4 ms·

It isn't childish. It's the history of the US. From the very beginning to today. But that's the history of most nations around the world. You might also want t

It isn't childish. It's the history of the US. From the very beginning to today. But that's the history of most nations around the world. You might also want to check out "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler. Then you might want to check out why the oligarchs created the US in the first place. Had nothing to do with freedom or liberty. It was about land and wealth.

duxup 7y ago
"Had nothing to do with freedom or liberty." I have trouble with such a sweeping statement considering the volume of freedoms available and successfully fought for and gained in the US.
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  > I have trouble with such a sweeping statement considering the volume of freedoms available and successfully fought for and gained in the US. You have trouble because you've been brainwashed by endless propaganda. I also used to be troubled as well. Also, my point was that those freedoms weren't why the founders fought for independence. The real reason was land/wealth. The reason for the discontent wasn't "lack of freedom", it was britain forbidding western expansion of the colonies. We wanted land, the british wanted good trade relations with the native americans who supplied them with valuable fur. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 The american colonists were "proud englishmen" enjoying the freedom/liberties of all englishmen for nearly 150 years before the independence war? So why the sudden shift in sentiment? Because of wealth. "Freedom, liberty, etc" are just war propaganda. Just like invading iraq to bring "freedom and democracy" to the iraqis.
  - easytiger 7y ago
    uh oh
  - duxup 7y ago
    The scale of freedoms alone would seem to clearly indicate freedom had plenty to do with the foundation and development. You don't get those freedoms in an oligarchy as you describe it.
    - dntbnmpls 7y ago
      > The scale of freedoms alone would seem to clearly indicate freedom had plenty to do with the foundation and development. The scale of freedom? The freedoms were pretty much "the rights of an englishmen", which the american colonists already had. For 150 years, the american colonists ( especially the elites ) enjoyed the rights of englishmen. The american "freedoms" pretty much stem from the magna carta and lockian/english principles. Nothing new and nothing special. I know, we are told it was "new", "special", "exceptional", "revolutionary", etc. All nations lie to their people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Englishmen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Englishmen > You don't get those freedoms in an oligarchy as you describe it. I know. That's why the founders didn't allow 90%+ of americans to have "freedoms" or the right to vote. It's why slavery existed after the war of "ideals and freedoms", women were property and the poor unlanded whites were 2nd class citizens. The central reason for the american revolution and every war is greed of the oligarchs. That's it. Everything else is just saccharine fake facade to rile up the uneducated masses.
  - hrombach 7y ago
    > The reason for the discontent wasn't "lack of freedom", it was britain forbidding western expansion of the colonies. We wanted land, the british wanted good trade relations with the native americans who supplied them with valuable fur. Dunno, to me that still sounds like "lack of freedom", it's just a matter of how you want to frame it.
  - V-2 7y ago
    You may be correct, but your point could have done without the "you've been brainwashed" slap in the face - rather unbecoming of HN imho
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    You're ignoring all of the other impulses that led to the American Revolution to focus on the only one that supports your argument. Take the Stamp Act. This produced the most ferocious resistance to that date in the colonies, in part because it was a tax increase to support something that most colonists didn't want (they suspected, rather correctly as it turns out, that the British army being stationed in the colonies was primarily a sinecure). But it also fueled suspicion that Britain was pushing other changes that pissed off other groups in the colonies--there was a specific mention of stamp duty for documents in ecclesiastical courts, which didn't exist at the time and were opposed by the majority of colonists. Or duties on diplomas that would hamper the growth of a professional class in the colonies, forcing them to rely on Britain. And then there's the Intolerable Acts. In an utterly misguided response to a terrorist act condemned by the majority of colonists (Boston Tea Party), Britain decided to close the third-largest port in the colonies, abolish its legislature, and force trials to be held back in Britain (effectively abolishing the judiciary as well, at least for royal officials). This overreaction soured many colonists on Britain, as they saw themselves as potentially being next in line; nearly guaranteed imminent revolution, with reconciliation much harder; and ultimately turned a terrorist act into a symbol of patriotism. The proclamation against settling the Ohio Valley may have set the speculators against Britain, but there were many, many other steps that Britain took to turn the colonists away from them.
    - dntbnmpls 7y ago
      > Take the Stamp Act Money? > Britain decided to close the third-largest port in the colonies Money? > Or duties on diplomas Money? > The proclamation against settling the Ohio Valley may have set the speculators against Britain, but there were many, many other steps that Britain took to turn the colonists away from them. Yes. All of them were tied to money. British needed good relations with native americans in order to maintain their lucrative fur trade. Americans wanted native american land. Pretty much every major founder viewed themselves as proud englishmen. Nobody saw themselves as pennsylvanian, virginian, etc. They all referred to themselves as proud englishmen and willing subjects of the british crown. Until the british crown screwed them over money. There has never been a war over ideals. Every war is about wealth. The more a war wraps itself around ideals, the more it was truly about wealth.
easytiger 7y ago
What a dismal, simplified to the point of meaninglessness, POV.

duxup 7y ago

"Had nothing to do with freedom or liberty." I have trouble with such a sweeping statement considering the volume of freedoms available and successfully fought for and gained in the US.

dntbnmpls 7y ago
> I have trouble with such a sweeping statement considering the volume of freedoms available and successfully fought for and gained in the US. You have trouble because you've been brainwashed by endless propaganda. I also used to be troubled as well. Also, my point was that those freedoms weren't why the founders fought for independence. The real reason was land/wealth. The reason for the discontent wasn't "lack of freedom", it was britain forbidding western expansion of the colonies. We wanted land, the british wanted good trade relations with the native americans who supplied them with valuable fur. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 The american colonists were "proud englishmen" enjoying the freedom/liberties of all englishmen for nearly 150 years before the independence war? So why the sudden shift in sentiment? Because of wealth. "Freedom, liberty, etc" are just war propaganda. Just like invading iraq to bring "freedom and democracy" to the iraqis.
- easytiger 7y ago
  uh oh
- duxup 7y ago
  The scale of freedoms alone would seem to clearly indicate freedom had plenty to do with the foundation and development. You don't get those freedoms in an oligarchy as you describe it.
  - dntbnmpls 7y ago
    > The scale of freedoms alone would seem to clearly indicate freedom had plenty to do with the foundation and development. The scale of freedom? The freedoms were pretty much "the rights of an englishmen", which the american colonists already had. For 150 years, the american colonists ( especially the elites ) enjoyed the rights of englishmen. The american "freedoms" pretty much stem from the magna carta and lockian/english principles. Nothing new and nothing special. I know, we are told it was "new", "special", "exceptional", "revolutionary", etc. All nations lie to their people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Englishmen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Englishmen > You don't get those freedoms in an oligarchy as you describe it. I know. That's why the founders didn't allow 90%+ of americans to have "freedoms" or the right to vote. It's why slavery existed after the war of "ideals and freedoms", women were property and the poor unlanded whites were 2nd class citizens. The central reason for the american revolution and every war is greed of the oligarchs. That's it. Everything else is just saccharine fake facade to rile up the uneducated masses.
- hrombach 7y ago
  > The reason for the discontent wasn't "lack of freedom", it was britain forbidding western expansion of the colonies. We wanted land, the british wanted good trade relations with the native americans who supplied them with valuable fur. Dunno, to me that still sounds like "lack of freedom", it's just a matter of how you want to frame it.
- V-2 7y ago
  You may be correct, but your point could have done without the "you've been brainwashed" slap in the face - rather unbecoming of HN imho
- jcranmer 7y ago
  You're ignoring all of the other impulses that led to the American Revolution to focus on the only one that supports your argument. Take the Stamp Act. This produced the most ferocious resistance to that date in the colonies, in part because it was a tax increase to support something that most colonists didn't want (they suspected, rather correctly as it turns out, that the British army being stationed in the colonies was primarily a sinecure). But it also fueled suspicion that Britain was pushing other changes that pissed off other groups in the colonies--there was a specific mention of stamp duty for documents in ecclesiastical courts, which didn't exist at the time and were opposed by the majority of colonists. Or duties on diplomas that would hamper the growth of a professional class in the colonies, forcing them to rely on Britain. And then there's the Intolerable Acts. In an utterly misguided response to a terrorist act condemned by the majority of colonists (Boston Tea Party), Britain decided to close the third-largest port in the colonies, abolish its legislature, and force trials to be held back in Britain (effectively abolishing the judiciary as well, at least for royal officials). This overreaction soured many colonists on Britain, as they saw themselves as potentially being next in line; nearly guaranteed imminent revolution, with reconciliation much harder; and ultimately turned a terrorist act into a symbol of patriotism. The proclamation against settling the Ohio Valley may have set the speculators against Britain, but there were many, many other steps that Britain took to turn the colonists away from them.
  - dntbnmpls 7y ago
    > Take the Stamp Act Money? > Britain decided to close the third-largest port in the colonies Money? > Or duties on diplomas Money? > The proclamation against settling the Ohio Valley may have set the speculators against Britain, but there were many, many other steps that Britain took to turn the colonists away from them. Yes. All of them were tied to money. British needed good relations with native americans in order to maintain their lucrative fur trade. Americans wanted native american land. Pretty much every major founder viewed themselves as proud englishmen. Nobody saw themselves as pennsylvanian, virginian, etc. They all referred to themselves as proud englishmen and willing subjects of the british crown. Until the british crown screwed them over money. There has never been a war over ideals. Every war is about wealth. The more a war wraps itself around ideals, the more it was truly about wealth.

easytiger 7y ago

What a dismal, simplified to the point of meaninglessness, POV.