• raef@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    149
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    This ignores the “without representation” part. England gutted colonies’ ability to govern

    • The Dark Lord ☑️@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      It also ignores that taxes were actually LOWERED on tea just before the Boston Tea Party. This made it so taxed tea was cheaper than smuggled tea and people would be paying that tax without getting representation. Thus, the whole reason for fighting.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        The whole reason for fighting is that the American colonies were rich. Initially they had been propped up by the British. But, once the French were essentially wiped out, the colonists no longer had need of the British military, and they were now richer than the British, so they no longer wanted to contribute to the motherland and wanted to be independent.

        • raef@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 months ago

          The colonial governments had previously had influence over laws in that their elected officials would advise the governors. England shut that down. Patrick Henry made the “taxation without representation” argument ten years before the Declaration of Independence

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            Many excuses were made, that’s the one that stuck. The real reason was that the colonies were rich, and now had effectively unlimited land to the west they could expand into, that the British army had taken care of the French.

            • raef@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              I think you have that backwards. The grievances were the motivation. The situation was the opportunity.

              If they were content, they wouldn’t have revolted

              • merc@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                6 months ago

                They weren’t content because they were now rich and the motherland was now poor. It wasn’t some high-minded ideal, it was opportunism.

                • raef@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  How would having more money make them discontent? That makes no sense. If they’re doing so well in the empire, then stay. Enjoy the security. Don’t make an enemy of the most powerful force in the world.

                  It was ideological. Have you read anything contemporary leaders were writing at the time?

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    108
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Taxation without representation is they key. They forcefully tried to shutdown the local governments and establish a dictator.

    The irony is that the US has done this to south America

  • TooManyFoods@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    I wonder why the colonies were in that war to begin with. Was it because GB dragged them in kicking and screaming, and the people living there had no say in the matter?

    • mannycalavera@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      68
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      That’s kinda what a colony is when you think about it. A colony that can refuse the colonial overlords is… well… not a colony 🤣.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      If you’ve ever wondered why many US cities have French names (Baton Rouge, Des Moines, Boise, Terre Haute, St. Louis, Louisville, Dubuque, Detroit, Marquette, New (Nouvelle) Orleans), it’s because those were all under French control when they were named.

      The colonists couldn’t expand westward without hitting French territory, so yes they wanted war against the French.

      The British settlers along the coast were upset that French troops would now be close to the western borders of their colonies. They felt the French would encourage their tribal allies among the North American natives to attack them. Also, the British settlers wanted access to the fertile land of the Ohio River Valley for the new settlers that were flooding into the British colonies seeking farm land

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years'_War

      Do you know what actually started the 7 years war? It was when George Washington (a Lt. Colonel in the British army) ambushed a French force who were building a fort (Fort Duquesne) to defend their territory near the Ohio river. The French then attacked Washington’s army and forced it to surrender. The first battlefront in the 7 years war was in North America, and it was a territorial dispute over the Ohio river valley.

      • TooManyFoods@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I do see where my mistake was here and my ignorance was sort of awkwardly positioned. I was aware of the Prussian Austrian front, and had the impression that that was the start. The years given for the war here seem to coincide with that don’t, but wars start before official dates. That’s not a good reason at all, in fact the separate page for the French and Indian War give the earlier year. It’s a poor excuse for my ignorance. In these wars within wars some people, myself as well, can get confused.

    • Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Idk, the colonists had a vested interest in expelling the French from the Ohio territory, so that they could expel all the Indians and take the land. Also most of them still considered themselves English, and therefore despised the French so public support for the war was probably pretty high.

  • Higgs boson@dubvee.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    to protect you from the French

    lol. oh man, that’s hilarious. Stay in school, kids.

    • PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I believe they meant to protect North American territories from French capture, not necessarily to prevent individual bodily harm, but that doesn’t fit as nicely in meme format.

      • The Dark Lord ☑️@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        So… they saved the land, not the people. It’s like cutting employee salaries to avoid a takeover from another company. Don’t worry everyone… we “saved” you.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        The territories were the things the US founding fathers cared about. They were almost all rich – or at least formerly rich like Samuel Adams.

    • Mac@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      lol. Because education systems are always based on accuracy.

      • Higgs boson@dubvee.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        That has very little to do with the historicity of whether England “saved you from the French.”

        • Mubelotix@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I understood later that the comment was a joke about the french actually being allies because we hated england too

        • stoy@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          6 months ago

          It is interesting to see that Sweden is only three land borders away from North Korea.

          Sweden - Finland

          Finland - Russia

          Russia - DPRK

            • stoy@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              How do you count that?

              I don’t see any land border connection between south America and Asia…

              But I am peobably missing something.

              • Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Brazil borders France. (Amapá borders French Guiana.)

                France borders Germany.

                Germany borders Poland.

                Poland borders Belarus and Ukraine.

                Belarus and Ukraine each border Russia.

                Russia borders North Korea.

                Edit: Actually, Poland borders Russia directly. (Warmian-Masurian borders Kaliningrad.) So really it’s only five!

        • Eheran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Don’t forget the section of South America that is also Europe on that picture.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              It’s because that little chunk of South America is French Guiana, which is a full-fledged part of France (not just a territory, but a departement with political status equal to the ones in mainland Europe).

              It’s also where the European Space Agency launches their spacecraft from, by the way.

              • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Cool. I’m not sure what that has to do with the continent, though. Politically, I’m uncertain if that would count as something other than colonization, either.

                • grue@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  It depends what aspect of colonization is important to your definition, I guess. Is it about imperialist expansion to non-contiguous territories, or is it more specifically about extracting resources from those territories for the exclusive benefit of the motherland?

                  At any rate, I would say that French Guiana either counts or doesn’t count as a colony of France to the same extent that Hawaii counts or doesn’t count as a colony of the United States.

                • KISSmyOS@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  There are multiple definitions of “Europe”.
                  French Guyana isn’t geographically, geologically, culturally or historically part of Europe.
                  But politically and legally, it is.

      • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Thank you. Gonna save this picture for when someone calls the migrant crisis an invasion of Europe.

        Projection like always.

        • KISSmyOS@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          It’s part of France. Not a colony or territory, but actually a region of the country.
          So legally and politically, it’s part of Europe.

      • sudo@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        This map is absolutely blasphemy against Haile Selassie and an insult to the people of Ethiopia.

        Why do you give the honor of ‘uncolonized’ to The Colony of Liberia?

        Do you forget The Battle of Adwa?

        Do you legitimize The Fascist Pig, Mussolini’s claims?.

        In the name of Jah correct this at once.

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I had heard that they were actually lowering taxes and tariffs on imported goods and since the founding fathers were all involved in smuggling goods in — the lower taxes threatened their personal income so they rebelled

    • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      It’s complicated. They removed all taxation that would have benefitted the the colonies, but kept the Townshend Act taxes in place.

      The colonies had been evading the Townshend taxes, largely because they were understood to be punitive. That’s the primary reason tea had been smuggled from The Netherlands, as resistance to what was viewed as unjust taxation.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      The first battles of the 7 years war were in the Ohio river valley. They resulted in a certain Lt. Colonel of the British Army named George Washington surrendering.

      • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Or just realise most of the world doesn’t give a shit about American history any more than Americans care about the treaty of Waitangi.

        • Match!!@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          actually i love learning about the treaty of waitangi and its fucked up translations and the long-term consequences of it

            • Match!!@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              To be fair, i mostly think about it in the context of the Maori Renaissance and try to think about how those lessons could benefit American subgroups

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          American history is more consequential though. Similarly, even though I don’t care much about Russian history, it was Russian history that led Putin to conclude that he had a right to control Ukraine, which has led to the first land war in Europe in decades.

          • Match!!@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            More consequential in the immediate case, though we probably all hope for a future where America’s history is not worldwide-relevant

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Fuck yes. A future where America could sneeze without the world catching a cold would be a good one. Probably even for Americans. But, as it stands, often US politics is more relevant to people’s lives than their own local politics, because they’re own local politics are predictable and steady, while in the US it’s unpredictable chaos.

  • Sorgan71@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    6 months ago

    and the 7 years war was fought without consent from the colonies. The colonies did not want to fight the french, their allies.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      The colonies, including a colonist named George Washington (a Lieutenant Colonel in the British Army) started the 7 year war by ambushing a group of French soldiers building a fort on French territory in the Ohio river valley. I don’t know where you get the idea that the British colonists were allies with the French. But, if that was the case, the French must have found that a pretty confusing thing for their allies to do.

  • makeasnek@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    For perspective, there are two ways we pay taxes currently: direct taxation via tax collection and indirect taxation via the inflation of the currency supply (govt prints money and uses it, your money becomes worth less about 2-3% year in good years). That second tax is optional, there are ways to not use your national currency and therefore not pay the inflationary tax. That second tax is also insidious because people don’t realize it’s happening. If you have to raise actual taxes, suddenly you get revolts and removed from power. Which is why most wars are funded with inflationary spending, not tax increases. People will gladly pay extra tax for popular wars, but not unpopular ones.

    Imagine how the world might look different if inflationary spending wasn’t a particularly powerful taxation tool because not much value was wrapped up in national currencies. Imagine if going to war meant raising actual taxes. Might we have a world where there is less war because war is now harder to fund?