3 ms·
> It doesn't really make sense in that context. The Thirteen Colonies seceded from Great Britain, something not in dispute even in the UK. Great Britain sent tr
by least 4y ago
> It doesn't really make sense in that context. The Thirteen Colonies seceded from Great Britain, something not in dispute even in the UK. Great Britain sent troops into the United States to oppose the secession. But it's not referred to as "the War of British Aggression".
You're making the mistake of assuming that every conflict must follow a strict naming convention when in reality it'd usually be called something different based on who you ask. The annexation of Texas by the United States resulted in what the United States calls the Mexican-American War, while Mexico refers to it as "U.S. Intervention in Mexico." I'd say that the "War of Northern Aggression" would pretty much exclusively used by people that view Southern secession from the United States as legitimate, but that doesn't mean it is used exclusively by your strawmen.
- notahacker 4y agoJust because there isn't a strict naming convention doesn't mean there isn't a longstanding convention in English-speaking countries of giving wars boring names based on the participants or theatre, even when it's absolutely unambiguous that the other side was the belligerent. Picking a ludicrously overblown name like "Northern Aggression" for a failed secession makes no sense in that context, but plenty of sense in Lost Cause victimhood narrative. Which is why it was a name popularised by 1950s segregationists, not the original secessionists who may have rejected the notion that it was a "rebellion" or "civil" war, but talked about wars of "Separation" or "War for Independence" instead.
- lenkite 4y agoWell you can bet the Chinese will be calling the annexation of Taiwan as Chinese Reunification War.
- least 4y ago> Just because there isn't a strict naming convention doesn't mean there isn't a longstanding convention in English-speaking countries of giving wars boring names based on the participants or theatre That is one name that is ascribed to a conflict, but we often have many. The Forgotten War is the Korean War, The Great War is World War 1, The American Civil War had many names. > Picking a ludicrously overblown name like "Northern Aggression" for a failed secession makes no sense in that context, but plenty of sense in Lost Cause victimhood narrative. How is it overblown? It's a descriptive title that is certainly controversial, but if you accept that particular viewpoint, it's simply descriptive. > Which is why it was a name popularised by 1950s segregationists, not the original secessionists who may have rejected the notion that it was a "rebellion" or "civil" war, but talked about wars of "Separation" or "War for Independence" instead. You can certainly find its usage linked to segregationists, but the entire basis for suggesting it wasn't used before the 1950's is that people couldn't find any evidence of the term being used prior to that in their google searches. It not showing up in term searches for archived OCRed newspapers is hardly evidence that it wasn't a term used before then. Regardless, that is beside the point. You're going out of you way to project meaning into it that isn't intrinsically there.
- notahacker 4y ago> How is it overblown? It's a descriptive title that is certainly controversial, but if you accept that particular viewpoint, it's simply descriptive. Suuuure. Nothing remotely overblown about the sole popular name for conflict involving English speakers with "aggression" or similar being that one. Completely normal name for a war with no propaganda value for Lost Cause mythology, and just coincidental its print usage maps perfectly to Southern indignation at the Civil Rights movement.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]