NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a quick question. Does it bother anyone else that the American Revolutionary War is referred to as such? I realize it has become a colloquial corruption, but a corruption [of the word Revolution] nonetheless. I'm not advocating we change it; hell it's so commonplace you might actually have a real one if we tried to do anything about it. But I'm just wondering if anyone else ever gets the urge to qualify that title with, "well, it wasn't actually a revolution..."?

As opposed to a what?

what part of it dont you like?

As opposed to a what?

A rebellion. We all know revolutions can only take place in Europe and occasionally Asia.

A rebellion. We all know revolutions can only take place in Europe and occasionally Asia.

I had to read (the introduction to) a paper last month about how there was no such thing as the Scientific Revolution because it wasn't very scientific and it wasn't very "revolutionary."

I hate it when people try to argue semantics in a historical context.

Just a quick question. Does it bother anyone else that the American Revolutionary War is referred to as such?
I usually call it the "American Independence War".

But I'm just wondering if anyone else ever gets the urge to qualify that title with, "well, it wasn't actually a revolution..."?
...no... anyway it's goal wasn't revolution in the strict meaning of it (a radical change of society) .
Iirc George Washington was offered to become monarch of the USA, and refused because of his republican ideals.

A rebellion. We all know revolutions can only take place in Europe and occasionally Asia.

Started as a révolte and became an independence war.

It really doesn't bother me to admit americans were revolting then; they're also revolting now ;)

I kid, I kid.. Don't drag me off to Guantanamo please..

Also, apologies to anyone that had wanted to make this joke and would have done it better.

It really doesn't bother me to admit americans were revolting then; they're also revolting now ;)

I kid, I kid.. Don't drag me off to Guantanamo please..

ha
ha
ha

that sound you hear is the black helicopter come to take you away. dont struggle, resistance is futile.

I dont know...
Does it bother anybody that Russians frequently refer to Napoleon's 1812 campaign and WWII as 'Great Patriotic Wars'?
Few people outside of Russia would think of them as particularly patriotic.

I usually call it the "American Independence War"."War of Independence" isn't exactly an uncommon thing for it to be called in the US, either.

so what happened to the OP? did his nation get deleted?

yeah my history teacher says it wasn't actually a revolution but a war of independence.

ha
ha
ha

that sound you hear is the black helicopter come to take you away. dont struggle, resistance is futile.
i only hear two black helicopters crashing into one another
so what happened to the OP? did his nation get deleted?

nope still kicking

I assume you are all referring to the First American Civil War.;)

Huh? Well, I guess you could call it a civil war in the sense that many people living in the colonies sided with Britain.
I would say the war was revolutionary in that it was motivated by enlightenment ideas that, though they first were put into practice with the Glorious Revolution in 1688, had never been implemented in such a complete way.

rev·o·lu·tion
n.
1.
a. Orbital motion about a point, especially as distinguished from axial rotation: the planetary revolution about the sun.
b. A turning or rotational motion about an axis.
c. A single complete cycle of such orbital or axial motion.
2. The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another.
3. A sudden or momentous change in a situation: the revolution in computer technology.
4. Geology A time of major crustal deformation, when folds and faults are formed.

I believe "revolution" is an appropriate word.

rev·o·lu·tion
n.
1.
a. Orbital motion about a point, especially as distinguished from axial rotation: the planetary revolution about the sun.
b. A turning or rotational motion about an axis.
c. A single complete cycle of such orbital or axial motion.
2. The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another.
3. A sudden or momentous change in a situation: the revolution in computer technology.
4. Geology A time of major crustal deformation, when folds and faults are formed.

I believe "revolution" is an appropriate word.


yes but is that what he was objecting to?

maybe he didnt like it being called american or being called a war.

yes but is that what he was objecting to?

maybe he didnt like it being called american or being called a war.

It took place in America, and was a war.

I call it "America's first really Stupid Action that is now distorted as some great moral battle"

I call it "America's first really Stupid Action that is now distorted as some great moral battle"

its not stupid if you win.

It took place in America, and was a war.

aye

it was in america

it was a revolution

and it was a war

how dare they call it the american revolutionary war!

rev·o·lu·tion
n.
1.
a. Orbital motion about a point, especially as distinguished from axial rotation: the planetary revolution about the sun.
b. A turning or rotational motion about an axis.
c. A single complete cycle of such orbital or axial motion.
2. The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another.
3. A sudden or momentous change in a situation: the revolution in computer technology.
4. Geology A time of major crustal deformation, when folds and faults are formed.

I believe "revolution" is an appropriate word.


But we didn't overthrow the British government. We just ended its rule in the 13 colonies. Therefore it wasn't a revolution. the correct term would be war for independence.

its not stupid if you win.

Win and then spend the next Century trying to build a country which ends up as Fragmented as the 1920s Balkans and has the culture of a rodent?

Is it still not stupid. You could've knocked years off Both world

And anyway, we still burnt down Washington DC. Remind me when you burnt down London?

Anyway, if the political plot of the Story stated in the "Post and Run" thread by me occurs, that'll be match point to Jolly old England the Good Ol' Empire.

Win and then spend the next Century trying to build a country which ends up as Fragmented as the 1920s Balkans and has the culture of a rodent?

Is it still not stupid. You could've knocked years off Both world

And anyway, we still burnt down Washington DC. Remind me when you burnt down London?

Anyway, if the political plot of the Story stated in the "Post and Run" thread by me occurs, that'll be match point to Jolly old England the Good Ol' Empire.

oh im sorry i thought you were talking about the united states.

i dont understand you post.

Win and then spend the next Century trying to build a country which ends up as Fragmented as the 1920s Balkans and has the culture of a rodent?

Is it still not stupid. You could've knocked years off Both world

And anyway, we still burnt down Washington DC. Remind me when you burnt down London?

Anyway, if the political plot of the Story stated in the "Post and Run" thread by me occurs, that'll be match point to Jolly old England the Good Ol' Empire.

The US is as fragmented as the balkans? That argument could have been made during the Civil War, but other than that, no. That argument seems wrong.

About the culture....WTF?

Why would the US and Britain fight after the war of 1812? There were plans on the books if war ever broke out, but after the war of 1812 the US and Britain grew closer, and I'd say the US and Britain today are each other's strongest allies. There is no reason for animosity between them.

But we didn't overthrow the British government. We just ended its rule in the 13 colonies. Therefore it wasn't a revolution. the correct term would be war for independence.

We overthrew the government instated in the colonies. Whether or not that instated government was a branch of a larger one is irreverent. One type of government in America was dismantled, another took its place.

I'd call it a colonial rebellion of the second order.

Why would the US and Britain fight after the war of 1812? There were plans on the books if war ever broke out, but after the war of 1812 the US and Britain grew closer, and I'd say the US and Britain today are each other's strongest allies. There is no reason for animosity between them.

We're not Allies. England is our bitch, reguardless of who they elect. They get rid of Blair, and they're still in Iraq. Although slowly withdrawing. Not that its good that either one of us are there, but its proof their Government is on a cross-Atlantic chain.

We're not Allies. England is our bitch, reguardless of who they elect. They get rid of Blair, and they're still in Iraq. Although slowly withdrawing. Not that its good that either one of us are there, but its proof their Government is on a cross-Atlantic chain.

Not forever...

Win and then spend the next Century trying to build a country which ends up as Fragmented as the 1920s Balkans and has the culture of a rodent?

At least our "culture of a rodent" did not fight a war to force people to buy opium.

At least our "culture of a rodent" did not fight a war to force people to buy opium.

Or fight Hitler for invading Countries he's got not right to invade.

At least our "culture of a rodent" did not fight a war to force people to buy opium.

ouch!

good one!

Or fight Hitler for invading Countries he's got not right to invade.

Says the person who made a remark about how proud he was that Britain burned D.C. Hitler has no right to invade nations, but Britain does?

Aside: I do not see the British intervening in many wars these days. Could it be that Hitler only worried them because their land was at stake?

Or fight Hitler for invading Countries he's got not right to invade.

GODWIN'S LAW. /THREAD

Says the person who made a remark about how proud he was that Britain burned D.C. Hitler has no right to invade nations, but Britain does?

Aside: I do not see the British intervening in many wars these days. Could it be that Hitler only worried them because their land was at stake?

Britain attacked it's colony. Hitler attacked a Country of people with no connection to Germany (polish corridor excepted).

How does Hitler Invading Poland threaten Britain. He's going the Wrong way!!!!

Other than in Afghanistan (esp Helmand), anywhere the UN orders us...
Also, we have a Government of Corrupt thieves. Give us a break! We've got some v.screwed up elections to deal with.

Britain attacked it's colony. Hitler attacked a Country of people with no connection to Germany (polish corridor excepted).

Its colony? Tommyrot. America was being taxed without being allowed to vote. That is thievery. Americans were forced to house and feed British troops against their will. We politely asked to vote, and this nation that you cherish so much turned us down. Britain had no right to kidnap American sailors, and they had no right to burn-down D.C.

How does Hitler Invading Poland threaten Britain. He's going the Wrong way!!!!

It is close to Britain. Britain had long maintained a "balance of power" policy. Hitler scared them. Do your British troops help Israel when it is attacked? What about African countries? Yet they would intervene if Russia invaded Poland.

Other than in Afghanistan (esp Helmand), anywhere the UN orders us...

Did not you pull a certain prince out of there recently? Apparently you deemed war "dangerous".

Also, we have a Government of Corrupt thieves. Give us a break! We've got some v.screwed up elections to deal with.

You do not seem to be giving us a "break".

Its colony? Tommyrot. America was being taxed without being allowed to vote. That is thievery. Americans were forced to house and feed British troops against their will. We politely asked to vote, and this nation that you cherish so much turned us down. Britain had no right to kidnap American sailors, and they had no right to burn-down D.C.



It is close to Britain. Britain had long maintained a "balance of power" policy. Hitler scared them. Do your British troops help Israel when it is attacked? What about African countries? Yet they would intervene if Russia invaded Poland.



Did not you pull a certain prince out of there recently? Apparently you deemed war "dangerous".



You do not seem to be giving us a "break".

You don't get the vote so you start a war? And I thought the suffragettes were barmy...

Didn't someone say on here you guys fired toronto.

Israel is pretty capable of fending for itself.

Prince Harry was pulled out by the MOD, not me! I'd have left him there, and ordered all journalists who reported that he was there be automatically imprisoned and publish photos showing Harry by the Brandenburg gate.

I'd call it a colonial rebellion of the second order.
Can't we drop the colonial elitism after over two hundered years? We lost, deal with it.

Just a quick question. Does it bother anyone else that the American Revolutionary War is referred to as such? I realize it has become a colloquial corruption, but a corruption [of the word Revolution] nonetheless. I'm not advocating we change it; hell it's so commonplace you might actually have a real one if we tried to do anything about it. But I'm just wondering if anyone else ever gets the urge to qualify that title with, "well, it wasn't actually a revolution..."?

Technically, it was a rebellion, a civil war, and a revolution all rolled into one. A revocivilellion, if you will.

Can't we drop the colonial elitism after over two hundered years? We lost, deal with it.

Never!

*wraps self in Flag, grabs Cutlass and runs to defend fortress through Time Machine*

You don't get the vote so you start a war? And I thought the suffragettes were barmy...

If you are moving soldiers into our domain and demanding that we pay you money (or else), I think we may say "no". Either way, you sure-as-hell did not have any more right to burn D.C. than Hitler had a right to invade Poland.

Didn't someone say on here you guys fired toronto.

You occupied it.

Israel is pretty capable of fending for itself.

And what about all the other nations that are being invaded year-around?

Prince Harry was pulled out by the MOD, not me! I'd have left him there, and ordered all journalists who reported that he was there be automatically imprisoned and publish photos showing Harry by the Brandenburg gate.

So, you are proud of your opinion...but not of your country?

If you are moving soldiers into our domain and demanding that we pay you money (or else), I think we may say "no". Either way, you sure-as-hell did not have any more right to burn D.C. than Hitler had a right to invade Poland.

You occupied it.

And what about all the other nations that are being invaded year-around?

So, you are proud of your opinion...but not of your country?

Why couldn't you guys have just been more restrained? You would've got the vote had you acted to Britain's benefit more.

Toronto is still ruled by our queen. Not much occupation there.

I'm not proud of the corrupt government.

Or fight Hitler for invading Countries he's got not right to invade.

And yet you support imperialism, which basically entails invading countries which you do not have a right to invade. Contradiction much?

Tell me, how do you feel about the British Empire in Africa?

Why couldn't you guys have just been more restrained? You would've got the vote had you acted to Britain's benefit more.

Because we were very aware of the reality of our situation, that we were England's economic dumping ground. I suggest you read more about mercantilism.

Never!

*wraps self in Flag, grabs Cutlass and runs to defend fortress through Time Machine*
Well, if you insist...

On that theme, though, if I were born in, say, 1959 instead of 1989 and in New England rather than Edinburgh, I think I would have been quite proud to have been a Patriot, considering my general political outlook. The American Revolution was by all means justfied, in my opinion.

Why couldn't you guys have just been more restrained? You would've got the vote had you acted to Britain's benefit more.

To put it bluntly: Fuck that.

Toronto is still ruled by our queen. Not much occupation there.

So we fired at it during a war against you. What is the preferable way of dealing with enemy cities? Bribing them to surrender with tea?

I'm not proud of the corrupt government.

So what are you proud of, exactly? The British "race"?

Why couldn't you guys have just been more restrained? You would've got the vote had you acted to Britain's benefit more.
So, what should the Americans have done to obtain the same rights for their people and legislatures in their respective colonies as Britons and Parliament did in Britain?

what part of it dont you like?

Just the technicality of calling it a revolution, when that's not exactly what it is. Just something nitpicky of mine, to be sure. A fight for independence is different than an overthrow and reinstitution of government.

Britain attacked it's colony. Hitler attacked a Country of people with no connection to Germany (polish corridor excepted).


Except when Britian burnt down DC America wasnt its colony anymore.

rev·o·lu·tion
n.
1.
a. Orbital motion about a point, especially as distinguished from axial rotation: the planetary revolution about the sun.
b. A turning or rotational motion about an axis.
c. A single complete cycle of such orbital or axial motion.
2. The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another.
3. A sudden or momentous change in a situation: the revolution in computer technology.
4. Geology A time of major crustal deformation, when folds and faults are formed.

I believe "revolution" is an appropriate word.

They didn't overthrow the government though. They broke away from it.

It really doesn't bother me to admit americans were revolting then; they're also revolting now ;)

I kid, I kid.. Don't drag me off to Guantanamo please..

Also, apologies to anyone that had wanted to make this joke and would have done it better.

Well, you can revolt, without a revolution per se.

They didn't overthrow the government though. They broke away from it.

Semantics.

They didn't overthrow the government though. They broke away from it.

The colonial government was overthrown and replaced with a national one. Hence, a revolution. It is also a rebellion because we seperated from the larger nation we were then a part of. It was also a civil war because only a third of all Americans were patriots while the other third fought for and supported the British.

Semantics.

Facts. :)

The colonial government was overthrown and replaced with a national one. Hence, a revolution. It is also a rebellion because we seperated from the larger nation we were then a part of. It was also a civil war because only a third of all Americans were patriots while the other third fought for and supported the British.

The French government was overthrown in 1789. The British government was displaced.

Facts. :)

No, you are arguing about the definition of the word "revolution". The fact is, it doesn't matter. The [American] Revolutionary War is what it is called, and most people use the word revolution in such a manner as to mean the same as in the Revolutionary War, and people will continue to call in the Revolutionary War because that is what it is called.

What's to be offended about?

It replaced the most of the British government in America with an American one. That's fairly revolutionary. It wasn't just a breakaway type affair, there was a genuine change in ideology at the top.

The French government was overthrown in 1789. The British government was displaced.
Difference being? In both cases, an old form of government was replaced by a radically different one by popular means. The British government in America was not displaced, it was completely abolished, and did not go somewhere else when it was rejected. After the revolution, it ceased to exist, not go on permanant holiday.

Really, this is now clutching at straws.

The French government was overthrown in 1789. The British government was displaced.

The colonial government then existing at the time was overthrown. I don't recall the royal governors with their powers being allowed to stay.

What's to be offended about?

It replaced the most of the British government in America with an American one. That's fairly revolutionary. It wasn't just a breakaway type affair, there was a genuine change in ideology at the top.

Let's get something straight, here. I said it bothered me, not that I was offended. If I was offended, I would want it changed. I don't.

To your point: The British government still exists. Were the British government to be gone and controlled by an American one, that would be a revolution. However, a rebellion/insurrection/war of independence is not a revolution, at least in this case.

What's to be offended about?

It replaced the most of the British government in America with an American one. That's fairly revolutionary. It wasn't just a breakaway type affair, there was a genuine change in ideology at the top.
Well, it is possible to argue that, from a historical point of view, the new American governments were just as conservative as the British one that preceeded it. I disagree with it, but I have seen it argued.

Let's get something straight, here. I said it bothered me, not that I was offended. If I was offended, I would want it changed. I don't.
Rightio.
To your point: The British government still exists. Were the British government to be gone and controlled by an American one, that would be a revolution. However, a rebellion/insurrection/war of independence is not a revolution, at least in this case.
The British government in America was absolutely gone and replaced. That's a revolution. See also what happened in India. That was a revolution too, you know.

No, you are arguing about the definition of the word "revolution". The fact is, it doesn't matter. The [American] Revolutionary War is what it is called, and most people use the word revolution in such a manner as to mean the same as in the Revolutionary War, and people will continue to call in the Revolutionary War because that is what it is called.

This I have no argument with. And it is not arguing the definition in that I am trying to convince others against the accepted definition; I am imposing the actual definition to correct a misunderstanding.

Let's get something straight, here. I said it bothered me, not that I was offended. If I was offended, I would want it changed. I don't.

To your point: The British government still exists. Were the British government to be gone and controlled by an American one, that would be a revolution. However, a rebellion/insurrection/war of independence is not a revolution, at least in this case.

If it were just a mere rebellion, then the political structure existing in the colonies would have been preserved. The royal governors would have declared independence along with any British troops stationed over there, not the people themselves.

Technically, it was a rebellion, a civil war, and a revolution all rolled into one. A revocivilellion, if you will.
Not to mention an international war, lots of French, dutch, german, and probably a few other nationalities involved and played major roles in the war.



Its colony? Tommyrot. America was being taxed without being allowed to vote. That is thievery. Americans were forced to house and feed British troops against their will. We politely asked to vote, and this nation that you cherish so much turned us down. Britain had no right to kidnap American sailors, and they had no right to burn-down D.C.
When did 1812 rather than the revolutionary war become the topic (and more to the point the US was independant by then)?

Aside from that, in the colonies under Britain the colonists paid very low taxes (comparative to British citizens) almost all of which paid for the colonists own defence, very little if any went out of the colonies. And the colonists had their own state legislatures.

They didn't see them as American Sailors, they took ones born in Britain that carried papers (many dubious ones) that claimed they were naturalised American citizens.


Aside: I do not see the British intervening in many wars these days. Could it be that Hitler only worried them because their land was at stake?
Or the majority of our force is busy with Iraq and Afghanistan?

Rightio.

The British government in America was absolutely gone and replaced. That's a revolution. See also what happened in India. That was a revolution too, you know.

Again, the British government still exists. Thus, not a revolution. A rebellion, certainly; but separating (ie, seceding) is not revolution. Do you consider the Confederate States of America to be revolutionaries? Or rebels?

To your point: The British government still exists. Were the British government to be gone and controlled by an American one, that would be a revolution. However, a rebellion/insurrection/war of independence is not a revolution, at least in this case.
You are completely misunderstanding the American War for Independence. The Americans were not fighting the British Government, and did not seek to overthrow the government in Westminster. They were fighting the British Colonial Government in America, or British rule in America, not the British government itself. It is this colonial government that was abolished and replaced by a new one in a revolution. Had there been a revolution in Great Britain itself, it would count as a separate revolution to the American one.

This I have no argument with. And it is not arguing the definition in that I am trying to convince others against the accepted definition; I am imposing the actual definition to correct a misunderstanding.

The actual definition is irrelevant. There is no misunderstanding. The meaning of the word "revolution" is derived from how it is used by the people who use it. We use it to describe the events of the 1770's and so on, and therefore it is accurate in its description because we have decided that it is. That you do not accept it as an accurate description only means that you do not fully grasp the entire definition for the word revolution, or else you do not fully grasp the events the word is being used to describe, and so the only misunderstanding is your own.

You are completely misunderstanding the American War for Independence. The Americans were not fighting the British Government, and did not seek to overthrow the government in Westminster. They were fighting the British Colonial Government in America, or British rule in America, not the British government itself. It is this colonial government that was abolished and replaced by a new one in a revolution. Had there been a revolution in Great Britain itself, it would count as a separate revolution to the American one.

I may indeed be misunderstanding this. I have always understood the Colonial government to be directly representative of the Crown, insofar as technology did not permit immediate or true direct governance of a population so far away.

Would the fact that the colonists fought against the British not imply that the the Crown and the colonial government were synonymous?

The actual definition is irrelevant. There is no misunderstanding. The meaning of the word "revolution" is derived from how it is used by the people who use it. We use it to describe the events of the 1770's and so on, and therefore it is accurate in its description because we have decided that it is. That you do not accept it as an accurate description only means that you do not fully grasp the entire definition for the word revolution, or else you do not fully grasp the events the word is being used to describe, and so the only misunderstanding is your own.

So common misperceptions create a colloquial truth, and therefore truth nonetheless?

So common misperceptions create a colloquial truth, and therefore truth nonetheless?

Pretty much. Doubly so when it comes to language. Triply so in the English language.

Revolution? Yes it was a Revolution

Rebellion? Yes it was a Rebellion

Independence? Yes we gained that (thanks to France and Spain and the Armed Neutrality of Europe)

OP is made of fail.

Pretty much. Doubly so when it comes to language. Triply so in the English language.

Then I stand corrected, and am duly educated on the matter.

So common misperceptions create a colloquial truth, and therefore truth nonetheless?

Not exactly. Stop treating "Revolutionary War" as a phrase unto itself and think of it only as a name. A person's name has a meaning, but it very often has little to do with the actual person. The Revolutionary War is the name for the event, and does in fact have a great deal to do with the event in its meaning, but regardless of what it means, it is the name for it. When it was given, people considered it to be, if not spot on, at least close enough, and so it was named.

Revolution? Yes it was a Revolution

Rebellion? Yes it was a Rebellion

Independence? Yes we gained that (thanks to France and Spain and the Armed Neutrality of Europe)

OP is made of fail.

Let's cut the crap. Your first three points are valid; that is what 70+ posts have determined. But for you to walk in with an antagonistic and utterly unconstructive remark, especially when any dialogue or discourse exists for some reason, and in this case I have learned something about my misunderstandings, is not arrogant but wholly unproductive to the furthering of knowledge.

Not exactly. Stop treating "Revolutionary War" as a phrase unto itself and think of it only as a name. A person's name has a meaning, but it very often has little to do with the actual person. The Revolutionary War is the name for the event, and does in fact have a great deal to do with the event in its meaning, but regardless of what it means, it is the name for it. When it was given, people considered it to be, if not spot on, at least close enough, and so it was named.

I can accept that as well. A rose by any other name, eh? I thank you for your clarification.

I may indeed be misunderstanding this. I have always understood the Colonial government to be directly representative of the Crown, insofar as technology did not permit immediate or true direct governance of a population so far away.
Colonial governors may well have been direct representatives of the crown de jure (but in reality, historical colonial charters and the fact that they were appointed by the government makes it more complicated) but this did not matter for the purposes of the Revolutionaries, they were fighting against British rule in America, not British rule in Britain.

Would the fact that the colonists fought against the British not imply that the the Crown and the colonial government were synonymous?
They did not fight against the British per se. They fought against British Rule in America by the British military and Governors, but did not seek to end British rule anywhere else other than America.

But we didn't overthrow the British government. We just ended its rule in the 13 colonies. Therefore it wasn't a revolution. the correct term would be war for independence.

The British Colonial government was overthrown...

Colonial governors may well have been direct representatives of the crown de jure (but in reality, historical colonial charters and the fact that they were appointed by the government makes it more complicated) but this did not matter for the purposes of the Revolutionaries, they were fighting against British rule in America, not British rule in Britain.


They did not fight against the British per se. They fought against British Rule in America by the British military and Governors, but did not seek to end British rule anywhere else other than America.

An interesting distinction. That would make it, then, the hybrid of both a revolution and a rebellion--the liger of independence movements, eh? ;)

So we fired at it during a war against you. What is the preferable way of dealing with enemy cities? Bribing them to surrender with tea?

Cake or Death!!

An interesting distinction. That would make it, then, the hybrid of both a revolution and a rebellion--the liger of independence movements, eh? ;)
To a degree, yes.

Cake or Death!!

I'll take ummm cake. Izzard is a wizard with comedy. I like the lego versions, they're uber-cool

Let's cut the crap. Your first three points are valid; that is what 70+ posts have determined.

Ok

But for you to walk in with an antagonistic and utterly unconstructive remark, especially when any dialogue or discourse exists for some reason, and in this case I have learned something about my misunderstandings, is not arrogant but wholly unproductive to the furthering of knowledge.

The dialog goes with what has already been stated. The American Revolutionary War was indeed a Revolution.

Again, the British government still exists. Thus, not a revolution. A rebellion, certainly; but separating (ie, seceding) is not revolution. Do you consider the Confederate States of America to be revolutionaries? Or rebels?
The Confederates were not "revolutionaries", and would not have been even if they had won indepedence, because they were not trying to create a new system of governance. Their constitution was the US constitution with a few edits to make sure it meant what they would have preferred the US constitution always to have been interpreted as meaning. They were trying to preserve their ancien regime, quite the opposite of a "revolutionary" undertaking.

The American War of Independence was considered for a time to be the very epitome of a "revolution", what all other "revolutions" aspired to be, because it created a novel system of governance. It is hard for us to understand in retrospect how novel it was: republics had generally been tiny, not stretching over a large section of a continent; a written "constitution" was an unheard-of innovation (nowadays, almost every nation thinks it should have such a document, even if only for lip-service); up until 1776 no head of state had ever been called a "President" and yet that is the near-universal title now!

Just a quick question. Does it bother anyone else that the American Revolutionary War is referred to as such? I realize it has become a colloquial corruption, but a corruption [of the word Revolution] nonetheless. I'm not advocating we change it; hell it's so commonplace you might actually have a real one if we tried to do anything about it. But I'm just wondering if anyone else ever gets the urge to qualify that title with, "well, it wasn't actually a revolution..."?
Then, exactly what was it...

what part of it dont you like?

The revolution part, it was a war between a clique of American rich oligarchs and a clique of British rich oligarchs.

It wasn't a revolution. It was a War of Independence.

Its colony? Tommyrot. America was being taxed without being allowed to vote. That is thievery. Americans were forced to house and feed British troops against their will. We politely asked to vote, and this nation that you cherish so much turned us down. Britain had no right to kidnap American sailors, and they had no right to burn-down D.C.

Didn't we burn Toronto? Tit-for-tat and such?

It wasn't a revolution. It was a War of Independence.

'twas both!

Again, the British government still exists. Thus, not a revolution. A rebellion, certainly; but separating (ie, seceding) is not revolution. Do you consider the Confederate States of America to be revolutionaries? Or rebels?

Hence the American Revolutionary War, and not the British Revolutionary War. The British government in America (hint hint) was overthrown.

Didn't we burn Toronto? Tit-for-tat and such?



'twas both!

No, a Revolution is a complete overthrow of the entire existing social, political and economy of the nation. Don't confuse petty coups and the like with genuine revolutions. You can argue the Cuban, Russian or Iranian revolutions were genuine as the entire structure of society was changed.

No, a Revolution is a complete overthrow of the entire existing social, political and economy of the nation. Don't confuse petty coups and the like with genuine revolutions. You can argue the Cuban, Russian or Iranian revolutions were genuine as the entire structure of society was changed.

Lemme guess, it wasn't a revolution because the social, political and economy of the nation was unchanged?

Lemme guess, it wasn't a revolution because the social, political and economy of the nation was unchanged?

Socially nothing changed, economically it slightly changed in terms of taxation - but the mode of production (ie merchant capital) pretty much stayed the same, politically it didn't change much seeing as most of the colonies were pretty much de facto independent before hand anyways. In reality America actually had more of a centralized executive after independence, not less, in Britain the head of state and government were different people, in America they combined the two.

The revolution part, it was a war between a clique of American rich oligarchs and a clique of British rich oligarchs.

WRONG!!! Since most of the fighters for the Continental Army were poor farmers...

It wasn't a revolution. It was a War of Independence.

Um...yea it was a revolution.

No, a Revolution is a complete overthrow of the entire existing social, political and economy of the nation.

1. an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.

Guess what? It was a revolution. We kicked out the British and replaced it with a confederacy and then later a Federal Republic. You lose.

Don't confuse petty coups and the like with genuine revolutions.

Um...it wasn't a coup for the fact that it was the Second Continental Congress that delcared Independence from Great Britain after they tried to remain a British Colony.

*Anger at AP*
Calm your passions, Corneliu. He's a troll, mmk?

This will dissolve many of the arguments:

Do not associate the word "revolution" with political change, but rather with change in general. The Agricultural, Scientific, Industrial, etc. Revolutions had nothing to do with a change in government (though they may have indirectly led to it later), but we still call them revolutions because of the dramatic change that they represent. The word revolution is associated with political change because it was often used to describe the dramatic change that political change can bring, and thus the definition has been rewritten to specifically include political change. The Revolutionary War is a revolution, if not because of political change in the leadership of the American colonies, then because of the dramatic change it represented in the world: it changed the political landscape of the world greatly, adding a nation that did not exist, and that would later become a significant world power, as well as signaling the end of the first wave of Imperialism and empires as they existed previously, especially the British Empire, and perhaps most importantly, providing a contemporary working example of a democratic country that many other countries would emulate and would therefore rebel against their own respective controlling imperialist governments.

WRONG!!! Since most of the fighters for the Continental Army were poor farmers...

If I remember rightly by the end of the war a fair proportion if not an overall majority were french/etc.

I call it "America's first really Stupid Action that is now distorted as some great moral battle"

Win and then spend the next Century trying to build a country which ends up as Fragmented as the 1920s Balkans and has the culture of a rodent?

Is it still not stupid. You could've knocked years off Both world

And anyway, we still burnt down Washington DC. Remind me when you burnt down London?

Anyway, if the political plot of the Story stated in the "Post and Run" thread by me occurs, that'll be match point to Jolly old England the Good Ol' Empire.

I'd call it a colonial rebellion of the second order.

And I'll call you a troll. Now knock it off.

If I remember rightly by the end of the war a fair proportion if not an overall majority were french/etc.

I don't recall that being the case at all. The French were a critical ally, but in raw numbers, I don't remember there being a significant percentage in battle. My memory has been proved quite fallable in this thread already, though, so i'll add a generous helping of salt to that statement. :p

In any case, we had a lot of help, as did the British.

Socially nothing changed, economically it slightly changed in terms of taxation - but the mode of production (ie merchant capital) pretty much stayed the same, politically it didn't change much seeing as most of the colonies were pretty much de facto independent before hand anyways. In reality America actually had more of a centralized executive after independence, not less, in Britain the head of state and government were different people, in America they combined the two.

Actually, it did change socially and politically, the economic changes were the least great. Examples:
Following the war, the first anti-slavery societies sprang up. Several states passed manumission laws, freeing slaves of the next generation. None of the plantation states did, but it was still the beginning of the abolition movement.

Suffrage expanded greatly. It was limited to white males, but allowing all white men to vote was still a big deal in the 1780s.

Economically, there was the Industrial Revolution, but that wasn't directly connected with the war for independence. However, freedom from Britain did allow the former colonies to actually start manufacturing their own finished goods, trade directly with people they wanted, etc.

And America did not have a more centralized government. The first government was very uncentralized, but even the system created by the Constitution gave plenty of power to the states. It wasn't until the Civil War that the federal government was seen as superior to the states.

If I remember rightly by the end of the war a fair proportion if not an overall majority were french/etc.

No, the majority of combat troops (by far) consisted of American militia.

No, the majority of combat troops (by far) consisted of American militia.

Who weren't officially part of the Continental Army, which is what he was talking about.

Who weren't officially part of the Continental Army, which is what he was talking about.

Semantics. The Militia fought just like Continental regulars. The militia just had to provide their own weapons and equipment.

And even if we just include the Continentals, regulars still outnumbered French troops in the Colonies.

Semantics. The Militia fought just like Continental regulars. The militia just had to provide their own weapons and equipment.

And even if we just include the Continentals, regulars still outnumbered French troops in the Colonies.

True, and more importantly, the French wouldn't commit to the war unless and until the Army/Militia could prove that they could handle the British, which meant three years of fighting unassisted before they would lend support.

Semantics. The Militia fought just like Continental regulars. The militia just had to provide their own weapons and equipment.

And even if we just include the Continentals, regulars still outnumbered French troops in the Colonies.
Big difference.

The militia didn't fight like the regulars, they fought close to their homes when the conflict was nearby and only for relatively short periods of time.

A glance at wiki says 15,000 French regulars, plus 8,000 Spanish regulars compared with 20,000 US regulars. And at the Siege of Yorktown it lists 10,800 French and 8,500 US. Not even taking into account the naval commitments.

Big difference.

The militia didn't fight like the regulars, they fought close to their homes when the conflict was nearby and only for relatively short periods of time.

A glance at wiki says 15,000 French regulars, plus 8,000 Spanish regulars compared with 20,000 US regulars. And at the Siege of Yorktown it lists 10,800 French and 8,500 US. Not even taking into account the naval commitments.

Not in the war. They fought all over their state, and beyond sometimes. These were not the Minutemen of Concord fame.

And as far as the French forces at Yorktown go, remember that the Continental Army had detachments throughout the United States. French ground forces were relatively concentrated in the general Yorktown area.

Not in the war. They fought all over their state, and beyond sometimes. These were not the Minutemen of Concord fame.


Their units served for only a few weeks or months at a time, were reluctant to go very far from home, and were thus generally unavailable for extended operations.

Wikiage

Far from home=another state

They were quite willing to go on campagins within the state. And, considering that fronts in this war were concentrated, they were quite willing to serve.

Consider that during the Battle of Camden, Virginia Militia fought on the left flank of the Continental Army. The Battle of Camden took place in South Carolina.

Or, take the Battle of Long Island. In addition to Washington's regulars, the militia deplyed consisted of units from New York, Pennsylvania, Conneticut, and New Jersey.

Just a quick question. Does it bother anyone else that the American Revolutionary War is referred to as such? I realize it has become a colloquial corruption, but a corruption [of the word Revolution] nonetheless. I'm not advocating we change it; hell it's so commonplace you might actually have a real one if we tried to do anything about it. But I'm just wondering if anyone else ever gets the urge to qualify that title with, "well, it wasn't actually a revolution..."?

I just refer to it as terrorist action against the legitimate government. What other people call it is up to them.

I just refer to it as terrorist action against the legitimate government. What other people call it is up to them.

You would, wouldn't you. It's not like taxing people without representing them is wrong or anything. As long as the oppressors are not white American males, everything is good right?

I just refer to it as terrorist action against the legitimate government. What other people call it is up to them.

You might want to read the Declaration of Independence or relevant historians on the topic sometime. There was no legitimacy left in the British establishment by the time the war started - taxation was the tip of the iceburg, even if it gets most of the emphasis for some reason (probably because theft of your dollar is more easily understood that injustice in the courts or other violations of basic rights).

I assume you are all referring to the First American Civil War.;)

No, I believe they are referring to the American War Of Independence, as it has been called several times in this thread. Also called the American Revolution, it was the war waged by the Americans, with the help of the French, against the British who owned America at the time. The Americans won and the British were kicked out.