While this book is well-researched and goes into painstaking detail, it is unfortunate that the author feels a need to place it in a modern context. The American Revolution is relevant to drone strikes? Really?
Hoock's avowed purpose is to make sure that Americans do not continue to be misled into their thinking their Revolution was an exception to the violent nature of revolutions, without really talking about revolutions other than France's, which admittedly IS relevant. He goes on to discuss in nauseating detail specific atrocities visited by both sides on each other and on innocent bystanders.
It's a pity that Hoock does not spend more time talking about the American grievances leading to the separation of the United States from the British. If he decided to detail the victims of economic malaise caused by British taxation policy and a lack of "taxation without representation," if he had discussed the deprivations of the Indians on frontiersmen which resulted in NO punishment for said Indians who were under the protection of the crown (think of the frontier as a "sanctuary territory") and made mention of major disputes with more than a curt mention of the Regulator Wars.
Hoock mentions Tryon several times in his book, relevant to his position in the British occupation of New York and New Jersey. Does Hoock even know who Tryon was? Tryon was the last royal governor of North Carolina. He had a brick "palace" built for himself in New Bern and tried to have the cost paid for by the people, thus the Regulator Wars. Arbitrary justice, relentless taxation, a government far removed from the interests and desires of the governed while failing to provide protection for those same people... is it any wonder that the Revolution was violent?
I also feel I have to take issue with Hoock's supposition that Americans are ignorant of the violence involved in the Revolution. I recall learning in high school about the violence of both sides (minus the actual fighting, which needless to say was violent). Modern Revolution sites discuss the violence seen in these places. Perhaps since Mr. Hoock did not grow up in America he has not been raised to learn U.S. AND state histories.
The author's bias becomes clear when, I suppose out of some sense of social duty, he feels the need to discuss "neoconservatives," "extreme rendition," and "America Empire" in terms right which would make Howard Zinn proud.
Advance copy included typos which may or may not have been corrected. Some illustrations. No modern maps.
No comments:
Post a Comment