Saturday, June 15, 2013
Intro perception - Wood
Wood argues in this book that the American Revolution was much more radical than it is perceived to be because it broke away from the social and cultural norms of having a society based around class. I think he assumes that most people think that in order for a revolution to be radical it must have violence or oppression. Before reading the book my perception of the American Revolution was that it was very radical. I thought that the fact that people were trying to overthrow a government which treated them very fairly in comparison to other nations and this fact alone made me think that the American Revolution was radical. After reading the book I was able to see more internal issues that helped lead to rebellion. When we learn basic United States history we assume that the revolution happened because of high taxation and no representation for the colonists, but these were not the only issues. Wood is able to depict how issues of social order and how liberal ideas were just as important in influencing people to fight for their independence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about Wood assuming that the general public perceives the American Revolution as conservative, he states it throughout the book. Unfortunately I am not as versed on historical studies of the revolution as some may be, but I was never really under the impression that it was either conservative nor radical. I guess for someone like Wood who spent a career on the subject having others publish ideas that contradict his own could put him on the defensive (which is the tone that I felt while reading at many points).
ReplyDeleteI am not sure about the defensiveness Yates, but I agree that I would like a clearer sense of who these "neo-Progressive" historians are and why they view the revolution as conservative. The absence of 'no taxation without representation' apart from a very slender mention in the middle section also seemed glaring to me.....I think his argument would be that the Revolution was all about the social ties being broken and that the taxation issue was a spark that collapsed these ties. I'm not sure how I feel about it though...
ReplyDeleteBefore reading Wood's book I had a different view of the revolution. I am not well versed in the matter either. It seemed to me it was radical, but I guess it really wasn't. It seems the biggest reason for revolution was taxation and the desire of American planters and businessmen to make more money...
ReplyDeleteYou say the revolution really wasn't radical. What do you mean by that? I believe measuring how radical the revolution was is based more on opinions. Some people may believe that extreme radicalism only deals with violence and oppression while others may see something small like fighting social norms, such as a paternal society, as radical.
DeleteI really like what you said about overthrowing a government that was treating them fairly, versus more common definitions of revolution- meaning overthrowing oppressive forms of government. Though I was confused as to why it was radical, the more I read about the internal issues, the more I thought I would have to change my definition of radical, which in turn helped to make sense of the issue.
ReplyDelete