>it was a bourgeois revolu-ACK!!
>the Revolution was conducted by a handful of aristocr-ACK!!
How do you respond to this book without sounding like a seething faggot?

I assume any re olution where the people were over 20% literate was a bourgeois revolution

>>17862757 (OP)
Early 21st century Nu-merica myth-making; veiled invective against Bush Junior. History books tell us more about the author and his time than about their subject matter.

>>17863007
Well not only Bush Junior. Bush era GOP and their culture of patriotism in general. Founding father worship, Freedom Fries, etc.

>>17863003
fpbp

>>17863007
>>17863011
Not an argument and completely irrelevent faggot

I know.

Eventually got squashed by the American bourgeoisie though.

>>17863017
Retard, lol.

Seems more like he's making an argument for the revolution being inevitable due to england's lack of available resources for the forming country rather than an argument that it was lead by plebs

>>17863029
Based, even if Verso (and Nash too in his intro) are pretty heavy-handed with their 21st-century moralizing of the past
>eventually got squashed
Somebody had to pay those taxes

>17863054
>nnnoooooo you can't just critique the forever wars man
Cuckservatism is a cancer. You'd be defending the Hessians raping your neighbors wife if this was 1777

>>17863076
>seems more like
And you're basing that off of what, exactly?
>muh resources
It was England's attempts to instate royal rule through the governors that was their biggest issue with the Crown. The fuck are you talking about

>>17863089
the only thing he's brought up of note so far was the great awakening and indian raids. Both of these are the result of british negligence

>>17863096
>btfo'ing the French and removing them as trading partners for the Natives was negligence
Ok

>>17863098
colonists didn't benefit at all from french/english fighting

>>17863100
>the post-Seven Years War economic deflationary spiral never happened in the colonies
>they didn't gain anything by cathtard France being stopped in its tracks
Why does /his/ attract the most historically ignorant posters?

>>17863029
It's an actual good book that pretends that the rest of the world did things and mattered.

>>17863089
>It was England's attempts to instate royal rule
The Colonials literally revolted against Parliament ignoring their royal charter.

They were anti-Parliamentarian, not anti-royalty.

>>17863107
so how was the war good for the colonists if it lead to an economic crisis despite supposedly winning? while the british told us we should be thankful? while the british were refusing to do anything about the US's lack of priests, filling it with niggers and pissing off the natives which were attacking colonists?

>>17863115
>THROUGH THE GOVERNORS
Faggot

>>17863119
>the Brits were the ones importing the niggers
This is the post that's going to make me quit this board for good

>>17862757 (OP)
It shows a feyyyymale on the cover so it must be a garbage book made for feminist retarded mouth breathers. I'm not even gonna touch that.
The American revolution was a Freemason revolution, all the Founding Fathers were Freemason subhumans, degenerates who probably raped kids in their free time like the masons of today.
America is a Freemasonic country ruled by a pedophile elite and it's been like that since it's inception, here's an experiment.

As International Jewry has claimed multiple times Freemasonry is one of the many groups they have created and sustained with their gold, basically Jewry for goyim.
Who turned out to be America's greatest ally centuries later? I wonder why, guess most people didn't know America's purpose back in 1776

>>17863125
Uh, yeah, the brits imported the niggers to grow tobacco. The only thing important to the brits at this period in colonial histroy was taking over the fur trade, nevermind the fact that their massive flooding of guns and gunpowder into the native's hands turned them into the greatest enemies in the colonies

>>17863119
>>17863125
The moment, an Anglo steps on American soil, an insect crawls into their ear and turns them into a WASP.

>>17863130
The british crown imported slavers from the caribbean to seed their slave colony and then offered free slaves to anybody that bought land

>the biggest insult colonists had for their governors was accusing them of fucking blacks
lol

Notice that the people that caused the civil war and the revolution were left wing Presbyterians

>>17863139
Good thing the insect-infected men divested themselves from those Africans and didn't use them to integrate additional territories into their slavery-based economic system.

>>17863174
>the brits founded slavery in the US and were responsible for the blacks in the US
okay, I don't know why you try to pretend otherwise

>nobody else addresses the Freemason aspect and they all just talk irrelevant nonsense
I was gonna say this is what happens when you do OPSEC properly, but they didn't even bother with it. The fact that the Founding Fathers were Freemasons was made public and they even put one of their more known symbols on the $1 bill.
You think there were any pyramids in America? Retarded anti-conspiracy idiots still can't explain that one to this day. It's all public hardly a conspiracy.

>>17863003
Literacy was as high if not higher in the Colonies than Europe.

>>17863200
Masons were politicians, politics in the 1700's was going to your local pub. Politics in the US had devolved into christian sects turning their churches into polling stations due to english negligence

>>17863160
Congregationalists, Puritans were Congregationalists. Presbyterians were mostly Scottish immigrants and their descendants.

>>17863210
I don't see the congregationalists causing trouble, unless you call using foreigners to flip elections in their favor some sort of theme we should remember

>>17863011
why does this bother you so much? you don't even live here.

>>17863029
This is a very good book and thank you for recommending it