4 ms·
That's a pretty one-sided description of the War of 1812. The whole thing was a bit of a fiasco and an attempted land-grab of territories controlled by Native A
by naravara 3y ago
That's a pretty one-sided description of the War of 1812. The whole thing was a bit of a fiasco and an attempted land-grab of territories controlled by Native American nations allied to the British by hawkish Senators from border states who wanted to make a name for themselves by advocating for it. The war ended with the British agreeing to status quo ante-bellum, even though America started the war. The general upshot is just that the British-allied Native Americans were, by treaty, supposed to have their territorial integrity respected but the British didn't think it was worth the hassle to enforce those provisions so those Native Americans all got pushed aside.
It doesn't really have clear "winners" or "losers." Really more like Britain getting stung by a bee while it was in the middle of something (War with France) and finding that rather inconvenient, but successfully fending off the bee's (America's) attempt to take its house.
- jrochkind1 3y agoWell, what you describe does actually have clear winners and losers -- just not between the US vs GB. The settlers are the winners, and the natives are the losers. I love mandatory glorification of this on my license plate. Advertising for a casino is just icing on the cake.
- naravara 3y ago> Well, what you describe does actually have clear winners and losers -- just not between the US vs GB. The settlers are the winners, and the natives are the losers. True. That is often disregarded in how we talk about nation-state competition.