We do leftists fetishize the French Revolution when the American Revolution is literally history's only perfect...

We do leftists fetishize the French Revolution when the American Revolution is literally history's only perfect revolution that didn't end in Terror and Tyranny?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=PmILOL55xP0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Because leftists desire the overthrow of power structures in order for it to be a "revolution"

The American Revolution was not a true revolution.
It was a colonial war.

The colonists broke from the home country.

The revolution was in the former of government the ex-colonists chose to implement.

I would consider the Civil War a drastic example of unresolved issues coming back to haunt us.

So, blood has definitely been shed post revolution.

Former (sic)

Should be "form".

What this nigga said. It is one thing to overthrow your oppressors living one ocean away, it is another to overthrow your oppressors living in the same city.

English speaking white males

Tar and feathering, as well as some executions, did occur. Thats hella more ethical than other stories though. Eternal Americans are just better than everybody at everything, even their genocide is more stylish and took place in battles.

A lot of it was unneccassary. People would execute shop owners and steal their goods because they were anti revolution, even if they were financing the republicans.

Those events are not comparable in this way (though they are in most other ways and do have obvious parrallels) and the similarities in the names of these conflicts is misleading.

The French Revolution was fought by the French against the French in France. Even our Civil War in the US isn't comparable since the Confederate leaders did not entertain any ideas of conquering the north.

Which actually begs the question, what are some examples of a successful revolution that didn't result in a period of terror?

did the american revolution destroy the feudal structures of old in europe

No, that would be the French Revolution.

You guys do realize the feudal system had ended centuries before the American revolution right?

the glorious revolution 1688?
Overthrew the catholics in britland

To the tune of the battle hymn of the republic

"Get the good old syringe boys and fill it to the brim
We’ve caught another nigger and we’ll operate on him
Let someone take the handle who can work it with a vim
Shouting the battle cry of freedom

Chorus:
Hurrah Hurrah We bring the Jubilee
Hurrah Hurrah The flag that makes him free
Shove in the nozzle deep and let him taste of liberty
Shouting the battle cry of freedom

We've come across the bounding main to kindly spread around
Sweet liberty wherever there are rebels to be found
Come hurry with the syringe boys we've got him down and bound
Shouting the battle cry of freedom

Chorus

Oh pump it in him til he swells like a toy balloon
The fool pretends that liberty is not a precious boon
But we'll contrive to make him see the beauty of it soon
Shouting the battle cry of freedom

Chorus

Keep the piston going boys and let the banner wave
The banner that floats proudly o'er the noble and the brave
Keep on till the squirt gun breaks or he explodes the slave
Shouting the battle cry of freedom

chorus"

-A popular tune to sing whilst administering a peculiar water based torture during the philippine-american war

It's creative, but idk about stylish.

That really varies on what you mean by feudal

French Revolution was literally the worst thing to happen in Europe since the fall of Rome

I mean feudal as in relating to the feudalism, the feudal system. Wherein society is structured around exchanging land for service and loyalty.

As in, what the word fucking means.

*greatest, sorry.

>triumph of slave morality

Greatest disaster maybe. Napoleon was the dying gasp of antique nobility. It's been downhill ever since. Europe today is an abomination.

Because

1. It was more an independence war than a revolution

2. It was infinitly less relevant to the rest of the world

less intellectuals to mess it up

>american revolution
muh money
>french revolution
liberty equality brotherhood

all the authoritan polfags can lick my hairy butthole, uneducated shitters

>only uneducated people are in favor of empires and higher civilization

don't you have a worker's meeting to get to m8?

Although both are revolutions, the American was more so like interregnum period of England which as it had already happened in sorts taught us less about the human psychology and ideal society
Also treatment of the natives worsened, and you must admit land speculation was one of the reasons why you went to war
Whilst the French Revolution began the dissolution of monarchy and the spread of metric units

Because leftists love tyranny. All the virtue signaling is just an excuse to express one's resentment and pettiness through some sort of violence. The french revolution has the best mix of humanistic buzzwords to virtue signal by and brutal terror to live by for leftists.

Have you actually studied history in academia or do you just learn it by circle jerking on /pol and then slither down here
Revolution is the act of replacing one model of government with another, hence the rule of Cromwell the Lord protector was, whislt the 'glorious revolution' was not as it was merely the invitation and replacement of the ruling family

Not a revolution, instead a replacement of the ruling monarch as he was already married to a Stuart

What is England doing between 1625-88

If you really knew about French Terror you would have stated that true "leftists" as you said, were opposed to the commity of repression : people like Marat or Robespierre were never involved in thoses actions, because they weren't authorized to act AGAINST in the first place.
Do you know who decided to repress the monarchy and set a climat of terror? Girodin's club. Far from being the so called leftist, rather slaves dealers, merchant of the temple etc ...
But hey, better accuse leftists because they are opposed to muh freedom.

Mein gott!

Education doesn't rhyme with having qualms my dear.

>Not a true revolution
>Literally the first secular and democratic republic in the world

Try again fagtron.

The reason behind the two revolutions are vastly different, and the social conflicts are even more so.

1848, It was literally called EUROPEAN SPRING

youtube.com/watch?v=PmILOL55xP0

Why is singing so important in wars. Is it supposed to improve morale or something.

I honestly would have lower morale if I was surrounded by autists playing a flute and singing happy tunes during battle.

try to read more about military strategy and tactics

>he doesn't know about marching in tune

Is that like giving orders over bagpipes or something?

I'd imagine it'd be pretty useless in conventional urban combat.

No, it's about cadence, so everyone knows what rate to march at.

>implying the American Revolution was strictly about just overturning the crown
>implying the republicans weren't riding on the independence movement to have their republic
>implying it didn't almost become a monarchy

>muh bourgeoisie

There is still at least one feudal "state" in europe, so it hasnt died yet technically

Why does everyone forget the Dutch revolt?

>ended up in a democracy far before the Americans and French even thought of it
>had a golden age shortly after

Fuck you King we want independence and toleration, oh hey prince come rule these ancestral lands you lay claim to. Oh and let's fuck with Protestant England because why not they helped finance us

Why was the revolution seen at all as a good thing?
>Confiscate the rightful private property of Catholic Church had built up over 1000 years
>Murder a bunch of innocent people
>Started by a bunch of peasants hunger for food, co-opted by bourgeoisie as a political "revolution"
>Ended with a conservative emperor which brought about the 19th century belle epoque of conservatism.

It was a rebellion not a revolution

America revolted and traded its aristocratic rulers across the sea for aristocratic rulers in their own territory. Let's not overstate what the war of independence accomplished.

Anti Americanism. They are unwilling to say that the American revolution inspired the french revolution. The rights of man and the citizen was written by Lafayette and Thomas Jefferson helped him write it

> The American Revolution was not a true revolution.
This.


>Literally the first secular and democratic republic in the world
I beg to differ. Slavery kinda makes this "democracy" thing moot. Even if we accept slavery acceptable for Democracy (now I really feel I'm talking with an American), there was a lot of republics before US.

> Which actually begs the question, what are some examples of a successful revolution that didn't result in a period of terror?
It's a bit like asking "what wars didn't result in murders?"

Period of "terror" is part of the revolution.

>Confiscate the rightful private property of Catholic Church had built up over 1000 years
The Revolution was initially neutral to the Church. Things started hitting the fan when the Second Estate started sympathizing with the Ancien Regime (barring a few notable exceptions).

>Murder a bunch of innocent people
Not defending the death of the innocent, but I have to wonder why the Ancien Regime gets a free pass on this. Just look at such examples as the Bloody Code in the UK, where you could get executed for the contemporary equivalent of stealing a mars bar.

>Started by a bunch of peasants hunger for food, co-opted by bourgeoisie as a political "revolution"
Quite the opposite: it was started by the bourgeois (Tennis Court Oath) and the peasants somewhat later joined in. And even then the majority of peasants were royalists.

Speaking of royalists, tying in with the previous point, a lot of accounts about how many "innocent" people were slaughtered during the Reign of Terror include the casualties of full-fledged royalist uprisings like the ones in the Vendée, Lyon and Toulon.

>Ended with a conservative emperor
Conservative in what way? In how he replaced regional feudal laws with one civil and penal code? Or perhaps he was conservative in how he reformed the entire judiciary branch? Or perhaps his conservatism was expressed in how he appointed his generals and administrators based on merit rather than birth? Seriously, what conservatism is there, other than "slightly more conservative than the Republic"?

>the 19th century belle epoque of conservatism
You mean that belle époque in which France was not only a republic, but all hopes of a royalist revival were smashed when the Count of Chambord refused to ascend to the throne?

The English language does not have enough words to explain how wrong you are.

Which prince do you mean?

>America revolted and traded its aristocratic rulers across the sea for aristocratic rulers in their own territory.

You can say that now faggot, but that's not what it was per definition back then. It was seen as a democratic and republican revolution, which it was.

>Slavery kinda makes this "democracy" thing moot.

No it doesn't. Because the modern idea of democracy, where everyone can vote is something new. Just because it didn't have the modern concept of democracy in it, didn't mean that it wasn't a democracy you sperglord.

>there was a lot of republics before US.

No, there wasn't.

>full-fledged royalist uprisings like the ones in the Vendée, Lyon and Toulon.

The uprisings in the country were initially uprisings against conscription and blasphemous religious laws. The uprisings were usurped by royalists who had access to arms and armies. So many of the people who did fight in the uprisings were not "put the king back on the throne" but "I don't want to fight in your needless wars, also stop punishing our local nuns and priests with public humiliation and/or execution for not wanting to break religious vows and wanting to continue to serve the people through Christ"

And this is where the web of complexity gets more complex. The clergy sides with the Ancien Regime, so the Terror targets them. The peasants don't like this. The nobility is supported by foreign nobilities and armies much larger than those of France. France needs conscripts. The peasants don't like this.

The Church has money. The nobility has weapons. The peasants have numbers. They're an alliance of convenience, and yet another threat the Republic has to deal with. Dealing with one enemy creates another, and just like a hydra each head you cut off is replaced by two new ones. The most bloodless alternative would simply be giving Louis XVI the throne on the conditions the Coalition demanded: pre-Bastille conditions.

> Because the modern idea of democracy, where everyone can vote is something new.
> everyone can vote
Slaves didn't vote. Women didn't vote.

This leaves the same category of people who got voting rights in previous republics.

What previous "republics"?

San Marino?

You also fail to mention that most men couldn't vote at the beginning of American democracy.

Unironically this.
>Slavery kinda makes this "democracy" thing moot.
No it doesn't. Slavery in fact has been the norm in most historic republics.
Most men could, but decided not to vote. That didn't change until voting reforms after Washingtons term was finished.

> No it doesn't. Slavery in fact has been the norm in most historic republics.
Read the thread. The other user's point was that US was completely different from all previous republics.

>The most bloodless alternative would simply be giving Louis XVI the throne on the conditions the Coalition demanded: pre-Bastille conditions.

What's ultimately frustrating is that Louis XVI was a borderline extreme reformist, which is partially why he was unable to solve the social and financial problems in France that compelled the Estates General to be called and ultimately sparked the revolution. His reforms were horrifying to the nobility. Hell, he was originally on the side of the Third Estate regarding their representation! It was only when his son's health declined and he finally died that his mental state changed. But eveven when the revolution did happen, and the reforms were forced through, almost all of them were reforms Louis XVI had originally wanted, so he really didn't care. It was only once it became clear that the new government wanted a powerless puppet king, and had no respect for the Catholic church as it stood in France that he started to resist.

No, no, worst.

t. a frog.