Was King George III right?

Zeeboe
Posts: 332
Joined: 2007-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Was King George III right?

I recently took an interest in the American War for Independence. Up until recently, the little information I knew about it came from schoolbooks and Hollywood. Both of those sources have vivified the British, but after doing some studying of my own beyond those sources, as of right now, to be perfectly honest, despite being a proud American, I find myself siding more with Great Britain then the American Colonies and question if things may have been better off for this country if King George III won. I'm not trying to start an argument, or offend anyone. I only wish to be educated, and perhaps educate as well, and I would share what I have learned.



Since childhood, one of the popular grips of white guilt I have ever heard has been the fact that "white men invaded this land, and stole it from Native Americans". Well, I learned something very interesting recently:

Many American Colonists wanted to invade Indian country, but Great Britain made it illegal. London thought it was fair and safe to reserve those lands for the Natives who had always loved and hunted there. George Washington agreed with plenty of other American colonial settlers, who thought that law unfairly limited their rights. They invaded Indian country anyhow, and that was one of the many reasons the American Colonists went to war with England.

One of the reasons why so many Native Americans sided with Great Britain during the war, and fought along side with them was because they knew England was going to respect their land and rights. So if England won, perhaps Natives would have their own Independent states in this country, and lots of suffering and war could have been avoided.

Many black slaves also joined the British Army because they were promised freedom. Infact, it appeared that England actually wanted to end slavery, but the rich American Colonists however did not want to end it. Again, if England won, perhaps slavery would have ended much sooner, and there would have been no American Civil War, and black people could have be given equal rights much sooner, and not suffered for as long as they did.

In general, England wanted a living, breathing Constitution that changed with the times. The American Colonists however did not want such a thing.
 


Now I've rambled enough, and I don't want to post too much in the event that there are no responses, but these are some of the things I learned, and I hope to have a nice chat about all this. Thank you for reading.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I vaguely remember being in

I vaguely remember being in 7th grade - about 11-12 years old.  We had a debate about the Revolutionary War and I got to take the side of King George.  I remember very little except the anger of the rest of the class when I didn't get up and immediately give up.  I did my homework as best I could - no internet, no books about lies your history teacher told you.  Unfortunately, I don't remember the facts you have presented, but I wouldn't be at all surprised.  I'm sure one of the US history buffs will come by and set us straight if need be.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2356
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Zeeboe.

 

 

 

                      You mentioned that 'PERHAPS slavery would have ended MUCH sooner'.    There is no doubt slavery would have been abolished in 1832 when England outlawed the practice throughout the British Empire, by Act of Parliment not by any civil war.  That may have prompted a short lived rebellion in the southern colonies,  with no sympathy from northern or western colonys.

 

 

                      With the African slave trade ending in the 1830's we might be without some promient African Americans today, because their ancesters never left Africa, on the other hand what would society be like today if the massive casualties of the civil war had desendents. With about 600,000 killed during the war we might be looking at 30 to 40 million influencing American society over the last 155 years,  who were simply never born.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

 

                      You mentioned that 'PERHAPS slavery would have ended MUCH sooner'.    There is no doubt slavery would have been abolished in 1832 when England outlawed the practice throughout the British Empire, by Act of Parliment not by any civil war.  That may have prompted a short lived rebellion in the southern colonies,  with no sympathy from northern or western colonys.

 

 

                      With the African slave trade ending in the 1830's we might be without some promient African Americans today, because their ancesters never left Africa, on the other hand what would society be like today if the massive casualties of the civil war had desendents. With about 600,000 killed during the war we might be looking at 30 to 40 million influencing American society over the last 155 years,  who were simply never born.

 

You still have to say perhaps because if the US was still a British colony in the 1830's Britain might have taken longer to outlaw slavery because it would have been receiving far more economic benefit from it. Economic benefits can often outweigh morality in political decisions. 

 

At the OP:

This is a very complicated issue. It is easy for modern Americans to look back and say that it was good, but even at the time of the revolution the majority of the population was not in a hurry for armed rebellion. Many colonists had no problem with GB and even among those who did, many simply wanted some form of representation in parliament. A deal that probably could have been worked out if it wasn't for the revolutionaries. 

 

I completely disagree with your evaluation of the Indians. They were dead sooner or later. The resources on their lands combined with their radically different culture and technology level would lead to GB or one of the other European powers destroying them (look at South America and Mexico). 

 

As for the overall "would things be better?" Well if the US revolution failed so much would be different in the world. Who could say? What would WWII have looked like if the US was a collection of small colonized countries like Africa? It is unlikely that a collection of colonies would have attempted to raise a large army to stop Germany, Italy and Japan. Would the US still be able to produce the excess food it does? I doubt it.  

 

19th and 20th century America was an economic powerhouse and has had major influences around the world (good and bad). It is unlikely that the US would have become such a major player on the world stage while remaining a colony. The US would likely have been split into several countries  even if the Indians were not left alone. I doubt France would have sold Louisiana to Britain at any time. Britain likely would have refused to press the war that won Texas. And would Britain have bought Alaska from Russia??? It would be a very interesting thought experiment to consider these questions and their economic and political implications. 

 

I for one think that the free market based economic system and attempt to make a freedom based government was a fairly successful experiment that has benefited the world greatly. Not to say we haven't messed some things up. But overall I think more people in the world enjoy a more comfortable standard of living because of the America and what we have created.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Just to respond to a few

Just to respond to a few more things in the OP in more directly and in detail.

 

Zeeboe wrote:

Many American Colonists wanted to invade Indian country, but Great Britain made it illegal. London thought it was fair and safe to reserve those lands for the Natives who had always loved and hunted there. George Washington agreed with plenty of other American colonial settlers, who thought that law unfairly limited their rights. They invaded Indian country anyhow, and that was one of the many reasons the American Colonists went to war with England.

 

I really think you need to reevaluate the altruistic motivations you are giving GB for protecting the Indians. At that time GB and France had an uneasy truce that could break into open warfare at any time. In the French Indian war between GB and France the Indians were on the French side and made it very difficult and costly for GB to win. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 did NOT outlaw colonizing Indian land, it simply required its sale to be to Crown officials who would then sell it to whomever they wanted. It was a naked attempt by King George III to minimize rebellion among the Indians while at the same time providing the Crown with more direct control over the American Colonies and the speed of their growth (and who would become major land owners). 

 


Zeeboe
Posts: 332
Joined: 2007-07-15
User is offlineOffline
It's impossible to know for

It's impossible to know for sure, but the truth is...at least in my view, is that there is no good or evil. The older I get, the more I truly believe this, and studying history has helped me form that opinion quite a lot. I always had an interest, but it wasn't until late 2009 that I really began to read, and learned that good and evil are not real in my view. It's just people doing what they think is right. I believe if King George III won, George Washington would be remembered as one of the greatest tyrants of history.

Great Britain had been in one war or another for fifty years and was drowning in debt. Over in London, Parliament decided that Americans should help out by paying their fair share, and King George III agreed. After all, Great Britain had spent plenty of money fighting in America for the good of the colonies. The crown was still supporting a British Army to help stop Indian attacks on the American frontier. Great Britain felt it was their right to collect payment. 17th Century interest in the U.S. appears to be more financial than a matter of pride. My impression is that the 17th century British were not looking for power and control over the American Colonies, but financial support to recoup the cost of defending the American colonies from the French during the Seven Years' War and from Native Americans.

Not trying to get off-topic, but why do the history books we're given in school try to make all of our enemies out to be such horrible people? I think "good", "evil", "normal", and "weird" are all within the eyes of the beholder, and I personally decide for myself in my life what is "good", "evil", "normal", and "weird".  I believe everyone lives by this same type of thinking. The thing is, the majority lives and speaks for a consensus of reality that is currently socially acceptable at this point and time in history. So it's just a question of who manipulates the media, and who has the most money to put their reality forth. In my opinion, no one can truly and fairly decide what is good or evil. Whoever has won any war decided what good and evil was because the winners write the history. It's all based on historical and cultural values. Laws and everything else changes with cultural tides. Morals change with the weather. I don't think one can honestly say something or someone is good or evil. You can only look at human behavior from a realistic perspective.

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
"My Lords and peacocks." (laughter coming from audience)

He was neither "right" nor right in the head, and he eventually rested control of the empire to eldest son Prince of Wales George IV in a final relapse of his disease. (thought to be prophyria)

Even when he wasn't having psychosis, he was something of an arrogant prick* -he didn't listen very well to Britain's best strategic mind, Charles Cornwalis. If he had, he may not have lost the war. Even more ironic was the fact that losing made him more popular, for reasons I don't understand very well.

*(all royal family members tend to be, to some limited extent)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Zeeboe wrote:It's impossible

Zeeboe wrote:

It's impossible to know for sure, but the truth is...at least in my view, is that there is no good or evil. The older I get, the more I truly believe this, and studying history has helped me form that opinion quite a lot. I always had an interest, but it wasn't until late 2009 that I really began to read, and learned that good and evil are not real in my view. It's just people doing what they think is right. I believe if King George III won, George Washington would be remembered as one of the greatest tyrants of history.

No, people invariably do what they believe is best for them and people/things they care about. Sometimes that corresponds with what is "right". But yeah, there really isn't a "good" or "evil" in an absolute sense. It is most often used to judge another persons actions and on rare occasions our own. If GB won the war George Washington would not be remembered as a tyrant. He would be remembered as an incompetent and rebellious officer if he was really remembered at all. As a tyrant he was an abysmal failure. Especially when compared to great tyrants such as Hitler, Gengis Khan, Vlad the Impaler or Alexander the Great. 

 

Zeeboe wrote:

Great Britain had been in one war or another for fifty years and was drowning in debt. Over in London, Parliament decided that Americans should help out by paying their fair share, and King George III agreed. After all, Great Britain had spent plenty of money fighting in America for the good of the colonies. The crown was still supporting a British Army to help stop Indian attacks on the American frontier. Great Britain felt it was their right to collect payment. 17th Century interest in the U.S. appears to be more financial than a matter of pride. My impression is that the 17th century British were not looking for power and control over the American Colonies, but financial support to recoup the cost of defending the American colonies from the French during the Seven Years' War and from Native Americans.

And finances was probably the largest single driving force of the revolutionary movement. While you had your intellectual idealists such as Thomas Jefferson or Samuel Adams, most of the revolutionaries were upset over various taxing issues. They felt they were being unfairly taxed and that the crown was attempting to control the economy too much. Hence the Boston Tea Party and rallying cries like "No taxation without representation" (This is a bit of a simplification if I have time maybe I can get into the economic issues more in depth this weekend) 

 

 


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
As we all learned in history

As we all learned in history class 1/3 of the colonists wanted to stay under the Crown, 1/3  wanted independence, and 1/3 didn't care.  I think at least in a few ways we could be better off under Britain but in MOST areas I prefer independence.

I don't mean to digress but the gun violence in America is WAY out of control.  You have 30,000 gun deaths a year in America while there's less than 200 a year in  the U.K.!! Even if you adjust for population that's less than a thousand a year in the U.K. compared to 30,000 a year here! NO ONE can argue that the U.K. isn't a safer place!  When there was a mass school shooting in the U.K. killing 16 they banned handguns! Where there is mass school shooting here they almost want to hand more guns out! That's INSANE!!

As far as the historical context goes the U.S. would've eventually gotten independence anyway since America far to big to be controlled from 1000s of miles away.  The British Empire is all but dead since  the age of imperialism is dead.  You can't go around taking countries over any more.

You wanna know what would've REALLY changed history? What if the people who didn't want slavery AT ALL in the 17th century got their way? Then no black slaves would have come here and it would have only been white indentured servants.  Then every famous black in America would've never existed here but been an African that we would've (most likely) never heard of.

The Native Americans just lived a too primitive life and they would've eventually had to modernize at least to some extent.  Did you guys hear what Tecumseh tried to do? He wanted to created a Native AMerican Nation where parts of Indiana and Ohio are now.  It was a confederation of different Indian nations.  He almost did it but the British bailed on him at the last minute.  Obviously they would've needed help from a European nation to do it and that COULD have been done because some European nations HATED the U.S. and they would've helped but it just never worked out.

 

 

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
JesusNEVERexisted wrote:As

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

As we all learned in history class 1/3 of the colonists wanted to stay under the Crown, 1/3  wanted independence, and 1/3 didn't care.  I think at least in a few ways we could be better off under Britain but in MOST areas I prefer independence.

I have heard that statistic but have been unable to verify it. I suspect it was made up by someone since there was no polling back then. If I had to guess I am will to bet the stats were more like two thirds didn't care and 15% on each extreme. That would be more reflective of opinions on most political subjects since polling has been practiced and have no real reason to think the numbers would have been different back then. Once the war started, most people probably chose sides through the happenstance of geography and association than true ideology.  

 

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

I don't mean to digress but the gun violence in America is WAY out of control.  You have 30,000 gun deaths a year in America while there's less than 200 a year in  the U.K.!! Even if you adjust for population that's less than a thousand a year in the U.K. compared to 30,000 a year here! NO ONE can argue that the U.K. isn't a safer place!  When there was a mass school shooting in the U.K. killing 16 they banned handguns! Where there is mass school shooting here they almost want to hand more guns out! That's INSANE!!

Yeah, but a lot of people who get shot deserve it. I'm sorry, I shouldn't go there. Maybe we should have a thread on gun control someday. I guarantee no one will commit a mass shooting while I am in the area without killing me first. 

 

 

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

As far as the historical context goes the U.S. would've eventually gotten independence anyway since America far to big to be controlled from 1000s of miles away.  The British Empire is all but dead since  the age of imperialism is dead.  You can't go around taking countries over any more.

I think this is a really interesting question. Yes, I think that imperialism would have died eventually, but without the American Revolution or if the revolution failed would it have been delayed? The British would of had more money through the cotton trade and more soldiers available through conscription in the American colonies. It would have made the country wealthier with a larger military and therefore able to maintain control of its colonies longer. 

 

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

You wanna know what would've REALLY changed history? What if the people who didn't want slavery AT ALL in the 17th century got their way? Then no black slaves would have come here and it would have only been white indentured servants.  Then every famous black in America would've never existed here but been an African that we would've (most likely) never heard of.

Yes, that would be an interesting tangent to explore as well. I need to get back to this thread when I have more time to really think it through.


connerman
atheist
connerman's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Canadian

<div>Being a Canadian, my perspective on this might help. Yes, the British made invading Native land illegal. I generally think this was a tongue in cheek, wink, wink, nudge ,nudge policy simply to keep the powerful (at the time)Iroquois nation on their side against the French. Yes they did side with the British in the revolutionary war and the war of 1812. Well, of course the British lost the revolutionary war yet the war of 1812 was essentially a stalemate. There are many disputes as to who won the war of 1812 but the simple fact is if we (Canadians and British) lost there would be no Canada. The truth is there are no independent native American states in Canada either.

 

This can also be disputed. Close to my hometown of Kingston Ontario is the Akwasasne reserve which straddles the New York Ontario border. In a sense this an autonomous territory but certainly not what the Mohawks or Iroquois were told or envisioned. England had no intention and did not respect native American rights.

 

That said, I don't think the outcome would have been that much different. The likelihood is that North America would have become a Parliamentary Democracy much like Canada and GB are now. Things in GB were certainly moving in that direction long before 1776.

 

It's funny, we Canadians pride ourselves on our Loyalty to the crown. The area I live in was inundated with Loyalists during the revolution. People who are descendants of these refugees are called United Empire Loyalists, proudly.

 

None of these facts take away from the spirit of what the American revolution meant for people who desired to live free around the world.

 

Fact: did you know that 33,000 to 55,000 Canadians (at the time they were known as British) took part in the American civil war (99% north) and 15 000 draft dodgers were treated as refugees and not forcibly returned.

 

The intertwined history of Canada and the United States is covered extensively in our public and secondary schools in Canada. We have differences but those differences are fewer than the similarities.

 

I'm not so sure Zeeboe about the living breathing constitution.&nbsp; I thought that's what the amendments were for. The U.S. seems to have the ability to change the constitution at will with good arguments(correct me if I'm wrong). We had to pry our constitution out the grasping hands of the British monarchy in 1981 (look at that year again 1981 not 1918). Needless to say we can change it when the need arises.

 

The main thing is to thank your lucky stars ( 50 for you) or maple leaves that we live in the countries we do. Thomas Paine is my hero.

 

Understanding that there is no purpose in the Universe frees us all to find one.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 @Connorman:  fixxored

 @Connorman:  fixxored your post.  Sometimes that happens when you do a cut and paste from a word processor.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Anyway, if things had been

 Anyway, if things had been different, then they would be different.

 

One can debate points of history which are and may always go unresolved yet nothing will change about the world in which we live.

 

Really though, as an alternate history buff, I would like to point out that George Washington's fondest desire was to be moved from the colonial army to the regular army. Had that happened, he might have served with honor and distinction in India or somewhere else or not but whatever.

 

Any other change would similarly change the outcome of history in some way.

 

Past that, I think that it is in order to consider the economic picture in greater detail.

 

The colonies were not simply a thing where people were sent over to sink or swim. Rather, each colony was established as a (hopefully) profitable business. As in the Massachusetts Bay Company. Or the East India Trading Company.

 

Basically, they were intended as a way to create a perpetual income for the investors who started them and the families who came after them. Past the initial investment and whatever return would have been appropriate, they were expected to continue producing capital for the nation of England pretty much forever. All the better to continue expanding the empire.

 

Sure, England ran into a bunch of wars in the decades leading up to the revolution. They wanted to pay for those wars not with the real wealth of England but with the perpetual source of capital that the colonies were intended to be.

 

OK, the colonists played a role in the French Indian War. But not automatically all other wars. Why should the colonists pay for a war in, say, India? That is right, we should not have been expected to pay a pension for the widows of the Black Hole of Calcutta. It was not our problem.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Now, about the whole taxation without representation thing, this too goes to the idea that we existed for no other purpose than to be sucked dry of the fruits of our labors.

 

OK, everyone has heard of the Boston Tea Party but how many people know the whole story?

 

For comparison, let me posit that the East India company had been buying tea at $0.90/kg and selling it in the colonies at $1.00/kg.

 

Well, mercenaries for the East India Company had beat the tar out of some local warlord and basically taken his tea crop. All that they had to pay was the cost of transport. So they reasoned that they could sell it at half price in Boston and reap unusual profits.

 

So we are looking at them getting tea to Boston for $0.03/kg and telling the colonists that since they had a huge windfall, they were going to pass the savings along and tea would now cost $0.50/kg.

 

However, even back then, news traveled fast enough that that did not play well with the colonists. If the powers that be had been willing to charge $0.05/kg, then things would probably have not gone down as they did.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Another example would be the fact that the British government had done as much as possible to outlaw the idea of a metals industry in the colonies.

 

Well, back then, iron ore was something that was found in swamps and the facilities to turn it into solid iron took up less than an acre of land and lots of wood to burn (which we were not hurting for access to). Also, it was impractical to ban black smithing.

 

Even so, the British passed a bunch of laws on the production of metals.

 

You could not own a metal shovel unless it was made in England. So the colonists made shovels from wood. As lame as a wooden shovel is, it was cheaper to buy a new wooden shovel every week than to have a metal shovel imported from England at a lordly price.

 

How about the tax on windows? Many people who had had windows in their houses before that went into effect simply bricked up the windows and did without because it was nothing more than a way to bleed us of the products of our labor.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Zeeboe
Posts: 332
Joined: 2007-07-15
User is offlineOffline
As of right now, I don't

As of right now, I don't think the world would have changed much if the U.S.A. lost. I do agree at some point if the states were unable to get their freedom, they may have ended up like Canada, but I doubt the U.S.A. would be NEARLY as patriotic as it is today. I also think George Washington would be seen how Jefferson Davis is seen today, with overall only history buffs knowing who he is. I also think in regards of how history and the mainstream would see The American Revolution (Perhaps called "The Great Rebellion" or "The War of the Rebellion" in the alternate history world) the "rebels" would be seen as the villians even in our own classrooms, as well as in all the mainstream history books and the mainstream history films, and displaying the Stars and Stripes would forever be a hot topic, and would be called "the rebel flag".
 
As for how life today would be - I think there is a strong chance England would actually be more like how the United States is today with them having all the patriotism, the title of "greatest country on earth", and all the power, the mainstream media, the movies, and even some envy and hate from other countries. The United States would be seen as "England's little brother" or "England Jr.", and the States and we "little Americans" and "the funny way we talk" would be the subject to many playful jokes and insults. I also think our speech and writing would be like how it is in England. For example, if England won, we Americans would be spelling favor as "favour". 
 
I do love my country, but there is no denying we are not as perfect as we think we are, and I wouldn't mind if our country was a little more like England. Free health care, less Christians, less violence, etc. All of our violence seems to come as a result of our media, but that's a whole other topic, and of course, the grass is always greener on the other side. Smiling


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
King George at his invalid best!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Zeeboe
Posts: 332
Joined: 2007-07-15
User is offlineOffline
That's an awesome film. lol.

That's an awesome film. lol. I saw that for the first time last year.


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
I don't think anyone would

I don't think anyone would disagree that the Native Americans got screwed BIG TIME in more ways than one. Not only did they never get the Native American nation that Tecumseh tried to created but around 90% of their population was wiped from the 1600s to the present!

In that same time period the colonists(whites) population went up several THOUSAND percent!

 

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The victors get to write the

The victors get to write the history books.

It all comes down to who wages war best, because might makes right.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:The victors get to

EXC wrote:

The victors get to write the history books.

It all comes down to who wages war best, because might makes right.

So if powerful aliens came to earth (like in Independence Day) and wiped us all out then they would be RIGHT?

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Well since you would be

 Well since you would be dead you wouldn't be in much of a position to argue.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Captain Hindsight

 This sounds a lot like a job for Cpt. Hindsight 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coon_2:_Hindsight

Smiling

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Well

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Well since you would be dead you wouldn't be in much of a position to argue.

CORRECTION: We'd ALL be dead!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
JesusNEVERexisted wrote:So

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

So if powerful aliens came to earth (like in Independence Day) and wiped us all out then they would be RIGHT?

Of course, humans use our superior technology to exterminate species every day. Who is to say we are wrong? Extermination only becomes immoral when the damage affects the exterminators.

The dead are not able to argue for what is moral.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:JesusNEVERexisted

EXC wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

So if powerful aliens came to earth (like in Independence Day) and wiped us all out then they would be RIGHT?

Of course, humans use our superior technology to exterminate species every day. Who is to say we are wrong? Extermination only becomes immoral when the damage affects the exterminators.

The dead are not able to argue for what is moral.

Amen to that, you need a subject in order to study something as subjective as morality.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Zeeboe wrote:
I recently took an interest in the American War for Independence. Up until recently, the little information I knew about it came from schoolbooks and Hollywood. Both of those sources have vivified the British, but after doing some studying of my own beyond those sources, as of right now, to be perfectly honest, despite being a proud American, I find myself siding more with Great Britain then the American Colonies and question if things may have been better off for this country if King George III won. I'm not trying to start an argument, or offend anyone. I only wish to be educated, and perhaps educate as well, and I would share what I have learned.


Since childhood, one of the popular grips of white guilt I have ever heard has been the fact that "white men invaded this land, and stole it from Native Americans". Well, I learned something very interesting recently:

Many American Colonists wanted to invade Indian country, but Great Britain made it illegal. London thought it was fair and safe to reserve those lands for the Natives who had always loved and hunted there. George Washington agreed with plenty of other American colonial settlers, who thought that law unfairly limited their rights. They invaded Indian country anyhow, and that was one of the many reasons the American Colonists went to war with England.

One of the reasons why so many Native Americans sided with Great Britain during the war, and fought along side with them was because they knew England was going to respect their land and rights. So if England won, perhaps Natives would have their own Independent states in this country, and lots of suffering and war could have been avoided.

Many black slaves also joined the British Army because they were promised freedom. Infact, it appeared that England actually wanted to end slavery, but the rich American Colonists however did not want to end it. Again, if England won, perhaps slavery would have ended much sooner, and there would have been no American Civil War, and black people could have be given equal rights much sooner, and not suffered for as long as they did.

In general, England wanted a living, breathing Constitution that changed with the times. The American Colonists however did not want such a thing.

Now I've rambled enough, and I don't want to post too much in the event that there are no responses, but these are some of the things I learned, and I hope to have a nice chat about all this. Thank you for reading.

You raise several issues but lets get a few things straight regarding Indians and slavery which have to be taken into account in any discussion.

If the Indians had united against the Europeans from the beginning the history of the Americas would be much different and I mean for both continents. Instead the Indians were more than happy to join with one group of Europeans against other Indians. Cortez won because of the Indians who sided with him against the Aztecs. Further north the Indians were more than happy to side with the French or the English. They jumped into European rivalries. And in doing so earned the animosity of the winners when they lost. They lost the French and Indian War where George Washington cut his teeth. You can see this all through the Indian wars in the latter half of the 19th c. where some tribes would help the US Army against other tribes.

Specific to the Indians siding with the British, maybe they did act in their own best interest but they also lost along with the Brits who then GAVE the Brit territorial claims to the colonies against the interests of the Indians.

Slavery is proof positive there are no prophets of god because none of them condemned slavery. So lets not get too excited about an institution that was old and established when recorded history began. In the long view the recent and short-lived aversion to slavery is the abberation.

In this regard it is correct that in the late 18th c. the Brits turned against slavery. Prior to that change it was the Brits who introduced slavery into the colonies. And they were not particular as to where they got their slaves as the treatment of indentured servants, transported prisoners and chattel slaves was not all that different. The difference being for the former it ended after some number of years and did not for the latter. It appears the Brits turned against slavery simply because of the industrial revolution and that is why the Northern states were against it. Forget the moral crap; it was economics. The Latin American end of slavery was more due to throwing out the Spaniards than ending slavery as any peon would have told you.

The real problem for the colonies is that they were offered representation in Parliament and could have had it. Their numbers would not have been sufficient to make their interests felt unless they traded their votes for or against the interests of the established political coalitions in Parliament. And in taking sides there was no guarantee of being on the winning side. Picking sides required taking a political interest in things of no interest whatsoever. It also put the colonies into the thick of centuries old European politics and wars over things that had no interest or bearing on them or their lives.

The short answer is, there was no way to make representation in parliament work. As such they remained colonies solely under the authority of the king who used them as part of his foreign policy which lead to the long list of grievances in the declaration of independence. Perhaps if he had invented sort of a commonwealth status a century before its time the war could have been avoided.

So for the Indians they brought it on themselves by taking sides and losing. The end of slavery was a rather odd turn around of millenia of custom and in hindsight was ended in the worst possible way. The beginning of the end of the stigma of slavery was not until the civil rights legislation a century after slavery was ended. That is longer than any place else in the world.

As for rich colonists wanting to keep slavery, they were not rich until after the invention of the cotton gin. There was only one cash crop, tobacco. Cotton was a required crop leading to canvas for the sails of British ships. Before the cotton gin there was not enough profit on cotton to make people rich so there had to be cheap labor. And that is what went into the civil war, tariff protection on northern cloth and none for southern cotton. Even if rich that kept profits low and required very cheap labor. After the end of slavery there were even cheaper sharecroppers. On one hand there is the theory of the evil of slavery. On the other hand there is the practice that life is harder for sharecroppers.

Everything I have written is not clearly thought out and certainly not well presented. It is a summary of what I have found which barely scratches the surface of several complex political and economic issues. I have never had the time or interest to dig in further. If it really interests you then you could make a career in the field. The only thing to avoid is moral absolutes as they solve nothing and in the case of slavery went from pro to anti in hardly a single generation -- that is not an absolute in anyone's book.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jeffrick wrote:
...With the African slave trade ending in the 1830's we might be without some promient African Americans today, because their ancesters never left Africa, on the other hand what would society be like today if the massive casualties of the civil war had desendents. With about 600,000 killed during the war we might be looking at 30 to 40 million influencing American society over the last 155 years,  who were simply never born.

The slave trade ended in the US in 1808.

US Constitution Art I Sect. 9.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of
the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be
prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight
hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such
importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. The
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety
require it.
 

Slavery was a dying issue at the time and was a debating point that had to be resolved just to get the constitution accepted. The other mention is the 3/5th person for purposes of representation in the House of Congress and apportionment of federal levies on the states. Notice it cut both ways. Pro-slave states wanted some counting for the slaves for representation and the anti-slave states also wanted counting for levies. It was not just a pro-slavery thing.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Pheonix
atheist
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Good and Evil

Zeeboe wrote:

It's impossible to know for sure, but the truth is...at least in my view, is that there is no good or evil. The older I get, the more I truly believe this, and studying history has helped me form that opinion quite a lot. I always had an interest, but it wasn't until late 2009 that I really began to read, and learned that good and evil are not real in my view. It's just people doing what they think is right. I believe if King George III won, George Washington would be remembered as one of the greatest tyrants of history.

Great Britain had been in one war or another for fifty years and was drowning in debt. Over in London, Parliament decided that Americans should help out by paying their fair share, and King George III agreed. After all, Great Britain had spent plenty of money fighting in America for the good of the colonies. The crown was still supporting a British Army to help stop Indian attacks on the American frontier. Great Britain felt it was their right to collect payment. 17th Century interest in the U.S. appears to be more financial than a matter of pride. My impression is that the 17th century British were not looking for power and control over the American Colonies, but financial support to recoup the cost of defending the American colonies from the French during the Seven Years' War and from Native Americans.

Not trying to get off-topic, but why do the history books we're given in school try to make all of our enemies out to be such horrible people? I think "good", "evil", "normal", and "weird" are all within the eyes of the beholder, and I personally decide for myself in my life what is "good", "evil", "normal", and "weird".  I believe everyone lives by this same type of thinking. The thing is, the majority lives and speaks for a consensus of reality that is currently socially acceptable at this point and time in history. So it's just a question of who manipulates the media, and who has the most money to put their reality forth. In my opinion, no one can truly and fairly decide what is good or evil. Whoever has won any war decided what good and evil was because the winners write the history. It's all based on historical and cultural values. Laws and everything else changes with cultural tides. Morals change with the weather. I don't think one can honestly say something or someone is good or evil. You can only look at human behavior from a realistic perspective.

 

Its been a while since I posted, but what the hell. I'll just jump right in, shall I?

 

You are both right and wrong, in my opinion. I spent some time pondering this a while back, questioning the common ideas about good and evil. I also came to the conclusion that people were not made up of "good" and "evil."

However, throughout later high school and college (so far) I have been radically changing my world-view, and I think the most accurate values are as follows:

Moral status is not like skin color, where some are black and others white, and some are in-between. But good and evil do exist. They are not character traits, but adjectives which apply to actions. The more I think about it, the more I realize blanket statements without qualifiers do not work, such as: killing is evil.

Instead, unjust, intentional killing is evil. Actions can be good or evil, even if they bring about the opposite end effect. People all have both good and evil in them. A person is said to be good when most of his or her actions are good, and vice versa. People can have opinions, and what is right or wrong depend on the situation, but the fundamental principle of doing well by others is the purpose of good, and harming others, the purpose of evil. The debate about what qualifies exactly as good or evil is a lengthy and difficult one, and I will not go into it here and now. But I will say, I believe people all inherently have the same capacity to understand good and evil, and that disagreements or differences of opinion are almost always caused by some lack of understanding or missing information on one sides part.

 

The most important point: Actions can be good or evil, and everyone has the capacity for both good and evil in them.

Be as you wish to seem ~Socrates


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Zeeboe

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Zeeboe wrote:
I recently took an interest in the American War for Independence. Up until recently, the little information I knew about it came from schoolbooks and Hollywood. Both of those sources have vivified the British, but after doing some studying of my own beyond those sources, as of right now, to be perfectly honest, despite being a proud American, I find myself siding more with Great Britain then the American Colonies and question if things may have been better off for this country if King George III won. I'm not trying to start an argument, or offend anyone. I only wish to be educated, and perhaps educate as well, and I would share what I have learned.


Since childhood, one of the popular grips of white guilt I have ever heard has been the fact that "white men invaded this land, and stole it from Native Americans". Well, I learned something very interesting recently:

Many American Colonists wanted to invade Indian country, but Great Britain made it illegal. London thought it was fair and safe to reserve those lands for the Natives who had always loved and hunted there. George Washington agreed with plenty of other American colonial settlers, who thought that law unfairly limited their rights. They invaded Indian country anyhow, and that was one of the many reasons the American Colonists went to war with England.

One of the reasons why so many Native Americans sided with Great Britain during the war, and fought along side with them was because they knew England was going to respect their land and rights. So if England won, perhaps Natives would have their own Independent states in this country, and lots of suffering and war could have been avoided.

Many black slaves also joined the British Army because they were promised freedom. Infact, it appeared that England actually wanted to end slavery, but the rich American Colonists however did not want to end it. Again, if England won, perhaps slavery would have ended much sooner, and there would have been no American Civil War, and black people could have be given equal rights much sooner, and not suffered for as long as they did.

In general, England wanted a living, breathing Constitution that changed with the times. The American Colonists however did not want such a thing.

Now I've rambled enough, and I don't want to post too much in the event that there are no responses, but these are some of the things I learned, and I hope to have a nice chat about all this. Thank you for reading.

You raise several issues but lets get a few things straight regarding Indians and slavery which have to be taken into account in any discussion.

If the Indians had united against the Europeans from the beginning the history of the Americas would be much different and I mean for both continents. Instead the Indians were more than happy to join with one group of Europeans against other Indians. Cortez won because of the Indians who sided with him against the Aztecs. Further north the Indians were more than happy to side with the French or the English. They jumped into European rivalries. And in doing so earned the animosity of the winners when they lost. They lost the French and Indian War where George Washington cut his teeth. You can see this all through the Indian wars in the latter half of the 19th c. where some tribes would help the US Army against other tribes.

Specific to the Indians siding with the British, maybe they did act in their own best interest but they also lost along with the Brits who then GAVE the Brit territorial claims to the colonies against the interests of the Indians.

Slavery is proof positive there are no prophets of god because none of them condemned slavery. So lets not get too excited about an institution that was old and established when recorded history began. In the long view the recent and short-lived aversion to slavery is the abberation.

What you say is true but it couldn't happen so easily.  Many of the tribes spoke different languages and were enemies themselves like the Sioux and Crow among many others.  You talk about how the Aztecs lost because the Spanish allied with a Native tribe.  I'm pretty sure the Spanish got help from natives in beating the Mayans too.  BUT those tribes were ALREADY enemies of the Aztec and Mayans before the Spanish ever came.

The same way the British, French, and Spanish all hated each other you had the Comanche, Apache, and Sioux who were rivals among others.  It's just that the natives weren't as technically advanced.

They also didn't get the help in return.  Eventhough the natives helped the Europeans in many cases they didn't get much help back.  There is the famous story of how Tecumseh tried to start a Native American nation in America which would've changed the entire landscape of America yet the British abandoned him during a key battle and, not surprisingly, Tecumseh was killed during that battle. Considering how much the British hated America back then you would think they would've been more committed.

As far as slavery in the bible the bible is VERY pro slavery so I don't see how anyone can say the bible is NOT a very IMMORAL book!!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com