you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 4 months ago (21 children)

How directly was he involved in the negotiations? Often the king is the ultimate authority in a country, but they don't actually make many decisions themselves.

It's well known that the colonists were looking for a reason to break away, and that the taxation issue was a convenient excuse. After all, taxation without representation was the norm. It wasn't like all of England had the vote and had representatives in parliament. Entire cities had zero representation but were still taxed. Ireland had been part of the British empire for ages and it didn't have representation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (20 children)

    Well, having a verifiably insane monarch sure couldn't have helped.

    It's obviously foolish for anyone to try and argue exactly what happened when for which reasons, we weren't in those rooms having those conversations so we'll never really know. We do know that the colonists hated what they considered overreaching British control (it was kind of the reason they left in the first place), and we know that the British were broke af and desparate to wring every penny they could out of the colonies to pay for wars on the other side of the ocean (sounds familiar). But you bring up a good point in Ireland, they were famously treated so well by the British and therefore were predictably loyal and peaceful subjects of the Crown 🤣🤣🤣

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (19 children)

    We do know that the colonists hated what they considered overreaching British control

    Do we? Or is that the story that has been written after the fact to justify what they did and make it seem more noble?

    It sounds to me like you're a product of the US educational system and have accepted what you learned there without questioning it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (18 children)

    Yes we do, it's literally the reason they left in the first place. There were protests all across the colonies, the British even repealed the Stamp Act due to the blowback. There are pamphlets, books, and vast quantities of recorded speeches and debates from both sides of the Atlantic on the issue. From before the revolution.

    Sounds to me like you're a product of the Ignorant Blowhard educational system and have assumed you know everything about everything with little evidence to support the assumption.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (17 children)

    Yes we do, it's literally the reason they left in the first place.

    According to what you learned in an American elementary school?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (16 children)

    Nah, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. Must be more American propaganda though I s'pose 🤣🤣🤣

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (15 children)

    They're of course going to give you the surface level, popular version of what happened. If you want to actually know the real story you need to talk to historians.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (14 children)

    No you need to talk to people who have been dead for hundreds of years, your entire argument is based on not trusting historians.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (13 children)

    Historians are the ones who break through the myths. Myths are what you're taught in school. In school they told you all about how the US founding fathers were heroic figures fighting for their freedom...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (12 children)

    Did you forget how you wanted to end that or...? 🤷‍♂️

    Regardless, if you don't think historians are writing history books, what do you think they're doing? And no, in school they taught me that the US founding fathers founded the US, pretty objective stuff. You know, names, dates, locations, etc. I'm fascinated to hear what else you think I was taught though, this is fun!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (11 children)

    Regardless, if you don't think historians are writing history books, what do you think they're doing?

    Researching it and writing papers for other historians.

    Do you think most historians write popular history books for non-historians?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (10 children)

    No, but I do think history books are by definition written by historians.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (9 children)

    So, you think anybody who writes a book about history is a historian? No wonder you are so lost.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (8 children)

    No, I think anyone who writes a book of historical facts (hence the name "history book") based on research is a historian. And if I were lost, that'd fall under cartography, not history. See, cartography is the study of making maps. Maps are to cartographers as history books are to historians. Make sense?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (7 children)

    So, writing a book makes you a historian. It's not studying history?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (6 children)

    Damn, selective reading is a tough diagnosis. Is there a pattern, like you only understand every other word or something, or is it just completely random?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (5 children)

    Are you dodging the question? What makes someone a historian? Is anybody who writes a book on history automatically an authority on history?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)

    Well this question is very different than the other question, but both are intentionally foolish misrepresentations of my statements so I reckon my answers would be "wrong" no matter what I said. So I'll just tell you what you wanted to hear the first time: yes, I think "writing a book makes you a historian". 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    I know, you're trolling attempts were quite heavy-handed, gotta work on your subtlety!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments