[lit-ideas] Beating a Dead Horse

  • From: Andy <mimi.erva@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:36:35 -0700 (PDT)

Got the ol' brain more in gear, hopefully, so let's try it again.  I think I 
was pretty close.  A rebellion is smaller, usually within the ranks, more 
within a system (slaves against masters, farmers against lords, colonies 
against a mother country).  A revolution would be more against a system, such 
as when Cromwell led the army against the king (the so called Glorious 
Revolution).  The British later saw the American colonies as rebelling, until 
it grew into a full fledged revolution, armies and all.  Interestingly, the 
American South called themselves Rebels yet it was a full fledged Civil War, 
not a Civil Revolution.  
 
Andy


________________________________
From: Andy <mimi.erva@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 8:31 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Medium is the Message


Actually, good question.  It's been forever since I read the book, but I'm 
thinking that the rebellions were smaller and more spontaneous, a bunch of 
farmers with pitchforks basically.  A revolution takes more planning and is 
more widespread.  But I think you're right, I can't think of a failed 
revolution, at least in the short term.  (The CIA set-ups in Central America?)  
It seems intuitive that there can also be a successful rebellion, even if not 
in the Middle Ages.  Maybe Lawrence knows?
 
Andy
 
 


________________________________
From: Ursula Stange <ursula@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 8:09 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Medium is the Message


Isn't a rebellion just an unsuccessful revolution?

Sent from my kitchen...

On 2011-10-25, at 7:12 PM, Andy <mimi.erva@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



>
>
>

Other related posts:

  • » [lit-ideas] Beating a Dead Horse - Andy