Always wondered how the history is presented in school for you brits. Do you feel King George was justified? Was he a tyrant? Do you think America was in the wrong? Do you think you brits should have won the war? Any bitter feeling towards the colonies and now subsequently the states?
The cold winds are rising. Winter is coming.
we don't get taught it, do you get taught vietnam as basic?
and therefore most dont care or know.
personally as someone who likes military history I couldnt give a **** as you were a money pit and we went on to better things.
I just dont like it when i hear you americans use words like tyranny when you treated the blacks and true natives far worse.
its pathetically two faced.
You don't get taught your own history for a major war that occurred for your nation?
It is tyranny plain and simple. That doesn't make America any better, but it's a fact.
The cold winds are rising. Winter is coming.
we have lots of history.
LOTS!
you dont.
its weak sauce tyranny compared to you and you are damn right it make's you worse funboy!, AND THATS FACT.
I'm judging by your continued use of Tu quoque, that you are in fact bitter about the outcome.
The cold winds are rising. Winter is coming.
NO JUST your ignorance.
shareWhy so hostile in your responses then? It's pretty telling of your character.
The cold winds are rising. Winter is coming.
Because its pathetic to bleat on about tyranny then move straight on to act even worse to blacks and real americans yet you dont see it or chose to ignore it.
shareWow you lack of historical knowledge is amazing.
Look up what the English did to the American Indian, Irish, Scottish, Welch, Asian Indians, Chinese, South African blacks, the indentured servants of the American colonies, and American colonial blacks to name a few and let me know if that is tyranny you fool.
Let me know if that is worse than what the Americans did to the Native Indians and black Americans from 1776 until now. Hell, just look at the 1840's and what British government did to Irish and get back to me.
stop blaming others for what you did once you had your so called freedom its all on you.
and I know what we did I just dont sing on about tyranny by others against my people.
you americans do and you ignore what you do to others its two faced, its like a rapist calling a rapist an animal
you stupid idiot.
so your answer totally dodged my point.
oh and it wasnt the british government it was the land lords of ireland, and indentured servants saved their lives you silly fool.
What system allowed the landlords of Ireland to exploit the Irish the way they did? The British colonial system. It wasn't simply government policies, but a complex political economy enabled by the governing class, that led to the death and de facto exile of millions of Irish. There was enough food sitting in the ports to feed the people of Ireland AND England, but they didn't want to interfere with the laissez faire economic policies that allowed for unfettered profit.
shareindeed similar to the americans in vietnam.
shareNo, not at all. America was barely involved in Vietnam before the war. France was. We got into the war because of our aggressive Anti-Communist positions, which turned out to be misguided. Well, not in principle but often in strategy.
No comparison to the English in Ireland, which was a thing for centuries. No comparison.
Yes just like vietnam you sided with the land barons, and killed millions in just a few years plenty of comparison.
shareWe were taught about it where I went to school. Guess it depends on how comprehensive your education was.
What some Americans don't seem to realise is that what is, for Americans, an incredible important historical event (obviously, since it's the birth of your country), isn't really all that significant for people in Britain. The American Revolution is, in terms of British history, arguably much less important than the end of the Raj, for example.
But yes, we were also taught that it wasn't some grand, noble bid for freedom. I think TURN does a good job of showing that it was as much a civil war within the American colonies as it was rebelling against a tyrannical, distant king. And I agree that the patriots bleating about freedom from oppression and tyranny was hypocritical given the institution of slavery and the genocide against America's native population.
To answer the OP's question about whether or not we're still "bitter," I doubt anyone wakes up in the morning ringing their hands over something that happened more than 200 years ago.
Anyway, happy July 4th to our American cousins.
Well don't be an *beep* he was just asking a question.
I personally, am starting to think that this "tyranny" thing was a bunch of bullsh.t and that the Freemasons just wanted to setup their new, "Mystery Babylon".
While the Native Indians....we just conquered the sh.t out of them and that's how it's usually done so don't complain. And slavery was usual & customary back then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LszZ30PCywo
While the Native Indians....we just conquered the sh.t out of them and that's how it's usually done so don't complain.
And slavery was usual & customary back then.
Wrong, they were conquered. Once they nearly had enough, the treaties gave them a chance to live. Without the treaties, they would have been decimated earlier. And how else do you conquer and take people's land? We learned from the British. You're crying about imperialism?
And big deal, 30 some years later, slavery was abolished. Your little island didn't have the vast farmland like we do.
I'm not "crying about imperialism." Britain has a terrible history of imperialism. I'm neither excusing it nor denying it, as you seem to be doing about your country's treatment of indigenous and/or enslaved peoples.
One thing that Americans seem reluctant to acknowledge is that the perpetuation of slavery was one of the myriad reasons for the American Revolution. There had been a groundswell of support for abolishing slavery in Britain and all of her colonies. The show itself alludes to it in s1.
American Indians were decimated by smallpox. To call that genocide is inflammatory and incorrect.
shareAmerican Indians were decimated by smallpox. To call that genocide is inflammatory and incorrect.
No, every reputable historian does not believe that because it's been debunked as false. The sole source of the "smallpox blankets" story was traced to one Professor Churchill at the University of Colorado. More scholarly research strongly suggests that it couldn't have happened as he claimed, and when confronted with the evidence he admitted he made it up! Even Indian spokesmen have said it's a lie. People will believe what they want, as usual..
From well-respected historian Stephen Ambrose -
"It is totally irresponsible to state, as has so often been stated, that the United States pursued a policy of genocide toward the Indians. The United States did not follow a policy of genocide; it did try to find a just solution to the Indian problem."
Ambrose, Stephen E.. Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors (Kindle Edition) (Kindle Locations 4537-4545). PREMIER DIGITAL PUBLISHING. Kindle Edition.
You're quoting out of context. Ambrose characterises the treatment of the native populations as "criminal." What he describes--the attempts to destroy native culture, forced assimilation, etc--is not, in his words, "the way we've come to understand genocide today" (in the aftermath of the Shoah, Kosovo, etc). But he doesn't defend the policy, as you seem to be implying. He condemns the treatment of the indigenous populations.
Churchill wasn't the only historian to advance the claim. Look at the work of Jeffrey Ostler, Ben Kiernan, countless others. Even Ambrose's objection isn't about the treatment of indigenous peoples; it's about the term used to characterise that treatment.
Crackpots, all...
All in the name of political-correctness and penance guilt trips for all.
That "Indian Problem" that you talk about. Is it similar to the "Jewsih Problem" that the Nazis had? If so, sounds like a candidate for genocide to me.
shareThat "Indian Problem" that you talk about. Is it similar to the "Jewsih Problem" that the Nazis had? If so, sounds like a candidate for genocide to me.This is a good example of why it's irresponsible to use the term genocide so casually. It doesn't equate with "treated horribly" or any other verbiage. The Indian problem Ambrose spoke of was real, not a scapegoat or blind hatred.
ok so if we don't call it "genocide" can we at least call it "decimation of culture/s"? whether it was through smallpox, Wars, the trail of tears, or wholesale slaughter, the Indians got a raw deal going all the way back to Plymouth Rock. To state otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.
shareI've lived in Texas for over 20 years and if you know the history of the white settlers (including people of Spanish descent) and the native population here, you also know that there is no Good Guy/Bad Guy scenario. The Comanche warred with their Native American neighbors just as they did with the Whites, and were known for their pronounced brutality. They raided homesteads and slaughtered their inhabitants, taking prisoners whom they tortured. Not because the settlers were elbowing out Comanche communities, necessarily, as because they were enemies just as any other potential contender for power was.
There was no Smallpox in this part of the country, no Trail of Tears.
Indian problem
says it all really
Man, stop lying. Show me where I'm excusing American Imperialism and its conquest? I'm all for it. Someone had to get f.cked up for another to take over. The Indians fought a good fight and they lost. While you're trying to assume some bullsh.t highroad and now you pretend not to.
shareWhile you're trying to assume some bullsh.t highroad and now you pretend not to.
You believe such genocide is wrong, yet you still live and prosper under such foundation built upon the blood of multitudes that you merely give lip-service to, therefore making you a hypocrite.
Happy Brexit to you!
You believe such genocide is wrong, yet you still live and prosper under such foundation built upon the blood of multitudes that you merely give lip-service to, therefore making you a hypocrite.
So no, I'm not "merely giving lip-service" to my condemnation of genocide and other human-rights abuses.Sure you are. If you really want to be believed then I suggest you give up any property you own and turn it over to the Indians (or any other minority with a grievance) and live your life as a repentant pauper.
"don't complain?" It's called genocide. See someone virtually wipe out your culture and see how flip you are then.
shareYeah let's just talk about England's benevolent conduct in Catholic Ireland! Oliver Cromwell is essentially viewed like Jews view Hitler and the lovely Potato Famine.
shareNow lets talk about most of the soldiers that destroyed the Native americans were Irish.
You do now that massacre in ireland by cromwell is a fable? virtually all the casualties were not Irish, seriously go read up on it.
I just looked up Cromwell's conduct in Ireland. Seems to be pretty well documented. Don't know what fable you're talking about.
And I notice you didn't even mention the Potato Famine. I suppose that was some fable too.
the drogheda massacre that the irish sing about was english catholics not irish, and the potato famine was mainly down to irish land lords
oh and after the romans left britain the irish constantly raided my country.
go on have another go.
the drogheda massacre that the irish sing about was english catholics not irish
and the potato famine was mainly down to irish land lords
they were a people surrounded by Fish lol
shareThey were also living in the midst of inland waters and livestock and wild game that might have kept them from starving, except they were not allowed to access because it belonged to the landlords who didn't give a damn that people were starving.
shareIndeed but many of them were irish and the irony is if you are american
you did exactly the same thing in vietnam.
Vietnam?! JFC you are ignorant. Our involvement in Vietnam lasted less than twenty years. The British "involvement" in Ireland lasted half a millennium. It permeated every aspect of society, government, religion, culture.
Yes, many of the Landlords were Irish, although most were Protestant and therefore more in line with the British ruling class. And many, perhaps most, were absentee landlords. They were Irish...Anglo-Irish....who had townhouses in London and Paris and only visited their Irish estates during certain parts of the year. If that.
It's comparable to people in the US who have summer homes in resort areas where most people live year-round, during good and bad weather, maintaining the homes and lands and providing the services on- and off-season. Except in that case, the summer home owners don't live in other countries for most of the year. They are unquestionably citizens of the same country, subject to the same laws and taxes and regulations.
and in that short period of time how many Vietnamese died??
YOU IGNORANT GIT
you would have won the war if you had given the land to the people instead YOU fortified the vietnamese land barons.
You seem to be laboring under the impression that America is still wrangling with the legacy of our failure in Vietnam.
We're not. So done with that.
You seem to be laboring under the impression that America is still wrangling with the legacy of our failure in Vietnam.
We're not. So done with that.
All I did was point out that they shouldnt run around singing tyranny and freedom when you see whey did to blacks and indians, but obviously they dont believe in the glass house.
shareactually you are they won and you have acted like children with them since helping cause starvation and hard ship.
shareYes, we can go on about how early Americans treated the negro slaves and the native Americans.
Yes, we can go on about how the Brits treated the Indian peoples of India or their own negro slaves before the abolishment of slavery in British colonies.
But why do that? What purpose would it serve?
Americans will never justify slavery. Our history shows that acceptance of slavery was the deal with the devil for the early American statesmen to agree to the creation of the United States. Many Americans didn't want slavery. Many others insisted upon slavery. Had the pro-slavery American delegates not gotten their way, the post-Revolutionary War American Confederation would have fragmented into at least two, distinct countries, possibly more. In the worst case scenario, today's America would be a patchwork of medium to large countries, much like Europe.
American statesmen of the time period hoped that the issue of slavery would be addressed or solved, or possibly die a peaceful death as it had in Great Britain. History proved this was wishful thinking.
The fateful seeds of a future civil war were thus planted in the creation of the United States of America in 1783. The issue of slavery was thus resolved by blunt force and the tragic loss of possibly 720,000 lives, but it had to be done. The United States could not go into the 20th century as a slave country nor could it go forward as two, separate nations. The nation needed to stay united. On the near distant dark future lay the likes of the German Kaiser and his successor, Chancellor Hitler, two future world wars which would need a united, prosperous United States to contribute to their defeat.
FEw Brits I know tell me they don't teach it over there. Many know of it but it's not put the importance like it is here obviously. Most think it was a small rebellion where England 'peacefully' agreed to surrender due to it's other obligations to it's empire.
I guess it's like how in Japan they don't teach their kids Pearl Harbor.
like I said does your schools teach VIETNAM and the fact you ran away?
shareYes. We teach it. I'm a history teacher and the reasons, events and repercussions of the Vietnam War are all covered.
shareThey are covered in school, in popular TV and films, on the news, in documentaries, in political campaigns. Anyone aged 35 or older with any degree of education has at least some awareness of OUR failings in Vietnam.
shareIt's not that far from the truth. Half of parliament didn't even want to fight the war at all, considering it more of a colonial civil war. Plus we had much bigger fish to fry being at war with France and Spain at the time and embroiled in the longest siege in history at Gibraltar. It's difficult for Americans to understand, but this isn't a particularly significant part of our history the way it is for you. India was much more a jewel in the crown of the Empire back then than North America was. Had you lost the war, you'd have still ended up as an independent country (or a collection of independent countries) just like Canada and Australia are.
If memory serves we were more likely to learn about the Bolshevik revolution or the Third Reich than other parts of the Empire.
Oh, it's like the King George song in "Hamilton":
"They say, the price of my war's not a price that they're willing to pay
Insane! You cheat with the French, now I'm fighting with France and with Spain
I'm so blue. I thought that we made an arrangement when you went away
You were mine to subdue!"
etc. etc.
As an Englishmen I'm well versed in the War of 1775. I'd also point out that principle matters more than any idea of loyalty to a Monarchy or nationalist sentiment. I for one would have worn blue.
You may get Brits on here voicing some misplaced loyalty to the crown, but most (i'd argue) are simply confusing pro british sentiment with pro Monarchy ideas. The defeat of Charles I was a great moment for Britain, followed only by an immense failure by Cromwell to establish a genuine Republic (instead of him becoming a defacto King).
John Lilburne was right in many ways, and had his ideas been implemented to a great extent i suspect Britain might have experienced greater transformation than it did.
However things have turned out since with the various governments and the likes, the common thread remains that of ordinary people attempting to put in place a Government that serves the people and not the other way around.
lol utter *beep*
shareThank you for a thoughtful response. I am going to research John Lilburne now....
share