Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Colonial Resistance
After our initial discussion in class, as well as your readings in the textbook, how has your viewpoint changed, if at all, about the issue of colonial grievances against the British? Post two comments, the first sharing how your viewpoint before class compared to it after, and the second a response to your classmates. Feel free to post more than two comments if necessary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's interesting how when we were in elementary school, and all we we did in history each year was relearn the American Revolution (except in third or fourth grade, when we got to learn about New Jersey), we grew up with a lot of inaccurate stories, about Columbus, Thanksgiving, and also the American Revolution. We grew up with a simplified version, where the only issue was taxation without representation, and it was perfectly justified: the British were overtaxing, the Americans didn't have a say, and so we fought and won our freedom.
ReplyDeleteAs I got older I knew it wasn't exactly like that, but it still seemed logical enough that it was never necessary to go that much more in-depth. The readings in the textbook and the class discussion give me a better perspective of how things actually happened. Before, it seemed like the British were the strict, oppressive tyrants the colonies needed to free themselves from, but now it's apparent that even if the British were pretty tyrannical at times, the colonies weren't exactly the greatest idealists ever. Maybe the revolution became a fight out of principle, on issues like representation, but it wasn't that before. It emerged because the colonies felt the British were preventing them from making as much money as they could, and the reason they went along with it-they thought they needed British protection before the French and Indian War-faded away.
Also, the taxes, before it seemed like they were supposed to be these huge, suffocating, impossible to pay taxes. Maybe they were a bit too much, but before this year I wasn't really aware of how heavily the monarchy had already overtaxed the English people. And I can see why the British didn't cooperate with the colonists; no one really wanted to compromise. It was going to be all or nothing for them.
So, now I can see how the issues between the colonies and British arose, and I can see the problems both sides had with the other. It gives a better awareness of the whole situation and how it built up.
One last thing, I found it interesting how the colonies only united when they had enough of the British. That's something I didn't think about before, how the hate for the British brought everyone together.
Alright, this may sound super biased, but I'm gonna be honest: until this history class, I realized that the British were always painted as the only antagonists in this pre-Revolutionary stage. At least, that was how my old history teachers seemed to put it (the ones that taught American history at my middle school). It was always the British who were being terrible; raising taxes ridiculously high, forcing colonists to house troops, treating the colonists like they were inferior, there really wasn't an explanation given for all that. I vaguely remember the child-parent metaphor from a past history year, but still, it was the BRITISH who were the wrong ones.
ReplyDeletePlus this just reminded me of Schoolhouse Rock, which I used to watch when I was little. On America Rock of that series (of course) there's a song called "No More Kings" that I used to think was awesome (especially 'cause the King's face was so weird and it turned purple at the end). But ANYWAY, that song pretty much sums up how this whole pre-American-Revolution situation was portrayed to me throughout my middle school/elementary school life. The King was mean, he raised taxes just 'cause he was greedy (Parliament isn't even mentioned in the song), the colonists were helpless and stuck wearing barrels for clothes, and then they heroically go against the British and create their "free country" that they wanted so much.
Now, after class and reading the textbook and taking Cornell Notes 'til 1:30 in the morning (yawn), it's easy to see that I've been duped once again by my history teachers of the past (the American history ones, mind). George Washington DIDN'T chop down any cherry tree, there was no friendly Indian/Pilgrim Thanksgiving feast, and the British weren't evil at all! Well, maybe a little. But the colonists were too! Both of them had a share of bad things that they'd done, and because of that they started a vicious circle that led to the Revolution.
The British tightened their hold on the colonies during the Seven Years' War which irked the colonists a lot; especially since they were regarded as inferiors. But the British thought the colonists deserved it; they were completely unwilling to fight for their mother country and had to be forced to enlist. Then Britain was in massive debt 'cause of the war, and so they needed to get money from somewhere. The English people were already taxed ridiculously, something I never knew before, and so the British turned to their colonies for money to clear up their debt. The fact that they were being sapped for this purpose didn't seem to make much sense to them. Grenville passed the Stamp Act and the riots started; people who were associated with it had their land pillaged or destroyed, or both.
ReplyDeleteThe British continued to back off slowly and the colonists kept throwing temper tantrums whenever they wouldn't give the slightest bit. And it suddenly became a huge political issue, and everyone became interested in politics and their rights as human beings and if they should really be ordered around by a King and his parliament overseas who had nothing to do with them before and now suddenly wanted to control them. To the British though, these colonies were THEIRS. The fact that they'd had a period of leeway for getting around the rules in the beginning was something they hadn't taken into account; they figured that squashing insubordination would be the only way to get the colonials in line. They tried. They backed off once the colonists screeched and howled for a while. Both sides can be considered worthy of blame, in my eyes. And now I finally see how bratty the colonists really were, in the scheme of things.
So my view has changed quite a lot. I think the Brits were wrong, but the colonists were wrong as well, they were both just wrong in unique ways. And I'm pretty sure King George III didn't have a face that odd... though... I think I'll have to look up a painting of him on Google or something. Just to make sure. :)
Here's the video, if you want to see what I'm talking about. There's some other funny ones too; honestly, they're so entertaining.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofYmhlclqr4
Prior to our discussion in class, I thought that the British were to blame for the tensions between England and the colonies. I was under the impression that they were arrogant and oppressive and the colonists were just being heroic and fighting for their freedom. Up to this point, the British were depicted as very one-sided people with only one characteristic: arrogance. But now I am aware that as in any relationship, things are never that simple. While it's easier to point fingers, in actuality each party involved contributes to the conflict. The colonists were responsible in that they never made any effort to properly negotiate with the British. When they felt Parliament had passed an unfair law, they rioted. This can be compared to a child throwing a temper tantrum rather than discussing what has occurred with their parents. Yes, there was an ocean between them and negotiations would have been difficult, but they never even made an effort. There was just a complete lack of communication. For example, when the Stamp Act was passed, many colonists became violent and even went so far as to attack the homes of those associated with the stamp tax. They never tried to discuss it with the British officials or come to any sort of agreement. Instead, they led violent protests.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, the colonists never bothered to try to understand the British people. They resented them practically on sight. I had already known the The British were guilty of the same things, but I was unaware of the colonists' faults and mistakes that contributed to the tension. Perhaps because it is our own country's history we are studying we feel the need to sugar coat things and paint a picture of the colonists as perfect people. In reality however, both the British and the colonists were multi-faceted people and it's inaccurate to only look at one side of the argument.
Before class and reading the text book, I pretty much knew next to nothing about the French and Indian War, and how it ultimately led to the American Revolution. Like with what Scott had said, we never learned the details of our history. We just learned the big picture and the gist of what had happened in our country. It wasn't even until recently that I knew the French and Indian war existed. I'm sure our school system isn't alone, and you can't really tell a first grader that Colonists practically killed off the Indians, but our whole lives we've basically been lied to. Because of this, I always held onto the idea that the British were bad and being unfair to the innocent colonists. Now I - and the rest of us for that matter - know that that is definitely not the case. Learning the real series of events, and what had actually happened, provides a clearer picture of how our country came to be. Oh, and now I know plenty about the French and Indian War.
ReplyDeleteMy view is very similar to Scott and Carly’s. During my life I have always thought that the Americans were always “the good guys,” that they could do no wrong. That the King was evil during those times and that England was only taking from America because it was selfish and greedy. That’s what we were all taught in elementary and middle school. That America is the greatest nation and we were treated so unjustly that there had to be a revolution. It’s like in middle school when u learn Abraham Lincoln didn’t make it a goal to free the slaves. He would have, if he could, have not demolished slavery. It’s the same feeling; it’s a bit disappointing, but I wish we could have not been blinded by the teachings of elementary school.
ReplyDeleteLearning about what BOTH sides to the story is a crucial part of understanding history. I feel like this class is pretty objective and focuses not only on the part we may like, but both good and bad parts. The colonists were subjects, but they didn’t act that way. The British were actually being very nice to the colonists at first, and then they ruined it by fighting the British and the laws past by Britain. This is not the first time in history people have taken advantage of colonies. The British were nice to the colonists, until they began acting like spoiled children. Like Carly said the British thought the colonies where “THEIRS.” The British were right, the colonies were theirs. They were just a bad parent and were easily swayed by the American uproar.
Our history classes always showed that Americans could not be taxed without representation. But the British did have a reason; it was because they were in so much debt they couldn’t tax anymore. If I were England in that position I would do the same as they did and taxed the colonies (First I would need better management over in America). The British view point is understandable, they were just like any other parent and screws up once in a while, except their screw ups cost a perfectly good colony.
Carly N. and Scott make a good point about the simplistic version of American history we have been previously taught. All I had really known about before this year was the American Revolution and the Civil War. There were big, prominent dots but the smaller ones that connected everything were barely even mentioned. Now I'm beginning to connect these dots and see how everything comes together. Learning all the details is giving me a much better understanding of our country's history. Previously, all I had known about the French and Indian war was that the British and French fought in North America. Discovering all the little details and all the disputes and disagreements is helping me make much more sense out of the American Revolution. Learning about its causes and roots is significant because it essentially shows how our country originated.
ReplyDeleteAfter today's discussion and the past reading myy view about the events leading up the the revolution has changed. In elementery school I was always taught that we started the revolution because on "no taxation without representation" but I was never really explained why this angered the colonists. Also i alwaysed seemed like the British were bulling the colonists and taxing them without any reason.
ReplyDeleteToday and the past reading made me realize more that the events that occurred way before the French and Indian war greatly affected the events that occurred on the eve of the revolution. For example, the colonies were being governed by weak governors, because of this assemblies slowly gained power in the colonies until they were calling all the shots. But during the French and Indian war, these governments were unable to rally the people to enlist and help the war cause. Towards the end of the war and after the war this issue was brought to the English government. London realized that when it came to things such as war, the colonial government was not strong en- ought to run itself. To solve this problem the British began to increase their power over the colonies.
On the American side, this drastic increase of British power over the colonies was a violation of their liberties. Britain imposed new taxes on the colonies to elimit the national debt, the colonies revolted because they were not being represented.
After looking over all the new information i believe that one of the main causes of the tension between the colonies and England was misunderstanding between each other. The colonists believed that the British were trying to run their lives. The British believed that the colonists were cheap, lazy rebels who didn't want to pay taxes. Maybe if each side understood the other better that the revolution may have never happened?
Before class, even when we were first beginning to learn about the French and Indian war, I still had the point of view that I had my entire life. I thought the British were just power hungry and looking for money in anyway possible. (high taxes, the acts, etc) I thought the situation was simply that the colonists were just being used by the British, and even though they were being used to some extent, I now know there are two (not one) sides to tension created between the colonists and the British. The colonists and British equally resented one another, ultimately creating a cause and effect situation. Before the war, laws towards the colonies were made, but not really rejected and enforced. The British realized this, and began tightening their control over the colonies. Because the colonies weren't used to this, they were not very happy. The British also held a bad attitude towards the colonists, thinking they were better than them. The colonists did have the right to be mad about this, because they are technically British. Events and behaviors continued to go back and forth ultimately creating the overall tension between the Colonists and British. After class, I still hold the perspective that the British were mainly the bad guys, but in a different way. They were basically the group that initiated the tension with their attitude and sudden changes in how the colonies would be controlled. Lack of knowledge played a big part in why the events occurred, causing the tension, and ultimately leading to revolution.
ReplyDeleteAfter being pressed to truly look at all the sides partaking in American History, so far, I have come to feel much more unbiased. I was always taught to see there are oppressors, and then there are independence seekers trying to get away. Basically, a black and white schematic. Obviously, working and studying international affairs, I know this notion is false. However, only when I thought about it during class today, I realized I still held a nasty bias toward the British; despite knowing the colonists were just as antagonistic. In all the situations leading up to the war for independence, British were either too tough or let the colonists run free, and the colonists were either taking advantage of the freedom, or having a tamper tantrum to give them back their not-supposed-to-have-in-the-first-place freedoms. Additionally, after hearing so much about the Boston Tea Party and the Boston Massacre, I realized they were symbolic events, not the hugeee deal they were made out to be. During class a lot of things like that were cleared up for me. Best put by Scott and Mr.O, the colonists and Britain were much like a parent and child.
ReplyDeleteDana's got a point about our bias; it's something that happens 'cause hey, this is the past of our nation that we're talking about. Nobody likes to look back on history and think "wow, we were the bad guys", do they? Even though we were just as malicious as the British were, we won the war and made a wonderful nation out of it, therefore we have the right to sugarcoat our history as much as we want and paint the British as purple-faced monsters who took our money. No way! The truth is, we're just as much to blame. I guess the whole sugarcoating thing isn't all that bad, since younger audiences would find a simple good-versus-evil story more accessible and easier to understand than the web of complications between two sides that are both wrong. Plus, "No More Kings" probably wouldn't be all that catchy with properly revised lyrics.
ReplyDeleteJimmy's point is super valid. The British and the colonists totally didn't understand each other; they were constantly misinterpreting the other's actions and that was what got them all riled up and "resenting" each other! When the British tightened up their whip (as Claudia said in class) on the colonists, they all took it as a personal insult to their past more lenient set up in which they had more freedom. But the British were just attempting to be good parents and keep their kid in line instead of letting it run wild. The British thought the colonists weren't patriotic 'cause not a lot of them willingly enrolled to fight in the Seven Years' War, but that wasn't wholly the case, and the British were always treating the colonists as lesser people, even in the army where they fought alongside each other.
Word to Bekah for bringing up the Boston Tea Party and the Boston Massacre. I was surprised to hear that the Boston Massacre was PROVOKED by colonists themselves! I mean, they didn't exactly shoot any guns to get the Brits riled up, but they weren't completely innocent; they were poking fun at the redcoats. It wasn't all Britain's fault! Things like the Boston Tea Party and the Boston Massacre and Paul Revere's ride ("the British are comin', the British are comin'") are all so idealized and made out to be super-heroic events, much like the Brits are given evil purple faces. I think it's just 'cause of pride in our country, though honestly, I'd prefer the truth.
I agree with Beckah, that learning about this is making her more unbiased. I feel the same way, especially seeing the british point of view. It opens your eyes to what ACTUALLY happened. Carly is also very good to point out what jimmy said about misunderstandings.
ReplyDeleteLearning about history is like connecting the dots like Dana said. It helps to really make sense of the matter so maybe it can help us for the future. I think its nice that teachers and people want to take pride and want to think they were all righ tand the other was wrong. but it just doesnt happen correct to be spoonfeading this kind of mixed up truth we have gotten for the last few years. I had not realized at all before this class that the french and indian war was actually relevant to the american revolution until now.
Bekah, I think the Boston Tea Party and Boston Massacre are still a huge deal. Maybe they're not the glorified events they're made to be, but they can be significant without being glorious. Before these events, sure, the colonists complained, but I'm not sure the British realized how entirely serious they were about revolting. Maybe in England they thought that it was just the initial impression and shock at the new taxes, nothing more (parents think the child is just going through a phase). But then the Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party were a wake up call. The colonists showed they weren't going to just stand around and complain, but take action to get what they wanted, including shedding blood and destroying potential English profits (parents finding the kid, I don't know, blowing up the microwave or something). Plus, the Boston Tea Party caused the British to respond with the Intolerable Acts, which really got the colonies to meet and unify, so that event actually mattered.
ReplyDeleteI don't think any of these events have really been "overhyped" by our past history education, more that they've just been skewed to cast Americans as the heroes. They were big deals. Just not big in the way we were taught. Like Columbus sailing across the Atlantic Ocean. That was important, and we learned that it was important early on. Just, we learned it was important because he proved the world was flat, not because this marked the beginning of the New World's exploitation.
Before this class, I never quite looked at the tensions between the colonies and Britain the same way. Like Scott mentioned, I was taught through the majority of my schooling that the British were the "bad guys." I never was taught about the colonists own part in the growing tension. We are always taught the biased version of what happened: the colonists did nothing wrong, and the British were taxing completely unfairly and were being "bullies" so eventually the American Revolution took place, and we won our freedom. The French and Indian War rarely came up either.
ReplyDeleteThe analogy I really liked today in class, was the one that compared England and the colonists to parents and a spoiled child. The more the child is given in to, the harder it will be to control it later on. This being said, the British demonstrated poor leadership skills, by appointing too many people to control the colonies, and by not enforcing laws that were supposedly put into place in the colonies. Royal governors were inept and did not have to report back to the king, and therefore the colonists put their own Parliament into place. In a way, Britain was kind of the inept parent. Later, when the colonists were unruly and were outraged by the laws imposed on them, it was because for the past few years they had been fairly free to do what they pleased. This would be like a parent always saying "yes" to everything, and one day saying "no, no, no. oh and clean your room." The child can't be expected to immediately understand these new orders and restrictions. The colonists couldn't be expected to understand either.
Commenting on Carly's point, I had never realized that the English were also being taxed, and heavily at that, with the colonists. Actually, the English were taxed worse, and before the colonists were. They were taxed to the point where they couldn't be taxed anymore without the whole country falling into poverty. I don't understand why all of these years we have been taught how awful the British were. Even today, when countries come out of wars, they have HUGE debts to pay, and taxes from the citizens of that country are usually the ones who pay it. Nobody scrutinizes them; its a matter of war.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I want to expand on Dana's point about the stamp act. The colonists were given the opportunity to find a new way to make up needed revenue. They had a year to try and come up with a different plan, and didn't make any attempts, and therefore the stamp act was put into place. The colonists proved to not be very proactive, considering how much they were petitioning and rioting. They only knew how to fight, not how to come up with alternative plans and suggestions.
Before coming to class today I had a very bias view on colonial grievances against the British. To state the simple reason for my bias view is mainly because I side with the colonists because they are responsible for this great country we live in. Also as a child going through history classes in the past it is drilled into your head that the British were evil and relentless, so that is why the colonists had to rise up heroically and revolt.
ReplyDeleteToday in class though I learned that although the British were wrong most of the time in their endeavors the colonists had their moments too. After the French and Indian War the English were under a lot of debt and had to tax the colonists to try and pay off debt. Although the British went about it the wrong way in today’s discussion I learned that the English some what had the right to do this to a certain extent. This right resides in the fact that although the British defended the colonists with a sense of arrogance they still defended them and should be reprimanded to an extent. The colonists could have stepped up and said in a formal matter that they would take on taxes to a certain degree. Other than that the British took the taxes to the extreme like imposing the Stamp Act. This was ridiculous and the colonists were right in opposing this. Another thing in the discussion that I learned today was that the Boston Tea Party although a very good way of displaying ideas of opposition was also not as glorious as we were taught as kids. In the past history classes teach us about these big events and we are taught in such a way that these events seemed almost unreal and epic, but on the contrary they were just groups of mad people who wanted to prove a point. In today’s discussion I learned that both sides of the dispute between the British and the colonists have faults instead of just one side being constantly wrong in a moral sense all the time.
Before this class, I didn’t truly know the accurate facts about the relationship between the colonists and the British. All I knew was that the British were enforcing tax after tax upon the colonists which provoked them to rebel. In previous studies of American History, I was taught the basics and the fact that the British caused great controversy in the colonies. These one-dimensional ideas were educated upon me and my classmates were very vague and made me always believe that the British were the ones to blame for this huge predicament. Therefore, after learning the correct facts in depth and analysis, my viewpoint has definitely changed.
ReplyDeleteSubsequent to our class discussions and reading the textbook, I now see that not only was the British at fault here, but the colonists were as well. Although the British really implemented their authority such as through the Stamp Act, Currency Act, and so on, the colonists also didn’t provide enough communication. Whenever English laws were imposed upon the colonists, they reacted with protest immediately. This tactic wasn’t too smart of an idea in my opinion because it resulted in riots and even violence in some cases. Therefore, while we discussed the cause of responsibility of the mounting tensions, my perspective changed from the British solely at fault to the colonists sharing an equal amount of liability.
My respect for the colonists took a huge plunge after the class discussion and the reading selection. Last year when Mr. Apel briefly taught our class, he mentioned something about how the Americans paid fewer taxes than the British but did not go further. That information was soon dismissed until this past week where everything started making sense.
ReplyDeleteSure the British may have caused some of the problems that would eventually snowball into a catastrophe, but overall the Americans were the one who were rolling it up. Britain had responded to most of the issues it faced logically without any real resentment towards the colonies. The colonies created the idea that the evil British were taxing us just so they can get richer without doing any work, but the British were just trying to pay off the war debts accumulated from a war fought in the colonies. Not to mention that the Americans were barely taxed at all compared to the British populace that could barely support itself. After the first few acts, it came to a point that anything the British did was instantly villainized no matter how much it would benefit the colonies. The Tea Act had the greatest impression on me, showing how spoiled the American colonists were. The Tea Act basically made East Indian Tea, which was of higher quality than smuggled tea, cheaper for the colonists in an attempt to save the struggling East India Company. Everyone seemed to benefit from this agreement but no, the Americans of course came up with another excuse to make it bad. They claimed that it would act as a stepping stone for the British monopolizing all goods and also that the tea tasted bad. Then they proceeded to tar and feather British official and throw good tea overboard into the harbor. The actions the Americans conducted are not only illogical, but also seem a little immoral because they dealt with the lives of other people. Overall, I’m not saying that I did not like the results of the American Revolution (I live here), but rather that the ways we used to get to the point of revolution were just shameful. And now today, because of that, we are still “brainwashing” our youngest generation to resent the British taxes, glorify the Boston Tea Party, and basically take all the blame off the colonies for starting the war when it was really our fault.
I completely agree with Dana's statement about how the colonists were not at blame when we learned about this subject in previous years. Also, her analogy with the temper tantrum depicted the colonists pretty accurately. They acted upon rash decisions which only created more tension between them and the British. The British shouldn''t have tightened their grip on the colonies so quickly which also was a significant factor to their problems. If England had enforced their laws earlier and not at such a rapid pace, the colonists might not have been so angered. However, due to the fact that England never implemented their laws such as the Navigation Acts and Molasses Act, colonists discovered loopholes and bent the rules a bit. This is why the sudden change of power frustrated them so deeply. They definitely weren't used to so much authority and as a result rebelled against it.
ReplyDeleteBefore our class discussions and textbook readings, I personally, always disliked the colonists. I think they're selfish and hypocritical because of what they did to the Native Americans. The Native Americans helped the colonists in the beginning but the colonists eventually took control of them and their lands. When we were younger history made the colonists the "good guys" but I never really bought it. Elementary school American history actually made it seem like the colonists did nothing wrong, but I didn't believe that... Conflict is always caused by both sides, so obviously I saw something wrong with both of the colonists and the English.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't until I read the textbook and listened to the class discussion that I supplied my previous reasoning with evidence. Colonists did cause a lot of tension before the revolution. The British weren't the sole cause of all their problems, the colonists instigated a lot of them. Why were the colonists so hypocrytical about British control over them anyway? They did the same thing to the Natives. Their relationship between England was supposed to be a boss/employee relationship. The Boss, or company provided protection and a paying job, and in return the employees provide labor. If the company isn't doing so well, the loyal employees should help out, and maybe do a bit of overtime. But instead, the colonists revolted. It's the same as workers overthrowing the CEO, it just isn't right. And it wasn't any suprise that the British resented the colonists. The colonists smuggled and traded with the enemy!
But this is not to say that the British weren't wrong either. Of course their constant oppression proved to be a deficient tactic to contain the colonists. The British were unreasonable with their laws and rules. But this was done to regulate the colonies, to try and obtain revenues for the motherland. I'm sure the colonists would do the same thinig to the British if the roles were reversed.
Back then there was a social order, and the break from those ideals would of course cause discord between the Colonists and their former rulers. The colonists could have just used reason and compromise, they didnt have to instigate violence. But then again, that's just my opinion, I'm biased due the era I grew up in, where violence solves nothing and is unfavorable. If anything, learning about the French and Indian War, and its aftermath, strengthed my negative views of the colonists.
After our discussion in class, my viewpoint of the British and the colonists has changed significantly. The portrayal of the British during this period of time seemed opinionated in many textbooks we were taught from since elementary school. Each deemed the British as the atrocious antagonist, constantly repressive and selfish, making decisions that purposefully upset the colonists. For several years, we have learned that America was the struggling hero, facing oppression and harsh times before finally achieving their freedom after the American Revolution.
ReplyDeleteAfter we shared our opinions with each other in class, I now see the British in a different light. For example, the numerous acts that Parliament passed that restricted the colonists in trade and taxed them excessively were to make up for the excessive war debt the French and Indian War created, a fact that few of us knew about. The British did not tax the colonists just for fun, there was legitimate reason behind the heavy taxation. The British were in fact, not as evil as many textbooks have depicted. Furthermore, the British were always seen as the ones to blame in the textbooks, continually the reason for many of the mounting tensions between the colonists and the mother country. Like Dana had stated, the colonists deserved some blame for the tensions between them for never taking the civil, passive road towards settling differences. The colonists rioted and protested, using violent means to achieve their ambitions rather than presenting their disgruntlement amicably. Today, students continue to learn that the British were at fault for the Revolution when both sides should be put into consideration. Just like a criminal deserves to defend themselves when accused, the British deserve to have their side of the story told. Is it truly fair of us to venerate the colonists when we deserve the blame for the violence as well?
Additionally, like Scott mentioned in class, Britain and the colonists were like parent and child. Once the British gave in to the colonists’ whines and demands, the colonists knew that they could continuously whine and demand to show their discontent. The fact that the colonists knew that their riots would eventually break the British just pushed them to be more aggressive.
ReplyDeleteMarco also makes a great point by bringing up the Tea Act. I had never really thought about it but the colonists did make up another excuse to make the Parliament’s new act appear unfavorable. The colonists’ actions like tar and feathering British officials and the Boston Tea Party were acts that were not rational or justifiable. Did the British attack the colonists in such a way? Not in the least bit. The colonists’ actions were childish and immature. Instead of showing the British that the colonists were a united and established front, it showed the British that they were stubborn and unreasonable.
I agree with the generalization that Scott made about our prior knowledge about the American Revolution. All we learn in middle school is just the British overtaxed and that the colonists were pushed to the edge and this led to the American Revolution. This kind of generalization about history is what gives people biases about events in history and also lets a person choose a side.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dana on how the colonists automatically resented the British once they became strict. The colonists did not try to put themselves in the British’s shoes. If the colonists did this than maybe they could have saw the taxes as a rational plan to get rid of some debt. Also if the colonists should have asked in a politically formal way to loosen up the taxes rather than have riots or revolts.
I agree with Jimmy on the fact of just realizing how events before, during, and after the French and Indian War lead to the American Revolution. Events such as the putting in place of acts and the making of congresses helped generate new ideas between the colonists and the British which would lead to the American Revolution. I never realized how past events could cause future events in such obvious way before.
It seems like most of the people are consenting that all of their previous thoughts on the American Revolution taught in elementary school are false and just glorify the American side. This should should probably raise some alarm bells that things should be taught differently in middle school. It is probably not healthy for all these children to have these prior misconceptions that the British were entirely to blame on the cause of the war. If you ask me, I think children are mature enough these days to understand that the Americans could have also been at fault during this time period.
ReplyDeleteI like Rebecca's thought that the colonists would have reacted the same way the British did had they been in their shoes. It definitely helps reinforce the point that the British did the logical thing to do in their situation. However, their logical acts could not work against an increasingly hostile group of people who were just dead set on proving their enemies wrong.
The colonial grievances against the British from a young age are pounded into our heads as justified against unfair taxes and laws. However, after reading the textbook, while I believe there is much justification for the grievances of the colonists, they were founded on principle. For example, the colonists were taxed after the Parliament exhausted all other options in their own state. Also, in such taxes as the Stamp Act, the Parliament gave the colonists a year to come up with alternatives to put it into effect. The Colonial taxes for Britain were not hastily thought up of. They were only created when Britain had little other choice.
ReplyDeleteHowever, just because Britain was not taxing the colonists unfairly relative to their own citizens, who were already highly taxed, that doesn’t mean the taxes were justifiable to the colonists. The colonists did not benefit from the taxes in their eyes, and at this point connections to the British were hinderances and not help. Britain was stopping much trade for the colonists through various prohibitions of trading with other countries. The colonists’ obligation to Britain was not founded on a need for support from Britain anymore, and because of that being held back by British policies was an appropriate grievance. While I see now that many colonists’ grievances were founded on principle, they are no less justified (the violent actions can be argued more, but I will not touch those at the moment, because I am just addressing the colonists’ grievances, not their responses).
Personally, since I moved to the US say about 9 years ago, it's been interesting learning about the double, or should I say triple-sided story of the founding of this nation. The Native Americans, the "BRITISH" Colonists and the British themselves all collaborate in order to make a truly interesting story.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, it stands out very much, to me, that the colonists settled here seeking new lives, as well as religious freedom and other rights they believed to be undeniable. However, with their settling, they brought ends to great Native civilizations and people, stripping them of their cultures and the lives which they had created. They took these things from them, and with what they could extract they used to those things to their own advantage, in order to "selfishly" creating their own forms of nations which were referred to as the colonies, mini secluded nations some would say.
However, it seems to me, that karma came into play. Not so say I strongly believe in the idea, but it is an ironic concept. Just as the colonists had taken so much from the Native Americans, the people of the land which they, themselves, originated from simply came on over and took their rights, and their freedoms that they had worked so hard to achieve. They had indeed achieved a new way of life, but not the most organized one, nor was it the least corrupt embodiment of a nation. Nevertheless, the loss for the colonists was still great. And so at this point it seems to me that they had been taught their own lesson I guess you could say. And from then on, a somewhat equal conflict began to stir up between the British and the colonists. Taxation came into hand, trade regulations were enforced, and violent riots began to higher the tensions between the two groups.
Now aside, from those general things, I want to say I truly agree with what Marco just previously stated about the kids these days in middle school. I very strongly agree that children these days should not be fed a misleading idea of how the American Revolution took place and how this nation came to be. It is a great nation, but all great nations have some dirt under their carpets do they not? It is a nation's will and perseverance to greaten themselves, and make up for their past mistakes that, in my opinion, truly glorifies a people. To put aside one's negative experiences of the past, and move forward with all heads up in hopes of achieving a greater good for one's self and those around them is probably the most effective way of abandoning the darker past of a nation.
Ultimately, I want to state that what we have learned as young children in middle school is not entirely incorrect, I do understand that it was modified in terms and ways of stating certain events but nonetheless it gives a good general idea of how the colonies and Great Britain settled their issues. Some would say the events were a bit exaggerated and dramatized, but sometimes those are necessary methods of targeting the youth of a people. It makes ideas more interesting and easier to grasp.
But then again, everyone on this blog is exceptionally intelligent I must say, so I guess that last statement really has nothing to do with us. We truly are years ahead of our time. Haha, jokes!
After reading the responses I remember preconceived notions that had changed. The grievances were nowhere near as extreme as we had learned in elementary school, and as Scott said, Britain was not the evil tyrannical state that we had learned it was. Also, the colonists definitely weren’t heroes by any means. Bostonians resorted many times to angry mobs. Mob rule is never a rational way to solve anything. Also, before, elementary school never justified the British. We never talked about the French and Indian War as many people have pointed out. In elementary school we were only showed pro-colonist propaganda, simply because we were not told both sides of the story and Britain’s viewpoint. While some classes addressed such things as the Boston massacre and its inaccuracies, not any class went into large detail on the faults of the colonists.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Marco that my view about the colonist during this time have changed greatly. After all the British did the logical thing which is tax the colonies to help pay off the debt (after all a very large portion of the war was fought over here). If modern America were in England shoes after the French and Indian war we would most likely do the same thing. I also like what Marco said about how in elementary school children are being "brainwashed" into thinking that the British suddenly started giving the colonies massive taxes and the colonist honorably resisted. In reality the colonists were pretty wild and out of control. But another very large problem in the elementary school is that I don't ever recall be told why the British imposed these taxes. The only problem with Britain's logical taxing acts were the illogical governing from the pre French and Indian war period.
ReplyDeleteI actually want to add on and be more specific of how I felt prior to this discussion and this class. Just to add a little extra to my previous post.
ReplyDeleteBeing very straightforward, before this class I strongly believed that the British looked at the colonists as inferior creatures, however I think it was more of a bully vs. schoolboy sort of relationship at times. Because the British pushed the colonists, they got on they're nerves and ticked them off, little by little, first through actions such as the Navigation Acts, adding on to that they messed with them more with the Molasses Act.
The colonists did not want to be considered as a people of Great Britain, one of the main purposes of their landing in the Americas was to break off from Britain, they did not wish to be held back by parliament, they didn't want boundaries on a life which needed none. They were a new people to a new land with several opportunities to explore. And with actions leading to rules and rules and rules... essentially the British were putting a leash on the colonists.
In my opinion, the colonists were a group of potentially very intelligent children, who had a passion for learning and growing, but these gifted children were only caged in by Great Britain, the big school bully.
I can't honestly say my opinion has changed too much though, the colonists may not be geniuses, and obviously the British truly were NOT so intelligent either, as they demonstrated through foolish battle tactics, ignorant regulations and economic interference, and so on. But, I want to say that, yes, the stories have been a bit dramatized in the past, they were glorified, just as many of us here have stated, but again not all successful accomplishments and findings of history have always been glorious.
Either way, glorified or not, exaggerated/dramatized or not, the outcome of these events were the same in the end, resulting in the founding of this nation. A glorious outcome without a doubt.
I agree with Marco with the rolling up effect the colonists did. They definitly did not help England in any way and were so spoiled they acted like the colonies were they're own countries. They were not thankful that they were allowed such freedoms, unlike other people. The colonists were as everyone is saying, spoild children. England taxed itself until they litterally could not tax the people anymore. the americans either did not know the English were in such bad economic time or they didn't care. The colonists were extremely selfish. The whole taxation without representation phrase doesn't seem so unrepresented anymore to me.
ReplyDeleteSomething Jimmy just mentioned, referring to Marco, about the British taxing the colonists...
ReplyDeleteI don't want to come off sounding biased in any of my posts, but I do want to support that statement about the British, as they had spent so much money within the colonies adding some type of effect upon the people, negative or positive, they had been thrown into a great national debt due to the colonies actually, and so to continually tax their own nation would only be unfair and wrong to their people, naturally an issue like that will increase tensions between the people of the colonies and the people of Great Britain. The reasons the British had for taxing the colonists was very much understandable.
Before this class, and this year, I had always thought the British were the big bad guys. I knew that the American Revolution was heavily influenced by the debt from the French and the Indian war, but I thought that was the main reason why Americans despised the British. Now I know that trading regulations, mistreatment, and tightened laws also contributed to the dislike of the Brits.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Rebecca's statement about the colonists being "good guys." I had always formed an image that the colonists were hard working people, while the Brits were bullies. Boy was I wrong. The colonists were defiant and rebellious; they formed political groups like the Sons of Liberty to fight (politically) the British forces. Our discussions have helped me understand why the British resented the colonists; they were a pain to deal with! The two groups acted like little kids, "He started it!" "No he hit me first!" The bickering never ended. One example of this fighting that came from the text was when the Brits passed the Tea Act, an indirect way of taxation. The colonists responded by dumping the tea into the Boston Harbor (Boston Tea Party). The Brits countered by passing the Coercive Acts, forcing the colonists to pay for the lost tea. Then, the colonists assembled at the Continental Congress where they drew up a list of their rights, and rejected the English authority. All of these altercations contributed to the American Revolution. I never would have thought the colonists were so troublesome.
Alex's point about why the the British taxed the colonists is insightful. I never thought about Britain's situation when they imposed taxes on the colonists. They really did have nowhere to turn for help, as their country was suffering enough already. To expand on that thought, I still believe that if the British had shown a little more respect towards the colonials, they might have been more understanding and willing to help out the Brits. Since the troops were demanding and belittling, the colonists gave them a bad reputation, and didn't see any profit in helping them. It would be interesting to see how future events would have played out if there were more peaceful interactions.
ReplyDeleteMy viewpoint on the issue of colonial grievances definitely changed from our class discussion today. I always believed that the British epitomized all the evil in the world and that the colonists were being brought down because of the British. I would have never thought that the colonists shared the blame for causing this rift between the two groups of people.
ReplyDeleteThe British did have many faults, such as enforcing laws and taxes on the colonists when they did not have any idea what was going on across the vast Atlantic Ocean. Furthermore, the British always had a condescending view towards the colonists, which was ironic since the colonists were the same people who had come from the same country.
The American colonists had their share for the blame as well. The analogy of a young child and a parent clearly explained to me the behavior that was set by the colonists. Even though I always thought that the British were being too harsh on the colonists, the truth was that the British were spoiling the colonists. Every time that the colonists acted out against the rules of their superior, the British backed down their strict enforcements. The colonists and the British never saw eye to eye, and neither one of the groups tried to see each situation from their respective points of views.
I was intrigued with what Rebecca wrote in her blog post. She gave a different point of view from everyone else, stating that she never liked the colonists, and her reasons supplemented her opinion very well. The colonists always did cause problems from the beginning, such as taking away territory and lives from innocent Native Americans. Also, her comparison between the boss and the employee with the British and the colonists clearly exemplified the colonists’ behavior. It was not right for the colonists to act up against the British; they should be willing to understand the problems that are rising in the mother country and sacrifice a little bit of what they have for the whole country.
I agree with Marco when he says the younger generation are being "brainwashed" to look down on the British. I'm sure that British children are learning that the colonists were at fault. This "blame game" really sets up the mindset of patriotism. Not that it's a bad thing, but not magnifying all sides of the story is really misleading for younger generations and history may repeats itself.
ReplyDeleteI also like how Alex said that the colonists " had been taught their own lesson" and like carly and bekah said, the Boston tea party and massacres were provoked by the colonists themselves. So the colonists were sort of asking for a rebuttal. Like Emily said, the colonists were childish and immature. They should have dealt with the problems through communication, rather then just violence.
Before coming to class today, my opinion of the events before, during, and after the French and Indian war was that England was the main cause of tension in the relationship and their actions caused much distress. I was taught to beleive that the colonies were innocent and because of all the harsh taxes placed by Britian on the colonists they were the victims.Even though Britian did contribute to the tension in the relationship the colonists were not innocent. They too were responsible for the issues and conflicts that were faced during this time. I learned that the colonists immediatley turned to protest when something did not go the way they wanted it to. They did not try and reach out and communicate with Britian but quickly rebeled against them. Sometimes to figure out a disagreement it is better to talk through it first rather then take action so quickly. The protests caused violence in the colonies and made britian tightened their control and power over America. They put more taxes and stricter rule upon themselves. Also, the lack of colonial unity created problems bewtween the relationship. All the colonies were not united and connected as one so mnay different ideas and opinions circulated. Too mnay peoples tried creating rules and govern the colonies the way they thought was best. Massive amounts of ruled and laws create loop holes and result in them being diregarded overall. Lack of order is never a good thing in governemnt and in order to be at peace strict order needs to take place. They just created more confusion in the colonies which made Britian step in and sort things out. The actions of the colonists at first seemed like they would allow them to break free from the British but in reality it just brought them closer.
ReplyDeleteAlex makes a great point about karma. It is a great idea to relate something we are all familar with to today's lesson in class. I do beleive the colonbists got a taste of their own medicine from the Brtish after they applied strict rules and taxes. The colonists altered and changed the way of life of the Native Americans and now their the ones whose lives are being changed and effected by another country's decision.
ReplyDeleteChanel also makes a great point in describing Britian and their war debt. After accumalating such an immense amount of debt England looked to the colonists as a way to releive this debt. It was easy for them to do so because they had power over the colonies and I cannot blame them for doing this because who wouldn't take the easy way out? The taxes were a way of simply surving and doing what is best for your country, you can't always think about others.Britian cannot take all the blame they receive for taxation because they had a legitamate cause as to why they were taxing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy original thinking of the American revolution was that the British were very bad people who taxed just for money. I thought that the Americans had a very good reason for rebeling and trying to create a new nation. But our recent class disscussions and recent homework convinced me that the colonist were really no better than the British. Well the British were still a little worse in my opinion because they already were a very strong nation but still made arrogant trading policies to become even stronger. I see why the colonies were angry in that situation but our recent class disscussion showed me alot about the colonists. When O was explaining to us how the colonist would rebel when there was mandatory enlistment but enlisted when British backed off was shocking to me. it makes me think that these colonist were very imatture and very childish. After the war the British made major taxing because of massive war debt which made the colonist very angry. In this situation a see why the colonies were angry, but as i was doing cornel notes last night, i came across some confusing information. I originally thought the Tea act was completely unfair but when it really was an act that made sense. The British put a small tax on the tea. this was made for the Americans to buy the tea for a much cheaper price. This would undersell the smuggled Dutch tea in time, and Americans get inexpensive tea. But the colonists rebeled and protested only because they didnt want the British to get money. this shows that the colonists were power hungry just like the British. Overall, most of the British's regulation were very harsh and caused controversies, But i realized that the colonists made things worse and were immature power hungry citizens.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everybodies post. they are all very similar to mine. I like how Alex J pointed out the Karma post. In it he writes how the failing colonies in England go to the Americas and steal the land of the Native Americans. This can also be related to my post because these people in Europe are all alike. They all want power. They came and stole all of what the Natives worked for. Even the french came in which leads up to the French and Indian War. This war only occurred because these European colonist arrogantly wanted power. This would then lead up to all the assemblies and all the riots/protests which in time leads to revolution.
ReplyDeleteMy initial response to the conflict between the British and the Americans was that the British were to be held solely accountable. I knew that they had taxed the Americans and then mistreated them when the French and Indian war started, which the Americans did not even cause. After reading the book and listening in class, it became clear that the English were not the only ones at fault. England did not enforce their superiority over the colonists early, which gave them too much room to take advantage. Initially, the English had a decentralized government and only a few acts for the colonists which were geared towards organizing trade. The colonies were loosely governed. Since they had a little taste of independence, there was no turning back. The war was a factor because the British mistreated the Americans and the Americans did not show enough support for the war causing resentment towards each party. The British decided after the war that the colonists needed more discipline. Conveniently enough, the discipline came in the form of a stronger government and more taxes that could help England pay off the enormous war debt. Once the British began to exercise more control over the colonists, they immediately resisted because they knew what what it was like to be an independent colony. Due to the failure of England to immediately set up strict rule in the colonies, and the stubbornness of the colonies to adhere to England's orders there was major conflict between both parties.
ReplyDeleteI do not support Toy's statement that "the colonists were power hungry" or immature because all they wanted was their independence and freedom from the unjust rule of Britain. The colonists were not the ones to start a war with French in the America's, the Americans were perfectly happy until the English decided they wanted to take down the French. England made a mistake in laxly governing from the beginning, otherwise the colonists would not have known what freedom to govern their own colony was like. Since the colonies realized they did not need Britain anymore, they put all their efforts towards winning their independence. What Toy described as immaturity was actually the determination of the colonists to reach a common goal. Every action that was made was for the purpose of separating from England, and I believe it is wrong to misconceive that as immature or power hungry.
ReplyDeleteOriginally, I believed that the British were to be held solely accountable for starting the American revolution. They were the ones that taxed the colonists without representation and oppressed them. After learning more about it, I realized that the British had valid motives behind their taxation and increased control over the colonies. The reason they forced the colonists to move farther east was to protect them, but the colonist thought that the British were trying to keep them from using all of the newly claimed land. Most of the taxes were to regulate trade as well, and the colonists did not like that either
ReplyDeleteOnce the taxes got to the point where Great Britain was only trying to make money off of the colonies the colonists began to rebel, initiating the revolution.
I agree that the colonists acted a little spoiled. They kept getting what they wanted and then continued to ask for more. The British appeased the colonists to stop them from complaining about the taxes they imposed, but because the colonists got what they wanted they continued to complain even more.
ReplyDeleteI also think that Alex's post about karma was interesting. He makes a very good point that the colonists continued to take from the Native Americans and then Great Britain went and did the same to the colonists. The difference in the end though, would be that the colonists were able to rebel more effectively.