Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    here are my sentiments towards the ahistoric approach towards their own revolution, they portray great heroes such as Banastre Tarleton as villains and romanticize their own bunch of colonial rebels
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by John Paul Jones)
    here are my sentiments towards the ahistoric approach towards their own revolution, they portray great heroes such as Banastre Tarleton as villains and romanticize their own bunch of colonial rebels
    Indeed, the revolution has a lot of propoganda surrounding it masquerading as history. What people never seem to realise is that it was a *civil war* , british republicans fighting british royalists.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Indeed, the revolution has a lot of propoganda surrounding it masquerading as history. What people never seem to realise is that it was a *civil war* , british republicans fighting british royalists.


    yes yes !!! exactly, the reason for fighting was mainly trade and tax - they didn't want to be taxed because they didn't have representation in parliament, but no other colonies apart from ireland have ever had representation in parliament,



    i read something that the infamous irishman Wolf Tone said, he said that when he went to the US to meet George Washington, he said he was just as aristocratic and selfish as any british landed gentry - and he kept slaves as did most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence,

    it was the first civil war in the US, and besides, even after the revolution, they still depended on us for trade
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by John Paul Jones)
    yes yes !!! exactly, the reason for fighting was mainly trade and tax - they didn't want to be taxed because they didn't have representation in parliament, but no other colonies apart from ireland have ever had representation in parliament,



    i read something that the infamous irishman Wolf Tone said, he said that when he went to the US to meet George Washington, he said he was just as aristocratic and selfish as any british landed gentry - and he kept slaves as did most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence,

    it was the first civil war in the US, and besides, even after the revolution, they still depended on us for trade
    I think its a great shame that those in parliment at the time didnt have the foresight to give representation to the colonies. I also find it amusing how they complained over their taxation-considering how little they had to pay compared to britons back in the mother countries, although having said that had i been alive at the time i would have been a rebel.
    As for the comment on George Washington ive heard similiar, especially how he refused to free his slaves. *shrugs* the Heros of any nation will be deified to an extent, you can find faults with almost anyone of note.


    (also Ireland cant be described as colony, and wasnt award proper representation - Gladstone was blocked in his aims by the tories - and consequently we have the current mess there with N.Eire.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    I think its a great shame that those in parliment at the time didnt have the foresight to give representation to the colonies. I also find it amusing how they complained over their taxation-considering how little they had to pay compared to britons back in the mother countries, although having said that had i been alive at the time i would have been a rebel.
    As for the comment on George Washington ive heard similiar, especially how he refused to free his slaves. *shrugs* the Heros of any nation will be deified to an extent, you can find faults with almost anyone of note.


    (also Ireland cant be described as colony, and wasnt award proper representation - Gladstone was blocked in his aims by the tories - and consequently we have the current mess there with N.Eire.)
    in reference to Ireland, i mean prior to 1868 - it was essentially a colony in the late 18th century before the act of union

    but yeh, it is sad that parliament was so corrupt, bureaucratic and inefficient at that time - if it'd happenned 60/70 years later i', sure it'd be handled in a much better manner, just in that period where government and parliament was becoming truly efficient and effective rather than selfish and full of landed people who only pass reform for their own benefit,

    besides, Benjamin Franklin wanted to reconcile with Britain early on - it was an impossible war for Britain, they really didn't have the logistics for it (no country would have at that time) if it'd happenned 100 years earlier, we would have come out better
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by John Paul Jones)
    in reference to Ireland, i mean prior to 1868 - it was essentially a colony in the late 18th century before the act of union

    but yeh, it is sad that parliament was so corrupt, bureaucratic and inefficient at that time - if it'd happenned 60/70 years later i', sure it'd be handled in a much better manner, just in that period where government and parliament was becoming truly efficient and effective rather than selfish and full of landed people who only pass reform for their own benefit,

    besides, Benjamin Franklin wanted to reconcile with Britain early on - it was an impossible war for Britain, they really didn't have the logistics for it (no country would have at that time) if it'd happenned 100 years earlier, we would have come out better
    The Irish were considered a British race which is why i cant really consider the island as a 'colony' at any time in history, pre act of union or not. Your reasoning would make Wales a colony also surely?

    Yes its a shame the government was so corrupt and incompetent, i just wonder how great an impact the loss of America played in changing the nature and efficiency of our own parliment.

    Another point that is often forgotten when debating the outcome of the american war is that Imperial Britain actually kept hold of the majority of North America so you could validly say the Royalists won the war
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    The Irish were considered a British race which is why i cant really consider the island as a 'colony' at any time in history, pre act of union or not. Your reasoning would make Wales a colony also surely?

    Yes its a shame the government was so corrupt and incompetent, i just wonder how great an impact the loss of America played in changing the nature and efficiency of our own parliment.

    Another point that is often forgotten when debating the outcome of the american war is that Imperial Britain actually kept hold of the majority of North America so you could validly say the Royalists won the war


    hahaha true - you could say we won in that manner, and in the war of 1812 the Americans tried to invade Canada but failed miserably, so we set fire to the white house and destroyed it hehehe

    concerning Ireland, but Wales became a part of the union in the 13th/14th century didn't it? im talking about pre-union Ireland, it wasn't a part of Great Britain then was it?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by John Paul Jones)
    hahaha true - you could say we won in that manner, and in the war of 1812 the Americans tried to invade Canada but failed miserably, so we set fire to the white house and destroyed it hehehe

    concerning Ireland, but Wales became a part of the union in the 13th/14th century didn't it? im talking about pre-union Ireland, it wasn't a part of Great Britain then was it?
    Wales never underwent an act of union as far as im aware, it was simply conquered! As to Ireland im not certain of its status politically at the time you mention, i merely point out that the Irish are a British race (unlike the native americans) so it being annexed to Britain doesnt really make it a colony.
    Was aware of the American attempt to take Canada, just goes to show how the image of an ideal nation that is put forward is nonsense - Canada had a lot of loyalists who had fled the 13 colonies and America tried to take it simply for conquest, they had no valid reason to attack the place. As you say it didnt really turn out very well for them though.

    (Also i wouldnt say 'we' won when referring to the war, well unless youre a staunch Royalist! the two sides of the war were both British remember - seperated only by politics)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Wales never underwent an act of union as far as im aware, it was simply conquered! As to Ireland im not certain of its status politically at the time you mention, i merely point out that the Irish are a British race (unlike the native americans) so it being annexed to Britain doesnt really make it a colony.
    Was aware of the American attempt to take Canada, just goes to show how the image of an ideal nation that is put forward is nonsense - Canada had a lot of loyalists who had fled the 13 colonies and America tried to take it simply for conquest, they had no valid reason to attack the place. As you say it didnt really turn out very well for them though.

    (Also i wouldnt say 'we' won when referring to the war, well unless youre a staunch Royalist! the two sides of the war were both British remember - seperated only by politics)

    hehehe yeh you're right, wales was just conquered , true the Irish are a british race.

    Canada had loads of loyalists, they were named *the united empire loyalists* and they got land grants off the British government after the war for the land confiscated by the rebels,

    haha no i'm not a staunch royallist, you can understand the ideological principles behind the American break-off from GB, and also a lot of irish people went fought on the side of Americans coz they hated the Brits.

    I have a number of books on the loyalist side of the americans in the rev. war and also the brits, it's very interesting reading, and its a shame coz a lot of people don't realize how many were loyal to Britain, a lot of them fought as colonial irregulars in the army, i've actually just bought a new book about two aristocratic families of New York prior to the revolution, and one family stays tory and leaves to go and live in the UK, while the other side with the rebs - i also like to read a lot about Banastre Tarleton - he was a very interesting character on the British side, a truly exceptional soldier among a lot of *****y supposed generels and tacticians lol
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    i merely point out that the Irish are a British race
    Surely the Irish are a Celtic race and not a British race because what makes us British is all the influences of other races, which the Irish don't have
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Fly ur an idiot, do you not know how the Irish settlers came about? The Catholics from England moving there, do you not rmemeber the war which was fought over this?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry, I forgot, the English Catholic settlers constitute for the majority of the Irish people.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I have entered into this thread really late and thus have not had chance to read all of it but if someone had said "do you hate Indians" or "do you have Pakistanis" then surly they would have been branded as racist and the thread would have been removed?

    So why is "do you hate Americans" ok?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mark_KK)
    I have entered into this thread really late and thus have not had chance to read all of it but if someone had said "do you hate Indians" or "do you have Pakistanis" then surly they would have been branded as racist and the thread would have been removed?

    So why is "do you hate Americans" ok?
    True. True.

    Unfortunately the fact is that many people bear strong anti-American feelings on this forum. So, even if it's not ok to bash other people solely on the basis of their nationality, we have to tolerate it. Otherwise, there won't be many people left on this forum.

    BTW, though I despise anti-Americanism, I don't think it is racism. It is not based on ethnicity (but on other prejudices).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mark_KK)
    I have entered into this thread really late and thus have not had chance to read all of it but if someone had said "do you hate Indians" or "do you have Pakistanis" then surly they would have been branded as racist and the thread would have been removed?

    So why is "do you hate Americans" ok?
    well, it is actually a question, not a statement, so i guess its ok?...unless you start making assummptions
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flds07)
    Bush is the idiot, and unfortunately represents us (Americans) VERY poorly....


    real moron, that guy
    A lot of Americans like the president a lot, or we wouldn't have had such a close election. That's why I'm baffled by people on the forum that say they like Americans, but don't like our goverment. We elect politicians that represent our views!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by portugal)
    Don't hate americans..but when their main representative to the international community is George Bush, you can understand why people can make over generalisations..

    Must say it is quite fustrating to think that the American people actually voted for that man, and that a man like that can actually become the worlds most powerful(debatable) person.. then again, who knows, Gore might have done a worse job(is it possible to do a worse job!?)
    Bush isn't perfect, but in the 2000 election, our alternative was Gore and I just don't think Gore was an appealing enough candidate. We are in the same situation with this upcoming election. Kerry, I think, has the personality of a screen door.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    A lot of Americans like the president a lot, or we wouldn't have had such a close election. That's why I'm baffled by people on the forum that say they like Americans, but don't like our goverment. We elect politicians that represent our views!
    Which is quite worrying, I must admit. However people generally don't dislike Americans because they agree with Bush they dislike what Bush has done internationally.

    I have a few questions, not in a sarcastic way just genuin questions.

    1) What is the state of things like poverty in the USA, unemployment, eduacation for example and how has this changed under Bush?

    2) Did I read somewhere that Bush didn't actually win the last election and there was a miscount or am I just confused about that?

    3) What are the oppinion polls suggesting in America about who will win the next election?

    Thanks
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Bush isn't perfect, but in the 2000 election, our alternative was Gore and I just don't think Gore was an appealing enough candidate. We are in the same situation with this upcoming election. Kerry, I think, has the personality of a screen door.
    That's the problem isn't it? There is a danger of US elections hinging on the relative entertainment values of the candidates :eek: .
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)

    2) Did I read somewhere that Bush didn't actually win the last election and there was a miscount or am I just confused about that?


    Thanks
    You are correct. Bush was elected by the supreme court, which is Republican.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.