heres the problem. and thank you, by the way, for the detailed history of the effects of the 7 years war, and how it effected british fiscal policy concerning the colonies. none of this is new news. my point is this: when you talk about revolution, you are talking about one government being ousted, and another taking its place, usually forcefully. the french revolution started with the burgoise after they were locked out of the meeting of the estates general at versilles. that occurence led the 3rd estate to the local tennis court, where the national assembly was created. this was some time before the second wave of the revolution took place. at the time, the french were being invaded by several foreign armies, that were coming to the defense of the soverign of france, who had been ushered in the meantime from versilles to tulleries, in paris. the proclaimation of fredric the great, that he would level paris if louis xvi was harmed merely added fuel to the fire. with invasion looming on the horizon most of the moderates in the national assembly fled paris, leaving the more radical members to make law. as i am sure you are aware, this is when the comittee of public safety began to round up the aristocracy under the guise of securing the nation from foreign collaborators. max robespierre then went on to execute the king and queen, and in the place of an absolute monarchy, you had a 'republic' as they called it.
that, is what is meant by revolution. you could also point to the bolshevik revolution of 1917 as a quintessential revolution. there, another aboslute monarchy was ended, and lenninst socialism was thrown up in its place.
china of the late 1930's through 1949 is another example. mao's communist army eventually saw the defeat of chaing kai check's nationalist army, and founded a government based on leninist socialism.
america, in the latter part of the 1700's is another story all together. first, you must recognize a few things. first, the sitting monarch was not displaced, as the sitting leaders of my prior examples had all been. second, you must look at who the leaders of the colonies were. you would find, george washington, thomas jefferson, franklin, etc etc... you also must recognize that after the 'revolutionary war' there wasnt a drastic change in government. federalism did not take immidiate effect, and the only real change was that people looked to a different figurehead. instead of king george, it was now george washington. for it to have been a revolution in a classic sense, there would have had to be not only the seperation from england, but also a new form of government established. if, durring the war, the people had rebelled against the local leaders, and had overthown the domestic leadership, and had instituted a new system of government, well then, you might have a point... but that didnt happen. to call it the revolutionary war is really a misnomer.
since that time, in the late 18th century, the government has stood without revolution taking place. im not sure of any other nation which has stood basically unchanged for as long.
if america had been undergoing governmental upheaval once per 50 years, then i think your original statement could have been correct... but... it hasnt.
and if you want to continue to promote the stereotype of canadians as holier than thou, condecending jackasses with chips epoxied to their shoulders because their national animal is synonomis with female genitalia, well then, keep on dishing out the unwarrented insults... it looks funny... especially because youre wrong... just keep on generalizing pal.
Mercy's eyes are blue
When she places them in front of you
Nothing holds a roman candle to
The solemn warmth you feel inside
