Our founding fathers fought back against their government. At the very least they would wonder why people aren't gathering in mobs outside the homes and offices of legislators demanding change.

[–] Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Six years passed between the Boston Massacre and the Declaration of Independence. Six years. And Boston was not the first issue, just the worst. They were working on the opposition movement for a long time.

If anything, the idea that protests in Chicago and DC could appear within two days of the federal LA invasion would be astounding to them. Some guy on a horse would still be riding through the Rocky Mountains to bring the news.

The only issue is, the news has gone from:

hear ye, hear ye, the king said this 3 months ago!

And everyone physically gathering in squares and pubs for weeks to say "hey what the fuck?"

To:

did you hear what said 5 seconds ago?

And someone else says:

yeah but said that was fake.

And everyone else clicking like, subscribe, and next!

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 13 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Yep. I'm directly descended from Rev. D. Rice. The guy owned about ⅔ of The Virginia Colony, because he's a direct descendent of House Rice, and House Wellington. He saw which way the wind was blowing in 1765 and started selling off his land. He donated the raiesd 1,500,000 pounds sterling to his good friends Tom, Jim, and Ben. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin. The joke in my family is that we paid to found the US Army and US Navy.

My cousin still has his diary, which is how we know this even happened, well that and a map of his land.

[–] Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

That's some incredible history. I hope your family has (carefully) taken scans and such!

That was an incredibly prescient move by the Reverend. And also an insane amount of money!? That's somewhere around a quarter of a billion pounds today?

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 11 points 17 hours ago

He had, quite frankly, an insane amount of land. Yes, my late great Aunt Binny (Virginia) was a professor of history at the University of Louisville, and had scans done by her department before she died. The scans were done in 2002.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 29 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

why people aren't gathering in mobs

Well, it happened about a hundred years after your time, but there's this thing called the Gatling gun that got invented that really became a hard counter to angry mobs trying to storm things, and once that stopped being an option they just kinda stopped listening to us

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 13 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Before that they had archers and keep walls. And after that there have been many successful protests and revolutions which created freer democracies (with varying degrees of success).

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 14 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Fair enough, but, like, 100 archers against 1000 people ends poorly for the archers if the people are willing to take some casualties, and a keep wall is only good so long as nobody inside decides to unlock a door or people outside can't get a ladder set up somewhere for a few minutes

Yes, there have been successful revolutions since the 1850s, but they're definitely a lot harder than they used to be, and I think they now really do require some sort of defection from the ruling classes or military over to the opposition in a way that you didn't really need for, say, the French revolution, where an angry mob of peasant women could just force their way into the kings castle and tell him how things were gonna be going forward

I'm not saying it's impossible, and I'm definitely not saying people should give up protesting all the bullshit going on right now, but I do think meta social contract between the rulers and the ruled has changed a lot since the 18th century because of technological progress

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 5 points 18 hours ago

I have to say, this is a very weird take and you should really consider that you might be mistaken.

Pre-1850, most governments were autocratic in some way or another. Many of these governments lasted for hundreds or thousands of years, only toppled when another, larger autocratic government conquered them. This was true in China, Africa, the Middle East, Mexico, and Europe. Post 1850, democracy began to spread much more rapidly. These days, autocrats at least try to pretend to be elected. And meanwhile, the personal freedom and standard of living for the average person have increased dramatically since that time.

In general, the sort of revolution you are talking about where the people storm the palace gates seem to have become less common because: first of all, you are imagining them as more common than they actually were in the past. In the past, most people were slaves or semi-slaves (surfs, peasants) who lived pretty miserable lives and mostly coped via Jesus and drinking. Second of all, because for the most part people don't want to storm the palace gates anymore because their lives are pretty good. Sure, Elon has billions while you are living paycheck to paycheck - but you still have a roof over your head, food to eat, and circuses to watch on TV. The risk of losing that and going to jail or dying is not worth the slim potential reward of having a better government in some way. Storming the palace gates and overthrowing the government is a bad thing, because it implies that the government was doing such a bad job that the people became so agitated that they tried such a desperate tactic in the first place.

I think they now really do require some sort of defection from the ruling classes

This has literally always been the case. The idea that a disorganized mob of peasants can storm the palace gates, depose the monarch, and create a utopian, egalitarian government from scratch is a fantasy - just like dragons, fairies, and anyone on Lemmy ever getting laid. A king derives his power from the accumulated power of his court, and each member of the court derives power from the power of their subordinates. As long as the court stays loyal to the king, mobs of people will be largely impotent. If the mob ever did manage to storm the gates and destroy the king, the very next day the court would appoint the king's heir and send the military out to murder every person in the mob. Mobs succeed when the court is tired of the king's bullshit and conveniently "forgets" to lock the palace gates.

[–] SalamenceFury@lemmy.world 10 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

People in LA are certainly doing so! And it's spreading everywhere in the US.

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 6 points 20 hours ago

As they should!

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

The founding enslavers would be gathering in mobs to reinstate slavery.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

Maybe, maybe not. Politicians have always had a finger in the wind on some issues. I think if you gave a decent historical account including things like current crime rates by race and the bombing of Tulsa, and just mention "generational wealth" like they're already familiar with it, and then gave them 24 hours to sit on it, I think they'd all be good with it.

Consider if someone took you, shoved you 200 years into the future and said, "Eating animals was some fucked up shit. Do you know what happened in Factory Farms? Really? Of course we're all vegetarian.".