[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
