la_marquise: (Default)
la_marquise ([personal profile] la_marquise) wrote2012-07-04 05:25 pm

SF Signal Mind Meld: On revolutions and independence movements

I'm over at SF Signal, as one of their Mind Meld authors discussing books about revolutions and independence movements today. There are some great recommendations there.

And Happy 4th July to my friends in the USA.

Skirt of the day: denim.

[identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/ 2012-07-04 08:40 pm (UTC)(link)
The Chinese view of history as cyclical has always made sense to me: as you say, many revolutions are about politics but replicate culture, including, all too often, its worst aspects.
I've never studied US history. We got down to about 1700 before we started the exam years at school, then did 20th century world history for the exams. And then I turned into a mediaevalist.

[identity profile] cmcmck.livejournal.com 2012-07-05 07:53 am (UTC)(link)
It's a fair point. As an early modernist studying European warfare, rebellion and revolution, it never ceases to amaze me how conservative and even reactionary the outcomes invariably are. The English republic, for example, failed because no one was able to see beyond the construct of Monarchy and the outcome was Lord Protector Oliver, a king in all but name- and it's with us yet, sadly.

Many historians forget the central position of religion in the European wars of the 17th century- and that centrality is why the Marxist viewpoint of Hill et all never worked for me.
Edited 2012-07-05 07:56 (UTC)

[identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/ 2012-07-05 10:32 am (UTC)(link)
Religion is the element that we consistently get wrong, in our post-enlightenment world. The assumption is that it *can't* matter, which is, of course, ridiculous.

[identity profile] cmcmck.livejournal.com 2012-07-06 11:05 am (UTC)(link)
I always knew it mattered from my long term study of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms but beginning to look at the Thirty Years' War more recently really bought it home to me- there was no more destructive conflict until the outbreak of WW1 which gives one pause for thought.

If it really didn't matter, why was most of central Europe reduced to a disease ridden, starving bloodbath for thirty years in the early to mid 17th century?