Not to put too fine a point on it, im2smart4u, but Britain wasn't really being that horrid. America wanted some excuse to break away from Britain, and took the excessive taxes. The taxes would have passed, and everything would have been fine, not to mention the fact that America's rebellion incited several other territories to revolt. If you look at history with an unbiased eye, we're the bad guys.
Oh! We're the bad guys for wanting to be our own country? There was far more than taxes.
Duckling, don't assume everyone shares your ignorance. I am very aware of the British views of the time. The British didn't understand why the Americans were upset about taxes since the people in the British Isles had to pay greater taxes then the colonist. The British people's superiority complex is what caused the American Revolution. Even though colonists saw themselves as englishmen, while the British saw the colonist as barbarians. Since they didn't see colonists as englishmen, they believe the colonist didn't deserve the rights of Englishmen such as representation in parliament. The superiortity complex compelled the British to take advantage of the colonist. They forced the colonist to pay excessive taxes, forced the colonist to only trade with England, forced them to provide quarters to troops, and forced the colonist to do many other things that they had no say about. I don't see how fighting against injustice would make America the bad guys. Then and now, Americans should decide America's future instead of foreigners looking out for themselves.
Yet, Canada went through the same thing and turned out just fine...
You act as though the UN looks out for itself. Well that's impossible because they are all different countries, with different needs, it would be very hard to single out one country...
Quote from: Zackirus on April 10, 2011, 02:08:51 PMYet, Canada went through the same thing and turned out just fine...
I think "just fine" is the key phrase. The United States was able to flourish into a superpower on its own, while Canada remained "just fine" by being an unquestioning servant to the British.
Quote from: Zackirus on April 10, 2011, 02:08:51 PMYou act as though the UN looks out for itself. Well that's impossible because they are all different countries, with different needs, it would be very hard to single out one country...
The UN is a bunch of countries that are looking out for themselves. Many of the countries such as Canada agree that something must be done in the UN, but each individual country is unwilling to commit alot of resources to get it, so they always have the US do the heavy lifting.
im2smart4u, the colonists weren't Englishmen.
Should our territories, like Puerto Rico, and Guam, have representation in Congress? Sure, they have a slightly better deal (i.e. they don't have to pay American taxes), but they have our military occupying their territory. That's the entire purpose of Guam.
The British didn't have a "superiortity" complex; they simply thought that by the generally large influences brought upon them by other foreign powers, they no longer were English, and thus were not informed on the best choices for the British Empire.
The Declaration of Independence is basically a bunch of whininess compiled into legalspeak. The Founding Fathers wouldn't have had to list so many reasons to separate if they were good reasons.
I moved here the discussion that was on Thoughts on current administration (of the country(s)) (http://sinisterdesign.net/forum/index.php?topic=445.msg35008#msg35008)
Quote from: Duckling on April 10, 2011, 03:00:15 PM
im2smart4u, the colonists weren't Englishmen.
I suppose not entirely, as there were other European settlers. But mostly.
The reasons the American Revolution is interesting is because it wasn't the natives (Native Americans) breaking away from a colonizer. It was the members of the colony breaking away from the actual empire. In that respect the way that the rest of the former British Empire gained independence is completely different (it WAS the native population pushing for it).
However, Canada might not be as powerful as the states. We are have a solid place in the global economy, and we aren't moving anytime soon. See, Superpowers come and go. But Helpers stay around for a while...
Quote from: Duckling on April 10, 2011, 03:00:15 PMim2smart4u, the colonists weren't Englishmen.
Should our territories, like Puerto Rico, and Guam, have representation in Congress? Sure, they have a slightly better deal (i.e. they don't have to pay American taxes), but they have our military occupying their territory. That's the entire purpose of Guam.
The colonists were citizens of england and they served the crown, so they were englishmen. I don't see your point with Puerto Rico and Guam. Everyone born in American territories are American citizens. The rule with American territories is that "no taxation without representation". Puerto Rico has had several chances to become a state, but they always
vote to stay a territory, so they don't have to pay taxes.
Quote from: Duckling on April 10, 2011, 03:00:15 PMThe British didn't have a "superiortity" complex;
This just further shows your ignorance of the British views. If you look into the personal writings of George Grenville and King George III, then you will see the destain for the Americans before and after the war.
Quote from: Duckling on April 10, 2011, 03:00:15 PMThe Declaration of Independence is basically a bunch of whininess compiled into legalspeak. The Founding Fathers wouldn't have had to list so many reasons to separate if they were good reasons.
So speaking out against injustice is considered "whininess"? You probably think the protesters in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia were just the people being "whiny". I don't see the logic in thinking that having multiple reasons to succeed would mean that none of the reasons are good. Can you honestly tell me that all the points are not justifiable for independance?
Quote from: declaration of independenceSuch has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such disolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
easons are good. Can you break down how all the reasons are not justification for independence.
Still, the British would have let you seperate eventually, much like many of their territories did after World War Two.
Yes, im2smart4u. I don't consider speaking out against injustice whiny, but rather consider speaking out against not much to have an excuse to promote your own agenda (*cough* 43rd president towards terrorism *cough*) whiny and inconsiderate.
1st: Hmm. The King isn't following his laws. Er... he's the king. Point invalid.
2nd: Okay; so he ignores his Americans. That's understandable, considering that George was dealing with the aftermath of the Seven Years War, and balancing the delicate politics of dealing with the French revolution so he could take advantage of the situation to the best of his ability, and at the same time not look like a power-hungry maniac (hard to do when you've just established yourself as a huge military power).
3rd: I thought you said that Americans didn't get representation in the Legislature...
4th: Everyone uses sketchy tactics, George more so that most, that's all.
5th: Manly firmness, eh? More like a bit of treason. Sounds like a reason to dissolve a house of legislature to me.
I could go on, but there are a lot, and in my time zone, it's late.
Regardless of how 'understandable' his ignorance to the problems in the new world were, he still objectified those people.
He treated them like a way to get money, regardless of the effect on the actual people.
And if the colonists WEREN'T englishmen as you stated, then they did nothing wrong. King George claimed land that he really had no claim to. His people were not there, he had no military force, but yet he still taxed them?
Revolutions happen throughout history. We were not the bad guy for wanting to better our lives from foreign oppression.
Colonies pretty much are just that: a way to make money, perhaps a secondary objective only to the spread of the empire. And your point, Deagonx, is that there were no Englishmen there. First off, there were, and second, they were still subjects of the King.
If the Queen is in London, and she has jurisdiction over Londoners, does that mean that Canterburians are not ruled by her? I believe not.
Quote from: Duckling on April 10, 2011, 03:00:15 PM
im2smart4u, the colonists weren't Englishmen.
Subjects of the king... hmm.
Keyword subjects, like I said he treated them like crap. He had no regard for their well being like most anarchic rulers.
This revolution sparked the idea of democracy. I don't mean to be biased but isn't democracy a good thing?
Quote from: Duckling on April 15, 2011, 10:56:55 PMYes, im2smart4u. I don't consider speaking out against injustice whiny, but rather consider speaking out against not much to have an excuse to promote your own agenda (*cough* 43rd president towards terrorism *cough*) whiny and inconsiderate.
Attacking the organization that killed about 3000 people on September 11th is considered "whiny and inconsiderate". Trusting the world's greatest intelligence agencies when they say that a ruthless dictator (who has tried to create nuclear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiraq) and biological weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_biological_weapons_program) before and has used chemical weapons on his own people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program)) has weapons of mass destruction is "whiny and inconsiderate". It is also "whiny and inconsiderate" to use usually highly reliable advice of the CIA to replace the unjust dictator with a democracy. Its good to know what you consider "whiny and inconsiderate".
Quote from: Duckling on April 15, 2011, 10:56:55 PM1st: Hmm. The King isn't following his laws. Er... he's the king. Point invalid.
A king who's power has been limited by multiple documents such as the Magna Carta.
Quote from: Duckling on April 15, 2011, 10:56:55 PM2nd: Okay; so he ignores his Americans. That's understandable, considering that George was dealing with the aftermath of the Seven Years War, and balancing the delicate politics of dealing with the French revolution so he could take advantage of the situation to the best of his ability, and at the same time not look like a power-hungry maniac (hard to do when you've just established yourself as a huge military power).
I can tell that you are pulling these "facts" out of your
butt, because the French Revolution came after the American Revolution. I doubt George (both the king and prime minister) were being unjust to the colonist because of something that hasn't happened yet. The French had their revolution after seeing the colonist rebell against their unjust monarch.
Quote from: Duckling on April 15, 2011, 10:56:55 PM3rd: I thought you said that Americans didn't get representation in the Legislature...
They weren't represented in Parliament. Did I ever say otherwise?
Quote from: Duckling on April 15, 2011, 10:56:55 PM4th: Everyone uses sketchy tactics, George more so that most, that's all.
The classic peer pressure arguement. "I can do it, since everyone else is doing it."
im2smart4u,
I don't particularly like the tone of the language you use in your posts, or what I think the tone is, anyway; it feels like you're condescending, and makes me feel bad, and
I don't agree with your use of profanity, and
I don't appreciate that you exaggerate the legitimate points I'm making in such a way that seems like you're trying to make me look silly (sorry if I'm mistaken);
I'm mildly annoyed that your posts aren't easily (for me) readable -- could you try and get rid of the spelling errors? It would make your arguments more convincing, and my head hurt less -- and
I don't agree that "peer pressure" is what my point was describing; and
Finally, this is not as a substitute for an argument. This is merely an expression of the mild irritation I'm feeling right now, and you may choose to or choose not to act upon it as you will. Thanks!
Okay... This is getting out of hand. Don't forget Craig's last warning when we got to this point in another conversation a couple months ago. Hate speech is against the forum rules. Just, please try to bring it all back under control.
(By the way: I know I'm not a mod. Ert's just not online right now.)
Nous sommes tous bien.
Let us show it.
Quote from: Duckling on April 17, 2011, 10:43:16 AM
im2smart4u,
I don't like the tone of posting you're using, and
I don't like the profanity you're using, and
I don't like that you exaggerate the legitimate points I'm making to make me sound like an idiot;
I don't like that you can't even go to the trouble of making your posts grammatically correct so I can actually read them without having to nearly translate, and
I don't like the fact that you ignore the fact the the "peer pressure" you refer to in your post is actually one of the driving forces of politics, and instead condescend like a pretentious forum debator telling another that he's clearly an idiot; and
I don't like you.
If you consider each point insignificant on its own, try taking them as a whole, like you do with your precious Declaration of Independence.
There is no 'Tone of Posting' it is just how you interpret it.
Profanity? Well I think that one stands on its own.
Exaggeration is the way to show the illegitimacy of a point. It uses the same mindset yet in a more extreme scenario.
I had no problem reading his posts.
Sketchy tactics... everyone does it? That is not legitimate in the slightest. It is, in a more explicit way, 'taken out of your ass.'
Please do not state things as facts without any proof. Im not saying they aren't. But when it comes down to something like this citations are the way to go.
You know what I don't like?
All you did was hate on him in this post. Have you not the ability to accept defeat? You addressed your post towards him, yet did not rebuttal anything he had stated.
You didnt even acknowledge what I had said.
You've been backed into a corner because you lost this arguement, and you lash out by personally attacking another member?
Pathetic.
Quote from: Duckling on April 17, 2011, 10:43:16 AM
im2smart4u,
I don't like the tone of posting you're using, and
I don't like the profanity you're using, and
I don't like that you exaggerate the legitimate points I'm making to make me sound like an idiot;
I don't like that you can't even go to the trouble of making your posts grammatically correct so I can actually read them without having to nearly translate, and
I don't like the fact that you ignore the fact the the "peer pressure" you refer to in your post is actually one of the driving forces of politics, and instead condescend like a pretentious forum debator telling another that he's clearly an idiot; and
I don't like you.
If you consider each point insignificant on its own, try taking them as a whole, like you do with your precious Declaration of Independence.
Stop misinterpreting getting your argument attacked with him attacking you. There is a big difference. Your stance was torn to pieces, and I personally think it was mostly because it was an incorrect stance made on the bias of insufficient information/no information. This does not translate into him insulting you. Which he has done on separate occasions, but this is not one of them, and you insult him more anyways.
C'mon guys. Calm down. Everyone has the right to have their opinion. Don't take the discussion elsewhere. This thread is about the "Independence from the British Empire". It isn't about personal divergences.
Thanks Ert!
So let's discuss, shall we?
I personally think that the U.S. could have waited a bit longer. Britain would have eventually given in and given the US its independence.
Sorry, guys. No, I'm not done arguing (no, not argueing with an "e") this point. No, I haven't accepted defeat. I simply don't like to be brutally condescended to, and that's what it felt like. I was expressing my irritation in this manner, a series of listed points, which I believe to be perfectly legitimate, and do not actually think it substitutes for an argument. This is my argument.
To refer to im2smart4u's post that started all of this,
Your first quote is completely misinterpreting what I'm saying. I say that protesting that the King of England is presiding over his colony in a less than attentive manner is fine, but that starting an entire war over it was indeed inconsiderate.
Attacking a nation that had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and by extension the United States was inconsiderate of the ruler who, though irresponsible and who mistreated his people at times, was going to have his sovereignty violated (psst; the United States of Democracy and Good in the World doesn't have a clean track record as far as violation of sovereignty goes). Sticking our nose and other body parts into the business of a country on the other side of the world is inconsiderate. It's (not "its") good to know what you consider perfectly justified.
Next, I'd like to know whether George was actually violating the terms of the Magna Carta through actions at the time of the American Revolution. If so, I was not aware of it.
Yes, I know that the French Revolution hadn't happened yet, but what George III was dealing with at the time were the politics that were going to be those of the French Revolution. Sorry for not making it clear; there were certain inferences I was hoping you'd make -- I guess not. The French Revolution was partially caused by the financial crisis in France stemming from the end of the Seven Years War (a problem that was only later aggravated by its involvement in the American Revolution) and general dissatisfaction with the economic conditions within France at the time was what would lead to the French Revolution; the French leaders were already aware of this to some extent (especially those whose job it was totry and deal with it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Robert_Jacques_Turgot,_Baron_de_Laune)), and so was King George III of England. All clear about that?
Definitely not drawn out from my rectum. [spoiler=mildly rude; low-brow humour]What about you? Have you pooped any interesting facts recently?[/spoiler]
And finally, about the fourth point, it's not a matter of "I can do it, since everyone else ..." It's more like "I have to do it, since everyone else is doing it." Otherwise, King George would have lost control of America (ironic, I know); he needed to keep the colonies compliant with the measures he was using, or they would have simply refused. Unrest in France, combined with Britain's recent victory over France in the Seven Years War could have meant a revenge war against Britain, and in order to keep a decent-sized standing army... taxation and quartering of soldiers had to occur. This ticked off the Americans, but it was best for the Empire.
Another point -- another of the motivations for the Revolution of America was the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which organized the American section of the Empire, and tried to stabilize relations with the Native Americans, by basically halting European settlement of the area in consideration of the natives. The really ticked the Americans off, and they continued to oppress and marginalize the natives, and continued to colonize in Native American territory. So in reality, America was fighting Britain because Britain wouldn't let the Americans oppress the natives, and instead tried to force them to "play nice".
Zack: Agreed.
Your arguements consists mainly of saying this:
"King George had a good excuse to do what he did"
and
"The colonies were being too whiny"
Which, evidently, are entirely opinionated. What you have done is given us examples to justify your opinion.
Regardless of which, they are still an opinion.
America was being wrongly treated by its supposed 'ruler' who lives thousands of miles away.
Regardless of the 'politics' he had to deal with, he still had to take responsibility. Chances are the colonists did not even know what was going on to make king george do such things. They made an attempt to improve their lives by breaking off from their cruel leader.
I have yet to see what is so wrong with that.
Duck, no discussion on if the colonists treatment was truly worth revolution, but don't you believe everybody should get to choose who rules them? Even if they make a bad choice, or decide for the wrong reasons?
Not particularly, Mike (W781). If everyone got to choose who rules them, we might very well have a disaster situation on our hands. We can only count on collective wisdom and predecided criteria to make sure that we have leaders that will make the right choices for the group, region, or community they lead.
Yet again... duckling has refused to acknowledge everything I have said.
Bravo, bravo indeed.
I can't respond to everybody at once.
Deagonx, those aren't my arguments; those are my points. Everything revolves around that. These points are to demonstrate that the American colonists were unjustified and inconsiderate in their action of declaring war on Britain.
It's an opinion I'm defending. I can't declare it as fact, and nor can you the other way around. I support the opinion with fact.
Are you saying that if we (us having been at war for the past 10 years, and under considerable financial strain) declared war on North Korea, and we needed somewhere to station troops as a half-way point, and decided to raise Hawaii's taxes to respond to the strain on the economy from a war, and particularly Hawaii because this would most likely be the first target of the North Koreans (like in WWII), they would be perfectly justified in revolting, because their supposed "ruler" who lives thousands of miles away was, in their opinion, overtaxing them?
If the Hawaiians happened to be ignorant of the fact that their nation was at war and in a financial crisis, which would be difficult, as Hawaii has been affected as well by the recession (just like America was adversely economically affected by the Seven Years War), and the Hawaiians happened to think that Obama (or the next president) wasn't taking responsibility, when in actuality, he / she was doing everything he / she could to decisively win the war against North Korea, should they simply send a list of their complaints over to the White House and detach themselves from the United States?
I have yet to see what could possibly be right with that.
I put this in current-day terms for you, so you could understand the context around the event a bit better. The scenarios are nearly analogous, except for the fact that Hawaii doesn't have much naval strength. But that could change, if they wanted it to...
The point is, I'm not refusing to acknowledge you, and I do have a point, and I'm not saying they're facts.
You call them inconsiderate... as if they should pity their ruler for having a hard time? Regardless of what was going on with George's politics, he still had responsibilities that he was neglecting. The americans got the short end of the stick. They broke off from the nation to improve living conditions.
I don't think you can compare what happened then to what happened now. Everything has changed, the way society works, the way we live, the politics under which our governments deal with. Everything.
I understand what you are saying perfectly, no need to make a (bad) analogy.
I actually don't think you understand perfectly what I'm saying, because I never said they should pity their ruler, but rather am trying to make the point that shortly, the politics at the time would have been smoothed over (the British, in fact, did not end up needing a standing army; the French didn't go into a bloody revenge war after their revolution). The conditions the British Empire was conferring upon the Americans were a necessary measure at the time, and had the Americans been patient, living conditions would have improved, not to mention many lives spared.
Also, your premise of the British king not being able to make excuses just because of the politics at the time? These were the current-day issues of the Empire, of which America was a part. Not being informed about the current situation enough to make an intelligent decision is not performing one's duty as a citizen of the British Empire, and making war based off a lack of information is an even more serious offense.
But the Americans did know what was going on. Americans fought in the French and Indian war (Seven Years War), and were aware of the financial strain on the Empire, just like Hawaii knows fully well that economic conditions might be less than ideal now, but that they will improve as soon as we stop fighting three wars at once.
Sure, the British troops stopped being stationed in America after the war ended. But was it worth fighting over? My answer is no.
And the analogy isn't that bad.
I notice that while you criticize me for using the same points repeatedly, you do nothing to change your attacks on my position. My defense doesn't change for that reason.
You say that if the Americans would have ridden it out then things would have gotten better?
Why wait? They revolted against their oppressive empire. I for one would not have wanted to wait, especcialy since you were being taxed by someone who totally objectifies you.
Despite how 'necessary' you think it is, they are still people. People that felt that the king didn't view them as his subjects or citizens.
They felt that he was neglecting them, and overtaxing them. They got tired of waiting and decided to end it.
They revolted against their temporarily oppressive empire.
As for the bit about being taxed by someone who totally objectifies you, what do you think the IRS does? Should we revolt against our current government?
The king didn't view them as anything. King George viewed America as just another colony, to be taxed as necessary, and as a good place to station troops in a time of unrest. Do you want all of your rulers to be talking with their people, kissing babies, and getting to know their citizens, or would you like for them to do their job correctly?
King George III wasn't neglecting the Americans; during the Seven Years War, England had sent over military forces to fight in North America alongside the Americans. Then, to give yet another good reason, the British Empire raised taxes on America because King George had felt that in defending America from the Indians and the French, the Empire needed to recuperate from the wartime expenses from the previous war, and so they looked to the colony they had just defended.
It wasn't neglect, it was good leadership.
Your last statement only exemplifies the inconsiderate and impatient nature of the Americans, along with their ingratitude, and their unwillingness to cooperate with the Empire. Most of what really provoked the American Revolution was simply a matter of business interests. Not moral values, not an irrepressable desire to be free of tyranny, but money. God (may He / She or may He / She not exist) bless America.
Quote from: Ducky
They revolted against their temporarily oppressive empire.
How do you know it would have been temporary?
Because of the reasons stated.
The quartering of soldiers probably would have only lasted for until the wartime situation was over.
The excessive taxes would have gone away as soon as war debts were paid off.
The "neglect" of America by the King and rest of the British Empire would have gone away as soon as America started exploiting its natural resources, and became a superpowered colony. It would have few other colonies to compete with as soon as the rest of the colonies of the British Empire revolted, because in those cases, the natives were being mistreated, but hadn't been exterminated like in America. So the other colonies would have been lost, and America would have probably enjoyed full British rights as soon as progressive thinking took root in the world, and they pushed for British rights in a nonviolent way...
The list goes on, and while I don't know for sure, Buggy, I strongly believe that it would have been.
Once again, King George treats America as if it isn't part of England.
He raised taxes is return for defending them, it IS his territory. He shouldnt tax one part of his country higher than everyone else.
Despite how far away it is, he treated them as if they were not part of England. Taxed them seperately, and even though he treated them this way they didn't get any representation in parliament.
Instead of just heavily, heavily taxing the poor American people, he should have modestly raised the taxes all across him empire. Not focused on the one part he just 'defended'
So, if someone had attacked England itself what do you think he would have done? No, he wouldnt have raised taxers in England. He would have raised taxes in America, where they could do nothing about it.
No representation in Parliament. They had not but Revolution
Despite the way your sentences don't always have a subject and a predicate, I think I understand what you're getting at.
The taxes were moderately raised. The Colonial American people weren't that poor. And the British Empire had the official policy of raising taxes post-war in a way proportionate to the costs inflicted on Britain and the Crown of keeping the colony in the Empire. In the French and Indian War, England and its troops had done a service to the Thirteen Colonies of British America by expending military force to keep them... not French. Since this would have been undesirable by all, King George III reasoned that British America was indebted to England.
I believe they were right to do so.
You believe they were wrong.
Should the English have to pay increased taxes after engaging in a long overseas war to defend the Colonies of British America, or should the taxes be conferred on a colony that could not have defended itself on its own, and required England to run the expensive operation of shipping troops to America?
And lastly, I would concur with your point that King George III treated British America as non-English. There weren't English. They were British.
Sorry, I have a hard time with the difference between England and Britain.
Should they pay increase taxes? Only if it is entirely neccesary. If he would have had troops there to defend America with in the first place he wouldnt have had to worry when they got themselves into trouble.
When you colonize a new land you should leave it with some way to defend itself. Instead, he left a bunch of settlers there to try and make meets end. They were taxed more than regular British citizens because he left them with no way to defend themselves. Sure, they had guns. But they were not trained soldiers, they were regular every day people.
No problem, about the whole England and Britain. England is the bit of the island where London and the King / Queen is. Britain is the Empire. The UK is all that, plus Northern Ireland.
And about earlier, I apologize for saying I didn't think you understood. I didn't mean to condescend, and it was rude of me.
About the point you brought up, it would have been more costly to have English troops over in British America all the time, as well as later fighting in the French and Indian war. To avoid the extra taxes, America would have had to fight its own war completely. In fact, it nearly did so (British America had the right and responsibility to train troops in defense of the British Empire), but even with militias, English troops still had to fight.
Quote from: Duckling on April 17, 2011, 06:11:40 PMAttacking a nation that had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and by extension the United States was inconsiderate of the ruler who, though irresponsible and who mistreated his people at times, was going to have his sovereignty violated (psst; the United States of Democracy and Good in the World doesn't have a clean track record as far as violation of sovereignty goes). Sticking our nose and other body parts into the business of a country on the other side of the world is inconsiderate. It's (not "its") good to know what you consider perfectly justified.
Nice job disragarding the fact that the world's greatest intelligence agencies said that a man who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people still has weapons of mass distruction. Even Bush rivals such as John Kerry and Hillary Clinton voted to go to war with the same knowledge Geroge Bush received. Most Americans thought going to Iraq was a good idea at the time, but they use hindsight to make Bush into a scapegoat, so that Congress, the media, and the American people don't have to take credit pushing America into war.
Plus, we don't want to be inconsiderate to Saddam Hussein. Thanks to a coup and him ruthlessly killing anyone who speaks out, Hussein is the
legitimate leader of Iraq. How insensitive of us to give control of Iraq to the Iraqi voters.
Quote from: Duckling on April 17, 2011, 06:11:40 PMNext, I'd like to know whether George was actually violating the terms of the Magna Carta through actions at the time of the American Revolution. If so, I was not aware of it.
The Rights of Englishmen were promised to the British people by documents such as the Magna Carta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta). There are other documents such as the Declaration of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689), Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Act_1679), and Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Acts_1911_and_1949).
Quote from: Duckling on April 17, 2011, 06:11:40 PMYour first quote is completely misinterpreting what I'm saying. I say that protesting that the King of England is presiding over his colony in a less than attentive manner is fine, but that starting an entire war over it was indeed inconsiderate.
Continental Congress only decided to have all diplomatic opitions fail. For example, the First Continental Congress sent a Petition to the King (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Olive_Branch_Petition) which expressed loyalty to the king and listed reasonable grievances.
Quote from: Duckling on April 17, 2011, 10:57:48 PMAre you saying that if we (us having been at war for the past 10 years, and under considerable financial strain) declared war on North Korea, and we needed somewhere to station troops as a half-way point, and decided to raise Hawaii's taxes to respond to the strain on the economy from a war, and particularly Hawaii because this would most likely be the first target of the North Koreans (like in WWII), they would be perfectly justified in revolting, because their supposed "ruler" who lives thousands of miles away was, in their opinion, overtaxing them?
I don't see your point. The people of Hawaii are represented and have a vote when it comes to taxes. Also, the leader of America isn't a monach, so Hawaiians have influence in choosing the leader. If the president takes away rights from Hawaii such as representation in Congress and continues to tax Hawaii, then Hawaii is perfectly justified in revolting.
Quote from: Duckling on April 19, 2011, 09:23:52 AMIn the French and Indian War, England and its troops had done a service to the Thirteen Colonies of British America by expending military force to keep them... not French. Since this would have been undesirable by all, King George III reasoned that British America was indebted to England.
Should the English have to pay increased taxes after engaging in a long overseas war to defend the Colonies of British America, or should the taxes be conferred on a colony that could not have defended itself on its own, and required England to run the expensive operation of shipping troops to America?
Where did you get this info from, because it is simply wrong? The French and Indian War was caused because the British were trying to steal the land of Ohio and Maine from the French. The Americans Colonist are the ones who risked their lives fighting a war caused by British's selfish need to expand their empire. The are award for their service with disrespect and higher taxes.
First point: I'm not saying a Democrat wouldn't have done it. I just said it was wrong.
Second: Understood, but were there violations of these?
Third: Yes, but he was busy. Sure, not a very good excuse, but not a reason for revolt.
Fourth: Oh, so the District of Columbia's inhabitants have the right to revolt?
Fifth: Yes, but if you look deeper, the French were sending in expeditionary force to affirm French control on the territory and terrorized British-affiliated Indians (not of India, but of the American Indies :-[ -- maybe not).
Quote from: Duckling on April 19, 2011, 08:41:04 PM
First point: I'm not saying a Democrat wouldn't have done it. I just said it was wrong.
Did he not already explain that they had good reason to believe they had nukes?
Quote from: Duckling on April 19, 2011, 08:41:04 PM
Second: Understood, but were there violations of these?
All of his trespasses upon the magna carta were listed in the Declaration of Independence.
Quote from: Duckling on April 19, 2011, 08:41:04 PM
Third: Yes, but he was busy. Sure, not a very good excuse, but not a reason for revolt.
Well alone no, it isn't a good reason for revolt. But haven't we spent the entire last 3 pages discussing reasons OTHER than this?
Quote from: Duckling on April 19, 2011, 08:41:04 PM
Fourth: Oh, so the District of Columbia's inhabitants have the right to revolt?
DC does not have representation in congress because it is not really a 'state'
Although, it does hold 3 electoral votes in the presidential election.
Quote from: Duckling on April 19, 2011, 08:41:04 PM
Fifth: Yes, but if you look deeper, the French were sending in expeditionary force to affirm French control on the territory and terrorized British-affiliated Indians (not of India, but of the American Indies :-[ -- maybe not).
I dont have a response to this because I dont quite understand what you are trying to prove.
It is my opinion that America and the Bush Administration took advantage of the 9/11 tragedy to replace a non-democratic leadership with a democratic one.
Those were all Magna Carta trespasses? It didn't say so...
Yes, and I had thought I had pointed out that the other reasons weren't legitimate, leaving this one, alone.
America didn't have representation in Congress; it wasn't really a state. Nobody had presidential election rights under the British Empire (monarchy). So, America had about as little, if not less reason to revolt in that respect as D.C.
Quote from: Deagonx on April 19, 2011, 09:10:24 PMQuote from: Duckling on April 19, 2011, 08:41:04 PMFirst point: I'm not saying a Democrat wouldn't have done it. I just said it was wrong.
Did he not already explain that they had good reason to believe they had nukes?
Weapons of mass distruction are more then nukes. It was more likley to have chemical weapons, then nukes.
Quote from: Duckling on April 19, 2011, 10:26:27 PMIt is my opinion that America and the Bush Administration took advantage of the 9/11 tragedy to replace a non-democratic leadership with a democratic one.
I also think Bush took the intelligence about weapons of mass distruction as an opportunity to bring democracy to the middle east. The theory was that seeing a sucessful democracy in middle east would motivate the citizens of the middle east into demanding democracy for themselves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests).
Quote from: Duckling on April 19, 2011, 08:41:04 PMFourth: Oh, so the District of Columbia's inhabitants have the right to revolt?
The 23rd Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) allows them to vote for the president. They also are represented by a delegate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate_(United_States_Congress)) in the House of Representatives.
Quote from: Duckling on April 19, 2011, 08:41:04 PMFifth: Yes, but if you look deeper, the French were sending in expeditionary force to affirm French control on the territory and terrorized British-affiliated Indians.
They sent the expeditionary force across French territory, because the British show signs they were going to steal it from them.
Quote from: Duckling on April 19, 2011, 10:26:27 PM
Those were all Magna Carta trespasses? It didn't say so...
America didn't have representation in Congress; it wasn't really a state. Nobody had presidential election rights under the British Empire (monarchy). So, America had about as little, if not less reason to revolt in that respect as D.C.
I didnt say ALL of the things listed were complaining about him, but everything he did wrong was put into it.
Don't compare what happened then to now. The government is entirely different. DC does have voting rights. You can vote on the president, but they aren't a state. They are little more than a city that doesnt belong to a state. Although, they still have 3 electoral votes in the presidential elections.
Yes, but does DC have Congressional representation? None in the Senate, I'm afraid.
Because it isn't a state >_<
It remains an independent jurisdiction.
All the more reason it should be independent!
If it doesn't get states' rights, then shouldn't it revolt?
-facepalm-
Are you really believing what you are saying? You really aren't proving a point.
You really aren't proving a point either. Do you believe what you're saying about America being justified to revolt? I'm actually trying to emphasize the (relatively small) level of absurdity in your stance in this debate by emphasizing its absurd implications on today's world.
Didn't you get that?
Oh yes, ofcourse. Lets compare one city not having representation in congress to something the size of britain not having representation of congress.
Enough with these ignorant linguistic games. There is no correlation other than that this one city does not have representation in parliament.
Well boohoo for those people??
It is true that people in DC aren't represented fully in Congress, but it doesn't seem to be a big deal to the people living there. I am sure that if they demanded more voting rights more actively such as petitions with loads of signatures and lobbyist, then they would be granted more voting rights. If they fail every diplomatic option, then I do think they have the right to succeed.
@deagonx
Just so you know, the linguistic games themselves cannot be ignorant, the United States does not have a parliament, the British Empire didn't have a congress, and all of the American colonies had representation in the Continental Congress; America was not the size of Britain, and it was significantly larger than England; "in" and "fact" are two separate words, and "infact" is not one; the District of Columbia isn't a city, but rather is a district; you made my point precisely with your "boohoo", saying it was unreasonable to complain about not having representation in Congress, therefore by extension, it is unreasonable for any jurisdiction to complain about not having representation in a legislative body.
@im2smart4u:
Just a silly bit of trivia, but d'you happen to know what's on their license plate?
There are very few things that bring me to this point, but there is nothing to say.
What you are trying to say is entirely to idiotic to respond to. The situations aren't even remotely similar.
=_=
Okay... Let's try to avoid hate speech. Please. I like it here. :'(
I sorta get where DeagonX is coming from, but... Well... He sorta ruined his argument.
Hes just using a run-around with word play to try and prove his point.
Just trying to twist my words for something to argue with, because he is so far down in this argument that it is all that he has.
That, and bad analogies.
No. This just happens to be the path you've chosen. You accepted defeat in all other regards, but I believe you are the one who chose to pursue this line of argument. It could only last so long, and finally I had you agree to a point that was, in fact, analogous to another point I was trying to make.
Next up, you just responded to something that was, in your own words, "idiotic to respond to." You rather set yourself up there.
The situations are quite similar in the point of discussion you have chosen, in that you were referring to the lack of Parliamentary representation as a reason for revolt.
And about the word twisting -- that's what good debators do.
Fifth: do you have an apostrophe key? I don't see you use apostrophes or quotation marks much, instead favoring the quote button. Just a friendly inquiry.
I did prove my point.
And finally, don't diss the analogies, man. Not cool.
Quote from: Duckling on April 20, 2011, 10:17:35 PM@im2smart4u:
Just a silly bit of trivia, but d'you happen to know what's on their license plate?
IDK, what?
Quote from: Demon Duck on April 20, 2011, 10:38:40 PM
No. This just happens to be the path you've chosen. You accepted defeat in all other regards, but I believe you are the one who chose to pursue this line of argument. It could only last so long, and finally I had you agree to a point that was, in fact, analogous to another point I was trying to make.
Next up, you just responded to something that was, in your own words, "idiotic to respond to." You rather set yourself up there.
The situations are quite similar in the point of discussion you have chosen, in that you were referring to the lack of Parliamentary representation as a reason for revolt.
And about the word twisting -- that's what good debators do.
Fifth: do you have an apostrophe key? I don't see you use apostrophes or quotation marks much, instead favoring the quote button. Just a friendly inquiry.
I did prove my point.
And finally, don't diss the analogies, man. Not cool.
Oh, yes indeed. These situations are sooo similar.
America in the 1700s: No representation in parliament, heavy taxing, neglect from leader, no choice of leader, no say in what goes on
DC: No representation in Congress.
Yeah they should leave. mmmhmm. Totally.
Seriously not trying to prove anything here, but it says:
(http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=847038257030&id=6b0f6d3a7ddfd6f3ce24af5e5b66c707)
Which is why I got a small chuckle out of hearing you say that the DCers don't protest; it's true, they don't demonstrate, but they do have a bit of a passive thing going on.
@deagonx, I think you're leaving out some key details. Let me make this a bit easier.
| Them | Others |
| America in 1700s | No representation in Parliament, heavy taxing after a war on their continent, leader's attention somewhere else, no choice in leader, no representation in Parliament | Representation, moderate taxing after a war, leader's attention partially on them, no choice in leader, representation |
| DC now | No representation in Congress, some taxation, leader's attention on Libya, choice in leader, No representation in Congress | Representation, some taxation, leader's attention on Libya, choice in leader, Representation in Congress |
Let's see the the results. America was being snubbed representation, a bit of tax, some of their leader's attention, and say in laws (that is to say, representation).
DC is being snubbed representation and say in lawmaking. So if Obama stopped attending to DCites, and cut taxes for the states, they might be justified in revolt.
Now, of course, this isn't quite an accurate comparison. America's treatment by the rest of Britain wasn't just becuase of inattentiveness, and the DCites aren't having regular skirmishes with the military. (don't bring a snowball to a gunfight)
Maybes its cause they arent heavily taxed, they have a say in their leader... they have their own electoral board for their laws...
City of Chicago: 8 Million people
I guess they should get 13 Senators. Because they are 13x larger than DC.
Quote from: Demon Duck on April 20, 2011, 10:41:50 PMNow, of course, this isn't quite an accurate comparison. America's treatment by the rest of Britain wasn't just becuase of inattentiveness, and the DCites aren't having regular skirmishes with the military. (don't bring a snowball to a gunfight)
I wouldn't compare a humorous license plate to numerous years of pensioning the king which resulted in less freedoms. I don't think the people of DC have showed that they care enough to have the government actively try to change thier status.
I told you that I wasn't trying to make a point with that. Did you listen?
Why the analogy is bad:
Well, for one DC gets to vote on their leader.
DC gets to be exempt from any state and promulgate its laws among a city council.
DC is not heavily taxed.
DC does not need representation in Congress because it is not nearly large enough of a population for it to have a purpose. It is not a state and it is exempt from being in any state because... well a lot of complications there but it being added to the union as a state won't work. I can't remember why, it involved something with the complications of it being a capital... and the constitution and all this other stuff. Nor can it be added to a state.
Population of Rhode Island: 1,048,319
Population of Montana: 902,195
Population of Alaska: 626,932
Population of Wyoming: 563,626
Population of DC: 601,723, rising to nearly 1,000,000 during the week because of commuting workers.
Not nearly large enough of a population for it to have a purpose, eh? I'm sure Wyoming feels the same way.
And DC is taxed, just like the rest of the country, and the rest of the British Empire was experiencing moderate tax increases post-Seven Years' War, so the tax point is only partial.
Nobody in the British Empire got to vote on their leader, so I would appreciate it if you stopped using the choice of leader as a point in your favor; it's not. It was simply an alternate governmental system.
And finally, all states get to be exempt from any other state and make its laws, as could America. King George simply found objection to those laws in some cases, and overruled them, dissolving the Legislature if the objection was serious enough.
Not just population, it is also small in size.
Chicago is a city with 8 million people
I guess it should have 13 senators!
That last sentence was just dumb -.- Ofcourse states are exempt from states. they are states!
DC isn't nearly large enough to be a state
(I dont think rhode island should be a state)
Now, let me ask you something. Do you actually believe that the situation in DC is even relatively as bad as America's situation?
I can say that you are just dumb, but it doesn't make it true. I was simply using your words to make the opposite point, because I figured that it might be more effective. I figured wrong.
I am finding that whenever I try to use a simple explanation of a matter, you pick at it and find the flaw that makes it the simple explanation. I commend you in that respect. However, when I elaborate, you proceed to either contradict me in an uninformed manner, which I resent, because debating with those that refuse to listen to fact is debating with a rock, or ignore my explanation completely, and bring up the same point again later as if I hadn't even addressed the point in the first place. This I find irritating.
I'm sure Rhode Island shares your opinion on acreage equating with the right to have one's views expressed in Congress by a representative.
Chicago is not a district or a state. Chicago is a city within the state of Illinois, and is represented by two senators along with the rest of Illinois. The Senate does not have population-proportionate representation; the House of Representatives does that, but your point about Chicago is, as I said, uninformed, unrelated, and incorrect.
Rhode Island recieved its right to be a state of the United States of America from Congress when the colony agreed in revolt against the rightful King.
And finally, your last question is rather silly, to say the least. DC is part of America, Deagonx! And before I answer this question, I must ask one thing: "Relative to what?"
I was talking about back then, and you knew that.
Relative to what?
Relative to the thirteen colonies situation around the 1770s.
You mean, do I believe that DC is to the states as British America was to the rest of the British Empire.
No, do you think that the 2 situations are just as harsh?
That's not a fair question. Revolt should be gagued in terms of deprivation of rights, which in turn should be determined by the rights others have that you don't.
DC has MORE rights. Those 600000 people alone get their own council for choosing their own laws.
Its not that simple for state.
Frankly, DC gets rights as if they were their own entity. Yet want to be part of everyone elses decisions? THAT Oh unholy bird, is whiny.