Friday, October 23, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
R. Wood's The war for independence was a social Revolution
Gordon Wood, “The War for Independence was a Social Revolution.” R.
After reading this provoking piece, my eyes were found skimming the pages of a dictionary. What is a revolution anyway? According to Mr. Webster, a revolution is “a sudden, radical, or complete change…a fundamental change in the way of thinking or visualizing something” (Revolution.) I would have to agree with Wood’s thoughts on the definition of a revolution because there are not a number of casualties or certain social conditions required to have revolution take place. This in fact was not the case for America, as Wood points out, there was no social unrest, no internal violence, nothing that would scream revolution to the average person. Focusing on the “change in the way of thinking and visualizing..” definition, America demonstrates a significant change in their social relationships. The American Revolution changed relationships, and is easily identified in the relationship of Southern people and their slaves. The revolution brought about a new idea that excluded dependency and slavery was an institution that was defined by a plantation owner’s dependency on slaves for manual labor. When people realized this, they became more apt to the thought of individual, working, independent people. This caused a major shift in thinking for those slaves, because they thought if all this change was occurring maybe the Declaration’s “all men created equal…” would apply to them as well. The immediate effects were not seen for that particular generation, but it started the initiative that would get that idea into the minds of Americans. One rather timely effect was the anti-slavery system in Philadelphia in 1775, which proves Wood’s thesis to the link of the revolution being social (Wood.) Later, this initial thought would create the origins of a very bloody battle, the Civil War and that would not have happened if it weren’t for this social revolution. In terms of the women living at this time, Wood explains why it was a social revolution for them as well. America was switching from a patriarchal society and women began, like the slaves, to think for themselves and gradually get up the courage and organization to demand rights denied to them previously. The social revolution created a sense for equality of all Americans, and it turned a previously broken and doubtful string of state/colonies into the idea of becoming a nation, the idea of becoming one. People like John Locke and his views on liberalism and natural rights and Thomas Paine’s Common Sense led the public intellectually to become more adjusted to the idea of an union. These new forms of literature would also help define a new American culture, one they could call their own, that did not imitate the British. These helped to support the thought of a separate, unified, and independent nation. Mentally and intellectually, people residing in this land called America wanted a new place they could adapt to and be unique in, which is why they left England originally. They wanted to get away from all the religious persecution and monarchial society and wanted away from England. Wood is completely qualified in his argument to why the revolution was social because it clearly was not one of great political and economic change, and it changed the minds of all Americans. The Civil War, Benjamin Franklin’s Join or Die campaign, women’s’ demands for rights, are absolute events that occurred because of the intellectual uprising of the revolution. Now that the “filial allegiance, mutual obligations between the rulers and the ruled, and the talk of paternal government,” was done, Americans were excited to take on the responsibility and the privilege they well deserved to transform themselves into a great unified nation, and as Wood states, it is because of this American, social Revolution, “that it was the revolution, more than any other single event, that made America into the most liberal, democratic, and modern nation in the world” (Wood.)
“Revolution.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009.
Merriam-Webster Online. 1 October 2009
Wood, Gordon. “The War for Independence was a Social Revolution.”
Catie Schmitz
After reading this provoking piece, my eyes were found skimming the pages of a dictionary. What is a revolution anyway? According to Mr. Webster, a revolution is “a sudden, radical, or complete change…a fundamental change in the way of thinking or visualizing something” (Revolution.) I would have to agree with Wood’s thoughts on the definition of a revolution because there are not a number of casualties or certain social conditions required to have revolution take place. This in fact was not the case for America, as Wood points out, there was no social unrest, no internal violence, nothing that would scream revolution to the average person. Focusing on the “change in the way of thinking and visualizing..” definition, America demonstrates a significant change in their social relationships. The American Revolution changed relationships, and is easily identified in the relationship of Southern people and their slaves. The revolution brought about a new idea that excluded dependency and slavery was an institution that was defined by a plantation owner’s dependency on slaves for manual labor. When people realized this, they became more apt to the thought of individual, working, independent people. This caused a major shift in thinking for those slaves, because they thought if all this change was occurring maybe the Declaration’s “all men created equal…” would apply to them as well. The immediate effects were not seen for that particular generation, but it started the initiative that would get that idea into the minds of Americans. One rather timely effect was the anti-slavery system in Philadelphia in 1775, which proves Wood’s thesis to the link of the revolution being social (Wood.) Later, this initial thought would create the origins of a very bloody battle, the Civil War and that would not have happened if it weren’t for this social revolution. In terms of the women living at this time, Wood explains why it was a social revolution for them as well. America was switching from a patriarchal society and women began, like the slaves, to think for themselves and gradually get up the courage and organization to demand rights denied to them previously. The social revolution created a sense for equality of all Americans, and it turned a previously broken and doubtful string of state/colonies into the idea of becoming a nation, the idea of becoming one. People like John Locke and his views on liberalism and natural rights and Thomas Paine’s Common Sense led the public intellectually to become more adjusted to the idea of an union. These new forms of literature would also help define a new American culture, one they could call their own, that did not imitate the British. These helped to support the thought of a separate, unified, and independent nation. Mentally and intellectually, people residing in this land called America wanted a new place they could adapt to and be unique in, which is why they left England originally. They wanted to get away from all the religious persecution and monarchial society and wanted away from England. Wood is completely qualified in his argument to why the revolution was social because it clearly was not one of great political and economic change, and it changed the minds of all Americans. The Civil War, Benjamin Franklin’s Join or Die campaign, women’s’ demands for rights, are absolute events that occurred because of the intellectual uprising of the revolution. Now that the “filial allegiance, mutual obligations between the rulers and the ruled, and the talk of paternal government,” was done, Americans were excited to take on the responsibility and the privilege they well deserved to transform themselves into a great unified nation, and as Wood states, it is because of this American, social Revolution, “that it was the revolution, more than any other single event, that made America into the most liberal, democratic, and modern nation in the world” (Wood.)
“Revolution.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009.
Merriam-Webster Online. 1 October 2009
Wood, Gordon. “The War for Independence was a Social Revolution.”
Catie Schmitz
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)