Why does nearly everyone on this board consider the French Revolution more significant to world history than the American Revolution? Without the success of the American Revolution the French Revolution wouldn't have happened.
American revolution is as significant to world as 80 years war.
It resulted in introduction of new big power on the international stage.
French revolution was the outburst of three forces that shaped, and will continue to shape the world long after all those powers will be gone. Nationalism, liberalism and socialism.
The French Revolution is up there with the Reformation as one of the most significant events in European history.
The American Revolution had little impact other than bankrupting France and so accelerating the trouble there
And yet America is the only country left in the world that still ostensibly respects Enlightenment ideals and the rights of man, since the Constitution and Bill of Rights enshrined those rights into the American political, cultural, and legal system. Europeans have no actual power and have their lives entirely dictated by legislation and unelected bureaucrats. So it looks like only one of those revolutions was successful.
>America is the only country left in the world that still ostensibly respects Enlightenment ideals and the rights of man
At times I regret no saving that Semper Fidelis Spurdo meme
>And yet America is the only country left in the world that still ostensibly respects Enlightenment ideals and the rights of man, since the Constitution and Bill of Rights enshrined those rights into the American political, cultural, and legal system. Europeans have no actual power and have their lives entirely dictated by legislation and unelected bureaucrats. So it looks like only one of those revolutions was successful.
>Why does nearly everyone on this board consider the French Revolution more significant to world history than the American Revolution?
Because it was
The American "revolution" was just a colonial independence war like there have been hundreds
No one among the european pleb was even aware of it at the moment it occured
Meanwhile, the French Revolution put a end to feudalism on the most relevant continent of the world
>Without the success of the American Revolution the French Revolution wouldn't have happened.
All it required was the French state to go bankrupt, and thus only French involvement was required, regardless of if it resulted in a success or a failure
If you naively think that the American "revolution" showed the French that it was possible, you're wrong since an independence war and a revolution are two very different thing.
Just because some irrelevant colony managed to achieve indepence oesnt mean that one of the most powerful monarchy in Europe could be overthrown
Because the American Revolution resulted in everything good in the world today while the French Revolution is responsible for everything bad in the world today, and only bad things are newsworthy.
>George Washington had a net worth of half a billion dollars, inflation adjusted
>owned 300 slaves
>led by elite whose wealth came from the extracted labour of enslaved Africans
Top fucking kek m8.
> And yet America is the only country left in the world that still ostensibly respects Enlightenment ideals and the rights of man, since the Constitution and Bill of Rights enshrined those rights into the American political, cultural, and legal system. Europeans have no actual power and have their lives entirely dictated by legislation and unelected bureaucrats.
I give it a "had a giggle/10". The dislike for unelected bureaucrats was a nice touch.
>America is one of the only 1st world countries left without hate speech laws and gun control.
I guess that was what the Enlightenment was about.
Both things you mentioned are as native to the Enlightenment as free speech and individual liberty, if not more so. The Enlightenment wasn't about founding some libertarian utopia for the most part.
Except it was. Almost every enlightenment thinker wanted to extend rationalism to the way individuals should conduct themselves in daily life, which inherently transforms society in a way that they assumed rationality would bring a better world
Instead, we have criminals and sociopaths unshackled from morality who wreak havoc.
The idea that humans are inherently rational IS utopian. You have just been so firmly ensconsed in the propaganda you dont realize it.
Scroll through your fb feed and ask yourself if posts about david bowie, or paris, or whatever, all given equal weigt in the universal quest to gain online status, are at all, in aany way, rational.
The enlightenment WAS utopian.
>americans this desperate to remain central to every historical debate ever
I know it must be terribly traumatic for you but can't you please just let it go for once and accept that you just were not that fucking important at the time
Neither. It translates into commubism in practice. Dont forget that it dominated stalinistvand maoist propaganda until the 70s. It was "rational" to assume womeb were the same as men. Rational to assume all people would contribute equally, rational to assume... rational to assume food rationing was superior to the market. Even when people were starving it was "rational."oh hey look at that, they just assumed and used rationality as a justification for whatever arbitrary thing they did. Rationalism applied to science disocera rockets and atom smashing. Rationalism applied to social system or economics results in inflexible ideologies imposing desired results from centralized dogma.
Lubertarians do not claim to be rarionalist. The heavy hitfers suxh as rothbard claim to be empiricist or inductivist, which are two mehods of drawing from previous results, rather than just claiming to have figuredDit out in your head, ib a way whixh is internally consistent and alsi compatible with reality, and no, stalin wont ever lie, he promises.
Likewise a paternalist monarch or authoritarian state simply claims property rights as thr starting premise. If he wants more money he will tend to operate in a way to maximize it. Authoritarians dont all make singular claims of some sort of empirical reality. They just do whats best for themselves, generally.
Well it can go either way but generally authoritarians (including republican authoritarians of the Rousseaian kind) tend to be more rationalist, and consistent liberals are more on the skeptical or inductivist side.
>consistent liberals are more on the skeptical or inductivist side.
yet, they still wish to impose their perspective on liberties and rights to others.
and inductivism belongs to any rationalism.
the sole question of interest is why do you take your imagination seriously, in knowing that, since you have so much faith in induction through space and time, people have been doing it for millenia and still have no clue on how to connect back their speculation/abstraction/delirium/fantasy back to empirical events, nor do they even know why they want to take seriously their speculation. they prefer to live in the past in order to live in the future, therefore that they are nihilistic.
Im not really sure why you chose such an arbitrary split. Republicans are also rousseauian are also consistently authoritarian? The fuck you on? None of those hree things are ideological sticking points hese days, or systems of thought determinative of policy or identification, nor are they even accurately categorically.
Conservatives are generally risk averse, but in a way that absokutely does not reflect any epistemology or ontology. Theyre just scared. Wary to information about threats and VERY rational about that, but unable to process at all, any information relevant to science, for example. Heres no consistent relationship, whixh is precisely WHY using rationalism as a guiding basis for juman moeality is flawed. Everyone self assesses themselves as smart, and the result of this hubris that we can be rational leads to awful, awful decisions.
For what its worth, left wingers, if this is your usage of liberals, are neither inductivist nor skeptical. They are essentially ideologically similar to maos red guard, seeking to eliminate pruvelege in society by destroying or revolutionizing cultural institutions.
There is essentially no epistemology to their thought process.
>Without the success of the American Revolution the French Revolution wouldn't have happened.
Ehh, that's a stretch. Both were hugely important for different reasons, and apart from being influenced on some level by similar ideals, they had different effects. The American revolution was less of a revolution, and more of an independence movement. The colonies weren't Britain, and the historical precedent for them belonging to the English crown wasn't nearly as strong as the French crown's historical claim to rule France. The American and French revolutions were both influenced by elightenment principles and some precedents set by the abridgement of monarchichal power in England, but I would say the American revolution has more in common with other independence movements in European colonies, and directly inspired them, and the French revolution has a lot more in common with the Russian revolution. Completely overthrowing a longstanding monarchy is a bit trickier than gaining independence from one when you're a few thousand miles away.
>falling for this guy's obvious bait
>does everything but literally type in all caps, "YOU FELL FOR THE BAIT LEL TAKE SOME MORE"
Come on, guys. Really? For some reason, I thought /his/ was going to be a board where there wasn't a lot of bait being taken all the time. I don't know what I was thinking, considering that since the beginning, /his/ has been a combination of /lit/ and /pol/, which are remarkably easy to bait. Put them together and they just bait each other and fall for each other's bait.
Literally the only guy who gets it.
The "only guy who gets it" just spouted some truism. For shitting all over the other posters your knowledge pool seems to be pretty thin, considering you champion such a weak statement of opinion.
Honestly, 4chan is just not the place for hisyorical discussion
>Honestly, 4chan is just not the place for historical discussion.
GET THE FUCK OUT REEEEEEE
This board is an experiment. It is attempting to see if people will actually discuss history if given a history board. People like me have been shilling for a history board for years, making /history/ threads on /lit/ and /pol/.
Finally, when we get it, people like you come from where-the-fuck-ever to try to mess it all up for the rest of us. Go back to /pol/ and collect your autismbucks from the government and shitpost like you seem so keen on doing. Leave history board to those who want to talk about history, whether or not you believe 4chan is a place for historical discussion or not.
Just saying that should get you banned.
are europeans really so naive to believe that the revolution that mostly just effected europe is more important then the creation of the worlds most influential country?
He a rich dude yo.
Article 1: the universal rights of violent muslims to settle in europe and rape white women
Well, except before that by, you know, generally inventing the most important shit like the telegraph, the airplane...
Oh wait, euroa dont actually care about technology or functional government. They care about a useless ideology which cant even form a stable republic.
Actually, amybe youre right. Maybe the french rev. WAS more influential because it set the precedent for the rest of europe to be eternally unable to establish a functional constitution, collapsing into revolution every 30 years
The Versailles Agreement and the failure of the LoN were arguably some of the indirect causes, as well as financial shenanigans that brought down the NYSE in 1929. North America isn't a different planet.
Islam isnt a race.
And i care a lot more when it is only the. Commiting thr crimes, exclusively against us.
Okay so you admitted that the french revolution is significant because its model is the reason why europe cannot function.
Clearly the functional model is totally insignificant.
I got schooled.
>Article 1: the universal rights of violent muslims to settle in europe and rape white women
And this is why no one likes you /pol/.
It's not your views, it's the fact you talk complete and utter shit.
>Okay so you admitted that the french revolution is significant because its model is the reason why europe cannot function.
>Clearly the functional model is totally insignificant.
>I got schooled.
You're speaking with more than one person.
Besides the 30 Year War happened long before the Revolution. Instability on the continent is nothing new.
And there you go again.
What you really think I am some SJW activist for pointing out that isn't actually part of any legislation of the EU.
There is a place for making up nonsense in an international shitposting and trolling competition and it is /pol/ not the fucking history and philosophy board.
I think we can reasonably sum it up to the treaty of Versailles. Yes, the great depression was less than helpful, but it didn't cause what happened. Germany to happen elsewhere. I'll remind you that Wilson was vehemently against the stipulations of the treaty. The LON was his idea, and while it wasn't effective enough, it was a step in the right direction.
What i was addressing is that the eu charter for universal human rights leaves out
1 property rights
2 free speech
3 self defense
And insteadDincludes dubious relics of the soviet and maoist models of civil rights such as
1 ethnic apportionment of votes and bureaucratic positions
2 ethnic court systems
3 harsh restrictions on free speech, whistleblowers, and the insistence that central authority is capable of rooting out its own corruptiin problems
But apparently you havent even examined the current eu charter of rights?
What serves as a better model? America or 60s era communism?
The previous poster was championing rhe american model and you gave him greentext snark because youre so progressive and intelligent.
But my snark? Awful, evil hatespeech!
The abive poster was right. To this day europe does not have free speech or property rights, which is dismaying AND i might add an artifact of the FRENCH REVOLUTION
>The previous poster was championing rhe american model and you gave him greentext snark because youre so progressive and intelligent.
>But my snark? Awful, evil hatespeech!
You don't know anything about me. I was criticising him for making up utter stupid shit.
This may frazzle your brain but there is actually rather a large grey area between an ultra leftist and someone who dislikes people posting "the EU has legislation says Muslims are allowed to rape women!!!!" on what is supposed to be a serious board.
Just to cover your actual minor attempt to make a serious point.
The last time I checked self defence is covered under criminal law of individual countries, just like it is covered under the individual criminal law of states in the US.
The rights to property and freedom on expression are covered in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Okay, but you failed to adress what i was saying. I am AWARE of thr existence of thr document. I am also aware that the rigts of property and free speech do not exist DE FACTO anywhere in europe.
They existed on paper in maoist china also. Did they exist in realuty? No.
Address that you fucking punk.
>you dont knoe anyhing about me
Please dont talk to me like im your stepdad
You are a dumb fucking nigger.
>1. property rights
>1. Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest.
>2. Intellectual property shall be protected.
>2 free speech
>1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
>2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.
>3. self defense
A matter for individual statel law, much as it is in the United States, where some states recognize the stand-your-ground doctrine and others do not.
>And insteadDincludes dubious relics of the soviet and maoist models of civil rights such as
>1 ethnic apportionment of votes and bureaucratic positions
>2 ethnic court systems
>3 harsh restrictions on free speech, whistleblowers, and the insistence that central authority is capable of rooting out its own corruptiin problems
Find these articles: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union
Protip: You can't.
>I am AWARE of thr existence of thr document. I am also aware that the rigts of property and free speech do not exist DE FACTO anywhere in europe.
Yes they do. There are about 800 million people or something covered by the ECHR.
I challenge you to find a single nation in Western Europe that does not allow private property.
>Address that you fucking punk.
Address what? A load more bullshit you made up while spitting all over your computer screen, wipe that shit up it is disgusting, kid.
Private enterprise is being swallowed up for usage in police actions. Inheritance is taxed into oblivion, shutting down family enterprise, necessitaying lichtenstein and switzerland as havens, where even moderately well to do people flee.
Speech of political parties is policed and leaders jailed (just like in china) or the results declared invalid. Some freedom of speech. Authors like holloubeq are forced to flee. People are jailed for public demonstrations.
People are assaultedDin the streets with no legal recourse.
Poster asked me to demonstrate that defacto, civil rights dont exist in europe. I drmonstrated, so stop dick waving, christ.
Anyway, the police are more an issue with minorities than with actual legal processes. The police state is a reaction to street crime. Our legal framework protects us in all cases, especially so when we take police to court. The problem is that a standing police force and procedure operates outside of a CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK you dipshit.
Our constitution is fine.
ITT: Americans make up stuff in their own heads about Europe.
Meanwhile, back in the real world.
The American Revolution pushed pause on the political clock in America. We are still largely a product of the enlightenment.
Our isolation and distance ensured that European thought really didn't influence us.
The French Revolution was far more reaching, violent and radical in it's changes. It swept across Europe spread by fire and sword. It's much more interesting for that reason alone. Wars and violent revolution are always more interesting.
The French Revolution is in part why you value the life of the criminal whIle we value the property more than the criminal.
The french revolution was an utter failure and set up europe for failure for the next 200 years. Not saying it wasnt more interesting, this also makes it influential, but maybe as infamous is to famous, we need a word influential that works in the negative sense
Ex. You claim the french revolution is why they value theElife of the criminal... but DO thry really or is that just a pkatitude? They only recèmtly outlawed capital punishment, so it seems unrelated to the rev. I mean, during thr rench rev they were murdering fuxking nuns and dunping the bodies in the river.
Thats like saying maoism is responsible for the chinese valuing life...