• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • Check out Tickling.com - the most innovative tickling site of the year.
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

History & a few thoughts...

Status
Not open for further replies.

qjakal

1st Level Indigo Feather
Joined
Apr 17, 2001
Messages
6,060
Points
0
THE PRICE OF FREEDOM


Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners: men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton. At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months. John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.

Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall and straight, and unwavering, they pledged: "For the support of the declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."

They gave you and me a free and independent America. The history books told you a lot of what happened in the Revolutionary War. We didn't fight just the British. We were British subjects at that time and we fought our own government!

Some of us take these liberties so much for granted, but we shouldn't. So take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.

Remember: Freedom is never free! I hope you show your support by sharing this with as many people as you can. It's time we get the word out that Patriotism is NOT a sin, and the Fourth of July has more to it than beer, picnics, and baseball games.

~Author Unknown~
smileyhat.gif
 
Amen 🙂

Good call. God bless the founding fathers....who created the most amazing system of government ever, and still exists today. 🙂 Real heroes, in my opinion.
 
Thank you so much for posting this, Q. It's refreshing to see this out in the open. They don't teach nearly enough about the American Revolution in schools, pretty much just putting a patriotic gloss over the whole thing.

It's very easy to either stand behind our country or slam it now that the safegaurds are all in place. But the men and women who first took up the call had no such protection at the time. They were people who believed in their ideals so strongly that they were willing to pay the price for a freedom few of them would live to see.

😎
 
Right Stuff...

It's interesting to look at the men behind the "actions" that we're all so comfortable and complacent towards...I'd like to think that we have the same strength and determination present in the nation even today..
you.gif
(stole Jeffs gif..lol...nyuk nyuk)
 
It's a pretty good read.......

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
 
Awesome document...

A quick read shows that "taxation without representation" is just one of MANY issues raised...and of course "God" is mentioned a bit also.....overall it has held up brilliantly as a symbol of a free people pushed beyond their patience. Thanks Ven!
 
I learn something every day. Many brave people gave up alot in the battle for freedom and liberty. I just hope i live up to the sacrifices made, and never take it for granted.
 
More History and thoughts......

Seeing as you are indulging in a spot of Brit bashing ,let Standing Bear of the Poncas add a bit more to the july 4 story.......


" You have driven me from the east to this place, and i have been here two thousand years or more....my friends, if you took me away from this land it would be very hard for me . I wish to die in this land. Iwish to be an old man here... I have not wished to give even a part of it to the Great Father. Though he were to give me a million dollars I would not give him this land ... When people want to slaughter cattle they drive them along untill they get them to a corral, and then they slaughter them. So it was with us... My children have been exterminated; my brother has been killed"


So come folks lets not get too pious and sanctamonious about the evil British Empire.
 
Like the piece said, we weren't just fighting the British, we WERE the British. So I'll consider Standing Bear's words as more testimony to the Empire's evil.
 
Umm...

Standing Bear mentions a "million dollars?"...I don't think so bub...it wouldn't be the type of phrase that would come to mind in that time period...I think it's more like BS Bear...and why do you always bring up the Native Americans red? Do we throw the Indian and Irish problems at your posts? One persons wrongs don't absolve another...get another answer, that ones stale at best.
 
Re: More History and thoughts......

red indian said:
So come folks lets not get too pious and sanctamonious about the evil British Empire.

Red, you're my favorite Limey, ya know?? But, c'mon!

Being proud of a move toward independence and self reliance is not so much Brit bashing as it is saying, "Wow, we sure made a good move for the goal we wanted." Perhaps a sentiment you can't appreciate since it's your land our forefathers left. *shrug*

Don't take it personally love...the fued is long dead! 😛
Love ya honey, but As EQ pointed out....The folks who committed those atrocities to the folks who make up a good bit of what we each have running through our current veins were more British than they were "American."

As far as the Native Americans...
Any land, including your own, where there are conquering "tribes," is going to have loss of native people. That's the way "migration" tends to work.

OK, now that I've fully irked you....BRING IT ON!! *giggle*

Joby
 
Are we talking about the same thread Q???

Have you not read any of the posts above mine? I am quite happy for anyone to set up a thread having a go at the Brits (which this thread clearly is) its fine by me, I like an argument, but why are you so suprised if i have a go back? my post does not ask for any wrongs to be absolved, I am simply pointing out that if you allow a thread critising the tyrany of the British Empire (wich you all seem quite cool with) I reserve the right to point out your own short comings. Your opening piece goes to great lengths to point out all the faults of British rule which led to the declaration of independance, and i have no particular argument with most of it, but what irritates is all this talk of freedom, democracy and liberty which the founding fathers so nobley sought for you, but which they chose not to bestow upon the indigenous population ,who for the next 100 years or so after idependance were mercilessly robbed, cheated and massacred to virtual extinction. Its also worth mentioning that this genocide became enshrined in American law, it was called "manifest destiny" which meant that it was gods will that the american indian should be ethnically cleansed from their own country. So was all this a fair price for your freedom? I dont think so bub.
 
on the other hand...

Glurge: The signers of the Declaration of Independence paid a heavy price for putting their names to that document.

Origins: A better opening question for this piece might be: "Have you ever wondered why history is so often transformed into glurge?" Why does an account of honorable men of exemplary moral courage who risked life and limb for a higher principle need to be transformed into a tale full of exaggerations, distortions, and fabrications? What purpose is served when the admirable qualities of these men are undermined by wrapping their deeds in a layer of fiction? Apocryphal stories about a young George Washington's admitting to chopping down a cherry tree or a youthful Abraham Lincoln's walking sixteen miles to repay a ten-cent debt are fine inspirational stories to impress upon children the importance of values such as honesty and responsibility, but they're not tales to present to mature adults as the literal truth. As adults we're supposed to be able to appreciate that human beings are complex creatures motivated by a variety of (often conflicting) wants and desires; we don't need to be spoon-fed reductio ad glurgum history rewritten in black and white, in which all characters are indisputably heroes or villains, their motives provably pure or base, their actions unambiguously right or wrong.

The main point of this glurge is to impress upon us that the men who signed the Declaration of Independence were relatively well-educated and wealthy men who were also well aware they had much to lose by putting their names to that document, yet after much careful consideration and thought they signed it anyway, "knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured" (although the article omits mentioning that support for independence was far from unanimous, that some of the colonies voted against adopting the Declaration of Independence, and some of the delegates didn't affix their signatures to the document until several years later). The signers were courageous men who risked everything in the service of what they perceived to be a common good, and for that they are genuinely worthy of honor, respect, and admiration. Unfortunately, this article attempts to commemorate them with a train of glurge that jumps the track of truth at the very beginning and finally pulls into station bearing a simplified version of history in which all the incongruities that get in the way of a good story are glossed over. (We're still puzzling over exactly which history books "never told us a lot about what happened in the Revolutionary War," and if any history books failed to stress the obvious point that "we were British subjects at that time and we fought our own government," it was probably because they reasonably assumed their readers could infer as much from the constant repetition of words such as "revolution" and "independence.")

One of the major flaws in this glurge is that the concept of "risk" has been confused with the concept of "sacrifice," as exemplified by the title: "The Price They Paid." The price who paid? The implication of the article is that many of the Declaration's signers were killed, injured, or tortured; suffered serious illness due to mistreatment; or were stripped of their wealth and possessions for having dared to put their names on that famous document. The truth is that only one man, Richard Stockton, came to harm at the hands of the British as a direct result of his having signed the Declaration of Independence, and he isn't even mentioned here. The omission of anything having to do with Stockton is probably deliberate: After he was "dragged from his bed by night" by royalists and imprisoned in New York, he repudiated the Declaration of Independence and swore allegiance to Great Britain, thereby becoming the only one of the signers to violate the promise that appeared just above their signatures, the pledge to support the Declaration and each other with "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." Stockton was eventually released by the British after he recanted, although the poor treatment he received during his captivity likely shortened his life.

The signers certainly believed that "the penalty would be death if they were captured," but that didn't prove to be the case. Several signers were captured by the British during the Revolutionary War, and all of them were released alive by the end of the war. Certainly they suffered the ill treatment often afforded to prisoners of war, but they were not tortured, nor is there any evidence that they were treated more harshly than other wartime prisoners who were not also signatories to the Declaration. Some signers were killed or injured because they took an active part in fighting the war for independence, some of them lost their wealth or their property because they used their assets to support the revolutionary cause, and some of them suffered losses simply because they (or their property) got in the way of a war that was being waged on American soil, but all of this was the result of the fortunes of war, not of their having signed a piece of paper. George Walton, a colonel in the revolutionary army, would have been taken prisoner at Battle of Savannah whether or not he signed the Declaration of Independence. The ships that Carter Braxton used to aid the revolutionary cause would have been sunk by the British whether or not he signed the Declaration of Independence. Property was often seized or destroyed as part of the spoils of war, and many men who did not sign the Declaration of Independence saw their homes ransacked. Yet most of the signers' homes were not looted at all, even though British troops had ample opportunity to do so.

None of this is to say that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were any less courageous because they suffered fates no worse than others who did not sign. They did take a huge risk in daring to put their names on a document that repudiated their government, and they had every reason to believe at the time that they might well be hanged for having done so. But "risk" and "sacrifice" are not the same thing, and it cheapens the latter to equate it with the former. Would any of us dare to suggest to those who have seen their children and spouses killed during military service that the fortunate servicemen who made it home safely "sacrificed" just as much as their sons and husbands?

The most disturbing concept offered here is the one most inimical to what America supposedly stands for: the notion that those of wealth and privilege have more to give up than the common man and are therefore more noble for risking it all. To paraphrase some of our notable patriots, we're all created equal, and we all have but one life to give. Did the farmer of modest means who lost his home and barn make any less of a sacrifice than the well-off man who lost a plantation? Many men other than the fifty-six signers Declaration of Independence -- some famous and most not -- risked and sacrificed much to support the revolutionary cause. What about them? If the most admirable aspect of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was that they were well-educated and wealthy men who risked their lives and property to "fight their own government" because they felt it too restrictive of their liberties, should we not honor the leaders of the Confederacy just as highly?

So yes, "the Fourth of July has more to it than beer, picnics, and baseball games," but that date would also have been long since forgotten were it not for the efforts of many more than the fifty-six men who dared to sign a treasonous document. We suspect that if they truly believed the words on the parchment they signed, they'd be rather embarrassed to find themselves the subjects of red, white and blue glurge.

The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/glurge/declare.htm
 
Perhaps..

you havdn't noticed, but the focus wasn't really on the British regime, but rather the creation of a new nation. BUT, since ya want to get down and dirty about it, here's an article for you to chew on...there's hundreds more like it if you want to really have a go about this...just lemme know..

THE GREAT STARVATION
AND BRITISH IMPERIALISM IN IRELAND
by Seamus Metress
University of Toledo

Jan. 10, 1996

In recent months there has been a great deal of discussion about what to call the tragedy that accompanied the failure of the potato crop in Ireland between 1845-50. Our nomenclature today can be an important part of educating the public about what really happened during those awful years. In this context let us consider the nature of what I would prefer to call the "Great Starvation".

One hundred fifty years ago in the late summer of 1845 one of the greatest human ecological disasters in the history of the world began in Ireland. A fungus from North America established itself in Ireland and commenced to destroy the potato crop. When the fungus had run its course at least 1 1/1 million, possibly as many as 2 million, Irish had died and another 1 1/2 million had emigrated. No one can fully capture in words the magnitude or the intensity of the suffering and hardship endured by the Irish people from 1845-1850.

The potato failure of the mid to late 1840's has been variably referred to as "The Great Hunger","The Great Famine" and "The Great Starvation." One's choice of words to describe this colossal human tragedy is often determined by political ideology or personal agenda. Irish landowners referred to the time period as that of "The Great Hunger." Most of these landowners were absentee and did not experience first hand the ravages of the potato blight. They, unlike their tenants, were not dependent on the potato for their survival. While potatoes rotted in the fields, landowners continued to eat a varied diet.

The British call it "The Great Famine." The scarcity of food was blamed on the weather, the potato fungus and, perhaps, most of all on the Malthusian notion of overpopulation. The Irish had overbred and there wasn't enough food to feed them all given the crop failure. However, as Frank O'Connor once observed, "Famine is a useful word when you do not wish to use words like 'genocide' and 'extermination.'"

These latter terms are philosophically embodied in "The Great Starvation," which is a more realistic way to refer to the time period when Irish peasants starved in the midst of plenty, Wheat, oats, barley, butter, eggs, beef and pork were exported from Ireland in large quantities during the so-called "famine." In fact, eight ships left Ireland daily carrying these many foodstuffs. Starvation among the peasants is blamed on a colonial system that made them dependent on the potato in the first place. Racist insensitivity toward the plight of the starving masses also played a major role in the death and large-scale emigration which marked this time. The British failed to take swift and comprehensive action in the force of Ireland's disaster.

In 1861 in The Last Conquest of Ireland, John Mitchel wrote: "The Almighty indeed sent the potato blight but the English created the famine," Mitchell further observed that "a million and half men, women and children were carefully, prudently and peacefully slain by the English government. The died of hunger in the midst of abundance which their own hands created."

Such sentiment expressed by an Irishman who witnessed the horrors inflicted upon his countrymen will always linger, refuting revisionist attempts to obscure reality.

In recent years there has been an effort among Tory revisionists to soften the trauma of the period and downplay the role of the British. This is especially evident in the tendency to reduce the estimates of the number of deaths related to the starvation. Most of these apologists have suggested there were much less than a million deaths, while some estimates go as low as 250,000. Even these incorrect estimates are appalling given that they occurred only a short distance from the heart of the most powerful and wealthy empire the world has ever known. We suppose that such an approach is an attempt to lessen the blame that should be placed upon the British or insome sense to veil the magnitude of the tragedy.

These same apologist feel that there was nothing that any government could have done to ameliorate the situation. The poor British tried, but were simply overwhelmed by the logistics of the operation. In their view the starvation was the inevitable outcome of demography and the prevalent economic theory of the day.

It would appear that one of the major purposes of Irish revisionism is to undermine the basis of Irish nationalism and leave Ireland without heroes or historical memory. It also plays down the British responsibility for the catastrophic aspects of the Irish experience. Though they alternately whimper or crow about their quest for detached truth, Anglo-Irish revisionists attempt to present sociopolitical propaganda under the guise of scholarly writing. They choose to forget that British rule in Ireland was guided by the rope and the bayonet.

British apologists would do well to ponder the words of the great British writer William Makepiece Thackeray who characterized British colonialism in Ireland as follows: "...It is a frigthful document against ourselves...one of the most melancholy stories in the whole world of insolence, rapine, brutal, endless slaughter and persecution on the part of the English master,...There is no crime ever invented by eastern or western barbarians, no torture or Roman persecution or Spanish Inquisition, no tyranny of Nero or Alva but can be matched in the history of England in Ireland."

It is time for us to stop using the euphemism "Irish potato famine" for two reasons. First, it is wrong because there was no shortage of food in Ireland. Secondly, it was not simply an "Irish famine" but a starvation based on systematic British exploitation of the Irish people, inaction in the face of the potato crop failure, and a vindictive, racist attitude toward the Irish.

Q again...he actually goes on a few more pages, but I think you get the gist of it....need we go on with this? The British "Empire" has a LOT more length and breadth of history than our relatively new nation....
 
The Professor overstates the case. The British colonialists were never racists. They treated everyone who wasn't British, regardless of race, as a Native.

Speaking of indians, they behaved better in India than in Ireland. Go figure.

Strelnikov
 
Brit bashing!!

:devil:

Time for me to put my head over the parapit and have it shot at.

Being, as i am, from England, a country were most of your ancesters are from, I think it only fair to make a coment on all this anti British posting thats gone before.
Firstly i thought that we were all supposed to friends after what happened on 9/11, what short memorys you all have!
Secoudly, some of you refer to democracy, is this the same democracy that allows a man to win an election to be, as he sees it unofical Presedent of the world,while polling less votes than his opponent??
Lastly the thread is titled History&a few thoughts, well lets not forget where that history would take you if you all traced your familey trees back far enough!!.

I mean to cause no offence to any one with this post but I thought it was about time that we had a little balance to the debate and i would encoridge my fellow Brits to join in as well.


:devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:
 
Well red, and red, and any other redcoats out there... Independence Day here isn't about Brit bashing any more than Easter Sunday is a slam against the Jewish. It's just a party. We don't celebrate not being British, we celebrate being us, which is every nationality on earth. So you can skip the "debate," that's not what this thread started out to be, but a tribute to the people who gave us the reason to celebrate.

People jumped on red indian's response because red just seems to get bummed out whenever he sees Americans being happy. Frankly I'm surprised he even wants to tickle any of us.😛
 
evilqueen said:
People jumped on red indian's response because red just seems to get bummed out whenever he sees Americans being happy. Frankly I'm surprised he even wants to tickle any of us.😛

EQ, having been the first, or maybe second to jump on Red for his curmudeonly attitude, I can be the first to say that at least after our latest chat, he gets the intent of the thread even if he didn't like the words...lol He loves to debate...even if he has to create one. Five marks against him for not using tact. :sowrong:

I PERSONALLY think he decided to American-bash because that's what "your old uncle does from the comfort of his easy chair." 😛 hehe

That and well,.....he's hoping to add to the tickle debt his back owes to my wiggling fingers~!
Correct me if Im wrong, Baby? 😉
Joby
:devil:
 
Re: Right Stuff...

qjakal said:
It's interesting to look at the men behind the "actions" that we're all so comfortable and complacent towards...I'd like to think that we have the same strength and determination present in the nation even today..
you.gif
(stole Jeffs gif..lol...nyuk nyuk)


Hey, you gotta have faith...there's at least a few of us patriots left. 🙂 My belief is that America is the only nation in the world that is primary metaphysical - that is, it's basis is not the geo-political might it wields (though it is the strongest concentration of such in human history) but rather in the dream that lives on inside it's adherents. The USA is just the physical manifestation of a very powerful and noble dream, something truly unique and, I believe, unquenchable.
As for the Britbashing...it's almost unsporting. I mean, they've had several hundred years to forge a world spanning empire through means universally regarded as atrocities in modern judgement. The Black Hole of Calcutta, the Boer War, the French and Indian war, the Irish Famine, the Scramble for Africa, and let's not forget that these are the people that drew up the borders in the Mideast that are causing such problems today. On the other hand, a lot of good things have come out of Britain. America, for example. 🙂
Anyway, as heavy as my distaste is for the British state (I'm Irish by descent, after all, and have actually lost relatives to their prison system), one must remember that the actions of the past cannot be judged by the standards of the present. What they did was not wrong under the moral standards of the time. The current British would not do anything similar, I'm sure.
 
Wow, for a bunch of ticklers, you guys get real serious real quick!

Oh, well. More evidence that my decision to join the American Communist Party was a good idea after all......
 
to red devil, and oddjob

first red devil; my ancestors are dutch, romanian, french, and german, on my mothers side. and scotch, irish on my fathers side.
so no fish and chips in my blood. not all americans came from england. more came from spain, portugal, france, holand, germany, russia, etc. we do owe england a debt of thanks though, for messing up so baddly that america was spawned!
in englands defense. yes they did back us in the gulf war(hell thatcher goaded bush to action) and now in the "war on terrorism".
i got tears in my eyes when at the changing of the guard cerimony on 9/12(?)when the band played the "star spangled banner" instead of the usual "god save the queen". thank you brits for that!
oddjob. i REALLY hope you were kidding about being a communist. they are the antithisis of america. they are juxtiposed to everything america stands for. please tell me you were joking around?!
 
Guard change, Communism, and so forth...

A) The Changing of the Guard ceremony with the Star Spangled Banner was one of the most moving moments of my life, and I don't care how inured one is to the nationalism bug, no American could watch that and not be moved. Deepest thanks to the UK for that one - a true show of solidarity, especially considering just how long that particular tradition has gone on with absolutly no variance.

B) The American Communist Party? They are hardly the antithesis of all that is American, whatever the hardliners may have told us over the years. They are just one more representation of the beauty that is this country, and the fact that we can have an American Communist Party speaks volumes about the degree of freedom we enjoy. Hell, my Libertarian party isn't exactly mainstream either. So let's raise a cold one in honour of freedom of speech 🙂
 
Gee ...

I find it quite interesting the way these posts tend to evolve and it is always interesting to skip over the posts and read the last one to try and figure out what the original post was.

Just to add to the confusion, a few comments:

Being the compassionate creatures that we are, there is only one thing that drives us forward as a species and this is technology. Those who have it "advance" (=dominate, conquer, dictate) and those who don't can only hope that they can survive long enough for those advancing to develop a sense of guilt/compassion or be so far off in the middle of the desert that nobody cares about them. This started long before there was a Britain or America and it will go on long after these two nations cease to exist, provided of course some alien race that we don't yet officially know about doesn't come and "advance" right over us first.

The poor Indians, the poor Irish, and all of the other "poor" folks of the world suffered only because they failed to keep up technologically and happened to get in the way of someone who didn't. It is still happening today and will continue and if you want to see it in color and moving pictures, turn on the news and watch those Israeli tanks and attack helicopters take out those "poor" Palestinians. Merkava beats rock. Every time.

Unless our species suddenly mutates into a lot of pacifistic buddhist monks this is life as we will know it, wrong or right. And history is written by the winner.

It is our good fortune to live in countries where we can freely express our opinions and we should all be thankful that it is so. Some countries are great and others are small, rainy islands in the middle of the ocean but each has its advantages and disadvantages. (Apologies to the British, couldn't resist 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
What's New

2/5/2025
See some spam on the forum? Report it with the button on the posts lower left. We appreciate it!
Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top