I do consider the totality of the record. My point, which I will repeat, is that irrespective of our liberation of Europe, our righteous defense of South Korea, or our generosity towards a defeated Japan, in our hemisphere the US installed, financed and supported tyrannical governments or governments to our liking (cf. our support for Panama's independence, which Colombians grumble about to this day) due to our relative strength, imperialism, and our fear of communism as a form of eternal damnation in a hell that no country could escape once infected. It was like the Inquisition's use of torture to get heretics to confess and be saved, for what is a few hours of pain compared to eternal damnation.@Nickyjo, so now that you’ve given your thumbnail history lesson on Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and Chile, tell us all about the atrocities the US committed in West Germany, South Korea, and Japan—or alternatively, tell us about the countries where the USSR was the benevolent supporter (of a government that wasn’t as evil as it was—Cuba doesn’t count). After all, if you are going to argue that the US is no better than the USSR (“country by country,” you said), then you have to consider the totality of the record.
So basically, when it comes to comparing our record to the USSR, none of our positive actions count, only the negative ones. I've heard of looking through the world with rose-colored glasses, but yours must be so black it's amazing you can see anything at all.I do consider the totality of the record. My point, which I will repeat, is that irrespective of our liberation of Europe, our righteous defense of South Korea, or our generosity towards a defeated Japan, in our hemisphere the US installed, financed and supported tyrannical governments or governments to our liking....
Let me repeat again, the US has been a positive force for good in the world, unlike the USSR. My only beef has (actually, "had") been our unwillingness to acknowledge the errors and the outright bad things. What we have been often taught may acknowledge say, our sorry treatment of Indians, but that's about it. That lack of a critical consciousness of our history, especially with respect to Latin America, made us vulnerable to mistakes like Vietnam and Iraq. Those sad events have indeed changed things, and we now have a view more akin to what our allies, e.g., Britain and France, may have about their imperial-like adventures. Donald Trump could claim that he opposed the Iraq war, and no one said "America Love it or Leave it" to him in response, as was the attitude in the early days of Vietnam protests.So basically, when it comes to comparing our record to the USSR, none of our positive actions count, only the negative ones. I've heard of looking through the world with rose-colored glasses, but yours must be so black it's amazing you can see anything at all.
As a believer in the Multiverse, I suspect Roberts’ alternative timeline exists somewhere.
That was a fun book, if a bit unrealistic as a possible alternate history.
That's supposition. It's just a probable that without the independent US army added to the war effort in WWI that the Germans may well have won. The enormous manufacturing might of the U.S. may not have existed. Same is true in WWII. The entry of the US into that conflict was the difference maker. There is nothing to guarantee the Brits would have handled the colonies well enough to turn them into the power they became. Keep in mind Neveille Chamberlains terrible mishandling of Adolf Hitler and "peace in our time'.The world might have been a better place if the American Revolution had never happened, according to Andrew Roberts, author of The Last King of America: The Misunderstood Reign of George III.
In a review of the book in the February 7, 2022, edition of National Review, Roberts is quoted: “a world in which the American Revolution never took place could have been one in which a united British-American global empire would have been far too powerful for Kaiser Wilhelm II to threaten war in 1914, so no Bolshevik Revolution, no Adolf Hitler, no Cold War.” He also suggested, “British and Canadian liberals joining with Northern abolitionists might have voted to abolish slavery in the 1830s or 1840s, sparing the United States its Civil War.”
As a believer in the Multiverse, I suspect Roberts’ alternative timeline exists somewhere.
There is nothing to guarantee the Brits would have handled the colonies well enough to turn them into the power they became.
I am a big believer in this.The world might have been a better place if the American Revolution had never happened, according to Andrew Roberts, author of The Last King of America: The Misunderstood Reign of George III.
In a review of the book in the February 7, 2022, edition of National Review, Roberts is quoted: “a world in which the American Revolution never took place could have been one in which a united British-American global empire would have been far too powerful for Kaiser Wilhelm II to threaten war in 1914, so no Bolshevik Revolution, no Adolf Hitler, no Cold War.” He also suggested, “British and Canadian liberals joining with Northern abolitionists might have voted to abolish slavery in the 1830s or 1840s, sparing the United States its Civil War.”
As a believer in the Multiverse, I suspect Roberts’ alternative timeline exists somewhere.
Independence bad because of minorities
the treatment was perfectly fine. There were just as many loyalists as there were patriotsNo one seems interested in the treatment of the "colonies of the New World" by King George, I guess.
Surprising the number of monarchists in this forum.
It was actually the British parliament, not the king, who initiated punitive actions against the colonies.No one seems interested in the treatment of the "colonies of the New World" by King George, I guess.
Surprising the number of monarchists in this forum.
What is relevant about Paine's liberalism or anti-Christian beliefs?I am a big believer in this.
The American Revolution is SO misunderstood. The common belief was that colonists beat the greatest empire overseas and established a new, liberal government for the first time since the classical ages.
But in reality, two glaring facts present themselves
- The American Revolution was also a civil war. They were at least 300-400 thousand loyalists and a further 1 million revolutionary skeptics in the 13 colonies, and Canada was chock-full of them. There are plenty of incidents between colonists themselves. Notably-the failed invasion of Canada, which is why it remained under the King.
- The original colonists didn't want to breakaway. They were plenty of colonial grievances before the Declaration of Independence. And yet, none of them even considered the possibility of independence until Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense. So, the revolution was "hijacked" by the liberal, anti-Christian Paine
to illustrate how normally conservative colonists turned liberalWhat is relevant about Paine's liberalism or anti-Christian beliefs?
Ok, got it.to illustrate how normally conservative colonists turned liberal
I have no time for what if history, rather read a book based on facts not what if.The world might have been a better place if the American Revolution had never happened, according to Andrew Roberts, author of The Last King of America: The Misunderstood Reign of George III.
In a review of the book in the February 7, 2022, edition of National Review, Roberts is quoted: “a world in which the American Revolution never took place could have been one in which a united British-American global empire would have been far too powerful for Kaiser Wilhelm II to threaten war in 1914, so no Bolshevik Revolution, no Adolf Hitler, no Cold War.” He also suggested, “British and Canadian liberals joining with Northern abolitionists might have voted to abolish slavery in the 1830s or 1840s, sparing the United States its Civil War.”
As a believer in the Multiverse, I suspect Roberts’ alternative timeline exists somewhere.
The problem with that is the trouble the loyalists had maintaining control without the British army on their doorsteps. If there really were as many loyalists as there were patriots, the British would have won.the treatment was perfectly fine. There were just as many loyalists as there were patriots
I've been listening to an audiobook called The Men Who Lost America, and naturally the first one covered was George III. Surprisingly, he'd thought Parliament was coming on too strong right up to the Boston Tea Party. After that, he lost he lost any sympathy for the colonists.It was actually the British parliament, not the king, who initiated punitive actions against the colonies.
"What If" is what changes history from a pile of facts and stories into analysis--after all, the only way to determine what events are truly important is to have some idea of what might have happened differently.I have no time for what if history, rather read a book based on facts not what if.
The problem with that is the trouble the loyalists had maintaining control without the British army on their doorsteps.
There is that. There's also how insufficient supplies were brought to provision the troops without looting the countryside when the armies were on the move. That was typical for wars at that time, but the American Revolution wasn't a typical war. In the fall and winter of 1776 the Howe brothers were smart enough to know that and had a plan for pacifying the countryside in New York and New Jersey that might have worked, if they had had enough provisions to supply their troops without foraging.The problem with that was that the soldiers themselves quite often tended to turn loyalists into patriots.
Incidents like the occupations of Boston, New York, Charleston, and Philadelphia were brutal, and the British treated all of the Colonials the same. Most now place the number of loyalists at the start of the Revolution as possibly as high as 40%. But that rapidly eroded as the war continued, with more and more turning against the British for how they were treated. All were largely seen as "Colonial scum", and by the end of the conflict that had shrunk to only around 15%.
There's also how insufficient supplies were brought to provision the troops without looting the countryside when the armies were on the move.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?