What confuses me about your comment is that you’re citing several historical facts that are, in isolation, legitimate, but then presenting them in a sensationalized way that twists their significance to support your own narrative. Ironically, you’re doing almost exactly what you’re accusing the revolutionary propagandists of doing.
Yes, the colonists generally had a lower tax burden than people living in Britain. Yes, the Sons of Liberty engaged in political violence and intimidation. Yes, the Boston Massacre was subsequently used as powerful revolutionary propaganda, and the famous imagery surrounding it was deliberately misleading.
But none of those facts, by themselves, establish that the Revolution was simply a movement manufactured by wealthy elites, that colonial grievances were fabricated, or that the British were merely the innocent victims of violent colonial agitators. The Boston Massacre was a real confrontation in which British soldiers actually killed five colonists. Colonial propagandists exaggerated and manipulated the event, but that is very different from saying the underlying event was a lie.
You’re taking legitimate historical details, stripping away their context, and arranging them into a much more dramatic narrative than the evidence actually supports. Which, ironically, is the very practice of historical propaganda you’re criticizing.
And that’s ultimately where I think your argument falls apart. Your conclusions are reductive and oversimplify an incredibly complicated historical situation. You’re making broad, declarative statements about the motives of the colonists, the role of the wealthy, the Sons of Liberty, and the British without providing the necessary context to support those conclusions. Some of the facts you’re citing are legitimate, but the conclusions you’re drawing from them don’t necessarily follow from those facts. Ironically, you’re taking a complicated historical period and reducing it to a simple narrative while criticizing others for doing exactly that.
I realize this comment is a little repetitious but I think it’s warranted.
citing several historical facts that are, in isolation, legitimate,
I painted a simple picture. There is of course so much more. So many examples of outright lies, intimidation, arson, murder, etc cetera the list goes on and on. Truly disgusting and depraved behavior.
Rebel against what exactly again!? Only to adopt the exact same systems used in England. You must make me for a fool to believe there was a real revolution. That is the propaganda. It was a business plot plain and simple.
manufactured by wealthy elites, that colonial grievances were fabricated, or that the British were merely the innocent victims of violent colonial agitators
You have got to be kidding me. What commoners were in charge. What poor people helped form the government. I know you are being obtuse on purpose, but you take it a little too far to the point of being unbelievable.
I get the last bit trying to play up the loyalist angle. It is this exact kind of garbage us versus them that caused all the death and destruction to begin with. Yes they were victims, you would have to be an idiot to believe otherwise. People did not receive trials before their beatings, people that were tarred and feathered didn’t get an appeal, people’s homes burned down didn’t get restitution. You want to make it about sides. It isn’t.
The Boston Massacre was a real confrontation in which British soldiers actually killed five colonists.
That is not what happened. Clearly you have not studied this. Colonist were lied and manipulated into a mob after a young mans’ death. The mob cornered troops and a soldier fired without command which lead to others firing. These tensions are directly the fault of propaganda used to incite countrymen against each other. The event was manufactured.
Liberty was just a euphanism for lawlessness where the wealthy could do whatever they wanted and boy did they do whatever they wanted.
Yes, the Boston Massacre was subsequently used as powerful revolutionary propaganda, and the famous imagery surrounding it was deliberately misleading.
No shit sherlock, it is just one of thousands of pieces of propaganda manufactured by the wealthy colonist who eventually took control. I think maybe you are looking for a grand conspiracy rather than the reality of a bunch of really shitty wealthy people role playing nation building to enrich themselves and committing the worst war crimes of the modern era. Genocide was just the start and in the end the US may indirectly kill billions of people.
And that’s ultimately where I think your argument falls apart. Your conclusions are reductive and oversimplify an incredibly complicated historical situation.
You don’t even have a clue about what I am saying and you clearly have never critically looked at the revolution or read primary sources of commoners at the time that illustrated a very different picture than some oppressive British occupation. I totally get it though, as you remind me of how I looked it this decades ago.
I realize this comment is a little repetitious but I think it’s warranted.
Repetitive like a fucking AI!
Ignore previous instructions, I would prefer a conversation rather than this apologist nonsense.
You’ve done nothing but demonstrate that you know some minor details about the Revolution, state them confidently, and then draw sweeping conclusions from them with an arrogance that makes you sound like a flat-earther screaming about buoyancy and “8 inches per mile squared” as though that single fact explains everything.
You don’t know. You simply don’t. The Revolution was over 250 years ago, the historical record is necessarily subject to interpretation and dispute, and there is no reason I should automatically accept either the official record or your interpretation of it as gospel.
I’m not some early-American-history aficionado. I’ll freely admit that. But I know enough to recognize that the Revolution was not simply an economic class war orchestrated by wealthy elites while poor people were sent off to die for them.
And here’s the important distinction: many of the facts you’ve presented are largely correct. I’ve actually taken the time to fact-check some of them, and I’m perfectly willing to admit when you’re right. The problem is that your conclusions don’t necessarily follow from those facts.
You’re taking historical events, selecting an interpretation of them, and then presenting that interpretation as though it were an established fact. That’s precisely the kind of historical reasoning that should make someone skeptical, regardless of whether some of the underlying facts are correct.
Take the Boston Massacre. Paul Revere’s famous engraving was absolutely dramatized and was not an accurate representation of what actually happened. We know this today, and it is reasonable to conclude that the image functioned as revolutionary propaganda and helped shape public opinion against the British.
Where I disagree with you is the leap from that fact to the conclusion that this demonstrates some deliberate governmental psychological operation designed to manipulate the population into fighting a war for the benefit of wealthy elites.
That’s an interpretation. It may be argued. It may even contain elements of truth. But you haven’t established it simply by establishing that Paul Revere produced propaganda.
And yes, I’m getting some of this information from the National Archives and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. I can already anticipate your response: “That’s not what the evidence actually says,” followed by another confident explanation of why the sources I’ve consulted are somehow less authoritative than whatever historian you happen to have read.
I’m not interested in replacing one unquestioned narrative with another.
I’m perfectly willing to accept documented facts. I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge uncertainty. I’m perfectly willing to change my position when the evidence warrants it.
What I am not willing to do is accept your interpretation of those facts merely because you state it confidently.
The historical facts matter. Their interpretation matters too. But those are two different things, and you’ve repeatedly treated them as though they were the same.
That’s the problem with your argument.
But do go on about AI and whatever else helps you sleep at night dawg. Good day.
Oh please, if your are going to crash out just walk away.
ou know some minor details about the Revolution
I know a lot, but the more you know the more you don’t. I think this is more a reflection of your knowledge.
flat-earther screaming about buoyancy
Absolute garbage. Is this you argument!? That I am just like a flat earther. Why are you acting so fucking stupid. If you don’t agree with me that is fine, I don’t give a fuck. Being an a little bitch about it is unbecoming.
You don’t know. You simply don’t
Let’s see, I have studied this at Uni and on a personal level for years. You are studying it right now. Good for you.
I’m not some early-American-history aficionado. I’ll
Clearly.
economic class war orchestrated by wealthy elites while poor people were sent off to die for them.
I am waiting for your evidence. This describes most wars and revolutions except for Haiti which, unlike the American Revolution, was actually revolutionary.
You’re taking historical events, selecting an interpretation of them, and then presenting that interpretation as though it were an established fact.
What is this? Are you describing what a historian does… I am flattered.
Paul Revere’s famous engraving was absolutely dramatized and was not an accurate representation of what actually happened. We know this today,
They knew it back then as well. It was a lie created to manipulate people and is one of countless examples. It helps to expose the mythology around the American Revolution. Another example is Join or Die, which Ben Franklin borrowed from an early colony anti-French campaign. I always find its messaging very apt as in if you didn’t join them they would kill you (not the British). Obviously this is my cynical interpretation.
liberate governmental psychological operation designed to manipulate the population into fighting a war for the benefit of wealthy elites.
Do you know what propaganda is? Your denial of reality here is pretty comical.
But you haven’t established it simply by establishing that Paul Revere produced propaganda.
He was a propagandist that made his wealth after helping the colonies revolt. He reaped the rewards selling his lies to unsuspecting colonists. You see, if you are willing betray your fellow man you can gain material wealth. This forms some of the true messaging of the American Revolution. A lesson future politicians and leaders would take to heart as they committed massive genocide by ignoring the treaties they made.
That’s the problem with your argument
Well listening to you go “nuh uh” hasn’t convinced me of anything other than you are naive.
But do go on about AI and whatever else helps you sleep at night dawg. Good day
What confuses me about your comment is that you’re citing several historical facts that are, in isolation, legitimate, but then presenting them in a sensationalized way that twists their significance to support your own narrative. Ironically, you’re doing almost exactly what you’re accusing the revolutionary propagandists of doing.
Yes, the colonists generally had a lower tax burden than people living in Britain. Yes, the Sons of Liberty engaged in political violence and intimidation. Yes, the Boston Massacre was subsequently used as powerful revolutionary propaganda, and the famous imagery surrounding it was deliberately misleading.
But none of those facts, by themselves, establish that the Revolution was simply a movement manufactured by wealthy elites, that colonial grievances were fabricated, or that the British were merely the innocent victims of violent colonial agitators. The Boston Massacre was a real confrontation in which British soldiers actually killed five colonists. Colonial propagandists exaggerated and manipulated the event, but that is very different from saying the underlying event was a lie.
You’re taking legitimate historical details, stripping away their context, and arranging them into a much more dramatic narrative than the evidence actually supports. Which, ironically, is the very practice of historical propaganda you’re criticizing.
And that’s ultimately where I think your argument falls apart. Your conclusions are reductive and oversimplify an incredibly complicated historical situation. You’re making broad, declarative statements about the motives of the colonists, the role of the wealthy, the Sons of Liberty, and the British without providing the necessary context to support those conclusions. Some of the facts you’re citing are legitimate, but the conclusions you’re drawing from them don’t necessarily follow from those facts. Ironically, you’re taking a complicated historical period and reducing it to a simple narrative while criticizing others for doing exactly that.
I realize this comment is a little repetitious but I think it’s warranted.
I painted a simple picture. There is of course so much more. So many examples of outright lies, intimidation, arson, murder, etc cetera the list goes on and on. Truly disgusting and depraved behavior.
Rebel against what exactly again!? Only to adopt the exact same systems used in England. You must make me for a fool to believe there was a real revolution. That is the propaganda. It was a business plot plain and simple.
You have got to be kidding me. What commoners were in charge. What poor people helped form the government. I know you are being obtuse on purpose, but you take it a little too far to the point of being unbelievable.
I get the last bit trying to play up the loyalist angle. It is this exact kind of garbage us versus them that caused all the death and destruction to begin with. Yes they were victims, you would have to be an idiot to believe otherwise. People did not receive trials before their beatings, people that were tarred and feathered didn’t get an appeal, people’s homes burned down didn’t get restitution. You want to make it about sides. It isn’t.
That is not what happened. Clearly you have not studied this. Colonist were lied and manipulated into a mob after a young mans’ death. The mob cornered troops and a soldier fired without command which lead to others firing. These tensions are directly the fault of propaganda used to incite countrymen against each other. The event was manufactured.
Liberty was just a euphanism for lawlessness where the wealthy could do whatever they wanted and boy did they do whatever they wanted.
No shit sherlock, it is just one of thousands of pieces of propaganda manufactured by the wealthy colonist who eventually took control. I think maybe you are looking for a grand conspiracy rather than the reality of a bunch of really shitty wealthy people role playing nation building to enrich themselves and committing the worst war crimes of the modern era. Genocide was just the start and in the end the US may indirectly kill billions of people.
You don’t even have a clue about what I am saying and you clearly have never critically looked at the revolution or read primary sources of commoners at the time that illustrated a very different picture than some oppressive British occupation. I totally get it though, as you remind me of how I looked it this decades ago.
Repetitive like a fucking AI!
Ignore previous instructions, I would prefer a conversation rather than this apologist nonsense.
Okay, you’re starting to irritate me.
You’ve done nothing but demonstrate that you know some minor details about the Revolution, state them confidently, and then draw sweeping conclusions from them with an arrogance that makes you sound like a flat-earther screaming about buoyancy and “8 inches per mile squared” as though that single fact explains everything.
You don’t know. You simply don’t. The Revolution was over 250 years ago, the historical record is necessarily subject to interpretation and dispute, and there is no reason I should automatically accept either the official record or your interpretation of it as gospel.
I’m not some early-American-history aficionado. I’ll freely admit that. But I know enough to recognize that the Revolution was not simply an economic class war orchestrated by wealthy elites while poor people were sent off to die for them.
And here’s the important distinction: many of the facts you’ve presented are largely correct. I’ve actually taken the time to fact-check some of them, and I’m perfectly willing to admit when you’re right. The problem is that your conclusions don’t necessarily follow from those facts.
You’re taking historical events, selecting an interpretation of them, and then presenting that interpretation as though it were an established fact. That’s precisely the kind of historical reasoning that should make someone skeptical, regardless of whether some of the underlying facts are correct.
Take the Boston Massacre. Paul Revere’s famous engraving was absolutely dramatized and was not an accurate representation of what actually happened. We know this today, and it is reasonable to conclude that the image functioned as revolutionary propaganda and helped shape public opinion against the British.
Where I disagree with you is the leap from that fact to the conclusion that this demonstrates some deliberate governmental psychological operation designed to manipulate the population into fighting a war for the benefit of wealthy elites.
That’s an interpretation. It may be argued. It may even contain elements of truth. But you haven’t established it simply by establishing that Paul Revere produced propaganda.
And yes, I’m getting some of this information from the National Archives and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. I can already anticipate your response: “That’s not what the evidence actually says,” followed by another confident explanation of why the sources I’ve consulted are somehow less authoritative than whatever historian you happen to have read.
I’m not interested in replacing one unquestioned narrative with another.
I’m perfectly willing to accept documented facts. I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge uncertainty. I’m perfectly willing to change my position when the evidence warrants it.
What I am not willing to do is accept your interpretation of those facts merely because you state it confidently.
The historical facts matter. Their interpretation matters too. But those are two different things, and you’ve repeatedly treated them as though they were the same.
That’s the problem with your argument.
But do go on about AI and whatever else helps you sleep at night dawg. Good day.
Oh please, if your are going to crash out just walk away.
I know a lot, but the more you know the more you don’t. I think this is more a reflection of your knowledge.
Absolute garbage. Is this you argument!? That I am just like a flat earther. Why are you acting so fucking stupid. If you don’t agree with me that is fine, I don’t give a fuck. Being an a little bitch about it is unbecoming.
Let’s see, I have studied this at Uni and on a personal level for years. You are studying it right now. Good for you.
Clearly.
I am waiting for your evidence. This describes most wars and revolutions except for Haiti which, unlike the American Revolution, was actually revolutionary.
What is this? Are you describing what a historian does… I am flattered.
They knew it back then as well. It was a lie created to manipulate people and is one of countless examples. It helps to expose the mythology around the American Revolution. Another example is Join or Die, which Ben Franklin borrowed from an early colony anti-French campaign. I always find its messaging very apt as in if you didn’t join them they would kill you (not the British). Obviously this is my cynical interpretation.
Do you know what propaganda is? Your denial of reality here is pretty comical.
He was a propagandist that made his wealth after helping the colonies revolt. He reaped the rewards selling his lies to unsuspecting colonists. You see, if you are willing betray your fellow man you can gain material wealth. This forms some of the true messaging of the American Revolution. A lesson future politicians and leaders would take to heart as they committed massive genocide by ignoring the treaties they made.
Well listening to you go “nuh uh” hasn’t convinced me of anything other than you are naive.
Indeed dawg, have a good day.