Diaz 1 Michael Diaz Dr. Tomasz Stanek Hist 107 25 June 2022 A Country Concerned with its Image The United States of America is a country that has has become an “important” symbol of democracy for the world, but is not what it appears to be. Surely, to our own citizens, we have all but eaten, to no question, our conjured prestige and then proceeded to feed the world from the same plate—almost unknowingly. When one takes a closer look, it reveals a country who has always cared more about controlling its image and reputation than being true to its values. The United States of America is a county that must rely on its image and control its outward perception in order to cover its unabashedly oligarchical and hypocritical roots. It is this careful manipulation of its citizens, and the world, that enables it endure as quasi-functional institution. Upon examining our roots we find some shocking revelations hidden in plain sight. From our inception, the country relied on selling patriotism and freedom to a group of people that were arguably more free prior to our declaration of independence than after our official founding. Even the concept of an necessary “Revolution of Freedom” was sold to its citizens, when in reality, it was more so a theatrical transfer of power from one controlling interest through another—a theatrical transfer of power that happened to come at the expense of the lives of thousands of members of the working class. In his article The American Revolution as a Colonial War for Independence, Barrow argues that the American Revolution shouldn’t be called a revolution at all, as it involved no radical transformation of colonial society (435). Barrow Diaz 2 continues to compare what historians traditionally regarded as revolution to what took place in American colonial society and finds no real connections (454). This is where the first doses of political theater are prescribed, in pill form, to American colonial society. Taken daily, they would therapeutically alter the chemistry of a nation, made mostly of working people who could have cared less about governmental affairs, transforming them into parrots mocking a carefully weaved rhetoric designed to convince them and others that our existence, cause, and values are noble, just, and brave—though they are far from it. Barrow compares the Russian and French revolutions to the American revolution and acknowledges that they vary wildly in outcome. The American “Revolution” was not about destroying one society and replacing it with something new, as was the case with the Russian and French Revolutions, it was only about transferring control of colonial society, from the British Empire, to a budding controlling interest of American Oligarchs. Thus, it would be more accurate to view this “Revolution” as a war to determine who will control a group of colonies that were becoming increasingly autonomous and uncontrollable (457). This transference of power needed to be sold to American colonial society as necessary for the maturity and continuation of colonial society, even though colonial society was only artificially reliant on the economic interests of its motherland. After all, American colonial societies’ only function was founded on material exportation—in service of its British controlling interests, its oligarchs. What follows is nothing but a polite Victorian era dance designed and sold to disentangle newly founded Colonial interests from British rule. Competing views such as those from Adams and Hutchinson rose from the woodwork, both of which ultimately agreed that colonial society must separate itself from its distant owner, the question was merely when and how, not why. So Diaz 3 called Patriot groups formed and discussed, often with long drawn out disagreements, how America should be governed on its own, not if it should be (Barrow 459). This practice continued after independence was won, so much so that the nations first President, George Washington—merely a reflection of what was sold to him—concerned himself to great agony about how American society would view him (Woods 36). The oligarchical powers of the time loved him for it, as they knew American society would continue to believe the charade he unknowingly performed. When reading Gordon Wood’s Revolutionary Characters, he accidentally eludes to the fact that George Washington should actually be credited for his accidental humility, which was powered by the fear that his image would be tarnished by his lack of education and his inability to play the role of a valiant, stoic and classical hero (Woods 36). He spends most of his time romanticizing George Washington for being something more than a useful puppet for early American oligarchs. Woods goes on acknowledge that the office of the Presidency was always rather useless, and that George Washington’s incessant need to be self righteousness and respected was so strong that he did anything to make use of it the newly established branch of government—without coming off as power hungry— as to not upset his need to be loved and admired, of course (Woods 42). In conclusion, had a careful narrative not been sold, and had a useful idiot in Washington not been so flawed, the American experiment as we know it would have never survived. Abstract values such as freedom, self-determination, patriotism were intentionally sold to us, and later unintentionally reenforced by a farmer from Virginia. The experiment known as the United States of America was part intentional self enrichment for American oligarchs and part series of Diaz 4 accidents that happened to bode well for said interests—it has continued this way with a few tweaks to the present day. Diaz 5 Works Cited Barrow, Thomas C., “The American Revolution as a Colonial War for Independence.” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Jul., 1968), pp. 452-464. Wood, Gordon. “The Greatness of George Washington.” Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different, First Edition, Penguin Press HC, The, 2006, pp. 29–63.
