PDA

View Full Version : George Washington was an Insurgent



jamesb5007
June 26th, 2005, 10:48 AM
America's role in Iraq is like that of the British in the Revolutionary War. And George Washington’s Iraqi double is the so far un-named-by-the-press Iraqi Insurgent Leader.

British imposed rule on America and taxed America, America imposed rule on Iraq (both now, and back all the way to 1963 with the cia’s backing of Saddam Hussein), and have been trying to suck oil out since. That stuff about liberating Iraqi this past year may have fooled some Americans, but the rest of the world knows it doesn't really make sense to liberate a country from a dictator you put in power. It's just more of the same American Rule. Iraqis are sick of it, like the american colony was in the late 1700s.

George Washington saw how the indians fought, and liked their tactics of attacking, running, hiding. He employed them in fighting the British. The British whined that this form of warfare wasn’t fair, was ungentlemanly and cowardly.
Exactly what Americans are whining about now with roadside and suicide bombers. George learned from the indians, The Iraqi Insurgent leader learned from Al Qaeda.

George Washington lost nearly every battle he waged. He won the war though.

Here’s what the White House website says about George:

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html)
He realized early that the best strategy was to harass the British. He reported to Congress, "we should on all Occasions avoid a general Action, or put anything to the Risque, unless compelled by a necessity, into which we ought never to be drawn."

Sounds a lot like an insurgent to me.

KevinBrowning
June 26th, 2005, 10:56 AM
America's role in Iraq is like that of the British in the Revolutionary War.

Your ignorance of history is sickening. First off, the American colonies were the property of Britain. Both sides recognized this initially. Iraq is not America's property, and the U.S. has never claimed such a thing. Second, your whole revisionist stance of American revolutionaries being like Iraqi terrorists or "insurgents" is ill informed. The terrorists use cowardly suicide tactics and target civilians. This is far removed from the guerrilla tactics the independence fighters in America employed against British troops. To put it in simple terms for the history disabled: The Iraqi insurgents are killing both soldiers and noncombatants in mostly suicide attacks to fight against the nation that has freed them from oppression and is helping them improve their country. The U.S. separatists killed soldiers only, in guerrilla attacks, not suicide attacks, to remove an oppressive power. Infinitely different situations, and a quick glance at historic parallels should dispel such a ludicrous comparison for any halfway educated person.

Telex
June 26th, 2005, 10:59 AM
America's role in Iraq is like that of the British in the Revolutionary War. And George Washington’s Iraqi double is the so far un-named-by-the-press Iraqi Insurgent Leader.

British imposed rule on America and taxed America, America imposed rule on Iraq (both now, and back all the way to 1963 with the cia’s backing of Saddam Hussein), and have been trying to suck oil out since. That stuff about liberating Iraqi this past year may have fooled some Americans, but the rest of the world knows it doesn't really make sense to liberate a country from a dictator you put in power. It's just more of the same American Rule. Iraqis are sick of it, like the american colony was in the late 1700s.

George Washington saw how the indians fought, and liked their tactics of attacking, running, hiding. He employed them in fighting the British. The British whined that this form of warfare wasn’t fair, was ungentlemanly and cowardly.
Exactly what Americans are whining about now with roadside and suicide bombers. George learned from the indians, The Iraqi Insurgent leader learned from Al Qaeda.

George Washington lost nearly every battle he waged. He won the war though.

Here’s what the White House website says about George:

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html)
He realized early that the best strategy was to harass the British. He reported to Congress, "we should on all Occasions avoid a general Action, or put anything to the Risque, unless compelled by a necessity, into which we ought never to be drawn."

Sounds a lot like an insurgent to me.
If he was or wasn't, it has no relevence to the Iraqi war. Simply labelling one of our national heroes as an insurgent will not prove that all insurgents are thus justified. Labelling the Iraqi insurgents as enemies does not mean all insurgents throughout history are our enemies. We are not fighting against insurgents in general, but Iraqi insurgents specifically.

Swedish
June 26th, 2005, 02:29 PM
If you wanna play names, I can say Abraham Lincoln resembeled Hitler because he immediately jailed anybody who was sympathetic to the Confederates in the North, limited freedom of the press, and lots of other things.

Or that Martin Luther King was racist against his own kind since he advocated against Affirmitive Action.

Here's a quarter, buy a clue.

PerVirtuous
June 26th, 2005, 02:44 PM
America's role in Iraq is like that of the British in the Revolutionary War. And George Washington’s Iraqi double is the so far un-named-by-the-press Iraqi Insurgent Leader.

British imposed rule on America and taxed America, America imposed rule on Iraq (both now, and back all the way to 1963 with the cia’s backing of Saddam Hussein), and have been trying to suck oil out since. That stuff about liberating Iraqi this past year may have fooled some Americans, but the rest of the world knows it doesn't really make sense to liberate a country from a dictator you put in power. It's just more of the same American Rule. Iraqis are sick of it, like the american colony was in the late 1700s.

George Washington saw how the indians fought, and liked their tactics of attacking, running, hiding. He employed them in fighting the British. The British whined that this form of warfare wasn’t fair, was ungentlemanly and cowardly.
Exactly what Americans are whining about now with roadside and suicide bombers. George learned from the indians, The Iraqi Insurgent leader learned from Al Qaeda.

George Washington lost nearly every battle he waged. He won the war though.

Here’s what the White House website says about George:

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html)
He realized early that the best strategy was to harass the British. He reported to Congress, "we should on all Occasions avoid a general Action, or put anything to the Risque, unless compelled by a necessity, into which we ought never to be drawn."

Sounds a lot like an insurgent to me.

And to me too. Here's the rub: The term "insurgent" is a lable given by the occupying Nation to those that oppose them. That term may only be a temporary one. All you need to do for proof of this is to read what the British history texts say about Mr. Washington now. I doubt that you will see any such writing from future U.S. scholars regarding the Iraq insurgents. History, however, has this odd habit of ending up differently than anyone predicted. We shall see.

Although the KB post was full of value judgements I do not agree with, in general he was correct. The biggest difference here is that the Colonialist Army was trying to free their people from the heavy-handed British who were usurping their freedom. The U.S. has no designs upon occupying Iraq in the traditional sense, and is attempting to help them gain a level of freedom they have not had in memory, not usurp it. The Iraqi insurgent's battle is not for their country's freedom, but for control of the assets of and for the obedience of their countrymen. I would see thes as quite different, even if the "lables" could be stretched to be used in a similarmanner.

Mr. Hyde
June 26th, 2005, 06:34 PM
Well let's see some of the subtleties of the Revolution shall we? We shall. :)

At the Boston Massacre Colonials were throwing rocks packed inside snowballs and also Ice chunks at British Soldiers there. The people were cursing and calling them names of the foulest nature. The British in turn, were ordered not to fire, couldn't hear correctly, fired, and a few people died. Yet the picture most attributed to it, as well as Samuel Adams' description of the event labled it a massacre where the evil British slaughtered innocent civilians. John Adams went to the defense of these Colonial Rodney King offenders and got all but two acquitted.

The Colonials burned effigees of Loyalist Politicians, destroyed imported merchandise, and physically attacked Loyalists. Loads of Propaganda and some terrorist tactics. Are these the measures of a Patriot? They were then. But we look at a different group acting in the same fashion and deem them inhuman? Why? Perspective. I assume the British thought we were pretty evil when all of it was going on. This is why Objectivism is so nice. I admire what the Colonials accomplished, but I'm disgusted by the way their names and beliefs are being used today. And I believe Justice Scalia among thousands of americans feel the same way.

But it's one thing, quite sad really, to look at something so great and degrade it by pointing to every detail and saying,"See, See? These guys were terrorists! Our founding fathers were terrorists!" So what if they were? They created a document to guide the nation that has lasted some great many years. France had a revolution, and they went through five constitutions pretty quickly. But they ARE French right? Still, and since this is about the Founding Fathers&Mothers of this country, consider that they all of them believed the Constitution was to be used BY the people to RESTRAIN the Government. The Constitution wasn't to be used BY the Government FOR or AGAINST the people. And yet, look at what's happening RIGHT NOW here in America.

FruitandNut
June 26th, 2005, 07:38 PM
George Washington initially worked for the Brits. and helped to line his own pockets and those of his friends by Bushwacking Spanish shipping. Later he attacked and killed some of his French 'allies'. He was what might be called today - 'a chancer'/opportunist.

Mr. Hyde
June 26th, 2005, 07:51 PM
George Washington initially worked for the Brits. and helped to line his own pockets and those of his friends by Bushwacking Spanish shipping. Later he attacked and killed some of his French 'allies'. He was what might be called today - 'a chancer'/opportunist.
Franklin used religion to gain supporters, often going to churches of different branches of Christianity for the sole purpose of politics and business. Opportunism, while unethical, is not wrong per se. But they ultimately drew a line didn't they? ;)

Meng Bomin
June 26th, 2005, 08:05 PM
George Washington saw how the indians fought, and liked their tactics of attacking, running, hiding. He employed them in fighting the British. The British whined that this form of warfare wasn’t fair, was ungentlemanly and cowardly.
Exactly what Americans are whining about now with roadside and suicide bombers. George learned from the indians, The Iraqi Insurgent leader learned from Al Qaeda.
I guess you could call the revolutionaries insurgents, but the ideological component was a bit different. American revolutionaries were more concerned with the ability to trade and the mercantilist restrictions that Britain had placed upon its colonies, whereas the Iraqi insurgency are religiously motivated. Both probably used hit and run tactics against more conventional armies because that was how one could win a fight. Conventional battles were pretty rare, because the relatively untrained American rebels would be no match for Britain's army in most situations.

You do raise an interesting point: there are some parallels between modern Iraq and Revolutionary America. Both "insurgencies" are/were minorities (most in the colonies were indifferent). Of course, both use/used "cowardly" tactics, because they work/worked. However, the difference is ideology and how it impacts a nation. I am not in support of radical religious ideology, while free trade and independence from a colonial empire sound like good ideas to me.

Apokalupsis
June 26th, 2005, 08:10 PM
The opening argument fails horribly on this one little fact...

Most of the insurgents...are not Iraqis, but those from neighboring countries.

Fyshhed
June 26th, 2005, 08:40 PM
While I will admit that American revolutionaries can be classified as insurgents from the right perspective, I fail to see the relevance here. If we are to be comparing, we are doing it from the American perspective (in most of our case here). As such we compare the "us" vs. the "them." Therefore, anyone who is part of the "us" argument is to be portrayed as a protagonist, and any of "them" are all villains.

The incentives, players, and triggers of both wars are completely unrelated, but what we can agree on is that the insurgency's general motivation is to win. In order to do this, varying courses of action can be taken, but so many factors have to be taken into consideration: technology, religion, environment, government, and so on. For the poor, downtrodden, resource-starved rebels and guerillas, any action to maximize the effect of an individual on the enemy is the right idea. In this case, cars and trucks, or makeshift explosives and suicides prove to be pretty effective at hampering resource movement or establishments.

Perhaps some of our own revolutionaries would have done the same. One such local revolutionary legend from my area is of a particular man who tried to become a spy in the Brit forces. He was fairly quickly caught and executed. His alleged last words, however, are pretty famous: "I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."

So who are we to complain about people dying for their cause? The cause is different, and we're on the recieving end this time, so if we're to defeat it, we have to acknowledge what it is that is really going on. Sure I want the insurgency to fail. Why? Because they're on the other side, and not mine. What they do is neither stupid, nor cowardly, considering their other options. There are no other reasons for my opinion, and why should there be?

Montalban
June 27th, 2005, 12:36 AM
America's role in Iraq is like that of the British in the Revolutionary War. And George Washington’s Iraqi double is the so far un-named-by-the-press Iraqi Insurgent Leader.

British imposed rule on America and taxed America, America imposed rule on Iraq (both now,

Britian didn't impose rule on an American state, but established the colonies of America under its rule.

The Americans were British.

The Iraqiis are not American. America is attempting to impose its will (through a local government) on a people it has no cultural links with.

They are very much dissimilar

Mr. Hyde
June 27th, 2005, 10:46 AM
Britian didn't impose rule on an American state, but established the colonies of America under its rule.

The Americans were British.

The Iraqiis are not American. America is attempting to impose its will (through a local government) on a people it has no cultural links with.

They are very much dissimilar
Read your history Mont. While they may have been English in origin, the English didn't want ANYTHING to do with the Colonies until Tobacco was discovered, and then they wanted sheer dominance over the trade. They DID impose quite a bit. You have a hundred years of common living without English rule despite being an English colony and then one day, the Crown shows up and says, "Oh Tobacco? Wow, now you KNOW you're an ENglish colony right? Good. Here some soldiers to protect you, and these laws say you can only trade with us. And taxes are up a bit too now, so start paying."

Spartacus
June 27th, 2005, 11:41 AM
America's role in Iraq is like that of the British in the Revolutionary War. And George Washington’s Iraqi double is the so far un-named-by-the-press Iraqi Insurgent Leader.

British imposed rule on America and taxed America, America imposed rule on Iraq (both now, and back all the way to 1963 with the cia’s backing of Saddam Hussein), and have been trying to suck oil out since. That stuff about liberating Iraqi this past year may have fooled some Americans, but the rest of the world knows it doesn't really make sense to liberate a country from a dictator you put in power. It's just more of the same American Rule. Iraqis are sick of it, like the american colony was in the late 1700s.

George Washington saw how the indians fought, and liked their tactics of attacking, running, hiding. He employed them in fighting the British. The British whined that this form of warfare wasn’t fair, was ungentlemanly and cowardly.
Exactly what Americans are whining about now with roadside and suicide bombers. George learned from the indians, The Iraqi Insurgent leader learned from Al Qaeda.

George Washington lost nearly every battle he waged. He won the war though.

Here’s what the White House website says about George:

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html)
He realized early that the best strategy was to harass the British. He reported to Congress, "we should on all Occasions avoid a general Action, or put anything to the Risque, unless compelled by a necessity, into which we ought never to be drawn."

Sounds a lot like an insurgent to me.

What an outlandish claim!

1.) George Washington was no terrorist as he never targetted innocent men women and children.

2.) George Washington was first an officer in the British Army before he ever lead the revolutionary Army.

3.) The US had no rule over Iraq.

4.) The Colonials were fighting for independace and self governemnt which is exactly the US goal for Iraq -- Self-governed and independant.

Spartacus
June 27th, 2005, 11:41 AM
America's role in Iraq is like that of the British in the Revolutionary War. And George Washington’s Iraqi double is the so far un-named-by-the-press Iraqi Insurgent Leader.

British imposed rule on America and taxed America, America imposed rule on Iraq (both now, and back all the way to 1963 with the cia’s backing of Saddam Hussein), and have been trying to suck oil out since. That stuff about liberating Iraqi this past year may have fooled some Americans, but the rest of the world knows it doesn't really make sense to liberate a country from a dictator you put in power. It's just more of the same American Rule. Iraqis are sick of it, like the american colony was in the late 1700s.

George Washington saw how the indians fought, and liked their tactics of attacking, running, hiding. He employed them in fighting the British. The British whined that this form of warfare wasn’t fair, was ungentlemanly and cowardly.
Exactly what Americans are whining about now with roadside and suicide bombers. George learned from the indians, The Iraqi Insurgent leader learned from Al Qaeda.

George Washington lost nearly every battle he waged. He won the war though.

Here’s what the White House website says about George:

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html)
He realized early that the best strategy was to harass the British. He reported to Congress, "we should on all Occasions avoid a general Action, or put anything to the Risque, unless compelled by a necessity, into which we ought never to be drawn."

Sounds a lot like an insurgent to me.

What an outlandish claim!

1.) George Washington was no terrorist as he never targetted innocent men women and children.

2.) George Washington was first an officer in the British Army before he ever lead the revolutionary Army.

3.) The US had no rule over Iraq.

4.) The Colonials were fighting for independace and self governemnt which is exactly the US goal for Iraq -- Self-governed and independant.

FruitandNut
June 27th, 2005, 01:13 PM
Read your history Mont. While they may have been English in origin, the English didn't want ANYTHING to do with the Colonies until Tobacco was discovered, and then they wanted sheer dominance over the trade. They DID impose quite a bit. You have a hundred years of common living without English rule despite being an English colony and then one day, the Crown shows up and says, "Oh Tobacco? Wow, now you KNOW you're an ENglish colony right? Good. Here some soldiers to protect you, and these laws say you can only trade with us. And taxes are up a bit too now, so start paying."

Taxes were LOWER in the Colonies than in the UK. Most 'imposition' was of a local kind.

Meng Bomin
June 27th, 2005, 01:20 PM
Taxes were LOWER in the Colonies than in the UK. Most 'imposition' was of a local kind.
F&N hit the mark. The "unforgivable" Townshend acts actually included a decrease in tax, but with increased enforcement. The colonies had enjoyed relative autonomy since before the Seven Years War (aka French and Indian War). Because of that war, the British gained land, but had increased debt. So, they set up more enforcement of old laws and restricted colonists from passing east (actually for their own protection). Some colonists didn't like that and revolted (more in the North than in the South).

The one parallel that GW and the Iraqi insurgency have are the relatively similar battle tactics, which came about because of similar situations (ideological minority trying to defeat world power army). The reasons behind both insurgencies are much different as posters have already pointed out.

CliveStaples
June 27th, 2005, 01:24 PM
The one parallel that GW and the Iraqi insurgency have are the relatively similar battle tactics, which came about because of similar situations

Did the Americans wear uniforms? Did the American "tactics" include kidnapping innocent civilians and decapitating them? Did the Americans have a reasonable chance of victory?

Meng Bomin
June 27th, 2005, 01:30 PM
Did the Americans wear uniforms? Did the American "tactics" include kidnapping innocent civilians and decapitating them? Did the Americans have a reasonable chance of victory?No, but both used hit and run tactics, of which I was speaking.

CliveStaples
June 27th, 2005, 01:42 PM
No, but both used hit and run tactics, of which I was speaking.

Which is an entirely superfluous similarity. You might as well equate William Tecumseh Sherman with al-Zarqawi.

chadn737
June 27th, 2005, 01:43 PM
No, but both used hit and run tactics, of which I was speaking.

American: used hit and run

Iraq: blow self up

lots of similarity

Mr. Hyde
June 27th, 2005, 02:28 PM
F&N hit the mark. The "unforgivable" Townshend acts actually included a decrease in tax, but with increased enforcement. The colonies had enjoyed relative autonomy since before the Seven Years War (aka French and Indian War). Because of that war, the British gained land, but had increased debt. So, they set up more enforcement of old laws and restricted colonists from passing east (actually for their own protection). Some colonists didn't like that and revolted (more in the North than in the South).
There were taxes BEFORE the Townshend Act mate. Before that came: Sugar Act(tax on french molasses being imported so americans would have to buy English molasses), Stamp Act(forced you to pay a tax on everything paper, legal documents, playing cards, stuff like that.), The Declatory Act(made people pay taxes) the Townshend Act(moved the tax to an indirect area, pretty much the same taxes, just not as direct, so less complaints.)

The people in the Colonies went from ZERO Taxes to several Acts taxing pretty much everything they had already been using WITHOUT taxes. Imagine you're living comfortably. Then someone your parents lived with shows up and says, "Hey, you owe me money." and expects you to pay. Sounds idiotic doesn't it?

Meng Bomin
June 27th, 2005, 03:12 PM
The people in the Colonies went from ZERO Taxes to several Acts taxing pretty much everything they had already been using WITHOUT taxes. Imagine you're living comfortably. Then someone your parents lived with shows up and says, "Hey, you owe me money." and expects you to pay. Sounds idiotic doesn't it?
Most taxes were on shipping and were paid at the docks, so the average colonist wasn't affected much, except for a slight increase in the price of goods. The British, of course, saw it as fair, because it cost them a chunck of change to defend the colonies from the French. Of course, all was not well in Britain at the time of the Revolution.

Mr. Hyde
June 27th, 2005, 03:42 PM
Most taxes were on shipping and were paid at the docks, so the average colonist wasn't affected much, except for a slight increase in the price of goods. The British, of course, saw it as fair, because it cost them a chunck of change to defend the colonies from the French. Of course, all was not well in Britain at the time of the Revolution.
Where were the British when Colonials were defending their land from the natives? Where the British when they needed food and starved? The British didn't care about the Colonials, so what they saw as fair doesn't mean anything. Like I said, until Tobacco came along, they didn't care WHAT happened to the Colonies until they saw monetary benefit.

Meng Bomin
June 27th, 2005, 05:36 PM
Where were the British when Colonials were defending their land from the natives? Where the British when they needed food and starved?
Um...are you thinking about Jamestown or the Seven Years War? By the Revolutionary war, there weren't many starving in the colonies and the British had sent guns and men to fight the French and Indians who were threatening the colonies, so neither of those applies to the time of the Revolution.

The British didn't care about the Colonials, so what they saw as fair doesn't mean anything.
Considering the money they spent defending the colonies from the French, I think it did matter. In fact, the colonials still paid lower taxes before the revolution than the British citizenry in Britain (colonials still thought of themselves as "Englishmen") and than they did after the revolution.

Like I said, until Tobacco came along, they didn't care WHAT happened to the Colonies until they saw monetary benefit.
Yes, indeed. However, tobacco was discovered long before the Revolutionary War. Afterward, the British did care, as they saw profits and flocked to the colonies. Most colonials came after the discovery of tobacco.

American: used hit and run

Iraq: blow self up

lots of similarity
I guess you're right. The technology gap has changed things quite a bit.

Telex
June 27th, 2005, 06:00 PM
There's two ways to view the reasaon for the American Revolution: the Historical way ("No Taxation Without Representation!") or the Economic Way. The 'Historical Way' goes along with what Mr. Hyde has been saying. The poor colonists were taken advantage of and had to rebel because the British were big bullies. I give more clout to the Economic reason however, which goes like this:

1) The large majority of American colonists at the time were middle-class: The poor couldn't afford to come to America, and the rich had no reason to.

2) The purpose of a colony is to provide raw materials and a market to its Mother Country. The American colony sent over it's various unrefined natural resources to England, like lumber and coal and what-have-you, while English merchants sold their goods to the Colony, like tools and clothes and everything the Colony couldn't make because it was devoted to gathering and sending raw materials.

3) Being a colony, the Americans (well, they were still British then, but for sake of clarity I'm calling them Americans) were technically only allowed to sell their goods to England, and technically were only allowed to buy English products. This gave English merchants the upper hand in all business interactions.

4) However, during the period of Salutory Neglect, these rules were not strictly enforced. Taxes weren't too bad, smuggling was easy and common, and American colonists traded with all sorts of countries...including the Dutch.

5) The Dutch begin to threaten England's economic dominance of the seas (or was it the French? I'm a little rusty on details), which England doesn't like. They want to solidy their control of the colonial trade, so pass/begin enforcing the Navigation Acts forcing the American colonies to trade only with England.

6) Now, historically, members of the Middle Class strive for one thing: to become the Upper Class. They all want to be rich. When they're forced to only trade with England, wealth starts pouring into the British Merchants...but not the Americans.

7) All those taxes and crap just added to the little would-be aristocrat's case, and thus war broke out.

Now, to make this relevent to the topic: As you can see, situations leading to insurgency are much more complicated than just "One country invades and so the defenders start using guerilla warfare." The American rebels may act like the Iraqi insurgents, but the reasoning behind each insurgency is what separates them. You can't label all insurgents as good or evil, just like you can't label all armies good or evil.

Mr. Hyde
June 27th, 2005, 07:54 PM
Um...are you thinking about Jamestown or the Seven Years War? By the Revolutionary war, there weren't many starving in the colonies and the British had sent guns and men to fight the French and Indians who were threatening the colonies, so neither of those applies to the time of the Revolution.
Why do you keep talking about the French and Indian war? Really. Have I mentioned it once as a salient point for my argument or even as PART of my argument? I wanna know. The protection was about money. The settles had cash crops, they met the french and found out a war was coming to them. England sends troops not to protect the colonials, but to protect the cash crops, to protect that money. Granted, the colonials should have been a little more thankful than they were, but still.

Considering the money they spent defending the colonies from the French, I think it did matter. In fact, the colonials still paid lower taxes before the revolution than the British citizenry in Britain (colonials still thought of themselves as "Englishmen") and than they did after the revolution.
The french weren't always a threat Nev. The Colonials didn't start fighting the French until Washington's scouting party had captured a few French Soldiers. Before that, there was no real problem with the French. Stop acting like that war mattered "oh so much".

Yes, indeed. However, tobacco was discovered long before the Revolutionary War. Afterward, the British did care, as they saw profits and flocked to the colonies. Most colonials came after the discovery of tobacco.
Yes, I know that. I've been saying that. The colonies didn't matter until Tobacco was found. The English wouldn't have defended against invasion of the colonies without a great reason, and money was that reason. They then had an investment to protect. And most SOUTHERN colonies came after the discovery of Tobacco. The southern middle colonies had it, but couldn't grow it in the yields the southerners could.

Mr. Hyde
June 27th, 2005, 07:57 PM
There's two ways to view the reasaon for the American Revolution: the Historical way ("No Taxation Without Representation!") or the Economic Way. The 'Historical Way' goes along with what Mr. Hyde has been saying. The poor colonists were taken advantage of and had to rebel because the British were big bullies.
Um, what? There was more to the Historical than "They deserved it for being mean" the economics played a HEAVY part in the historical way of seeing it. It was economics that drove the entire thing. Before Cash crops, there was no need for England to pay attention to the colonies. So they never enforced taxes on them. When Cash Crops came, then came the various taxes and Acts. The people, after years of NOT paying a tax, were pretty pissed, as any one of us would be too. Simply writing off a certain view because traditionally people said, "The english deserved the rebellion they got" is sad and naiive.

Telex
June 27th, 2005, 08:07 PM
'Historical' was just the title I gave it - maybe Nationalistic or Ideological would have been a better one. Obviously both theories are historical, but they differ in that one view gives the cause of the Revolution as the ideological problem the colonists had - Taxation without representation, etc - while the other gives the Economic situation as the reason for the war. Of course the various taxes pushed the colonists further - but did they push them because of the economic situation that they caused, or the ideologies they went against?

Meng Bomin
June 27th, 2005, 08:33 PM
Why do you keep talking about the French and Indian war?
Because it was the reason that the British Parliament upped the taxes and enforcement of taxes on the colonies.

The protection was about money. The settles had cash crops, they met the french and found out a war was coming to them. England sends troops not to protect the colonials, but to protect the cash crops, to protect that money.
You can't grow very many cash crops in Massachusetts.

The french weren't always a threat Nev. The Colonials didn't start fighting the French until Washington's scouting party had captured a few French Soldiers. Before that, there was no real problem with the French. Stop acting like that war mattered "oh so much".
True, they weren't always a threat, but the Seven Years War (manefested across the globe, but called the French and Indian War in America) made them a threat. The British sent money and soldiers to fight the French. They had a debt to pay afterward. So, part of the debt fell on the colonists, which, in their minds, was justified by the fact that they had just spent much of the money fighting the French and American Indians. The Seven Years War was a turning point in the history of the American Colonies. That is why I keep bringing it up. One cannot understand the cause and effect behind the American Revolution without the Seven Years War.

Yes, I know that. I've been saying that. The colonies didn't matter until Tobacco was found. The English wouldn't have defended against invasion of the colonies without a great reason, and money was that reason. They then had an investment to protect. And most SOUTHERN colonies came after the discovery of Tobacco. The southern middle colonies had it, but couldn't grow it in the yields the southerners could.
So because the English were economically motivated, they had no right to tax the colonists?

Telex
June 27th, 2005, 08:42 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot to talk about the "cash crop" issue. NE is right. Crash crops did not cause the change of the British policy regarding the colonies that lead to the Revolution. Tobacco is all well and good, but it is very hard to grow in large quantities as it required a certain climate. It was a successfull crop for the Virginia colony, but not many others.

The real reason economic policy changed was because of the massive national debt Britain had racked up due to its wars. They decided that the colonies needed to pay more for the benefit of peace that Britain had won for them.

KevinBrowning
June 27th, 2005, 10:15 PM
There's two ways to view the reasaon for the American Revolution: the Historical way ("No Taxation Without Representation!") or the Economic Way. The 'Historical Way' goes along with what Mr. Hyde has been saying. The poor colonists were taken advantage of and had to rebel because the British were big bullies. I give more clout to the Economic reason however, which goes like this:

Wouldn't the modern view of the reason that the American colonists revolted against England be the historical way to view it, whether it was primarily driven by economics or not? Also, one's offering of two ways of interpreting the American Revolution as either historic or economic makes little sense when one admits that the issue of taxation without representation was important, which is undoubtedly an economic issue.


1) The large majority of American colonists at the time were middle-class: The poor couldn't afford to come to America, and the rich had no reason to.

I agree with this, with the added note that the majority of any industrialized society of the time was of the middle class.


2) The purpose of a colony is to provide raw materials and a market to its Mother Country. The American colony sent over it's various unrefined natural resources to England, like lumber and coal and what-have-you, while English merchants sold their goods to the Colony, like tools and clothes and everything the Colony couldn't make because it was devoted to gathering and sending raw materials.

Clear enough.


3) Being a colony, the Americans (well, they were still British then, but for sake of clarity I'm calling them Americans) were technically only allowed to sell their goods to England, and technically were only allowed to buy English products. This gave English merchants the upper hand in all business interactions.

Okay.


4) However, during the period of Salutory Neglect, these rules were not strictly enforced. Taxes weren't too bad, smuggling was easy and common, and American colonists traded with all sorts of countries...including the Dutch.

Right.


5) The Dutch begin to threaten England's economic dominance of the seas (or was it the French? I'm a little rusty on details), which England doesn't like. They want to solidy their control of the colonial trade, so pass/begin enforcing the Navigation Acts forcing the American colonies to trade only with England.

I believe both the Dutch and the French posed threats to the English control of the seas, although the Netherlands' rivalry was more trade oriented and the French rivalry was more military oriented.


6) Now, historically, members of the Middle Class strive for one thing: to become the Upper Class. They all want to be rich. When they're forced to only trade with England, wealth starts pouring into the British Merchants...but not the Americans.

Still agreed.


7) All those taxes and crap just added to the little would-be aristocrat's case, and thus war broke out.

This is where I disagree. Taxes were much more of an issue than this position recognizes. In fact, taxes, also called tariffs, were directly attached to the issue of trade, since I believe it was often through imposing high yet steady tariffs, and attempts to militarily prevent Dutch and other nations' vessels from reaching the colonies' docks, rather than direct military threats to the colonies, that England tried to keep the American colonists importing and exporting exclusively with England rather than with trade rivals.


Now, to make this relevent to the topic: As you can see, situations leading to insurgency are much more complicated than just "One country invades and so the defenders start using guerilla warfare." The American rebels may act like the Iraqi insurgents, but the reasoning behind each insurgency is what separates them. You can't label all insurgents as good or evil, just like you can't label all armies good or evil.

Only one of the two situations involves invasion. The American Revolution was an insurrection against the oppressive English monarchy, while Gulf War II was an outside invasion to depose an oppressive and dangerous dictator. Also, the American and Iraqi rebels don't act like each other. Their motivations and the targets of their rebellion are different, as the American separatists were rebelling against their oppressive king, while the Iraqi terrorists are attacking the forces that liberated them from their oppressor.

Further, their methods of rebellion are much different. While the American separatists used guerrilla attacks on English troops because of inferior numbers and poor equipment and training (and the departure from standard close-range, "honorable" regimental combat was very controversial), the Iraqi terrorists (most of whom are not even actually Iraqis but foreign jihadists, yet another crucial difference) use suicide attack and trap-setting (roadside bomb) tactics not only on U.S. troops but on fellow Iraqi rebels, and most importantly on civilian bystanders including women and children.

It is not only the reasoning behind the rebellions, but their markedly different methods and conduct that separate the two groups . As for the last claim, it is obvious that not all insurgents can be labeled good or evil, but the insurgents attacking American troops are behaving evilly in betraying an ally who has freed them from government coercion and torture. Also, some armies can be labeled as evil overall for their collective actions, regardless of any rare exceptional individuals. The Nazi army would be a good example of this for their sadistic and extensive war crimes against humanity.

FruitandNut
June 28th, 2005, 12:26 AM
The interesting thing about the English king at the time was that he was actually German - Hannovarian, his language of choice was German and his main interest was the principality of Hannover. He had all the 'autocratic virtues' and charm of Teutonic Aristocracy.

Harrison383
June 28th, 2005, 04:30 AM
Show of hands:

Who's tired of this Jamesb joker making unbelievably idiotic claims, not backing them up, and not debating them any further?

I mean, he could at least acknowledge when he gets his bum handed back to him.

Telex
June 28th, 2005, 09:40 AM
This is where I disagree. Taxes were much more of an issue than this position recognizes. In fact, taxes, also called tariffs, were directly attached to the issue of trade, since I believe it was often through imposing high yet steady tariffs, and attempts to militarily prevent Dutch and other nations' vessels from reaching the colonies' docks, rather than direct military threats to the colonies, that England tried to keep the American colonists importing and exporting exclusively with England rather than with trade rivals.

Yeah, I kind of wrapped-up the taxes stuff without going into enough detail on them (I find economics boring), but to be sure, the tarriffs were a major method used by the English to control the colonies. The differing in opinions on the matter comes from whether you believe the taxes and trade policy incited a rebellion because of their ideological properties or their economic properties.
But the thing about history is that you can never really be right or wrong, as long as you have evidence to support yourself. So each side is valid, it just depends on educated inference from the historian.


It is not only the reasoning behind the rebellions, but their markedly different methods and conduct that separate the two groups .
I would argue that the reasoning behind the insurgency leads to the tactics used. Americans were just at war with the British, so the British were the targets. The Iraq insurgency is at war with the Americans and the Iraqi people who support them - thus, they target both.


As for the last claim, it is obvious that not all insurgents can be labeled good or evil, but the insurgents attacking American troops are behaving evilly in betraying an ally who has freed them from government coercion and torture.
That is certainly the way the Americans see it. But obviously the Iraq insurgents don't who they wouldn't be resisting. Now, I'm no Iraqi insurgent, but I think the feeling over there is that they're glad Saddam is gone, but they want the Americans gone too. Although there is also the religious fundamentalism thrown into their mix, which just irrationalizes it all.

Also, some armies can be labeled as evil overall for their collective actions, regardless of any rare exceptional individuals. The Nazi army would be a good example of this for their sadistic and extensive war crimes against humanity.
I wouldn't label the Nazi Army as an evil one, I would label it as run by evil people. The SS (not Waffen) were the ones who carried out the Final Solution - the average soldier had nothing to do with it, and didn't know the extent of what was happening in their own country. What Hitler did was restore Nationalism to the country - and they demonstrated how dangerous it can be when you put absolute trust in a leader.

FruitandNut
June 28th, 2005, 11:14 PM
Hey Telex - The break-away Colonists also targetted the 'loyalist' Colonists. Have you forgotten the American-Canadian fighting, when the republicans tried to take over the Canadian territories and they got their butts kicked?

Telex
June 28th, 2005, 11:18 PM
You mean the war of 1812?

FruitandNut
June 29th, 2005, 03:09 AM
There was a lot of skirmishing before as well.

Telex
June 29th, 2005, 09:34 AM
I think the American-Canadian fighting was largelly because the AMericans wanted the Canadian land. I admit I know next to nothing about the conflict, though.

jamesb5007
July 1st, 2005, 06:08 PM
[QUOTE=Neverending] American revolutionaries were more concerned with the ability to trade and the mercantilist restrictions that Britain had placed upon its colonies, whereas the Iraqi insurgency are religiously motivated.

I'm not sure we know that they're religiously motivated. We know Al Qaeda has that component, but we really don't know much about the Iraqi insurgency. Intelligence isn't our strong point. We don't know their leaders, we don't know their motives. I guess we're starting to have talks with them, I heard in the news this week that the insurgents mentioned the only way they'd open up a dialog is if US set a withdrawal date. My original point was to equate George Washington with the Iraqi insurgency, and mention that all George had to do was survive to win the war. The Iraqi Insurgents are doing way better than merely surviving.

We need to recognize that we lost the war in Iraq, lost control of all that oil, and move on to some other oil-rich nation. Either that or start buying 40+mpg cars.

jamesb5007
July 1st, 2005, 06:25 PM
[QUOTE=KevinBrowning]
Only one of the two situations involves invasion. The American Revolution was an insurrection against the oppressive English monarchy, while Gulf War II was an outside invasion to depose an oppressive and dangerous dictator. Also, the American and Iraqi rebels don't act like each other. Their motivations and the targets of their rebellion are different, as the American separatists were rebelling against their oppressive king, while the Iraqi terrorists are attacking the forces that liberated them from their oppressor.

Further, their methods of rebellion are much different. While the American separatists used guerrilla attacks on English troops because of inferior numbers and poor equipment and training (and the departure from standard close-range, "honorable" regimental combat was very controversial), the Iraqi terrorists (most of whom are not even actually Iraqis but foreign jihadists, yet another crucial difference) use suicide attack and trap-setting (roadside bomb) tactics not only on U.S. troops but on fellow Iraqi rebels, and most importantly on civilian bystanders including women and children.

True only Iraq was invaded, not America in Revolutionary War. But England did bolster it's troop strength.

Our "deposing and evil and dangerous dictator" is only part of the story, as we put him in power in the first place, and in return sold him billions of dollars worth of weapons, and got lucrative oil contracts. THEN we decided he had to go. If you care to, you could see this American trend throughout the world. Or go on believing we're the good guys.

jamesb5007
July 3rd, 2005, 09:12 AM
I'm trying to figure out how to edit a reply, and get the quotes to appear correctly. This is a re-reply by me, because I failed the first time. Sorry! James

[QUOTE=KevinBrowning]
Only one of the two situations involves invasion. The American Revolution was an insurrection against the oppressive English monarchy, while Gulf War II was an outside invasion to depose an oppressive and dangerous dictator. Also, the American and Iraqi rebels don't act like each other. Their motivations and the targets of their rebellion are different, as the American separatists were rebelling against their oppressive king, while the Iraqi terrorists are attacking the forces that liberated them from their oppressor.

Further, their methods of rebellion are much different. While the American separatists used guerrilla attacks on English troops because of inferior numbers and poor equipment and training (and the departure from standard close-range, "honorable" regimental combat was very controversial), the Iraqi terrorists (most of whom are not even actually Iraqis but foreign jihadists, yet another crucial difference) use suicide attack and trap-setting (roadside bomb) tactics not only on U.S. troops but on fellow Iraqi rebels, and most importantly on civilian bystanders including women and children.[QUOTE=KevinBrowning]

True only Iraq was invaded, not America in Revolutionary War. But England did bolster it's troop strength.

Our "deposing and evil and dangerous dictator" is only part of the story, as we put him in power in the first place, and in return sold him billions of dollars worth of weapons, and got lucrative oil contracts. THEN we decided he had to go. If you care to, you could see this American trend throughout the world. Or go on believing we're the good guys.

jamesb5007
July 3rd, 2005, 09:20 AM
American revolutionaries were more concerned with the ability to trade and the mercantilist restrictions that Britain had placed upon its colonies, whereas the Iraqi insurgency are religiously motivated.

I'm not sure we know that they're religiously motivated. We know Al Qaeda has that component, but we really don't know much about the Iraqi insurgency. Intelligence isn't our strong point. We don't know their leaders, we don't know their motives. I guess we're starting to have talks with them, I heard in the news this week that the insurgents mentioned the only way they'd open up a dialog is if US set a withdrawal date. My original point was to equate George Washington with the Iraqi insurgency, and mention that all George had to do was survive to win the war. The Iraqi Insurgents are doing way better than merely surviving.

We need to recognize that we lost the war in Iraq, lost control of all that oil, and move on to some other oil-rich nation. Either that or start buying 40+mpg cars.