Question

Briefly explain the opposing viewpoints on the "radical" nature of the revolution

Answer 1

See explanation

Step-by-step explanation:

Radical revolution has to do with a violent move by people towards achieving a political change. The French revolution was far more radical than the American Revolution.

Usually, radical revolution comes along with political instability and upheavals that undermine even the internal cohesion of a state. This destabilizes the country and gives way to porosity in government.

Radical revolution also pose a threat to the fundamental right and liberty of citizens hence it is not recommended.

Answer 2

Step-by-step explanation:

Especially since the early 1950s, America has been concerned with opposing revolutions throughout the world; in the process, it has generated a historiography that denies its own revolutionary past. This neoconservative view of the American Revolution, echoing the reactionary writer in the pay of the Austrian and English governments of the early nineteenth century, Friedrich von Gentz, tries to isolate the American Revolution from all the revolutions in the western world that preceded it and followed it. The American Revolution, this view holds, was unique; it alone of all modern revolutions was not really revolutionary; instead, it was moderate, conservative, dedicated only to preserving existing institutions from British aggrandizement. Furthermore, like all else in America, it was marvelously harmonious and consensual. Unlike the wicked French and other revolutions in Europe, the American Revolution, then, did not upset or change anything. It was therefore a revolution and; certainly, it was a radical.

This is the generic explanation of the question.