History, a your opinion topic.

[Aeryn]

Okay, well I am very interested in History, and with History always comes debates.
What is the difference between America's war for Independence and the French Revolution?



In my opinion, Christianity, France had distorted Christianity and predomanately atheism for centuries, I mean, if a government, or a person, thinks they can do no wrong and suffer no concequences, how far would torture and death go? How would you know when this has gone on too far? How would you determine that 'just because you can doesn't mean you should'?



To the Mods: I hardly knew where this belonged so it is currently in General Messages, feel free to move it (Like you need my permission) to a more suitable place.

[crickhollow]

interesting. Well, for starters, George III didn't lose his head as a result of the American Revolution (I prefer the term, War of Independence as opposed to revolution, but oh well), and Louis XVI did in France. This brings up the overriding difference that France was seeking to topple the French government in order to bring about social as well as political change. The Americans were 'merely' seeking political autonomy.

[markedel]

It is argued that the American Revolution was not really a revolution per se-arguably the only revolutionary result was not the war itself but the Constitution. The ideological basis behind the American revolution was far less firm and in many ways less instrumental-the U.S has had a lucky history perhaps most of all in its luck in having such a wonderful leadership-something France lacked.

[IronParrot]

I think the major difference is that the American Revolution was nationalistic colonial separation, while the French Revolution was an internal nationalistic reaction to an ineffectual despotic government.

Important to take into account what they were revolting against. On one hand was a British parliamentary government that supposedly exercised too much control over distant colonies they never even bothered to meddle with; on the other was the Bourbon monarchy, still largely based on rule by divine right, which exercised too much control over a neglected peasantry.

In terms of the similarities, the American Revolution was undoubtedly an influence on the French one. The Marquis de LaFayette, who drew up the French Declaration of Rights of Man, served under Washington a decade and a half earlier.

As far as events alone go, I think the major difference is that the American Revolution did indeed have a stable leadership, and thus avoided the "Reign of Terror" stage. They were also very geographically removed from the British, so once the British were driven off in 1781, there was no hope for a militant restoration.

[katya]

The French revolution was a lot different because they were not seeking to separate from the French government, but to...have a revolution. So as far as that goes it was a different sort of thing. Also, along the same lines (sort of) what became America at that time was a colony (or colonies) instead of being a part of (or rather all of) France.
Also, I don't suppose the Americans were quite so oppressed as the French. In fact one could scarcely call them "oppressed" at all, really. I am taught that one of the main specific reasons for the American "Relovution" was because of "taxation without representation" and so on and so forth. But it appears to me that one of the main reasons that England was taxing them was to pay for their war. (not England's war-America/England's) So the taxing wasn't without reason. The French Revolution was more a genuine revolution.
Another difference-the French were in France and the American's were in America. Pointless but a difference none the less.
Similarity-Neither rode turtles into battle. (as far as I know)

[markedel]

One could also say that the necessary political evolution in the American revolution occured before-in the liberal theory of the 17th and 18th century, and after-in the creation of a federal system of government and the constitution.
Without both the "United States" would not have been formed-something else, and not necessarily "better" (if you could use the term) would appear instead.

[Lief Erikson]

Personally I like ancient history the most. Including Ancient Egypt, and the Biblical time periods. I also have found the medieval ages really interesting, but I am perfectly happy to give my opinions on the differences.

Thus far there have been no real disagreements here that I see, and I agree with you all . Very pleasant .

The French Revolution did indeed have greater cause than the American Revolution, in my opinion, and the Americans were already fiercely independent, which is one of the reasons to the American Revolution.

The French were oppressed far more than the Americans, and they also, very arguably reacted more violently. But they were motivated differently than the Americans, and that was another key to the difference. The Americans were motivated by a desire for liberty, while the French sought revenge. The Americans, once they had thrust out the British from their shores, were therefore eager to regain friendly relations with England, while the French wanted to pay the aristocrats back for all the pain that had been inflicted upon them.

The mindsets were very different, although the immediate goal, liberty, was for both the same. The French rose up as one people motivated by rage, while the Americans didn't feel any such hatred for their oppressors. I think these mindsets had a key influence on the way that the events played out, although probably they certainly aren't everything.

The way the governments turned out are to me reflections of the different motivations behind the different peoples.

[IronParrot]

"The way the governments turned out are to me reflections of the different motivations behind the different peoples."

No kidding... the Declaration of Independence and even some bits of your Constitution (Second Amendment, anyone?) are clearly remnants of the American motivation, which was just anti-George, anti-British domination of colonial land. It's not like they were ever planning to usurp the British monarchy entirely.

Although both governments did turn out to be republics in the end... that's a similarity worth noting, in that the domineering monarchs took the brunt of the discontent in both cases.

[Aeryn]

first off (I'm doing these out of order)
Iron Parrot,
it was NOT (the american rev/ war for independence) about 'anti George anti british' thinking, it was the VIOLATION of the right, as colonies, to have the same rights as people in England. We still proudly thought of ourselves as English, but we were upset about our rights being infringed by Parliament. We as a nation didn't recognize Parliament as our ruling government because we were not represented, in the beginning if George had said 'Hey guys, listen, I want to tax you to help pay for the french and Indian War'
We would have said fine. PARLIAMENT made us pay, and enforced (sometimes with unneccisary force) this politic.

Lief,
Okay I agree about what you said for the most part, but the french didn't just want freedom they wanted anarchy, absolutely NO government.

Katya, Read my note to IronParrot for your response also.

Also to IronParrot,
About 'militant restoration', Britain never said America won, they admitted that SPAIN and FRANCE beat them but not those'scally wags' in the New World.

Er, Okay, I do agree that War for Independence IS more accurate, but ALOT of people don't recognize that as the true title of America's war against England.

Quick Question: What is the difference between England and Britain?

Fun Facts:
The French in the French Revolution made a WONDERFUL machine called the guillotine. Woman would sit at the guillotine and kroshe (sp) and everytime they made a loop, a head would fall.
Crowds would gather to watch children, their parents, and sometimes the elderly 'aristocrats' be beheaded. People sold things at these massive gatherings ("Popcorn! Get you popcorn"?)
French soldiers, at one point put hundreds of children (kids of the aristocrats) on a ship, lit it on fire, and puched it away from the banks. (My book didn't say specifically where, sorry)
Soldiers/Pillagers/Murderers (whatever you fancy) killed protestant priests, catholic priests, and raped and murdered nuns.

Sick, huh?

[IronParrot]

it was NOT (the american rev/ war for independence) about 'anti George anti british' thinking, it was the VIOLATION of the right, as colonies, to have the same rights as people in England.

S'what I meant... thanks for clarifying for me.

[katya]

oh right I forgot to mention something. I don't think the british were being perfect either. Many of them were behaving very badly. Same goes for Americans and French for that matter. War isn't pretty, obviously. The only thing I am saying is that the Colonists were not being treated that badly, compared to some other situations.

[crickhollow]

actually, according to the History Channel, the guillotine was considered at the time to be a more humane (despite being a little gory) way to die. It wasn't until near the end of the reign of terror that french scientists discovered that the head lived for approx 7 seconds after it was severed from teh body.

[Aeryn]

8 to 11 seconds, and the funny thing is, guillotine described the feeling of the blade as a "slight breeze about the neck". What I am interested in is how in all of hell did he know that? Did he get the guillotine treatment..? Did he ask someone who did?
Honestly some peoples stupidity, he should have known years down the road people would scoff at the comment.

My piece.

[IronParrot]

The other reason why it was considered to be more humane was that it could reliably take the head off (quite literally) in one fell swoop. The old way of doing things, with the axe-man and all, sometimes resulted in situations where it would take four or five blows before the head was fully severed.

[Erawyn]

What is the difference between England and Britain

I *think* England is just England, and Britain is England, northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales...

[IronParrot]

Correct...

And Scotland and Wales are often none too happy about England stealing the spotlight.

[Lief Erikson]

Aeryn, I agree with what you say for the most part, but not all the way. The French didn't want anarchy, but that's what they got. They did demolish their government, but they knew that everyone running around doing what they felt like could only end up in disaster. They did set up a Republic, of a kind, which was meant to be ruled by the people.

The French Revolution did get totally out of hand because (I agree with katya) they were a good deal more oppressed than the Americans, and that's an understatement. They were furious with their leadership and wanted revenge, I agree, "popcorn, anyone?". They were taking veangence, and they went overboard because of the enormous degree of oppression that they had been undergoing.

[Aeryn]

Well, I would love to thank y'all for replying and telling me your own opinions. I actually was thinking this thread was going to be dead when I posted THANKS for proving me wrong.
Okay well I have another History question. Also kind of religious too.

Do you think Charles Darwin was a fool? Did you know that he was NOT a scientist, in fact he was terrible at school, and barely passed, he was only given the title DR. because people respected his 'discovery', which by the way wasn't his, it was a French botanists. Also did you know that he REGRETTED he ever said evolution was how things were created?
How do you feel about schools (public) putting Evolution in their textbooks? Evolution is just as much a religion (in my opinion) as the Muslim faith or Catholic faith, so if religion isn't allowed in schools, why evolution?

If you are a evolutionist- If we are all 'evolved' for Monkeys, or Apes, why don't Apes (primates) still evolve today?
Also for every one side their is the opposite, so how come people don't devolve??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
As long as there are tests in school, there will be student prayer.

[katya]

must we start talking about evolution? unless of course you mean more of "should we teach it in schools?" type thing. i think no but we might as well not teach science at all because it is stupid and stupid. but thats just me. no, i think the theory of evolution infringes on many peoples beliefs so its not cool. but i guess quite a few things do. maybe i should make up my own mind first. bu tin the meantime no i dont think it should be taught so yeah.

[webwizard333]

Yes, evolution should be taught at schools as part of the scientific curriculm. To ignore it and not teach it, would be simple ignorance of the facts that at this point it is the most logical explanation for the origin of the species and why we have developed the way we have. Anthropological evidence, the very nature of DNA, and simple logic all support this theory. Personally, I see not teaching evolution as tantamount to disregarding math as just another theory of number manipulation (I must give credit to this analogy as originating from the Onion). To not teach evolution for fear of "offending people's beliefs" is the first sign of a culture's aversion to prclaim what is true. Just for the record, I'm a believing and practicing Catholic.
Do post more fun facts of Darwain, Aeryn, I can use them in class discussion! Btw, if all you say and seem to imply in your post is true, then Darwin is to science as Columbus is to geography (people who like History as much as I do should get the joke).