What is your opinion of the American Revolutionary War my opinion is that while many

[hatzel]

You have to remember, although yes, we Brits possessed imperialistic rule over the Colonies, it actually turned out for the better of them. Not only did they have almost total autonomity anyway, but we defended them numerous times from other powers with far more tyrannical governments. Many times, they came close to being taken over by France or Spain, absolute monarchies, and were saved time and again by us, allowing them to keep more democratic ideals. We sacrificed tens of thousands of men and massive amounts of funds over 2 centuries to keep our brethren across the pond alive, and they repay us with riots, protests, and revolution.

...ahh...

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Plus, the way the Revolution has been distorted by American historians is also quite strange. What was in reality a general curbstomping until France intervened has been portrayed as a handful of farmers slaughtering 5,000,000 Redcoats then instantly winning freedom.

In that kind of conflict how badly they were 'curb stomped' did not matter so much as they were still alive after each blow. Similarly the US military 'curb stomped' the fuck out of Vietnam, did it not?

I have to agree though many historians need to step back and forget their national pride.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I am very Anti American I think every good Socialist should be Anti American. America was founded on Capitalism Imperialism genocide slavery and on racism.

[Lt. Ferret]

so was the soviet union.

[danyboy27]

I am very Anti American I think every good Socialist should be Anti American. America was founded on Capitalism Imperialism genocide slavery and on racism.

america was founded on anti-imperialism.

Irony

[#FF0000]

so was the soviet union.

No it wasn't you silly goose.

[RGacky3]

so was the soviet union.

You do realize we can look things up right? If your gonna just type bullshit its not gonna work, because we have books and the internet.

I know that in the book A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn does a great job analyzing the war. Essentially, the people wanted independence as well and a far more directly democratic government than the one that was established. However, the revolution was highjacked by American Bourgeoisie and allowed them to push competing British business out of the region. Over time, the American government became more and more oppressive under the control of the American upper class. In respect to the American people, it replaced one group of rulers with another.

This is the best explination so far.

[Zav]

I approve of the Americans' removing themselves from the British Empire. Governments becoming corrupt and splitting into smaller groups will eventually lead to a Federalist system, after all.
I do not, however, approve of most of their actions, specifically their treatment of those they have deemed "savage" or otherwise different and their current policing/bullying of the world.

[ComradeMan]

What is your opinion of the American Revolutionary War my opinion is that while many Americans think that the American Colonists and George Washington were heroes for fighting a war against the British but in my opinion the American Revolutionary War when it was won America just took the American Indian's or the Native American's land they became an empire which they themselves fought the British empire they became an American empire in my opinion it is no different from the Boer War in South Africa the White South African Colonists got their Independence than started to oppress the Black South Africans the Zionists in Palestine got their Independence from the British and started to oppress the Palestinians what do you think ?

Well George Washington was basically English.

So a large number of English settlers rebelled against a German king, fought a war they didn't do so well in and reached a treaty because the British Government didn't have the money to continue and were more worried about the French, and when they "won" they became Americans, the bits that stayed "loyal" became Canada. . It's interesting that many Native Americans sided with the "British" too.

It seems to me that a lot of American "patriotism" is built up around the idea of the Americans fighting the British whereas in reality they "Americans" were "English/British" until they "defeated" a German king.

But really, it's silly to have an "opinion" about "good guys" and "bad guys" with these historical issues as the matters are never clear cut. Even the matter of the South African wars is difficult seeing as the Boer republics were slave states that the British would not tolerate and when they took over the Cape province by treaty with the Dutch they abolished slavery. On the other hand the mistreatment of the Boer civilians is well-known and a very cruel and dark chapter in British history.

What always seems to happen, in my opinion, is that the oppressed- once liberated- become oppressors, which draws me to the conclusion that human nature is fundamentally shitty at times and it makes no difference who the winners or losers were- it may well have been the same the other way around given half of a chance. Nevertheless, each situation has its differences and when the British, alone, resisted against the Nazis I don't think you could describe them as "evil"- as seems to be a fashion these days.

One member here hit the nail on the head with the class analysis- instead of viewing things as "nations" we ought to view these things as "national classes" and that puts a different perspective on things. The British did not oppress the Irish, the British ruling classes defeated the Irish ruling classes and continued class exploitation in favour of their own interests in Ireland.... etc etc etc.

As for whether it was a good thing or a bad thing- well, like somone once said about the French Revolution, it's too soon to tell.

[RGacky3]

What always seems to happen, in my opinion, is that the oppressed- once liberated- become oppressors

So Blacks in the US own slaves? Is there reverse apartied in South Africa?

I'm not saying there are still problems, but your argument that liberation does'nt actually stop oppression is just rediculous.

which draws me to the conclusion that human nature is fundamentally shitty at times and it makes no difference who the winners or losers were- it may well have been the same the other way around given half of a chance.

Which is a shitty conclusion, what the proper conclusion should be is that concentrated power cuases oppression. The US created an Empire, but Canada did not ... Why is that? They were both Liberated, well, the US and its corporate elite has a lot of concentrated power, Canada does not.

[ComradeMan]

So Blacks in the US own slaves? Is there reverse apartied in South Africa?

Well I have heard a lot of people talking about affirmative action in South Africa, I have also heard that other "minorities" are not well looked after and of course the Khoi-San people of southern Africa in general have had a pretty raw deal from some of the "liberated" governments. In a wider sense some African countries have a very poor track record regarding the treatment of indigenous minorities such as the pygmy groups and also the Asian/Indian minorities- most of whom were expelled from countries like Uganda.

I'm not saying there are still problems, but your argument that liberation does'nt actually stop oppression is just rediculous..

You are completely ridiculous in your lack of any historical analysis beyond the level of an average Hollywood "historical" adventure. Most so-called historical wars of national liberation, liberate the bourgeoisie of that nation so that they can usurp the role of the non-indigenous bourgeoisie.

Which is a shitty conclusion, what the proper conclusion should be is that concentrated power cuases oppression. The US created an Empire, but Canada did not ... Why is that? They were both Liberated, well, the US and its corporate elite has a lot of concentrated power, Canada does not.

Since when was Canada "liberated"? The last time I looked the Queen of England was the head-of-state... LOL!!! The US did not create an empire as such more fill the power vacuum left by the crumbling of the British and French empires post-World War Two. Most empires are fundamentally built on trade and could be described as being "merchant" empires as such, otherwise there's no point to all the expenditure is there?

[Bud Struggle]

. The US created an Empire, but Canada did not ... Why is that? They were both Liberated, well, the US and its corporate elite has a lot of concentrated power, Canada does not.

Well not many people live in Canada compared to the US. And Canada was PART of the British empire. Also a good deal of Canadian business was American based.

[ComradeMan]

Well not many people live in Canada compared to the US. And Canada was PART of the British empire. Also a good deal of Canadian business was American based.

Another thing a lot of people forget is that not all American colonists were pro-independence and even after independence the English-Americans maintained their ties with the old country, sending their children for schooling in England etc- trade remained trade and the bourgeoisies looked after their mutual interests on either side of the Atlantic.

[RGacky3]

Well not many people live in Canada compared to the US. And Canada was PART of the British empire. Also a good deal of Canadian business was American based.

Theres a lot of people lots of places, but what the common thread is, throughout all empires, is that there is a huge amount of concentrated power.

[RGacky3]

You are completely ridiculous in your lack of any historical analysis beyond the level of an average Hollywood "historical" adventure. Most so-called historical wars of national liberation, liberate the bourgeoisie of that nation so that they can usurp the role of the non-indigenous bourgeoisie.

Of coarse, but that does not mean that progress does not happen, you don't have one revolution and then no problems, its revolutoins after revolutions that make the world better.

Since when was Canada "liberated"? The last time I looked the Queen of England was the head-of-state... LOL!!! The US did not create an empire as such more fill the power vacuum left by the crumbling of the British and French empires post-World War Two. Most empires are fundamentally built on trade and could be described as being "merchant" empires as such, otherwise there's no point to all the expenditure is there?

Canada was given independance after a struggle.

The US DID create an empire, the hedgemony the US had over latin America post WW2 had nothing to do with the british Empire.

Saying its built on "trade" is missleading, its more build on exploitation and the taking of resources labeled as trade. Its as much trade as the Mafia collecting "protection" money is trade.

[ComradeMan]

Of coarse, but that does not mean that progress does not happen, you don't have one revolution and then no problems, its revolutoins after revolutions that make the world better..

Is it? Really? Which ones, when and how? Last time I looked most of the world was capitalist with growing discontent. I think Nicholas Popov hit the nail on the head when he talked of bourgeois revolutions and palace coups.

Canada was given independance after a struggle...

Which history book did you get that from? If you are going to make up history there's little point discussing things with you. The Canada Act of 1982 gave Canada legal independence from Britain but the Queen of England remained the head of state. The whole thing was done quite peacefully- no "struggles", no "armed revolutions" and no bloodshed either- political debate and democratic process. Oops....

The US DID create an empire, the hedgemony the US had over latin America post WW2 had nothing to do with the british Empire. .

Ooops... I forgot to mention the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Spanish and Portugues empires too.

Saying its built on "trade" is missleading, its more build on exploitation and the taking of resources labeled as trade. Its as much trade as the Mafia collecting "protection" money is trade.

Is it as misleading as saying Canada won independence after a long struggle? Trade, commerce, capitalism- that's what empires are built on and if you don't accept that then there's no way you can fight it either.

[RGacky3]

Is it? Really? Which ones, when and how? Last time I looked most of the world was capitalist with growing discontent. I think Nicholas Popov hit the nail on the head when he talked of bourgeois revolutions and palace coups.

You want a list? Do you know any of the labor history? Do you also know how colonization ended? Now things are not great now in the third world but do you think those countries would RATHER be colonies? Why do you not live under a king right now?

The Canada Act of 1982 gave Canada legal independence from Britain but the Queen of England remained the head of state. The whole thing was done quite peacefully- no "struggles", no "armed revolutions" and no bloodshed either- political debate and democratic process. Oops....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellions_of_1837

Ooops... I forgot to mention the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Spanish and Portugues empires too.

Which ended (in most of America) well over a century before the United States Empire started.

Trade, commerce, capitalism- that's what empires are built on and if you don't accept that then there's no way you can fight it either.

Thats not a responce to what I said. Its not trade, is in free trade on equal terms, or juts general commerce, its threats, extortion, economic imposition, exploitation and so on.

[Viet Minh]

The British had imposed limits to the border, they even actively prevented colonials from traveling further west, after the Revolution the expansion really began. Also slavery continued in America right up to the civil war. A lot of African Americans fought for the British as they had been promised freedom.
Contemporary historians painted the American Revolution as a struggle for freedom by an oppressed people, but in reality the rebels had much to gain in terms of financial wealth and freedom to rule as they saw fit. One of my favourite Hollywood revisionisms is the film 'the patriot' with voice of the christians mel gibson, for its unashamed 'artistic license' turning a racist rapist into a hero of the people.

[Omsk]

Hollywood is an propaganda factory,probably better than the one of Goebbels.
I still remeber the 'Enemy at the gates'
But i am used to it,the winner writes the history,and in this case,the winner direct's the movie.It was always like that and i am positive that it will stay like that.

[thriller]

Not revolutionary. However it was a bourgeoisie class fighting a more feudal/mercantilist class.