Rating: 
Summary: Too Eurocentric
Review: Well, as a Brit, his focusing principally on events in Europe is understandable, yet one cannot help but wonder - why did his "Age of Revolution" begin in 1789 instead of 1776? Surely the American Revolution, over the long run, has proven to be the most influential in world affairs, yet this prominent historian apparently didn't think it warranted any significant discussion. This seems rather odd. Perhaps his Marxist ideology has blinded him to the possibility that a nation could be founded on entirely different ideals, and be far more successful as a result. After all, Marx only promised his workers a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" which was, when all was said and done, still a dictatorship (witness the USSR or, for that matter, Castro's Cuba). In contrast, the American Founding Fathers forged a nation based on much higher ideals, namely, the right of each individual to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". It would seem that this fact is worthy of a bit more memtion in what is supposed to be a thorough examination of the effects of revolutions in the late 18th through mid 19th centuries.
|
