|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 5:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Some even suggested handing Quebec back to the French after the war.
|
The offer was made. The French were given a choice and chose Martinique and Guadaloupe instead of New France. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jaganath wrote:
| Quote: |
caniff wrote:
As a political science major speaking to a serious political scientist, I'll say the same stuff in a different way.
Why browse here?
Dunno, its like watching a train wreck at times? |
Well dude, if you're gonna stare at a train wreck, you can't really complain if you see a few mangled bodies, now can you?
| Quote: |
| As a serious political scientist I can honestly say this kind of thing is the Jerry Springer or Oprah or The Sun of political debates and I thoroughly detest it. |
Well like I said before, the original title was meant as sort of a humorous eye-grabber, kind of a send-up of the whole USA vs. The Commonwealth thing.
But the topic itself is fairly high-brow, if I do say so myself. Perhaps you'd care to share some "serious political scientist"-type thoughts on the subject of slavery during the War Of Independence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You're close, Canukistan.
The slogan was "taxation without representation is tyranny."
Anyway, it is interesting that we revolted against Britain for that reason, and now we do the exact same thing to Guam and Puerto Rico. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
riley
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: where creditors can find me
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One interesting question that tends to be shushed is how much support was given to the colonies by the French before the revolution? For example, the British Army went to search Concord for rifles and cannon. Where did the rebels get the cannon and the money to buy them?
Another point that is kept quiet in American textbooks is that there were members of Parliament before the war who were arguing for more independence/representation for the American colonies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
riley,
Do you have any good and accessible sources for the French support before the Revolution? We all know about it after the fighting started. As for a possible alternative source for cannon/gunpowder, cannon were left over from the Wars of Empire, not to mention ships in port. The cannon that Washington used on Dorchester Heights to drive the British out of Boston were sitting, practically unguarded, in Ticonderoga. Henry Knox brought them down through the snow to Boston after Ethan Allen captured them.
I don't really understand your claim that leading (but out of power) British politicians argued for the colonies' rights is 'kept quiet in American textbooks'. It's commonly in high school text books, at least the ones I'm familiar with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
riley
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: where creditors can find me
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, didn't quite mean to make it sound like a conspiracy  but I never read about Wilkes or Barre in my book in high school.
As for the French help, what I said came from Rebels and Redcoats by Hugh Bicheno. Rather good read.
The other book about the British Parliament and the argument over the colonies came from Barbara Tuchman's March of Folly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, so taxation and no representation is a good reason to revolt but, looking at it from a modern perspective, you wouldn't change your nationality because of it. Would you??
I guess that's the question I really wanted to ask, because personally I wouldn't just stop being British whether Britain was a republic, monarchy or Stalinist dictatorship.
Look at the Chinese, say in Taiwan or Singapore. They reject rule from the Chinese government but they don't stop being Chinese.
Or look at immigrants to America since the time of the revolution. The earlier ones - English, French, German, Dutch, Scotch-Irish - seem to have subsumed their former nationalities into a new one, American. Later immigrants seem to be hyphenated Americans - they choose to change their allegiance, but they don't forget their origins.
And it's slightly complicated because it's possible to talk about German-Americans (or even French-Americans?) but not ''English-Americans" - they are just WASPs, or plain American.
So why is this? Did it happen all of a sudden during the revolution?
Can you become American magically just by pledging allegiance and believing the constitution? 
Same questions applies to any former group of colonists, like Australians, Quebecois, or Afrikaaners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Look at the Chinese, say in Taiwan or Singapore. They reject rule from the Chinese government but they don't stop being Chinese.
|
If I'm not mistaken, the current ruling party in Taiwan favours complete independence from China. That is, they want Taiwan to be a completely seperate country from China.
Of course, they'd keep the language and much of the culture, but you could say the same thing about the Americans after independence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Ok, so taxation and no representation is a good reason to revolt but, looking at it from a modern perspective, you wouldn't change your nationality because of it. Would you??
|
Well, millions and millions of people have been willing to change their citizenship over the years. A century ago, we were getting a million a year, legally.
The hyphenated thing is trickier. Norwegians and Swedes poured in about a hundred years ago and have completely assimilated. I think if you are both ethnically and religiously similar to WASPS, then it happens automatically. If you are 'too' different, then enough of the WASPS reject you and you form a partially assimilated group: Italian-American, Greek-American, whatever, with full assimilation taking several generations longer.
Back to the Revolution. Identity as an American didn't form all at once. The vast majority were far more loyal to their state than to the country. It was common to refer to your state as your country, even as late as the Civil War. Before the Revolution, each colony felt closer to England than to any of the other colonies. Franklin was the first to propose the idea of a union at the time of the French and Indian War. It didn't get off the ground.
John Adams said only about 1/3 of the people supported independence. Even in the War of 1812, the New England states considered leaving the Union. In 1832 (?) South Carolina claimed she could nullify any federal law she chose.
I think part of your difficulty is that you are a contented ethnic Brit from an ethnic-based state (until very recently). In the War of 1812 your government did not accept the idea that a Brit could change citizenship--born a Brit, always a Brit. So your ships stopped our ships on the high seas and 'kidnapped' (naturalized) American citizens.
Would I change my citizenship if I thought my government had become a tyranny? Quite possibly. Earlier in my life I would have gotten a gun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
Ok, so taxation and no representation is a good reason to revolt but, looking at it from a modern perspective, you wouldn't change your nationality because of it. Would you??
|
The problem is that the colonists did not think they were receiving much back in services. They maintained the majority of their own defense, and in any case, were forced to buy products from Empire monopolies. The infamous Boston Tea Party occurred because colonists did not want to buy the East India Company's tea at inflated prices.
Also, King George took a lot of actions that inflamed some of the seperatists/revolutionaries/freedom fighters/agitators. Martial Law in Boston where none had been before seemed heavy-handed. Although I suppose the colonists did ruin all that good tea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
My question is all about ethnic identity, not legal.
Changing citizenship, fighting against your own government, doesn't change who you feel you are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Ok, so taxation and no representation is a good reason to revolt but, looking at it from a modern perspective, you wouldn't change your nationality because of it. Would you??
I guess that's the question I really wanted to ask, because personally I wouldn't just stop being British whether Britain was a republic, monarchy or Stalinist dictatorship.
|
I don't think I did a very good job of answering your question above. I want to try again.
It seems to me that you are looking at things from the wrong angle. You said you wouldn't want to change your nationality even if Britain were a Stalinist dictatorship. But would you just lay down and accept it? Or would you struggle to change the government?
The colonists were not in a position to change bad government policies by voting...they weren't even represented. They were certainly not in a position to raise an army and navy and sail across the Atlantic and overthrow the government by force. The only options they had were to submit to tyranny or revolt. They felt driven to revolt for the first year and then changed to revolution in '76.
I don't know if you've read the Declaration of Independence or not. (No one bothers with any of it except the preamble nowadays.) It expresses the political philosophy of American government (and pretty much everyone else in the world today).
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
...
I think you would be very hard-pressed to find more than about 6 people anywhere in Europe or North America who don't agree with the basic ideas stated there: People have a right to change a tyrannical government.
By 1774-75 enough Americans felt the British government was aiming toward tyranny over them that they chose to fight rather than submit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
Ok, so taxation and no representation is a good reason to revolt but, looking at it from a modern perspective, you wouldn't change your nationality because of it. Would you??
I guess that's the question I really wanted to ask, because personally I wouldn't just stop being British whether Britain was a republic, monarchy or Stalinist dictatorship.
|
I don't think I did a very good job of answering your question above. I want to try again.
It seems to me that you are looking at things from the wrong angle. You said you wouldn't want to change your nationality even if Britain were a Stalinist dictatorship. But would you just lay down and accept it? Or would you struggle to change the government? |
I certainly like to think I would but that's not what I want to talk about. In fact changing a bad government is a patriotic duty if it's one's own. My impression is that the American revolution is always couched in terms of throwing off a foreign government.
Come to that, would it be ok to accept the rule of a foreign government even if it was just and benevolent? Gandhi didn't think so.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
The colonists were not in a position to change bad government policies by voting...they weren't even represented. They were certainly not in a position to raise an army and navy and sail across the Atlantic and overthrow the government by force. The only options they had were to submit to tyranny or revolt. They felt driven to revolt for the first year and then changed to revolution in '76.
I don't know if you've read the Declaration of Independence or not. (No one bothers with any of it except the preamble nowadays.) It expresses the political philosophy of American government (and pretty much everyone else in the world today).
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. |
You see the wording here already presupposes that Americans are one people and Brits are another. That's what makes me double-take.
So prior to 1776 did Americans view themselves as a distinct people or not? Or perhaps in Virginia, say, they thought of themselves as Virginians first and foremost as you suggested? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So prior to 1776 did Americans view themselves as a distinct people or not? Or perhaps in Virginia, say, they thought of themselves as Virginians first and foremost as you suggested? |
From what I've read about it, they thought of themselves as British Virginians, something along the lines of Welsh or Scotsmen...a different state within the Kingdom (but with the difference that their relatives were mainly ethnic Englishmen) who lived in a place called America.
By 1700 they were developing their own distinctive accents, for what that is worth.
All the history books say that a South Carolinian, for example, felt much closer to Englishmen than he did to a New Yorker. There was far more contact between England and each of the colonies than between the colonies. In fact, there was a great deal of distrust and dislike between them. For example, Maryland was full of Catholics. Yikes! And Pennsylvania was governed by Quakers. How weird was that? They wouldn't even pass laws to defend themselves against marauding Indians on the frontier. And nobody liked Massachusetts. New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Connecticut were all set up by people fleeing those damn Puritans. The Virginians were all snobs and the Georgians were fresh out of debtor's prison.
The national consciousness didn't begin until the Revolution and then only some had it and those in varying degrees. Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, is one who did have it. But even he thought of himself as more Virginian than American. Probably everyone did. The national consciousness grew slowly and wasn't 'general' until the Civil War generation died out.
I don't know if this means anything to you, but the Declaration was made by 13 separate States acting together, each claiming independence separately. Another instrument, the Articles of Confederation, was needed to form them into a common country. It wasn't adopted until 1781 but was soon scrapped. When Washington took office in 1789 as first president, there were only 11 states. Rhode Island and North Carolina (I think) had not agreed to join the new government under the Constitution.
Looking at it in hindsight and from the outside, it probably looks like the US was a done deal from the start, but it was pretty iffy for the first century. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
