How do Seventh Day Adventists feel about the Statue of Liberty?

[Constantine the Sinner]

You think that plebians were not idolised in two countries that rebelled against aristocracy?

America might have rebelled against aristocracy, but they also had much stricter requirements to vote than than the Athenian democracy did, in terms of wealth. Besides, America wasn't really rebelling against aristocracy per se, just against not having seats in Parliament.

In France, ironically, the Revolution was mostly against Parlement itself (which blocked the King's efforts at reform, but the King made himself a target when he called Austria for help). Those intellectuals who supported the Revolution, probably identified it more with a slave revolt than a plebeian revolt (the cap of the Revolution was, after all, supposed to be the pileus, which was associated with Libertas and worn by freed slaves, although it ended up being the Phrygian cap since the two are easily confused).

 

[Albion]

Can we think of any {Plebians} who were memorialized like this?

 

[Inkfingers]

America might have rebelled against aristocracy, but they also had much stricter requirements to vote than than the Athenian democracy did, in terms of wealth. Besides, America wasn't really rebelling against aristocracy per se, just against not having seats in Parliament.

So the whole thing in the constitution about no hereditary titles was coincidental? I don't think so, sorry.

The US was clearly a rebellion of the non-aristocracy against an aristocratic rule (although yes it swapped such with rule by gentry).

In France, ironically, the Revolution was mostly against Parlement itself (which blocked the King's efforts at reform, but the King made himself a target when he called Austria for help). Those intellectuals who supported the Revolution, probably identified it more with a slave revolt than a plebeian revolt (the cap of the Revolution was, after all, supposed to be the pileus, which was associated with Libertas and worn by freed slaves, although it ended up being the Phrygian cap since the two are easily confused).

I think you'll find an awful lot of aristocrats lost their heads to the guillotine. The French Revolution was also very much a rebellion against patricians (slaves and plebs being not so far removed).

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Can we think of any {Plebians} who were memorialized like this?

I doubt it, "plebeian" was an absolutely negative term then and now. It was associated with people who are satisfied with bread and circuses.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

So the whole thing in the constitution about no hereditary titles was coincidental? I don't think so, sorry.

The US was clearly a rebellion of the non-aristocracy against an aristocratic rule (although yes it swapped such with rule by gentry).



I think you'll find an awful lot of aristocrats lost their heads to the guillotine. The French Revolution was also very much a rebellion against patricians (slaves and plebs being not so far removed).

U.S. didn't have hereditary titles in name, but it did in practice, since a title just means you are lord of x land. Instead of peasants to work the land in the U.S., you had slaves. Heck, even though you couldn't in France, in Britain at the time you could just buy titles.

The problem is you are dichotomizing society into "aristocracy" and "non-aristocracy". The American Revolution, while decking itself with Enlightenment ideals, didn't actually receive any of its impetus from them. The basic reasons were pretty simple, taxation without representation, quartering soldiers in houses, stuff like that. Most people were not interested in fighting a war with Britain over hereditary titles, since there pretty much were none in the U.S. anyway.

Slaves and plebes are extremely far removed. Plebes can vote and have official representation, and are entitled to the same rights as patricians as far as the law goes.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I might also add that in a lot of countries, the non-aristocratic elite were wealthier than the aristocracy, since the non-aristocrats had banking, merchants, insurance, and all that, whereas the aristocracy was mainly agriculture. And even the more lucrative agriculture, that is beef and sheep and so on, was more and more dominated by the bourgeoisie, ever since enclosure. The aristocracy had to ensure the welfare of the peasants living on their land, whereas the bourgeoisie seized common land (owned by no one), which peasants were living and farming on, and just kicked them off and built fences around it, since sheep and pork and beef and all that can't support as many people since it eats up too much grain. Thus even landowners who were non-aristocrats started doing very well for themselves.

 

[Inkfingers]

U.S. didn't have hereditary titles in name, but it did in practice, since a title just means you are lord of x land. Instead of peasants to work the land in the U.S., you had slaves. Heck, even though you couldn't in France, in Britain at the time you could just buy titles.

Yes, the origin of title is related to "title deed" however that did not give you a seat in the senate comparable to the House of Lords.

The problem is you are dichotomizing society into "aristocracy" and "non-aristocracy". The American Revolution, while decking itself with Enlightenment ideals, didn't actually receive any of its impetus from them. The basic reasons were pretty simple, taxation without representation, quartering soldiers in houses, stuff like that. Most people were not interested in fighting a war with Britain over hereditary titles, since there pretty much were none in the U.S. anyway.

It was a war of a republic against a King. You don't get more anti hereditary titles than that.

And France's revolution was the same.

Liber/Libera were the deities of the plebians and represented their freedoms aginst the aristocratic rule of the patricians.

Slaves and plebes are extremely far removed. Plebes can vote and have official representation, and are entitled to the same rights as patricians as far as the law goes.

Not in their relationship to the patrician they are not. Many plebian rebellions have compared their condition to the servitude of slaves.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Yes, the origin of title is related to "title deed" however that did not give you a seat in the senate comparable to the House of Lords.

No, but it was a requirement. Even voting required you own land (unlike ancient Athens).

Liber/Libera were the deities of the plebians and represented their freedoms aginst the aristocratic rule of the patricians.

The "haute bourgeoisie" did not think of themselves as "plebeians". If anything, they thought of themselves as aristocrats, and were irritated that the aristocrats did not think of them as such.

Not in their relationship to the patrician they are not. Many plebian rebellions have compared their condition to the servitude of slaves.

Yes, that is the whole point. The plebeians weren't slaves, and were supposed to be treated quite differently. The plebeians did not sympathized with or care about slaves, they saw them as a lower class. Slaves were legally property, non-persons. Plebes were legal persons and were outraged if they lost any of their rights in a way that made them closer to slaves. Plebeians were in fact the ones who kept the slaves in line and put them down, since they made up the bulk of the military, and that was the major source of their power. Plebeian political emancipation begin when they were allowed to serve in the military and had to be equipped by the state: plebes then had access to high quality armor, weapons and training, and no longer could be trifled with, and so they had to be given rights. But this was all when Rome was barely more than a city state, not during the period most people think of when they think of ancient Rome.