From today’s “lunch reading”…
This time, it was Aristotle:
“Such then is the general nature of political revolutions. They are produced either by violence, or by fraud, or by the union of both; for, sometimes, what is begun by fraud is ended by force.”
The “dead Greeks” got many things wrong, and cosmology is only one from that list. Yet, we still read Aristotle, Plato, Sophocles, Aeschylus with Euripides not only because their ideas built our civilization, but due to the simple fact that they transcended the mere sentient understanding of the human nature into the miracle of articulation.  This rarely attainable goal tantalized the thinkers and writers who came after: the ability to write in a such way that scribbles from 2360 years ago sound like from today’s “The Wall Street Journal.”
In so many aspects, all revolutions are the same: French, Russian, the “Arab Spring,” recent Ukrainian Maidan. There is a script that allows no deviation. Determinism, that not of Calvin, but  of the human condition. Here lays the origins of the idea of reincarnation. After all, someone  had to come up with a plausible explanation why human beings keep repeating their own idiotic mistakes or occasional glimpses of  brevity.
As a sidenote: although the events that started in 1775 in North America had some elements of a revolution, it was first and foremost a war for independence and – IMHO – should be called as such.
The American revolution was not a mere war for independence.
The American revolution created the blueprints for setting up a democratic state.
The blueprints that were used in many countries ever since.
The American state is a state with a synthetically engineered constitution as different from other countries that came to democracy evolutionally

The American revolution was the only one successful - historically in humankind.

Edited at 2015-06-25 05:27 am (UTC)
I get it...there were definitely many components of those events which would qualify the conflict as a revolution. Yet, they were not crystalized at first. Remember those attempts to make George Wash. a king? Plus, the "framers\fathers" were -- in theory at least -- reviving and evoking the heritage of the Roman Republic. Obviously, I concede that it can -- and does -- be properly called the American Revolution, but I just have too much...repulsion toward anything called "revolution." That's to be entirely honest about my subjectivity...
The word "revolution" is a worn coin. Particularly in the xUSSR. Commies perverted and devalued the sense of many words. Not for nothing is said, Do not waste the word "God"!

In the process of the Revolution, the Founding Fathers were looking for the design of a new country, so naturally the first idea was to appoint the king of the new country. And the ideal - actually well implemented - was the Roman Empire/Republic. I do really admire this construct that I call "the design by blueprint" - moving aside evolution of the state and its institutions and building the state and its institutions all at once and forever.