Okay, a question to you all regarding July 4th

Recommended Videos

Rooster Cogburn

New member
May 24, 2008
1,637
0
0
DJjaffacake said:
Rooster Cogburn said:
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.
It's refreshing to go back and really study the things we take for granted. Glad to be of service.

For the purposes of language, George III was the government. Even today, the monarch is the head of state. The Queen refers to the government of the United Kingdom as "my government". The British parliament is Her Majesty's parliament, and so forth. I assure you, the man who penned those words was a polymath. That means pretty frickin' smart. Documents like this represent the height of the American Enlightenment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enlightenment#.22Life.2C_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness.22], and their authors were as informed as anyone on the planet could be.
 

CaptainMarvelous

New member
May 9, 2012
869
0
0
Rooster Cogburn said:
Burst6 said:
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.
CaptainMarvelous said:
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.
It's a valid response, and it does interest me to see how the Americans at the time saw their relationship with Britain. My favourite part is "For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences" given how extradition treaties currently work (that being, I don't believe there are any where an American citizen can be extradited to a foreign court to face crimes in that country, though I could be wrong?).

Anyway, I appreciate the response, it's very informative.
 

DJjaffacake

New member
Jan 7, 2012
492
0
0
Rooster Cogburn said:
DJjaffacake said:
Rooster Cogburn said:
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.
It's refreshing to go back and really study the things we take for granted. Glad to be of service.

For the purposes of language, George III was the government. Even today, the monarch is the head of state. The Queen refers to the government of the United Kingdom as "my government". The British parliament is Her Majesty's parliament, and so forth. I assure you, the man who penned those words was a polymath. That means pretty frickin' smart. Documents like this represent the height of the 'American Enlightenment', and their authors were as informed as anyone on the planet could be.
In fairness, all that stuff about, "Her Majesty's government," is just tradition and lip service, the monarchy's power has been decreasing since 1215, and the Bill of Rights and Coronation Oath Act established Parliamentary sovereignty in 1688. The King was still the figurehead, and more powerful than the Queen is now, but he certainly was not the government.
 

malestrithe

New member
Aug 18, 2008
1,818
0
0
The United States fought a war of Attrition with the British. We did not have to win, we just needed the other guy to quit first.

Also, Federalism is a better description of what we are.
 

Rooster Cogburn

New member
May 24, 2008
1,637
0
0
DJjaffacake said:
Rooster Cogburn said:
DJjaffacake said:
Rooster Cogburn said:
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.
It's refreshing to go back and really study the things we take for granted. Glad to be of service.

For the purposes of language, George III was the government. Even today, the monarch is the head of state. The Queen refers to the government of the United Kingdom as "my government". The British parliament is Her Majesty's parliament, and so forth. I assure you, the man who penned those words was a polymath. That means pretty frickin' smart. Documents like this represent the height of the 'American Enlightenment', and their authors were as informed as anyone on the planet could be.
In fairness, all that stuff about, "Her Majesty's government," is just tradition and lip service, the monarchy's power has been decreasing since 1215, and the Bill of Rights and Coronation Oath Act established Parliamentary sovereignty in 1688. The King was still the figurehead, and more powerful than the Queen is now, but he certainly was not the government.
He wasn't really the government, but that's what you call him lol. We are just talking about Jefferson's choice of language in the Declaration of Independence. I'm not confusing the practice and the formality of constitutional monarchy, only arguing that Jefferson's language was proper and different language would have been improper.

There is another element to this, which is the implicit statement that the British Parliament is not fit to govern the American colonies:
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:
This is also a big "fuck you" to parliament for not granting us fair representation lol.
CaptainMarvelous said:
It's a valid response, and it does interest me to see how the Americans at the time saw their relationship with Britain. My favourite part is "For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences" given how extradition treaties currently work (that being, I don't believe there are any where an American citizen can be extradited to a foreign court to face crimes in that country, though I could be wrong?).

Anyway, I appreciate the response, it's very informative.
Hey, if you want to find some hypocrisy, America probably is the place to look. In some ways we have far surpassed our Founding Fathers and in others we may never measure up. Glad that was interesting to you.

It's not that Americans can't be extradited, it's just that our courts require proper evidence and procedures. But when America wants to bring someone in for trial, Britain, Canada, and a bunch of other countries role over like little bitches. I understand why American prosecutors are in a hurry to bend or break the law but there is supposed to be a civil authority presiding who can say "no". I don't understand why British and Canadian courts are so deferential and cowardly. The extradition treaty with Great Britain is said to be particularly one-sided in practice. Canada is getting wise to it though lol.
 

Karlaxx

New member
Oct 26, 2009
685
0
0
I very carefully keep my patriotism contained to certain later areas of history where, as you rightfully claim, we weren't propped up by the French. And not just in warfare, either- we've done plenty of things that I'm proud of, as a country, that were entirely constructive. Our Independence Day isn't really a holiday geared towards quiet reflection, but that's just how I operate.
 

Chunga the Great

New member
Sep 12, 2010
353
0
0
It's like a bunch of kids on the playground; "Nuh-uh that wasn't fair! I wasn't even trying!" Not to mention those assholes you mentioned were in the comments section on YouTube.

I mean come on, why is it so wrong to just celebrate the founding of the nation one was born in? Why does it always have to become a "We were cheated, you didn't win!" shit-fest?
 

Helmholtz Watson

New member
Nov 7, 2011
2,497
0
0
The former British empire is offended by us celebrating our independence? *Rolls eyes* sorry you were "offended".... Tell me, do you feel the same way on August 15th [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_%28India%29]?
Griffolion said:
So my general concluding thoughts were, no, Americans did not "kick our ass" because they didn't exist at that point
You know full well what they mean.
Griffolion said:
So my general concluding thoughts were, no, Americans did not "kick our ass" because they didn't exist at that point.
Again, you know what they mean.
Griffolion said:
British rebels kicked British loyalist ass with strong help from the French, who only seemed to be doing it for their own gain against us in Europe.
*sigh* more arguments over semantics. I'll give you that the French helped us though.
Griffolion said:
Americans in particular, you know your history better than I do, how do you guys know it?
That with Frances help, Americans beat back the oppressive English.
EDIT:Also, that Mad Max/William Wallace helped us win the war.
 

Joshey Woshey

New member
Jul 11, 2011
31
0
0
Do Americans get taught history? Or is it just thinly veiled propaganda? You know the whole AMURICUH thing. I know we all like to sugarcoat our history to make us all look better but Americans seem to miss huge chunks that they don't like out.
 

Twilight_guy

Sight, Sound, and Mind
Nov 24, 2008
7,131
0
0
Yeah I knew that. No, nobody cares. The fourth is for Americans to have a holiday for their nation. Other countries celebrate an important national date or an independence day too you know. I think having a bit of nationalism is important. I think saying its all about 'we kick England's ass' is dumb because its not true and the holiday can be a celebration of independence without having to be about the defeat of another country. Still, plenty of people on this website hate nationalism so, I suppose they hate holidays based on nationalism.
 

Nuke_em_05

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2009
828
0
21
If white men from the U.S. have the fact that their great-grandfathers screwed over so many people in the past claimed against us now, why can't we claim their victories over other white boys in the past, too?

That sad part is, that's meant to be a joke, but so many actually believe it in earnest that it becomes a flammable satire. Oh well, send the fire!

But seriously, most U.S. citizens actually know the real story, and are quite cool with the Brits at this point. Independence Day isn't as much about the how and who of gaining our independence, it's about the fact that we did.

I guess, for example, it's more like "I got the job!" than "haha! That asshole didn't get the job! Sucker!". Some people have no value of their own, so the only way they think they can look better by comparison is to tear others down.

Such is life. Welcome to the Internet, and Humanity at large.
 

Cheery Lunatic

New member
Aug 18, 2009
1,565
0
0
God of Path said:
Patriotism is the belief your country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.
What?
No that's NATIONALISM.
Patriotism just means you love your country.

God this is one of my pet peeves.

OT: Went to a barbecue yesterday, set off some fireworks, it was fun.
I'm a little confused by OP since he seems to imply that people shouldn't be allowed to celebrate their country's independence day. I can't believe you're giving YouTube comments ANY credence at all. Most Americans I speak to (and I live in Texas, mind you) are a-okay with Brits. In fact, many people find their accents "sexy" (I was born there and have family there so I visit enough that I just find them kind of annoying tbh). No one really ever mentions the British during July 4th.

Most people are fully aware of how much the French helped the colonies while they fought Britain. They're also pretty aware that Britain didn't really give a crap about the American colonies anyway (India was way more important to them) and didn't take our "call for independence" very seriously. Even still, our chances in winning were very low, and we took the world by surprise by actually gaining independence. Though most countries expected us to fold and go back to Britain within a couple of decades. America kind of a joke country for years (Articles of Confederation sucked).
 

Mau95

Senior Member
Nov 11, 2011
347
0
21
This is pretty ironic right here:

"So, why all this Founding Father/Muslim love? Probably because Sultan Mohammed ben Abdallah of Morocco was the first world figure to recognize the independence of the United States of America from Great Britain in 1777. Another reason was that the Founding Fathers were smart enough to distinguish between terrorists and everybody else on the whole damn planet, as demonstrated in the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797. It was in this agreement that the U.S. declared: "The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Mussulmen [Moslems].""
 

Semudara

New member
Oct 6, 2010
288
0
0
Well, we ARE the country that spells "color" correctly, so we've got you there.

And if you couldn't tell that was a joke, well, you're the sort who gets worked up over what a bunch of YouTube trolls were spewing. :p

Cheers, mate, and happy Independence Day!
 

DJ_DEnM

My brother answers too!
Dec 22, 2010
1,869
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
Think of it this way.

Britain was the metaphorical Super Saiyan of the world, fighting several guys at the same time, kicking arse, but still getting beaten up pretty badly.

America got in there, threw a punch then ran away claiming victory.

Now, Britain the Super Saiyan needed every bit of stamina he still had, so instead of chasing the little bugger down, he decided the other guys were more of a threat.

He then went on to win the Euro Belt and remain Supreme Champion of the World.


Daystar Clarion, trivialising historic events near you!

[sub][sub]All a joke, by the way :D[/sub][/sub]
I feel like if you were American you would be super patriotic >_>

OT: In a war nobody wins. That's my philosophy regarding pretty much anything.
 

Il_Exile_lI

New member
Jun 23, 2010
70
0
0
bad rider said:
Well it was more of a civil war, the outcome was a new nation. So technically Britain won, of course it was the British fighting on both sides.
I keep seeing people in this thread say this, and it simply isn't true. Just because they were technically British citizens doesn't mean they were British. America had been colonized for 150 years at the time of the Revolution. Several generations of colonists had been born in America and never set foot in England. It was not a Civil War, it was a revolution, and misinformation and false assumptions aren't helping the ignorance in this thread from all sides.
 

DJjaffacake

New member
Jan 7, 2012
492
0
0
Semudara said:
Well, we ARE the country that spells "color" correctly, so we've got you there.


IT HAS A U DAMN YOU!

[HEADING=1]A U!!!!!![/HEADING]

[sub][sub]That was also a joke. You dipshit.[/sub][/sub]
 

Hazy992

Why does this place still exist
Aug 1, 2010
5,265
0
0
Helmholtz Watson said:
The former British empire is offended by us celebrating our independence? *Rolls eyes* sorry you were "offended".... Tell me, do you feel the same way on August 15th [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_%28India%29]?
What? That's news to me. Most of us don't care
 

Helmholtz Watson

New member
Nov 7, 2011
2,497
0
0
Hazy992 said:
Helmholtz Watson said:
The former British empire is offended by us celebrating our independence? *Rolls eyes* sorry you were "offended".... Tell me, do you feel the same way on August 15th [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_%28India%29]?
What? That's news to me. Most of us don't care
Then why does the OP care that we celebrate July 4? I get not liking comments on YouTube, but when the OP types "It's also the day the rest of the world (England especially) rolls its collective eyes and says under its breath "it's just one day and then we are clear for the next year", I have to ask why its a big deal that we are happy that we are not part of the UK. Do fireworks irritate the OP or something?