|
|
Post by hannah062999 on Oct 17, 2015 16:10:27 GMT
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. This I disagree with. I believe the lower class had their own beliefs but didn't have enough power to properly voice them. Sure some may have been persuaded but I don't think this is the case for all, as many in the lower class just couldn't really do much else besides go along. I agree with what billy had said about the lower class having their own beliefs. Everyone has their own beliefs. Lower class could agree with upper class or even all of the lower class could differ from eachother. It's mainly power that determines who gets heard. And at this time the rich had the power so they were heard. |
|
|
|
Post by meraconda on Oct 17, 2015 16:23:39 GMT
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. This I disagree with. I believe the lower class had their own beliefs but didn't have enough power to properly voice them. Sure some may have been persuaded but I don't think this is the case for all, as many in the lower class just couldn't really do much else besides go along. I have mixed feelings about your response. I agree that perhaps those in the lower class had beliefs contrasting their actions ("the lower class couldn't really so much besides going along.") However, this cannot overshadow the fact that upperclassmen worked to and succeded in persuading the lower classes to turn their anger away from the wealthy elite and towards Britain. As said here and with other posts "not all" people were on one side in regards to things and that itself is almost impossible but as it turned out anyway, a majority of those poor colonists had to turn against Britain (which brings it back to the higher up colonists convincing them that Mama England was the enemy) to build up at least a substantial part of an army to engage in the war hence, the Revolution. |
|
|
|
Post by meraconda on Oct 17, 2015 16:40:54 GMT
I agree that the elite in the Colonies were the equivalent to the monarchy in England. When Zinn says the myth of the Revolution was that it was on behalf of a united people, as he implies throughout the chapters we've read, he gives reference to the obscured voices of poc's, women, etc. and them not having a significant representation in the outcomes of the Revolution, I think. However as Fizza said and I agree, unification was a byproduct of the Revolution, as these opressed people found some footing in fighting to have themselves be seen as relevant and whatever other causes they may have (had). Therefore it may not have "been on behalf" or started with unification but ultimately during and after the Revolution, there was a brief coming together in fighting England and thereafter. Some people are arguing that Zinn is correct because there isn't a TOTAL unification but unfortunately that just isn't very feasible.
|
|
|
|
Post by madhatter0920 on Oct 17, 2015 18:06:21 GMT
America was not united at all it was mainly divided into two groups the rich and the poor which caused plenty of friction between the two causing riots and uproars. Which goes into what Zinn said about the revolution not being between the United people but more to the people who had more power/authority such as the rich. Although I absolutely agree with Colette seeing as these so called "United People" being the rich white men (excluding women, slaves, and Indians since they were as Zinn puts it politically invisible even though they made up most of the population) convinced the lower class and poor colonists the Britain was the cause of their economic troubles.
|
|
|
|
Post by madhatter0920 on Oct 17, 2015 18:19:24 GMT
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. This I disagree with. I believe the lower class had their own beliefs but didn't have enough power to properly voice them. Sure some may have been persuaded but I don't think this is the case for all, as many in the lower class just couldn't really do much else besides go along. I agree with this because since the poor didn't really have a voice they didn't have much of a decision so they decided to go along with what the rich were telling them. Sure they had their own beliefs but with the upperclassmen persuading them to believe what's right they would eventually go along with what they were being told despite what they believed in. |
|
|
|
Post by coiette on Oct 17, 2015 18:22:02 GMT
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. This I disagree with. I believe the lower class had their own beliefs but didn't have enough power to properly voice them. Sure some may have been persuaded but I don't think this is the case for all, as many in the lower class just couldn't really do much else besides go along. I agree with what Billy says about how the lower class didn't have a say in what happens and what doesn't. I feel that if the lower class did have a say in town meetings and be able to vote the America as we know it would've been much different than what it is now today either in a good way or a bad way. |
|
|
|
Post by emilygardin on Oct 17, 2015 18:40:09 GMT
Zinn states, "In Boston, the economic grievances the lowest classes mingled with anger against the British and exploded in mob violence. The leaders of the independence movement wanted to use that mob energy against England ... (65)"
This is a fact. I'm not saying people of lower class had no beliefs or that all of them were convinced to be angry at Britain. They most likely did just go along with it because they had no right to vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilygardin on Oct 17, 2015 18:41:31 GMT
People tend to listen and agree with people of wealth and political power because they think they are right due to their prosperous circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beyoncé on Oct 17, 2015 18:51:31 GMT
I definitely agree with Zinn saying that the Revolution was not a prime example of the workings of a strongly united group of people. The American Revolution, however great it is, was basically the replacement of one tyrannical group for another. The British Empire for the Founding Fathers. He said that both wanted to keep the lower classes down and that was not promising to them (therefore causing uproar). Before the Revolution there was class conflict and it was a starting point for extreme disunity among the people. The lower class definitely realized that the higher-ups would still lead thus fulfilling their interests alone. "Tyranny is Tyranny..." whether it comes from their own or not. They all weren't unified before the Revolution nor afterwards. Although, it must be said that the upper class did unify among themselves for selfish reasons, but this can hardly count for a whole country. |
|
|
|
Post by sarahp on Oct 17, 2015 19:08:00 GMT
I agree with Zinn somewhat, it was all about the rich. We might have had similar thoughts and beliefs but back then women and slaves had no say, it was all about the rich, the royals, and men with high religious positions. With the revolution, we over turned the British empire just to replace it with political men, some of which were corrupt, that tried to one-up each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarahp on Oct 17, 2015 19:10:57 GMT
I with some of what Zinn had said. I do believe that the rich had a higher power over other classes at this time yet, it's like that even now today. Yet, saying that it's not on behalf of the United people I believe that not to be true. Those who wanted to be united and free would fight. Anyone would fight who felt the cause was great enough. Which it was. There may have been some who had not felt "unified" during or post war. Yet, many had a common point which was the war and their fight against the British power and the taxes they were having to pay. Also, I do agree that the elite in the colonies were equivalent to the monarchy in England. Most of the rich felt more in charge than the poor. It is how it was and how it still is. This has never really changed. Yet at this time it was comparable to the monarchy just today it could be comparable to say a higher power like president or someone high in government "untouchable". So I believe that that was true and still is to this day just in different context. I agree with you Hannah, the rich definitely had a higher power over the poor and about how those would fight to be united |
|
|
|
Post by beyonce on Oct 17, 2015 19:15:25 GMT
I agree with Diana with the fact that the revolution was almost explicitly geared towards the elites in colonial society. The Constituition and The Declaration of Independence virtually had at the bottom in fine print "Only for wealthy, educated white men". As Zinn said,"Some Americans were clearly omitted from this circle of interest drawn by the Declaration of Independence: Indians, black slaves, women." While the poor white men and black fought their wars, without reeking the same benefits. Sure, some may have found success and strayed from the oppressive societal classifications but those were rarities. Zinn, though harsh in his analytical recollection of history, is correct in his accusations of inequality at the very conception of American civilization.
|
|
|
|
Post by Breanna on Oct 17, 2015 19:30:34 GMT
I believe that the people were not united. A rich white man was not the same as a man who did not own property. Their views of Britain were twisted due to the influences from upper classmen, as Emily stated above. Like Madhatter said (whose account is that?) The poor did not have a voice, so why not go along with the only source of authority you have in your community. I do feel as if when it came to beliefs, they were united. But, only those with a high social status had a voice. This did make the upper classmen in the colonies some what invincible from lower class wrath. I also believe that the British Monarch was similar to the elite. They both have had an effect on the colonists actions, due to differences in status. I feel that there was a sense of unity following the Revolutionary War due to the colonist rightfully fighting for their independence.
|
|
fizza
New Member
Posts: 9 
|
Post by fizza on Oct 17, 2015 19:34:08 GMT
What would be the alternative? The economy, which affects (effects?) everyone goes under due to Current British conditions.. causing wealthy to not employ, causing poor to become more poor. Or is the alternative giving rights and substantial education to everyone in the 18th century. The instigation of the riots might as well be the wealthy, but these people followed. Thats reality. At one point the wealthy led these men to the stampmasters house, but when they left the violence didnt stop it escalated. (Pg 64) So they themselves felt angry cause it hurt the wealthy but the lower class as well. Zinn is correct inequality did exist, but thats not a educated accusation, thats commonsense. He somehow feels inequality means lack of unity, as ive stated before total equality is an impasse on any society, especially predominantly Christian 18th century colonial america. The unity of anger, the unity of war, the unity of a common enemy were all present. Even if many were excluded, the unity among the class of educated white men who can be held accountable existed which as emily stated was enough persuasion for the rest of the ignorant colonist. Were the colonial wealthy a monarchy? No they might be similar, but it was not tyranny, it was not a bloodlinked chain of dictators. Did they both influence colonist? Ofcourse. Did they both tax colonist one more than the other. Did they both feel responsible for the wellfare of colonist? No. The wealthy differed in this, they need the colonist, valued them even... unlike the british who viewed them as a secondgrade pioneers.
|
|
anyel
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by anyel on Oct 18, 2015 0:27:09 GMT
Howard Zinn is saying that the idea that all the colonists were united was a myth. I believe that this is in fact true, the colonists were not united after, during, or before the revolutionary war. Status and wealth played a bigger role of patriotism in the united states, and I believe that it still does. The revolution itself was mostly an attempt to protect and grant high ranking colonist positions instead of an attempt to benefit the colony as a whole, after all if you were not a white male of high economic status you weren't even allowed to have a say in the issues being faced by the country. I agree with breanna when she says that a rich man with a lot of property was not the same as a man with none. I also agree with fizza in the sense that I don't think that the wealthy colonists could be considered a British monarch, it did have some similarities but it was much different.
|
|
