7 ms·

My history class must have skipped over the part where the american revolution was organized on twitter and facebook.

by dx87 6y ago

capableweb 6y ago
Then maybe look outside your own borders for some other examples. The Arab Spring got great momentum from social media, and so do a lot of other efforts. Sometimes even bad efforts get momentum too. But it is possible to organize revolution via social media and other communication mediums.
konjin 6y ago
It must have been a very bad history class then: >required that many printed materials in the colonies be produced on stamped paper produced in London, carrying an embossed revenue stamp.[1][2] Printed materials included legal documents, magazines, playing cards, newspapers, and many other types of paper used throughout the colonies, and it had to be paid in British currency, not in colonial paper money.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765 The printing press was the social media of the 18th century. And just like then the powers that be have no idea what to do with it and are trying to put the Ginnie back in the bottle.
munk-a 6y ago
I think they actually coordinated with vines posted to their myspace pages... but easier out-of-band communication does lead to more general awareness of the populace. The American revolution might've happened much more quickly - or not at all when the Americans saw Bostonians dancing around in racist indian costumes and compared the relatively minor tax to living conditions back in England proper.
axlee 6y ago
It was organized by the wealthiest people in the country. If you believe this revolution was coming from the "grassroot", you are awfully mistaken.
crocodiletears 6y ago
IIRC, The American revolution was coordinated and funded by the existing colonial administrations, with aid from France. It was a secessionist movement backed by regional business interests in response to a reassertion of imperial sovereignty by a previously lax British government. Something to be proud of, certainly. But not a grassroots thing, even if it did have some degree of popular support.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Was there ever a grassroot revolution that wasn't instigated, or at least backed, by foreign powers? I can't think of one.
- WhompingWindows 6y ago
  Calling it a secessionist movement isn't an apt characterization, which in US history calls to mind the Southerners' attempt to Secede from the USA. The revolutionaries, rather, considered themselves a number of independent colonies, coming together in opposition to British rule, where they were lacking in representation. They would not see themselves as "part" of Britain in a way the Southerners clearly were part of the USA. In contrast, the South was fully represented in the Northern government, and Lincoln was quite conciliatory and kind to them when he was able. However, they were fighting for an extremely immoral cause, which the 1776 Revolutionaries were not really doing as the issue of slavery was much less an issue than in the 1850's.
  - crocodiletears 6y ago
    Absolutely right.
  - est31 6y ago
    > However, they were fighting for an extremely immoral cause, which the 1776 Revolutionaries were not really doing Didn't the British make a deal with the natives to not expand west? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 That deal happened 2 years before the revolution. If you read the declaration of independence you'll find that it is very critical of that proclamation: > The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted [...] He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. It wasn't the only thing that caused the insurrection of the colonies, but it certainly was a component. https://www.history.com/news/remembering-the-proclamation-of-1763 https://www.history.com/news/remembering-the-proclamation-of...
dang 6y ago
"Don't be snarky." "Eschew flamebait." Please stick to the site guidelines, no matter how wrong another commenter is or you feel they are. If we all work together we can avoid flamewar hell, which will keep HN interesting, which is in all of our interests. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- bussierem 6y ago
  Not that I necessarily condone the parent, but to be fair dang, the GP probably deserves the same reply at the very least.
  - dang 6y ago
    I don't see it as quite over the same line. There's something about the snark in the comment I replied to which is a degree worse. The GP was baity but I don't see it as snarky. But I suppose it's close enough that different people could reasonably make a different call.
    - Method-X 6y ago
      Hey dang. Just want to say I think the new community guidelines are great and you’re doing a good job moderating HN. I stopped coming here for a long time because it seemed every comment was snarky. Everyone was just so rude to each other. I’ve noticed that has dramatically improved! So, thank you.
      - dang 6y ago
        Thanks for saying so—that's encouraging!
rocketpastsix 6y ago
yea, I missed the part where Lee's defeat at Gettysburg was instagrammed and Grant's victory at Vicksburg was on TikTok

My history class must have skipped over the part where the american revolution was organized on twitter and facebook.

by dx87 6y ago

My history class must have skipped over the part where the american revolution was organized on twitter and facebook.

Then maybe look outside your own borders for some other examples. The Arab Spring got great momentum from social media, and so do a lot of other efforts. Sometimes even bad efforts get momentum too. But it is possible to organize revolution via social media and other communication mediums.

konjin 6y ago

It must have been a very bad history class then: >required that many printed materials in the colonies be produced on stamped paper produced in London, carrying an embossed revenue stamp.[1][2] Printed materials included legal documents, magazines, playing cards, newspapers, and many other types of paper used throughout the colonies, and it had to be paid in British currency, not in colonial paper money.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765 The printing press was the social media of the 18th century. And just like then the powers that be have no idea what to do with it and are trying to put the Ginnie back in the bottle.

munk-a 6y ago

I think they actually coordinated with vines posted to their myspace pages... but easier out-of-band communication does lead to more general awareness of the populace. The American revolution might've happened much more quickly - or not at all when the Americans saw Bostonians dancing around in racist indian costumes and compared the relatively minor tax to living conditions back in England proper.

axlee 6y ago

It was organized by the wealthiest people in the country. If you believe this revolution was coming from the "grassroot", you are awfully mistaken.

crocodiletears 6y ago

IIRC, The American revolution was coordinated and funded by the existing colonial administrations, with aid from France. It was a secessionist movement backed by regional business interests in response to a reassertion of imperial sovereignty by a previously lax British government. Something to be proud of, certainly. But not a grassroots thing, even if it did have some degree of popular support.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
Was there ever a grassroot revolution that wasn't instigated, or at least backed, by foreign powers? I can't think of one.
WhompingWindows 6y ago
Calling it a secessionist movement isn't an apt characterization, which in US history calls to mind the Southerners' attempt to Secede from the USA. The revolutionaries, rather, considered themselves a number of independent colonies, coming together in opposition to British rule, where they were lacking in representation. They would not see themselves as "part" of Britain in a way the Southerners clearly were part of the USA. In contrast, the South was fully represented in the Northern government, and Lincoln was quite conciliatory and kind to them when he was able. However, they were fighting for an extremely immoral cause, which the 1776 Revolutionaries were not really doing as the issue of slavery was much less an issue than in the 1850's.
- crocodiletears 6y ago
  Absolutely right.
- est31 6y ago
  > However, they were fighting for an extremely immoral cause, which the 1776 Revolutionaries were not really doing Didn't the British make a deal with the natives to not expand west? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 That deal happened 2 years before the revolution. If you read the declaration of independence you'll find that it is very critical of that proclamation: > The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted [...] He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. It wasn't the only thing that caused the insurrection of the colonies, but it certainly was a component. https://www.history.com/news/remembering-the-proclamation-of-1763 https://www.history.com/news/remembering-the-proclamation-of...

dang 6y ago

"Don't be snarky." "Eschew flamebait." Please stick to the site guidelines, no matter how wrong another commenter is or you feel they are. If we all work together we can avoid flamewar hell, which will keep HN interesting, which is in all of our interests. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

bussierem 6y ago
Not that I necessarily condone the parent, but to be fair dang, the GP probably deserves the same reply at the very least.
- dang 6y ago
  I don't see it as quite over the same line. There's something about the snark in the comment I replied to which is a degree worse. The GP was baity but I don't see it as snarky. But I suppose it's close enough that different people could reasonably make a different call.
  - Method-X 6y ago
    Hey dang. Just want to say I think the new community guidelines are great and you’re doing a good job moderating HN. I stopped coming here for a long time because it seemed every comment was snarky. Everyone was just so rude to each other. I’ve noticed that has dramatically improved! So, thank you.
    - dang 6y ago
      Thanks for saying so—that's encouraging!

rocketpastsix 6y ago

yea, I missed the part where Lee's defeat at Gettysburg was instagrammed and Grant's victory at Vicksburg was on TikTok