albino boo said:
The two examples given the article are misleading. Both the Viet Cong and the revolting Americans were being supplied by a rival superpower. In the case of the revolting Americans the French even provide combat troops and in the later stages of the war the Americas became one theater in a global war between Britain, France and Holland. A better analogy would be something like the Sicilian Vespers, the revolutions of 1848 or even the recent arab spring. All three represented a sudden boiling over anger into revolt against the powers that be. I think the fact that Lucas described them as VC has more to do with him being a baby boomer than any serious historical examination.
As an aside T E Lawrence's is the father of modern arab armies but his cousin Ord Wingate trained the Haganah, the forerunner of the IDF.
I don't consider the Viet Cong or American Revolution examples excellent either, but that's what Lucas was thinking of, along with the Huns vs. the Romans. Do they work totally? No, not really - there's a reason he isn't teaching history at Princeton. But those were the ones he chose, so I ran with them.
Though outside military intervention can be a stage in insurgency as it was in the American Revolution, as well as the Vietnam War. Though people don't often discuss it this way, Vietnam was a proxy war between the U.S. and the Soviets (including China) inasmuch as the French assistance to the U.S. and U.S. assistance to the Afghans during the Soviet invasion. In all these instances, outside forces exploit local grievances in order to strike a wider strategic blow. In other words, if we were comparing it against the American Revolution the Rebels would be the French, while the Ewoks were the colonists.
Also note that the article is, essentially, tongue-in-cheek.
Robert Rath said:
Perhaps not surprisingly, British popular history is more interested in remembering the 150 soldiers that fought at Rourke's Drift and won, rather than the 1,300 who were wiped out the previous day.
You mean like American popular history is more interested in remembering the revolutionary war and forgets about the war of 1812. Who wants to remember that whole burning down of Washington, the virtual defection of New England and New York and the surrender of the federal army.
Yes, exactly. Cultures in general like to celebrate their victories more than they like to mourn their failures, which is why all the American movies about 1812 are about the Battle of New Orleans.
Of course the War of 1812 also isn't helped by the fact that it wasn't that important to anyone involved - the British least of all. At best, it was a distraction for them. After all, they were too busy fighting Napoleon to worry about a bunch of farmers across the Atlantic! Americans tend to ignore it because in reality there wasn't much danger of the U.S. going back to Britain, who couldn't afford an extended conflict. I'd actually say the really overlooked war, though, is the Korean War. It never gets talked about at all, which is a shame considering it shaped issues that are still plaguing U.S. foreign policy today.