Revolution? Which revolution?

 

 

“I keep my mind still open to instruction, if any one will vouchsafe to bestow it on me.”

This quote by David Hume comes to mind each time I think of the word “Revolution” as used by American scholars when they discuss the American War of Independence. I simply fail to understand in which way this historical event would qualify as revolutionary.

Of course one should start by asking what a revolution is. Bringing such modifications to the course of History that the world no longer is what it used to be? 

The archetypal examples of revolutions have been the French Revolution of 1789 (the “Great Revolution” as the Soviets used to call it) followed by the Russian Revolution of 1917. 

The consequences of the French Revolution weren’t limited to France but extended to the entire world and are continuing in the present times. It was the end of the monarchy through a complete upheaval of the political, economical, sociological, religious and legal structures of the Nation. “Down with the aristocrats!” was the motto. Most importantly, the ideas that the French Revolution were based upon spilled all over Europe through the Napoleonic Wars. And the very concept of democracy as we understand it now was born during the revolutionary years of France. Peoples all over the world, be it in Asia, in Muslim countries, in Africa, etc., refer to 1789 when they press for democracy.

Now, wasn’t the American War of Independence more a war of secession from the motherland than anything else? Not even a war of independence as we would understand it today since the colonists weren’t trying to get rid of any invaders/occupiers coming from elsewhere like the Algerians or the Vietnamese did during their wars of liberation against the French?

What was the Boston tea party but an urban revolt based upon general dissatisfaction in the face of fiscal pressure? It eventually snowballed into what we know but basically the rationale was just to get rid of the fiscal abuse by the English aristocracy which was ruling from beyond the Ocean. When the American Republic came into being, it didn’t shatter the political, economical, sociological and, overall, religious structures of the Nation. Quite the opposite. 

There was no aristocracy to be freed from, the power of the Church was fundamental and remained unchallenged, exploitation of man by man (in Marxist terms) wasn’t exactly questioned (see slavery until 1863) and the notion of a Parliament was transferred from Britain where it had already been active for centuries. It looks like the same can be said from the habeas corpus concept and the system of common law which were imported from the motherland and mostly kept unchanged.

Where’s the revolution?

As to why the word “revolution” has been abused in this way (as I see it), may I suggest that this word brings with it a romantic notion of birth from nothingness that gives some legitimacy and grandeur to any historical event of some importance. The old tabula rasa syndrome so to speak. Not to belittle the importance of the War of Independence for Americans of course, but a revolution?

“I keep my mind still open to instruction, if any one will vouchsafe to bestow it on me.”

Note: the painting is “Le château des Pyrénées” by René Magritte (1959).