A couple of weeks ago I finished reading Thomas Paine's "Common Sense," a pamphlet that helped stir the American colonists to rebel against England. I had been wanting to read Paine's pamphlet for some time for several reasons. Last summer I saw the History Channel's series on the American Revolution, and one thing the History Channel does well is bring history alive. The History Channel is far more informative than what most grade school history classes teach. It usually goes into more depth and the issues and people during a particular era are presented as being more complex than what is usually thought. In grade school you tend to get a simplified version of history, which in the case of the American Revolution is: it happened because the Americans were taxed without representation. I had a suspicion there was more to it than that; it seems to me simply feeling unfairly taxed wouldn't be enough for most people to fight a war, so I decided to read a "primary source" of the conflict, which is a good way of getting a broader and better understanding of the controversial issues of the past. I also got interested in "Common Sense" because Paine is a largely forgotten figure of the American Revolution, mostly because of his unpopular views on religion, and I have always been attracted to things that have been marginalized to the fringe of American culture.
In the United States "Common Sense" is largely remembered as propaganda, and it was. Paine clearly intended his pamphlet to persuade the colonists to rebel against England. But propaganda is an inaccurate word to describe the pamphlet. Propaganda carries the connotation of trying to persuade by appealing to people's emotions. The image of a propagandist in popular culture is someone raving, pounding their fists and shouting at people why they should embrace a particular cause. At times "Common Sense" can be emotionally charged, particularly against monarchical rule, but it has more right to be remembered as political philosophy being used as propaganda. Paine thought more like a philosopher than a propagandist, which isn't surprising since he was Deist (which emphasized rationality). His pamphlet is a thorough examination of the arguments for and against American independence. He not only provided his own arguments for independence but he anticipated and responded to the rebuttals, which is what all good philosophers do.
Paine's primary concern in "Common Sense" was monarchy. He detested it, and for him monarchy was exactly what the Revolution was about. Being unfairly taxed--which is what the Revolution is mostly remembered for in the U. S. today--was a trifling reason to fight. In Paine's eyes it was a symptom of a bigger problem that had plagued humanity throughout history. He made many powerful arguments against monarchical rule that have become common sense (hence the title of the pamphlet) to Americans today. But at the time government without monarchy was the contentious issue of the day, the same way that the war in Iraq is the contentious issue of the early-21st century. Americans were divided about it, and the outcome uncertain. Paine's main assumption about monarchy--which underlies all his arguments against it--is it puts too much power in one persons hands and this allows a king or queen to take advantage of other people. He or she can take someones land and give it to someone else or keep it for his or herself. They can make their subjects produce a certain amount of goods for monarchical use, even if its used for nothing more than for luxury. Also, monarchy is based upon hereditary secession. This allows certain people to have an automatic position to rule at a future time, but it allows people who are not fit to rule to rule. Another problem with monarchy is monarchs often know little of the world because they've lived the comforts of a privileged life, which often means being sheltered from the way most people live. At the time of the Revolution England did have a checks and balances system against the monarchy, but Paine believed it did little good. The problem with the checks and balances system was its assumptions were in contradiction. It presupposed a king, and any system that assumes the existence of a king presupposes the king is wiser than the people. But a check on the king presupposes the people are wiser than the king! Also, the checks and balances system was like a machine, and the king was the biggest and most important part of the machine. The people and parliament played a smaller role in it, and as a result the king often got his way. For Paine these were the reasons why the Revolution was a just cause--to end monarchical rule around the world. The American Revolution was an event unprecedented in world history, and was the beginning of a more just form of government that did not include monarchy.
Today few Americans remember the Revolution for these reasons. We are more likely to remember the war as a war against unjust taxes, which is a simplified version that overlooks the primary reason why the war was fought. In the U. S. there is a tendency to think of historical events in simplified terms, and I think there are several reasons why. Most Americans don't think of history as being practical. Being knowledgeable about history isn't something you go out and get a job with, and this attitude is reflected in the school system. Most school systems emphasize history the least out all the subjects taught. When I was in grade school this was obvious. The other subjects were usually taught before history, and there was a tendency to divide students into groups according to how advanced they were in a subject--but not with history. Also, over time we become removed from the reasons for something that happened in the past, and over time alot can be forgotten and left to historians to remember. There is also a tendency to think of history as a collection of events that happened in the past. This is a faulty way of thinking about history because it saps the meaning out of it. For example, this sort mentality would just see Gutenberg's printer as just an event rather than something that allowed information to be spread more quickly. The problem with having a simplified view of history is people tend not to appreciate what others in the past did for them. Most Americans wouldn't know who Thomas Paine was, mostly because he is a marginalized historical figure, but if it wasn't for him and people who were willing to fight against the English, Americans might not be enjoying the freedoms they have, and it is likely the world would be a different place. A better way of understanding the faults of thinking that history is unimportant is this thought experiment. Imagine you are transported 200 years in the future, and you encounter an American who considers himself to be an average American. When you explain what life is like in your own time he responds "I couldn't tell you much about the war on terrorism or the war in Iraq or George W. Bush, whoever he was. And why should I care?"
No comments:
Post a Comment