nadinostradamus climaxes

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1475898

And without the help of franksolich.

nadinbrzezinski  (1000+ posts)        Tue Jul-12-11 06:34 PM
Original message
 
On movement politics and ELITE history

Many a times we have made a reference to movement politics and we get the usual answer it does not work. I will admit, if I was readying traditional elite histories, I'd be with you. Alas i am not. So let's explore some of those movements that relied on movement politics.

The first of this is actually the American Revolution. No, it did not emerge athena like from Zeus's head. No, the founding fathers did not meet in Philadelphia just because. They were part of a MOVEMENT that started a generation before. Gary Nash goes into this history very wel, as well as Howard Zinn. It was a series of assaults on the American colonies that led to this. It ranged from land rights, in New Jersey, to the First Great Revival, to the attacks on Boston's government, and of course the Stamp Act. But it was a MOVEMENT. If it was just the founders at Philadelphia without a reason for that, we'd still be subjects to the crown. and they would have hung high.

THen there is another movement, that one to end slavery. It started BEFORE the revolution. It took a few decades, ending with the Civil War. Those who started it, the Quakers, in Botston and Philadelphia, were long buried by the time it succeeded.

But... I can hear it... Civil Rights... it climaxed in the 60s, but it started in the 1920s.

Women sufragists, it did not finish with the women who started it. Susan B Anthony never cast a vote.

Labor... that is the longest, and it took over a century for it to finally succeed.

We will need to realize that if we are to succeed, we will not see the fruit of them labors. This is not a video game, nor an instant movie. In real life, if a movement is worth it, you do it for the end result, even if you never get to see the results of it. The American Revolution was the most instant gratification of those movements, and even that one... took over forty years.

OHdem10  (1000+ posts)       Tue Jul-12-11 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
 
1. Movements by their nature take time to get desired results.

On the other hand without movements, nothing happens as everyone continues to run in a different direction.

Even in more recent history, The Republicans Conservative Movement took a long long time. However by being a movement, they deep themselves and other Republicans abreast of happenings in Movement. Provided focus so they are now moving very fast.

I'm not sure what the above means, but never mind, as nadinostradamus explains it:

nadinbrzezinski  (1000+ posts)        Tue Jul-12-11 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
 
2. Exactly and thanks for adding one I completely forgot

[Duke Nukum]

No, the founding fathers did not meet in Philadelphia just because. They were part of a MOVEMENT that started a generation before.

It actually started way before that, Nadin. It started in 1312. Probably even way before that. But the events of 1312 meant that the Americas had to be "discovered" by 1492.

[GOBUCKS]

Know-it-all nadin is readying a bowel movement.

[franksolich]

Know-it-all nadin is readying a bowel movement.

That's what I was afraid of, when I spotted the word "movement."

[Skul]

Lord knows she's spewed enough shit already.