Why don't Americans revolt against the extreme inequality of wealth, and the government which represents rich people?
This is a little outside what you are looking, but it is the case nonetheless.Revolts are never people with little power or money against people with power or money. They are almost always (the French Revolution may be a slight exception) about two powerful groups fighting over who will be dominant. For example, the leaders of the American Revolution were very wealthy, powerful people. Even they needed the help of other powerful agencies around the world.For there to be a revolt in the United States over wealth distribution, there will have to be a rich and powerful group who feels they are not getting their share. It’s already happened. Research causes of the Civil War if you wish to learn more. The wealthy plantation class of the South was starting to lose wealth and power due to the industrialization of the North.
Will Americans revolt against Trump?
Not likely. Going from protesting to open revolt is a wide curve. The quickest, most likely way to go from one to the other would be to fire on protestors at large, like Assad or the Shah of Iran did. But why would Trump do that? His election was legal according to the law and tradition of the land. If he tried mass arrests, maybe, but he hardly has the manpower currently to do that. And both of these presume he is holding fasces(is in power), which he won't be until the event that Mr. Moore proposes to stop.In reality, this will not happen. Left wing America may be bitter and some may be sore losers, but they do not have the prerequisites of insurrection. Besides, I would take anything Moore has to say with a few grains of salt. Not only is he a vocal supporter of Hilary, he was also a Bernie supporter despite having a history of being one of the largest donors for the left wing. While I can't speak to how he spent this election, history tells me he probably payed out a pretty penny to see Hillary win.If, in the highly unlikely circumstance, Trump manages to do something completely insane that could make the opposition revolt, who has all the weapons to do so? The number of gun owners, military veterans, and police on the right vastly outnumber their counterparts on the left. This is furthered by the fact that a larger percentage of pro-Hillary would-be rebels would be from urban or suburban areas, far more likely to have more restrictive weapon laws. New York City is a huge source of democratic support in the North East. It also has laws banning almost any kind of weapon, as do most of the states near it. Thus most of the weapons would need to be acquired from underworld types, hardly a great source, let alone for a righteous political realignment.Most successful rebellions require foreign support(like the American War for Independence). Who would support a less stable America? China would be affected by shite trade, Russia seems to like Trump and has irs own problems, and most of NATO probably wouldn't care for a weaker America, even under a less helpful leader. A weak America may benefit a Russia intent on pushing the limits on NATO supremacy, but that would still be far fetched with the current state of their economy and the impact a collapsing dollar would have on global trade.
Would an American uprising against the government ever be possible?
I guess it depends on what you mean by an uprising. We had the Cliven Bundy and his henchmen uprising against the government just a year or so ago. With guns pointing at one another it came close to being a bloodier conflict than it was. One person was killed by federal law enforcement.Protests against our government happen all the time. These could be considered uprisings. The Women’s March in Washington this year was an uprising. Black Lives Matter is an uprising.Despite our country’s sordid and bloody past, I don’t believe another uprising like the civil war is possible. At this point the US military is the most powerful force on the planet. No other military in the world can defeat us and no number of armed citizens could, either.
Why do socialists hate the rich?
What is the reason behind all of this antipathy? Aren't you grateful for their innovation which allows many people the opportunity of employment? Many of you claim that they are getting rich off of your backs, and that their wealth actually belongs to you. But what if they replaced all of you with robot workers? Will you still feel the same way towards them?
Do you think the media should report on the killings and uprising in Bahrain?
What the journalists would like to report is censored and controlled by their corporate bosses. All of the challenges to dictatorship and oppression in the world should be covered. I do not beleive the Shia government of Syria (majority Sunni population) is a true Shia government anymore than I believe the Sunni government of Bahrain or Saudi are Sunnis. The dictators may claim this religious affiation or another one, but it is an empty claim. They are not religious and they are not following any holy book. They are part of the international crime syndicate, the Illuminati. They are uber wealthy dictators all in the pocket of western businessmen and western governments taken over by Illuminati so that everything western governments do is to serve the interests of wealth worshipers against the majority of the population.
Will there eventually be a worldwide revolt against the rich?
Nope. The majority of the world’s poorer people will probably see much more than 1% of the population as “the rich”. According to a report done by Credit Suisse in 2016, about the top 30% of adults hold 97% of the wealth, indicating that 70% of adults ( the poor in this case) share only 7.5 trillion dollars opposed to 242 trillion.Historically, the poor have not been very successful against the rich. There are many factors which contribute to their lack of wealth wether it be lack of resources, geographical difficulties etc. A poorer person would not only lack resources compared to the rich, but probably be in poorer health as well.
How should I change this thesis statement about Bacon's Rebellion?
over a century before the foremost event in american history, an identical uprising took place in jamestown, virgina... bacon's rebellion. ______________________________________... bacon's rebellion had several key points: -revolts against taxes -consists mostly of "poor" colonists against the "wealthy" gov't -upset about gov't policies it is very similar to revolutionary ideas in a more simple sense: -gov't should take care of ppl not the other way around -revolts against revenue-generating bills (taxes) -upset about presence of british regulars and laws -hope this helps =)
Kett's Rebellion of the poor 1549 in UK - why was it led by wealthy individuals?
Kett's (or ket's) Rebellion of 1549 was an uprising by the dispossessed peasants of Norfolk rebelling against the enclosure of common land by the wealthy/aristocrats. Yet this rebellion of the desperately poor was led by Robert Kett (or Ket) who was a very wealthy man (he owned Wymondham Manor). In Suffolk, the county to the south,a similar uprising of the dispossessed was led by John Harbottle, another wealthy man. Can anyone enlighten me as to why Robert Kett (a wealthy land-owning tanner) and John Harbottle (a wealthy wool and cloth merchant) should both side with the rebels. It must have been more than a simple feeling of compassion for their fellow men - both actually led the rebellions in their own counties, and risked their lives in so doing. Although John Harbottle escaped punishment, Robert Kett was imprisoned in the Tower of London before being hung in chains, still alive, from the battlements of Norwich Castle. There his painful death was drawn out over several days as a lesson to the local inhabitants. They must both have had very strong reasons for leading the rebellions. Does anyone know what they might have been?