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 :D.

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. :p

[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! :D 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).

[Aeryn]

Darwin dicovered sciences 'india'.

Well, I believe that Catholisism is the wrongest form of Christianity. I mean, they say they follow the Bible (most), and yet don't follow the 10 commandments.
I have found in (my short life) that most catholics go to church because there parents did.
It's idolatry. Mary wasn't the mother of God, She had to **** the same as we all do.

[webwizard333]

Well, I believe that Catholisism is the wrongest form of Christianity. I mean, they say they follow the Bible (most), and yet don't follow the 10 commandments. I have found in (my short life) that most catholics go to church because there parents did.
It's idolatry. Mary wasn't the mother of God, She had to **** the same as we all do.
Thank you for that sweeping, dismissive statement about my faith. To clarify some points, I don't believe any branches of Christianity fully follow the Bible; we all follow Christ. In fact, our central scriptures, the New Testament, are largely dismissive of much of the Hebrew Scripture's teachings. Yes, some of them do pertain to our lives, but the key is instead is to imitate Christ's life and act constructively on his teachings. Also, about Catholics going ot Church I agree, but it's largely because of a misrepresntation and misuse of how Church services should be done. Btw, thanks for for the crack about Mary, very nice. This is all I'm going to say about the Church in this thread as it is a history thread.

[Aeryn]

Didn't mean to insult you, but that's how I feel about it, also what I have abserved.
:)

[markedel]

Tolkien would be offended
:)

But seriously such discussions when they don't degenerate are interesting-but they should start fresh, in fact there is probably a dormant one around. I'm always up for religious argument. A Jewish thing I guess :)

[Lief Erikson]

You know what, Aeryn, I think that this is much more of a philosophical/religious question then a history one. Not that I'm not perfectly willing to speak my own views on those things, or enter into such a debate, but this might be the wrong topic for it.

Anyway, I think that Darwin wasn't a fool. I don't know much about him, but he strikes me as a man trying to find the truth. Whether he found it or not is a matter of science, mathematics and faith. I personally don't think that man came from apes, but there's little basis for that except that I simply don't think God would do it that way.

Catholicism probably can be a difficult branch of Christianity for some people, particularly among the youth. I know however that all of these branches, Protestant, Catholic, Anglican, etc. all believe in the same God. We all probably make some mistakes, but God doesn't demand that with our own small minds we think up all the truth about the Bible and get it all right. He is more forgiving than that. All Christians who have a relationship with God, regardless of what branch of Christianity they belong to, is part of the one body.

Evolution being taught in schools . . . That's a difficult question, and I don't know what the answer to it is. It's good for Christians and people of other faiths to be aware of what science says, I suppose, so I don't really know whether I approve or not. I'm prepared to have my mind made up for me if some of you can come up with convincing enough arguments either for or against.

[IronParrot]

It's important not to confuse Catholicism (and those who subscribe to it) with the Catholic Church as an institution.

The Catholic Church - the institution, not the faith - has been shown throughout the duration of its existence to be corrupt, politically heavy-handed and almost blasphemously hypocritical. It is arguable that it is virtually a cult by definition, due to its emphasis on dedication to the Church practically above dedication to the faith itself. Heck, that's why Luther's Reformation came about in the first place, the way I understand it.

That's not to say that all Catholics are inherently un-Christian. Not even close. That would be like saying all Germans are Nazis. It's just... plain... wrong.

Cool with that?

[Lief Erikson]

That's possible, I suppose. I'd appreciate hearing some evidence or factual information about that, though. I hardly know anything about the Catholic Church as an institution. But unfortunately, it's most probably not only them. Christians in America and other places are frequently doing a bad job at being witnesses to the world of their faith. The divorce rates in America among Christians is horrible, and 'we' seem ready to change our views on anything. The church my Mom plays the organ doesn't mind what gays do, and it's really sickening. When I went to church last I heard an estimate that 90% of Christianity is dead hulk, and only 10% are the living, active body of Christ. It's very painful, and I long for a change.

Well, I may seem to be publicly shooting down Christianity here, but simply because a large part of Christianity twist God's words to suit their own purposes doesn't condemn the religion. I am a Christian myself, and I talk to God almost every morning, so I know. It is a matter of faith, and stepping out on faith for something like Christianity and the Church isn't something that non-christians very easily do. But you aren't stepping out for those; you are stepping out to find out if God exists, and wants to speak to you and love you.



Anyway . . . another history question, please ;).

[sun-star]

Well, it isn't a history debate question, but I'd be interested in finding out some information, if no one minds :). Some of you are American, I see, and I was just wondering, what European history is normally taught in American schools? The stereotype is that 'Americans don't know anything about history other than their own' which I'm sure is neither true nor fair (I couldn't give a lucid account of the American Revolution, to my shame). Anyway, could someone generalise and give me a few examples? Thank you :)

Since I mentioned stereotypes - well, I'll resist the urge to defend Catholicism. I'm a Catholic and I've heard all this 'idolatry' stuff many times before. Also the whole 'Catholics are not real Christians' thing. Took a lot of convincing of my Christian friends of other denominations that I wasn't a devil worshipper in their midst :rolleyes: :D

[Lief Erikson]

Well, I'm afraid that even though I'm an American, I can't give you a general perspective. I'm homeschooled, so I don't know what is taught in the public school.

Our own family is very interested in history. My Dad has at least 50 books on different time periods. France, England, the Middle East. I read a book on Ancient Japan recently, and while I was younger I read especially about Europe.

Lately we've been concentrating especially on Ancient Egypt and the kingdoms of the Assyrians, Sumarians, and others around the time periods of The Old and New Kingdoms of Egypt.

However, I know there are plenty of people in America who are utterly bored with history, and some people in Europe too. Different people have different interests, wherever in the world they live. I don't know what the statistics in America are.

[Lief Erikson]

Well, I'm afraid that even though I'm an American, I can't give you a general perspective. I'm homeschooled, so I don't know what is taught in the public school.

Our own family is very interested in history. My Dad has at least 50 books on different time periods. France, England, the Middle East. I read a book on Ancient Japan recently, and while I was younger I read especially about Europe.

Lately we've been concentrating especially on Ancient Egypt and the kingdoms of the Assyrians, Sumarians, and others around the time periods of The Old and New Kingdoms of Egypt.

However, I know there are plenty of people in America who are utterly bored with history, and some people in Europe too. Different people have different interests, wherever in the world they live. I don't know what the statistics in America are.



You know what, I don't think that there's any need to defend Catholicism. It's not the faith that is being attacked so much as the church structure, and I think it's pretty plain that we all make mistakes. If you want to defend the faith though, you can go ahead.

[katya]

First of all, I don't feel like defending the Catholic church. Maybe later. I am a Catholic myself, but I think of the Catholic church like I think of America. I like America, and I don't mind living in it. There are a lot of good things about America. But I don't like the government, or what it does. I hope that is clear.

Second, on European history in America:
I haven't taken world history in high school yet, but so far, we have had some in Middle School. Mostly what we did (now keep in mind that htis is not the greatest teacher ever) was studied (right out of the book) individual countries, a small bit of their history and government, and a lot about their crops, industries, imports/exports, etc. There is a taste of the culture too but not so much as the other things. With wars and things, I haven't really gotten into that so much yet (except American wars). I admit that I don't know nearly as much European history as I would like. I know very little except what I have learned on my own.

[Aeryn]

Well, I have no professed faith, nor do I know of any specific god.
I was homeschooled in ACE as a 4th and 5th grader. Went to public school. Got kicked out my 7th year. Now I am in St. Augustines school. A catholic run institution, not live-in thank all things. It's for I suppose the 'uncooperative' youths *shrug* anyway, When I was in ACE we did Entire World History, the creation to present times. I learned of every country, probably not as in-depth as High School is but still I learned of it. The founding of the Catholic church. I do not attend the religious classes at my school, for the simple fact I have no religion and it isn't mandatory. I HAVE in fact sat in like 3 lessons when I first came here...well it was a load of dung as far as I was concerned.
The topic of religion is interesting, I study religions on my free time. Buddhism is one of the most comical. but anyway, I am down rambling so.
TTFN!

[mirial]

YEAH, I have a history question and/or discussion topic.
Nero, Titas althoughs guys...didn't they just have the neatest torture devices? I'm not saying that I would want that to happen to anyone, but I get this twisted sort of excitement out of reading about it, like the Holocaust...It's like watching NASCAR and enjoying the wrecks (You have to admit, they are interesting to watch, as long as no one dies). Nero, he tied people in trees, smothered them in tar, and burned them in parties. Titas (or whatever the heck his anme is), let people starve themselves...\

No point to this really.

[Treebeard's apprentice]

About European history in American schools:

Most Americans (hopefully) have a general knowledge of European history. The classes usually go into a good amount of detail, but most students don't care. The teachers just make sure you get the main points and the Big Picture (Greeks & Romans, Middle Ages, Crusades, Renaissance, Industrial Revolution, escalation of WWI & WWII, etc).

[sun-star]

Thanks everyone for answering my question :)

most students don't care.
I'm sure that's the same all over the world ;)

[Aeryn]

Students DO care, I care, History, especially about other countries, is interesting. Fascinating even. I watch the Histroy channel for fun people!!!!!!!!
And most teachers give VERY detailed tests, (what day was George the third put on the throne? kinda stuff)

[Lief Erikson]

Well, I've bumped into a bunch of kids who don't care one way or the other about history, simply saying it's boring. I personally agree with you, Aeryn, in finding it fascinating. We are the intellectual minority. :cool:

[mirial]

No one likes to talk about people covered in tar, burning in trees? Isn't this the Sadist's and Masochist's forum? :D

[Lief Erikson]

Make a torture thread if you want to talk about torture or horendous death.

[Dussander]

I like Torture....:cool:

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Well, I'm afraid that even though I'm an American, I can't give you a general perspective. I'm homeschooled, so I don't know what is taught in the public school.



I found this interesting LE! I homeschooled my daughter for one year, Boy, I was shocked! :eek: All the homeschool mothers in the home school support group were what I would call "hard core" Christians. They had their own Bible based textbooks, (There is a lot of money being made in the Bible based text book industry! Go to one of those home school fairs, what a big business! ) They were not teaching their children lots of the important science that "regular" students learn, because it didn't support the creation theory. I was shocked that they would deny their children such basic knowledge! Just letting them be in the dark! I felt sorry for these kids because they were getting such a one sided view of the world. Needless to say, I was happy to go back to public school, Home schooling was quite a disappointment for me! I think if you are going to homeschool your child, you should try to give them a well rounded education, so they will be able to function in a world that is made up of many types of people. It's a free country though! It will be interesting to see what all comes of this "segregating" education.