On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 08:27:03 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:

Economics always has, and always will be, a powerful motivating force
in the behavior of governments and individuals, and there is nothing
really wrong with that in basic concept.

What I argue against is the notion that the American Revolution (or
even American actions today) are driven solely by economic forces
(and usually portrayed as underhanded ones at that). The OP to this
sidetracked OT thread appeared to portray the revolution as motivated
by raw [and illegal] self serving low life that manipulated the
majority of Americans into revolt. That is simply not the case.

Indeed, but there was a confluence of several motivations behind the
personal actions of the revolutionaries. Some of them (e.g. Sam
Adams) were undoubtedly agitating in order to secure partisan and
personal self-interest, while others risked and endured enormous
financial sacrifices over what they genuinely considered to be an
ideological and patriotic struggle against tyranny.

In fact, most all Americans at the time considered themselves British,
with British rights, and came around rather slowly to the concept of
independence from British rule.

True, but the nature of the war, and the successful embedding of
"patriot" propaganda in the shaping of the developing national
consciousness tends to obliterate the very real contemporary nuances
that existed historically.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell