7 ms·
> By 1775, however, sporadic rioting and violence in and around taverns transitioned into outright war when a group of ‘minute men’ gathered at the Buckman Tave
by Footkerchief 6y ago
> By 1775, however, sporadic rioting and violence in and around taverns transitioned into outright war when a group of ‘minute men’ gathered at the Buckman Tavern in Lexington, Massachusetts on 19 April 1775, just before murdering more than 70 British troops.
Murder of the British is a strange take on the events of Lexington and Concord. The author appears to be scraping.
Is the assertion that the taverns caused public life to take a different course than it would have otherwise, or just that they were the place where public life occurred?
- floren 6y agoHe has some, ah, unique takes scattered throughout: > American forces – well, the French and Spanish forces, along with the sputtering Americans – managed to win the American Revolution in 1783. Make no mistake, the French forces were key, but to lay the victory at the feet of the Spanish ahead of the Americans throws the whole piece into question.
- vmception 6y agowait till you learn how the same stories are told in different countries. its different everywhere.
- FooBarBizBazz 6y ago...like when you see German museums talking over and over about the "period of migration". First time I saw that it took me a while to understand what they were saying... "Oh, that's what the Anglosphere calls //the barbarian invasions//". (...or, I think every country has a statue of its native son who invented the television. Some are people I'd never heard of.)
- vMPQonVtAjLWmr 6y agoThe naming has nothing to do with Germany but is a common term describing migratory movements that where in part invasions into the Roman Empire, no all of those migrations into Roman territory where violent though. That invasion connotation seems to have carried over into present time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bigbubba 6y agoWith the Spanish getting a mention, it seems odd that the Germans/Hessians don't. They were very nearly as numerous as soldiers from the British Army and were more numerous than Loyalist american troops.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoBy 1780 it was a matter of when and not if. The American people had been so thoroughly brutalized by the British at that point that there was certainly going to be ongoing violence as long as there were British soldiers around to shoot at. So then the British options are genocide or wash their hands of it. And the Bible says you're not supposed to commit genocide against other Christians let alone people who might be British subjects (also you need them alive to work to pay taxes and the population needs to exist as a hedge against French influence) so since that option isn't really on the table the question at that point is at what point do the British wash their hands of it.
- uCantCauseUCant 6y agoCant treat them like the irish, if the island is to far away..
- cafard 6y agoOn Virginia Avenue NW in Washington, DC, there is a statue of one Galvez, who led Spanish forces in the Mississippi Valley area, fighting against the British. But that was a long way from the main theatre of operations.
- golemotron 6y ago> As is still so often the case when white, powerful men felt threatened, they banded together to create, and separate, the ‘other’. This was gratuitous too. Out-group formation happens across all cultures regardless of ethnicity or sex.
- gabereiser 6y agoThis even online where sex and ethnicity have no value but where topic groups or online clique’s are formed.
- NoImmatureAdHom 6y agoThe author is very obviously just a racist. He can hardly be blamed, it's necessary for success in his field. Perhaps we should cancel him anyway.
- jackfoxy 6y ago> As is still so often the case when white, powerful men felt threatened, they banded together to create, and separate, the other. What, this is a behavior specific to white, powerful men? What went down in and around Lexington and Concord was a more serious crime than murder, it was an act of rebellion. The author appears committed to a particular affect which seems out of context with the history he presents.
- rayiner 6y agoIt’s not. In Bangladesh, we precisely identify the town or village ethnic Bangladeshis come from, but have a single word to refer to all non-Bangladeshis (“bideshi,” meaning “foreigner”). The article reads like the author wrote it, and then sprinkled in “white men” randomly wherever it fit grammatically. Maybe it helped get the thing published.
- codyb 6y agoI once described the caste system as “racism invented by people who look alike” and my girlfriend from Madya Pradesh (Central Indian Province) thought that was very apt. Humans are great, until you let them form groups, once that happens you’ll get tribalism and prejudice almost every time as far as I can tell. Even sports’ fans will beat eachother up sometimes.
- scarmig 6y agoI'm increasingly hearing the idea (from Hindu nationalists?) that the caste system was the invention of the British, not anything indigenous. If anyone's in the know, I'd be curious to hear what's broadly accepted among historians nowadays.
- AlotOfReading 6y agoThis isn't my area, but my understanding is that like most things related to history (especially Indian history), it's complicated. There are a lot of very old antecedents, but the modern caste system probably "originated" with the later Mughals. The British Raj took those scattered, vaguely related systems and codified them into what we recognize today.
- exabrial 6y agoAgree. Remember the British were already under order to raid the towns for supplies ('powder and ball'). In Lexington, the militia had made a show of force, following which gunfire was exchanged, and the British officers authorized a "huzzah" in celebration of the death of several militia members. Quite a stretch to call resisting an army under orders to seize munitions by force "murder" per say, this was a clear act of self defense.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoEven if you don't side with the militia, by any reasonably modern code of ethics and rules of engagement "resisting a uniformed army by force" is completely and totally fair game. Armies exist to project state violence. Sometimes people take them up on the offer.
- pjc50 6y agoI'd be interested to see if anyone applied this argument to Al-Quaeida in Iraq against coalition forces.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago> Murder of the British is a strange take on the events of Lexington and Concord. The outbreak of the American Revolution in 1775 can fairly be called an act of violence. The American colonies in the early days of the conflict were pretty evenly split between loyalists and revolutionaries. The latter ultimately won the day in large part by burning down loyalists’ houses or tarring and feathering them, sending some of the loyalists into exile in Canada or the Caribbean and encouraging others to stay low lest they be attacked, too. These facts don’t get talked about much in the American school system, because like in most countries the public school system seeks to perpetuate a national mythology for the sake of civic unity. However, revolutions anywhere in the world tend to initially play out as a civil war of sorts among the country’s own people, and the American Revolution was no exception.
- exabrial 6y agoThey were presented in my education, though mine wasn't a public education.
- bobthepanda 6y agoThey were presented in mine, though New York being the center of Loyalist America probably had something to do with it.
- epicureanideal 6y agoInteresting! I wonder how it has influenced political parties etc. to the present?
- bobthepanda 6y agoI don't think it has influenced political parties per se, because New York has had so much immigration that descendants of the original colonial population is a negligible percentage. (That, and many Loyalists fled to other British colonies to escape persecution.) Where this shows up is maybe general political philosophy. New York has a strong tradition of concentrated government, with Alexander Hamilton behind proposals for a US Senate with lifetime appointment and a central bank. And the state executive is unusually strong and the most celebrated figures in state government, elected or otherwise, are known for wielding their powers in nearly dictatorial ways. (Andrew Cuomo is currently trying to emulate this, invoking the images of former members of government like Robert Moses and Nelson Rockefeller. And yes, that Rockefeller.)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]