3 ms·

It seemed pretty obvious to me when I wrote the original content that I was referring to the American revolution as the 'holding Britain accountable'.

• joshuamorton 6y ago
  Perhaps, but I don't think that they were punished. The difference I'm getting at here is subtle, but it's the difference between declaring independence and replacing the existing government. Both happen through revolution of some form, but one breaks away from a government you dislike. THat's not punitive. One replaces it and usually punishes the old one. Declaring independence from a distant seat of government is vastly different and vastly easier than trying to overthrow the local government.
  • ColanR 6y ago
    "held accountable != "punished" or "punative". I'm not talking about punishment or punative action. I'm talking about accountability, where being 'held accountable' could be a synonym for 'held responsible'. In this case, the way I used the phrase, Britain was 'held responsible' by simply being told to 'go away'.
    • joshuamorton 6y ago
      But being "held responsible" and being "held accountable" are very different. Holding someone responsible means to blame them. Holding someone accountable means giving them consequences. Many people blame the government for all sorts of things. Only a very small number of those things is the government ever held accountable for. I agree that many people blamed the British Government for their problems, indeed that was the impetus for the revolution, but accountability of the British government was limited to none.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • ColanR 6y ago
        you: Holding someone accountable means giving them consequences. you: Britain as an entity certainly faced consequences from US independence me: The 'holding accountable' was the revocation of Britain's authority over the colonies. Glad we agree.