What would you fight and potentially die for?

[devogue]

two bellas naughty bits, click click click, hoit me wioth youer rythum stick

Chaucer - the Knight's Tale if I'm not mistaken?

[Blind groper]

The thing is that history is very much a matter of interpretation. My interpretation of the American war of independence will be different to that of many Americans. I am aware, for example, that the trigger was not oppression of the people, but the increase in taxes, which really would only have much effect on the rich people. So the moneybags like George Washington, whose slaves made him a lot of money, would strongly resent the extra taxes. The thing is, though, that the not-so-rich would not go to war for that reason. So the wealthy then fire up the propaganda machine and start talking about 'liberty' and 'human rights', as if the British were actively taking those away.

Of course, not all the peoples of the time were vulnerable to such propaganda. Some would have been rational thinkers who reject that kind of illogic. Many of those rational thinkers would have remained British loyalists, which explains a lot of the sudden immigration into Canada at the time.

Now, I am sure some of the paragraphs above will annoy a few Americans who have been taught a different interpretation of the same history. However, I doubt you can provide convincing evidence that your interpretation is any more valid than mine.

[Cormac]

The thing is that history is very much a matter of interpretation. My interpretation of the American war of independence will be different to that of many Americans. I am aware, for example, that the trigger was not oppression of the people, but the increase in taxes, which really would only have much effect on the rich people. So the moneybags like George Washington, whose slaves made him a lot of money, would strongly resent the extra taxes. The thing is, though, that the not-so-rich would not go to war for that reason. So the wealthy then fire up the propaganda machine and start talking about 'liberty' and 'human rights', as if the British were actively taking those away.

Of course, not all the peoples of the time were vulnerable to such propaganda. Some would have been rational thinkers who reject that kind of illogic. Many of those rational thinkers would have remained British loyalists, which explains a lot of the sudden immigration into Canada at the time.

Now, I am sure some of the paragraphs above will annoy a few Americans who have been taught a different interpretation of the same history. However, I doubt you can provide convincing evidence that your interpretation is any more valid than mine.

Except of course, that taxes "trickle down".

[Ian]

Now, I am sure some of the paragraphs above will annoy a few Americans who have been taught a different interpretation of the same history. However, I doubt you can provide convincing evidence that your interpretation is any more valid than mine.

See: Teapot, Russel's.

And I think your interpretation sucks. If you're just going to focus on taxes, you have to ignore a lot of other things. Trade restrictions, the presence of British soldiers, the colonies' lack of say-so in how they were treated, the British reaction to Congress' petition of grievances, etc. If the "liberty and human rights propaganda" really was just that, you'd also have to ignore the Republic they established in the wake of the revolt from the crown.

[Don't Panic]

The thing is that history is very much a matter of interpretation. My interpretation of the American war of independence will be different to that of many Americans. I am aware, for example, that the trigger was not oppression of the people, but the increase in taxes, which really would only have much effect on the rich people. So the moneybags like George Washington, whose slaves made him a lot of money, would strongly resent the extra taxes. The thing is, though, that the not-so-rich would not go to war for that reason. So the wealthy then fire up the propaganda machine and start talking about 'liberty' and 'human rights', as if the British were actively taking those away.

Of course, not all the peoples of the time were vulnerable to such propaganda. Some would have been rational thinkers who reject that kind of illogic. Many of those rational thinkers would have remained British loyalists, which explains a lot of the sudden immigration into Canada at the time.

Now, I am sure some of the paragraphs above will annoy a few Americans who have been taught a different interpretation of the same history. However, I doubt you can provide convincing evidence that your interpretation is any more valid than mine.

In our history class at school we were told that one of the primary causes of the the war was taxation without representation. So hardly a secret that taxes played a role in starting it.

And as Cormac said, taxes trickle down. Everyone ends up paying for them.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You have a very ... interesting view of American history.

In what way specifically am I wrong?

You're not wrong, you're just not right.

[amused]

Quite a few of the original Americans were one step ahead of the noose back home in Eurasiaville, so they tended to have a 'fuckall' attitude anyway.

[Jason]

Quite a few of the original Americans were one step ahead of the noose back home in Eurasiaville, so they tended to have a 'fuckall' attitude anyway.

Opportunists. The most powerful nation in the world (England) was at war with the other two superpowers of the era (France and Spain) so the heroic 'Merkins declared independence most bravely.

[Animavore]

My right to parrrrrrrr-tay!

[Blind groper]

If you're just going to focus on taxes, you have to ignore a lot of other things. Trade restrictions, the presence of British soldiers, the colonies' lack of say-so in how they were treated, the British reaction to Congress' petition of grievances, etc. If the "liberty and human rights propaganda" really was just that, you'd also have to ignore the Republic they established in the wake of the revolt from the crown.

All of which is almost irrelevant.
The thing is that Canada, Australia, New Zealand all lived through exactly the same sets of conditions. We did not rebel against Britain because we did not have the same load of assholes refusing to pay taxes.

In due course, we others attained independence. At no stage did we sacrifice freedom. Our nations are today democratic and free. It seems reasonable to me to assume that, if the young USA did not have a bunch of wealthy shit stirring assholes refusing to pay taxes, you too would have had the benefit of enlightened British government until ready to attain independence, as a free and democratic nation.

[Ian]

Maybe, maybe not. You can't prove your interpretation is any more valid than mine.

Except you called our founding fathers a load of assholes (twice), so I'm going to go with mine. I see nothing "almost irrelevant" in what I posted.

[amused]

Quite a few of the original Americans were one step ahead of the noose back home in Eurasiaville, so they tended to have a 'fuckall' attitude anyway.

Opportunists. The most powerful nation in the world (England) was at war with the other two superpowers of the era (France and Spain) so the heroic 'Merkins declared independence most bravely.

Opportunists? Hell yeah. I haven't done the research, but by the time America went rogue did they have an inkling of how really huge a place they were sitting on? It's evident from the size of some of the original 13 colonies that they were clueless early on. But if they eventually had a grasp of the enormity of the place at the time of telling England to fuck off, why not? They could just keep moving west, which is what they did anyway.

[Blind groper]

You can't prove your interpretation is any more valid than mine.

Absolutely. This is a big part of what I am saying. History is all about interpretation. The interpretation that becomes most popular is generally that which is promoted as propaganda by whoever is the winner in a particular conflict. For Americans, that is the propaganda promulgated by those you call 'founding fathers'.

The point I would like you to accept, is that interpretation is not especially likely to be correct. My interpretation is also likely to be inaccurate in many ways. We simply do not know. The course of wisdom, though, is to agree that we do not know, and that whatever interpretation has been injected into our brains, is likely to be wrong.

[amused]

I have no doubt that the 'founding fathers' were a bunch of wankers with nothing but self-interest in mind. They've been put through the myth-making blender and bestowed with religious-like worshipfulness. Bleah. A bunch of assholes are miles away from the king and after a night of heavy drinking and pussy*, decide it's a good idea to tell the king to fuck off. Way more likely to be closer to the truth.

*With regrets to A+, you beacon of tolerance and rectitude.

[Blind groper]

Just to add to that, 21 of the founding fathers owned slaves. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... nd-Slavery

So were the founding fathers assholes?
They were politicians. QED.