tom -- thomas baio wrote an article arguing that the american revolution was just a traditional colonial war of independence. like vietnam and anticolonial wars of the type that and is not a revolution. now, is this just a semantical play as too how we define revolutions? all revolutions usually involve rebellion, a political revolution, or is it? is there a rope -- reason why the word "revolution" is valid. >> the question is, was the american revolution just a war for colonial liberation? wail, just a war that? that's a pretty big thing, anybody who has through a war for colonial liberation, it's massive in its dislocation of society and consequences if even if were just that, would not be extraordinary. but it's more than that. this is the first war for colonial liberation. somebody has to go first. somebody has to set the press tent, and setting the precedent then makes i easier for people later to imagine they could do it and it could succeed. but imagine if you don't have that precedent? what an emotorhome mose set of risks and that's one of the reasons why there were so many loyal