Three reasons the American Revolution was a mistake.

[gigantes]

interesting vox.com article. hindsight of course involves 20/20 vision and a time machine, but it's hard for me to argue these three points when taken singly.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware_by_Emanuel_Leutze %2C_MMA-NYC%2C_1851.jpg/640px-Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware_by_Emanuel_Leutze %2C_MMA-NYC%2C_1851.jpg
George Washington crosses the Delaware, makes the world a worse place in the process.


"This July 4, let's not mince words: American independence in 1776 was a monumental mistake. We should be mourning the fact that we left the United Kingdom, not cheering it.

"Of course, evaluating the wisdom of the American Revolution means dealing with counterfactuals. As any historian would tell you, this is a messy business. We obviously can't be entirely sure how America would have fared if it had stayed in the British Empire longer, perhaps gaining independence a century or so later, along with Canada.

"But I'm reasonably confident a world in which the revolution never happened would be better than the one we live in now, for three main reasons: 1) Slavery would've been abolished earlier, 2) American Indians would've faced rampant persecution but not the outright ethnic cleansing Andrew Jackson and other American leaders perpetrated, and 3) America would have a parliamentary system of government that makes policymaking easier and lessens the risk of democratic collapse.



Abolition would have come faster without independence

"The main reason the revolution was a mistake is that the British Empire, in all likelihood, would have abolished slavery earlier than the US did, and with less bloodshed.

"Abolition in most of the British Empire occurred in 1834, following the passage of the Slavery Abolition Act. That left out India, but slavery was banned there, too, in 1843. In England itself, slavery was illegal at least going back to 1772. That's decades earlier than the United States.

"This alone is enough to make the case against the revolution. Decades less slavery is a massive humanitarian gain that almost certainly dominates whatever gains came to the colonists from independence.

"The main benefit of the revolution to colonists was that it gave more political power to America's white male minority. For the vast majority of the country

[9erempiree]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

No.

The balls to even suggest this.

[Dresta]

I agree that fighting it may not have been necessary at all, but not for the moronic reasons that author lays out. I mean, really, to assume southern states would put up with forced abolition from abroad, when the same States wouldn't even sanction a minor tax, placed on them for the very justifiable reason that the British Army was the guarantor of their own security, and had just fought a very expensive war that was to the benefit of the US States (Seven Years War).

You could even make the argument that remaining a part of the Empire would've slowed its abolition in England, because it would be tempting to appease the regions of America that grew expensive produce (cotton, tobacco, sugar), and who had a strong interest in not getting rid of slavery. It was much easier for the english to abolish slavery when portions of their country weren't 50% slave, like in some southern states. The Haitian Revolution and "the horrors of St. Domingo" would still be well impressed on people's minds. Things simply could not have happened the way the author thinks they could. It's an ahistorical fantasy.

[Nick Young]

People still read Vox in 2016?:facepalm

[bdreason]

England still owns the United States.

[gigantes]

I agree that fighting it may not have been necessary at all, but not for the moronic reasons that author lays out. I mean, really, to assume southern states would put up with forced abolition from abroad, when the same States wouldn't even sanction a minor tax, placed on them for the very justifiable reason that the British Army was the guarantor of their own security, and had just fought a very expensive war that was to the benefit of the US States (Seven Years War).

You could even make the argument that remaining a part of the Empire would've slowed its abolition in England, because it would be tempting to appease the regions of America that grew expensive produce (cotton, tobacco, sugar), and who had a strong interest in not getting rid of slavery. It was much easier for the english to abolish slavery when portions of their country weren't 50% slave, like in some southern states. The Haitian Revolution and "the horrors of St. Domingo" would still be well impressed on people's minds. Things simply could not have happened the way the author thinks they could. It's an ahistorical fantasy.
i disagree that he's laying out much certainty in these matters. i think he's moreso noting the damages involved, while proposing that maybe there could have been better outcomes.

these aren't "moronic" or theoretical points IMO. these are known actions and consequences which crushed many, many peoples lives, even as they opened up all kinds of opportunities for immigrants and opportunists at the same time.

i agree that the question of how to smoothly exit the UK is a huge one. i don't know how you do that with all the entrenched american interests that existed by the 1770's, which only continued to grow and get stronger.

for all we know there could have been an even messier series of civil wars if americans had stayed loyal longer. but considering that america was founded on criticism of the establishment and all that, i don't think it's wrong to acknowledge the mistakes and injustices involved in its history.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Thinly veiled agenda at work here

[gigantes]

Thinly veiled agenda at work here
the same as usual, really-- acknowledge the pros. acknowledge the cons. use the freedom of speech that makes america great to recognise that america is also deeply flawed.

problem...?



England still owns the United States.
you're on the air, seattle. go ahead...

[Nick Young]

i disagree that he's laying out much certainty in these matters. i think he's moreso noting the damages involved, while proposing that maybe there could have been better outcomes.

these aren't "moronic" or theoretical points IMO. these are known actions and consequences which crushed many, many peoples lives, even as they opened up all kinds of opportunities for immigrants and opportunists at the same time.

i agree that the question of how to smoothly exit the UK is a huge one. i don't know how you do that with all the entrenched american interests that existed by the 1770's, which only continued to grow and get stronger.

for all we know there could have been an even messier series of civil wars if americans had stayed loyal longer. but considering that america was founded on criticism of the establishment and all that, i don't think it's wrong to acknowledge the mistakes and injustices involved in its history.
:kobe:

[UK2K]

Thinly veiled agenda at work here
Vox...

The same website where the editor called for riots at Trump rallys.

Nothing that website posts is legitimate. It's basically a left wing propaganda site.

[ROCSteady]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmiT8ldUIAA2a7M.jpg

[Hawker]

Didn't native Americans fight each other? Why exactly should they be remembered as peaceful tribes?

[Nick Young]

Didn't native Americans fight each other? Why exactly should they be remembered as peaceful tribes?
They also ate each other and scalped each other, and captured and raped and ate the women and children in enemy tribes.



Natives of peace doe.

We should have just left them to their own devices, eating eachother, binging on coke, and ripping out peoples hearts while they're still alive and then throwing their dying bodies down a giant stone pyramid that was built with the specific purpose of performing human sacrifice on. When slaves and sacrifices ran out, tribal leaders would organize proxy wars with eachother so that they can kidnap more slaves from eachother. The tribal leaders were constantly high on cocaine and psychedelics and other mind-altering substances.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-D9DvnuPbhwM/UqoHbw6r33I/AAAAAAAAPDM/yucTijBbRkI/s1600/Native+American-indian-scalping-torture.jpg
http://ambergriscaye.com/pages/mayan/art/sacrifice4b.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/32/49216212_bb4b31dba0_z.jpg
https://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Winter07/images/Eats04_R1.jpg
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/sacrifice.jpg


"These people," Percy wrote, "and the rest of the Ilands in the West Indies, and Brasill, are called by the names of Canibals, that will eate mans flesh."

Cannibalism was practiced in some contemporary Native American societies, particularly among tribes of the north and the west. Jesuits living with the Iroquois recorded it, like torture, among the victors over those defeated in battle, and there is evidence that these customs endured into the eighteenth century. But the Iroquois, Mohawk, and other peoples surrounded their cannibalism with strict and complex taboos; never simply gastronomic, it was usually confined to strengthening or purification rituals, or to the systematic humiliation of foes. Recorded instances are often tied up and confused with tales of human sacrifice, which may from time to time be seen as a sublimation of cannibalistic rites. There is no real evidence that such customs were found on the Virginian littoral, but a bad press is hard to shake off. Confronted with the Jamestown settlers and their suspicions, Indians of the Powhatan confederacy could not win.

When they captured Captain John Smith, they fed him, by his account, very generously. In this there were perhaps courtesy and a demonstration that the tribe was strong enough to eat well, but Smith, writing years later and aware his readership would welcome a good yarn, said he saw through the charade. Surely he had been fattened for slaughter. Vague tales of Virginian cannibals—always among the remoter tribes, just beyond the western horizon—persisted to the 1680s, when the minister John Clayton recorded tales of revenge cannibalism on defeated enemies.
https://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Winter07/jamestown.cfm

What a beautiful culture. If only their cultural practices were still preserved today.

[gigantes]

Vox...

The same website where the editor called for riots at Trump rallys.

Nothing that website posts is legitimate. It's basically a left wing propaganda site.
that could be, but that's not how i found it or why i thought it was interesting.

i found the article when i was cruising reddit. i know vox powers sports blog nation (http://www.sbnation.com/), which is a network of blogs covering every team in north american sports. i go there for nets, MMA and other sports blogs all the time, so i'm pretty comfortable with "vox" as i know it.

regardless, i think the three points the article makes are valid critiques no matter who wrote them. they could have come from almost any affiliation or POV and still have made sense. so that's why i shared.

TBH, i also shared the article to slightly offset all the "america is great" threads around here. america --is-- great IMO. but america is also deeply flawed. conversely, if a body of people somewhere were talking up "america is the devil" or some shit, then you could probably expect me to fire back with why i thought america was great.

[gigantes]

Didn't native Americans fight each other? Why exactly should they be remembered as peaceful tribes?
this is the problem with viewing / judging a culture from your own standards-- you'll rarely if ever get an accurate picture.

yes, native americans fought each other in the same way that humans tend to fight each other whenever and wherever they encroach upon each other. this is true of pretty much all forms of life on earth, in fact. it's even true of the cells in our own body, even beyond the workings of the immune system.

point is-- we can throw out the "fighting" thing altogether, as well as whatever weirdness that nick young can scrounge up-- cannibalism, rape, pillaging, clowns riding around in tiny cars, etc.

so to answer your question-- i think native americans can be considered "peaceful" in the sense that unlike europeans, they tended to stay tribal and not get caught up in arms races, exploiting resources, conquering vast areas, and establishing colonialism. that is, no matter how many exceptions you can find to all that, and no matter how messy and undisciplined the whole thing was at times, ON THE WHOLE, native americans lived fulfilled lives, with respect for all members of their societies, in a sustainable way with the land, the flora and the fauna. that way of life could have gone on indefinitely.

so that's something for you to think about, the next time you look at a culture as being "primitive" or "barbaric" etc.

it's even something to think about in regards to point #3 in the article. as in-- we ourselves are arguably the "primitive" ones in terms of effective modern government, compared to our peers.

[Nick Young]

regardless, i think the three points the article makes are valid critiques no matter who wrote them.

of course you do :hammerhead:

[gigantes]

of course you do :hammerhead:
that's right, and i'm willing to debate the matter by replying with more than just kobe facepalms, cherry-picking or outright racism. :banana:

[Nick Young]

that's right, and i'm willing to debate the matter by replying with more than just kobe facepalms, cherry-picking or outright racism. :banana:

Nice!
All I can say is that it's a good thing the rest of the forum is not retarded. You just keep doing you, bro:cheers:

[Hawker]

this is the problem with viewing / judging a culture from your own standards-- you'll rarely if ever get an accurate picture.

yes, native americans fought each other in the same way that humans tend to fight each other whenever and wherever they encroach upon each other. this is true of pretty much all forms of life on earth, in fact. it's even true of the cells in our own body, even beyond the workings of the immune system.

point is-- we can throw out the "fighting" thing altogether, as well as whatever weirdness that nick young can scrounge up-- cannibalism, rape, pillaging, clowns riding around in tiny cars, etc.

so to answer your question-- i think native americans can be considered "peaceful" in the sense that unlike europeans, they tended to stay tribal and not get caught up in arms races, exploiting resources, conquering vast areas, and establishing colonialism. that is, no matter how many exceptions you can find to all that, and no matter how messy and undisciplined the whole thing was at times, ON THE WHOLE, native americans lived fulfilled lives, with respect for all members of their societies, in a sustainable way with the land, the flora and the fauna. that way of life could have gone on indefinitely.

so that's something for you to think about, the next time you look at a culture as being "primitive" or "barbaric" etc.

it's even something to think about in regards to point #3 in the article. as in-- we ourselves are arguably the "primitive" ones in terms of effective modern government, compared to our peers.

Native americans did in fact fight each other to acquire goods from one another. Sorry, native americans fought each other for the same reasons americans wanted to move westward. You can always go back through history and say a certain group of people were screwed which is the problem with viewing history in hindsight. It's a poor point made by the author.

I agree with your assessment that they lived more fulfilled lives, more sustainable, etc. It would be better if we went back to that. My point still stands.

Other governments have their issues as well and I really don't see how ours is any worse. I currently live in a commonwealth country and there are protections of rights that don't exist there that America have. These are important. I've been through four prime ministers thus far in my 3+ years living there.

[gigantes]

Nice!
All I can say is that it's a good thing the rest of the forum is not retarded. You just keep doing you, bro:cheers:
yeah, coming from ISH's poster child for trolling and duncery, i'll take that as a compliment.




Native americans did in fact fight each other to acquire goods from one another. Sorry, native americans fought each other for the same reasons americans wanted to move westward.
uh, how would you say that the two things are substantially comparable...?



You can always go back through history and say a certain group of people were screwed which is the problem with viewing history in hindsight. It's a poor point made by the author.
well, it would be one thing if americans as a whole recognised that the "greatness" came at a steep price to many others originally, and in fact, continues to do so. that's sort of the point, i think. not to mention, this kind of thing is what sets these instances apart from others throughout history in which one peoples oppressed another. i think that's primarily because other groups and civilisations before the USA were NOT founded with the lofty ideals that america was.

that's what makes this situation so uniquely hypocritical. and unlike past examples, we're still living the hypocrisy... we're still inside the bubble.



Other governments have their issues as well and I really don't see how ours is any worse. I currently live in a commonwealth country and there are protections of rights that don't exist there that America have. These are important. I've been through four prime ministers thus far in my 3+ years living there.
i don't think the author is really trying to paint the USA as a 'better or worse' scenerio. i think in regards to point #3, he's saying that euro-style parliaments would have been a more adaptive way for the country to govern... arguably better than the two-party gridlock system which has been in effect since the mid 1800's, i think.

but yeah... the ability or non-ability to take critique. isn't it a funny thing?

for example-- across the other countries i've lived in, i've never encountered the level of sensitivity that americans seem to have about their country and their identities. that is, peoples in other places seem to have little trouble ragging on their govt or peoples, but in america it's a bit different. more like, rag on this --other-- group of people, blame individuals, blame large corporations... but never critique america itself. the USA is just f-cking great, and beyond all judgement, you know?

the only other nation i know like that is china, and china is truly a clusterf-ck in action. '5000 years of civilisation' came screeching to a halt when mad mao came in to power, and now they're falling apart as we watch. but i digress.

[Nick Young]

"Greatness"

:hammerhead:


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-D9DvnuPbhwM/UqoHbw6r33I/AAAAAAAAPDM/yucTijBbRkI/s1600/Native+American-indian-scalping-torture.jpg
http://ambergriscaye.com/pages/mayan/art/sacrifice4b.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/32/49216212_bb4b31dba0_z.jpg
https://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Winter07/images/Eats04_R1.jpg
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/sacrifice.jpg

[QUOTE] "These people," Percy wrote, "and the rest of the Ilands in the West Indies, and Brasill, are called by the names of Canibals, that will eate mans flesh."

Cannibalism was practiced in some contemporary Native American societies, particularly among tribes of the north and the west. Jesuits living with the Iroquois recorded it, like torture, among the victors over those defeated in battle, and there is evidence that these customs endured into the eighteenth century. But the Iroquois, Mohawk, and other peoples surrounded their cannibalism with strict and complex taboos; never simply gastronomic, it was usually confined to strengthening or purification rituals, or to the systematic humiliation of foes. Recorded instances are often tied up and confused with tales of human sacrifice, which may from time to time be seen as a sublimation of cannibalistic rites. There is no real evidence that such customs were found on the Virginian littoral, but a bad press is hard to shake off. Confronted with the Jamestown settlers and their suspicions, Indians of the Powhatan confederacy could not win.

When they captured Captain John Smith, they fed him, by his account, very generously. In this there were perhaps courtesy and a demonstration that the tribe was strong enough to eat well, but Smith, writing years later and aware his readership would welcome a good yarn, said he saw through the charade. Surely he had been fattened for slaughter. Vague tales of Virginian cannibals

[Hawker]

yeah, coming from ISH's poster child for trolling and duncery, i'll take that as a compliment.




uh, how would you say that the two things are substantially comparable...?



well, it would be one thing if americans as a whole recognised that the "greatness" came at a steep price to many others originally, and in fact, continues to do so. that's sort of the point, i think. not to mention, this kind of thing is what sets these instances apart from others throughout history in which one peoples oppressed another. i think that's primarily because other groups and civilisations before the USA were NOT founded with the lofty ideals that america was.

that's what makes this situation so uniquely hypocritical. and unlike past examples, we're still living the hypocrisy... we're still inside the bubble.



i don't think the author is really trying to paint the USA as a 'better or worse' scenerio. i think in regards to point #3, he's saying that euro-style parliaments would have been a more adaptive way for the country to govern... arguably better than the two-party gridlock system which has been in effect since the mid 1800's, i think.

but yeah... the ability or non-ability to take critique. isn't it a funny thing?

for example-- across the other countries i've lived in, i've never encountered the level of sensitivity that americans seem to have about their country and their identities. that is, peoples in other places seem to have little trouble ragging on their govt or peoples, but in america it's a bit different. more like, rag on this --other-- group of people, blame individuals, blame large corporations... but never critique america itself. the USA is just f-cking great, and beyond all judgement, you know?

the only other nation i know like that is china, and china is truly a clusterf-ck in action. '5000 years of civilisation' came screeching to a halt when mad mao came in to power, and now they're falling apart as we watch. but i digress.

When it comes to the modern USA lifestyle of lavishness, I'm with you 100%. People are more worried about the next bullshit thing they can buy at Wal-Mart then real issues.

There are legitimate issues to critique USA but a lot I feel like are unjustifiable. USA's foreign policy is one for sure but a lot of people really hold the original values that America stood for to heart and see them as important and vital to the foundation of USA. I think this is fair and important to keep the power balance.

To an extent, I agree with you that some deem USA criticism as blasphemy. USA isn't perfect but it's set up to keep the balance as best as possible. cPeople that want our policymaking to be different are only those that are dissatisfied with the current perceived lack of current action and want to give more power to the government. I disagree with this.

[gigantes]

@hawker,
i'd probably have much less of a problem with all this if the USA and the global way of life it's ignited had a brighter future.

and i'm not one of these social activists who isn't happy unless they're complaining about something or trying to get justice for some oppressed group. fact is, i wouldn't even be alive if it wasn't for this civilisation, so from that POV, i have no room to complain about anything at all.

the problem for me is, being a student of the world and someone who follows science news, and someone who tries to see reality for what it is-- i keep getting reminded that there are serious (and growing) flaws to this path we've taken. capitalism, democracy, high technology, and all that.

bah. i think i'll go get a margerita.

[Nick Young]

the problem for me is, being a student of the world and someone who follows science news, and someone who tries to see reality for what it is-- i keep getting reminded that there are serious (and growing) flaws to this path we've taken. capitalism, democracy, high technology, and all that.

bah. i think i'll go get a margerita.
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs3/1443092_o.gif

[Hawker]

@hawker,
i'd probably have much less of a problem with all this if the USA and the global way of life it's ignited had a brighter future.

and i'm not one of these social activists who isn't happy unless they're complaining about something or trying to get justice for some oppressed group. fact is, i wouldn't even be alive if it wasn't for this civilisation, so from that POV, i have no room to complain about anything at all.

the problem for me is, being a student of the world and someone who follows science news, and someone who tries to see reality for what it is-- i keep getting reminded that there are serious (and growing) flaws to this path we've taken. capitalism, democracy, high technology, and all that.

bah. i think i'll go get a margerita.

Agree completely dude. I feel as helpless as you do.