What Is More to Blame (Looking Back)

[Fife]

Speaking of lazy, "traditional" left vs. right is meaningless shite.

Seriously, it's just Marxist hooey. Why would you take that bait?

[StCapps]

Speaking of lazy, "traditional" left vs. right is meaningless shite.

Seriously, it's just Marxist hooey. Why would you take that bait?

The French Revolution predates Marx, so obviously you are talking out of your ass. Traditional left-right is not oppressors/the status quo on the right and oppressed/change on the left, that's an attempt by commies and useful idiots to hijack what is actually the traditional left-right, try to keep up.

[Fife]

Speaking of lazy, "traditional" left vs. right is meaningless shite.

Seriously, it's just Marxist hooey. Why would you take that bait?

The French Revolution predates Marx, so obviously you are talking out of your ass. Traditional left-right is not oppressors/the status quo on the right and oppressed/change on the left, that's an attempt by commies and useful idiots to hijack what is actually the traditional left-right, try to keep up.

OK, poindexter. What was the first time that "left vs. right" meant something in political discourse?

And I don't mean that the États généraux boiled down (or didn't) to who turned to the left and who turned to the right to find a chair.

I'm asking you: when did "R v. L" first become an actual thing?

[StCapps]

Speaking of lazy, "traditional" left vs. right is meaningless shite.

Seriously, it's just Marxist hooey. Why would you take that bait?

The French Revolution predates Marx, so obviously you are talking out of your ass. Traditional left-right is not oppressors/the status quo on the right and oppressed/change on the left, that's an attempt by commies and useful idiots to hijack what is actually the traditional left-right, try to keep up.

OK, poindexter. What was the first time that "left vs. right" meant something in political discourse?

And I don't mean that the États généraux boiled down (or didn't) to who turned to the left and who turned to the right to find a chair.

I'm asking you: when did "R v. L" first become an actual thing?

The English Civil War, but it was "R v. C" back then.

[heydaralon]

Fuck tha diggers and the levellers, your boy is all about dose motherfucking Ashland Avenue Niggas

[GloryofGreece]

Reading more about the French Revolution make me really wonder why the American Revolution didn't become more radical or totally degenerate into more of a civil war with countless partisan killing on both sides.

[StCapps]

Reading more about the French Revolution make me really wonder why the American Revolution didn't become more radical or totally degenerate into more of a civil war with countless partisan killing on both sides.

You're lucky that it didn't, most Revolutions are more likely to be hard landing like the Russian or French Revolution, The Glorious Revolution and American Revolution are rare exceptions, shit usually doesn't go down so smooth in the average Revolution, bet that.

[Ex-California]

Reading more about the French Revolution make me really wonder why the American Revolution didn't become more radical or totally degenerate into more of a civil war with countless partisan killing on both sides.

It absolutely would nowadays, but I think it was due to a lack of urban population and the fact that most Americans were still recent colonists who were looking to build a new life rather than just looking for da gibs

[GloryofGreece]

Reading more about the French Revolution make me really wonder why the American Revolution didn't become more radical or totally degenerate into more of a civil war with countless partisan killing on both sides.

It absolutely would nowadays, but I think it was due to a lack of urban population and the fact that most Americans were still recent colonists who were looking to build a new life rather than just looking for da gibs

From what I've read about the American Revolution a lot of historians/"experts" suggest that about 1/3rd of the population was loyal to the crown, a 3rd was neutral, and only a 3rd was actually for it. That's also surprising. Again making me wonder why there wasn't a lot of killing in back alleys or retribution after independence was won. I guess there are examples of revolutions that were totally violent like the Glorious Revolution but still.

I don't think there was as much bitterness and resentment on the part of most Americans compared to rabble in most of France.

[StCapps]

Reading more about the French Revolution make me really wonder why the American Revolution didn't become more radical or totally degenerate into more of a civil war with countless partisan killing on both sides.

It absolutely would nowadays, but I think it was due to a lack of urban population and the fact that most Americans were still recent colonists who were looking to build a new life rather than just looking for da gibs

From what I've read about the American Revolution a lot of historians/"experts" suggest that about 1/3rd of the population was loyal to the crown, a 3rd was neutral, and only a 3rd was actually for it. That's also surprising. Again making me wonder why there wasn't a lot of killing in back alleys or retribution after independence was won. I guess there are examples of revolutions that were totally violent like the Glorious Revolution but still.

I don't think there was as much bitterness and resentment on the part of most Americans compared to rabble in most of France.

There was retribution, those revolutionary fucks tarred and feathered many a loyalist, remember?