"An interesting take on the American Revolution" Topic

I'm sure this isn't going to be accepted my Real 'Merkins (tm) contacts.

If you have about 25 minutes time, enjoy the talk

link

I think something is missing from your post.

The cat walked over the keyboard mid post.

link

By the same man who attributes the Japanese war in the Pacific – and specifically all their atrocities – as payback for "white supremacy"?

I'm sure this work is stellar.

Well, I'm sure it will sell really well. Of course, our enlightened colonial masters had no problem accepting cotton from slave owners after our independence.

The fourth sentence was all I needed; my reading indicates the slaves were sold to us by other Africans; not captured. More revisionist flux from the ivory towers!

I don't think that it's all far fetched that fear of abolitionism was one, just one, of the reasons for the American War of Independence… or the first American Civil War as I call it. Its just one that normally doesn't get talked about.

Awesome. As late as the Napoleonic Wars the West Indian Regiment was purchasing "recruits" in the Carribean. Not convinced Africans were flocking to the colours.

Amy Goodman and Democracy Now…'nough said.

@darthfozzywig: Yup, funny how the Japanese paid back, by far, more fellow Asians in their attempt to get even with the Western Imperialists.

Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about US history should be aware that our forefathers were less than perfect on the subject of race. But by taking it to the next level to assert that the war was "only" about preserving slavery and abusing native Americans
the author is guilty of as much tunnel vision as those who maintain it was "all" about freedom and justice for all. The unfortunate fact is that the US is currently divided between those who want to think our history is only about how bad we were (and by implication, still are) and those who think we were only good (and by implication, not only good now, but better than everybody else). History, as always, is much greyer and more complicated.
Meanwhile, Britain did not abolish slavery until the 1830s.
And their record with native peoples is hardly more "enlightened" than that of the US.

Britain did not abolish slavery in its colonies until the 1830s (a generation before the US did). The slave trade was abolished in 1808. Slavery never existed under British law – as was demonstrated a few years before the AWI when an American brought a slave to the UK.

This isn't the first person to make this claim incidentally, I've hear dit years ago.

All slaves in the West India Regiment were freed in 1807.

Regarding the record of the British…all I can say is compare and contrast what happened to the Native Americans in the USA and Canada.

Gerald Horne, a historian, is trying to revise history! What he misses is much, least of all his presentation of the facts to derive at some "politically correct, but historical fictitious conclusions. Such tactics seems rampant with those "wishing" things were different. Many conclusions he presents are not offered with historical facts to support his conclusions. The "throwing all black men in chains within sight" is simply emotionally inflammatory and inaccurate! There were many Africans who fought for Independence from England in our revolution! While England undoubtedly found it's conscience later, they were just one country plotting for more profits from the slave trade- just like the others (Spain, France, etc.) The history of Africa recorded wars being fought between tribes (and in a few cases, among the same tribes) for the purpose of capturing slaves so they could be sold as a cash crop. It was every bit an industry as hunter- farming and herders for the indigenous African populations. In all my studies of and in Africa, I could not find one recorded instance of any "white man" enslaving a "black man". Plenty of trade going on for already enslaved people, but there was no need to mount an inland expedition to get more; abundant supplies were available in ports like Gorie Island (Senegal) on down the coasts.

I may land in the dawghouse, but I will gladly go if I can succeed in getting just one more person to seek the truth through studying the facts! This discussion (about how documented history and how some modern authors try to make a name for themselves by revising history) is the real problem! How successful they are is mainly due to the apathy practiced by so many people who simply have not taken the time to learn for themselves. A sad statement about how "un-educated" our western societies are about these "hot-button" topics.

What he does not explain are events like the Boston Tea Party not being an act of opposing unfair taxes. or how about an explanation or even mention of black Continental soldiers who freely risked (and many lost) their lives for the cause? He offers not one name of these forgotten heroes because it could serve as a role model for today's youth and would recognize their contribution to our freedom. People like him choose to ignore those facts because it would be inconsistent with the line they are trying to feed us!

Many American soldiers (black,white and native American) died to restore freedom to the French in WWI and WWII. France has honored their ultimate sacrifice by providing cemeteries in France whose hallowed ground has been given to and administrated by the USA. Where are the cemeteries in the USA ceded to France for their son's efforts to help us win OUR freedom?

So while we celebrate our 238th Birthday, we should not forget all the others who fought along side our forefathers who helped us achieve this important goal of freedom. And yes, since then, we have always strived to help others enjoy what we hold sacred in our hearts, too. It did not take 238 years to "bury the hatchet" between the US and UK, so why is it taking so long to do the same with issues as flimsy as the color of one's skin?

Best
Tom

In academia, you only get tenure and promotions based on publishing. Teaching and administrative work are mostly if not entirely ignored. How good what you publish is often does not matter--for example, a friend of mine is a tenured history professor at a known Division I public university, and a colleague was given tenure after he self published a book on Amazon. Seriously. And, as someone said above, each generation attacks the consensus of the previous one so as to make a name for themselves. Accuracy and objectivity is secondary at best.

Lets not forget the key role of Arabs in the whole African slavery industry. Not dwelt upon too much by academics who seek a peaceful life of course, but the truth is their role was crucial in organising the slave trade. I'm not allowed to discuss the role of slavery in present day Saudi Arabia, but I urge anyone with another 20 minutes to spare to do their own research…

Yes, Sparker. Especially the Bedouins and Tauregs to name just two. The Sahel is littered with the bones of those who did not finish the journey.

"It did not take 238 years to "bury the hatchet" between the US and UK, so why is it taking so long to do the same with issues as flimsy as the colour of one's skin?"

Perhaps because the average septic is racist?

what is the average septic?

Sceptic?

Amen, Sparker – there is a good reason for why the Marine Hymn contains the line "to the shores of Tripoli"

In academia, you only get tenure and promotions based on publishing. … each generation attacks the consensus of the previous one so as to make a name for themselves.

Which is why I don't think that all new research is better than old research.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

"In academia, you only get tenure and promotions based on publishing. … each generation attacks the consensus of the previous one so as to make a name for themselves."

Old consensus's should be challenged, that's what keeps the study of history exciting, alive, a source of constant fascination and inspiration!

Glengarry5. I agree. But the researcher should make his research public, present what he has found, present his findings and let others comment on it. Claims are not enough.

Sandinista: You do not have to be a racist to be a skeptic. Just one with a genuine interest in the subject and the desire to learn the truth should be enough. My new catch-phrase is going to be "Come-on….Convince me with the facts!" I work with a guy that is always going back to his youth and complaining that there were no heroes taught in school of black individuals to serve as role models for inspiring young blacks to succeed in life. I do not doubt this situation. HE could write about himself. He is a decorated veteran, has several degrees and has achieved a high rank in the US Army- he could be one of those missing role models himself! But then I ask him why he does not use his efforts to correct this situation? I then get a dissertation about how the "white man" has "conspired" to keep the "black man" down. He refuses to see it that he has been empowered to correct a perceived problem, himself. He has great initiative and passion for this but no referendum. He expects someone else to do it for him- and feels he is owed that! I owe him nothing more than thanks for serving his country and the rewards associated with that.

At least Dr. Home is trying to do something. I will seek out one of his books and see if he has provided references that I can research and better understand the stance he has taken. But when broad brush and inflammatory comments (engineered or personal)are made in his interviews, it really results in being counter productive to the message he may be trying to get out. Just because one has a piece of paper saying he has a degree does not make him an expert….it is what one does with that degree that counts. Otherwise, the value of that paper is proof he/she can be trained. I consider such an approach to be seeking the truth minus any political correctness which results in reformative history.

If the historical record supports a change in the way we view history, then it is our obligation to support a challenge to the accepted views. Of course, the victor "writes the history", but years later, when the emotions have died down, a more objective review can become successful but only if the sources can be verified and events proven and linked for it to be true. I could cite a more modern example but that then would be grounds for DH-ing here and has nothing to do with gaming. Game on everyone!

Tom

Bangorstu, we're the freed slaves allowed to leave the regiment, or held to their enlistment?

> Regarding the record of the British…all I can say is compare and contrast what happened to the Native Americans in the USA and Canada.

You really would not want me to do that, I would ask an Irishman.

Dye4minis is pretty much right on this topic.

Rinhoff, in contemporary Mockney rhyming slang, 'septic tank' = Yank. Clever and offensive at the same time. But all in good fun.

'Sandinista' (rolls eyes), the color bar is still a big issue over here, but racism manifests in many places around the world, not just in the US. We re-elected Barak Obama, so the first time wasn't a fluke. When are youse guys gonna elect a black king? Hunh? We're one up on you there!

what is the average septic?

Septic; Cockney rhyming slang for an American, as in "Septic Tank" = Yank. Use, mildly derogatory.

Example of using in the modern British Army; "And the bad news in the Septics are are providing close air support on this mission…."

That is also an example of a phrase you DO NOT want to hear in the British Army from 1942 on.

If you want derogatory try SPAM = Spastic Plastic American Motherer which normally follows from the inevitable 'blue on blue' referred to above.

There are an awful lot of people in Jamaica who would disagree with the staement: "Slavery never exsited under British law". Plus, unless I'm mistaken, didn't slavery exist in the British American colonies before the AWI? And abolition of slavery in the Bristish Empire was in 1833.
Is there some slight of legal hand that I'm missing?

'Is there some slight of legal hand that I'm missing?'

He meant under British Law, on British (or more specifically English) soil. While Britain made a pretty penny out of the slave trade, and slavery was perfectly legal in many of its possessions and colonies, it has ‘never' been a legal institution in England itself. I have no idea if it was a different situation under Scottish Law, which is a different beast.

In reality, this is debatable even in regard to England, as there were historical legal decisions that argue that it was legal, and plenty of examples of people bringing slaves to England, mostly as personal servants.

However the matter was largely decided – as it pertains to English soil – in the case I think Bangorstu is refering to, when Lord Henley LC ruled in Shanley v. Harvey (1763) ‘ that as soon as a man sets foot on English ground he is free.'

There is rarely a single reason for anything.

In general, slavery would only be important to those with a connection to it i.e. slave owners, merchants and other business groups. Similarly, the opening of the frontier would have been important to those looking for land, which would have been a large number of people in the 1770's.

And even at a lower level, in a world without social security, if your livelihood depended on someone who was pro-independence, you probably would support that independence too.

Also there was a very large number of people who were transported from Britain as convicts and were slaves themselves. This group would also be pro-independence.

Revenge e.g. Washington always had a chip on his soldier about his lack of success with his military ambitions.

Religious freedom.

So independence succeeded because it had a large number of supporters from diverse backgrounds who were individually motivated.

There are a lot of similarities between the AWI and Germany in the 30's. Was it really a sacred drive for democracy and freedom or did that view come later?

Thank you all for the definition of septic. I had a suspicion that it was not a typo thus my question.

Slavery was legalized- in a broad sense- by the decision in Calvin's Case decided by Sir Edward Coke in 1608. In the early 1700s Pennsylvania tried to tax slavery out of existence (Quakers, of course) but the Board of Trade and Plantations in England blocked it in 1712, 1719, 1721 and 1722. So I guess it was legal.

Can we go after Belgium about the Congo next?

I like cheesecake