View Full Version : The Greatest War for Independence (Americas)?
TheSilverKnight
08-09-2005, 19:47
Try to keep political things to a minimum here.
We have choices of wars fought by nations in the Americas against their former colonial owners.
The choices are as listed above.
My choice?
Either Mexico's or Colombia's. Both of them had very enigmatic leaders who rose up with the general populace against Spain, which, in some ways, were oppressing them as England did to America.
Vote for yours.
Have to go with the American Revolution much tougher than the Mexican Revolution.
Uesugi Kenshin
08-09-2005, 21:19
I would have to go with the American Revolution, partly because I live near where one of the important little battles of the Northeast ocurred and partly because it is the one I know the most about.
Also it was quite a revolution, no lack of intrigue, battle and courage.
Don Corleone
08-09-2005, 21:44
I had to say the American War for Independence because sadly, I know little about any of the others, a deficiency I intend to soon remedy.
The British didn't 'pour tons of troops' into the war though. That was a big part of their problem... never able to bring sufficient regiments to bear at one time. They did have a lot of loyalist regiments that tend to get overlooked though.
Still, it was a miracle that the Colonists were able to pull the rebellion off, late French aid or not (btw, thanks Louis, Louis, Brenus & Meneldil).
PanzerJaeger
08-09-2005, 22:03
American, I dont find that the spanish were as good at playing the bad guy as the British.. they were pretty incompetent, and didnt have the cool uniforms.
yesdachi
08-09-2005, 22:15
The British didn't 'pour tons of troops' into the war though. That was a big part of their problem... never able to bring sufficient regiments to bear at one time. They did have a lot of loyalist regiments that tend to get overlooked though.
Very true. But they did have good weapons and equipment and a good commander although a bit overconfident. Interesting that the English have had such a history of rebellions, kind of like MTW towards the end.
I will also vote for the American War for Independence.
Side note: In a round about way wars like Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Falklands, etc. were all about independence.
Proletariat
08-09-2005, 22:16
If you are asking about resulting impact, than easily the American Revolution. All those other revolutions kicked out imbeciles and replaced them with imbeciles.
The American Revolution resulted with a system that flushes out imbeciles regularly, rather than just having to over throw one dictator for another every few generations.
Kagemusha
08-09-2005, 22:32
I would say the American war of indepedancy.The war that shoved that Impearilism was gone to its end. :bow:
No vote as I know far too little about the others.
I must say I'm leaning towards the American.
Louis VI the Fat
08-09-2005, 22:49
That can only be the American (US).
It was the first American independence war on the continent - without the Americans showing that a few frontier-hardened colonials with enough guts can beat a European superpower the others would not have happened in the first place.
And secondly for sheer global impact. I'm sure the Costa Rican war was all very interesting and stuff, but really... ~:rolleyes:
Templar Knight
08-09-2005, 22:54
Has to be the US. One of the few nations that kicked out an imperial power and replaced it with something decent, unlike the rest of the world. ~:cheers:
Actually now that I think about it I think Haiti did a good job.
The only place where the slaves actually won their independence and gained a country at the expence of a superpower (France).
Grey_Fox
08-10-2005, 02:09
Chilean War of Independence. Why? Because Lord Cochrane (probably the most colourful of the Royal Navy's many officers) was involved.
Azi Tohak
08-10-2005, 05:05
American War of Independence.
Wasn't it the first war in which a colony threw off its nominal overlords?
Azi
Incongruous
08-10-2005, 05:18
It would have to be American, but the British weren't tyrants as Mel Gibson would like everyone to think. Infact you know that part of the movie (patriot) where the British burn all those colonials in the church, it did happen, except the crime was commited by the Americans.
american for sheer historical impact
King Henry V
08-10-2005, 10:37
None. Long live Imperialism!
lancelot
08-10-2005, 11:36
The only reason the americans won in the war of 'independence' (aka treason)was the French. Pure and simple.
Anyways, the greatest war for independence was the 2nd War for Independence.
American War of Independence.
Wasn't it the first war in which a colony threw off its nominal overlords?
Azi
I believe it was.
But I find it surprising that you guys have taken no notice of Haiti.
If you think the American rebels had it tough, think of slaves with no education to speak of, no weapons to speak of against similar troops that the American rebels faced.
However you think about it, French troops and determined colonists were not walkovers, they were hardy and significantly better armed than the slaves.
So perhaps the American revolution was bigger and had a more significant impact, but I think the Haitians did a more impressive job.
Marshal Murat
08-10-2005, 16:02
Well, Haiti rebels did have help from malaria, and all those other diseases that killed off half the French force.
I'm not suprised in Patriot by the burning of the church, because Tarleton did it as well. Then again, it was a MOVIE, and we shouldn't base anything about the war on what the movie portrays.
yesdachi
08-10-2005, 16:16
And the only reason there is still a country called France is because of America. We repayed that debt long ago.
and got the statue of liberty out of the deal too.
Duke Malcolm
08-10-2005, 16:21
I have to agree with my fellow Monarch, Henry V, in saying none. Imperialism gu brath! But I wouldn't say that the American Revolution was the greatest. Greedy colonials, getting defence, homes, money, but not wanting to pay taxes.
TheSilverKnight
08-10-2005, 17:07
I'm actually pretty susprised the french revolution isn't on there. I mean, I know it wasn't a colonial revolution, but it's effects were nearly as world-changing as the American Revolution.
Sorry, I forgot to add that in the choices :embarassed: but yes, the French Revolution is also quite important.
Duke Malcolm
08-10-2005, 17:21
eh?! since when was France in the Americas?
Hurin_Rules
08-10-2005, 17:22
WHAT?!?!?!
No Canadian Rebellions of 1837?
Just kidding, actually. The one in York, Upper Canada (now Toronto, Ontario) was typically Canadian: it involved very little bloodshed and began in a bar. ~:)
Tribesman
08-10-2005, 18:00
but I think the Haitians did a more impressive job.
True , but since independance they have been occupied many times with foriegn governments installing their own versions of an " independant Haitian government " .
That can only be the American (US).
It was the first American independence war on the continent - without the Americans showing that a few frontier-hardened colonials with enough guts can beat a European superpower the others would not have happened in the first place.
And secondly for sheer global impact. I'm sure the Costa Rican war was all very interesting and stuff, but really... ~:rolleyes:
I was going to write something very similiar to this - but dicide that I would instead give full support to Louis statment since he said it first, and that he is absolutely correct. :book: :bow:
eh?! since when was France in the Americas?
Canada - Louisiana - and several other places. France even tried to claim parts of Texas from Spain.
Duke Malcolm
08-10-2005, 18:06
I mean the country, they guy said that he was going to put the French Revolution in
I mean the country, they guy said that he was going to put the French Revolution in
Well then there is the second Mexician Revolution when France tried to install a puppet as Emporer of Mexico during the 1860's.
A Wikipedia Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_I_of_Mexico
TheSilverKnight
08-10-2005, 18:40
eh?! since when was France in the Americas?
The French Revolution had a somewhat important effect on Haiti's revolution, so I spose France could be counted...or perhaps not. Nevermind it.
I can't even add the poll, so, nevermind it.
The Stranger
08-10-2005, 18:50
you dont really have much options
Louis VI the Fat
08-10-2005, 19:38
The French Revolution doesn't belong in a poll about 'The Greatest War for Independence (Americas)'.
It was Great and it ended in a War, yes. But it was neither in America nor about Independence.
America and France don't owe each other anything. The twin daughters of the Enlightenment have both been staunch defenders of the shared ideal that man is born free and with inalieble(sp?) rights. Both have made sacrifices, and both have made sorry mistakes too.
The two experimental Republics have done well for themselves. And for the spread of democracy. (And let us not forget about some other fine nations too). We don't owe each other, we have to thank each other for bringing about modern Western Civilization.
True , but since independance they have been occupied many times with foriegn governments installing their own versions of an " independant Haitian government " .
And what does that have to do with their War of Independance? Nothing actually.
Just like France i in Europe and not in America as mentioned earlier.
If we are to go about and argue that certain wars were greater because of later actions, then the whole poll fall apart in my mind.
To me a war is a war, and it is not dependant on the subsequent actions of said nation(s).
The case with greatest War of Independence, we can go a bit further in that what result did the succesful war produce the world over. But to use the strength of the new nation as a guage as to how impressive their war of indenpendence is is quite simply biased towards the American version. None of the others were anywhere as strong then, and would remain so because of their relative backwater status and limited expansive abilities (where could the Haitians expand to to for instance?).
Also one could argue that the American War of Independence was lucky that the French felt the need to do their own revolution and casting the only nations able to 'betray' the cause into a 20 year long war. By the time they had time and strength for a war in the Americas the Americans would have strengthened themselves enough. The others were not so lucky and many happened to do it right when the European powers began their major Imperialist expansions (including politically).
Do you really think that if a small group managed to cast of the yoke of a very much stronger nation, only to be a sort of beating boy later on its war of independence is not worth much compared to a significantly stronger group that does much the same but has enough strength to beat off later attempts to control them.
Being weak does not detract from the initial achievement.
Do you get my drift?
Marquis of Roland
08-10-2005, 20:41
If you are asking about resulting impact, than easily the American Revolution. All those other revolutions kicked out imbeciles and replaced them with imbeciles.
The American Revolution resulted with a system that flushes out imbeciles regularly, rather than just having to over throw one dictator for another every few generations.
Ditto!
Even if the founding fathers' political motives were pretty much completely selfish, the American revolution was definitely the most significant war of "independence" in the New World, I think, in military terms (not counting how well US turned out later).
Hey I was wondering, what do British textbooks say about the American revolution? I wonder how different it is from the bullcrap we Americans put into our textbooks on that subject.
Hey I was wondering, what do British textbooks say about the American revolution? I wonder how different it is from the bullcrap we Americans put into our textbooks on that subject.
No... You go first. I want ot know what your books say. They must obviously be more to the point than what I experienced here in Denmark. We are taught somewhere between little and not enough.
yesdachi
08-10-2005, 20:54
No... You go first. I want ot know what your books say. They must obviously be more to the point than what I experienced here in Denmark. We are taught somewhere between little and not enough.
we had text books? said the public school grad. ~:)
I remember most of my school history text books being very vauge about anything that could be viewed as controversial. I am glad I had a good History class in college. :bow:
A punitive war in response to the USA attacking Canada while Britain was occupied with the European war.
The strength of the nation has much to do with how well it is able to hold on afterwards. Haiti has, as it has been noted, suffered from foreign interventions they could never hope to repel. If you can't stop them how can you keep your freedom, especially if they recruit some disgruntled local and put him in power? So strength does have something to do with how able you are in keeping the gained freedom.
But that does not detract from how good the initial war was.
lancelot
08-10-2005, 22:29
Ditto!
Hey I was wondering, what do British textbooks say about the American revolution? I wonder how different it is from the bullcrap we Americans put into our textbooks on that subject.
Not a lot really.
The most recent work I have read is 'rebels and redcoats' Good read. The accompanying tv series (hosted by proffesor Richard holmes) highlighted the fact that many of the original patriots were not that patriotic at all (nowhere near in the republican hero mythos the USA would have us believe) and wanted to do little more than cause some trouble which they 'plotted' over binge drinking sessions!
Basically, the founding fathers were not virtuous, couragous patriots...rather more sozzled, lucky, mischief makers!
(hope I havent shattered any illusions here) :embarassed:
The only other War of Independence that was of consequence - and probably led to more revolutions and Wars of Independence in the America's was the Mexician Revolution of 1821-1824.
This revolution has a significant impact on the shaping of not only the United States - because of the subsequent Texas War of Independence - but it was the first successful revolution to overthrow the yoke of Spain from the New World. Which can arguable be stated had more impact on the Spanish Holdings in the America's then the War of Independence fought by the English Colonies against England.
The Spanish initially attempted to burtally put down this revolution in Mexico. which futher inflammed the populace to take up arms against them.
The arguements about Napeolanic Wars - have little to no bearing on many of the revolutions since they happened after that time period in the declining of the Spanish New World Imperialism. And truely only apply to the War of 1812, and only in a limited scope because that war was nothing but a punitive war held by both sides - the United States for the impressing of American citizens as sailors for the British Navy - and like was stated by the British for the US invasion of Canada.
TheSilverKnight
08-10-2005, 23:33
The only other War of Independence that was of consequence - and probably led to more revolutions and Wars of Independence in the America's was the Mexician Revolution of 1821-1824.
This revolution has a significant impact on the shaping of not only the United States - because of the subsequent Texas War of Independence - but it was the first successful revolution to overthrow the yoke of Spain from the New World. Which can arguable be stated had more impact on the Spanish Holdings in the America's then the War of Independence fought by the English Colonies against England.
The Spanish initially attempted to burtally put down this revolution in Mexico. which futher inflammed the populace to take up arms against them.
Mexico's revolution technically started in 1810 with the Grito de Dolores and the calls for Independence, but war didn't begin in a proper sense until a bit later.
See Wikipedia article -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_War_of_Independence
Azi Tohak
08-11-2005, 00:14
I believe it was.
But I find it surprising that you guys have taken no notice of Haiti.
If you think the American rebels had it tough, think of slaves with no education to speak of, no weapons to speak of against similar troops that the American rebels faced.
However you think about it, French troops and determined colonists were not walkovers, they were hardy and significantly better armed than the slaves.
So perhaps the American revolution was bigger and had a more significant impact, but I think the Haitians did a more impressive job.
But the Blacks also outnumbered everyone else by 10:1. Kind of helps don't it?
Not a lot really.
The most recent work I have read is 'rebels and redcoats' Good read. The accompanying tv series (hosted by proffesor Richard holmes) highlighted the fact that many of the original patriots were not that patriotic at all (nowhere near in the republican hero mythos the USA would have us believe) and wanted to do little more than cause some trouble which they 'plotted' over binge drinking sessions!
Basically, the founding fathers were not virtuous, couragous patriots...rather more sozzled, lucky, mischief makers!
(hope I havent shattered any illusions here)
Must... attack... anything... good... about America!
Where do you people come up with this pathetic hatred? If England had a nice set of heroes like we do, I'm sure we could find something about your heroes to demonize them too.
Azi
Mexico's revolution technically started in 1810 with the Grito de Dolores and the calls for Independence, but war didn't begin in a proper sense until a bit later.
See Wikipedia article -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_War_of_Independence
Yep what is even bettter is that it was a bloodless Revolution at its completion because Spain had its own revolution, and decided to negotate a commonwealth type government into being in Mexico.
But the ones that started before hand - were indeed stomped on very brutally by the Spanish.
Tribesman
08-11-2005, 01:06
But the Blacks also outnumbered everyone else by 10:1. Kind of helps don't it?
But it didn't help in the Dutch colonies , though they had initial success , once the French intervened for the Dutch the rebellion was crushed even though they outnumbered the Europeans .
Grey_Fox
08-11-2005, 01:13
English/British heroes: Arthur, King Alfred, Francis Drake (legend has it that if England is ever under threat of invasion, beat on his drum and Drake will come from his tomb and scour the dons from the seas), Cromwell, Wellington, Nelson, Churchill, Montgommery.
So what's the point of the war then, if it solves nothing?
So your argument is: "Why did the Haitians revolt when they knew everybody else would stomp right over them." By this any small and rather weak grouping should never attempt to break free as it will never lead to anything, even if it is successful.
Nice... But a rather flawed argument, and I think you would agree.
I think you have misunderstood the case of Haiti. Haiti threw out the European colonists and their troops. Then afterwards other states stood in line to put some pretender in power down there, something that still goes on. Quite simply Haiti was never left alone to work out their own internal troubles.
This might be called a failed state, I do not dispute that, but does it really detract from the fact that they are the only slavestate that ever threw out the slavers? Not at all. It is sad that their hopes for freedom were dashed by corrupt leaders and stooges for other states. Their lack of a structured and educated society became their undoing, but they still managed to achieve their goals of independence against long odds.
Numbers were in their favour of course, they were slaves. But as all other slaveuprisings have proven, that does not grant anything. Even in Jamaica such uprisings failed despite significant room to hide and concentrate in. Only the Maroons were able to stay free (but they had been autonomous since the Spanish days).
And malaria work both ways. Go to Africa and you will see the locals there suffer terribly, the slaves were not likely to have fared better than their opponents.
Redleg, my point was not towards Spain, which had long been in teh decline, but France, Britain, Belgium and Germany. They expanded their spheres in the time after the Napoleonic Wars. The intervention in Mexico by France was one such case.
My argument is that if you throw off the chains of your oppressors, only to be oppressed again next year, then the war isn't over.
Well it wasn't as if they were reinvaded and put into slavery once more the next year. They suffered the backing of foreign states to some dictatorial pretenders and a few homegrown ones (who edged their way to the top).
But even if it was the case, does it really detract from the first war? No.
I think the Finnish Winter War was very great, but it was ultimately a loss. Lets say that they in fact had maanged to get the SU to back down from their demands. Then sighed in relief only to see American troops land inthe west and they would have to do the fight all over, this time exhausted. Naturally they fall. In you eyes, or that is what I read, the Finns would have done nothing great really, for that is what we are talking about.
Marquis of Roland
08-11-2005, 09:27
Not a lot really.
The most recent work I have read is 'rebels and redcoats' Good read. The accompanying tv series (hosted by proffesor Richard holmes) highlighted the fact that many of the original patriots were not that patriotic at all (nowhere near in the republican hero mythos the USA would have us believe) and wanted to do little more than cause some trouble which they 'plotted' over binge drinking sessions!
Basically, the founding fathers were not virtuous, couragous patriots...rather more sozzled, lucky, mischief makers!
(hope I havent shattered any illusions here) :embarassed:
Right!
Only 1/3 of the colonists supported the revolution! And the leaders of the revolution were rich people, people who stood to lose the most from taxation! Of course the rich were educated, and didn't take long for them to whip a couple of the masses to revolt!
Our history books here in the US put the founding fathers on a pedestal, and really concentrate on the "taxation without representation" part, but doesn't mention that the British government was already discussing letting the colonies have some sort of representation in the parliament (in fact parliament tried to reconcile all the differences the colonists brought up, but the leaders of the revolution said deliberations took too long or something). And of course it leaves out the part about the majority of the colonists still chose to be a part of the greatest nation in the world at that time. Our US history books make it seem that all citizens of the 13 colonies were united as one, that it was a patriotic war against tyranny (basically made the British look like dictators, which was not true), and that the "loyalists" were despicable traitors or something.
So what do the history books in Britain say?
lancelot
08-11-2005, 14:08
Must... attack... anything... good... about America!
Where do you people come up with this pathetic hatred? If England had a nice set of heroes like we do, I'm sure we could find something about your heroes to demonize them too.
Whoa, hang on a minute.
Couple of things-
1) This isnt my opinion, (I thought since my original post was about books, this was reasonably clear) its the opinion of a Cambridge educated proffesor..
2) How does this qualify as hatred exactly? To criticze america in any way is hatred in your book?? :dizzy2:
yesdachi
08-11-2005, 20:22
It's easy to come accross as hate because it's blatant falsehood meant to discredit the most important event in American history.
Sounds like the start of a new thread. What’s the most important event in American history?
Azi Tohak
08-11-2005, 20:38
Whoa, hang on a minute.
Couple of things-
1) This isnt my opinion, (I thought since my original post was about books, this was reasonably clear) its the opinion of a Cambridge educated proffesor..
2) How does this qualify as hatred exactly? To criticze america in any way is hatred in your book?? :dizzy2:
No, I did not mean you were attacking, but (perhaps) the author of the book. Some people just have a hard-on for attacking heroes. And if you can attack something you loath (like the USA for example) it makes it even more fun.
And the opinion of a Cambridge educated professor being claimed as fact? Suppose he might not like the USA? Maybe he likes to insult others heroes?
I won't insult any of the British list of heroes Grey Fox gave (as much as I hate Monty) because I respect everyone on that list (except Monty).
And yes, we are taught to idolize our Founding fathers. They were just men afterall, but some people (such as the author of that book) won't give them even that credit. Because they represent something good about the USA, they must be shown in the most dreadful light possible.
At any rate, I'm wondering if maybe someone picked up different parts from what the Author intended (mind, there are many books called "Rebels and Redcoats: out right now so I'm assuming this is it):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393322939/qid=1123788662/sr=8-3/ref=pd_bbs_3/104-8719830-2667128?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Two reviews (of 24) mentions what Lancelot said:
Atrocious blather, September 7, 1999
Reviewer: A reader
Hibbert exhibits just the mindset which is characteristic of the worst that Britain has to offer. His main thesis in this perfectly worthless book is that the American colonists were a bunch of whiny brats who were too self-absorbed to understand just how good they had it in the British Empire. He makes utterly no attempt to understand in any manner whatsoever the reasons why the policy pursued by the British government in North America after the end of the Seven Years War in 1763 was so deeply offensive to so many Americans, why British policy could not have been better calculated to alienate the colonists, or why British military strategy was wrong-headed and counterproductive. Furthermore, he has no appreciation at all for the historical or political legacy of such revolutionaries as Jefferson, Madison, Dickinson, and Franklin; and he does not understand the essential political radicalism of the revolution. All in all, this book is as much a waste of paper and time as anything I have ever read about the American Revolution (mindless American patriotic blather included), and it is only appropriate for such close-minded anti-American bigots as the Canadian reviewer below.
The British still don't understand, April 27, 1999
Reviewer: A reader
I was profoundly disappointed by this book. I had hoped that the book would contain insight into the thinking of members the British government about the colonies and the Revolution. Instead, I was told how the Revolutionaries were a bunch of paranoids who whined about nothing in particular and who really didn't have it bad at all under British rule. Hibbert makes no attempt to understand the ideological origins of American Revolutionary thought or the historical significance of the American Revolution and Revolutionists such as Washington, Adams, Mason, and Jefferson. This is profoundly bad scholarship, and one would be far better served to read Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood, Pauline Maier, or Rhys Issac.
But... I don't know what to think about the book now. I still think my point of hero assasination is true though.
Azi
Marquis of Roland
08-11-2005, 21:04
Alexander Hamilton wrote "...our countrymen have all the folly of the ass and all the passiveness of the sheep....they are determined not to be free...if we are saved, France and Spain must save us."
Apparently a lot of the troops fought because they were poor and it was a chance to earn some money (which they didn't really). Either that or to be "better" than their neighbors. One lieutenant who fought at Bunker Hill said "....as to the dispute between Great Britain & the Colonies I know nothing of it...."
It was a war of middle-class America against Great Britain, but fought mostly by poor people who did not understand why they were fighting. As for saying nobody was forced to fight, there were colonies that made it into law that males between 16 and 60 had to join the army. However you could get out of this by paying 5 pounds, which pretty much excluded most of the people who started the war. In Conneticut, 18 men failed to show for military duty, and were jailed until they pledged to fight the war. And South Carolina couldn't send troops to fight for a free country because they had to use their troops to control the large amount of slaves they owned there!
When the common soldiers were fed up about not being paid to fight for their freedom, they revolted. January 1, 1781, Pennsylvania troops in Morristown killed their commanding officer and marched on the Continental Congress! Another mutiny in New Jersey, 200 troops march on Trenton in revolt. Next year, another mutiny in Pennsylvania, and so on.
Not like poor people had any say in matters since they couldn't run for office; you needed a certain amount of property to run, basically limiting the ruling offices to richer, landowners. The revolution only replaced the loyalist elite of the colonies with new elite families and left the poor who actually fought the war in the same place they were before.
So in review:
Most people did not support the rich land-owning aristocracy who started the war to supplant their even richer British lords.
Most of the soldiers who did the actual fighting was REQUIRED by law to provide military service. So yeah, they were pretty much conscripted without any say, since they couldn't take public office because they weren't rich enough.
Calling people idiot when you don't have your facts straight is quite rude, Gelatinous Cube. Would you like a bibliography?
So you are measuring only by valour in the initial combat, as opposed to any lasting resonance?
I would say that the scare the Haitians put in the colonists around the Carribean was rather profound. And it provoked a few rebellions on other islands I think. A lasting resonance? Well what about slaves kicking out their masters and creating a new state? Last I looked Haiti was still around... Of course it could have sunk into the waves.
But by demanding that they actually do great thing time and again you bias the entire discussion towards the only strong participant. The others were weak while the 13 colonies were modern (of the times) with enough industry and educated population to make it stronger than most European states. It had everything going for it. The others fought their way out from the lowest levels, and the Haitians lower still.
I look at how impressive the war itself was, yes. What happened afterwards has nothing to do with the initial succes in itself. It had to do with a lack of education, lack of industry and foreign interests.
I can't come to think of every single small state's war of independece as anything but great because the state itself is weak. That is simply not right and has nothing to do with the war.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-12-2005, 00:06
Where is Bolivia's option?
lancelot
08-12-2005, 00:27
It's easy to come accross as hate because it's blatant falsehood meant to discredit the most important event in American history.
Well, in that case-there are a whole lot of books out there on the topic of 'blatant falsehood'
@azi
And the opinion of a Cambridge educated professor being claimed as fact? Suppose he might not like the USA? Maybe he likes to insult others heroes?
Well, I suppose in that light, most books are opinion. But given the source, Im gonna give the guy the benefit of the doubt..
And the book I read was this one...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/000715626X/qid=1123802680/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_11_1/202-2686038-1699837
Soulforged
08-12-2005, 09:29
Let me make some corrections. In South America, except for Brazil, there was one hero that pretty much opened the gates for all countries belonging to the "Virreinato del Río de la Plata" to become independent, he was an american-spanish who belonged to a mason on England, San Martín. Bolivia and Perú practically owe their independence to him, though he was most allied with the forces forming in actual Argentina, Perú even offered the charge of president to him after the independence was set (but like history said he declined, also declined argentinian's offers, but that has an romantic feeling that i'm sure it's false). Chile has a little of the same. In general all the countries that in that time belonged to that kingdom were freed by this hero. So the difference beetween United States and this will be that almost all South America belonged to just one king (or two, because virreynato means the existence of two kings, one in Europe and one in America, tough the one of here was just a symbol)and that all freed themselves as one big movement. The independence of Argentina was on 9 of july of 1816 (as it was declared) but the end of the Virreynato was before, on 25 of may of 1810, so if you ask me for the "best war" of independence i would say anyway, United States, not just because they faced the most powerful army on America at that time (and in difference to the spanish the british king was not inprisoned by Napaleon and replaced...), but because that victory on the north ignated the passion above them, in fact i belive that the gringo revolution was the beginning of all the others, and it stated the bases for government, policts and was in everyway a mirror to all other rebelions and countries. Also i think that is a waist of time to ask this here, most of the members are gringos or Europeans who know little of the third world, so the result is obvious (with that pride of all those gringos !!!~;)
Soulforged
08-12-2005, 09:57
[/QUOTE]
Must... attack... anything... good... about America!
Where do you people come up with this pathetic hatred? If England had a nice set of heroes like we do, I'm sure we could find something about your heroes to demonize them too.
Azi[/QUOTE]
Well i don't even have to post it here, and it's to long, but if you read some news papers or view TV you will notice the situation on the rest of America (the one under yours, the "third world", the poors), that situation was caused by a number of factors, being one of the most important the constant rising and opression of the administration of USA on their friends, the powerless FMI, to rise the taxes on the international debt that almost all countries in the world have with them (but most likely ours is the worst situation). Don't take this wrong man, almost all of the following is just moral, but anyway say what you want (the people here will continue to starve to death anyway so...):1- The USA creates the ONU (ok with the comision of other powerful contries but, USA being the real "jugde") creating at the same time a court (international), an administration, a law, and a series of treaties- consecuense- they don't respect the ONU, nor the treaties, nor the Court... every time they have a problem with transgresion of law they judge it themselves, there's no room to discussion... 2- USA is a great empire wich breeds in the creation of war to justify their great army (if i'm not mistaken the greatest area where they spend their money is on that) and in the rising and creating of international taxes (the Cold War, that wasn't all that "cold" here, is a great example, Vietnam, Korea, recently Irak...)this is subject ot another thread (is too long)...3- Finally USA puts their heroes and culture above all the others, and that's how i see it, the movies are a wonderful propaganda, now this don't have any efect on minds with some knowledge, but you will be surprised of it effects in some other people (all in all irrational). That's the principal cause that leads almost all Latin Americans and Brazil too, to despise USA in general, in don't know about other countries, but i think that there're some decent "whys".... now from where i see it, always people with other nationalities will take a more objective point of view of the "others" heroes, it's normal.
Well i don't even have to post it here, and it's to long, but if you read some news papers or view TV you will notice the situation on the rest of America (the one under yours, the "third world", the poors), that situation was caused by a number of factors, being one of the most important the constant rising and opression of the administration of USA on their friends, the powerless FMI, to rise the taxes on the international debt that almost all countries in the world have with them (but most likely ours is the worst situation). Don't take this wrong man, almost all of the following is just moral, but anyway say what you want (the people here will continue to starve to death anyway so...):1- The USA creates the ONU (ok with the comision of other powerful contries but, USA being the real "jugde") creating at the same time a court (international), an administration, a law, and a series of treaties- consecuense- they don't respect the ONU, nor the treaties, nor the Court... every time they have a problem with transgresion of law they judge it themselves, there's no room to discussion... 2- USA is a great empire wich breeds in the creation of war to justify their great army (if i'm not mistaken the greatest area where they spend their money is on that) and in the rising and creating of international taxes (the Cold War, that wasn't all that "cold" here, is a great example, Vietnam, Korea, recently Irak...)this is subject ot another thread (is too long)...3- Finally USA puts their heroes and culture above all the others, and that's how i see it, the movies are a wonderful propaganda, now this don't have any efect on minds with some knowledge, but you will be surprised of it effects in some other people (all in all irrational). That's the principal cause that leads almost all Latin Americans and Brazil too, to despise USA in general, in don't know about other countries, but i think that there're some decent "whys".... now from where i see it, always people with other nationalities will take a more objective point of view of the "others" heroes, it's normal.
Off topic and will derail the thread - this is a history thread about the Wars of Independence - not about why the United States is hated. Just like the earlier post that this is a response to.
Louis VI the Fat
08-12-2005, 14:08
most of the members are gringos or Europeans who know little of the third world, so the result is obvious (with that pride of all those gringos !!!~;)I love hearing a non-western perspective on things. It is refreshing.
Come join us in the Backroom sometime, I'll buy you a beer. ~:cheers:
Sounds like the start of a new thread. What’s the most important event in American history?
Columbus... Oh did you mean US history?
yesdachi
08-12-2005, 17:53
Columbus... Oh did you mean US history?
I didn’t know there was a difference, said the self absorbed American with a giant head who thinks the universe revolves around him, his culture, and way of life. ~D
Red Harvest
08-12-2005, 22:49
Haven't looked at this thread until now. I have to agree with Kraxis about Haiti. It was a very unusual fight and worthy of recognition. I haven't voted in the thread, as I haven't gone back and reviewed the details of most of these...or decided what criteria to use.
I'm surprised the Texas War for Independence didn't make it on the list. No, I don't see it as being one of the bigger ones...just that it gets a lot of press so I figured it would show up. The most significant part about it was that it also had long term consequences for Mexico and the U.S. greatly diminishing Mexican control and in the end costing Mexico all her northern holdings a few years later. The capture of the Mexican dictator, Santa Anna, during the invasion, and the resultant treaty/cessation of hostilities do make it interesting. The East Texas Oil field powered the U.S. war effort in World War II...
I must point out that I didn't vote for Haiti... Quite simply I have abstained from voting.
I just feel that many don't look much beyond their own shores. Haiti is a perfect case of that. How many knows about it? And how many that does actually think it is a great achievement? Well in both cases it is few. For what reason? I don't know... Perhaps a case of Icouldcarelessinitis or Uncivilizedslavescan'tamountomuchulism. For a little fun, add cases of your own. ~D
RabidGibbon
08-13-2005, 00:17
To attempt to answer Kraxis, the rebellion on Haiti(sp) was a remarkable (no, amazing) achivement. However how much impact did it have on the rest of the world?
Although having said that, perhaps the Haitian war for freedom instilled a sense of fear on the American south (of slaves rising up) that started the American civil war? But thats all speculation. I suspect the only answer is the American war of Ind. and well done, they started the fiorst true democracy.
Gregoshi
08-13-2005, 05:36
Off topic and will derail the thread - this is a history thread about the Wars of Independence - not about why the United States is hated. Just like the earlier post that this is a response to.
Redleg is absolutely correct! :thumbsup:
caesar44
08-13-2005, 13:26
Aaaccchhh hero's....
How can one talk about history , if one of 10 words is "hero" ? hero's are for stories and legends , they are not belong to history for one main reason - the definition of the word is an objective one .
Now , I have voted for Haiti , why ? they were hero's !!! ~;)
caesar44
08-13-2005, 13:28
Ups , I meant subjective of course..
To attempt to answer Kraxis, the rebellion on Haiti(sp) was a remarkable (no, amazing) achivement. However how much impact did it have on the rest of the world?
Although having said that, perhaps the Haitian war for freedom instilled a sense of fear on the American south (of slaves rising up) that started the American civil war? But thats all speculation.
It sure is. As I said, I didn't vote for Haiti (it seems some did, but that was before my quest for enlightenment).
But if it is a criteria thatthe war for independence should have some major impact on the world on a whole, then there is no contest as the other colonies could not have such an impact. They were simply too backwater too be able to influence Europe and too disjoined to be able to function properly for any extended period until their had build up their sense of common belonging.
I suspect the only answer is the American war of Ind. and well done, they started the fiorst true democracy.
I guess this should be moved to the Historical Myths thread really. Iceland had a parliament and public votes back in the 11-1200s. Anyone interested in how the rules were or wanted to have their say would come to the annual assembly and have their say, they could even run for the parliament. There was no king and no aristocracy (there was rich people and poor and there was a number of slaves).
Incongruous
08-14-2005, 09:53
I like the way Americans say Brits and other Euros always bash'em, when they do it all the time with films such as the Patriot, and slaps in the face like U571, or Tom Criuses upcoming cracker about how it was really an American who won the battle of Britain.
Or what about the Yanks giving the IRA a few handy hand outs! Oooh, sorry I mean hints on how to be better human beings.
I like the way Americans say Brits and other Euros always bash'em, when they do it all the time with films such as the Patriot, and slaps in the face like U571, or Tom Criuses upcoming cracker about how it was really an American who won the battle of Britain.
Or what about the Yanks giving the IRA a few handy hand outs! Oooh, sorry I mean hints on how to be better human beings.
Please, this is not the place for this... That discussion was taken out of the thread long ago.
So don't respond to this anybody, a locked thread migth be the result.
Gemenii XIII
08-16-2005, 02:03
I dont mean to hit below the Belt, but the Vietnam war was greatest war for independence. These people were relentless. 2 million of them died but they kept on fighting for their country and their own free will to chose their own government. The French colonials couldn't stop them and neither could other nation(s). This proves how commited they were to having an independent vietnam.
yesdachi
08-16-2005, 03:03
I dont mean to hit below the Belt, but the Vietnam war was greatest war for independence. These people were relentless. 2 million of them died but they kept on fighting for their country and their own free will to chose their own government. The French colonials couldn't stop them and neither could other nation(s). This proves how commited they were to having an independent vietnam.
Vietnam was not as much about independance, as it was about communism vs. democracy. The fighting would have been over quickly if the superpowers had not been driving it. Check the link for my opionion. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=880248&postcount=56
Also, Vietnam had nothing to do with the tpic "The Greatest War for Independence (Americas)?"
Soulforged
08-16-2005, 07:13
Vietnam was not as much about independance, as it was about communism vs. democracy. The fighting would have been over quickly if the superpowers had not been driving it. Check the link for my opionion. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=880248&postcount=56
Also, Vietnam had nothing to do with the tpic "The Greatest War for Independence (Americas)?"
Communisn and democracy are not contradictory (see Macpherson about democracy and democracy models). It's best yo say that it was capitalism vs. communism.
yesdachi
08-16-2005, 17:38
Communisn and democracy are not contradictory (see Macpherson about democracy and democracy models). It's best yo say that it was capitalism vs. communism.
Good point, ~:) but to keep things simple I didn’t want to break it down to the semantics of the political types. Besides, labeling, generalizing, and stereotypes are fun. ~D
Gemenii XIII
08-16-2005, 22:56
Good point, ~:) but to keep things simple I didn’t want to break it down to the semantics of the political types. Besides, labeling, generalizing, and stereotypes are fun. ~D
Capitalism and Socialism are societies
Democracy and Communism are governments.
Therefore you cannot compare capitalism vs communism
The war in vietnam was nothing other than a war for independence. The fact that the rebellion led by the Vietnamese was communist is indifferent. Why else wasn't the rebellion crushed by the French colonials to start with. Because, the Vietcong had the popular support of the country. Even when Americans got involved it was still a war of independence for the Vietnamese. Because the vietnamese were not only fighting for communism they were fighting for themselves and the will of the majority of the people who wanted this government. Whereas the americans were fighting for a democratic vietnam which was only supported by a minority group. This wasn't the will of the vietnamese people. And this, again, is evident by the popular support for the Vietcong as opposed to americans. Which is proven by the dedication and sacrifice that was made to win this war, assisted by no other country (in terms of man power). If the vietnamese would have supported a democratic government then I am sure Saigon would have sacrificed just as much as to have their way. In conclusion, the Vietnam war was (as you said) a war of democracy vs communism in the american view. However, first and foremost, it was a war of independence.
Actually the South was indeed in favour of democracy for the most part.
Problem was two things. The rule supported by the US was not exactly democratic, the military deposed president after president, sometimes several within a year. Hardly democratic.
On the other hand the Vietcong preached for democracy, with votes and all that. Too bad for them that they got sidelined by the North when they finally won (got disbanded). Would the Cong have made democracy? I don't think so.
Also the VC never had a majority of the civilians on their side. There were as many civilians that got pushed into communism as there were people who went willingly.
If the VC had a majority of the population it would have been impossible for the Americans or South army to have rallied hundreds of thousands of militias spread out in the country. But they did this, mostly because the Amricans actually helped with providing doctors, farming tools and schools. The view that the Americans bombed all the villages is more than just wrong it is a contradiction of the truth. A lot of villages did get burned, but many mroe were helped, but those were just classified as 'propaganda', which they were to an extent, but they were also true.
Vietnam did have a War of Independence against France, and even Japan. It so bad that the Allies in fact let the Japanese retain their weapons to keep the country under control until enough French troops could come and take over.
But as soon as we begin to talk about the American involvement, then were are talking about insurgency backed by a state that wishes to take over. And neither side in this conflic were good... Poor Vietnamese.
Soulforged
08-18-2005, 05:44
Capitalism and Socialism are societies
Democracy and Communism are governments.
Therefore you cannot compare capitalism vs communism
Communism is the ideal end of socialism. Communism is an economic theory as capitalism. Democracy is by default the best way to rule a society, and as many historians and sociologist have stated it's compatible with communism, even in it's pure formal state, as it's now.
yesdachi
08-18-2005, 14:40
The war in vietnam was nothing other than a war for independence.
However, first and foremost, it was a war of independence.
Sorry Gemini, but I think you are off base here. The war in Vietnam may have started as a struggle for independence but it went into a terribly different direction, with each side being supported by a superpower or two that had their own objectives. It was not north vs. south struggling for their counties freedom, unity, independence, etc. it was communism (oppression and rain clouds) vs. democracy (freedom and sunshine). Vietnam just provided the battlefield for these to behemoths to duke it out.
Kraxis makes some nice points, especially “And neither side in this conflict were good... Poor Vietnamese.” The Vietnamese people are the ones who really had suffer, their country was a mess after it was over.
The Vietnam war was about two superpowers fighting to make sure the other didn’t gain any ground.
Gregoshi
08-19-2005, 04:43
Unless Vietnam has somehow magically transported to the Americas, the Vietnamese war(s) are irrelevant to this topic.
TheSilverKnight
08-19-2005, 14:25
Yes, the Vietnam wars are quite irrelevant to the topic. They don't relate at all in any way, so please keep the topic on the Americas. ~:) Thanks
Gemenii XIII
08-19-2005, 22:04
Sorry Gemini, but I think you are off base here. The war in Vietnam may have started as a struggle for independence but it went into a terribly different direction, with each side being supported by a superpower or two that had their own objectives. It was not north vs. south struggling for their counties freedom, unity, independence, etc. it was communism (oppression and rain clouds) vs. democracy (freedom and sunshine). Vietnam just provided the battlefield for these to behemoths to duke it out.
Kraxis makes some nice points, especially “And neither side in this conflict were good... Poor Vietnamese.” The Vietnamese people are the ones who really had suffer, their country was a mess after it was over.
The Vietnam war was about two superpowers fighting to make sure the other didn’t gain any ground.
The only reason I am off base is because the vietnam war has nothing to do with the Americas. Nothing else. Kraxis said that south vietnam had an unstable democratic government more or less (I dont disagree with this). However, suppose the US never got involved with Vietnam, suppose that North and South Vietnam was fighting for political control independently. Even if aided by western powers (by means of weapons as Hanoi was), South Vietnam would still been conquered by the north vietnamese. Why? because the simple fact is that the democratic side wasn't as supportive of a democratic government as the north was to a communist one. This means that overall, the majority of the population of greater Vietnam wanted a communist government. And this is exactly what happened to south vietnam when the americans abandoned Saigon. Therefore, if the majority is supporting a communist government and the US are batteling for a democratic government supported by a small portion of the total population, it is a war for indepedence. Similar to the Soviet war in Afghanistan.
I apologize for bringing this topic up, I realize that this war has nothing to do with the Americas.
To Soulforged.
I was wrong. It is capitalim vs communism
King of Atlantis
08-25-2005, 01:58
It would have to be American, but the British weren't tyrants as Mel Gibson would like everyone to think. Infact you know that part of the movie (patriot) where the British burn all those colonials in the church, it did happen, except the crime was commited by the Americans.
Im sure that crime happend on more than one occasion....., the british werent evil, but their treatment of the American colonist was in a way. The American Revolution played an enormous impact on the world and it was also the very first of its kind.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-25-2005, 03:45
Im sure that crime happend on more than one occasion....., the british werent evil, but their treatment of the American colonist was in a way. The American Revolution played an enormous impact on the world and it was also the very first of its kind.
As with most (all?) civil wars, nastiness was done by both sides. As a rule, most of the really mean stuff was done on a rebel versus tory militia basis and not by the regulars of either side (there were, of course, exceptions to this). The bushwhacking and raids traveling both directions across Long Island Sound and the guerilla warfare in Georgia and the Carolinas featured numerous harsh incidents -- some of which were undoubtedly purely criminal and mascarading as "combat" versus the "enemy." Again, this is NOT unique to the American Rebellion/Revolution.
In short, civil wars aren't (sorta like "friendly fire").
Seamus
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.