In this week\u2019s readings, I found it extremely interesting that both Pauline Maier and Wayne E. Lee argue for a historical reexamination, and eventual redefinition, of mob culture in the eighteenth century. There are several points where Maier and Lee overlap in their respective works, and collectively I think these commonalities only bolster the argument they strive to make. The first of these overlaps is found in claims that, by and large, mob action and riots were carefully planned and often used only as a last source of appeal to authority, both in Europe and Colonial America. Maier and Lee both state that mobs emerged only after all other legal options of airing political grievances had been shut down. With this in mind, each author emphasizes that this was very likely the case because each mobs seems to have practiced a \u201criot protocol\u201d that almost all people seemed to follow (Lee 18). Lee continues to argue that the protocol was so specific that we can actually find patterns of mob action throughout early America. This provides us with a unique image of a riot as what was once a very formal, calculated affair, and mobs as groups of people who were \u201cso domesticated and controlled\u201d (Maier 17). Moreover, we can see through Lee and Maier that mobs in the eighteenth century were seen as legitimate political actors because their actions were often reinforced by the government in the form of \u201cpaternalistic\u201d responses to the mobs\u2019 grievances (Lee 17).<\/p>\n
A second shared point between Maier and Lee that I agree with is the idea of the mob as a community affair. Maier states that there was indeed a community aspect to mobs and that the targets of mob attacks were those viewed as bad neighbors or citizens \u2013 mobs were often acting out of the best interest of the community (12). Lee also emphasizes the mob as a community, particularly when he discusses the festive nature of rioting. From these two works I gained the feeling that in the eighteenth century, riots were one of a few ways communities could unite behind a common cause and a means by which people could assure camaraderie amongst themselves.<\/p>\n
With respect to my colleagues, I align myself with Ian\u2019s comments about his skepticism toward \u201cmob legitimacy.\u201d I have a difficult time simply reconciling mobs as, according to Maier and Lee, \u201ccareful\u201d and largely non-violent groups, especially with our contemporary perception of mobs as groups that exercise their influence through exclusively violent means (Lee 14). With that said, there is one point that I slightly disagree with in Ian\u2019s post, and it is that the riots that ensued in colonial America were in response to an \u201coppressive government.\u201d While I understand and fully agree with the broader point he is making about preserving colonists\u2019 liberties, I would agree more with Max\u2019s comments and argue that one point both Maier and Lee strive to assert is that these colonial governments were not oppressive as much as they were disconnected or aloof to colonists\u2019 demands. I think this can be seen in Lee\u2019s statement that oftentimes crowds would riot with the hope that the government \u201cwould react in a paternalistic way\u201d (Lee 17). In this case, I do not think rioters\u2019 problems were explicitly in response to government policy, but rather in simply getting authority to hear their political voices.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In this week\u2019s readings, I found it extremely interesting that both Pauline Maier and Wayne E. Lee argue for a historical reexamination, and eventual redefinition, of mob culture in the eighteenth century. There are several points where Maier and Lee overlap in their respective works, and collectively I think these commonalities only bolster the argument … <\/p>\n