- Thread starter
- #41
There is no way he understands that the French and the American Revolutions were diametric opposites.
you're right.
The French Revolution was justified.
The American Revolution really wasn't.
The Bourbons horribly mismanaged France. They pissed away money on wars and palaces while people were LITERALLY STARVING IN THE STREET. The "mob" as you say were women who watched their children die in their arms while their leaders said, "Let them Eat Cake". Okay, maybe that wasn't actually said, but the sentiment was there. It was such a disconnect between the rulers and the ruled that the people revolted angrily, as they should have.
Meanwhile, the American Revolution. That was a bunch of Slave-owners who didn't want to pay their taxes. The thing was, the United Kingdom had already banned slavery in the England proper and were looking to do it in the colonies. They had representative, parlimentary democracy. They had a notion of civil rights. It was hardly a "noble cause".
Do you know what we've have been if they lost? Canadians. I've been to Canada, it's kind of nice except the sucky weather.
I detect
If only you had studied, and learned from, history.
Ironic!
Hardly.