Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 237

Thread: Reconciliation and COIN in Afghanistan

  1. #201
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    Bob, food for thought, this idea is still rough, but it was pointed out by some astute historians that the American Revolution happened long before the conflict with the Mother Ship England. The actual revolution was a series of memes, core beliefs, social/poltical norms that emerged, and all these eventually ran into the "state" and triggered a conflict. The fight was NOT the revolution, that was the war, which was the result of the revolution that already happened. This is a paradigm shift from our doctrinal view of revolution.
    Not really a new paradigm. Take, for example, the Davies J-Curve that predicts political unrest resulting from an economic downswing.
    "Revolutions are most likely to occur when a prolonged period of objective economic and social development is followed by a short period of sharp reversal. People then subjectively fear that ground gained with great effort will be quite lost; their mood becomes revolutionary. The evidence from Dorr's Rebellion, the Russian Revolution, and the Egyptian Revolution supports this notion; tentatively, so do data on other civil disturbances. Various statistics—as on rural uprisings, industrial strikes, unemployment, and cost of living—may serve as crude indexes of popular mood. More useful, though less easy to obtain, are direct questions in cross-sectional interviews. The goal of predicting revolution is conceived but not yet born or matured."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Chowning_Davies

    Broadened out it really predicts revolution based on a continuing disjunction between a society's expectation of what they should have and the reality of what they do have.

    I should note that these ideas are generally attacked by the anti pop-centric COIN crowd.

    I am not sure this model is applicable. The model here will be a power vacuum that will be filled by whomever has the ability to coerce others, has charismatic influence backed by followers with weapons, or can bribe others to maintain influence.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 07-28-2012 at 11:04 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  2. #202
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Ok, A few points.

    1. The Taliban and GIRoA share the same religion. This is not about religion, it is about power. We tipped the scales so that the naturally more powerful party was displaced by the weaker. Then we enabled the weaker to create a form of government designed to elevate and centralize patronage, allowing them to exercise an unnatural degree of control across the country in an effort to preserve a monopoly that would keep those affiliated with the ousted party from being able to worm their way back in. Once that was done the revolutionary insurgency began to grow. Once we began countering the revolution it led to the growth of the resistance.

    As to the US, yes, the fight was "the final argument of kings" but still, the revolution was not about the ideas being advanced, it was the intolerable situation being challenged. The new ideas did, however, lead to a growing sense of discontent with a system that had been in place for generations. Kind of a chicken or egg argument. Bottom line is that the populace in the new world evolved to the point where the status quo of British governance was no longer adequate and the British were unwilling to evolve to meet those new requirements. We see the same dynamic across the Middle East today with the Arab Spring movement.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  3. #203
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default Democracy vs Theocracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Ok, A few points.

    1. The Taliban and GIRoA share the same religion. This is not about religion, it is about power.
    True enough, it is not about religion, but governance is about a base of legitimacy.

    GIRoA's legitimacy is based on the consent of the people, which is really just an illusion. The people voted based on tribal alliances or a belief they would get something in return. The Taliban can claim legitimacy based in the word of God, a word shared by all. The difference between democracy and theocracy.

    But you are ultimately correct; when the vacuum is created, it will be about who has the power. But that power will be limited and localized. To unit the country, it will take more than naked force. And even if a single warlord could unit the various fiefdoms somehow it would only last as long as his charisma held. It would exist because of his force of personality. To institutionalize it will take more.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 07-29-2012 at 12:37 AM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  4. #204
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default A few different points...

    Two points:

    1. Going back the the American revolution, it wasn't a revolution; it was a revolt. A revolution would require a change in the political landscape and while that was the result it was not really the spark that initiated the action. Most colonists were only demanding that their rights as Englishmen be recognized. An Englishman already had the right to vote for their representatives in parliament. our complaint was that we were being charged like Englishmen but not receiving the same benefits. "Taxation without Representation." The absolute monarchy had been abolished for almost a hundred years in England. So while the system that resulted was "revolutionary" from the perspective that it did not revolve around a constitutional monarchy, discontent amongst the colonists about being denied the rights they felt they already had was the impetuous for action.

    Unfortunately, my second point will have to wait. The dogs need to go for a walk.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  5. #205
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Most accurately it was a separatist insurgency. A distinct populace had formed over the generations, separated by much more than distance, but by the tremendous differences between living in the colonies and living in Great Britain. The fact that Colonials were perceived as a lower class of citizen, had little say in their governance, and as their grievances grew, their increasing perception that they had no legal recourse to address the same all contributed to the ultimate "revolution."

    The King had several opportunities to apply small, reasonable measures to "reconcile" the differences, but he scoffed at the idea. Better to simply "enforce the rule of law." This is the typical perspective of government in these situations.

    Regarding "Legitimacy" of government in Afghanistan, both sides of the the contest share the requisite religious legitimacy. GIRoA possess Western-granted "legal legitimacy," but such legitimacy is like an honorary college degree, it looks good on the wall but won't get you a job. No, the aspect of legitimacy that is in question in this, and most all insurgencies, is the simple recognition by the governed of the right of government to govern them. When foreign regime change takes one party out and places another party in, it is damn hard to get to effective political legitimacy across the entire populace from such an illegitimate start point.

    We in the west often miss the main point on legitimacy because we apply the wrong definition. We apply the one that supports and validates our actions. That is not the one that rules among the affected populaces in these places where we opt to intervene. Political legitimacy cannot be granted or declared, it must be earned. Our very presence is perhaps the greatest obstacle to getting to stability in Afghanistan. That is is a pill we need to swallow (along with our pride).

    The "experts" have been very, very wrong on this.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  6. #206
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default What Bob said...

    I agree, and you even beat me to my second point.

    Comparing the situations in Afghanistan and say, Libya or Syria, legitimacy helps clarify the distinction. In Syria the government was seen as legitimate but lost that legitimacy over years as the population's ideas on legitimacy changed from an ethnic monarchy to ... I am not really sure. Something more representative perhaps, but only time will really tell.

    In the case of Afghanistan the people's idea of legitimacy probably never changed. A foreign power created a government built on a representative form of legitimacy but that is not really what the people want. In both cases there is a disconnect, but in the case of Syria the people's view changed but the government did not change with it. In the case of Afghanistan the government's form of legitimacy changed but the population's concept did not change with it.

    The lesson to be learned is that the people trump the government. You can maintain a government through power but power does not grant legitimacy. Even dictators (or invading armies) endeavor to claim some form of legitimacy.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 07-29-2012 at 02:35 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  7. #207
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/dat...y.cfm?HHID=263

    Some excerpts from the link above, I don't have time to transpose links from some relatively new historical texts that provide what is a relatively new view (at least compared to the common view) that a social and political revolution already took place in the Colonies long before the war started. It was very much a true revolution, but a war between kings.

    The American Revolution was much more than a war for national independence. The American Revolution was truly the first modern revolution. It enjoyed widespread popular support and marked the first time in history that a people fought for their independence in the name of certain universal principles of human rights and civil liberties.
    The American Revolution touched off an "age of revolution."
    The ideas fought for were popular sovereignty, equality before the law, and rule of law.

    The Revolution was, in part, the consequence of long-term social, political, and cultural transformations. Between 1680 and 1776, a distinctly American society emerged, a society that differed significantly from Britain. In the course of a century, the colonies had diverged markedly from Britain. A variety of long-run trends gave the 13 American colonies certain common characteristics which made them very different from England.

    The absence of a titled aristocracy
    Widespread ownership of property
    Religious diversity
    Relative absence of poverty
    Lack of urban development
    Relative lack of deference to authority
    Presence of slavery
    Unlike many modern revolutions, the American Revolution was not rooted in economic deprivation or in the struggle of an oppressed class against an entrenched elite.

    The Revolution was the product of 40 years of abuses by the British authorities that many colonists regarded as a threat to their liberty and property. But people do not act simply in response to objective reality but according to the meaning that they give to events. The Revolution resulted from the way the colonists interpreted events.

    The American patriots were alarmed by what they saw as a conspiracy against their liberty. They feared that the corruption and the abuses of power by the British government would taint their own society.
    Contrary to the arguments above, I think an argument can be made that the American Revolution was a true revolution that created something new. It was waged largely by citizens of England who developed a separate culture and ideas. Most of what we tend to call revolutions today are often post WWII anti-colonial movements were less a revolution and more about ousting foreign occupiers.

    There are a lot of gray areas that can be argued either way in many revolutions, which points to our lack of understanding and simple COIN/political/revolution models that RAND and others want to promote to facilitate understanding, often act as blinders that lead to misunderstanding because they lead to cherry picking pieces of history that support the model, while ignoring the rest. This form of arrogance is a human trait that we'll unlikely overcome, but we should at least beaware of it so we minimize decisions based on our hubris views that convince us that we know the real underlying causes of conflict and worse then assume we have the solution.

  8. #208
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/dat...y.cfm?HHID=263
    Contrary to the arguments above, I think an argument can be made that the American Revolution was a true revolution that created something new.
    That may have been the result, and it certainly is the popular myth that American's like to believe, but in the throws of the events they were not looking to create a new government. Case in point, Sam Adams' (of brewing fame) comments on the Stamp Act:
    For if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & every thing we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern & tax ourselves – It strikes our British Privileges, which as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our Fellow Subjects who are Natives of Britain: If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765

    It is true that in the end we created something new, but it did not start out that way. The ideas of popular sovereignty, equality before the law (as long as you were a free citizen, slaves could make no such claim), and the rule of law, were nothing new.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/dat...y.cfm?HHID=263This form of arrogance is a human trait that we'll unlikely overcome, but we should at least beaware of it so we minimize decisions based on our hubris views that convince us that we know the real underlying causes of conflict and worse then assume we have the solution.
    Actually, that is kind of my point. We chose to see what we want to see. We cherry pic history to create the myth of a revolution. The United Stated may have started down the road towards a belief in inalienable human rights but it certainly was not built on it. Slavery was still present and women could not vote. For that matter, you pretty much needed to be landed to have rights. Even after the drafting of the Constitution in 1789 we still were not a "free" nation under Freedom House standards.

    We reinterpret events to met the narrative that we prefer. Otherwise the colonists were simply a bunch of arrogant stingy tax evaders.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  9. #209
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    Good Lord, what are they teaching the kids in history class these days?

    Magna Carta, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

    Magna Carta, also called Magna Carta Libertatum or The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, is an English charter, originally issued in Latin in the year 1215, translated into vernacular-French as early as 1219,[1] and reissued later in the 13th century in modified versions. The later versions excluded the most direct challenges to the monarch's authority that had been present in the 1215 charter. The charter first passed into law in 1225; the 1297 version, with the long title (originally in Latin) "The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest," still remains on the statute books of England and Wales.

    The 1215 charter required King John of England to proclaim certain liberties and accept that his will was not arbitrary, for example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land, a right which is still in existence today.

    Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded and directly influenced by the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited.
    Sapere Aude

  10. #210
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Good Lord, what are they teaching the kids in history class these days?
    One wonders, especially if you believe the Magna Carta was a revolutionary document or idea. This charter was intended to only resolve the conflict between King John and the Barrons. All it did was compell the King to allow the Barrons (who represented the feudal system, not the people) to provide input to his decisions. The Barrons didn't like the King's taxes, that was the genius of the Magna Carta. Hardly a revolution, simply a document that facilitate the peace between the Barrons and the King. Over time the ideas in Magna Carta came to mean more, but the revolution didn't happen in England.

  11. #211
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    One wonders, especially if you believe the Magna Carta was a revolutionary document or idea.
    Never did buy into that 'new history' foolishness. Let's chase some secondary and primary sources instead and see for ourselves.

    Featured Document: The Magna Carta, National Archives & Records Administration, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/fea...rta/index.html

    "The democratic aspiration is no mere recent phase in human history . . . It was written in Magna Carta."

    --Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1941 Inaugural address
    The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution ("no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.") is a direct descendent of Magna Carta's guarantee of proceedings according to the "law of the land."
    Magna Charta and American Law, http://www.magnacharta.com/bomc/magn...-american-law/

    What has Magna Carta meant for American law? It is the source of many of our most fundamental concepts of law. Indeed, the very concept of a written constitution stems from Magna Carta. In over one hundred decisions, the United States Supreme Court has traced our dependence on Magna Carta for our understanding of due process of law, trial by jury of one’s peers, the importance of a speedy and unbiased trial, and protection against excessive bail or fines or cruel and unusual punishment.
    Magna Carta gave intellectual underpinning to the American Revolution. Americans claimed the right to trial by jury and no taxation without representation because Magna Carta gave them those rights. The Stamp Acts and other legislation had shifted jurisdiction for many offenses to the Admiralty courts, where there is no jury trial, correctly foreseeing that local juries would be loathe to convict their neighbors and enforce “foreign” taxes on our soil. The colonists in 1776 were more English than the English in protecting these rights.
    The Bronze Doors of the US Supreme Court, http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/bronzedoors.pdf

    Right hand door, panel five (eight panels total)

    5. MAGNA CARTA
    King John of England is coerced by the Barons to place his seal upon the Magna Carta in 1215.
    Document Deep Dive: What Does the Magna Carta Really Say? By Megan Gambino, March 2012, Smithsonian magazine, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...#ixzz223e8Y9Fz

    Rubenstein, co-founder of the Carlyle Group, purchased one of four existing originals of the 1297 Magna Carta at auction in 2007 for $21.3 million.
    Constitution of the United States, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...stitution.html
    Sapere Aude

  12. #212
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Posted by Bob's World

    As to the US, yes, the fight was "the final argument of kings" but still, the revolution was not about the ideas being advanced, it was the intolerable situation being challenged. The new ideas did, however, lead to a growing sense of discontent with a system that had been in place for generations. Kind of a chicken or egg argument. Bottom line is that the populace in the new world evolved to the point where the status quo of British governance was no longer adequate and the British were unwilling to evolve to meet those new requirements. We see the same dynamic across the Middle East today with the Arab Spring movement.
    Generally agree, my point is the American Colonies and England evolved in a bifurcated manner socially, economically, and politically. Many if not most Americans were loyal to England until (I believe) certain actions highlighted the difference between them, and they recognized their differences were irresovable I'm arguing that there was quiet revolution happening years before 1776 that created the fertile soil that enabled the revolutionary war.

    It shouldn't be forgotten that people generally immigrated to the colonies to pursue social, religious and economic freedoms. The Declaration of Independence was not a collection of new ideas, but ideas that were generally widely held in the colonies.

    The paragraphs below generally ring true to me, but I don't recall anyone at the time saying the Declaration of Independence would serve as model for the world?

    http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/dat...y.cfm?HHID=268

    The struggle for American independence was led by prominent lawyers, merchants, and planters. But the Revolution's success ultimately depended on the willingness of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans to risk their lives and economic well-being in the patriot cause. The Revolution represented a conservative effort to preserve liberties that British policies seemed to threaten. But the Revolution was accompanied by social and intellectual transformations that fundamentally altered the nature of American politics and involved ordinary people in politics to an unprecedented degree.

    The Revolution was truly multifaceted. There was a rebellion of the colonial gentry against British aristocrats who refused to accept them as equals and who viewed them with condescension. There was also a rebellion by merchants and shippers who chafed at British trade restrictions and royal monopolies. There was a conservative revolution, which sought to defend traditional liberties against British encroachments. There was a radical revolution, inspired by the call for liberty and equality in the Declaration of Independence, which sought to create a society that could serve as a model of freedom for the rest of the world.
    There many points that can be debated, the one point I was attempting to highlight without opening a debate over our revolution is that cultural norms among other conditions will either make a people receptive to particular revolutionary ideas or not. Tying it specifically to Afghanistan the point is it is debatable if that fertile soil was in place for what we're attempting to grow.

  13. #213
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Never did buy into that 'new history' foolishness. Let's chase some secondary and primary sources instead and see for ourselves.
    Your primary sources do nothing but support my assertion that the Magna Carta was not a revolution when it was written. In England it supported the feudal system, only over time did its ideas manifest into a representative government. The idea itself is not the revolution it is the catalyst. It isn't a revolution until it happens, so a hat tip to our revolutionary founders.

    I seem to recall ideas of democracy and Republics dating back to Greece and Rome? Utopia is also a radical idea, but it led to a revolution where?

    I agree with you the ideas in the Magna Carta were fundamental to our revolution, but the revolution that actualized those ideas did not happen in the 13th Century.

  14. #214
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Wink Life is just a bowl of cherries...

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    ...For that matter, you pretty much needed to be landed to have rights. Even after the drafting of the Constitution in 1789 we still were not a "free" nation under Freedom House standards.

    We reinterpret events to met the narrative that we prefer. Otherwise the colonists were simply a bunch of arrogant stingy tax evaders.
    Many of the Colonists were indeed stingy tax evaders. As many or more had other causes. The Southern (and New Hampshire) Scotch Irish just didn't like the British (or the wealthy Virginians and they thought rather haughty New England Colonists -- but they disliked the British more).

    Freedom House did not exist in 1775 or 1789. You cannot credibly judge events and mores of over 200 years ago by today's standards.

    That is indeed reinterpreting events to meet a narrative one prefers...

  15. #215
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    True that Freedom House did not exist in that era, but I for one endorse the criteria they apply as being as good a set of timeless, universal metric as any.

    What specific situation will "trip the trigger" of a populace varies widely from place to place, culture to culture, and from era to era...but the perceptions that spark a populace to rise up are pretty damn constant. Freedom House does not set out to make that case, but the set of factors they apply to measure "freedom" are definitely in the beaten zone.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  16. #216
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    Your primary sources do nothing but support my assertion that the Magna Carta was not a revolution when it was written.
    Walk me through the passages which support your argument if you would...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    The idea itself is not the revolution it is the catalyst. It isn't a revolution until it happens, so a hat tip to our revolutionary founders.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    I agree with you the ideas in the Magna Carta were fundamental to our revolution, but the revolution that actualized those ideas did not happen in the 13th Century.
    The American Revolution did not spontaneously spring from American Soil, fully formed and independent of the history that preceded it.

    Recall that the Great Schism, the Protestant Reformation, and the Enlightenment followed the Magna Carta and preceded our Revolution by a few hundred years. The associated revolutionary thinkers (motivators of the foot soldiers who forced the issue and paid many of the associated costs) bypassed the middle man (royalty) and instead challenged who controlled the primary source...divine right. A very big deal if one considers the context of the times...



    If you run the Scientific Revolution back through the ages one sees a similar track:



    'If I can see further it is because I stand upon the shoulders of giants.' Issac Newton
    Sapere Aude

  17. #217
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    The American Revolution did not spontaneously spring from American Soil,
    No one ever said it the ideas that were the basis for the revolution sprung spontaneously from American soil. I specifically pointed out that people migrated to the colonies to pursue certain freedoms, so obviously the "idea" existed before they arrived. A man in Mao's China can dream about being free, but he nor others pursued a revolution to realize their dream, so the idea wasn't a revolution. If enough men in China had the dream and a catalyst drove them to action, then we would see a revolution. The idea created the fertile soil the revolution evolved from.

    Your posts on the Magna Carta were about its impact on the American Revolution and its subsequent development as a nation based on the rule of law. However, as I stated when the Magna Carta was written that wasn't the idea, it was simply a document resolve a conflict between the King and the Barrons. It didn't change the feudal system in England. That happened many, many years later. Was it part of the historic thread that contributed to the revolution? Definitely. Was it a revolution when it was written? No.

    Recall that the Great Schism, the Protestant Reformation, and the Enlightenment followed the Magna Carta and preceded our Revolution by a few hundred years.
    And your point is? Of course world history existed before our revolution and the ideas from the these movements contributed to our revolutionary thought, but in know way does that subtract from the significance of our revolution.

    Off topic, but I find it interested you list a series of Protestant Revolutions and then show the Scientific Revolution thread. Putting it in context it is amazing that science eventually flourished in a society where free thinking was oppressed by religious ideology. That to me is the most amazing aspect. Whether revolutions or transitions societies are always undergoing deep change, but often it is not recognized until it is the rear view mirror.

  18. #218
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    And your point is?
    The revolutionary idea and the act, although separated in time, are inseparably linked.

    In this particular case, the American Revolution, we are the ones who fully operationalized the idea (Magna Carta - 1215) of telling royalty that their services were not required (1776).

    That's why I hopped in with the Victor Hugo quote way back when.

    Done.
    Sapere Aude

  19. #219
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Red face Sigh...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    True that Freedom House did not exist in that era, but I for one endorse the criteria they apply as being as good a set of timeless, universal metric as any.
    Well of course you do. Most folks around today would agree. So would have many from circa 1789. Your agreement with their criteria though might have more credibility had you been an adult back then. Or not -- you may have disagreed on some points.

    We'll never know, will we...

    We do know you just proved you also can cherry pick, howsomeever...

  20. #220
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Surferbeetle View Post
    The revolutionary idea and the act, although separated in time, are inseparably linked.

    In this particular case, the American Revolution, we are the ones who fully operationalized the idea (Magna Carta - 1215) of telling royalty that their services were not required (1776).
    The resemblance of 13th century England to the 13th century England imagined by the Founding Fathers is perhaps better than the resemblance of 7th century Arabia to the 7th century Arabia imagined by the Taliban. Perhaps.
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

Similar Threads

  1. Afghanistan: Canadians in Action
    By SWJED in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 03-15-2014, 02:32 PM
  2. Multi-National Force-Iraq Commander’s COIN Guidance
    By SWJED in forum Who is Fighting Whom? How and Why?
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-24-2008, 03:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •