Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 22 of 22

Thread: Questions about the USA Revolution

  1. #16
    Forum Fanatic Darkz Azn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NYC | Sanctuary
    Posts
    2,266
    Civil War =! Revolutionary War

    odd ...


    Odd of Absalom

    Beastblood is #oddplay


    ˙ppo ǝɹɐ noʎ
    #odd
    Odd is a three-edged sword.
    ( ͡? ͜ʖ ͡?)

  2. #17
    News Correspondent flutterby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,226
    Revolutionary War = War between Colonies and Britain
    Civil War = War between North/South
    Quote Originally Posted by VT2
    I should get a medal for all the common sense I highlight on a daily basis.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    <Bishop> I don't dislike Ezzerland
    <Bishop> We are just incompatible

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    <~Palem> I read that as "snuffleupegas gropes Palem" twice lol

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  3. #18
    Mediator goodz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by khronosschoty View Post
    I recently was thinking how in the USA Civl War the North used the propaganda of freeing slaves. I was thinking about this when I learned how England offered the Slaves freedom as well, during the USA Revolutionary War. I also think about how Slavery was abolished in England well before it was in the USA. I Also think the Canada is better in many way then the USA. I think the Native Americans would have been treated better had England won the war, and, I take notice of the fact that most Natives sided with England, because, they had the same ver thought. I Think that history also bares this out by the historically better treatment Canada gave them.

    So in short, for propaganda purposes or otherwise I see it this way:

    The Revolutionary War was the colonists

    vs

    The Loyalists and the Slaves, and the Native Americans.

    Furthermore I think most of the colonists were only tricked, and, so, in all actual fact, it only benefited a few rich people.

    So my Question is: was it a good thing or a bad thing? My thoughts are it was bad. I would have favoured staying with the British in the same way Canada and India did. I think things would have been better if in todays age we were a part of the British Common wealth with home rule.
    Did canada treat its native people better? Or britain? If history is accurate look at what Britain did to other countries native people? It wasn't great. I also believe Britain committed the first act of biological war fare in human history by intentionally spreading small pocks. This killed a huge percentage of the native population probably more then anything else.

    Perhaps a century later canada treated its native population better but to be honest there is a ton of problems with our natives. I in many ways think it would be best if reserves were closed and natives were forced more to assimilate but the culture be preserved as best as possible in museums. You put a lot of poor people in an area, give them a pay cheque every month and you have problems. We have problems.
    My life is better then yours.

  4. #19
    Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    76
    Well your history is completely wrong. The 1st use of Biological warfare dates back to biblical times. They would taint enemy water supplies with the juices from dead bodies and during battles launch rotten human and animal corpses at the enemy in order to make them sick and die. This practice was used through out the middle ages and into modern times where it was made appsolete by germ science/cultivation. As far as the use of small pox in the america's in concerned that was 1st done by the Spanish about 100 years b4 any British set foot in the Americas.

    I also think some one made a very good point about the civil war up there. It was not fought to free the slaves. If it was then I think it rather odd that the north did not outlaw slavery in it territory before or during the war. The real issue that caused the civil war was the competing cotton and textiles industries. The north had recently invested in high-tech textile manufacturing to rival Britain's control of the global textile market. The British knew this and offered the south a better deal on their cotton to prevent the north from competing globally. The north tried to pass laws and taxes to prevent the export of southern cotton to England and the south blocked many of the attempts legally and ignored the ones they couldn't stop through congress with secession. It is true that the legality of slavery was a hot topic in the congress and often sighted as the unavoidable division between north and south. However the north's attack on slavery was just an attack on the southern cotton industry which was entirely dependent on slave labor. Had it been a moral cause of some kind you would expect to see a prohibition against slavery early on in the Norths campaign. However this didn't happen. In fact numerous northern governors and congressmen owned dozens of slaves. It is also interesting to point out the creation of a new kind of slave in the north, the wage slave. Instead of using unskilled negro labor the north used indentured women to operate most of its textile mills. These women were only paid in company script and were often worked harder and longer than their negro counterparts in the south. They were forbidden to leave or contact their family in many cases. Such crimes even southern slave masters rarely committed against their black slaves.

    The north not wanting to slow down its march towards industry and knowing that capturing some of the textile market was a needed 1st step Slandered and eventually pigeon holed the south into a war. They also famously allowed the war to begin at Fort Sumter after depriving the commanding officer of orders and supplies thus backing him into a corner from which armed conflict would be the only escape. Providing the much needed pretense for war.

  5. #20
    Forum Fanatic
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,277
    as a Canadian I resent the fact that we are still technically a "constitutional monarchy" under england. Even if the queen is just a figurehead, it's still a BS and archaic system. The monarchy is a huge joke. And when the royal family wants to come to Canada, the taxpayers pay for their travel and accommodations.

    phatman, your point about the "wage slave" is valid - and this goes back to OP as well: in england, though they "got rid of" slavery earlier, most of the slaves were simply transitioned into indentured servitude which was scarcely better than slavery.

    It's kind of hard to say if things would be "better or worse" if the US was still under dominion of great britain...... I mean, the history of the last 200 years would be completely different.

    anyways, down with the monarchy.

  6. #21
    Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    76
    Yeah down with the Queen. I'm sure the Australians are on our side with this as well. I think Britain was kinder to the Indians simply because they had to be. During the period of British Indian alliance Britain was fighting the 7 years war all across the globe against an alliance of formidable opposition. The reason they allied with the Indians was purely out of convenience, they had the same enemies, the french and the colonists. Had England regained hegemony of northern america you would have seen the same barbaric campaign of slaughter and small pox that the English reaped upon South Africa and India. Its important to read genuine history. If you read documents from the time period this illumination becomes clear. Just like the civil war, if one takes the time to read the senate records and the emancipation proclamation it is easy to see that slavery was a red herring used to distract attention from the less supportable economic motivations. It is very important to recognize that most of the history that students encounter in school all the way through college is survey history. Meaning instead of going through the documents one at a time and using them to prove a thesis like is required of scholars. These books bundle a vast range of documents, refer to them with out citations and then make broad sweeping generalizations about what and why things happened. This kind of history is regarded as illegitimate by scholars and when you consider that these text book monopolies often compile their books by a committee of pre-selected of under educated public school bureaucrats who cast votes on what to include and exclude history is mutated into a fairy tale of sorts, with heroes and villains.

    This process has allowed for many genuine folk legends like Helen Keller (who was a prominent communist-author and activist) to have their life's work twisted into supporting established ideology they spent their entire career fighting bitterly hand over fist. Another example is that Britain was one of the 1st to outlaw slavery. This technically true, however many British Privateers who were protected by letters of mark (absolving them of most crimes committed at sea) continued to sell and transport slaves across the world. England grew tired of seeing slaves in England but was happy to continue profiting from the slave trade. As england approached the modern period they exported their textile manufactures the middle east and adopted the american model of indentured women workers. There are harrowing tales of the conditions these people lived under. Having read extensively on the treatment of indentured women and enslaved southern blacks id rather be a slave. At least you can go outside and sing; when the work days end you return to your own shack and eat dinner with your family. Such rights indentured women were unlikely to survive long enough to see. Anyone curious on the topic of history, throw away your school books. This isn't to say that primary source history is infallible but at least it tries to be unbiased.
    Last edited by thephatman; 21-12-2012 at 00:39.

  7. #22
    Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by khronosschoty View Post
    I recently was thinking how in the USA Civl War the North used the propaganda of freeing slaves. I was thinking about this when I learned how England offered the Slaves freedom as well, during the USA Revolutionary War. I also think about how Slavery was abolished in England well before it was in the USA. I Also think the Canada is better in many way then the USA. I think the Native Americans would have been treated better had England won the war, and, I take notice of the fact that most Natives sided with England, because, they had the same ver thought. I Think that history also bares this out by the historically better treatment Canada gave them.

    So in short, for propaganda purposes or otherwise I see it this way:

    The Revolutionary War was the colonists

    vs

    The Loyalists and the Slaves, and the Native Americans.

    Furthermore I think most of the colonists were only tricked, and, so, in all actual fact, it only benefited a few rich people.

    So my Question is: was it a good thing or a bad thing? My thoughts are it was bad. I would have favoured staying with the British in the same way Canada and India did. I think things would have been better if in todays age we were a part of the British Common wealth with home rule.
    So I guess the short answer to these questions is no, your probably wrong here about things being better under English rule. However I agree with your points about the misrepresentation of slavery however I suspect you have read quite of bit of pro English propaganda that has lead you to believe they were a force of altruism through out the world. If you would like to do some reading on just how horrible the English were id read about The English's treatment of the Egyptians, Lebanese, Chinese, South African's, Scots, Irish and Iranians during the industrial and pre-modern periods of the 1750-1900. That list could easily be two or three times as long but i think that's enough to get the point. Maybe read some Dickens while you are it. They were pretty ****ing horrible. I'm not going to say who was better; But it's 100% inaccurate to say that England was a force for good.
    Last edited by thephatman; 21-12-2012 at 01:03.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •