Howard Zinn Chapter 4 Discussion Question

In order to reply to someone click on the quote button of their post and then begin typing after what they have written.

When Zinn states the myth of the revolution was that it was for the people, so maybe it wasnt FOR the people, maybe it was for the upperclass who decided "down with England the tyrant who makes us pay taxes, gives us minimum governing abilities, and passes law that hurt commen men who conduct commerce." So basically he means the revolution happened to preserve colonial economy, and keep the states from being caliteral damage of Englands internal conflicts. So i agree with Zinn on that point. But when he says it was not on behalf of a united people thats kinda outrageous, yes it benefited some more than others (like capitalism ), in the war the common man fought along with the poor man. Post war, an indentured servent, Alexander Hamilton became the nations first treasurer. There was self interest, and benfits to the wealthy, but the war was a consenus. I mean reality and history have proven that no state can have be equal like the soviet union, cuba, and north korea are prime examples of how thats is bad. To conclude , unequality doesnt equvilate to a divided non unifided state. However modern examples shows attempts at this impractical equality that Zinn implys in almost every chapter , and how those states are more broken and tyranical , than anunequal but unified one. The myth of the revolution is that its cause was unity, not that it wasnt a by product.

I agree with Zinn's statement that the myth of the Revolution was that it was on behalf of a united people. Zinn states, "Some Americans were clearly omitted from this circle of United interest drawn by the Declaration of Independence: Indians, black slaves, women (72)." America was not united. In fact, a conflict of poor against rich sparked riots. Poor men were oppressed by rich. Members of high ranking jobs consisted almost entirely of middle and upper classes of colonial society. The propertyless could not vote. This included blacks, women and Indians. "All men are created equal" was aimed at men with wealth and power. If you lacked either quality, you were not a part of the "united people."

I completely agree with Emily because it was really only wealthy and powerful men that made up the society and the government. Everyone else such as slaves, women, Indians, and people who did not own property were not even counted. They were practically omitted from everything and anything that had to do with the development of the United States and this remarkably included the Declaration of Independence. On page 73 Zinn says, "They were politically invisible," in reference to women and why they weren't mentioned in the document. It was not just women but slaves and Indians as well that were broken off from the endeavors of these men who oozed money and power.

Upper class men would convince lower class men that the route of economical issues was due to Britain. They were able to convince lower class men to be angry at Britain's monarchy instead of the colonies elite. The propertyless were practically irrelevant to any decision made in America since they were not allowed to vote or attend town meetings.

I agree with Emily's previous comment. They convinced and persuaded the lower class men. They tampered with the truth. I agree somewhat with Zinn's comment. It seemed like it was only for upper class men who decided to get rid of England. It didn't contribute to the lower class men. It was on behalf of a united people. But then you go to what Diana said. They all weren't unified before the Revolution nor afterwards. So I can't really agree or disagree. There's two sides to the story just to sum it up

I heavily agree with Zinn and most people writing on this thread. There was no United people. Sure, many could have similar beliefs, but the many factors such as (as many were saying), woman and slaves had no say, even though they made up much of the colonial States. Knowing this, the revolution, as Zinn states, was NOT amongst a unified people, but more amongst of the people who had a say in the colonial States.