French block airlift of British troops to Basra

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 08:27:03 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:

Economics always has, and always will be, a powerful motivating force
in the behavior of governments and individuals, and there is nothing
really wrong with that in basic concept.

What I argue against is the notion that the American Revolution (or
even American actions today) are driven solely by economic forces
(and usually portrayed as underhanded ones at that). The OP to this
sidetracked OT thread appeared to portray the revolution as motivated
by raw [and illegal] self serving low life that manipulated the
majority of Americans into revolt. That is simply not the case.

Indeed, but there was a confluence of several motivations behind the
personal actions of the revolutionaries. Some of them (e.g. Sam
Adams) were undoubtedly agitating in order to secure partisan and
personal self-interest, while others risked and endured enormous
financial sacrifices over what they genuinely considered to be an
ideological and patriotic struggle against tyranny.

In fact, most all Americans at the time considered themselves British,
with British rights, and came around rather slowly to the concept of
independence from British rule.

True, but the nature of the war, and the successful embedding of
"patriot" propaganda in the shaping of the developing national
consciousness tends to obliterate the very real contemporary nuances
that existed historically.

Gavin Bailey

--

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

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
snip

Since you mention it, does British English actually support the word
"adjectival"?

It seems so; we were forever 'analysing sentences into 'adjectival',
'adverbial' clauses and phrases et. seq. One day I'm sure the
exercises will prove to have been useful as the Teachers spent
so much time on the process.

--

Brian

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...

snip
..

In fact, most all Americans at the time considered themselves British,
with British rights, and came around rather slowly to the concept of
independence from British rule.

Which was _precisely_ the point the "OP" (me) was making
in responding to a posting that claimed 'the Loyalists sided
with the British'. As you, quite rightly comment "most all
Americans at the time considered themselves British,with
British rights" and it was a _minority_ of rebels that started
an armed insurrection for their own purposes.
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".

--

Brian

"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message ...
"ZZBunker" wrote in message
om...
Stephen Harding wrote in message
...
Brian Sharrock wrote:

From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the

But, as fate would have it Briton has always found that laughable,
which is why they're about the only nation left on Earth
that even studies the American Revolution.

Please tell your programmers that although they've
'got' the parsing part of whatever is driving you to
auto-respond;-
_Briton_ is not a nation but an adjectival word meaning
a person from Britain.

Well, I have to. Since the only thing I've ever refused
to do even more than have my local skyscrapers knocked
down by Middle Easters is to take spelling lessons from moron
Britons. If you get a chance you can relay the message
for me to King James via King Louis XIV, Henry VIII,
and Napolean that they were all more morons
than any of the King Georges.

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Peter McLelland wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...

Ahhh yes, the evil corporate interests were doing their despicable deeds
even then! And they did it much as they do it today, with such skill and
subtlety, that the dumb public has no clue they've been manipulated.

I hear this all the time about todays politics, so it is interesting to
see this theme being retrofitted to past history.

Much of recent history has been greatly influenced by economic
considerations, dammit the whole British Empire was based on the
generation of wealth from the colonies. There is no real reason to
shay away from such things, it is what drove all our for fathers, and
what drioves us.

Certainly true. Don't mean to imply the revolution was purely some
idealistic crusade to put human rights above all other factors.

Economics always has, and always will be, a powerful motivating force
in the behavior of governments and individuals, and there is nothing
really wrong with that in basic concept.

What I argue against is the notion that the American Revolution (or
even American actions today) are driven solely by economic forces
(and usually portrayed as underhanded ones at that). The OP to this
sidetracked OT thread appeared to portray the revolution as motivated
by raw [and illegal] self serving low life that manipulated the
majority of Americans into revolt. That is simply not the case.

In fact, most all Americans at the time considered themselves British,
with British rights, and came around rather slowly to the concept of
independence from British rule.

I certainly have never suggested that the revolutionary leaders were
'low life', but I am convinced that most of them, that is the
established american colonists, rather than the recently arrived
political agitators, which there were a few of, were as motivated by
the belief that an independant USA as it became would be a lot better
for their pockets than being a UK colony. The reality was that the
American colonists were pretty well unaffected by events in Europe,
taxation and in terferance was really minimal, but complete economic
freedom was even better, and worth the fight, especially with French
money. I don't think they were wrong, just feal that it was not just
all about basic freedoms, more about money, but after all most of life
is about money so why be shy about it.

Peter

"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message ...
"ZZBunker" wrote in message
om...
Stephen Harding wrote in message
...
Brian Sharrock wrote:

From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the

But, as fate would have it Briton has always found that laughable,
which is why they're about the only nation left on Earth
that even studies the American Revolution.

Please tell your programmers that although they've
'got' the parsing part of whatever is driving you to
auto-respond;-
_Briton_ is not a nation but an adjectival word meaning
a person from Britain.

While if you ask most Americans what the US's big war was,
it would be the US Civil War, not the British Civil War.

Once again, although your words imply an acceptance of
the hypothesis that the regrettable conflict in the North American
colonies _was_ a civil war between essentially British participants -

Nobody ever said if was a conflict between British participants.
Since if you idiots didn't know, by that time the
U.S. Consitution was already in place. And we weren't waiting
around for something as stupid as a Euro-Commie-NAZI-constitution
to be written by idiots with an Einstein, a
few Swiss chocolate clocks, some Belgium courts,
German music, and Chinese medical supplies.

until the overt involvement of French arms and funding - 'we'
do not normally refer to that rebellion in the colonies as a
British Civil War.

We know. Since the only thing Britian does call
a British Civil War has something to do with
a worn out institution called Parliament.


[The 'British' civil war, that is a war involving
all of the nations comprising 'Britain , fought on the soil of Ireland
is considered to have reached an apex (or nadir) at the Battle of
the Boyne where a different bunch of Frenchies, and sundry Hollanders,
seemed to have been involved. I'm not sure of the attitude of the
contemporary colonists in North America to these ,presumably, far-off
events.

That's quite impossible, since Ireland has never even had an army
to have a battle against.

Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...
Peter McLelland wrote:


It is interesting that the constitution they
adopted was merely an improved version of the UK one with and elected
second house and an elected king.

Actually no. The US federal system was a complex balance of powoer on
both national and local levels that had no UK counterpart. States in
fact were much closer to the UK model than the Federal government.

And that what's it still is. Still the UK doesn't
have a Federal Government. NASA is a wholey-owned
property of the US. The European counterpart
is France. The Asian counterpart is God Help Everybody.
Australia.

"Vince Brannigan" wrote in message
...


Stephen Harding wrote:
Brian Sharrock wrote:


Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
by the revolting colonists.


So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?

Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
stay?
My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.

It is the historical record, not current spin
See for example

http://www.uelac.org/loyalist.pdf

FWIW the only part of my family heritage that is not Irish traces back
through a Nova Scotia German family with Hessian connections from the
revolutionary war.

"The Romkey (Ramichen or Ramge) family came to Halifax, Nova Scotia in
1750 from the village on Nieder-Klingen in Odenwald region of the
Palatinate. The family has its origins in the neighbouring village of
Spachbrücken in the Landgraviate of Hessen-Darmstadt. Johann Wendel
Ramichen or Ramge, his wife Anna Margaretha Uhrig, and their children
spent three winters in Halifax before moving to Lunenburg in 1753. The
family eventually settled at Five Houses on the LaHave River where Anna
Margaretha's brother had his 30-acre farm lot."
http://kenneth.paulsen.home.comcast....cotian_Fam.htm

Many loyalists and Hessian soldiers were settled in Nova Scotia after
the American revolution. See for example The Hessians of Nova Scotia:
The Personal Data Files of 225 Hessian Soldiers who Settled in Nova
Scotia by Johannes HelmutMerz. 1994

Vince


Why am I not supprised......

Last I looked there is not barbed wire keeping folks inside the US.. People
are free to leave when ever they wish.

Jim

Brian Sharrock wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message

snip

In fact, most all Americans at the time considered themselves British,
with British rights, and came around rather slowly to the concept of
independence from British rule.

Which was _precisely_ the point the "OP" (me) was making
in responding to a posting that claimed 'the Loyalists sided
with the British'. As you, quite rightly comment "most all
Americans at the time considered themselves British,with
British rights" and it was a _minority_ of rebels that started
an armed insurrection for their own purposes.

Most all the farmers in militias at the Lexington-Concord fight
regarded themselves as British. Just like both sides of the
English civil war never doubted they were British.

Just because you have two sides to a conflict doesn't mean one side
as declared itself a new nationality.

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.

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.

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.

Of course liberties were taken as is typical in Hollywood. Instead
of the British Army doing all the "war crimes" depicted in the movie,
it would actually have been loyalist bands doing the deeds.

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


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Peter McLelland wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Vince Brannigan wrote:


A description of some activities in the American colonies. Not a characterization
of the pro-Revolution crowd.

Smuggling was rampant and England as well at the same time. Prominent people
also benefited from it, as they did from piracy as well. Doesn't make England
an nation of pirates, or any opposition to the crown driven by it.

It's a lame, one dimensional characterization.

Whilst smuggling was common on both side of the Atlantic, in the UK it
was accepted that it was against the law, where as in the colonies the
attitude was that whether it was against the law or not it should be
allowed, smuggling was one of the new American freedoms

"Smuggling" in America was often simply not selling, or more importantly,
not buying, goods from Britain as required of a good colony.

Remember, the concept of having a colony was to buy raw materials from
the colony at low cost, and then sell manufactured goods from those raw
materials at high cost.

The issue of whether the owners were in the majority is meaningless.
rich americans are currently in the minority but control everything for
their benefit./

Fair enough. But if you're talking revolution, and a very risky one at that,
you'd better have more than the landed, propertied gentry involved. You need
some help from common people who think the activity is going to get them more
than just killed, imprisoned or financially destitute.

Much of the 'political' agitation which helped lead up to the revolt
in the colonies was orchestrated by a few 'professional' agitators who
had skipped to the colonies after the UK had become to hot for them.
The story they promoted in America was much the same as they had tried
in the UK, but in the US they managed to get serious backing from a
number of the large landowner/business men in the colonies, who could
see that independance would be financialy beneficial for them and
their friends.

Ahhh yes, the evil corporate interests were doing their despicable deeds
even then! And they did it much as they do it today, with such skill and
subtlety, that the dumb public has no clue they've been manipulated.

I hear this all the time about todays politics, so it is interesting to
see this theme being retrofitted to past history.

To put a reasonable gloss on this it is fair to say that in particular
the Dutch and British Empires were the result of the same commercial
influences, so we at least in the UK should not really be surprised
that our American colonists learnt fast and followed our example.

Peter