Skip to main content

Did Your US School Teach The Opposing Arguments to the American Revolution?

Caston George is a 10-year veteran political professional and former politician, accomplished writer, researcher, author, and archivist.

did-your-high-school-teach-you-royalist-arguments-against-republics-in-america

Did you get the whole story, or did they just teach you the federalist papers?

The Doctrine of Default Republicanism is host to a myriad of flaws and sketchy justifications for its necessity and existence - yet is rarely questioned in American minds or evaluated for and on its own merits - and this is the reason why.

Reading a lot of Royalist writings from the 1600's and 1700's has evinced in me some glaring critiques of the Republican form of government, which, I am now of the mind, is neither the best that can be done, or could be had, nor is it anywhere near.

In America, I recall a teacher once rolliong his eyes and asking aloud how crazy people were to believe in the Divine Right of Kings for instance - a topic of which, clearly, he knew only insofar as his opinion on it extended, and I do not believe for a moment he read anything by any pro-Divine Right writer of the time.

There are secular benefits to such beliefs being Instituted; and the practical effects numerous, if not obvious to all.

I remember him teaching us about the federalist papers, and that there weren't any lessons or encouragements or exhortations to cross examine or to analyse from the perspectives of the time the arguments against Republics with any real credibility.

This was also in a special class I took on history, a sort of re-examination of what we had already come to know in elementary and primary school: for instance, the American Revolution.

It occurs to me that people do not question republics, nor America's necessity in the world; nor do they question whether or not the founding of America was a good thing.

They do not question what might be different if America had never been founded. Many might even shudder to think, but, never consider that perhaps such an alternative timeline would have netted a better world or way of life for them, or maybe even more freedom than they have today, or a better government, if the American revolutionaries had just encouraged their people to pay their taxes like normal folk and stfu.

We can go into what might be different in the next article, I have a few ideas.

For now, let us wonder as to that unquestionability and why questioning America earns one mockery and social and academical leprosy.

I believe part of the matter, or the root thereof, is that American students are taught the history of America quite very young, and quite very one sidedly.

Granted, to some degree, that is to be expected, but one hopes for a comprehensive and well-versed understanding of the reasons behind the founding on all sides.

Or, at the very least, an understanding that wars are fought for reasons that are more than one sided - that there aren't heroes and villains by default in most wars, and that the arguments on both sides were good enough that people on opposing sides of a debate took up arms for their point and cause.

The British Empire was not tyrannizing America. King George III was not actually a tyrant. But to believe the hype in American history books, he was bloody awful; so why is he beloved today in England? He had his faults, but is in no wise viewed as a wicked or evil king.

In America, they see him as a caricature, a complete distortion, but have no interest in correcting their view, and even when presented with fact and factuality, they are in my experience likely to doubt it, or tune it out; as though facts and truth were neither.

Even when that is confirmed and evident to them, they don't believe it, nor do they wish to revisit or revise what they came to learn already, even if it was a complete bullocking of the truth.


What if America taught the American Revolution later on?

I believe that this is due to when the American Revolution is taught in schools, which I assert is perhaps even more important factor to this understanding of the unquestionably of republicanism and America, than even the content of what is taught, what is left out, or how one sided it is.

Scroll to Continue

American students first learn about the Pilgrims and who George Washington is, in kindergarten.

First, second, and third grades, with increasing detail, still one sidedly, revisit the American Revolution again and again each year up until about middle school.

After that, the American Revolution is sidelined as having been covered extensively already, in favour of other history.

What this does in effect is indoctrinate a one sided war theory and governmental model as being the only desirable model that there is, in their limited exposure.

Perhaps by design, this is done when they are children, during the years that they are forming the foundational pillars upon which they will rest and stand and stabilise their view of the world for the rest of their lives.

People tend not to question such pillars as are those that are learned early on, and tend not to revisit them throughout their lives; if they did, not everyone would take it well if the world they discovered they lived in this whole time was not what they always understood it to be.

It could be a profound and wonderful experience for some.

For others, it could terrifying. And so, the effect is the instillation and inoculation of the Republican and American doctrine and dogma, for an average person's life.

So a way to reapproach this, without addressing content, what is taught, or what is blatantly left out of what is taught (like the entire other argument, why, or an examination of critique of the pro-American argument with any real scrutiny)...

...would be to teach the American Revolution for the first time, to any real depth, in high school, rather than before they lose their baby teeth; when children are past that formative period, and are into a period where they are questioning things (even if not their aforesaid pillars right away), rather than when they are children unquestioning of adult figures, like parents and teachers, whom they deem as each an authority.

That act alone would in fact accompolish the goal of addressing the lack of whole information or cross examination, because the students, at that stage of their academic lives, would do it for us. Thanks to the internet, they would question what they're taught about the American Revolution, and get their answers.

You might have a few more thousand Monarchists in your town than you do right now if they did.

And the Republicans that you would have (not GOP, mind you, term used traditionally) would be wiser and better republic advocates for having questioned, looked, learned, and came to their own mind, rather than a series of manufactured patrioism-tropes that they mouth the words and motions of but do not truly grasp or understand.

Every real effort to learn about Republicanism ought to have as deep and well-read understanding and comprehension of Monarchy, and vice-versa, by virtue of what I would describe as any good research technique worth it's salt and sulphur.

One cannot just expose oneself to one side of one debate, because propaganda and jingoism become incorrectly understood as facts rather than one side of a two sided coin.

It would be like allowing a presidential debate but with only one candidate, and letting that candidate and his critique of his opposition (not allowed in the debate or left out entirely) and his view of their platform to become understood as what their platform is, truly, and that it couldn't be anything else.


The downsides of equality.

A friend of mine who loves America is sitting with me as I write this...

And I explained to him, and I believe he understood and thoughtfully considered what I had to say about this concept, about what I call the long lists of misters, and how republicanism, rather than advancing his freedom, protecting his opportunities, can oppress them by default of the system.


Equality is not the same as equity; I hold Equity to be the superior of the two. Equality and Equity are not equal. And thank God for that.

Equality has downsides, I explained; a concept which would earn one strange looks in any American debate on anything. Equality being put on a pedestal by all sides of all ideologies, but, their understanding of it being limited to only American and Republican dogma and doctrine, don't consider the logical endpoints of their equality-based republic.

The homeless might be able to explain it to you, if this article is insufficient to illustrate and demonstrate one of equality's downsides.

It takes an unequal one to liberate the equal many - one who is not like the others around him - to make any change in a republic happen of any real meaning or import; that is to say, it takes, sometimes, the principle of inequality to save the principle of equality.

Rudolph was the one reindeer unlike the others, and look what he accomplished; though he had to put up with a whole lot of reindeer games before he led them.

The homeless are en masse, herein, referred to as such, and that reference is symptomatic of painting people with big and broad brushes, and I recognise that as I write this.

But, it's suits both their and my purposes right now, even if that is not yet readily apparent, for these reasons; each of them are equal.

I call them long lists of "misters".

Even if the homeless got together with people power, after all, as an often ignored and underappreciated, forgotten about, and other-ised, dehumanised, and stigmatised bloc or segment of people and society, to unionise or organise, they would still find little success; and little success has been the result of all efforts previously to do so, in most instances.

You would think that not be the case, after all, they are, on paper at least, even if CERTAINLY not in practice, equal to those who ignore them in society.

But equality becomes a millstone around the neck because of the unwritten and customary inequalities that people tacitly accept as "the way things are" without thinking too hard about their absurdity or obscenity insofar as toleration of their presence as factors in modern society.

And so, a group of homeless organisers petition themselves, and make a case for their lack of providence, for their dignity, and for their humanisation - to be treated as neighbours instead of "dont feed the wildlife", as is often the literal case.

"Aren't you guys smart," says a patronizing person to whom they present this petition, which they all, each of them, upon the principle of people, signed.

A bunch of misters.

A mister bunch not dissimilar to the mister individual they presented it to. Remember, they are "equal", aren't they?

Yes, they are: they are all en masse, equally ignored.

That list is set aside in a drawer, that petition will never be read.

Because the majority that aren't homeless still scapegoat them, and the individual mister they presented their long list of misters to, still, aren't more misters than are the misters in the housed majority, whose opinion, in a system predicated upon results of petty popularity contests, is ignorant, unbudging, and therefore, as their representative by larger majoritarian number than the homeless petitioners, the individual mister they present their petition to, patronizes them, but in the end, will ignore them for politics sake.

Because their stigma would taint his electoral chances in the next petty popularity contest.

Because no matter how much people power they have, they are not popular.

And popularity, not a constitution, therefore, determines their quality and way of life.

They will never upset that balance or apple cart of their own power or capacities or agencies, not even en masse, short of revolution or societal economic collapse as an evener of their economic fortunes to that of the housed majority.

Enter in: He who is unlike all of the others. Likely misunderstood, and even amongst the homeless (whether he is homeless hinmself or not) probably not popular. Perhaps as popular as a Monarchist in America!

But, if the homeless can collectively get over their own scapegoating and shaming of he who is not like the rest of the group (a common American tradition going back to witch trials is to shun the guy not doing what everyone else is doing, and being horrible to that guy) they will find in him, if agreeable, their hero who can save them.

Because they cannot and will not likely ever, of their own powers, save themselves - not because they are incapable, and not because they can't or won't, but because they are outnumbered in system that divvies power, horrifyingly enough, based on mathematical tally of participation - that of quantity of those who support an argument, rather than the quality of the argument itself - that will be what most accord to at the end of the petty popularity process.


AND THE LAW OF CONTRARY EFFECT

Related Articles