What is the meaning of the American Revolution? Was it a mere event frozen in time? Should the American Revolution be viewed as perpetual? I'm reminded here of the idea of "Permanent Revolution," though specific to American society. Setting aside Marx and Trotsky's ideas particular to communist or workers' revolutions, what possible applications are there to American history? As the documents in Chs 5 & 6 in Voices clearly show, the American Revolution was clearly not for all Americans and was quite possibly brought about by and for an elite cadre of merchants and other businessmen fed up with British mercantilism (see Charles Beard). What evidence do you find in the reading that supports these ideas? How might you use these sources to support or challenge nationalism in your classroom?
13 comments:
I think the idea that the Revolution was something that the majority population was not at first on board for is an accurate rendering of history. If the general public (i know, i know - vague term, but deal with it!) was ready for a revolution, then why did people like Thomas Paine need to write what amounts to anti-British propaganda like "Common Sense" (1776) in order to convince Americans that they in fact would be better off independent than dependent or subservient to Britain.
Once a sizable portion of the American polis was convinced a rebellion was needed and even after independence had been achieved, the small, "less important" people remained in their same social stratum. A good example of this can be found in the the army and the drastically absurd juxtaposition of of officers were treated and rewarded beside how infantrymen were treated and rewarded. Joseph Plumb Martin (1830) tells us about the sweeping promises of pay, clothing, and food by the government for his services that went terribly unfulfilled. "The country was rigorous in exacting my compliance to my engagement to a punctilio," records Martin, "but equally careless in performing her contracts with me and why so? One reason was because she had all the power in her own hands and i had none. Such things ought not to be." This quote sounds, to me, remarkably like this 'permanent rebellion'; doesn't Martin's quote sound like a voice of a discontented proletariat?
I think i would consider combining portions of 'Common Sense', the Federalist Paper No. 10, and the writings of Samuel Dewees and Martin in a classroom setting. I would ask students how each source provides a perspective of the time surrounding the Revolutionary War. Is this what developed a sense of nationalism in the US? If so, how was it developed? Was nationalism a positive force for the nation in its early years? Is it now?
I’m intrigued by Jesse’s concluding question – “Was nationalism a positive force for our nation in its early years? Is it now?” especially in light of reading the Wikipedia piece on Beard’s interpretation: “The Constitution, Beard argued, was designed to reverse the radical democratic tendencies unleashed by the Revolution among the common people, especially farmers and debtors (people who owed money to the rich).” It would be interesting to know how Beard would view our current state of affairs in which the common people are once again (still? As usual?) in debt to the rich, only now the rich are in debt to the federal government (and therefore “the people”) And we are funding the whole scheme by printing more money, based on nothing except belief in the American system! Does the whole tower of cards then rest on our collective nationalistic confidence? And if so, what role then should Social Studies teachers play in perpetuating those feelings of nationalism required (?) to make the system work? Ultimately of course, I’m setting up a false dichotomy. Can we trust our students enough to help them to see the complexities and nuances of the system and forge their own opinions? And if so, at what grade level? And if so, by what teaching strategies? These conflicting views of the American Revolution are a perfect showcase for the tension inherent in the teaching of history. Everyone--historians, economists, politicians--has an agenda, should teachers?
In the beginning of Chapter 5 of Zinn's book he talks a bit about how the elite class was just trying to rally the poor to defeat British mercantilism. There is no doubt that there were class divisions in the American society which had become the norm throughout colonial history. However, it seems that maybe the revolution was a unifying factor for the country that needed to happen, in order for Americans to start working toward one common goal. At the same time, this issue of equality was only introduced in an effort to put everyone on the same level. If everyone is on the same level, how can there be order or anyone in charge of the country?
These contradicting views should be introduced to students to show them that there are conflicting interpretations of the subject. Using the letter by Joseph Clarke I could show the class divisions which could challenge nationalism a bit as it talks about an officer whose heroism vanishes against quarrels with fellow Americans. To support nationalism I could use The Federalist Papers No. 10 to show how Madison was convinced that a new system would be beneficial to everyone.
I do not think that the American Revolution was an event frozen in time, but I do not think that the hard times that present themselves and class divisions today are a call for a revolution. I have a hard time believing that we will ever reach absolute equality in this country because there will always be stubborn people who are not ready to back down on their opinions. People are constantly striving for equality, but I would not approach that as a perpetual American Revolution.
Reacting to Jesse's question on nationalism, I think that it can be both a positive and a negative force. In America, I am proud to have nationalism and be a part of this country. Our brothers and sisters are fighting for our freedom everyday, and the fact that those people are volunteers and are willing to do that for me-- well, i think that shows true character. Nationalism inspires them daily- so in that way, I view it as a positive force.
In the case of Hitler's Nazi Germany, nationalism made a turn for the worst (to say the least)- but it all depends on what people have their pride in and what kind of country they are standing up for.
The meaning of the American Revolution to me could be a nationalism uprising against a monarchy that was too repressive, but if i was to consider any type of sources that basic middle school definition is not even close to correct. I would have to view the American Revolution as a time in which a group of separate people came together to form a loose group of people against Britain. The reason it was loose was because of the class conflict that was prevalent in the young nation. In my American history classes from college i am reminded of the many arguments by prominent historians that have stated that the Revolution was about greedy colonists, as they were taxed much less than the people in England. The Samuel Dewees text speaks to the gap that was emerging between the have and have not's,as the high ranking officers and nobles had the better food and clothes while they were marching in rags. To challenge the nationalism idea in the classroom i would give the students this article, and explain to them that the glorified paintings that they see are not exactly how all soldiers looked like during the American Revolution. Also i would supply the other side of the argument from a text book along side the Dewees and Joseph Plumb pieces.
Nationalism to me is a great uniting force for America and i have numerous friends, family, and extended family that is serving this country overseas and am proud that they feel so strongly about America, and how diverse it is and are willing to die for our freedoms and comfort. So it that respect i would have to answer Jesse's question that i think nationalism is a great positive uniting force in our world today.
I agree that the term “American Revolution” does not accurately describe the events that took place. I think the “war for independence” explains the efforts most easily and accurately. However, I do believe that “mini” revolutions did occur within all economic groups. For some I think it was an intellectual revolution as much as a physical war. I think it is a perpetual idea, because it was more than land, it was ideology that many of them were fighting for.
I thought the articles in Zinn’s book were interesting, and would certainly introduce them to my students. However, we know that Zinn is liberal, and I felt that they only presented the view that he wanted to be believed. I think that in my classroom I would supplement other primary sources as well (I am thinking of the book we used for Col. Am). No matter what specific texts I used, I would want both sides presented in primary documents.
Was nationalism a positive thing? I think it was necessary. Would the colonies found success on their own if they had stayed as individuals? I tend to think not. They were very different, and therefore needed some convincing. However, in the end I think the whole thing would have failed if nationalism and the unification of the colonies had not prevailed.
Dr. Nichols I appreciate your point regarding grade level and whether or not our responsibility changes as a teacher as our students mature in their thinking. It seems to me as though we have a responsibility as teachers, especially at the early levels (I’m thinking middle school) to support nationalism and to be proud to be an American. Additionally, in a time of war (like we find ourselves) I think the importance of this idea increases. I’m not saying don’t present other sides, or that we have to agree with everything the government says. However, as a teacher I do think we have a responsibility to support our government and military. In a time of war students are going to have relatives, neighbors, friends overseas and I think it is important to support them in their fight for freedom, regardless of your personal views on the war.
I think that despite whether the lasting effects of nationalism were positive or negative, I think they serve a purpose during the revolution. I think it is important to remember the colonists really did not have a common past of their own that seperated them from Britain, and these "nationalist" attitdue could have served as a substitue.
KPetrick:
I think that the book you're talking about is the Major Problems in American History series with Colonial America edited by Karen Kupperman and the American Revolution edited by Richard Brown. These are good sources but would require a little more editing on your part, for brevity's sake. I would also suggest David McCullough's 1776 and John Adams for some more establishment perspectives - though they are secondary narratives not primary sources. Gary Nash is another historian that you could use - he tends to fit someplace in between Zinn and McCullough.
It may be that the idea of "permanent revolution" is more useful as a way to conceptualize the various social movements in American history, which all have their roots in the foundational period. For the Women's Movement, you can go back and look at Abigail Adams correspondences with her husband - these seem to indicate that there was the intellectual basis for the women's movement that really got moving 1/2 century later. Regarding the Labor / Class struggle in America, the documents in Zinn/Arnove provide the evidence that the late 19th / early 20th Century labor movement wasn't the mere result of socialist and/or subversive outside influence. We can see that these social movements had their roots in the foundation of the country. The fact that these issues were not addressed properly in the foundational period contributed to brewing resentments and "mini-revolutions" if you will.
I also think that nationalism was needed for the Revolution. I think that Kaity made a good point when she noted that a lot of the colonists were not coming from the same background. The only thing that htye had in common was the nation that they lived in.
As far as using sources to support or challenge nationalism in my classroom, I would really want to use sources from both views and have my students engage in active conversations about how they think and feel. That would be much like we are doing with this blog. Blogging would definitely be an option especially for students who have a harder time speaking out in class.
The meaning of the American Revolution was a people, motivated by the spirit of the Enlightenment, who wanted to be free and no longer be ruled by another. The fighting of the revolution officially ended with the treaty of Paris, but its ideals are far from over or complete in our society. The Decleration of Independance declared that "all men are created equal", but we are still far from completing that standard. We still have a long way to go in women's rights, minority rights and the protection of the innocent. The Revolution will never be fully finished in a populist democracy. The soldiers were treated poorly for the most part and were not rewarded for their sacrifice. However, the country rallied in favor of the war and was not led by a group of merchants.
Elite leaders in all likely hood motivated and led the revolution, but the population was behind it as evidenced by the equal distribution of troops between the states on page 107. The constitution, while in some instances undemocratic, was the most democratic document the world had seen up until that time.
I want to both destroy the myth that America does no wrong in the world, and yet also stress the positives our country has caused. These documents should show that the American Revolution might not have started with perfect democratic intentions in mind, but it left a tremendous path of democracy in its wake.
re melissa: blogging is an excellent way to allow students who struggle with speaking out in class to share their opinions. Having comments in a written form also allows students to return to them for further thought and to build on one anothers ideas. Blogging would also increase discussion, what I hope to promote in my classes.
re billy: I think nationalism is a positive force, as long as it is kept in check by our multi-ethnic country. It becomes a danger when it is taken too far and becomes xenophobia. It is very easy to justify everything a country does as right according to the rules of nationalism and to dehumamize others that are not like you.
Post a Comment