I know exactly what you mean, Anon, but somehow I’m not certain that the place would have made much of a difference. The fact is that the debate over whether rebellions and revolutions should have taken place happens pretty much anywhere there is a revolution, and it is fueled by the simple fact that to people who have never been oppressed, the idea of armed revolution seems like an extreme reaction. People who have never faced death or torture for being who they are do not understand that there comes a point at which words are not enough, and a lot of people who HAVE faced oppression of that sort have families to consider whom they are rightly concerned for, because to them, a failed rebellion means death. I can see what you’re saying – in India, rebellion against the British empire worked eventually thus proving that such an endeavor was a possibility and no one today doubts whether change was possible, whereas in the Americas, we still very much have slavery at an institutional level in the form of the American prison system. It seems like an impossible pursuit, thus, I think, fueling at least part of the debate about “could Flint and Madi’s war have worked.” Still – I’m fairly certain we’d be having this debate over any historical piece, especially about India, since India as a country didn’t gain their independence until after WWII.