Position:Home>History> What is an "elite radical" in reference to colonial America?
Question: What is an "elite radical" in reference to colonial America!?
When the British and the colonies together defeated France in the Seven Years War, Britain then obtained all of the territory that had previously been under French rule!. In order to reorganize their new land, they put new restrictions!. Like any case, some people (colonists) were for it, some were against it!. The colonists on low-income/working levels of society often had direct, violent demonstrations against the British!.
The text says "The demonstrations were sometimes working for the elite radicals, and sometimes against!."
Thank you for any help you can offer!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
US independence was most directly a result of the Seven Years War!. In that conflict, the UK put much effort and resources into securing hegemony over North America!. Short of funds and looking for a justification for its extraordinary expenses, the British look to British colonists to pay for some of the expense of their protection!.
British colonists in North America, many of whom had fought what they called the "French-Indian War", saw that their debts to the crown had been paid and that they had earned full right to exploit the land without its interference!. Which did not, however, mean that colonists did not call on the British army every so often to retaliate (a la Israel) against the raids of natives expelled by the whites from their lands!.
The British saw to control the expansion of colonies while colonists saw to expand limitlessly while demanding the support of the army!. "Elite Radicals" saw in this rift of loyalties between the colonial working class and the British ruling class an opportunity to mount their own project of hegemony!. That is, a small segment of the colonial merchant class in New England, came together to agitate and organize against British rule during the period when the working class was growing in dissatisfaction with the Royal administration and before the new order is established (between the end of the 7 Years War and the creation of the Continental Army)!.
Your text assumes that working class discontent was channeled, sometimes successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully by Upper Class agitators!. Men like John Hancock and Sam Adams would probably serve as proof that the text is right!. One would have to really stretch the word radical to apply it to those who agitated against the monarchy!. They were simply liberals with an eye to gaining more power in a society where their upward mobility was limited by British control!.
I would take the text you are reading to have a bias in favor of the more conservative figures of the revolution!. It seems to be separating early figures from the national cause by calling them radicals, implying that their counterparts in the continental congress must have been the mainstream!. Anyhow, it is quite a subjective way to refer to the early agitators even if relatively accurate!.
What is most important about the quote though, is that it pins down the essence of class relations in revolutionary America, and perhaps all of American history!. The upper class gains and maintains its power by channeling the forces of popular discontent in its favor and against extraneous enemies!. Whereas the word radical is as often misused and diluted as the word revolution and should be read "agitators" as opposed to a person who disagree with the status quo axiomatically, that is from its root or radically!.
Peace!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
I would think that they would be upper-class, well-monied citizens that either saw profits dwindling due to the meddling of the British, or that just wanted something to fight about!. Much of history, I believe, is a tale of the interactions between young unemployed men, old rich guys, and foriegners!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
The elite radicals were probably men who were against the British who were "crazed" about their cause!. The would do anything!. Sometimes these men headed up the demonstrations, but sometimes they didn't!.
BKWww@QuestionHome@Com