I think the author makes an interesting point regarding how many political and social movements are motivated by the rich and powerful. What makes the American Revolution different than other movements is the dynamic between those same elites and the common people. The article mentioned, “…the mobilization of lower-class energy by upper-class politicians, for their own purposes. This was not purely deception; it involved, in part, a genuine recognition of lower-class grievances…” (Zinn, 61). The rich colonists who wanted to get rid of British rule, had to understand the issues all classes faced in order to effectively gain enough support to overthrow the existing government.
The language and aura around the United States’ fight for independence helped to inspire all classes to act against the British. The elites of cities like Boston, Philadelphia, and New York created a narrative. They painted the British as the main reason for the uneven social structure, temporarily relieving the existing class tension among Americans. While not completely intentional, much of the language surrounding the revolution painted all Americans as victims of the British, regardless of class, and created an image of equality. Zinn highlights the “All this, the language of popular control over governments, the right of rebellion and revolution, indignation at political tyranny, economic burdens, and military attacks, was the language well suited to unite large numbers of colonists, and persuade even those who had grievances against one another to turn against England.” (Zinn, 72). The potential of class equality inspired lower and middle class Americans to act against the British.
While the rich helped to use certain language and rhetoric to inspire lower class colonists to act, they also were heavily fortunate for the demographics in the colonial cities. Zinn mentions how, “Fortunately for the revolutionary movement, the key battles were being fought in the North, and here, in the cities, the colonies had a divided white population; they could win over mechanics, who were a kind of middle class, who had a stake in the fight against England, who faced competition from English manufacturers.” (Zinn, 65). The inequality among colonists was ignored because the rich deflected the blame towards the British, which made sense to struggling business and workers who were looking for a scapegoat. The language and demographics were very strategically used by the colonial elites in order to inspire lower class Americans to portray the British as the main enemy.
I recognize all of what you said to be true, but I got a little stuck at the end when defining class and wealth privilege as “tyranny” because I don’t think this fits our previous definition of a tyrant. It feels like Zinn is using a different definition of tyranny, though I do not believe he gives it to us in the article.
I agree with everything you said. I think that making the British seem like a common enemy was very smart and distracts people from the real inequalities.
I really love how you said “The elites of cities like Boston, Philadelphia, and New York created a narrative.” Because that’s exactly what they did through each popular document. Things like Common Sense by Thomas Paine helped bridge the gap between the rich and the poor… superficially, at least. Though I wonder how this panned out for those who were illiterate?