Okay, a question to you all regarding July 4th

[CaptainMarvelous]

Okay, let me ask you this: Which is more sad: some anonymous internetting Americans making joke comments about how we "kicked England's ass" or the fact that some Brits are actually getting upset over it? Hm?

This is the part that made me laugh a bit.

silly brit kid getting his boxers in a bunch cause of a youtube commentator.

Also the "Nuh uh, you didnt beat us, we beat ourselves!" line was also rather laugh worthy.

In short, OP, needs to grow up.

Whereas "Yuh huh we did beat you!" is the height of maturity?

 

[Fasckira]

As I recall when I played Colonization, the way it went down was the British went across, wiped out every tribe they came across, formed a strong allegiance with the Spanish before bringing the Dutch and the French to near extinction on the new land which was in fact called "Scotland" as opposed to America, then declared independence just as the Spanish betrayed us. This resulted in a long war fought on two fronts which ended with total victory for the Scottish forces and a small moment of some fireworks being set off over an ambiguous town.

 

[Agow95]

Ironically, considering the stereotype of the french being, to quote the simpsons, "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", the French have the best military record in Europe, they won a majority of the battles and wars that made up the Hundred Years War with England, it's really only in the past two centuries have the French started doing badly.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Unfair was a poor word choice on my part.
What I ment is that people seem to regard it as an impossible accomplishment, when it really isn't so.
the US knew the land, had plenty of morale, the British had a poor supply chain, having to wait months for shipments, troops and training from the french, involvement from the spanish and dutch, guerilla vs. conventional warfare, and the list could go on.
The point I was trying to make is that the odds were stacked in the United States favor.

Maybe, but a lot of people had to suffer for it all the same.

They had determination but morale was often very shitty because they were starving, underpaid, freezing to death, lacking in discipline, and the rampant defeatism after initial optimism proved unrealistic. Soldiers also had conflicting loyalties and did not like the idea of fighting far from their homes or outside their own colony. In really hard times the American army almost left frozen bodies like a trail of breadcrumbs where it passed. Washington had a hard time getting soldiers to stay and fight under those conditions. Desertion was a big problem as was convincing soldiers to stay after their enlistments were up. European alliances were a determining factor but it's not like they fought the war for us. And foreign intervention had to be earned by proving the cause was winnable first. American victory did seem a little more miraculous than it actually was because everyone underestimated America's advantages once it became a war of attrition. But turning the thirteen colonies into a nation that could actually conduct such a war was a huge feat and it was only accomplished by damned hard sacrifice.

That taxation/representation thing only annoys me because according to tax records Britain BARELY enforced it and it was only there because smuggling was ridiculously prolific. It always reads like the revolution kicked off because Britain was trying to re-coup losses from fighting the French on behalf of America a few years earlier (admittedly, that's like getting a dog to eat a plate full of bacon, Britain never needs much of a push to kick-off with France) and this was deemed outrageous.

It wasn't really about the 'taxation'. It was about the 'no representation'. It wasn't that the British were raising taxes, it was that they were raising taxes on Americans to fund their own oppression. This is a very common confusion.

 

[Frankster]

For the record the whole simplying complex events into a simple "one side kicked the others ass trololololol" seems to be the norm so not just specific to july the 4th.

As a person with french ancestry I get this quite a lot Well not in this thread specifically but usually its just "lol cheese eating surrender monkeys lulz" style comments whenever someone mentions anything to do with france.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

That taxation/representation thing only annoys me because according to tax records Britain BARELY enforced it and it was only there because smuggling was ridiculously prolific. It always reads like the revolution kicked off because Britain was trying to re-coup losses from fighting the French on behalf of America a few years earlier (admittedly, that's like getting a dog to eat a plate full of bacon, Britain never needs much of a push to kick-off with France) and this was deemed outrageous.

It wasn't really about the 'taxation'. It was about the 'no representation'. It wasn't that the British were raising taxes, it was that they were raising taxes on Americans to fund their own oppression. This is a very common confusion.

Right, but how were you being oppressed? I can see why they'd want representation in being taxed, that's valid and a good reason to want to have a revolution, but considering the sheer scale of smuggling that occured (I can find figures of the taxing if you like), America was a colony of British people with the full support of the British Empire who didn't pay taxes to them. I'm not saying Britain were the good guys because, well, globe-spanning empire- but we seem to have a particularly bum rap when it comes to America in this period, apart from increasing taxes on one commodity (talked down from a shitload last I read) what did we do that was so... evil?

 

[ChildishLegacy]

I'm an American & to me, the 4th of July is a day where people celebrate their love of explosions & shiny shiny colors, despite the fact that they terrify animals, give the elderly & birds heart attacks, make dogs howl, make babies cry, pollute the sky, poison water, set fires, & cost working people their much needed sleep.

People like you are a reason why the world sucks. You're so atrociously boring and self-centered that you have to nitpick every negative thing about something wonderful and fun.

That's pretty unfair, even putting both of your points aside for 1 second, you've just called them what's wrong with the world and boring while knowing nothing about them as a person but what they have posted here, that's a huge judgement on 1 post.

I'd also agree with him, and disagree with you saying fireworks are "wonderful and fun", I haven't been impressed by them since I was about 8, they're just colours and noise to a lot of people, isn't it self centered of you to assume that fireworks bring joy to everybody except 'boring' people? It's also very self centered to say that you're being "boring" because you don't like the fact that fires happen because you want to see colours in the sky, I think I can pass on a few "oohs" and bangs to save a few house fires and have firemen and ambulances be used to save people that weren't stupid enough to run up to a rocket that hadn't gone off yet.

 

[DJjaffacake]

Democracy/Republic confusion snip

That's a common misconception I'm afraid. What you're thinking of as a democracy is in fact a direct democracy, and what you're calling a republic is a representative democracy. A republic is just a country without a monarchy, the French Republic and People's Republic of China, are both republics, but France is a representative democracy as well, for example.

silly brit kid getting his boxers in a bunch cause of a youtube commentator.

Also the "Nuh uh, you didnt beat us, we beat ourselves!" line was also rather laugh worthy.

In short, OP, needs to grow up.

Right, because saying, "Hurr durr you're stupid and childish for getting vaguely irritated when someone insults you," is so very mature.

It wasn't that the British were raising taxes, it was that they were raising taxes on Americans to fund their own oppression. This is a very common confusion.

I'd say oppression is a bit extreme, I'd always seen it as more of a, "How come we don't get to decide how our money is spent? And why are we paying for things 3000 miles away?" thing than, "Our money is being spent to subjugate us, fuck that."

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

You see, people (in massive groups anyway) are stupid. The popular vote is not always the right one. But then again the electoral college is people so they can be just as stupid. The advantage with the electoral college is that every state, no matter how big the population, is represented equally.

Also the U.S.A is not a democracy. It is a republic. I'm not a expert at this so anyone correct me if i'm wrong with anything here. In a democracy people vote for everything directly. In a republic people vote for other people to vote for them. You vote for your state representatives and you have to trust that they'll handle things for you.

I personally don't mind that it's not a democracy. On one hand in a republic's representatives are corruptible, on the other hand in a democracy the majority opinion could dominate and drastically slow down social progress. I dunno i'm conflicted on it myself.

I'm not too conflicted. As the saying goes, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. And it can get real messy... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mytilenian_Debate#Results_of_the_Debate.

Most of the Founding Fathers actually had a lot of faith in the capacity for the public to be educated and fit for self-government. I'd go so far as to say they depended on it. Despite common conception, they did not form the electoral college because they thought people were dummies. It was not considered practical or desirable for politicians to conduct enormous national campaigns as we understand them and ideally they wouldn't be campaigning at all. It was far better to have each state be represented in a smaller body to elect the executive, just as we participate in the legislative branch of the government through our elected Representatives. Senators at that time were appointed by state legislature. Both of these systems make a lot more sense when you consider the relative power and significance of state governments at the time.

Right, but how were you being oppressed? I can see why they'd want representation in being taxed, that's valid and a good reason to want to have a revolution, but considering the sheer scale of smuggling that occured (I can find figures of the taxing if you like), America was a colony of British people with the full support of the British Empire who didn't pay taxes to them. I'm not saying Britain were the good guys because, well, globe-spanning empire- but we seem to have a particularly bum rap when it comes to America in this period, apart from increasing taxes on one commodity (talked down from a shitload last I read) what did we do that was so... evil?

We did pay taxes through our local governments. When they sneer at how low our taxes were at the time, they usually only count the portion that actually made it back to England and then compare that to the total everyone else was paying, so obviously it looks low in comparison. And yes, some taxes were more symbolic of our state of submission than they were actually brutal in practice. But this is really about representation, it's just that taxation was the visible manifestation of the unrepresentative government. The charges against the king are as follows:

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

*
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
*

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

- Thomas Jefferson, from the Declaration of Independence, July 4 1776

I especially like the part about those murdering savages =). Actually I have ancestors who were killed that way myself, but it's not like English colonists never slaughtered Native women and children, among other things I hardly need to list. The situation with the western frontier was very interesting, and it is listed as a grievance above. But I doubt you would sympathize much with the poor colonists on that particular point lol.

I'm providing all this for your edification. I'm not trying to fight centuries old battles or anything.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Democracy/Republic confusion snip

That's a common misconception I'm afraid. What you're thinking of as a democracy is in fact a direct democracy, and what you're calling a republic is a representative democracy. A republic is just a country without a monarchy, the French Republic and People's Republic of China, are both republics, but France is a representative democracy as well, for example.

silly brit kid getting his boxers in a bunch cause of a youtube commentator.

Also the "Nuh uh, you didnt beat us, we beat ourselves!" line was also rather laugh worthy.

In short, OP, needs to grow up.

Right, because saying, "Hurr durr you're stupid and childish for getting vaguely irritated when someone insults you," is so very mature.

It wasn't that the British were raising taxes, it was that they were raising taxes on Americans to fund their own oppression. This is a very common confusion.

I'd say oppression is a bit extreme, I'd always seen it as more of a, "How come we don't get to decide how our money is spent? And why are we paying for things 3000 miles away?" thing than, "Our money is being spent to subjugate us, fuck that."

Are you sure about that definition of republic? I have never seen it used that way. And I really do think oppression is the word for it. I don't know why people get hung up on the whole "our taxes are too high!" thing.

 

[DJjaffacake]

Democracy/Republic confusion snip

That's a common misconception I'm afraid. What you're thinking of as a democracy is in fact a direct democracy, and what you're calling a republic is a representative democracy. A republic is just a country without a monarchy, the French Republic and People's Republic of China, are both republics, but France is a representative democracy as well, for example.

silly brit kid getting his boxers in a bunch cause of a youtube commentator.

Also the "Nuh uh, you didnt beat us, we beat ourselves!" line was also rather laugh worthy.

In short, OP, needs to grow up.

Right, because saying, "Hurr durr you're stupid and childish for getting vaguely irritated when someone insults you," is so very mature.

It wasn't that the British were raising taxes, it was that they were raising taxes on Americans to fund their own oppression. This is a very common confusion.

I'd say oppression is a bit extreme, I'd always seen it as more of a, "How come we don't get to decide how our money is spent? And why are we paying for things 3000 miles away?" thing than, "Our money is being spent to subjugate us, fuck that."

Are you sure about that definition of republic? I have never seen it used that way. And I really do think oppression is the word for it. I don't know why people get hung up on the whole "our taxes are too high!" thing.

I've checked wikipedia, and it seems that a republic is not quite as simple as I believed, but still not necessarily equivalent to a representative democracy. Apparently the two often overlap, but the correct definition for a system where the people elect representatives is still a representative democracy.

As for oppression, I'm pretty sure the colonists weren't oppressed, they just didn't get a say in how their taxes were spent. I'd have thought that if they were pissed off about being oppressed the phrase would have been something along the lines of, "No taxation with oppression."

 

[Aprilgold]

I understand that the french helped us and so forth but to put it in simpler terms. We were still against the odds. Britain was essentially a god in combat at the time.

You know in the movie where its inevitable that the action-hero you've come to love is surrounded by ninety dudes in riot vests and with high-powered guns and is about to die from bleeding out but doesn't because of some mystical pistol ammo that never needs to be reloaded? Well thats essentially what I think of the independence of America, French and settlers fighting together against a ungodly powerful amount of British soldiers.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the comments saying "SUCK ON THIS, BRITAIN!" are being satirical, the same way that I make fun of the French for running-away constantly but truthfully can stick to their guns and put up a good fight.

Still too much credit to people who post on Youtube, a large majority on there are the SAME FUCKING PEOPLE WHO POST "DAFCUK?" LIKE THEIR FUCKING CUTE! Anger aside, these are the same people who can't even bother typing things properly and state the obvious about everything so of-course their going to be dumb as rocks.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

As for oppression, I'm pretty sure the colonists weren't oppressed, they just didn't get a say in how their taxes were spent. I'd have thought that if they were pissed off about being oppressed the phrase would have been something along the lines of, "No taxation with oppression."

But... that doesn't make sense lol. Surely you would just say "no oppression". Maybe you could glance through the Declaration of Independence. I posted the bulk of it including the grievances against George III in this thread. ^^^

 

[Nimzabaat]

Well on the one hand, Yankees love the Brits soooo much that they're the only country still using the Imperial Measurement system... (oh and apparently Ireland). Just had to throw that in there

 

[DJjaffacake]

As for oppression, I'm pretty sure the colonists weren't oppressed, they just didn't get a say in how their taxes were spent. I'd have thought that if they were pissed off about being oppressed the phrase would have been something along the lines of, "No taxation with oppression."

But... that doesn't make sense lol. Surely you would just say "no oppression". Maybe you could glance through the Declaration of Independence. I posted the bulk of it including the grievances against George III in this thread. ^^^

Having reread that... yeah, I think I did a brain fart.

Seriously though, I'd never read the Declaration of Independence other than the whole, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," bit, so thanks for that, I wasn't aware of how extensive their grievances were. My one quibble is that I'm not sure how well informed they were, considering they still saw the King as the government almost 100 years after the Bill of Rights, so some of what they claimed may be rumour and exaggeration. Still, I can see why they saw themselves as oppressed, even though the whole slavery and treating Native Americans incredibly poorly (even worse than we did) does kind of make that look a tad hypocritical. Still, moral zeitgeist and all that.

 

[Davey Woo]

I really didn't thinik anyone in England actually cared about the war of independence and/or independence day. American's make a big deal about it, (which is fine) but it's not like everyone in England has a big miserable day on the 4th of July, because we 'lost our precious America'. We just don't care any more.

 

[Delsana]

The French sent a fleet that saved us.

In any case, we did fight a war, and the British knew how to fight a war very well, but guerrilla warfare wasn't a very current thing at that time so it took them by surprise and was used effectively for the Revolutionary War's part.

In any case, the people posting stuff like that are just idiots.

 

[SirPlindington]

Yup, you've got it the right way round. Without the French, you probably would've smashed us into the ground. Those people have no idea what they're talking about. And we didn't do that much to the Empire anyway. To be fair, though, the odds against us were still very big, as the British empire had one of the strongest armies in the world at the time. We didn't kick their ass, but we survived, and that was quite the accomplishment, even if we did have the help of the French.