MDMD American Revolution (& the Afghani Revolution)

[Paul Mackin]

Doug sez that although in M&D the American Revolution is relatively absent
nevertheless the book "presents the argument that the 'revolution' only
served to replace one property-owning elite class with another...."

Sure hope this is NOT what the book argues. It would be a very stupid
argument.  The American Revolution, if we're talking about the years
surrounding 1776, was not about class but was about the casting off of
monarchical allegiance to Great Britain. What
"property-owning elite class" does Doug (and Pynchon, heaven forebid) think
was replaced by what other "property-owning elite class?" In other words I
don't recall hearing about much property redistibution back then. No reign
of terror or anything. But perhaps I'm just quibbling over sloppy language

The American Revolution more broadly understood started well before '76 and
lasted a long time after, still going on in fact. And of course pre-'76
American society had been diverse and pluralistic as a number of scenes from
M&D well illustrate. Though the throwing off of the monarchy and the
estiblishment of a Repulican (reprentative) govenment constituted primarily
a political rather than a social change it is also true that great social
change followed from a politcal system that condoned the pursuit of
happiness including the freedom to acquire weath and economic independence
and do much else disallowed under the Old Order.

Of course The American Revolution did nothing for Slaves, or Indians, or
Women (not much anyway). But doesn't it make more sense to look at it for
what it did rather than for what it didn't accomplish? Remember we're
talking about over two centuries ago.

And yes I do remember old Eric and his half-baked ideas on American history.
American born Eric was passing himself off as a British expert on America.

            P.




-----Original Message -----
From: "Doug Millison" <millison at online-journalist.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 10:55 AM
Subject: MDMD American Revolution (& the Afghani Revolution)


> During the first Pynchon-L reading of M&D, we had some talk about the
> relative "absence" of the American Revolution from the novel, "lost" in
> between the story of Mason and Dixon in America in the 1760s and
Cherrycoke
> telling the story in the 1780s. It's a rather pregnant "absence", and that
> may not be the best descriptor since the novel is not free of direct
> references to the Revolution, similar in some ways to what some readers
> call the "absence" of the Holocaust from GR, which does of course include
> numerous direct references to same.  M&D presents the argument that the
> "revolution" only served to replace one property-owning elite class with
> another and that the nation-building programs of genocide and slavery
> seriously undercut the claims that all people have God-given rights to
> life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  At any rate, some of you may
> be interested in this brief essay which seeks to situate Afghanistan in
the
> context of revolutions since 1775.
>
>
> http://www.pacificnews.org/content/pns/2001/nov/1108afghanistan.html
> Afghanistan - The World's Sixth Great Revolutionary Current Since 1775
> By Franz Schurmann, Pacific News Service, Nov 8, 2001
>
> The American Revolution was the first of five great revolutionary currents
> that are still unfolding on the world stage. Could what we're witnessing
in
> Afghanistan today represent a sixth current? PNS associate editor Franz
> Schurmann, emeritus professor of UC Berkeley, is author of numerous books
> on foreign politics, including "The Mongols of Afghanistan", "The Ideology
> and Organization of Communist China," and "The Logic of World Power."
>
> The world's people have lived in a revolutionary age since America broke
> loose from Britain and thrilled the world. The American Revolution, like
> four later revolutions, the French (1789--), Chinese (1911--), Russian
> (1917--), and Iranian Islamic, (1989 --), is still playing itself out on
> the world stage.
>
> Now, Afghanistan is trying to break loose from American civilization and
in
> the process has acquired a revolutionary voice that, like it or not,
> thrills many people in the world. Is what we're witnessing in Afghanistan
> merely the machinations of a worldwide terrorist network, as George W.
Bush
> argues, or are we witnessing something far bigger -- a sixth revolutionary
> current -- as Osama Bin Laden claims?
>
> Each of the five revolutionary currents has been red with blood. Thomas
> Jefferson, America's third president, hailing the French Revolution, said
> "every 20 years the tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of
> tyrants." G.F. W. Hegel taught his students, including Karl Marx, that the
> "end of history" had come with the French Revolution. Franklin Roosevelt
> was moved by the bloody Chinese and bloody Russian revolutions and loathed
> their enemies, notably Japan and Germany. Richard N. Frye, Harvard
emeritus
> professor and noted scholar of the Iranian world, as early as November
1978
> predicted that the Iranian Islamic Revolution would be seen as another
> French Revolution sweeping the Muslim world.
>
> Every revolution has roused fierce resistance from great powers -- and
> Afghanistan is no exception. Britain fought the American rebels and then
> sought to quash the revolutionary French. Britain and Japan both fought
the
> Chinese Revolution, while America befriended it. America, Britain and
Japan
> were the nemeses of the Russian Revolution. America and Britain were the
> nemeses of the Iranian Islamic Revolution. And now America, Britain,
> Russia, China and Iran are the nemeses of what bin Laden calls the global
> confrontation between the West and Islam.
>
> Certain events become revolutionary when people far and wide become
> inspired by their messages. From populous Indonesia to huge Nigeria,
> popular sentiment hails bin Laden while ridiculing the "War on Terrorism."
> Thousands of Pakistani Pathans rally to the Taliban not just because of
> tribal solidarity but because they sense a revolutionary message coming
> from bin Laden and Mullah Omar, Afghanistan's reclusive leader.
>
> Every one of the five revolutions send simple but moving messages to the
> world. The message of the American Revolution is that all people have
> God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The
> revolutionary slogan of the French Revolution is that in addition to
> liberty, all people also have rights to equality and fraternity. The
> revolutionary message of the Chinese Revolution is that revolution is not
a
> unique privilege of the West and the white man. The message of the Russian
> Revolution is that the state owes a debt to the poor to give them
> prosperity, a condition that turned out to be realized far more in America
> than in Russia. The message of the Iranian Islamic Revolution is that God
> must be the source of all state power.
>
> Bin Laden and the Mullah Omar are now sending out different messages. Bin
> Laden preaches a long struggle between Islam and the West. A Chinese
> essayist writing under a pen-name in the Sing Tao Daily of Oct. 30
compared
> him to Mao Zedong. Like Mao, bin Laden is indifferent to how many must die
> so that his vision can be realized. He is similar to Lenin, who also had
> one great ambition: to see Soviet socialism triumph over Western
> capitalism, whatever the human cost.
>
> But Mullah Omar's ideas march to a different drummer than bin Laden's,
much
> as did those of Lenin's successors Trotsky and Stalin. Trotsky called for
> "a permanent revolution" that would only be halted when all capitalism had
> been wiped out. But Stalin preached building socialism in one state.
> Politically, the difference soon led to a split that persists to this day.
>
> The Mullah Omar, like Stalin, thinks only of Afghanistan, where he
> envisions piety, peace and prosperity will prevail. Similarly, in China
> after Mao died, the new leaders restricted their visions to China alone.
> Just as Trotsky was forced to leave Russia shortly after Lenin's death,
the
> Taliban have expressed the opinion that bin Laden should "voluntarily"
> leave Afghanistan.
>
> While Stalin hated Trotsky and vice-versa, their influence still guides
> Russia's new power holders. And if one or both bin Laden and Mullah Omar
> should die, that will not end the revolutionary views each espouse.
>
> The core message underlying both is of a back-to-the-future kind. The
> Taliban have neither a government nor an army. Yet the country is marked
by
> hundreds of ethnic, tribal and sectarian differences. The basis of Taliban
> rule is what the great Arab philosopher of history Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406)
> called "asabiya," an Arabic word meaning strong bonds among people forged
> from the ground up. When these bonds are linked to God, Mullah Omar
> believes, all these differences can be overcome and revolutionary power
> becomes irresistible.
>
>
> ..... Schurmann's article at
> http://www.tbwt.com/content/article.asp?articleid=1824
> is also worth a look.
>