On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 16:24:23 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:

For a long time, American colonists made the assumptions that good
King George III would straighten out his ministers and policies once
the American colonial displeasure at their perceived loss of rights
was made known to him.

When you talk about "American colonists", you're not talking about all
of them; not even a majority. The converse applies, by the post-facto
binary divisions are inaccurate. There was a wide spectrum of loyalty
to principle, greed, crown, parliament, country, colony and family on
display, and which is eliminated by the excessive simplification
involved in lumping all factions into two clear camps.

The fact that these policies did not change, and in fact grew more
dominating is what eventually led to the change in attitude about
being part of the British Empire. Not a small group of bandito
types manipulating the public for their own financial gain.

Who had the most to gain from ending vie-admiralty courts in Boston?
Face it, the vast majority of ordinary Bostonians were not ship or
cargo owners engaged in smuggling. Look at what happened after the
revolution at Worcester and in Shay's Rebellion: the things which had
antagonised local people and which they had rebelled against did not
end after British rule ended. In fact Sam Adams in power backed a
vigourous anti-sedition policy way beyond General Gage was prepared to
tolerate, at the same time as raising the property qualification for
the vote. There really was a sizeable amount of political cant and
hypocrisy involved in the guld between the revolutionaries claimed
ideals and how many of them behaved.

Of course they then got to write the history and control the
curriculum in all the schools of their colonies and subsequent
possessions ....
and eventually produce screen plays such as "The Patriot".

"The Patriot" was actually based on a lot of historical fact in the
fighting in the southern states during the later stages of the war.

"The Patriot" was an inaccurate load of xenophobic crap, and can only
be considered appropriate if Hollywood is required to make
propagandistic war movies for the home front more than two centuries
after that war actually ended. I strongly doubt any other historical
conflict in American history could be displayed with such prejudicial
demonology in any movie, but the British are a safe target.
Especially when regurgitating "Braveheart" with different costumes. I
doubt anybody could get away with such an offensively one-dimensional
and inaccurate portrayal of blacks or American indians in a
contemporary American movie: the howls of outrage from the domestic
pressure groups would, quite rightfully, hinder such a project.

No such problems when you want to peddle offensive myths and
distortions about the British, however. All Americans are familiar
with their satanic position as puppets in the pantomime they've known
as the war of independence since childhood.

Of course liberties were taken as is typical in Hollywood.

But what is the sum of those "liberties": an All-American hero who
uniquely refuses to own slaves on a Carolinan estate*, British forces
performing atrocities like the Waffen SS under a leader modelled more
on Heydrich than Tarleton, the invincible American woodsman slaying
the redcoats with impunity, etc, etc.

What these "liberties" amount to is a distinct and discernable agenda,
and is just as ideologically driven as a Communist-controlled film
about revolts in the Imperial Russian Navy.

[* The slaves issue is a prime example. There is no way a
contemporary American film can offend the African-American audience as
cavalierly as it can the British, so the historical role of the hero
in regard to them and their role in the period is distorted so
blatantly as to make it comic. Nonetheless, compare his positioning
towards the blacks on his estate and their role and contrast it to the
British. So much for historical accuracy.]

Instead
of the British Army doing all the "war crimes" depicted in the movie,
it would actually have been loyalist bands doing the deeds.

It would be a mixture of _all_ combatants committing war crimes,
including "patriot" guerilla bands and state and continental troops if
historical reality was actually a matter of concern. This immunity
from looting, rape and crime allocated according to uniform colour is
infantile.

But in fairness to the movie, it did show that British soldiers under
the ruthless antagonist didn't like his vicious orders, and the high
command didn't like it either.

That's a transparent fig-leave of consideration in the torrent of
national prejudice being poured out in that movie.

Thus the need to be given Ohio
territory after the war, since he could never return to Britain with
honor.

Given that this would contravene Royal Proclaimations on colonial
expansion, this is just another neo-feudalistic fantasy, impugning
feudal motives to senior aristorcratic and class-ridden British
officers. This has nothing to do with the historical reality and
everything to do with American self-image and national stereotyping.

There is a very good movie to be made on the reality of the experience
of the American revolution, from corrupt and hypocritical Boston
agitators, to loyal and selfless farmers suffering stoically at Valley
Forge, from colonial milita looting and destroying "traitors" property
on both sides, to colonial militia facing a regular army and beating
them face-to-face after severe fighting at Saratoga, to the mass of
ordinary people seeking to evade the worst consequences of a war being
fought in their locality regardless of their private sympathies.

But that kind of movie will never be made. It just doesn't hit the
right buttons in an audience that has been simply brainwashed on the
subject since their earliest history lessons in school.

Gavin Bailey


--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell