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 to
try and deal with it), 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.
