". . . But the past does not exist independently from the present. Indeed, the past is only past because there is a present, just as I can point to something over there only because I am here. But nothing is inherently over there or here. In that sense, the past has no content. The past -- or more accurately, pastness -- is a position. Thus, in no way can we identify the past as past." p. 15

". . . But we may want to keep in mind that deeds and words are not as distinguishable as often we presume. History does not belong only to its narrators, professional or amateur. While some of us debate what history is or was, others take it into their own hands." p. 153

Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History (1995) by Michel-Rolph Trouillot

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Venezuela Forum Debates: Revolutionary Change in U.S.?

[ A five-day rolling panel discussion on “United States: A possible revolution” was the central event at the third Venezuela International Book Fair, which took place here November 9-18.

The 22 panelists, four or five of whom spoke each day, included political activists and writers from the United States expressing diverse political views, as well as a number of U.S. citizens living in Venezuela. Hundreds of Venezuelans and others took part in one or more sessions, with dozens raising questions and making comments from the floor. The forum was covered by Venezuelan television, radio, and newspapers. The issues debated on the character of the working class and prospects for revolution in the United States sparked a political discussion that permeated the book fair. An article on the fair itself will appear in next week’s Militant. ]

More here.


Foxessa said...

What particularly struck me re the Militant article was this statement:

[ “There has never been a revolution in the United States, and anyone who thinks there has been is ignorant of their own history,” responded panelist Richard Gott, a British author and journalist. Gott said the American Revolution, which defeated British colonial rule, could not be considered a revolution. Rather, it was a war to take land from Native American tribes, whose territory, he said, was being protected by the British royal army. ]

I agree with the first part, but the not the second of that statement. The "American Revolution" was not a revolutionary war, it was a war for independence, one that succeeded. Big difference. The ruling classes basically remained the ruling classes, though, for a long time, there was the tendency to allow ever more groups to participate in the election and ruling process.

The Civil War was far more of a revolution, in the sense of challenging property owners. However it was an incomplete revolution, which is why we are still not a nation.

Love, C.

Frank Partisan said...

The American Revolution was a revolution. It was a bourgeoise revolution.

The Declaration of Independence is a document, worthy of any revolutionary government. Only bourgeoise revolutions, that are step forward forward from feudalism, can't complete their goals under capitalism. The American Revolution was woefully incomplete, still a revolution.

The International Socialist Group is based on the ideas of Max Schachtman, who split from Trotskyism. They disagree with essential ideas of Trotskyism.

The SWP used to be the biggest Trotskyist group in the world. Now it's Castroite.

My comrades were at the Caracas Book Fair. Allen Woods was popular there.

my blog team member John Peterson locally is giving a talk about Shay's Rebellion. That is associated with the American Revolution.