Americans

[Guiscard]

Forced in the sense that the relationship we have with America has developed since the war, through our efforts as well, to the point where if the USA goes to war and asks us to we are forced to.

Its called an "alliance".
The U.K. backs up the U.S. and vice versa.
You're not recommending G.B. adopt an isolationist policy, are you?

No, I'd rather we acted more independently and assessed for ourselves whether we should follow America into wars. I am perfectly happy to support US action in Afghanistan, as I believe this is a worthy and honest cause, but not in Iraq. I'd rather we were not so tethered by the 'special relationship' to the extent where we cannot really decide whether or war is necessary. Anyway, I strongly doubt it will be so easy for the US to pull our strings in the future. There's been a massive backlash in the UK, and to be honest Iraq has done more than anything to destroy the relationship we once held.

[got tonkaed]

My apologies IZ, i was a little short last night and was just in a pouncing mood i suppose.

Anyway... he Yes article 3 of the declaration does should the infringements against the colonists and why they chose to revolt. However, i dont think any careful analysis of the declaration fails to realize that the average person in the colonies was probably not under that much duress as a result of these infringments.

The colonists expected the british to defend them from attacks from the at, so it shouldnt be all that surprising that they would quarter, since the troops are abroad. Certainly it would be an inconvience....but worthy of going to a revolution for, most likely not for the average colonist

Its one of those things with the standing army, where you cant have your cake and eat it too. It was pretty expensive for the British to keep a decent size army over there and protect the colonists. Likewise, the logistical problem of moving such a large army should be fairly evident.

Interestingly, every colonial power has followed similar rules with trials in other countries. Admittedly there arent all that many cases of colonial abuse from the colonizers, but justice probably wasnt upheld in all of them. Again i ask you though, a few people being wronged in boston was enough to make the southern colonies revolt?

Ill admit the trade is probably the big one of these grievnces...but admittedly, do you think the average peasant farmer really cared a whole lot where the tea or rum was being shipped from or to? Enough to go to war with the most powerful army in the world?

In the last two i would imagine these are par for any colonial course. Clearly they are not as black and white issues as are laid out here in teh declaration, nor are they as likely widespread as they come off.

Which brings me back to my earlier point which i didnt elucidate all that well. None of these grievances, likely affect your average colonist frequently enough to go to war with britain. Im guessing that they did affect a small minority, who were infused with enlightenment ideals, and wanted to make some good money. The situation for the Americans compared to other colonies was actually pretty good for the colonists.

However a wave of propaganda spread and a revolution did in fact start. But it was by no means a revolution that had incredible widespread support (perhaps not even until it became clear the Americans would win). Admittedly there were many moments when things clearly could have gone either way, and support definitly wavered.

So i ask you again, do you really think this is such an open and shut case that we can listen to the emic source of one particular revolutionary group and under stand on a widespread context the origins of the revolution?

[Iz Man]

My apologies IZ, i was a little short last night and was just in a pouncing mood i suppose.

np

The colonists expected the british to defend them from attacks from the at, so it shouldnt be all that surprising that they would quarter, since the troops are abroad. Certainly it would be an inconvience....but worthy of going to a revolution for, most likely not for the average colonist

This I am finding hard to stomach. Quartering troops in private homes without consent of the homeowner is an inconvenience !!??!!
You actually believe the "average" colonist didn't mind this?

Again i ask you though, a few people being wronged in boston was enough to make the southern colonies revolt?

So only the people living in Boston were "wronged"? Where are you getting this?

Ill admit the trade is probably the big one of these grievnces...but admittedly, do you think the average peasant farmer really cared a whole lot where the tea or rum was being shipped from or to? Enough to go to war with the most powerful army in the world?

Once again, there was much more than the Tea Tax going on that prompted the Colonists to unite in Revolution. G.B. being the most powerful nation in the world proves just how determined the Colonies were to revolt. Knowing who exactly they would be fighting against, and the risk of life because of how powerful England was, shows just how brutal the circumstances were at the time. They were going to fight against the King even though they knew how difficult it would be; they were pushed and oppressed to the breaking point.

In the last two i would imagine these are par for any colonial course. Clearly they are not as black and white issues as are laid out here in teh declaration, nor are they as likely widespread as they come off.

So Thomas Jefferson et all were just exaggerating the circumstances? Once again, exaggerating them enough to risk their lives in revolt against the most powerful nation at the time?

Which brings me back to my earlier point which i didnt elucidate all that well. None of these grievances, likely affect your average colonist frequently enough to go to war with britain. Im guessing that they did affect a small minority, who were infused with enlightenment ideals, and wanted to make some good money. The situation for the Americans compared to other colonies was actually pretty good for the colonists. However a wave of propaganda spread and a revolution did in fact start.

See the bold print in your statement.
So again the Revolution was so this minority of the landowner minority could make more money?
The situation for the Americans was so good that they bought into the "propaganda" of these elitists? A bunch of sheep following the shepard, I guess.

It was by no means a revolution that had incredible widespread support (perhaps not even until it became clear the Americans would win). Admittedly there were many moments when things clearly could have gone either way, and support definitly wavered.

As in any conflict, support will flourish & waiver. There were several moments where it could have gone either way; but without "widespread" support, do you actually think it would have been successful? Your assertion that the Americans weren't a united front against the English until "it was clear they were going to win" is utterly preposterous. The French helped, sure, but without the Americans uniting, the war would have been lost before it started.

So i ask you again, do you really think this is such an open and shut case that we can listen to the emic source of one particular revolutionary group and under stand on a widespread context the origins of the revolution?

The reasons for the Revolution are outlined plain and clear in the Declaration. The authors did not write it solely for their selfish purposes as you contend. If it did not have the widespread support of the American people, then why no "second revolution" against the Founding Fathers given the strife & difficulties that arise when trying to grow a fledgling nation? Why no support for England just a few years later in the War of 1812?
Your profile says you are an American. I find it disturbing that you insist on classifying the Founders of this country as nothing but a bunch of money-grubbing landowners, willing to risk the lives of fellow colonists in the interest for an extra buck.
Tell you what, I'll get a few of my friends, arm ourselves to the teeth, and quarter ourselves in your house. For your own protection, of course. Afterall, the logistics involved with running a militia are pretty extensive.
I'm sure you won't mind, as it will only be a bit of an inconvenience......

[mr. incrediball]

oh please don't tell me the mods actually followed through on their threats to change flame wars...

[got tonkaed]

Im sorry IZ ive tried to respond to this a bunch of times but this comptuer has had some issues. Ill try and get to your issues later, but im a bit frusterated with this to type it out again.

I would simply leave you with this. I dont believe it is as black and white as you have claimed i have. I also believe the idea that we simply did what was right against a villian in Britain is a bedrock for a dangerous american foreign policy today.


Ill disregard your silly comment about quartering.

[Blueoctober]

Forced in the sense that the relationship we have with America has developed since the war, through our efforts as well, to the point where if the USA goes to war and asks us to we are forced to.

Its called an "alliance".
The U.K. backs up the U.S. and vice versa.
You're not recommending G.B. adopt an isolationist policy, are you?

as i was skimming through this rediculous thread started by an idiot and continued by other idiots who hate america for what we have done i came across this particulary stupid sentence. America doesnt need the support of britain you need us. ihate to use rhetoric but you'd be speaking german right now if not for us.

[Guiscard]

as i was skimming through this rediculous thread started by an idiot and continued by other idiots who hate america for what we have done i came across this particulary stupid sentence. America doesnt need the support of britain you need us. ihate to use rhetoric but you'd be speaking german right now if not for us.

Who were you speaking about? Iz or myself?

(Either way its a load of bollocks, but still...)

[Iz Man]

I would simply leave you with this. I dont believe it is as black and white as you have claimed i have. I also believe the idea that we simply did what was right against a villian in Britain is a bedrock for a dangerous american foreign policy today.

So we did not do "what was right" in revolting against King George?
Perhaps you would prefer staying subject to a foreign monarchy?
Asserting that our Declaration of Independence is the basis of American foreign policy is pretty ridiculous. It was drafted to explain to the world why we felt it was absolutely necessary to revolt against an oppressive monarchy.

It seems you are trying very hard (why, I don't know) to destroy the great names & deeds of our founders. I find that sad.
You have demeaned the great men who founded this country, the country in which you live.
Fortunately, for you, you have that right.
As granted to you by those very same people whom you spit on.

Ill disregard your silly comment about quartering.

Excellent. We'll be right over.

[got tonkaed]

well, admittedly, it doesnt seem as necesary to discuss some of the other aspects of the issue with you.

I do feel on the whole that it was a good thing that the founders sought independence. However its a complex issue. You can do a thing which is beneficial to you, with suspect or sometimes somewhat silly from a broader level of analysis methods. I question whether or not you realize that this was my intent. At no point have i ever believed that they shouldnt have go on with the revolution, it clearly was very beneficial for the americans.

I agree with you that the way you typed that is an absurd idea. However, ill try to bring out the point a little clearer. If an individual thinks that this country sets a model with its revolutionary period, and that we did it with all of the best intentions motives so on so forth it sets us up as some kind of beneficient power that isnt necesarily the truth. Issues on this level are complex, and when people reduce them too far, it clouds their thinking. Its not as simple as the idea as if you cant get things accomplished like America your doing something wrong. And although teh idea doesnt come strictly from the declaration, their is a legacy that is established from a just take it as it is line of thinking.

I dont think ive dishonored anyone by trying to see a complex issue with a broader scope that what was fed to me.

[Jenos Ridan]

Then again, if the Brittish Government at the time wasn't a bunch of pomposs, wig-wearing opiate addicts and if the colonial policy didn't treat us like scum, maybe we wouldn't be so different.

out of curiosity...i would like to explain this claim. It is the popular one in american schools, but at the same time, it seems rather contrary to the pretty decent position that the colonists did hold. Either way, id like to hear your rationale.

We screamed about taxes and a lack of fair (or, indeed any) representation. Further, Read the Declaration of Independence.

[got tonkaed]

Then again, if the Brittish Government at the time wasn't a bunch of pomposs, wig-wearing opiate addicts and if the colonial policy didn't treat us like scum, maybe we wouldn't be so different.

out of curiosity...i would like to explain this claim. It is the popular one in american schools, but at the same time, it seems rather contrary to the pretty decent position that the colonists did hold. Either way, id like to hear your rationale.

We screamed about taxes and a lack of fair (or, indeed any) representation. Further, Read the Declaration of Independence.

jenos...IZ and I did go over some of these things in the last 2 pages of the thread.

I have read the declaration a few times, Once more in this thread thanks to IZ lol. I also respond to the taxation and representation issue.

[Stopper]

If an individual thinks that this country sets a model with its revolutionary period, and that we did it with all of the best intentions motives so on so forth it sets us up as some kind of beneficient power that isnt necesarily the truth. Issues on this level are complex, and when people reduce them too far, it clouds their thinking. Its not as simple as the idea as if you cant get things accomplished like America your doing something wrong. And although teh idea doesnt come strictly from the declaration, their is a legacy that is established from a just take it as it is line of thinking.

Interesting. Personally, I've always thought that the current attitude that prevails amongst certain Americans (and often Brits) - that they are a unwavering force for benevolence in the world - stems primarily from the Second World War.

I suppose the reason why I think this is because of the number of times I see the spirit of WWII get raised by all kinds of people, from the hoi polloi up to the political leadership, in many different ways. To pick examples off the top of my head: we keep hearing Churchill's name in irrelevant contexts; how British people would all speaking German now if it wasn't for the Americans; comparisons of all kinds of enemies to the Nazis/Fascists when it isn't really relevant ("Islamofascism" being a particularly bad example - also cf Godwin's Law.) I know the American administration has raised the spectre of Churchill in connection with the War On Terror at least once, but it'd take me a while to find out exactly how and when.

I've always thought that WWII has poisoned British discourse in all sorts of issues, and I probably sort of assumed it was exactly the same in America.

Sorry for getting off the point: the motivations for the American Revolution. I just wanted to say that.

[got tonkaed]

Interesting. Personally, I've always thought that the current attitude that prevails amongst certain Americans (and often Brits) - that they are a unwavering force for benevolence in the world - stems primarily from the Second World War.

Id agree with you here, and say this is more likely the case. Id believe the revolutionary aspect is perhaps a part, but not nearly as strong a part as WW2.

I also agree with the other things you mention in the post, but thats nothing new, you and guiscard usually are pretty spot on to how i would feel about an issue.

[Stopper]

Interesting. Personally, I've always thought that the current attitude that prevails amongst certain Americans (and often Brits) - that they are a unwavering force for benevolence in the world - stems primarily from the Second World War.

Id agree with you here, and say this is more likely the case. Id believe the revolutionary aspect is perhaps a part, but not nearly as strong a part as WW2.

Wow, fast response!

Well, before you get me wrong, I didn't mean to actually contradict what you said re American Revolution influence on American society today, because, quite frankly - I couldn't possibly comment.

I just meant my perception as to American benevolence etc, before you brought it up tonight, was almost solely based on WWII, and I hadn't give the Revolution much thought. I suppose I certainly know its influence isn't non-existent, that's obviously ridiculous, but you piqued my curiosity as to maybe it has more influence than I thought.

[got tonkaed]

Fast Response redux...i have the day off work and no plans as of yet....

I dont know if one could really be able to tell too much, other than it probably has an imprint on the culture. I know that at least from all of the learning i had before college, its presented as an American success story. Im sure it varies as to how much, but lets face it, no one is sitting discussing Britains view on the issue in these classes. It wasnt really until i took a few different history courses (and learned just a little about British colonial/imperial policy) and faced a little bit more evidence about the american revolution, that i thought it might not be such a black and white issue.

Its certainly most likely not something where one makes the quick connection from hey we are winners to this is how things should be. But id imagine its part of the rationale that makes it merely a stones throw.

[Jenos Ridan]

as i was skimming through this ridiculous thread started by an idiot and continued by other idiots who hate america for what we have done I came across this particulary stupid sentence. America doesn't need the support of britain you need us. I hate to use rhetoric but you'd be speaking german right now if not for us.

Who were you speaking about? Iz or myself?

(Either way its a load of bollocks, but still...)

Well, Russia might have been able to pressure Germay from the east, but without a two-front war, it merely meant a long campaign against the Soviets. If the US wasn't there, maybe you'd have had the time to start fighting back, but I doubt that alot. I'm sure my good friend Hunter Clark, military historian and certified sadist, would agree.

[autoload]

I like how this thread started as a joke in Flame Wars, but has since evolved into an actual discussion and moved to Social Lounge.

[Dancing Mustard]

The miracles of evolution never cease to manifest themselves.

PS. Creationists are teh sux!!!!1111!!!

[mr. incrediball]

as i was skimming through this rediculous thread started by an idiot and continued by other idiots who hate america for what we have done i came across this particulary stupid sentence. America doesnt need the support of britain you need us. ihate to use rhetoric but you'd be speaking german right now if not for us.

hmm... actually weighing up the evidence i reckon we could have pulled through without america... against germany at least... but japan wouldn't have been too much trouble once the whole of europe was liberated.

and anyway, we wouldn't be speaking german, but russian.

and you spelt ridiculous wrong, please stop talking out of your arse...

[The1exile]

I like how this thread started as a joke in Flame Wars, but has since evolved into an actual discussion and moved to Social Lounge.

Something, somewhere, went terribly wrong. The Flame Wars was never a good place for smart people to be.

[gingis khan]

Oh wow, the tides of the forums washed this creaking pile of trash to the social lounge...

I miss that Gingis guy though. Flaming him was fun times.

hello ...just for you "dancing "brain washed" something" ...go quote cnn,sky...whatever...even worse-believe it!

[gingis khan]

Man, all this awesome from one country really gives me a boner.

Yet another stupid quote from a belligerent american who can't even spell his name!

how is getting a whole bunch of jerks off their "high horses" a joke?????

[Dancing Mustard]

Jagshemash Gingis!
I read for the news today and no blieve Eurpen Court; many times is etick of motherland (WTF the lawn of Chechnya?). On the television cross is muy surrealism; yankee pigdogs? They say true.
You (I DISAGREE__)bellive all, is product 12 guage of sprocket machine. Sniperist, very nice. High horse of (!!!!!!!?!!!!!) no edukate, moralism never end ventrue. Logistics of lorrry wheel many times; but no cart(hypoteticl) Pikachu smash(disqualify, demand, goodnite). ECCUSE ME WHILE I KISS THE SKie. You many no argue about hands of priciing hihg-horse. In Serbia, there are nine. Onety-one eleven.
You brain washed for believe International Court of Justice. Puppet of the Axis powers. Nuremburg a go-go with the lapdance of elves. BEHEMOTH.

[Dmunster]

Why do you all hate America?

Now that's a question this thread hasn't dealt with yet... good chap!

I just like to toss that little tidbit of stinky bait out in threads like these just to see the uproar.

[flashleg8]

Why do you all hate America?

Now that's a question this thread hasn't dealt with yet... good chap!

I just like to toss that little tidbit of stinky bait out in threads like these just to see the uproar.

Troll.