5 ms·

You don't see how George Washington is relevant to analysis of motivations behind conflicts and revolutions?

by firasd 12y ago

tomp 12y ago
No; probably because I don't know enough about the history of the US (AFAIK, he was one of the founding fathers).
- firasd 12y ago
  Ah ok. Well, the founding fathers did their founding after a pretty momentous revolutionary war as you may know. And the British subjects settled in America weren't doing so badly that they had to rise up in desperation for hope or a future. They wanted political independence and self-determination (in much the same way Palestinians want today, although different factions among Palestinians have varying territorial and other desires.) I agree with you that many of the restless and unhappy masses become the actual front-line fighters in conflicts; I just disagree that providing people with financial and social stability would necessarily avoid a conflict. Sometimes people just won't stand for something.
  - tomp 12y ago
    But wasn't the problem also the fact that US (whatever it was back then) was basically a UK colony, which meant that the UK was basically levying lots of tax and taking whatever they could back to the UK? Also, it's not like the people of the US attacked another country... they just thought that they would do better without a foreign overlord. Probably, if the UK let them go (like they would let Scotland go), there would be no war. Or am I mistaken?
    - firasd 12y ago
      Yeah they were a colony. And that's sort of my point; they weren't hopeless and desperate--in fact my understanding is that the average American (not counting slaves) back then was better off than the average person in England--but they were exploited and subjugated to some extent. And they decided the final fix would be to change the whole political order of things, and to fight a revolution over their desired new order.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      There was zero chance of the UK letting them go, though. Everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence (and anyone associated with them, and on into a pretty wide net) was guaranteed to be executed for treason if the revolution failed. They were getting taxed a lot, but they were still quite well off. George Washington had a huge estate. Most of the founders owned lots of land, and many of them owned lots of people. They were far from desperate, but still risked their lives. Imagine if, say, Bill Gates decided he didn't like giving the US federal government billions in taxes and decided to lead an armed insurrection to make Washington (state) an independent country.
- peterfirefly 12y ago
  He was also an English general who betrayed his nation and his king.
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    He most certainly wasn't. He fought in the colonial militia during the French and Indian war. He held the rank of Colonel, but being a Colonel in a provincial militia is a far cry from even a low-level officer's post in the British Army. He yearned to serve in the British Army but never received a commission. So he went back to his family farm and became over 16 years a wealthy, politically-connected planter, over time coming to share the general colonial opposition to Parliament. When war broke out between the colonies and the homeland, he showed up at the Second Continental Congress in his old militia uniform, and they picked him to lead the army.
    - peterfirefly 12y ago
      You are right and I apologize. I relied on my memory in this case because I, quite frankly, was lazy, hungry, and about to make dinner. I have definitely seen him described as a General before the war, in texts written by Americans, though, which is where my mistake comes from. Damn, I don't like making mistakes.
- TheCoelacanth 12y ago
  I think the point is that the instigators of the American Revolution were anything but poor and hopeless. They were mostly wealthy landowners who would have had plenty of opportunities even without independence from Great Britain.
  - angersock 12y ago
    And yet, how many of the wealthy instigators were the ones shot on the front lines? It's usually those with nothing to lose that get put to that purpose.

You don't see how George Washington is relevant to analysis of motivations behind conflicts and revolutions?

by firasd 12y ago

You don't see how George Washington is relevant to analysis of motivations behind conflicts and revolutions?

tomp 12y ago

No; probably because I don't know enough about the history of the US (AFAIK, he was one of the founding fathers).

firasd 12y ago
Ah ok. Well, the founding fathers did their founding after a pretty momentous revolutionary war as you may know. And the British subjects settled in America weren't doing so badly that they had to rise up in desperation for hope or a future. They wanted political independence and self-determination (in much the same way Palestinians want today, although different factions among Palestinians have varying territorial and other desires.) I agree with you that many of the restless and unhappy masses become the actual front-line fighters in conflicts; I just disagree that providing people with financial and social stability would necessarily avoid a conflict. Sometimes people just won't stand for something.
- tomp 12y ago
  But wasn't the problem also the fact that US (whatever it was back then) was basically a UK colony, which meant that the UK was basically levying lots of tax and taking whatever they could back to the UK? Also, it's not like the people of the US attacked another country... they just thought that they would do better without a foreign overlord. Probably, if the UK let them go (like they would let Scotland go), there would be no war. Or am I mistaken?
  - firasd 12y ago
    Yeah they were a colony. And that's sort of my point; they weren't hopeless and desperate--in fact my understanding is that the average American (not counting slaves) back then was better off than the average person in England--but they were exploited and subjugated to some extent. And they decided the final fix would be to change the whole political order of things, and to fight a revolution over their desired new order.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    There was zero chance of the UK letting them go, though. Everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence (and anyone associated with them, and on into a pretty wide net) was guaranteed to be executed for treason if the revolution failed. They were getting taxed a lot, but they were still quite well off. George Washington had a huge estate. Most of the founders owned lots of land, and many of them owned lots of people. They were far from desperate, but still risked their lives. Imagine if, say, Bill Gates decided he didn't like giving the US federal government billions in taxes and decided to lead an armed insurrection to make Washington (state) an independent country.
peterfirefly 12y ago
He was also an English general who betrayed his nation and his king.
- vinceguidry 12y ago
  He most certainly wasn't. He fought in the colonial militia during the French and Indian war. He held the rank of Colonel, but being a Colonel in a provincial militia is a far cry from even a low-level officer's post in the British Army. He yearned to serve in the British Army but never received a commission. So he went back to his family farm and became over 16 years a wealthy, politically-connected planter, over time coming to share the general colonial opposition to Parliament. When war broke out between the colonies and the homeland, he showed up at the Second Continental Congress in his old militia uniform, and they picked him to lead the army.
  - peterfirefly 12y ago
    You are right and I apologize. I relied on my memory in this case because I, quite frankly, was lazy, hungry, and about to make dinner. I have definitely seen him described as a General before the war, in texts written by Americans, though, which is where my mistake comes from. Damn, I don't like making mistakes.
TheCoelacanth 12y ago
I think the point is that the instigators of the American Revolution were anything but poor and hopeless. They were mostly wealthy landowners who would have had plenty of opportunities even without independence from Great Britain.
- angersock 12y ago
  And yet, how many of the wealthy instigators were the ones shot on the front lines? It's usually those with nothing to lose that get put to that purpose.