|
|
Post by NolanP23 on Oct 18, 2015 6:49:45 GMT
I agree with Zinn's statement and everyone else that the myth of the Revolution is of a united people. Like Emily said, America at that time wasn't united because as the colonial trade became more profitable, conflict began to raise due to certain people either benefiting from the British economy. Due to the economic change, lower class men themselves engaged in riots and rebellions in order to change the government of their colony. As a result, with the creation of the Declaration of Independence, Indians, black slaves, and women were "segregated" from the rest of society in order to have a tighter control over the colonies.
|
|
|
|
Post by NolanP23 on Oct 18, 2015 7:02:17 GMT
Although I agree with Zinn, I also agree with Hannah's statement that a higher class is over other classes even in our time. I believe that this system will never change in America. There's always going to to be high class and there's going to be a low class that's going to make a stand against the government about their taxes. An modern American's dream is to become rich in anyway possible and live the dream of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". As long as we continue to want more, other people will be greatly effected.
|
|
|
|
Post by solmaryv on Oct 19, 2015 0:06:57 GMT
I believe that what Zinn means when he said that the myth of the Revolution was that “it was on behalf of a united people” is that it is known for the Revolution to be the time period where Americans first worked together. However, Zinn specifically put the word myth because Americans didn't really worked together. In fact, there were many riots that was against themselves. In People's of History of the United States, Zinn says, "In North Carolina, a powerful movement of white farmers was organized against wealthy and corrupt officials in the period from 1776 to 1771..." (63). Many people believe that Americans fought together, but they were actually fighting within one another. There was such an unequal distribution of wealth, that it led to many poor people to question the tax system. The unequal distribution of money eventually made the poor turn against the rich.This is why I believe that the Revolution was not really on behalf of a united people, considering that they weren't united. Therefore, I agree with Zinn.
|
|
|
|
Post by solmaryv on Oct 19, 2015 0:18:21 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. I agree with Anyel completely. I mean, if you really think about it, the wealthy people were the ones who were most interested in the Revolution. They were never thinking about the poor, just about their-selves. They were just trying to protect their status. I also agree with Anyel that status and wealth plays a bigger roll since the world, including the United States revolves around money. Money equals power, therefore, the more money you have, the more of a say you have in the government. |
|
Mazna
New Member
cali is the mission
Posts: 3 
|
Post by Mazna on Oct 19, 2015 2:31:59 GMT
I believe that when Zinn says, "myth of the Revolution-that it was on behalf of a united people", he means that people aren't much united anymore compared to a time they once were, causing the unity to be a "myth". Also, in the final sentence of chapter 4, it proves that there is no more unity and that we have separated into 2 types of Americans, the rich and the poor.
|
|
Mazna
New Member
cali is the mission
Posts: 3
|
Post by Mazna on Oct 19, 2015 2:43:04 GMT
I agree with the statement Zinn said about the revolution being a myth. America and the people within were never united. There was always a group of people that were know as "the best" while the others were looked down upon. Race and class played a huge part in this. Some had no properties and could not vote. However, those who were upper class did not have to worry about a thing. I agree with Maryam when she says, "There was always a group of people that were known as "the best" while others were looked down upon." Why, because that's how it is now if not then. Well, it was then, but it shows more in present time, for example, celebrities are the rich ones and we are the poor ones..not really but you get what I mean (that were separated in two). So, basically, there is no more unity between each other and that we don't get as much attention from the rich unless we actually try really hard to be rich or just are related somehow to a rich person. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 21, 2015 15:42:43 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. Sounds similar to today doesn't it? |
|
fizza
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by fizza on Oct 23, 2015 2:27:49 GMT
I think Fizza could say a lot about this. I think its your bedtime |
|
