Forum Post: Time has come for an American Revolution No. 2
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 1:41 a.m. EST by AllianceForPeace
(40)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It is the time now for an American Revolution No. 2 just like our forefathers had begun in history, history repeats itself and it is here now! We totally support and side with the "Occupy Protesters" because it is time for a change! Not the "CHANGE" President Obama promised us since his campaign for presidency which never became true for the people. The U.S. is in the worst situation since the 1970's recession. Recession is just a word used by the government to make the people feel not as bad about what will happen to the people. There is no recession! It is just their way to oppress the people.
Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. It can also be defined as an act or instance of oppressing, the state of being oppressed, and the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, and anxiety.
The Declaration of Independence has been described as the most important document in human history. Here, in the memorable language of the famous preamble, a hundred and ten words fatally undermined the political basis of the old order and proclaimed a new era in which free peoples would henceforth govern themselves; quoted from the U.S. Declaration of Independence which was written by Thomas Jefferson as follows:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundations on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to Them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment.In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
It is the time to institute a New Government that will help the people, not go against the people. It is the peoples' time to revolt! It is your right as per Thomas Jefferson words, a man who was always against the creation of the National Bank which is our Federal Reserve Bank today as we the people know it.
Take your right for revolution with the people and make the right change!
I don't think we finished the original American revolution yet.
I think you are both right.
In 'A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn, he talks about how the American revolution started out as a class war. The poor colonists were getting fed up with the excesses of the rich colonists. However, what the rich colonists did is put a spin on it, so that it wasn't 'rich vs. poor' it was 'British vs. American'. That way, rich and poor could be painted as being on the same side, both Americans fighting against British oppression.
What's interesting now is that there is no 'other'. We have been told to expect terrorist 'boogeymen' from behind every tree and under every rock. Yet, the USA is the world's remaining superpower with no foreign enemies able to even compete. The Occupy movement is worldwide, and the people of the world have come to recognize that the enemy is not each other, but the 1% at the top that own 40% of the world's wealth.
There wasn't really a class element to the American revolution. Look at the Loyalists who fled to Canada. A bunch of rich aristocrats? Hardly. They were just average farmers. Many were even slaves. And the leaders of the revolution were decked out in all the frilly lace suits that marked them as members of elite society at the time, same as their British counterparts. It could well be argued that the interests behind the revolution, represented the commercial elite of the colonies at the time. There were very few colonial business owners among the Loyalists, because the whole program of the Revolution favoured the large landowners, the slaveholders, and those involved in import or export. Most of it didn't matter much to your average farmer, one way or the other.
No, human history is very specific. You are generalizing with the "rich vs. poor" approach to understanding history.
How is human history 'specific'?
History has many sides and many perspectives, you are free to choose as you like. The history of the 'rich dead European males' you have been taught in school isn't the ONLY story, and it's not the whole story.
No, history is not very specific.
I think that the anthropological approach to history is, at best, speculative. I've never heard of one anthropological theory that could be proven without, a doubt, true, while on the other hand, singular events and ideas, generally can be proven to have occurred. The only anthropological theories that I find stand up in discussion are the ones that are hard to disprove.
I have no idea what you mean. 'Human change is sparked by singular events'? Any examples of this?
What is a 'singular event'? Was the American revolution a 'singular event'? Was World war two? Was the collapse of the Roman Empire?
How is THAT not generalizing?
Are you referring to the Hegelian dialectic view of history? Thesis and antithesis?
I have no idea what you mean 'sparked by a singular event'. There is no such thing as a 'singular event'. There is always cause and effect, and a causation chain of events. Ever read that Ray Bradbury story where the dinosaur hunters kill a butterfly, and it causes a chain of events which changes the future?
I am not talking about the anthropological approach to history, I am talking about the history that is factual, but is not discussed, such as the Haymarket affair in Chicago 1886. There are actual recorded historical facts surrounding that event. No one would dispute that the event happened. There is a reason why it's not put into high school history textbooks.
"Ever read that Ray Bradbury story where the dinosaur hunters kill a butterfly, and it causes a chain of events which changes the future?" lol
No, I wouldn't sum it up that way. If you read Percy Shelly's "A Defense of Poetry" it would go into it in the necessary detail that I couldn't summarize here.
A Defense of Poetry: http://www.bartleby.com/27/23.html
I didn't find any reference to an approach to historical interpretation, in 'A defence of poetry'.
Imagine that. Probably because it's like shopping for bread in the automotive section.
It's about the way humanity works.
"Man is an instrument over which a series of external and internal impressions are driven, like the alternations of an ever-changing wind over an Æolian lyre, which move it by their motion to ever-changing melody. But there is a principle within the human being, and perhaps within all sentient beings, which acts otherwise than in the lyre, and produces not melody alone, but harmony, by an internal adjustment of the sounds or motions thus excited to the impressions which excite them."
The OWS movement might call this phenomenon "memes", which I think is mischaracterization, but at least they recognize the phenomenon in some form. Shelly, on the other hand, would call it the "wind over an Æolian lyre" that human beings not only produce "melody" but "harmony" through the poetic expressions and impressions which excite them.
The symbolic act of "occupying" Wall Street was one of these moments. Granted, many people were "tuned" for this already, they were simply waiting for the poetic expression to come out in the open. And in this way, humanity is inspired by singular events or ideas, and history is driven forward by specificity, not generalities.
"Poets are the hierophants of an unapprehended inspiration; the mirrors of the gigantic shadows which futurity casts upon the present; the words which express what they understand not; the trumpets which sing to battle, and feel not what they inspire; the influence which is moved not, but moves. Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world."
Hrm. No. I think you are trying to obsfucate the argument here. It sounds too much like navel gazing, or mystifying it.
"Alienations of an ever changing wind over an Aeolian lyre?" Come on!
You might as well say "God did it!' and ask me to prove you wrong. At least I would know what you were talking about.
When you say specificity or generality, you are making a value judgement. You are imposing your own artificial scale onto the situation, deciding for yourself what is 'specific' and what is 'general'. Occupy Wall street happened in a very specific location, at a very specific time. It is a historical event that is still unfolding.
Was the first American revolution a 'singular' event, or a 'specific' event without generalities? Don't you think the American colonists had more than one grievance, as well as taking sides 'for' or 'against' the British crown? What specific event was the American revolution? Was it the Boston tea party, and nothing else? Was it the signing of the declaration of independence, and nothing else?
"Alienations of an ever changing wind over an Aeolian lyre?"
It's "alternations", not "alienations".
"Was the first American revolution a 'singular' event, or a 'specific' event without generalities? Don't you think the American colonists had more than one grievance, as well as taking sides 'for' or 'against' the British crown? What specific event was the American revolution? Was it the Boston tea party, and nothing else? Was it the signing of the declaration of independence, and nothing else?"
The American Revolution had many events which occurred in it that could be seen historically as singular events that led to mass change. Yes, the Boston Tea Party; yes, the Declaration of Independence; yes, the colonists had more than one grievance.
My critique was of your assertion that: "The poor colonists were getting fed up with the excesses of the rich colonists. However, what the rich colonists did is put a spin on it, so that it wasn't 'rich vs. poor' it was 'British vs. American'. That way, rich and poor could be painted as being on the same side, both Americans fighting against British oppression."
The "rich vs. poor" is an anthropological assertion I've seen before when explaining any revolution. It's not provable and, I believe, not true. I've showed you why with Shelly's essay. A materialist explanation is not enough to explain revolution.
Firstly, I don't think 'rich vs. poor' has ANYTHING to do with anthropology. It's more about economics. Anthropology is the study of man, not politics or economics. It's not as though tribes that anthropologists study such as the African bushmen were 'rich' or 'poor'.
Secondly, I don't see how Shelley's essay proved anything, except to assert that poets secretly influence the world. I agree with Shelley about how language controls and regulates all aspects of our society. Still, the essay you cite as 'proof' is nothing of the sort.
My assertion that the American revolution originally started out as a class war comes from "A people's history of the United States" by Howard Zinn.
I have read a good portion of "A People's History of the United States". I decided half-way through, that such a one-sided view of history wasn't worth finishing.
Oh, you mean a one-sided view of history from the OTHER perspective?
You preferred the version of history written by the 1% owners? The dead white European males who enslaved the blacks, subjugated women, exterminated the aboriginals, and exploited the immigrants?
You think THAT is not one sided?
What you are getting upset about is the universal struggle of mankind. Societies have had problems like these in every part of the world. Focusing your hatred just on the USA for this, is short-sighted, to say the least.
If one's reading a people's "History of the United States" in an attempt to gain insight specific to the Revolution; or of the minds of colonials at a particular junction, then they are extremely flawed in historical approach.
That's what I'm saying.
I haven't read Zinn and don't plan to... but if you are suggesting that this was, say, the merchant class against the Crown's aristocracy in the form of Gentleman, I would say that is probably a flawed assertion. There was angst amongst the merchant class, directed at the Crown, that's a fact... and they did enlist the poor and eventually even all of Virginia in the cause... but it only occurred because they represent the collective intelligence of society; possessed of the ability to influence.
It wasn't a class war, it was us against them. And they wanted to enslave us. And there is real truth to this statement when weighed against British decisiveness. They WERE determined to subjugate.
The only one I can think of immediately in reference to class leveling, or, the lack of an aristocracy is Jefferson. But he's not entirely truthful, or accurate, in his assertion - colonial America consisted of five rather distinct classes, all uniquely aware of rather precarious existence as class leveling.
I know what he's talking about am I'm not even a professor.
If we are to tie the war itself to a specific event, it was the "murder" of the first British soldier at the Battles of Lexington and Concord. The man who chased this British soldier down and beat him to death in the field was interviewed; his words have been preserved.
But this was not America's first revolution; it was her third.
And it was certainly precipitated by events; and the British were decisive in their pursuit at every turn.
And so, we stole their cannon.
So are painters; in fact, all artists...
Yes, poets in the broadest sense of the word.
This is an entirely false statement. The Rev was fought solely for the purpose of retaining an autonomy that had been granted to those of MA Bay, by the Crown, at the initial planting.
The two words most often quoted by the Rebels were "Liberty" and "Slavery"; even so all had a different view of freedom. For Washington it meant retention of lands he had acquired through speculation west of the Appalachians; for the merchant of Boston it held different meaning. And for the poor soldiers that actually fought the war, it meant employment; they packed up their families and all, including the women and children, marched off to war.
Those in better financial positions had but limited participation; my ancestors in Massachusetts fought at Bunker Hill and then took to the seas as privateers; those on Long Island bailed after the Battle of Long Island and White Plains; all were effected in some form. Others fought the entire eight years as a means of stable employment and then sought pensions afterwards.
What few realize is the wealth that places like Boston had attained by the time of the Rev. The merchants in Boston were better dressed than even those of France.
But, in any case, all were possessed of an individual vision, or personal view, of freedom, attainable only through the combined defense of liberty.
Is autonomy as self-determinism necessary to economic success? Absolutely, but this was not a class war... there may have been economic motivations; it may have been an economic war, but it was definitely not a class war.
Or, to put this another way, I think that to suggest it is, or was, a class war in terms of Boston against the aristocracy, is to over generalize.
[Removed]
Second American Revolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amNO_QJzaQ8
pass it on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxJTwbHdH6k
Yes! Great POST. And here's way to to get it done: http://occupywallst.org/forum/howtodoits-proposal-on-how-to-accomplish-the-march/
Indeed, on change. Obama promised change and then stepped into this mess carrying out the EXACT same bailout program Bush began and using the exact same players and cronies who created the mess in the first place. He either kept Bush's Wall Street people in charge, or replaced them with OTHER top-level Wall Street people. He did not look for anyone ideologically different at all. So, it has been nearly another entire administration of exactly the same thing. He did, at least, propose ending the Bush Tax Cuts that turned our country immediately into a debtor nation after Clinton had finally ended deficit spending.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
The American Revolution was unique in that the enemy was a foreign power. Now the enemy is the 1% against the backdrop of economic hardship of the 99%. Very similar to conditions in France in the late 1700's which lead to the French Revolution. The ghost of that revolution has been seen in every modern civil uprising in the 20th Century. The sobering question is how much violence is justified to replace a tyrannical system with one you know in your heart is better. One thing that had to dealt with was the fact that the 99% did not all agree with the progressive changes the revolution brought. Especially, the part about stamping out Christianity. They over reach on that one, which lead to civil war in many parts of the country.
Personally, I would rather work to reform our system of government by electing honest people to congress and eliminate the permanent political class. Smaller and less intrusive government is a worthy goal as well.
Our enemy from within are still foreign and have power! Are you aware that the United States as we know it, had signed for its Independence from Britain under certain conditions which most American people are not aware or do not want to believe.
The conditions are that America will always be a corporation which Britain still owns under the income tax law!
Firstly, Americans whom earn monies and receive salaries must pay in the matter of income tax. This income tax does not go back into The American government system instead it goes straight to Britain, to its monarch because this is the dues America must pay every year for keeping its independence. Secondly, America was signed-off as a "corporation" not a country, that is why there are (3) three city States in the World. First is London, second is the Vatican, and last, Washington,D.C. Therefore, there are no honest politicians, only liars who want to make lots of money by the hardworking sweat of the American people and pocketing all those bribes and greenbacks and lobbying support funds. In fact these politicians work for the Brits monarch not for our country. Why do you think the Brits never interfere with whatever America does but must acknowledge and stand up with America's conquering of other countries for their resources. The Brits still rule but under a stealth manner in disguise so as to let America do all of its dirty work like they had done before in history. A true revolution is where it must start and end and it might take American peoples' lives to accomplish a better future for the American society, its children and its future!
You do not represent anyone I have met at any occupy movement. "AllianceForPeace" We are in a different world my friend you can not load a musket and scare away some redcoats with bayonets. This has been tried a number of times in recent history and it always ends the same way...life in prison or the death sentence. You are in a capitalist society not in 1775 america. Try spending your money in a different way. do you go through the drive-through then you are supporting mcdonalds, do you go to Walmart do you buy products from china do you drive a foreign car. you want to see change in a capitalist society than start changing the way you spend money. Get your money out of that big bank and put it in a local bank that will keep it in the community as communities across america start to strengthen financially you will see the country strengthen you will see the power shift to the 99%
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
"I don't think we finished the original American revolution yet." <!!!!!!!!>>
I have been active here since the very beginning, and since the very beginning I have been trying to make some core points. These points clearly have not been digested or fully understood by the mob, and so I'm going to try to make a further attempt here again.
For these reasons, I beg of you to please immediately join me on the wiki. We need to have all of these details and all of these ideas put together in an organized fashion, rather than posted in a long scrawl which will never be read.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ
http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-new-wiki/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/
You misunderstand what I mean. I am not advocating a violence.
Yeah. Okay.
[Removed]
you have like what... 1%? 2% of your country? good luck
You gotta check this shit out! I want you to speak truth to power!. Say it once, say it twice. Say it loud. Say it proud. I'm down with the KTC. The Revolution starts here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGaRtqrlGy8&feature=related
http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/
The Revolution starts here! No one can silence the Revolution!