5 ms·

>The US establishment descends from the earlier Angloamerican establishment format, which in turn descended from English aristocratic establishment of medieval

>The US establishment descends from the earlier Angloamerican establishment format, which in turn descended from English aristocratic establishment of medieval ages. No, not really. >The French Revolution never having arrived in Britain But it did happen in the US. In fact the French Revolution was inspired by the American Revolution. >However the ancestral format and culture remained mostly the same Interesting how you acknowledge the flaw in your argument and then simply do not address it. >This behavior is specific to the Angloamerican establishment. And it is due to the aristocracy never having been destroyed or castrated. You have offered no evidence for this claim, which is extraordinary considering that there never was an aristocracy in the US. Unless by "aristocracy" you simply mean that the rich hold power, in which case that has nothing to do with Britan and exists in almost all countries.

coldtea 4y ago
>But it did happen in the US. In fact the French Revolution was inspired by the American Revolution. Yes, but their content is not the same. The American revolution was to get rid of the British, the rest of it was mostly establishing a "democracy by and for the rich and the landowners" thing. "All men are created equal" but blacks are slaves, women don't vote, and poor don't vote (from direct not allowing them to all kinds of schemes like voting taxes, roundabout laws, etc, which kept until the late 19th century and more), and so on. The French revolution was a popular revolt and far more reaching in its egalitarian and progressive aspirations... >You have offered no evidence for this claim, which is extraordinary considering that there never was an aristocracy in the US. Unless by "aristocracy" you simply mean that the rich hold power, in which case that has nothing to do with Britan and exists in almost all countries. Not in the way it does in the US, which is closed to the British system, if it was more covert... https://www.amazon.com/Class-Through-American-Status-System/dp/0671792253 https://www.amazon.com/Class-Through-American-Status-System/...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
unity1001 4y ago
> No, not really. Yes. Really - objectively so. Not only the English elite keep the aristocratic behavior patterns today, but also the Brits were able to gain the vote only at the end of 19th century, almost 50 years later than the prominent countries of Europe. Today it still has a monarchy with actual veto power... https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-roy... ...while it has an upper house with hereditary aristocrats, theocratic appointees and other lifetime appointees. It has the power to send back to parliament any bill for whatsoever reason despite 'not having' veto power. So it can send a bill back as much as 60 times until it is changed how it wants. Another case of hypocrisy and elitism inherent in the system: The hereditary aristocrats cant veto, but they can refuse to pass anything they dont like indefinitely. Even further - this privilege and mentality are things that are kept alive institutionally - the English elite literally raise their children to make them get that kind of mindset: https://makingsense.quora.com/Why-Does-The-British-Upper-Class-Despise-Yuri-Gagarin-Russians-And-Various-Other-Nations https://makingsense.quora.com/Why-Does-The-British-Upper-Cla... > But it did happen in the US. In fact the French Revolution was inspired by the American Revolution. That's not correct. First, both of them were inspired and based on the principles of the Age of Enligthenment. Second, American Revolution was not a revolution per se, but a rebellion that sought either representation for the taxes or overthrow of the English control for the benefit of the local elite. At the start of the event, a republic, or even breaking away from Britain was not even entertained. Not surprisingly, the resulting format of the new society was established based on those lines - a system of 'checks and balances' that actually prevents the democratic majority from democratically deposing the incumbent elite was created to prevent any popular demand - like those pesky land redistribution ideas - from being voted on, passing and taking effect. John Adams, de facto architect of the US constitition openly declared that it was going to protect the opulent from the masses. Even more importantly, as coldtea also noted in his reply, American rebellion never reached the point of 'Everyone is equal'. It remained as a movement led by mainly the elite that sought to overthrow the English control while also incorporating some Enlightenment ideals. Their republic was based on mostly the Dutch republic, which was largely based on the Venetian Republic. Hence, not only from the angle of aristocracy, but also from the angle of the actual chosen format, the emerging US has born as an oligarchy where the existing elite would retain its power. This still plagues the US today. Whereas the French Revolution was the one in which the polished, clear principles of modern society were established in the form of the Declaration of Human Rights, and the civil code that followed it. The societies of the entire world bar the US and the UK are based on those principles. > You have offered no evidence for this claim The initial post was written for those with a measure of knowledge of history. There is no way to provide easy links to educate a random, uninterested reader on this topic who hasnt got enough knowledge on the subject, like... > there never was an aristocracy in the US. ...this. A large part of the US was owned by English aristocrats. These were either deposed and exiled and their lands redistributed, or they sided with the rebellion and integrated with the colonial elite. Even before the revolution these two segments were already one elite that had a common culture to start with. > Unless by "aristocracy" you simply mean that the rich hold power, in which case that has nothing to do with Britan and exists in almost all countries. The Aristocracy is not 'rich holding power'. Its a specific socioeconomic format. And no, as said above, there was actual aristocracy as such in the colonies.
GauntletWizard 4y ago
The above point is actually much more simple: The American revolution succeeded in installing a lasting democracy based on consent of the governed. The French revolution created an event called "Le Terreur"[1] and ended up installing an Emperor. I suspect they know exactly what they're rooting for, just disingenuous about it. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror
- unity1001 4y ago
  The American 'democracy' was precisely made to ignore that 'consent' and allow the minority to dominate the majority. John Adams had made no secret of that in his advocacy. As for the anti-Revolutionary English establishment propaganda that you so unwittingly repeated - I have no problem rooting for the French Revolution with all its faceds included - 'the terror' being no exception. See my other reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33899841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33899841 Even as that 'terror' was happening in France and executing the aristocrats and their surrogates found to have conspired with enemies to repress their own people for their benefit, the 'democratic' Britain was executing ~1000 commoners per year through the local feudal lords acting as 'justice of the peace' and executing people at their whim. Beyond that, here is how 'humane' that establishment itself was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre That's terror. That's repression. Amazingly the 300-year-long propaganda of the aristocrats that were so threatened in England by the revolution turns it around and makes it upside down.

coldtea 4y ago

>But it did happen in the US. In fact the French Revolution was inspired by the American Revolution. Yes, but their content is not the same. The American revolution was to get rid of the British, the rest of it was mostly establishing a "democracy by and for the rich and the landowners" thing. "All men are created equal" but blacks are slaves, women don't vote, and poor don't vote (from direct not allowing them to all kinds of schemes like voting taxes, roundabout laws, etc, which kept until the late 19th century and more), and so on. The French revolution was a popular revolt and far more reaching in its egalitarian and progressive aspirations... >You have offered no evidence for this claim, which is extraordinary considering that there never was an aristocracy in the US. Unless by "aristocracy" you simply mean that the rich hold power, in which case that has nothing to do with Britan and exists in almost all countries. Not in the way it does in the US, which is closed to the British system, if it was more covert... https://www.amazon.com/Class-Through-American-Status-System/dp/0671792253 https://www.amazon.com/Class-Through-American-Status-System/...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

unity1001 4y ago

> No, not really. Yes. Really - objectively so. Not only the English elite keep the aristocratic behavior patterns today, but also the Brits were able to gain the vote only at the end of 19th century, almost 50 years later than the prominent countries of Europe. Today it still has a monarchy with actual veto power... https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-roy... ...while it has an upper house with hereditary aristocrats, theocratic appointees and other lifetime appointees. It has the power to send back to parliament any bill for whatsoever reason despite 'not having' veto power. So it can send a bill back as much as 60 times until it is changed how it wants. Another case of hypocrisy and elitism inherent in the system: The hereditary aristocrats cant veto, but they can refuse to pass anything they dont like indefinitely. Even further - this privilege and mentality are things that are kept alive institutionally - the English elite literally raise their children to make them get that kind of mindset: https://makingsense.quora.com/Why-Does-The-British-Upper-Class-Despise-Yuri-Gagarin-Russians-And-Various-Other-Nations https://makingsense.quora.com/Why-Does-The-British-Upper-Cla... > But it did happen in the US. In fact the French Revolution was inspired by the American Revolution. That's not correct. First, both of them were inspired and based on the principles of the Age of Enligthenment. Second, American Revolution was not a revolution per se, but a rebellion that sought either representation for the taxes or overthrow of the English control for the benefit of the local elite. At the start of the event, a republic, or even breaking away from Britain was not even entertained. Not surprisingly, the resulting format of the new society was established based on those lines - a system of 'checks and balances' that actually prevents the democratic majority from democratically deposing the incumbent elite was created to prevent any popular demand - like those pesky land redistribution ideas - from being voted on, passing and taking effect. John Adams, de facto architect of the US constitition openly declared that it was going to protect the opulent from the masses. Even more importantly, as coldtea also noted in his reply, American rebellion never reached the point of 'Everyone is equal'. It remained as a movement led by mainly the elite that sought to overthrow the English control while also incorporating some Enlightenment ideals. Their republic was based on mostly the Dutch republic, which was largely based on the Venetian Republic. Hence, not only from the angle of aristocracy, but also from the angle of the actual chosen format, the emerging US has born as an oligarchy where the existing elite would retain its power. This still plagues the US today. Whereas the French Revolution was the one in which the polished, clear principles of modern society were established in the form of the Declaration of Human Rights, and the civil code that followed it. The societies of the entire world bar the US and the UK are based on those principles. > You have offered no evidence for this claim The initial post was written for those with a measure of knowledge of history. There is no way to provide easy links to educate a random, uninterested reader on this topic who hasnt got enough knowledge on the subject, like... > there never was an aristocracy in the US. ...this. A large part of the US was owned by English aristocrats. These were either deposed and exiled and their lands redistributed, or they sided with the rebellion and integrated with the colonial elite. Even before the revolution these two segments were already one elite that had a common culture to start with. > Unless by "aristocracy" you simply mean that the rich hold power, in which case that has nothing to do with Britan and exists in almost all countries. The Aristocracy is not 'rich holding power'. Its a specific socioeconomic format. And no, as said above, there was actual aristocracy as such in the colonies.

GauntletWizard 4y ago

The above point is actually much more simple: The American revolution succeeded in installing a lasting democracy based on consent of the governed. The French revolution created an event called "Le Terreur"[1] and ended up installing an Emperor. I suspect they know exactly what they're rooting for, just disingenuous about it. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

unity1001 4y ago
The American 'democracy' was precisely made to ignore that 'consent' and allow the minority to dominate the majority. John Adams had made no secret of that in his advocacy. As for the anti-Revolutionary English establishment propaganda that you so unwittingly repeated - I have no problem rooting for the French Revolution with all its faceds included - 'the terror' being no exception. See my other reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33899841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33899841 Even as that 'terror' was happening in France and executing the aristocrats and their surrogates found to have conspired with enemies to repress their own people for their benefit, the 'democratic' Britain was executing ~1000 commoners per year through the local feudal lords acting as 'justice of the peace' and executing people at their whim. Beyond that, here is how 'humane' that establishment itself was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre That's terror. That's repression. Amazingly the 300-year-long propaganda of the aristocrats that were so threatened in England by the revolution turns it around and makes it upside down.