American Independence

[mistermack]

Don't Americans make far too much of all that "Birth of a Nation" bullshit?

Canada and Australia did just fine without a war of independence, and anyway, the true motives for the war are being airbrushed out of existence. 

From my reading, the British government had put huge money into establishing the colony, and protecting the colonials, but the colonials didn't want to pay any share of it. And the other bone of contention was that the British wanted to expand westwards into the Indian lands more peacefully, by treaty etc, whereas the colonials wanted to drive the Indian nations off their lands by force and try to exterminate them. As they subsequently did. 

Also, the winning of the war itself was down to the intervention of the French, rather than a glorious struggle by the colonials. 

History in the US is about as twisted as what's taught in Japan. Why can't people just accept historical facts as they happened? 

[Genady]

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Why can't people just accept historical facts as they happened? 

Because people don't care?

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

Because people don't care?

They care very much, or they wouldn't keep quoting the constitution like it's some sort of Bible. 

[Genady]

Just now, mistermack said:

They care very much, or they wouldn't keep quoting the constitution like it's some sort of Bible. 

Constitution is a law that applies today. Unlike the historical facts.

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

Constitution is a law that applies today.

It's far more than that though. Laws can be constantly modified. And anyway, if you choose your own "facts" you abandon reason. 

Like Donald Trumps claim to have won the last election. If facts don't matter, then he's perfectly right. 

[Genady]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

Laws can be constantly modified.

Perhaps you know that it is very difficult to modify constitution.

 

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If facts don't matter, then he's perfectly right. 

Unfortunately, people go with it.

[mistermack]

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

Unfortunately, people go with it.

That's what it boils down to. People are gullible, in every nation. They are fed a version of history that those in power think will solidify and stabilise the national unit and maintain the social order. And it works so well that people absolutely believe the untrue versions of history (and the present day) that they are fed.

It's not just North Korea and Japan that practice history-bending indoctrination, it's virtually every country on the planet. 

Having said that, it's the winners that generally get to write the history, the losers have to just suck it up. 

[Genady]

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

it's virtually every country on the planet

Yes, with a little subtlety. In democratic societies there are often several versions of history, accepted by different groups.

[swansont]

 

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

From my reading, the British government had put huge money into establishing the colony, and protecting the colonials, but the colonials didn't want to pay any share of it.

!

Moderator Note

I hope this isn’t going to be another thread where you make assertions without providing the properly-cited source of your alleged information. Because that will not fly.

 

 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

History in the US is about as twisted as what's taught in Japan. Why can't people just accept historical facts as they happened? 

Same reasons as everywhere else.  Blame de Tocqueville for getting us started on the whole American exceptionalism narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

It's harder for politicians to get people to pay taxes and fight in wars, if they start to realize their nation came from theft and plunder and genocide and wealthy landowners protecting their interests.  Many nations have whitewashed versions of history they teach children - the latest whitewashing spree by the US GOP is nothing new.

[Sensei]

58 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

!

Moderator Note

I hope this isn’t going to be another thread where you make assertions without providing the properly-cited source of your alleged information. Because that will not fly.

 

 

It is politics...

 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

History in the US is about as twisted as what's taught in Japan. Why can't people just accept historical facts as they happened? 

Each nation and/or generation learns a different version of history.

What you have learned is not the same as what people on this forum have learned, and is not even the same as what people from younger or older generations have learned..

 

 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Why can't people just accept historical facts as they happened? 

..but you have no access to "historical facts"...

 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/history_is_written_by_the_victors

"History is often told according to the interpretation and biases of prevailing historical actors, often those who won in geopolitical disputes or otherwise became dominant forces in society."

 

ps. What with Russian independence?

 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Don't Americans make far too much of all that "Birth of a Nation" bullshit?

Objectively? No

Subjectively? Maybe

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

where you make assertions without providing the properly-cited source of your alleged information

The point is that the official version of history is tainted by what people would rather believe, and be told. I'm assuming that Americans know enough of their own history to recognise the point I'm making even if they don't agree with it. 

I saw a documentary a few days ago, which included analysis of Paul Revere's famous ride, shouting "The British Are Coming". 

They were abosolutely catagoric in that it never happened, and would never have happened. For a start, he was riding through towns and villages of people who considered themselves British at the time, and he would not have been shouting for fear of apprehension, and he could never have made the ride, in the time, and warned people at the same time. 

He rode a horse, and delivered a message, and that was it. And it's rather typical of the whole story of the independence process. Fiction being written over facts. 

The point about the intention of the colonials to expand west should really be common knowledge to Americans, but this quote from wiki illustrates it :

Preventing conflict between settlers and Indian tribes west of the Appalachian Mountains also avoided the cost of an expensive military occupation.^[44]

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was designed to achieve these aims by refocusing colonial expansion north into Nova Scotia and south into Florida, with the Mississippi River as the dividing line between British and Spanish possessions in America. Settlement was tightly restricted beyond the 1763 limits, and claims west of this line, including by Virginia and Massachusetts, were rescinded despite the fact that each colony argued that their boundaries extended from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean.^[44]              

The real truth is that the only people who had political power in the colonies were rich landowners, and they were the very people who stood to make a fortune from westward expansion into indian homelands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War  

Edited May 22, 2023 by mistermack

[swansont]

42 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The point is that the official version of history is tainted by what people would rather believe, and be told

!

Moderator Note

If you don’t cite your sources, then you are not offering up anything better. 

You also are presenting this from a perspective that you know what other people understand.

This is not an acceptable approach.

 

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Objectively? No

Subjectively? Maybe

From the outside, it appears thus. The Americans act like it's Coronation Day  in the UK everyday. Everytime I put US news on there's a flag waver.

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Everytime I put US news on there's a flag waver.

There's waving, and then there's .  .  .      Uggghhh !   

 

[TheVat]

It bugs me that John Mellencamp's Little Pink Houses which was intended to be a cynical and sarcastic ("ain't that America...") look at America's problems with race and materialism,  has been appropriated by all these GOP flag wavers as if it's some sort of patriotic love song to America.  Ugh!

 

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

There's waving, and then there's .  .  .      Uggghhh ! 

Let's be grateful it stopped with just kissing....

[Endy0816]

15 hours ago, mistermack said:

Don't Americans make far too much of all that "Birth of a Nation" bullshit?

Canada and Australia did just fine without a war of independence, and anyway, the true motives for the war are being airbrushed out of existence. 

From my reading, the British government had put huge money into establishing the colony, and protecting the colonials, but the colonials didn't want to pay any share of it. And the other bone of contention was that the British wanted to expand westwards into the Indian lands more peacefully, by treaty etc, whereas the colonials wanted to drive the Indian nations off their lands by force and try to exterminate them. As they subsequently did. 

Also, the winning of the war itself was down to the intervention of the French, rather than a glorious struggle by the colonials. 

History in the US is about as twisted as what's taught in Japan. Why can't people just accept historical facts as they happened? 

That's not the whole story.

The British wanted to better control Colonial governors and so required higher taxes for paying them(previously paid directly by the Colonists), in addition to the cost of the war.

The East India Company was granted a rebate from the Tea Tax, effectively giving them a tea monopoly. The unhappy Colonists found out about it, resulting in their tea being dumped.

The following Intolerable Acts, Boston Massacre and lack of any representation in Parliament led to the war. They attempted to contact the King but this led nowhere.

Indentured Servitude used to be big early on. As contracts expired this resulted in landless individuals who obviously had much to gain from westward expansion.

The French contributions, Lafayette's at least, are fairly well known.

At several points there were wealthy or connected individuals involved. Ultimately poor governance and sheer distances led to most of the issues though.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Endy0816

[genio]

14 hours ago, mistermack said:

That's what it boils down to. People are gullible, in every nation. They are fed a version of history that those in power think will solidify and stabilise the national unit and maintain the social order. And it works so well that people absolutely believe the untrue versions of history (and the present day) that they are fed.

It's not just North Korea and Japan that practice history-bending indoctrination, it's virtually every country on the planet. 

Having said that, it's the winners that generally get to write the history, the losers have to just suck it up. 

Rosy retrospection - Wikipedia

I'd suggest you stop reading history because you're not the type of person who's bound to repeat it and see the solutions to humanity's problems.

[mistermack]

13 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

That's not the whole story.

I take your comments, yes of course, I'm just giving a different slant on it that's usually skimmed over, rather than attempting an objective comprehensive summary. But I think that some of the factors that you quote are more the things used to motivate people to fight, rather than real underlying political motivations. That's a common feature of most wars. 

For example, the weak Irish independence movement got a huge boost when the British executed the Easter Rising captives. One was pulled from a hospital bed and tied to a chair to receive the bullets. Before that, there was little appetite in Ireland for independence. After it, support just grew and grew. And the heavy handed tactics of the British just made it inevitable, in the end. But none of that was involved in the initial independence movement. 

[Endy0816]

10 hours ago, mistermack said:

I take your comments, yes of course, I'm just giving a different slant on it that's usually skimmed over, rather than attempting an objective comprehensive summary. But I think that some of the factors that you quote are more the things used to motivate people to fight, rather than real underlying political motivations. That's a common feature of most wars. 

For example, the weak Irish independence movement got a huge boost when the British executed the Easter Rising captives. One was pulled from a hospital bed and tied to a chair to receive the bullets. Before that, there was little appetite in Ireland for independence. After it, support just grew and grew. And the heavy handed tactics of the British just made it inevitable, in the end. But none of that was involved in the initial independence movement. 

There wasn't any initial push or movement for independence. That didn't happen until later.

Took a ton to make anyone want to leave with brutal tribal warfare going on and hostile European powers around.

 

 

[mistermack]

My own feeling about the whole process is that it's constantly mis-represented as something earth-shaking and noble, and yet the examples of Canada and Australia illustrate that if there had never been a war, things would probably have ended up better, not worse. Slavery would probably have been abolished much sooner, and the Indian nations would have possibly got a better deal, for a while at least, although it's impossible to say what would and wouldn't have happened. 

But this "birth of a nation" stuff is just propeganda. A nation would have just continued to grow, without a war, and would probably be twice the size now in space, as it would include all of Canada. 

[Endy0816]

7 hours ago, mistermack said:

My own feeling about the whole process is that it's constantly mis-represented as something earth-shaking and noble, and yet the examples of Canada and Australia illustrate that if there had never been a war, things would probably have ended up better, not worse. Slavery would probably have been abolished much sooner, and the Indian nations would have possibly got a better deal, for a while at least, although it's impossible to say what would and wouldn't have happened. 

But this "birth of a nation" stuff is just propeganda. A nation would have just continued to grow, without a war, and would probably be twice the size now in space, as it would include all of Canada. 

I always took the release happening only because Britain finally saw the writing on the wall. Either had to reform or they knew now from experience that they would face costly rebellion(whether successful or not).

Majority of our growth also involved extensive land purchases from France, Spain, Russia and Mexico. Would have been a very different history if we couldn't expand westward freely or were constantly dragging Britain into further conflicts here.

 

I figure worked out well enough.

 Had the rebellion happened later, slightly differently or even not at all could have meant no effective help against Germany down the line.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Endy0816

[zapatos]

6 hours ago, mistermack said:

Slavery would probably have been abolished much sooner,

 

6 hours ago, mistermack said:

A nation would have just continued to grow, without a war, and would probably be twice the size now in space, as it would include all of Canada. 

Sigh... Citations?

[Endy0816]

Just to put things in perspective, this is roughly what US's expansion consisted of.