ExRx.net

I'm just wondering since I'm feeling all patriotic, and I don't have any non americans to talk at the moment, does the rest of the world (particularly Britain) study the American revolution? If so, how is it portrayed in the rest of the world? Just sorta curious.

I learned the american revolution from that movie with mel gibson.

My wife (Canadian) grew up with the attitude that the American revolutionaries were a gang of thugs, very much the bad guys in the story. I, of course, have set her straight.

I think a truly impartial historian would write a story somewhere between that and the one-sided version that I learned in school.

USA! USA!

I don't know Doc. I kind of like the idea that my founding fathers were a gang of thugs. Hell, a gang of thugs would be preferrable to the outright criminal syndicate we had in Washington the last 20 some odd years.

Agreed. Bring on the thugs!

I don't remember being taught about the Amerivan Revolution at school here in England, which is kind of strange really when you consider the involvement of the British Empire in the story.

But then the British Empire was involved in so many countries for so many years there's only so much that can be taught in school in a few years. WWII was the big one, then WWI, Partition in India, Australia and the penal colonies, Suez, Iraq, the Boer Wars, i could go on and on.

Well, I think the "gang of thugs" may have arrived here in our time., especially if you listen to how MSNBC and CNN describe the Tea Parties. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not in love with Fox news either, but the tea parties are mainly people that actually care and want their elected representatives to listen and be a voice for THEM, the people. It's not a political party, and in fact it's quite varied. Dems and Independents make up close to half of it.
As to the UK understanding, very interresting. We have two UK amphib ships in town here, and I was hobnobbing with some Royal Marines and Royal Navy types over at the local VFW the other night, and their take on it was the "thug thing", Especially Adams and Revere up in Boston. They were at war with the French and others at the time, and couldn't devote much to our "feeble" attempt to break loose, and believe that it was the politics of Ben Franklin, over in France that enticed the French to come over (LaFayette) to kind of trap and box the English in. Their view was that the French actually forced submission for us.
And yes, bring on the thugs.
Tim

I could see the view of a gang of thugs for sure. But the reason for the people in the early Americas being so pissed off at Britain makes sense to me as well. The good ole taxation without representation line of thinking. Even if at the time, we had representation over in Britain's parliament (or whichever governing body decides their taxes, not entirely sure), I doubt it would have made much difference. The same outcome would probably have taken place. I'm inclined to agree with Jungledoc, but a history class being impartial?

Next I'm gonna hear good ole Abe Lincoln is portrayed in the same light .

It's funny how much Americans and French have never really gotten along, simply because we do owe them for helping us defeat the British, as much as we owe India and all the other countries Britain was fighting at the time!

That's the funny thing...I always thought Mel was Australian too?

Winston Churchill was half-American. USA! USA!

And you Chamberlin appeasers tossed him after he kicked Nazi butt. He and Patton should have been allowed to keep going and attack the Russians.

P.s. I actually don't know much history, but I love to enter frays ill-armed.

This seems to be a common theme with your posts.

This has happened a ton throughout human history. Most notably that I can remember was when I did a research paper on the Punic wars between Rome and Carthage, Hannibal and Scipio Africanus, two of the most brilliant tacticians of the anicent era, were pretty much tossed aside after the second war ended. It seems no matter how charismatic or great a leader you are, eventually politics wears you down.

But Churchill is still thought of pretty highly as far as I know, at least in America.

Well I would urge you to take a step back and look at this objectively. Verify what is being said with independent sources.

For the most part the tea parties are very misguided, hyperbolic and just generally don't know what they are talking about. Many of them also use propaganda techniques in their rhetoric. One main faction of the tea party are the Sarah Palin followers, who are very authoritarian, but fairly conservative as well. They are the worst for sure. They are a nationalist group, and their "us vs them" nonthinking leads to dehumanization and sometimes even demonization of out-groups. Don't fall for that divisive idiocy.

Then there are the more conservative and much less authoritarian tea parties that tend to be big Ron Paul fans. Not everything they say is poorly thought-out and misguided like the other group. This group actually has a point sometimes. Particularly when they rail on the authoritarian policies of the 2 main parties or the other tea party faction.

If you tend to be conservative, listen to the ideas of people who describe themselves as "Barry Goldwater conservatives". Those people actually have much better thought out ideas by far than anything that people who identify with tea parties do. Or learn about Barry Goldwater. He was the foremost conservative and really came up with a lot of the best ideas. He was a self described conservative, but is actually a lot closer to libertarianism than Ron Paul and those sorts of people.