If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Cracked)   Five myths about the Revolutionary War everyone believes. Or why Texas will cry itself to sleep tonight   (cracked.com) divider line 181
    More: Interesting, Revolutionary War, Texas, Americans, Continental Army, Benedict Arnold, Call of Duty 2, loyalists, British Military  
•       •       •

28521 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Mar 2013 at 2:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



181 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-17 04:53:53 PM  
mekki: /sit down John!

Sit down John, Sit down John. For God's sake, Sit down!
 
2013-03-17 04:59:59 PM  

MontanaDave: Rent Party: Rochambeau told him to go fark himself

I would have expected Rochambeau to just kick him in the nuts.


Well, he could have spared himself the humiliation if he had gone with Rochambeau's rock, paper, scissors suggestion instead of a long battle.
 
2013-03-17 05:00:28 PM  
Gramma is always going on and on about this great grand relative who fought alongside Lafayette while he was in SC and how the family name is transcribed on some monument in France. I get it old woman, no one in our family has done anything remotely interesting except that one really bad Quaker guy who decided to make his parents angry by fighting against the Crown hundreds of years ago.
 
2013-03-17 05:07:39 PM  
Still waiting for the Ben Affleck version. It's not real untl it's a film by Affleck.
 
2013-03-17 05:07:40 PM  
FTFA: Apart from the usual wartime horrors, after the war, at least 60,000 men, women, and children were forcibly cast out of the newly minted nation as refugees. Meanwhile, Britain was busy trying to help its exiled supporters and, oh yeah, freeing the thousands of African-(ex-)Americans who had supported the losing side.

Bumper sticker seen on a north-bound buggy.

lolbumperstickers.com
 
2013-03-17 05:09:39 PM  
The story of Molly Pitcher shows the upside of teaching your wife to handle your cannon. The downside is when she catches you with the maid and blows your head off*.

"Stand still, wretch! I am but a feeble woman and can't pick this damn thing up and aim it!"

*Sounds a bit more like a pron plot than I intended.
 
2013-03-17 05:22:52 PM  

Mister Peejay: iheartscotch:
Sam Adams singlehandedly supplied all the beer for the colonists. His beer survives to this day.

That explains why it tastes 230 years old.


That's all the hopy goodness. That's what beer is supposed to taste like. Not flavored horse piss, like bud! American beer won awards the world over before prohibition. After prohibition, America didn't win shiat until zombie Sam Adams came along
 
2013-03-17 05:27:05 PM  

flyinglizard: iheartscotch: 

// he was also 7 ft tall and rode a T-Rex into battle.

Bang a gong.


Is that a Dresden Files reference?
 
2013-03-17 05:29:23 PM  

flyinglizard: iheartscotch: planes: Another Revolutionary War myth:

Wealthy George Washington continued to live a luxurious life during the winter at Valley Forge, all charged to his Continental Congress expense account. (new window)

George Washington once, singlehandedly, besieged Yorktown and forced the capitulation of England's forces. He also never told a lie and nailed King George's mistress every night.

/ George Washington is the greatest president we've ever had. He could have been king of the United States; but, he stuck to his principles and was generally awesome.

// he was also 7 ft tall and rode a T-Rex into battle.

Bang a gong.


Children of the Revolution would be more appropriate, I think.
 
2013-03-17 05:29:55 PM  
Molly Pitcher is a legend.

Deborah Sampson, on the other hand, was a real person, and received a soldier's pension for fighting in the Revolution while disguised as a man.
 
2013-03-17 05:30:45 PM  
What did the French ever do for Americans? Apart from blockading Cornwallis, forcing him to surrender because the fleet of reenforcements and supplies couldn't get up Chesapeake Bay.

The French Crown spent so much money supporting the American Revolution that the resulting national debt was a prime cause of the French Revoluton. As much as two thirds of the debt which defied the best efforts of Necker at management was due to money spent to screw the British Empire (such as it was at that time).

Which is a bit ironic, considering that one of the main grievances of the wealthy Whig landowners who constituted the drivers of the American Revolution was being taxed for their own defence (the British had spent four and a half millions pounds sterling and were engaged in cost recovery because the taxpayers back home weren't any happier paying for a dead-loss colonial venture). The East India Company's enormous losses were anotheer major grievance. A tax imposed on tea to benefit the company was strongly objected to by the middle classes as well as the rich because tea had become a staple food. If you weren't a drinker, you had to boil water to make tea or coffee or chocolate because it was death to drink well water in any populated town without modern hygeine, medicine, and plumbing.

This is why modern would-be conservative revolutionaries love to re-write Revolutionary War history to turn it into a victory for their own anti-government, anti-tax, anti-welfare and health care and gun control, etc., fantasies.

Follow the money and most glorious revolutions collapse into a pattern of the "needy greedy" against the haves, to borrow apt phrase from a British PM of note. But not the poor. The "needy greedy" are often quite rich--they just can't get enough. Even the terrorists of today are drawn largely from the prosperous upper middle classes--Bin Laden was a billionaires umpteenth son, and his Number Two was from a wealthy family in Egypt and a medical doctor--a well-to-do man, although not quite the Frederick Engels of the Jihadist Revolution. Marx's best bud Engels was the son of a rich mill-owner in Middle England.

Julius Caesar was described as a "needy greedy" hero by the conservatives of Rome--every debtor and spend-thrift in Rome was lavishly bought off with the loot of Caesar's campaigns in Gaul (which resulted in the taking of perhaps 1.5 million slaves). Caesar funded his campaign for top office (and empire) with enormous amounts of money--which is why Roman Generals and provincial Senatorial governors in charge of rich provinces make up the bulk of the upper power establishment in Rome besides the kleptocratic Imperial Families.

The French Crown played the role that the right wing Kochs, Coors and other land and resource-rich anti-government plutocrats play in the Second American Revolution and Christian Jihad preached by the far right wing today.

Devouring the lion's share of the agricultural, tobacco, fossil fuel and other subsidies, including the fruits of the one third of the land owned by the Federal Government,  isn't enough for these needy-greedies. They want the government as well.

Like Comedy, Revolution is not pretty.

And of the two, I suspect that Comedy accomplishs the most good.
 
2013-03-17 05:32:06 PM  

MontanaDave: thisisyourbrainonFark: SomeoneDumb: I have it on good authoritah that Revere was "He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed. "

13 seconds. Shakes fist.

It is true. I saw it on Wikipedia. So it HAS to be true. And the truth is true whether you post it 13 seconds early or not.


What's your point? That she didn't actually say that?
 
2013-03-17 05:37:27 PM  
I never understood how the "We defeated the greatest army in the world" thing ever got started.  The British Army was pretty a consistent stream of failure when tasked to do anything beyond beat up natives with the support of Royal Navy gunfire.  The battles we won against British warships are notable, but their army has always been meh.

/Wellington was good and all, but he mostly fought the Spanish puppet troops
//by the time they got to Waterloo a number of other European countries had showed up to help
 
2013-03-17 05:39:35 PM  

brantgoose: What did the French ever do for Americans?


The problem was the French didn't fall inline with Bush Administration lies.
They got Dixie Chicked.
Nothing at all wrong with the French.
 
2013-03-17 05:46:57 PM  

alwaysjaded: CPT Ethanolic: Here's another much believed myth - that Washington was some kind of super-general.  In reality, the guy bungled things over and over in the beginning and SHOULD have lost if Howe hadn't bungled things even worse at Boston and New York.  Early on, MANY surrounding Washington considered him incompetent and actively petitioned to have him removed from command.
I've always enjoyed telling homophobes that one of the greatest Revolutionary war heroes was kicked out of the military for being gay.


<<"It has come to me from different sources that M. de Steuben is accused of having taken familiarities with young boys >> That reads less as gay and more as pedophile.
 
2013-03-17 05:49:09 PM  

thisisyourbrainonFark: MontanaDave: thisisyourbrainonFark: SomeoneDumb: I have it on good authoritah that Revere was "He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed. "

13 seconds. Shakes fist.

It is true. I saw it on Wikipedia. So it HAS to be true. And the truth is true whether you post it 13 seconds early or not.

What's your point? That she didn't actually say that?


It was supposed to be a reference to her supporters editing the wiki article to back up Sarah's little pile of herp-a-derp, but (since this is Fark) if it ruffles your feathers for whatever reason I'll go with that.
 
2013-03-17 05:51:56 PM  

alwaysjaded: CPT Ethanolic: Here's another much believed myth - that Washington was some kind of super-general.  In reality, the guy bungled things over and over in the beginning and SHOULD have lost if Howe hadn't bungled things even worse at Boston and New York.  Early on, MANY surrounding Washington considered him incompetent and actively petitioned to have him removed from command.
I've always enjoyed telling homophobes that one of the greatest Revolutionary war heroes was kicked out of the military for being gay.


"It has come to me from different sources that M. de Steuben is accused of having taken familiarities with young boys which the laws forbid and punish severely. "

Ummm...
 
2013-03-17 05:53:10 PM  

planes: Another Revolutionary War myth:

 [www.global-air.com image 150x200]

Wealthy George Washington continued to live a luxurious life during the winter at Valley Forge, all charged to his Continental Congress expense account. (new window)


He also didn't take a salary.

And you know what? He should have, and there's a reason one was forced on him as President- some people who had that foresight thing realized that if you don't pay people when they do a job, those jobs (like governing the country) become the exclusive provenance of wealthy people who can afford to go without pay.

Also, George Washington's wealth was never liquid- he, and most planters, were living on credit and constantly had trouble making payments because they had virtually no cashflow.

And the life he lived at valley forge was hardly luxurious- not as bad as the rank and file had it, no, but he was the commanding General of an army- they weren't going to be putting him in a tent.

Seriously, what the fark is your problem? That he expected that, when he wasn't taking a salary, his expenses (you know, like running the administrative apparatus for the army) would at least be reimbursed? That he wasn't treated exactly like no-import joe illiterate when making camp?
I suggest reading a real book. Chernow's recent book, "Washington" is a decent one.
 
2013-03-17 05:57:13 PM  

Fark Master Flex: Have you noticed in the WWII movies that whenever the GIs need intelligence or supplies from 'the underground', they're always French?  As a nation they had their asses handed to them but as a people they fought on as best they could.  Being of Danish descent I can sympathize.  Look at a map of Germany, you'll understand.


Yeah, I don't get it either.  The French government basically had a plan for one type of invasion, Germany circumvented it, the military stuck to their now-irrelevant plan because THE PLAN, then the government rolled over and gave in because game over.

But the actual people, on the other hand...
 
2013-03-17 06:00:44 PM  

iheartscotch: Mister Peejay: iheartscotch:
Sam Adams singlehandedly supplied all the beer for the colonists. His beer survives to this day.

That explains why it tastes 230 years old.

That's all the hopy goodness. That's what beer is supposed to taste like. Not flavored horse piss, like bud! American beer won awards the world over before prohibition. After prohibition, America didn't win shiat until zombie Sam Adams came along


I prefer Belgians or some German beers.  Sam Adams tastes like burnt ass.
 
2013-03-17 06:03:53 PM  

Mister Peejay: iheartscotch: Mister Peejay: iheartscotch:
Sam Adams singlehandedly supplied all the beer for the colonists. His beer survives to this day.

That explains why it tastes 230 years old.

That's all the hopy goodness. That's what beer is supposed to taste like. Not flavored horse piss, like bud! American beer won awards the world over before prohibition. After prohibition, America didn't win shiat until zombie Sam Adams came along

I prefer Belgians or some German beers.  Sam Adams tastes like burnt ass.


It's still better than the crap the British sailors were drinking at the time.  Today we call that shiat an India Pale Ale.
 
2013-03-17 06:05:16 PM  

NullReferenceException: flyinglizard: iheartscotch:

// he was also 7 ft tall and rode a T-Rex into battle.

Bang a gong.

Is that a Dresden Files reference?


I'm only 35 and I got it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4HQbRuWJUU
 
2013-03-17 06:05:26 PM  
Interesting comments, but, who won?
 
2013-03-17 06:06:04 PM  
Learned this in 9th grade. First day of history class, our teacher told us everything we had learned the previous year about the American Revolution was wrong and told us to leave our textbooks in our lockers.
 
2013-03-17 06:20:35 PM  

upndn: Interesting comments, but, who won?


The jury is still out on that one, sunbeam.
 
2013-03-17 06:51:25 PM  
From what I've read about the Revolutionary War, we didn't win because of our amazing fighting skills or even ability to form alliances with British enemies, but because the entire thing was a massive clusterfark on the British side, starting with the British prime minister (the same one mentioned as trying to resign halfway through) passing the laws that sparked the revolution and, then predicting he'd be able to enforce them with a couple frigates. For the British it was one fark-up after the next. I will say that the American side at least had the advantage of not seriously farking up anything throughout the war, which is a skill in of itself.
 
2013-03-17 07:03:11 PM  

Richard Saunders: alwaysjaded: The best book I ever read about the Revolution was 1776 by David McCullogh. Really gave a good picture of just how much of a miracle it was that we won that war.

Also why I loved HBO's adaptation of John Adams. The second episode specifically. The portrayals of flawed people was much more refreshing than the "George Washington rides in on Jesus waves with a bald eagle on his shoulder and has TJ draft the Constitution in British blood while farking a girl named Liberty" myth.

Absolutely.

Read everything else readily available, then go with McCullough and Ron Chernow.

McCullough and Chernow.  McCullough and Chernow. McCullough and Chernow. McCullough and Chernow. McCullough and Chernow. McCullough and Chernow. McCullough and Chernow. McCullough and Chernow. McCullough and Chernow. McCullough and Chernow. McCullough and Chernow....

/can't be said enough
//through thine eyes will an open mind the truth be revealed


I don't know anything about Chernow, but McCullough should stand as one of the greatest writers on the past 50 years in my mind, maybe longer.   My favorites:

The Great Bridge
The Path Between The Seas
The Johnstown Flood (Short, but intense)
John Adams (Long, but worth it)

/Reading his work makes it easy to imagine being there.
//And is, very, thoroughly cited, often from source docs.
 
2013-03-17 07:10:19 PM  

Kurmudgeon: brantgoose: What did the French ever do for Americans?

The problem was the French didn't fall inline with Bush Administration lies.
They got Dixie Chicked.
Nothing at all wrong with the French.


Neither did the Germans, but we still didn't call fermented cabbage "sour freedom".
 
2013-03-17 07:23:23 PM  
Contradictory article is contradictory. It points out that only about  a third of Americans were behind the revolution (another third were with the Brits and a third were with whoever won) but says the British army faced our entire population and downplays our win accordingly in another myth
 
2013-03-17 07:26:46 PM  

YouSirAreAMaroon: Maxor: BokChoy: Texas wasn't even a state at the time so I don't know what they'd be sad about... they had about as much involvement in the revolutionary war as Korea did.

Actually it was it was part of the spanish colony of
Coahuila y Tejas they even succeeded from mexico together in the 1830s but the republic of the rio grande lost texas.

I'm glad they were secessful.


They were it was sort of interesting how a bunch of carpet bagging southerners from the US, assisted the native population to the point where soon after Anglos were a majority of the new government and the spelling was Anglicized. You rarely hear about Juan Seguine outside of Texas but he was fairly important in early Texas history.  Also a neat peice of history is that there were a number of other cities in the southern and southwestern US under Spanish dominion at the time that are still in existence.  Those 13 colonies of England did a decent job of shucking off English rule and all, but its not like they fought the only wars of independence in the US.   Also a neat note is the Quasi war between the US and France  in the 1798-1800 time frame, it did alot to make US french relations much more distasteful, and get the french excised from the US histories, also forgotten for the most part is the French and Indian war which was fought shortly before the revolution.
 
2013-03-17 07:35:32 PM  

SurelyShirley: Neither did the Germans, but we still didn't call fermented cabbage "sour freedom".


Plenty of Germanic statues were melted down or stored, things renamed, etc. during WW1.

Probably not as ridiculous as renaming french fries, but that's an awful low bar.
 
2013-03-17 07:46:39 PM  

Need_MindBleach: From what I've read about the Revolutionary War, we didn't win because of our amazing fighting skills or even ability to form alliances with British enemies, but because the entire thing was a massive clusterfark on the British side, starting with the British prime minister (the same one mentioned as trying to resign halfway through) passing the laws that sparked the revolution and, then predicting he'd be able to enforce them with a couple frigates.


That is a very provincial US centric view. The British and French were in a world war. The Brits skimped on preserving their US colonies because for them holding onto their Caribbean colonies was economically more important. Sorry, but the future US was seen as less important than Jamaica.
 
2013-03-17 07:51:33 PM  
Actually Maxor the 'Quasi-War" mention was specifically because the French expected more influence on our future for what they put into it. That's one of the reasons why most of us Americans don't feel any warmth towards the French for their help in our revolution.

1 Their help was to fark England. not help us. Much like we once were Afghanistans friend because they resisted the Soviets

2 after the war they tried to pressure our gov

3 in the World Wars following they required rescuing both times, and past that they strongarmed us into Vietnam.
 
2013-03-17 07:52:31 PM  

HairBolus: Need_MindBleach: From what I've read about the Revolutionary War, we didn't win because of our amazing fighting skills or even ability to form alliances with British enemies, but because the entire thing was a massive clusterfark on the British side, starting with the British prime minister (the same one mentioned as trying to resign halfway through) passing the laws that sparked the revolution and, then predicting he'd be able to enforce them with a couple frigates.

That is a very provincial US centric view. The British and French were in a world war. The Brits skimped on preserving their US colonies because for them holding onto their Caribbean colonies was economically more important. Sorry, but the future US was seen as less important than Jamaica.


The British and French were in a world war? Where did you learn history? The British and French were not in any sort of war until the French jumped into Britain's little colonial conflict, forcing them to cut their losses in the rebellious parts of North America in order to hang on to all their other colonies.
 
2013-03-17 08:12:10 PM  
If it's Cracked; it must be partially true.

For me, the "geurrila warfare was a myth because of British Indians and muskets had short range" was the least convincing segment.
 
2013-03-17 08:24:32 PM  

dickfreckle: This is why French hate always bewilders me. Not only did they supply us, but they loaned us notable badasses like Francis Marion (Swamp Fox). I'm no military expert, but it seems clear that without the French we would have lost.


The XYZ Affair.
 
2013-03-17 08:27:05 PM  

TomD9938: SurelyShirley: Neither did the Germans, but we still didn't call fermented cabbage "sour freedom".

Plenty of Germanic statues were melted down or stored, things renamed, etc. during WW1.

Probably not as ridiculous as renaming french fries, but that's an awful low bar.


Yeah, that bar is pretty low.

Crap, gotta go, my Salisbury Steak is burning...
 
2013-03-17 08:58:03 PM  
Lol public schooling.  You know it's bad when they can't even get their own country's history correct.
 
2013-03-17 09:08:44 PM  

maddogdelta: Arnold won at Saratoga


He terminated the opposition.
 
2013-03-17 09:25:47 PM  

alwaysjaded: CPT Ethanolic: Here's another much believed myth - that Washington was some kind of super-general.  In reality, the guy bungled things over and over in the beginning and SHOULD have lost if Howe hadn't bungled things even worse at Boston and New York.  Early on, MANY surrounding Washington considered him incompetent and actively petitioned to have him removed from command.
I've always enjoyed telling homophobes that one of the greatest Revolutionary war heroes was kicked out of the military for being gay.


Yet another reason why Franklin was awesome.
 
2013-03-17 09:27:55 PM  

Need_MindBleach: HairBolus: Need_MindBleach: From what I've read about the Revolutionary War, we didn't win because of our amazing fighting skills or even ability to form alliances with British enemies, but because the entire thing was a massive clusterfark on the British side, starting with the British prime minister (the same one mentioned as trying to resign halfway through) passing the laws that sparked the revolution and, then predicting he'd be able to enforce them with a couple frigates.

That is a very provincial US centric view. The British and French were in a world war. The Brits skimped on preserving their US colonies because for them holding onto their Caribbean colonies was economically more important. Sorry, but the future US was seen as less important than Jamaica.

The British and French were in a world war? Where did you learn history? The British and French were not in any sort of war until the French jumped into Britain's little colonial conflict, forcing them to cut their losses in the rebellious parts of North America in order to hang on to all their other colonies.


The Seven Years War / French and Indian War was a world war with fighting all over the globe.

upload.wikimedia.org It officially "ended" in 1763 which meant that it turned into a cold war that flared up in 1775 in the American Revolutionary War, which again was a world war with fighting all over the globe - not just North America but also the West Indies, Mediterranean, and India. And yes, Britain was stretched thin but was more successful in defending those other colonies than is was in North America.
 
2013-03-17 09:28:12 PM  

TomD9938: SurelyShirley: Neither did the Germans, but we still didn't call fermented cabbage "sour freedom".

Plenty of Germanic statues were melted down or stored, things renamed, etc. during WW1.

Probably not as ridiculous as renaming french fries, but that's an awful low bar.


I was referring to the Germans not falling in line with the Bush administration lies.
 
2013-03-17 09:30:02 PM  

HairBolus: Need_MindBleach: From what I've read about the Revolutionary War, we didn't win because of our amazing fighting skills or even ability to form alliances with British enemies, but because the entire thing was a massive clusterfark on the British side, starting with the British prime minister (the same one mentioned as trying to resign halfway through) passing the laws that sparked the revolution and, then predicting he'd be able to enforce them with a couple frigates.

That is a very provincial US centric view. The British and French were in a world war. The Brits skimped on preserving their US colonies because for them holding onto their Caribbean colonies was economically more important. Sorry, but the future US was seen as less important than Jamaica.


Is that supposed to make the US feel bad? Kind of the opposite
 
2013-03-17 09:36:22 PM  

unchellmatt: It would be nice if "conservatives" who tout their patriotism and how they model themselves after the founding fathers could actually read a bit of history. They'd find that, in a very real sense, they would have been "loyalists".

Yep. The founding members of the US were, in fact, progressives and pretty much liberals of their day. They wanted change from the status quo, wanted ... gasp! ... progress for their people, wanted to basically muck about with the system.

Oh the amusement.


The root cause for the opposition to the government was over taxes. The Brits ran up a sizable debt fighting the French and Indian war and thought the colonists should help pay for it. The revolutionaries didn't want to pay for the war that was fought on their behalf - hence the original tea party, opposition to the stamp tax etc. Fighting wars and opposing the taxes to pay for them. Which party does that sound like to you?
 
2013-03-17 10:13:00 PM  
unchellmatt: It would be nice if "conservatives" who tout their patriotism and how they model themselves after the founding fathers could actually read a bit of history. They'd find that, in a very real sense, they would have been "loyalists".

Yep. The founding members of the US were, in fact, progressives and pretty much liberals of their day. They wanted change from the status quo, wanted ... gasp! ... progress for their people, wanted to basically muck about with the system.

Oh the amusement.

The root cause for the opposition to the government was over taxes. The Brits ran up a sizable debt fighting the French and Indian war and thought the colonists should help pay for it. The revolutionaries didn't want to pay for the war that was fought on their behalf - hence the original tea party, opposition to the stamp tax etc. Fighting wars and opposing the taxes to pay for them. Which party does that sound like to you?


Saying the war was fought over taxes is kind of a gross oversimplification. The conflict between Britain-Colonies started due to taxes, but by the time the actual war broke out, the only tax was on tea, and it cost the British more to collect it than it actually brought in.

HairBolus:

I don't understand your point, dude. I know about the Seven Years War. It had still been 12 years since it ended. The British and French had been at each others' throats for more than 100 years, they were the French and British during the 18th century, natural rivals. The French still didn't jump into the colonial fight until 3 years in, after they were sure they wouldn't be getting their soldiers killed for a failed revolt.
 
2013-03-17 10:18:16 PM  

SurelyShirley: TomD9938: SurelyShirley: Neither did the Germans, but we still didn't call fermented cabbage "sour freedom".

Plenty of Germanic statues were melted down or stored, things renamed, etc. during WW1.

Probably not as ridiculous as renaming french fries, but that's an awful low bar.

I was referring to the Germans not falling in line with the Bush administration lies.


==========

Nobody really wants to see Germans in grey uniforms and bucket helmets again.  After some talking, everyone is relieved to have them sit things out.
 
2013-03-17 10:40:15 PM  

kim jong-un: HairBolus: Need_MindBleach: From what I've read about the Revolutionary War, we didn't win because of our amazing fighting skills or even ability to form alliances with British enemies, but because the entire thing was a massive clusterfark on the British side, starting with the British prime minister (the same one mentioned as trying to resign halfway through) passing the laws that sparked the revolution and, then predicting he'd be able to enforce them with a couple frigates.

That is a very provincial US centric view. The British and French were in a world war. The Brits skimped on preserving their US colonies because for them holding onto their Caribbean colonies was economically more important. Sorry, but the future US was seen as less important than Jamaica.

Is that supposed to make the US feel bad? Kind of the opposite


Not feel bad but less superior. The American colonies did not through superiority defeat the full war juggernaut of the British Empire, instead the Brits used more of their military force to preserve their other colonies. Maybe because if they lost the NA colonies those wouldn't be taken over by their rivals, and would remain economic colonies - as the states did up until the Civil War - which was somewhat about the South wanting low tariffs so it could export slave grown cotton to England to pay for imported manufactured goods.
 
2013-03-17 11:07:19 PM  

Need_MindBleach: unchellmatt: It would be nice if "conservatives" who tout their patriotism and how they model themselves after the founding fathers could actually read a bit of history. They'd find that, in a very real sense, they would have been "loyalists".

Yep. The founding members of the US were, in fact, progressives and pretty much liberals of their day. They wanted change from the status quo, wanted ... gasp! ... progress for their people, wanted to basically muck about with the system.

Oh the amusement.

The root cause for the opposition to the government was over taxes. The Brits ran up a sizable debt fighting the French and Indian war and thought the colonists should help pay for it. The revolutionaries didn't want to pay for the war that was fought on their behalf - hence the original tea party, opposition to the stamp tax etc. Fighting wars and opposing the taxes to pay for them. Which party does that sound like to you?

Saying the war was fought over taxes is kind of a gross oversimplification. The conflict between Britain-Colonies started due to taxes, but by the time the actual war broke out, the only tax was on tea, and it cost the British more to collect it than it actually brought in.

HairBolus:

I don't understand your point, dude. I know about the Seven Years War. It had still been 12 years since it ended. The British and French had been at each others' throats for more than 100 years, they were the French and British during the 18th century, natural rivals. The French still didn't jump into the colonial fight until 3 years in, after they were sure they wouldn't be getting their soldiers killed for a failed revolt.


No doubt you could write a dissertation on the chain of events that led to a shooting war, but I think it's fair to argue that the colonists were never so happy to be Brittish than they were after the French and Indian war. That attitude soured with the new taxes. The Stamp Act 1765, and the Townshend Acts 1767 lead to unrest. Troops occupy Boston in 1768 leads to the Boston Massacre 1770. The Tea Act in 1773 leads to the tea party leads to the closure of the port of Boston. Colonists seize militia cannons under guard of Brittish soldiers and sneak then out of Boston in 1774 leads to Lexington and Concord 1775. True most of the taxes were repealed in an effort to de-escalate the situation but it was too little/too late.
 
2013-03-17 11:14:19 PM  

HairBolus: kim jong-un: HairBolus: Need_MindBleach: From what I've read about the Revolutionary War, we didn't win because of our amazing fighting skills or even ability to form alliances with British enemies, but because the entire thing was a massive clusterfark on the British side, starting with the British prime minister (the same one mentioned as trying to resign halfway through) passing the laws that sparked the revolution and, then predicting he'd be able to enforce them with a couple frigates.

That is a very provincial US centric view. The British and French were in a world war. The Brits skimped on preserving their US colonies because for them holding onto their Caribbean colonies was economically more important. Sorry, but the future US was seen as less important than Jamaica.

Is that supposed to make the US feel bad? Kind of the opposite

Not feel bad but less superior. The American colonies did not through superiority defeat the full war juggernaut of the British Empire, instead the Brits used more of their military force to preserve their other colonies. Maybe because if they lost the NA colonies those wouldn't be taken over by their rivals, and would remain economic colonies - as the states did up until the Civil War - which was somewhat about the South wanting low tariffs so it could export slave grown cotton to England to pay for imported manufactured goods.


So, in other words, your point has nothing to do with the actual discussion, you're just here to educate us ignorant Americans about things we already knew. Good job.
 
2013-03-17 11:25:46 PM  

ukexpat: Deathfrogg: alwaysjaded: vpb:

The girl named liberty was a myth?  What was her real name then?

Destiny

Actually, it was Destini.

You know, with an "i". She was the one with the live goldfish in her 7 inch pups.

You mean Destinii...


A Jawa stripper? I could be into that...
 
Displayed 50 of 181 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report