"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the American Revolution" Topic

Of possible interest?

"The bestselling Politically Incorrect Guide series provides an unvarnished, unapologetic overview of controversial topics every American should understand. The Politically Incorrect Guide to the American Revolution is a myth-busting review of the America's violent struggle for independence…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

No. It is a work of of history masquerading as ideological vitriol, designed to sell books The book takes on what might be best described as straw men. They posit the most extreme of left-wing historians and declare them to be the "history being taught to our children". They are wrong. Anyone with any familiarity with good, mainstream histories by respected writers know that such leftish theories are as "out there" as the writers rightish theories.
In fact, much of what the authors write are fully in line with what is already out there and believed. The entire book is a marketing tool, along the lines of "The War on Christmas".

ok

Amicalement
Armand

i would like to see "politically incorrect guides" for everything

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

ITAL- There are quite a few. Most traffic in portraying the US as perfect ("exceptionalism"), and regard any critique of it as a function of "political correctness". Hence the titles.

This book appears biased. It also appears to have a right wing agenda. I can't say I buy the premise of American Exceptionalism as espoused by this author.

I do agree with the author that our Revolution did not disintegrate into bloodletting the way other revolutions have. But ours wasn't the only one that didn't.

Many (not all but many) of these were in the Western Hemisphere, so perhaps it has more to do with which side of at the ocean the revolution takes place. (I am not talking about the late 19th and early 20th Cent. Mexican Revolution, that was pretty bloody) Canada pulled it off without firing a shot.

IMO several hundred years of European conflict and the grudges which they created, made their revolutions bloodier.

However in the AR Loyalist were persecuted. Forced to flee their homes. The American South degenerated into a brutal Civil War. Native Americans were on both the giving and receiving ends of some truly terrible atrocities.

The big difference is that the government that followed the Revolution did not seek out individuals to execute because they are not true believers in the revolution. In France it was the actual government who brought the terror of the guillotine. For the most part that did not happen here.

There is definitely fertile ground for further research, but it should be unbiased and objective. This book based on the preview and reviews I have read isn't.

Pan Marek and Rallynow thank you.

how could be, for what i perceive and what at least that book seem to contradict, the AR considered a rightish or élitarian revolution?
the simple fact that the revolt was against a colonial power, that still continue to have some colonies including totally illegal ones like the Argentinian Malvinas and Ulster and all that in the name of a King or Queen which is the most aberrant form of racism vs people (we are all equal there are'nt any nobles or leaders (self) appointed by divine right )..and the fact that patriots fought vs a "Royal" identity is by itself the most liberal and radical achievment in modern history.

Interesting; which laws, precisely, are being broken in relation to the dependency of the Falklands Islands and th Province of Northern Ireland?

The American colonists were a part and parcel of that 'colonial power', the government of which had been contributing to their defence- in part, against another colonial power.

"Racism"? How do you see that applying? The Hanoverian Teutons oppressing the Anglo-Saxons, Scots and Irish? Not to mention the Germans and Dutch and French, et al.

I don't believe constitutional monarchy as a system of government wasn't an inciting issue in the War of Independence. Was it not was taxation* of colonies on the part of the Crown without representation in Parliament (*in part to pay for the aforementioned defence)?

If you were referring to the ongoing resistance of the indigenous inhabitants against that the colonising power, that would be another matter; a resistance that remained persisted against the continued westward colonization by citizens of the new republic.

Racism might well be a relevant topic in that discussion.

i'm thinking at the idea of free people, pioneers and religion persecuted people..emigrating from Europe for the sake of liberty and escaping from aristocrats, kings, corrupted nobles, ius primae noctis ecc….subjected also in the land they are making prosperous , a sort of promised land, to a Monarchy that treat them not as equals but as subjects…so a form of oppression and racism against which they revolted and created an example for new ideas and respect of human beings

Fair enough. Thought is free, but what bearing do those elements have on the history of North America in the C18th?

42flanker i understand your stance..but you perfectly know that i'm talking about AR

I do indeed.

ITAL … you state: "colonies including totally illegal ones like the Argentinian Malvinas and Ulster"

Please explain why you think Ulster is illegal; its correct name is Northern Ireland BTW ;-)

because they are two lands linked to the Crown at gun point and under military occupation (as it was in America during 18 c.) not allowing them to naturally belong to their homelands wich are respesctivly, historically and geographically Argentina and Rep. of Ireland

Italwars – Your level of ignorance on this subject is on a par with your assertion that none of the British royal family served in WW1 and WW2. Why not do yourself a favour and stop pontificating on British history – a subject you clearly know absolutely nothing about?

Interesting response from the Editor