[Plantagenet]

But also the Revolution (George Washington) was also an insurrection.

The rationale for the Revolutionary War was not based on a "Big Lie" and a basket of assorted conspiracy theories.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The written history seems to focus on the American Revolution starting as a tax revolt though a documentary I saw on the A&E channel claimed that the reality was that the colonists were paying less tax than people in Britain. However, I think the real roots of the revolution lie with the Proclamation of 1763 where the British agreed not to advance further west into Indian territory, which essentially disallowed expansion of the 13 colonies westward.

A proclamation in 1763 did not cause a revolution 12 years later.

The actual cause of the US revolution was a series of tax increases that the imposed on the American colonies in the years after 1763 in an attempt to cover the debt the British had incurred fighting the French and Indian war. When the colonies resisted paying the extra taxes, as exemplified by the Boston Tea Party, the British imposed even stricter controls. Finally the British imposed the INTOLERABLE ACTS, stripping away all self government from the Massachusetts colony. The Brits thought that imposing direct rule would force the colonists to obey the Crown and pay the extra taxes, but instead it led to armed conflict between the colonists and the British troops at Lexington and Concord. Following these events the colonies all sent delegations to a "continental congress" in Philadelphia, where independence was declared.


After the British foolishly imposed the INTOLERABLE ACTS on the Massachusetss colony, the colonists fought back against the British at Lexington and Concord. This led directly to a convention of all the colonies and the declaration of independence

Cheers!

[Newfie]

It is pretty hard to lay the cause of the revolution on any single point. There were a combination of factors, as noted above. One could also make an argument that relations were made worse by; the time delay with GB, the Kings ham handed manner, GB newspapers mocking the colonies complaints, etc.

Or it could he argued that the revolution was due to a minority creating a situation that was inflamed by radical papers. Remember only about a third of colonist supported the revolution.

That the revolution succeeded is yet another matter. The final situation, Yorktown, occurred because British Admiral delayed the fleet in Statia to make an inventory of his war spoils. Because he delayed the French fleet were able get inside the British and isolate the army from food supplies forcing the surrender.

If course that is not the whole story, but a rarely told yet true aspect.

And we forget that the Massachusetts colonists were involved with military operations under British leadership. It was NE colonists who, with British support, took the large French Fortress of Lewisburg, NS. The British militarized the colonist for their own purposes, and then that military knowledge and confidence was used against them.

Single simple explanations seldom reflect the true nature. It is complicated.

[Pops]

So the Qanon fools were conned by murdoch and trump and deluded by some internet trolls and now they are revolutionary heroes because they tried to thwart democracy and the Constitution?

I don't think so. The comparison is is insulting. They should not be mentioned in the same sentence.

They represent the opposite of freedom and liberty and will go to prison for backing an authoritarian wannabe.

[aadbrd]

It's sad how every red-flag event tends to get washed away over time in sophistry and false-equivalent rationalizations in the interest of reaffirming party loyalty.

[Newfie]

So the Qanon fools were conned by murdoch and trump and deluded by some internet trolls and now they are revolutionary heroes because they tried to thwart democracy and the Constitution?

I don't think so. The comparison is is insulting. They should not be mentioned in the same sentence.

They represent the opposite of freedom and liberty and will go to prison for backing an authoritarian wannabe.

There you go putting things in peoples mouths again.

No one said any such thing.

[Newfie]

For anyone interested her is a link to the connection between Yorktown and Statia. It is a fascinating story of greed and anti-semitisim.

https://www.sdjewishworld.com/2016/12/1 ... -yorktown/

[aadbrd]

There you go putting things in peoples mouths again.
No one said any such thing.

The conversation didn't get yanked into the revolutionary war for nothing.

[Pops]

There you go putting things in peoples mouths again.
No one said any such thing.

The conversation didn't get yanked into the revolutionary war for nothing.

Exactly. The revolution has nothing to do with the topic of antidemocratic actions by the GOP and trump supporters, and trump.

[Newfie]

That the topic took a turn you disapprove of is merely your opinion, not fact.

That it did take an interesting turn that folks participated in shows it is of interest to the readership.

While you are free to voice your disapproval you are not free to shut down any topic you disagree with.

[JuanP]

Most, if not all, countries' histories are not what we believe them to be. Most countries build a narrative about how they became what they are that is full of lies, falsehoods, inaccuracies, and distortions, with little snippets of truth that make them believable. This applies to the USA as much, if not more, as most other countries.

When I was growing up I was privileged to learn Spanish, English, French, Italian, and Portuguese. I was also lucky to have access to several amazing private libraries that contained books, maps, and other documents, both originals and copies, with many different versions of Uruguay's history written by many different authors from many different countries in those five languages. I read Portuguese, Brazilian, Spanish, Italian, Argentinian, British, American, French, and Uruguayan versions of Uruguay's history.

In the end, after several years of doing my own research, I reached the conclusion that it is extremely likely that the official version of Uruguay's history that I was taught in school was nothing more than a pretty story with a few tidbits of reality here and there. I was hugely disappointed that I had been lied to my whole life by my family, friends, teachers, the government, the Catholic Church, and society in general.

I believe that the US history you were all told all your lives is mostly not the truth. I believe that this applies to most of world history everywhere. I like reading archeology and anthropology more than history these days, though I do still read history books, mostly for fun and insight into the human psyche.

[jedrider]

JuanP, as the victors get to write or re-write history, this story of the US Capitol Insurrection can be turned into the great Patriotic Uprising that Newfie seems to long for The only tidbit of truth preserved will be that they both happened at the current U.S. Capitol (maybe the South will reclaim the government and move it once again to Richmond, Virginia as the Confederates once did, so even that is not immutable).

However, the truth of the matter is that the insurrectionists were just deluded fools that did attempt an insurrection with no real chance of success.

[Pops]

While you are free to voice your disapproval you are not free to shut down any topic you disagree with

So once again with the personal attack rather than addressing my point.
Being a mod doesn't equal a get out of debate free card.

This ain't G. Washington

[Plantagenet]

... we forget that the Massachusetts colonists were involved with military operations under British leadership. It was NE colonists who, with British support, took the large French Fortress of Lewisburg, NS. The British militarized the colonist for their own purposes, and then that military knowledge and confidence was used against them.

Very good point, Newfie.

Perhaps the best example of this is General George Washington. He led a group of Virginia militia who defeated French forces.....this appears to have been the spark that started the French and Indian War. Then Washington served in that war with great distinction in various capacities with the British Army, usually as leader of American militias fighting alongside the British. In one case famous case Washington actually assumed command of British forces when the British commander was killed, and successfully saved many lives. This military experience resulted in Washington becoming extremely familiar with the capacities and tactics of the British military and contributed to his success in fighting against the British during the long American revolutionary war and to the eventual victory of the Americans (wit the substantive help of the French) over the British forces.

Cheers!

[jedrider]

I don't have NYTimes access on this https://www.rawstory.com/from-blm-capitol-riots-police/

Seems like an interesting study of who some of the insurrectionist were and what they believed in. Of course, we are trying to figure out how they justify their 'patriotism' when what they appear to be having problems with is 'democracy' and the mechanisms of 'democracy' and, even, law enforcment and the meanings of law and what type of protests are constitutional and what types are not. As far as I'm concerned, they can let them ALL go, except for the few with firearms and weapons, as long as they arrest all of the enablers (which will never happen in the U.S. of Money).

[Newfie]

Patriotic Uprising that Newfie seems to long for

Nope, never said any such thing. And you are missing the point.

What I was alluding to was that we should apply language fairly across the board. What occurred in DC and what occurred in Portland have similarities and can both be described as insurrections. Not all insurrections are bad things not are they all good. And people of good faith will have differences of opinion on the matter. What we Americans call the Revolution was called a criminal enterprise” in England.

While any one person may lean to this side or that of a subject we all recognize that effecting violence against the government in order to change control is an insurrection, whether we agree with it or not.

[Newfie]

While you are free to voice your disapproval you are not free to shut down any topic you disagree with

So once again with the personal attack rather than addressing my point.
Being a mod doesn't equal a get out of debate free card.

This ain't G. Washington

What was your point?

[jedrider]

While any one person may lean to this side or that of a subject we all recognize that effecting violence against the government in order to change control is an insurrection, whether we agree with it or not.

Yes, of course. So, you AGREED with it?

I recall that most BLM protests start out as law-abiding then dive into some transgressions.

The Capitol Insurrection started out as, SURPRISE, an INSURRECTION! An, ILLEGAL one, too! And the VIOLENCE was NOT BY ACCIDENT at all!

Damn, am I looking through (LIBERAL) colored (i.e., RACIALLY COLORED) glasses, or NOT??

[Subjectivist]

While any one person may lean to this side or that of a subject we all recognize that effecting violence against the government in order to change control is an insurrection, whether we agree with it or not.

Yes, of course. So, you AGREED with it?

I recall that most BLM protests start out as law-abiding then dive into some transgressions.

The Capitol Insurrection started out as, SURPRISE, an INSURRECTION! An, ILLEGAL one, too! And the VIOLENCE was NOT BY ACCIDENT at all!

Damn, am I looking through (LIBERAL) colored (i.e., RACIALLY COLORED) glasses, or NOT??

Given that Insurrection is by definition illegal saying that one is illegal implies many others are proper and acceptable. Personally I don't think any of them are legal and we should all acknowledge that fact.

This whole thread reminds me of that old saying "Treason never prospers because if it prospers none dare call it treason." If the capital hill riot had overturned an election (almost impossible to see any way that could work) then the victors would have claimed it was all legal under some pretense or another. It didn't work out that way so the idiots who tried it are all subject to lengthy prison terms if and/or when they get caught.

[dissident]

Only in America would the "violence" of some protestors against brazen election fraud (over 20 million extra votes out of nothing) be called an insurrection. By this "logic" any protest against the government is "insurrection". Really, people need to go and buy a clue. An insurrection is an organized military action, e.g. coup. The Capitol Hill protestors had zero chance of overturning the system. But instead of focusing on what the protest was about, we'll have Orwellian drivel about how it was the gravest threat to American "democracy".

BTW, that story about the cop being killed by protestors was a total fabrication.

[jedrider]

Only in America would the "violence" of some protestors against brazen election fraud (over 20 million extra votes out of nothing) be called an insurrection. By this "logic" any protest against the government is "insurrection". Really, people need to go and buy a clue. An insurrection is an organized military action, e.g. coup. The Capitol Hill protestors had zero chance of overturning the system. But instead of focusing on what the protest was about, we'll have Orwellian drivel about how it was the gravest threat to American "democracy".

BTW, that story about the cop being killed by protestors was a total fabrication.

It looked violent to me watching those videos. A mob can inflict damage without it being so organized, especially if they're assisted by an absent defense (also an act of insurrection IMO) and, get this, following EXPLICIT instructions to topple a duly elected leader of the country in order to allow a person to retain power that they lost through a legitimate election. I guess you have a different definition of INSURRECTION.