The Revolution in a nutshell
Son stabs Dad in the back when he's not looking and glorifies in it forever after. Rather unedifying in my opinion.
shareNo one person is ever to be the subject of another.
That was what the revolution was about. But you already knew this and were just testing us, you sly devil, you.
No one person is ever to be the subject of another.
That's just sophistry, it was never about such lofty ideals, that came later, when they wanted to justify their treason, rather the whole sheebang was just an outrageous landgrab of Indian territory which the british had denied the colonists by dint of treaty with the actual owners.
And what about the poor blacks? The brits set them free but after the war the new Americans quickly rounded them up again! In fact, many were blinded and tortured for having the teremity to want to be free, I mean how dare they don't they know their place?
The reality is, I am afraid, that we've been lied to for centuries with the perpetrators offering up lies for truth and slavery instead of freedom.
Chanel N°3: "I heard that munching box is what killed Michael Douglas."
It was always about exactly such lofty ideals.
The war over the land was fought between the British and the French twenty years earlier. The British won and they tried to get all of the Native American nations to side with them. They failed. The Native Americans they did recruit picked the wrong side and lost along with the British.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
It was always about exactly such lofty ideals.
The war over the land was fought between the British and the French twenty years earlier. The British won and they tried to get all of the Native American nations to side with them. They failed. The Native Americans they did recruit picked the wrong side and lost along with the British.
Do you really believe that?
Surely, that's not what they are teaching in American schools is it?
The fact was the British didn't have to get 'Indians on side', they already had good relations following the 7 Years War and wanted to honor Indians territorial rights to their own land per treaty.
Also, don't you think its rather a coincidence that Washington, a property developer who married into money then made it one of his first priorities to gain access to Indian lands to the west, tearing up the Anglo-Native American 'in perpetuity' treaties?
Washington was America's richest ever man thanks to his plundering Indian territory immediately after the war.
And I love the way you just completely ignored the dreadful experience of British-freed African Americans and the way they were tortured and re-enslaved following the rebellion/war of independence?
Chanel N°3: "I heard that munching box is what killed Michael Douglas." share
I'd love to hear the claptrap they are teaching you, wherever you are.
The Iroquois Nation split between British and American sides over the American Revolution. The Mohicans split from the Delaware with the former going with the British and the latter going with the French in the French and Indian Wars (aka Seven Years War). Can you even name five Native American tribal groups?
As for racially based slavery, it was initiated by the Portuguese and the Spanish two hundred years before the American Colonies united against British imperialism. They brought it here in the 1500s. Our American South was settled by people who were overwhelmingly Scots-Irish. You remember who they were. They were the descendants of Scots that Oliver Cromwell had given land that he had seized from the rightful Irish owners. He did this in order to oppress the Irish Catholics and finally subdue them (at least until 1926 when the IRA gained serious ground over the British).
By the late 18th century American colonials had been well indoctrinated with the concept of white privilege, white in those days being 'British.' Of course they 're-enslaved' African descendants who did not escape to Canada. The British freedom had been illegally done. We had to fight our own Civil War in 1860 to 1865. We did not fight over two different interpretations of the same ridiculous superstition, round-heads against cavaliers over the Church of England against Catholicism. We fought over whether membership in the Union was revocable by the state and ultimately over the meaning of freedom.
The residents of European nations who did not allow slavery in their countries (not in 18th century anyway) pretend they have clean hands with regard to the practice. They only kept slaves in their colonies in the new world. Back home everybody belonged to the king. They were all equally slaves of the superstition of monarchy.
Pulleeese, pull your head out.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
I see, you're just an anti-British scumbag and from the way you post about the ira terrorists combined with your name you are obviously just a muh heritage retard.
What a bitter person you must be.
We had to fight our own Civil War in 1860 to 1865. We did not fight over two different interpretations of the same ridiculous superstition, round-heads against cavaliers over the Church of England against Catholicism.
You seriously think the English Civil War was about religion?
It was about monarchy vs Parliament.
Learn some frickin' history. share
The roots of the conflict did indeed trace to religion. The 'round-heads' were dyed in the wool protestants who were extremely hostile to the Catholic Church. Today they would probably fit the mold of what we call Evangelical fundamentalists.
King Charles I was suspected of wanting to take England back to Catholicism. The justification was about his technique of control and whether he allowed too much time to pass between parliaments. But the reason for the discrepancies over the parliaments was based on taxation and religious issues.
Of course, I am one of those people who believe that the root cause of all war can be traced to economics, but I haven't gone that far with the 17th century English Civil War. Maybe you can benefit from deeper reading about your own history.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
Charles I was a Protestant, like his father, and Elizabeth I before both. Charles actually caused controversy in Scotland when he tried to introduce Protestant practices there. The conflict about whether England would be Protestant or Catholic had unfolded in the Tudor times, and the last serious attempt at taking the country back to Catholicism was the Gunpowder Plot, decades before the Civil War, and it failed.
The Civil War was about the form England's administration should take. Charles and his supporters believed in the unquestionable right of the monarch to power, whilst the Parliamentarians wanted Parliament to be the key force with the monarchy, at first, reduced in power, and later, removed completely.
You trying to reinvent the war into a religious conflict seems to me to be a sneaky attempt at making the American War of Independence into the first time that the notion of monarchy was ever challenged.
I don't need to be sneaky about it, I'll say it straight out. Europe expressed open skepticism about the ability to establish and maintain a "democratic" republic as large as the United States were in 1783, much less where they ended up. The effort to replace the fatally flawed Articles of Confederation with the Constitution of the United States was a herculean effort.
Remember that after the Dutch established their free state they eventually went shopping for a monarch to come in and be the head of the state. I don't claim to be an expert on today's plethora of nation states, but I think the United States of America remains one of very few, if not the only republic wherein the head of state and the head of government resides in one person.
I agree with your second paragraph and I thank you for your correction regarding Charles I. I have been aware of the conflict over the role of the monarchy, but I got the impression that there remained lingering suspicion of Charles's connection to Mary. I also admit to having a lot of holes in my knowledge of English and British history. But suspicion of attempts to reintroduce Catholicism continued in England on through the Jacobite Rebellions.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
Americans really are the most naive people in the world. It must be all of that pledge of allegiance stuff you do as children in schools.
It was about the great traitor Washingtons personal lust for power, nothing more.