Now this is a genre of video I like: counter-opinion pieces on reviled historical figures. I find that they tend to be the most illuminating as they make you remember how much historiography has shaped our perceptions of the past.
I refuse to watch that communist, but I imagine he says something to the degree of muh rich, muh slavery, etc etc.
Probably. Wonder what spurred this video's creation however. Was the Trump Admin talking about the Founding Fathers recently or something?
At the end, he says American exceptionalism is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Puritans and Patriots were not special but they believed they were. He also apparently didn't mention some historical events, people or groups that were important to the conflict.
There is the whole concept of a "right to rebellion" and "right to revolution" that was used to justify to the American Revolution but attaching to it any kind of anarchist goal is absurd. The only way the idea can work is if the word "rebellion" is taken to its most extreme definition. To make that claim seems like gross misinterpretation of history. The United States the Patriots fought for and founded had a weaker federal government, more empowered states and a lack of standing army sure but they still wanted a national President, Congress and Supreme Court. If they were at all anarchistic would they have set up the country in such a way?
He does bring up class struggle so you're not far off.
Not watching Leftist-Lincolnite cringe. Just read Charles Beard instead for a critical piece on the Founding Fathers and their economic motives for pursuing the Consitution. It's leagues above in terms of quality and thought than Atun-Shei's proselytizing of "slavery bad, white man bad, BLM good."
Whenever I see a thumbnail with the format of a black bar over someone's eyes accompanied by a "The real x of y" clickbait title I feel a strong urge to throttle my monitor.
Nothing new; remember during the Summer of Floyd once people acquiesced to the tearing down of Confederate monuments they started going after the statues of Union and Revolutionary leaders. That wasn't a novel occurrence either; Jefferson had multiple black legends pushed against him since the Clinton admin and Washington and Madison increasingly became relegated to slaveowner because academic progressives (correctly) identified that they and many other founders had a lot in common with the Confederates and, worse, they were white men.
This was the stated ideological goal initially, and abandoned the moment the Committee of Public Safety needed a command economy to fuel the war effort, like every other leftist revolution in history.
No you couldn't. The spark of the revolution was a famine. The middle class attempted to convert a bread riot into some grand event and gunned down anyone who stood in the way. Royalist peasant were pursued with genocidal intent. In fact in many areas the Royalists broached across class lines. While good luck finding that in the revolutionary council.
Napoleon didn't come through as some great reactionary. He was in Paris to crush a royalist rebellion and took over because nobody stopped him. Because anyone able got a haircut a few inches too short. Napoleon became excused as some great Emperor after the fact. I mean think about it why would the French monarchy and nobility rally behind an Italian petty noble.
to the surprise of absolutely no one
Sigismunds would be the last Holy Roman ruler to defend and jews while letting them speak during the Council of Constance only for them to portray him as evil 600 years later.
>most famous Frenchman was from Italy
It's interesting to think about what happened to Paine. At one point he was a revolutionary intellectual motivating colonial Patriots to rebel from Great Britain and then by the end of the life he was ostracized because he felt he was betrayed, ridiculed Christianity and attacked the leaders of the United States. Apparently only six people attended his funeral. Too radical for his own good I guess.
