If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
"Stephen Harding" wrote in message ... Just like both sides of the English civil war never doubted they were British. I would doubt that any of them, with the possible exception of the king, considered themselves anything but English, Scottish or Irish. The idea of 'Britain' as a nation wasn't actually around to any extent then. -- William Black ------------------ On time, on budget, or works; Pick any two from three |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
|
#173
|
|||
|
|||
|
#174
|
|||
|
|||
Michael P. Reed muttered....
(vast snippage of truly erudite commentary) I can vaguely recall having once, four and a half decades ago, having spent nearly a semester being less well briefed on the first few years of the Revolution. Pour yourself a bumper of sack, carve off the tenderest slices from the loin, disjoint a chicken or two and save your strength for a rewarding knees up among the Loyalist damsels of rural Staten Island. Other than a paucity of information concerning the inability of British troops to "live off the land" to the extent envisioned by their masters in Lun'non, and the necessity of pouring in both supllies and specie, it was a hell of an effort on your part, at least a solid "A" under the harsh grading standards that used to apply for such courses, before the modern era's "dumbing down" and "all pass" doctrines were implelented. TMO |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
|
#176
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael P. Reed" wrote in message om... "Brian Sharrock" wrote in message ... Mike, a slight background ... although I enjoy the interchange in this thread current circumstances surrounding my family involving probate, hospitals, care faciliites etc. mean that I can only read the newsgroup at five-or-six day intervals ... after such a passage of time, others have commented on your positions and the thread has moved on. Please forgive and and permit me to restrict my - interrupt -high priority We interrupt the typing of this message to answer an incomming call on the line the family uses to alert me to news of my father in hospital 300 mile away - smn context - he was RN HO in WWII - .....a bloody robot-marketing-droid-female 'Hi I'm Kim! Press #1 to find out about your holiday in Sunny Florida ..... see you in Florida! press #1!' sheesh! /interrupt -high priority interjection to aspects others have skipped. snip Of course they then got to write the history and control the curriculum in all the schools of their colonies and subsequent possessions .... A well worn myth. At best its true only for totalitarian regimes. You have obviously not read much on the American Revolution, its causes, your _obviously_ is somewhat overstated, I've read IMHO reasonably well and actually 'lived through' the 'Bicentennial celebrations' in 1976 attending several re-enactments in the Carolinas, visited many of the exhibitions staged during that year, visited the Smithsonian - all running 'specials' in that year ... and distinctly remember a long conversation on the Mall (DC) with a full-feathered 'Red Indian' hereinafter referred to as a Native American (NA); a'standin' outside his dwelling place and bemusedly watching the Ukranian-American Folk-Dancers (or was it the Hungarian-American oompah band? - it's so hard to discern with the passage of years!) Anyway! I addressed the son of the forest;- 'Hail chieftain of the five- nations! What are you doing so far from the banks of the Sussequahana (sp)? 'F****d if I know, palefaced Englishman!' sayeth he, 'We got really screwed by this here lot' he pointed his fighting axe towards the Lincoln Memorial and slowly swung his arm in a gesture encompassing the White House, the Washington monument and the palace of congress'critters atop the Hill. Amen to that, I responded. We chatted away about places we both knew, My next destination being upstate New York and he regaled me with his tales of (RAF) Burtonwood where he'd served during WWII - second half, after the interval. 'Is the 'Cat and Fiddle' still there? he asked .... I'm sure you can picure the scene ... if memory serves me right, we couldn't share a pipe of peace 'cos the Park Police had decalred the Mall a no-smoking zone ... 'for your pleasure and safety!' and eventually produce screen plays such as "The Patriot". Or Horatio Hornblower? The Sharpe series? Puh-lease, Mr Sharrock, OK, I take your point but let's examine the two subjects you raised;- 'Horatio Hornblower' series is somewhat heroic rather than historic .... but it's reasonably based on the record of the era. Many years ago 1978-ish, I read a book of CS Forrester entitled something like 'How I came to write the Hornblower series'. I'd borrowed the book from the library so it's not on my shelves norin the loft. IIRC, Forrester mentions the glaring 'gap' in the life story of his hero; he never engages the rebelling colonists in North America - apparently his publishers said to have included any such novel in the canon would have killed his sales in USA ... The Sharpe series ... I enjoy them all and avidly buy them as they hit the bookshops. The average Sharpe novel has the hero with a full purse which he loses, then engages the enemy in a fire-fight which he loses, but wins a woman then engages the enemy in a bigger fire-fight which he wins, regains a purse but loses the woman. Repeat with bigger fire-fights in a credible sequence. Bernard Cornwell never invents a 'Patriot -style' incident. All of the incidents that Sharpe participates in are stated to have occurred -with the proviso that Sharpe, Harper, et al are non-historic. 'Sharpe's Havoc' fr'instance is a novel whose narrative finishes on page 374 -there then follows five and a half pages of 'Historical Notes' ... 'Sharpe is once again guilty of stealing another man's thunder ... the tale of ... is true ... The British lost seventy-seven men ... in the fight at ... Major Dulong of the 31st Leger .... ,,, is true ... the fictional village of .... [names of fire-fights ommitted in case folks haven't read the novel yet] So Sharpe and Harper will march again" I imagine that a book about 'The Patriot' would finish on Page 6, then have three-hundred -and seventy pages of Historic Corrections" Hornblower and Sharpe (novels) are poles apart from the idiocy and pure propagandising of 'The Patriot'. Regards -- Brian Sharrock |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
Brian Sharrock muttered....
I imagine that a book about 'The Patriot' would finish on Page 6, then have three-hundred -and seventy pages of Historic Corrections" Two of the historical figures from whom Mel Gibson's part was drawn were grandsires (multi-great) of mine. One was a man apparently acutely harsh to the puir Native Americans, while the other weighed in at a solid 300 pounds, disenabling him in an attempt to walk to a major engagement. Happily, a substantial mule was available. Nothing of either (aside from commitment and courage/fool-hardy rashness) is apparent in the screenplay or the Gibsonian interpretation thereof. Hornblower and Sharpe (novels) are poles apart from the idiocy and pure propagandising of 'The Patriot'. Let me commend to your reading the novels of Kenneth Roberts covering the American expereience 1755-1800 or so. While hardly bodice rippers, actually demure by modern lubricious standards, they are well done, if not a little slanted toward the "American" perspective. _Rabble in Arms_, first read when I was eight or so, struggling with a real adult novel, remains quite readable to day, and his descriptions of the travails of Rogers and his Rangers provide a new and unusual view of the French & Indian Conflict. On the Boston issue....Could one interpret Britsh policy toward continued or re occupation as based upon the concept that Boston unoccupied was no threat, easily - and cheaply in men and money - guarded/blockaded from the sea, and likely should other strategies succeed to fall gently into British hands, the cold harsh mercantilism of the upper classes swallowing up all those radical revolutionaries? TMO |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" wrote in message ... On 12 Oct 2003 11:34:00 -0700, (Michael P. Reed) wrote: Strange how after they evacuated Boston in March 1776 (less than a year after Lexington & Concord) they never came back, and how Howe and Burgoyne's operations thereafter concentrated on New York, then Philadelphia. For one who likes to cast aspersions on the knowledge of others, you don't seem too clued-up yourself. Another poor ignorant soul in the need for elucidation I see. g Apologies in advance for what is going to be a rather long post. The origins of British strategy date back to the summer of 1775 (prior to that they did not have one), On the contrary, I suggest you actually aquaint yourself with Gage's correspondance with the Northern Department in 1773-75, and the increase in troop movements to Boston by the War Office which resulted.. Which led directly to the fresh water system in Boston collapsing and much dysentary. when Bill Legge, a.k.a. 2nd Earl of Dartmouth and Secretary of American Affairs in the Colonial Office had some discussions with some folks knowledgable (or more correctly with folks who thought themselves knowledgeable) of affairs in America. After which, he came up with his grand plan of campaign. Writing to Thomas Gage about it in August, he suggested that two armies ought to be assembled. One in Boston, which was to be reinforced, and the other, and Main, to occupy New York City, which was to be a piece of cake since it was loyal. And this plan was carried out to the point of Howe's force taking New York while Boston was evacuated.... shurely shome mishtake if the plan was to occupy Boston? The British made no attempt to return to Boston after the spring of 1786. So much for it being a central aim of their strategy. The Brits had had enough of Boston's bloody fluxes. screams for actions for protection. British officialdom missed the boat twice. The first clue that the rebellion was not centered in New England was the invasion of Canada. It being obvious that the army which did so was not composed of New Englanders (other than a few from New Hampshire). And more from Connecticut and New York. Guess where the first of those states is. Yes, that's right, New England. Connecticut was also very heavily populated compared to the rest of the Colonies and much more substancial politically than we perceive today. |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 05:27:32 -0400, Stephen Harding It wasn't "offensive myths". I'll be the judge of that, as my nationality was on the receiving end of the mythology concerned. I'll let an American judge how offensive or otherwise a Vietnamese movie portraying Americans as effette, murderous war criminals might be. If you find the demonisation of American which passes for popular analysis in Arab and European culture to be offensive, I can tell you right now I wouldn't be appearing to patronisingly lecture you about why you shouldn't feel offended about the inaccuracies and lies this involves, in fact I would be agreeing with you. I don't deem anti-Americanism as offensive. I doubt many Americans do. Disappointing to be certain coming from some sectors, but hardly offensive. Wonder if anyone was offended by "Dances with Wolves" where every American except Kev Kostner was a pretty bad fellow doing pretty bad things to perfectly harmless Indians. Does one go off in a fit of rage because the Iranians call us "The Great Satan" or NKs "Imperialist Dogs", etc.,etc? Anyone can be offended if they choose to. In fact, it's now quite popular to be offended these days. Part of the culture of victimology in general. There are times to be offended and times to simply not like something and brush it off as inaccuracies or propaganda or whatever. Getting all bent out of shape on the content of a Hollywood movie seems a waste of emotion to me. But as you say, it's your emotion, so expend it as you see fit. As I stated, it's a pile of ****, relying on the exploitation of prejudice to entertain. Strangely enough, being on the sharp end of that prejudice isn't particularly entertaining for some people. Oh please! If the Patriot represents the "sharp end" of prejudice against UK, then consider yourself fortunate you didn't live in the 18/19th centuries when it more closely matched current anti-American sentiments. You're not going to give it any points whatsoever are you. Not after "Braveheart", but then I actually have to live in the country that Randall Wallace and Mel Gibson liked to inflame nationalist prejudice in. I am aware of the consequences of it. They can fly back to Hollywood. Robin Hood must be a very conflicted movie watching experience for you. Who to side with? Robin Hood easily makes fools of the English noble establishment. I suppose having Good King Richard come home to make things right would be a nice touch, but then, wouldn't that be promotion of a myth? Another movie gets the three thumbs down score! People go to the movies to be entertained, not educated. It's not a question of education. There's no reason a film which avoids such gratuitous stereotypes and ahistorical distortions has to be worthy, dull and boring. Current Hollywood thinking seems to dictate otherwise. And given Hollywood is driven by the box office, a lot of movie goers seem to have no real problem with it. I see the Patriot as by and large, an action hero type of movie, set in Revolutionary War times, with a composite character based on some historical fact, and events [selectively] also out of history. Nothing more. No UK bashing (surveys have shown consistently over quite a long period of time that Americans like the British in fact more than the British like Americans). Don't know Mel Gibson's politics, but I think it would be a rare American who has absolutely no time or interest or generally good feelings toward the British (Irish Americans probably excepted for obvious reasons). If you want to brush up on the intricacies of Revolutionary War history, even Ken Burns isn't going to do it fully right. You need to read a lot of books. It's not a question of the minutae, it's a question about the most basic and fundamental approach taken. Why did Mel Gibson make a propaganda movie about a conflict when ended two centuries ago? As stated above. It wasn't an anti-British "propaganda" movie. It was an action-hero genre movie set in revolutionary times, requiring no more believability than "The Terminator" or other films of the genre. The "Patriot" was simply a *movie*. It wasn't the gumint preparing for war against the UK by initiating a brainwashing campaign on its citizens, who will now riot if war is not declared. It was a movie which was designed to reinforce existing popular historical mythology about the very origin and definition of the American state, and what defines you as an American. I'm sick and tired of that depending upon the demonisation of the other nationality involved. Then the action hero genre of film simply isn't for you. SMH |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
William Black wrote:
"Stephen Harding" wrote in message Just like both sides of the English civil war never doubted they were British. I would doubt that any of them, with the possible exception of the king, considered themselves anything but English, Scottish or Irish. The idea of 'Britain' as a nation wasn't actually around to any extent then. Yes of course you are correct. I'm displaying my lack of conciseness in reference to a blur of references available to people who live in "The British Isles" and Britain in particular. So many terms to choose from, yet so many mistakes to be made in historical and geographic context. SMH |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________-+__ ihuvpe | Chris | Instrument Flight Rules | 43 | December 19th 04 09:40 PM |