Happy Phuck England Day

Steven VanderMolen said:
I'm more sane than you, d*ckhead. Now please go f*ck yourself. You have ALSO been OFFICIALLY dismissed.
Click to expand...

You should type that in all caps and large font like this: I'M MORE SANE THAN YOU, DICKHEAD! NOW PLEASE GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!! YOU HAVE ALSO BEEN OFFICIALLY DISMISSED!!!

You know, to really show people how much saner you are than them just like Teflon Don, Truth Detector, Grokmaster and the other RWNJs. :)
 
47bn2r.jpg
 
Rune said:
Nice Tom, but history is supposed to be written by the victors.
Note that the actual cause, Corporate entity (East India Tea Company) assuming government powers and the ensuing madness of George III were entirely ignored.
Click to expand...

History written from a perspective that attempts to portray the war as an historic War of Independence when the truth was far more complex.

You never see any mention by the 'victors' of slave uprisings against the rebels or that many Indian tribes remained loyal to the British. Never any mention that the war couldn't have been won without the French who were far more interested in the greater prize of the West Indies but ended up with nothing.

Most people view the American Revolutionary War of the 1775–83 (also known as the War of Independence) as a popular struggle for liberty against an oppressive colonial power. REBELS & REDCOATS by historian Hugh Bicheno, written to accompany a four-part BBC television series presented by Richard Holmes, demonstrates that it was in fact America's first civil war.

Employing the latest scholarship and vivid eyewitness accounts, Bicheno argues t that the war was the product of a broad French imperial design, and greed of many prominent colonials. As many Americans remained loyal to the Crown as rebelled against it, and the reasons for adopting or changing sides were as varied as the men and women who had to make the unenviable decision. Native and African Americans overwhelmingly favoured the British cause.We hear not only the voices of Rebels and Redcoats, but also of German mercenaries and aristocratic French adventurers, as well as Indian warriors and Black slaves fighting for their independence, which together shed new light on events that forged a nation. The main loser was the French monarchy, which ruined itself to gain no lasting influence over the United States, while unable to exploit the distraction the war created either to invade Britain or gain control of the West Indies, which at the time were considered a far bigger prize than all of North America.

Review
'Redcoat is a wonderful book, full of anecdote and good sense. Anyone who has enjoyed a Sharpe story will love it, anyone who likes history will want to own it and anyone who cherishes good writing will read it with pleasure.' BERNARD CORNWELL, Daily Mail

‘It would be hard to exaggerate the excellence of this book. It is vivid, comprehensive, well-written, pacy, colourful, and above all, highly informative. The author has a command of his subject of Wellingtonian proportions, and his enthusiasm communicates itself to the reader on every page.’ Simon Heffer, Literary Review

‘This is an army from another, and Redcoat is a splendidly entertaining, moving and informative description of its strengths and foibles.’ Hew Strachan, Daily Telegraph

Synopsis
This is the story of a vicious struggle between brothers, friends and families which forged a new nation. Using the most up-to-date scholarship, vivid eye-witness accounts and original documents, this book tells the history of the passionate, violent and bloody events of the 1770s. The book argues against the commonheld view that the war of independence was the American people's struggle for liberty against an oppressive colonial power. The truth is far more interesting. Many Americans were loyal to the Crown throughout the war. Men and women often chose sides not because they wanted freedom, but because they wanted their neighbour's land. This book explores intriguing paradoxes through personal stories of women such as Jane McCrea, whose fiance was a British officer but whose brother was a rebel soldier. There are stories representing every interest group: Redcoats, loyalists, rebels, neutrals, French soldiers, Indian warriors, slaves, landed gentry and sharecropper.

The text explains how the real victors of the War of Independence were the French, not the Americans, how the British Army could have continued the land war, and how intervention by the French Navy was decisive in the British defeat. Slave uprisings supported the British against the rebels, because of their brutal treatment by the colonists and many Native American tribes remained loyal to the British, while both loyalists and rebels betrayed the tribes who had supported them. When the conflict began very few believed the 13 colonies would gain independence - in Britain and in America. There were many mutinies in the rebel army including one in New Jersey which had to be put down by a large force sent by a man whose name has become synonymous with the conflict - General Washington.

From the Publisher
REBELS & REDCOATS
The American Revolutionary War
by Hugh Bicheno

Foreword by Richard Holmes

Most people view the American Revolutionary War of the 1775-83 (also known as the War of Independence) as a popular struggle for liberty against an oppressive colonial power. Now a new book, REBELS & REDCOATS by historian Hugh Bicheno, written to accompany a four-part BBC television series to be presented by Richard Holmes in June, demonstrates that it was in fact America’s first civil war.

REBELS & REDCOATS employs the latest scholarship and vivid eyewitness accounts to argue that the war was the product of a broad French imperial design, which found fertile ground in the resentments, opportunism and greed of many prominent colonials. As many Americans remained loyal to the Crown as rebelled against it, and the reasons for adopting or changing sides were as varied as the men and women who had to make the unenviable decision. Native and African Americans overwhelmingly favoured the British cause, and by the end of the war there were even more white Americans in the British Army than there were serving under General George Washington, the Rebel leader.

The book explores intriguing paradoxes through personal stories such as that of Jane McCrea, murdered by Indian auxiliaries attached to the British Army in which her fiancé was serving, but whose brother was a Rebel stalwart. We hear not only the voices of Rebels and Redcoats, but also of German mercenaries and aristocratic French adventurers, as well as Indian warriors and Black slaves fighting for their independence, which together shed new light on events that forged a nation.

In REBELS & REDCOATS Bicheno also argues that, apart from the Native and African Americans, the main loser was the French monarchy, which ruined itself to gain no lasting influence over the United States, while unable to exploit the distraction the war created either to invade Britain or gain control of the West Indies, which at the time were considered a far bigger prize than all of North America.

REBELS & REDCOATS is a controversial but much-needed historical corrective to standard accounts of the war, a vivid portrait of the passionate, violent and bloody events that resonate down the centuries to the present.

From the Back Cover

This is the story of America’s first civil war – the vicious struggle between brothers, friends and families which forged a new nation. Using the latest scholarship, vivid eye-witness accounts, original documents and Holmes’s proven story-telling skills, this book tells the history of the passionate, violent and bloody events of the 1770s.

The book argues against the commonheld view that the war of independence was the American people’s struggle for liberty against an oppressive colonial power. The truth is far more fascinating. Many Americans were loyal to the Crown throughout the war. Men and women often chose sides not because they wanted freedom, but because they wanted their neighbour’s land. This book explores intriguing paradoxes through personal stories of women such as Jane McCrea, whose fiance was a British officer but whose brother was a rebel soldier. There are stories representing every interest group: Redcoats, loyalists, rebels, neutrals, French soldiers, Indian warriors, slaves, landed gentry and sharecropper.

The real victors of the War of Independence were the French – not the Americans.

• The British Army could have continued the land war; intervention by the French Navy was decisive in the British defeat.
• Slave uprisings supported the British against the rebels, because of their brutal treatment by the colonists.
• Many Native American tribes remained loyal to the British. Both loyalists and rebels betrayed the tribes who had supported them.
• When the conflict began very few believed the 13 colonies would gain independence – in Britain and in America.
• There were many mutinies in the rebel army including one in New Jersey which had to be put down by a large force sent by General Washington.
Click to expand...

https://www.amazon.com/Rebels-Redcoats-American-Revolutionary-War/dp/000715626X
 
Last edited:
Grajonca said:
History written from a perspective that attempts to portray the war as an historic War of Independence when the truth was far more complex.

You never see any mention by the 'victors' of slave uprisings or that many Indian tribes remained loyal to the British.Never any mention that the war couldn't have been won without the French who were far more interested in the greater prize if the West Indies but ended up with nothing.



https://www.amazon.com/Rebels-Redcoats-American-Revolutionary-War/dp/000715626X
Click to expand...
Do you think it was wrong to rebel-treason against the crown??

Most Americans never even think of looking into, moreless critiquing the rebellion & "the facts" ingrained in us from birth, or @ least grade school......

If there was no treason against the crown what would we be but southern Canadians. :dunno: not so bad, is it?? lol
 
Bill said:
Do you think it was wrong to rebel-treason against the crown??

Most Americans never even think of looking into, moreless critiquing the rebellion & "the facts" ingrained in us from birth, or @ least grade school......

If there was no treason against the crown what would we be but southern Canadians. :dunno: not so bad, is it?? lol
Click to expand...

Every country has its mythology, nothing new! Do you thinks it's wrong to actually to look at history as it really was or preferable to don rosy coloured glasses?
 
Last edited:
Grajonca said:
Every country has its mythology, nothing new! Do you thinks it's wrong to actually to look at history as it really was or preferable to Don rosy coloured glasses?
Click to expand...

No, I prefer facts verified from various perspectives & sources to illusions of exceptionalism & self-deceit.....

What do you think of "American history", last 300+/- years??

Do you think Africans, Native Americans & even average free wht folk in this country would be better off then as well as today had they not rebelled??
 
Bill said:
No, I prefer facts verified from various perspectives & sources to illusions of exceptionalism & self-deceit.....

What do you think of "American history", last 300+/- years??

Do you think Africans, Native Americans & even average free wht folk in this country would be better off then as well as today had they not rebelled??
Click to expand...

I think that the Brits would have seen to it that the South phased out slavery by mechanising their industries especially cotton.
 
Shooting Americans doesn't seem to have much to do with the English, especially shooting them for being 'black'. I have nothing against shooting Englishmen as a general principle, but it seems a bit pointless nowadays. Something to do with drugs, I suppose.
 
Penderyn said:
Shooting Americans doesn't seem to have much to do with the English, especially shooting them for being 'black'. I have nothing against shooting Englishmen as a general principle, but it seems a bit pointless nowadays. Something to do with drugs, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Interesting that Tom defends the British, especially since the first victim of Redcoat violence was an innocent Black man, Crispus Attucks.

https://www.biography.com/military-figure/crispus-attucks
 
Grajonca said:
I think that the Brits would have seen to it that the South phased out slavery by mechanising their industries especially cotton.
Click to expand...

I believe they would have that & done many more positive things...

There would have been a lot less slaughter of the Native Americans & Filipinos etc etc etc
 
Bill said:
I believe they would have that & done many more positive things...

There would have been a lot less slaughter of the Native Americans & Filipinos etc etc etc
Click to expand...
First of all, the cotton gin was an American invention. Another American invented the steel plow.
The actual origin of the Industrial Revolution was in the Blackstone River Valley in Massachusetts.

In what hilarious manner could the English have improved cotton farming?

As an aside, the British killed a great number of American Indians so WTF are you agreeing with the Limey for?
 
Bill said:
I believe they would have that & done many more positive things...

There would have been a lot less slaughter of the Native Americans & Filipinos etc etc etc
Click to expand...

Wow, I knew you were smarter than the average bear! If they repeated what happened to the First Nations in Canada then you're right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top