you taste it.
As for the whole French Revolution the reason the Reign of Terror occurred was because the government at the time was afraid of a counter-revolution supported by the countries that surround France such as Austria and Great Britain which were waging war with France at the same time.
Actually, it had a lot more to do with internal power struggles between different political parties than with any actual concerns about a counter-revolution. Most of the victims of The Terror were nothing more than the political opponents of those in power.
Actually, in regards to the real Rush Limbaugh, you can tell when he is using humor to illustrate a point.
No you can't because he's not funny. Nothing he says is meant to be humor at the time he says it. But, like most of the people who listen to him, he can convince you that his entire show is "humor" if he's actually challenged on whatever outrageous bullshit thing he's said.
Comments
The American revolution was a band of former colonies waging a war of independence (justified or not) against an aggressive mother country. It consisted of a largely peaceful internal debate, a short defensive war, and a long political evolution that eventually led to the modern US government.
Different, I think.
Well, America was able to come up with a government that was accepted by most and bearable enough to survive. The french overthrew the government, then argued like crazy how to make a new one. So everyone was vying for control and accusing one another of treason, so politicians were put to death when someone could convince the people they were evil.
So think of this: What would have happened if Thomas Jefferson or John Adams were killed for treason because they had different opinions or were opponents of those who got control of the US government?
Yes, the main things that allowed the American government to prosper were the lack of neighboring powers and the fact the GW did not want to be king. That is the one problem most revolutions have. The person in charge of the revolution gets in power and suddenly decides that he likes it there.
Power is a lot like sex in that you don't miss it until you taste it.