Blind Chinese activist Chen in US

That's true to a degree, but the irony of the matter is that we learned our most important lessons in freedom from fighting Britain.

Paine was, indeed, British, as were several other influential individuals in support of American independence. However, the core of the fight was against the oppression of a monarchy.

Nowadays, both the U.S. and the U.K. have seemingly lost sight of many of the lessons of history when it comes to letting government and corporations restrict their freedoms.

 

Religious and political persecution actually were pretty common in Europe back in the 1600s and 1700s. The Puritans really were fleeing persecution in many respects.

I think the lesson learned from the Pilgrims, however, is that even the persecuted typically become persecutors when given the chance.

The Europeans seeking refuge in America decided to turn their own aggressions against the natives here. And the natives themselves often had a habit of killing each other for territory.

The one constant theme is basically that humans are often a rather loathsome species.

 

That may be true in some regards but not in british history. The so called rebels were also criminals. They were bad people, plotting all kinds of things. The persecution is also their escape from the law.

This time in history of so called rebellion and martydom i don't think existed in europe. Maybe to a small degree but the rest were common criminality. Who obviously used the excuse of fleeing to hide their crimes.

Like the london looters when some tried to use the excuse of banking crisis and vague political injustice, the media was using at the time to explain why they bashed in windows and stole TV's.

 

Then your interpretation of British history is about as whitewashed as that of many Americans concerning American history.

 

You maybe right.

But i also don't believe a period in history of sudden martydom and the 'new world' being founded by political refugees escaping evil monarchs and such.

It make a great film, although not very realistic to me.

 

I can agree with that. The refugees themselves often proved to be quite good at oppression themselves. It was really more like one oppressor vs. another.

The monarchs oppressed their masses in Europe while trying to do the same to the colonists. The colonists themselves oppressed the natives and slaves. The natives typically warred with each other.

It's not good vs. evil... it's bad vs. even worse. Who fits the bad and the even worse titles depends on your perspective.

 

Also this event seems too secluded in history. The english monarch has existed for a thousand years. Now part of this can be explained with excitement to the new world, america/australia even africa.

But it does not explain this mass revolt americans like to boast. And i don't buy it. With australia it is easier to understand. The english were nasty and brutal both to the locals and the criminals they sent there. But with america, for a the short time before the revolt it was a nicer enviroment. Not everyone was a martyer.

 

I suppose some people here consider the rebels to have been martyrs, but I think the more applicable idea behind it is that the wealthy class in the colonies didn't see any reason to remain subject to a king an ocean away. They were being taxed to support a land far away from their own and one which had no real relevance to their own lives.

There was trade between the colonies and England, but the trip itself took a long time to complete, and the colonies weren't given much representation in the decisions made by the crown. Therefore, it was understandable that, eventually, the colonists would desire autonomy, since they were mostly ruling themselves anyway.

We see similar trends in countries without strong central governments. Afghanistan and Pakistan both cover areas where local tribes often have more control than the central governments. Therefore, many of them desire their own autonomy in an official sense.

Things probably would be a lot simpler if we split Afghanistan and Pakistan into multiple tribal countries rather than trying to keep in place boundaries that don't mean much beyond political implications.

 

The views to this from a brit and an american will always be oceans apart. As sumed up by my favourite quote on the subject.

To the Americans it was the proudest time in their history, the start of their country. Their independance. For the English and the King. It was just Thursday.

 

I'd imagine it probably was just "Thursday" for them, considering how much the French were troubling them at the time.

As much as we sometimes mock the French, we have a lot to thank them for when it comes to the Revolution, just like they have us to thank during WW2.

 

Viva La revolution!

But what would the old revolutionaires say about our modern generations. Would they cheer our apathy. Or demand the people carry the screaming leaders to the gallows.

 

Yes the USA was born in the fight against the British monarchy. If you read Tom Paine he always emphasized that. He was no stunted nationalist. "The cause of America is the cause of all mankind". And when Washington scored his victories against Hessian mercenaries, Whigs in London raised a toast to celebrate the victories of their brothers in liberty.

 

It's impossible to make sense of history if you try and make it fit a simple worldview from today's perspective. This is why much of history is myth, because it is so vulgarized to fit the good versus evil, cowboys versus indians way of looking at the world. And yet in history there is much richness and it holds many lessons. Look at the subject of religious intolerance for example. The myth holds that Europeans fled religious persecution to a paradise where they were free to practice their beliefs unmolested. There is something in the myth of course as Europe was undergoing a reformation, with the emergence of science and enlightenment challenging the superstition of the Catholic Church. Europe was awash with religious intolerance - there were Osama Bin Ladens on one side and Glenn Becks on the other. It was pure hatred. But when people came to America they often practiced the same intolerance.

In the early seventeenth century the intolerant Puritans in America - leaders in England of the reformation of popery - banned Quakers and even hanged Mary Dyer in 1611 for being a Quaker in Massachusetts. And yet this caused great offence to the King (I think Charles II after whom the Charles River in Boston is named) who, despite being a Catholic who wanted to restore England and Scotland to the old faith, and a fanatical supporter of the divine Right of Kings, also passionately believed in religious tolerance.

The actual truth is that people didn't flee for their beliefs. They fled to escape the poverty and misery of Europe. Emma Lazarus's piercingly beautiful poem captures it perfectly:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

They came because they were poor and downtrodden. In America they could get land. The streets were paved with gold. Who is not touched by this American dream? Does this not reveal todays's American chauvinists and xenophobes as carbuncles on America? Does this not reveal those who would now send Chen home as the most stinking hypocrites and the lowest traitors to the cause of America...the cause of all mankind?

History doesn't move in straight lines. There aren't two teams fighting each other. That's what makes it so fascinating.