But 'The Patriot' was just another Mel Gibson, an Aussie, revenge blood-bath movie.

Polemic History generally doesn't interest me - no matter which side does it. The Patriot kind of sucks too, for the same reason (but on the other side).

Bryant

You DO NOT FUCK WITH MEL GIBSON'S FAMILY, EVER!!!!

You would have thought the Brits would have learned from Braveheart.

But really, "The Patriot" was abysmal as a movie and no better as history. Edited to add: just another Mel Gibson snuff film.

Worst line from a movie, EVER!!!

would have an Australian accent?

both the British and American perspectives.

As for learning history from Mel Gibson movie, um

Very inspiring. The UK version could be part right. Has anyone here read
A PEOPLES HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES by Howard Zinn?

I know the history he writes of did happen but it is not taught to America students. Great book.

Daniels who was a Republican politician (Governor maybe) in Indiana who then got an appointment to head Purdue University.

"The question is, would this lead to this material being taught to innocent school children? I promise that if the parents of Indiana understood what was in the book in question, 99 if not 100 out of 100 would want some other book used," Daniels said after the trustees' meeting on the West Lafayette campus.

After being told Zinn's work was being used at Indiana University in a course for teachers on the Civil Rights, feminist and labor movements, Daniels wrote:

"This crap should not be accepted for any credit by the state. No student will be better taught because someone sat through this session. Which board has jurisdiction over what counts and what doesn't?"

The left in this country has it's work cut out for it, don't ya think?

Especially when historical facts on US history do not fit their illusions of America's greatness. There is a lot of ugly history they do not want exposed and told.

DUrs should read his books.

Howard Zinn lies by omission and misleads his (often impressionable school-age) readers by failing to provide the necessary historical context. In that regard, he's no better than Mel Gibson. Two sides of the same coin.

Hmmm.
I find what you say a bit odd for a DUr.

Sorry, I'll try to be more ideologically pure in future, and not stray so much from the party line. It's just I always preferred judging people on their own merits, not taking their side in all matters just because of some "My party, right or wrong" mentality.

that typical history books are written from the point of view of the powerful in society, while his book is intended to view history from the point of view of common people.

The "necessary historical context" has already been provided - it's the "history" we've all learned in school for years. I don't believe that Zinn intended his book to be read by itself; to say he lies by omission is to completely misunderstand the intent of his book.

I think that was part of his basic strategy in posting it like that.

you just got here . . .

And matt damon singing/reading his work on stage is fantastic. It would be good in schools too.

Thanks for the link, GreenPartyVoter. It was a great read. I can't get enough of comic sans.

My 4th great-grandfather fought in the Battles of Lexington and Concord, and also at Bunker (Breed's) Hill. He joined the Continental Army and lived through that awful winter at Valley Forge. I have letters he wrote, and although they don't tell it all - far from it - I'll not be lectured about the American Revolution by some sour-grapes-sucking British twerp.

*End of rant*

Why shouldn't the British lecture on it? After all, early American history is also British history.

This is precisely the reason why more balanced articles on the American Revolution are necessary. It's a common misconception among Americans that this was a war between "Americans" and the British (it wasn't, it was a war between British colonists and the British government), and that the British are still bitter about it, whereas they really couldn't give a damn. It's ancient history as far as they're concerned and they're long over it.

Considering British acts throughout Scotland, Ireland, the Americas and India, they have no room to lecture us about anything.

And so many Loyalists went to Canada? That explains a lot right there.

I don't think that's the point he's getting at, more like challenging a few national myths. The idea that a few plucky, rebel colonists, armed with their muskets, single-handedly defeated the mighty, tryannical British Empire is often used to justify gun-nuttery, when the reality is the colonists would have been crushed if it wasn't for the intervention of the other major world powers of the day, such as the French. They didn't even see British rule in such cartoonish terms, and most of them either were British or children of British parents, so naturally many of them considered themselves British. The "American" identity as we know it today hadn't evolved yet, and support for independence from Britain wasn't that widespread. It was split almost 50--50, if I recall. Many of them wanted to remain part of the British Empire, they just wanted some of the laws to be reformed.

...still be spelling colour correctly, never ceases to bring a smile to my face...i like reading about ALL history, from many different viewpoints, because the truth is usually somewhere in the middle...

How could we ever criticize and then co-opt third-world revolutions that are "messier" than our own supposedly was?

A complex war.

I read a book, I don't remember the name, it was published about ten years ago. An excellent read, it gave a narrative of the war years from the British view. What caused all the problem, the English were bleeding the colonies dry by heavy taxing and export and import restrictions. If I remember correctly, about 10 percent of their revenues were coming from the colonies. A few English politicians warned the parliament that they were going to lose the colonies, but they were too greedy. Even added more taxation to teach the Americans a lesson, which inflamed the Americans even more. The English didn't want to give up this easy source of money. Don't feel sorry for the Brits, or try to look at their side. they lost the colonies because of short sighted politicians and pure greed.

I'd like to read the book. If you think of the title, would you please PM me? Thanks!

The American Revolution was a long time in coming. There was widespread dissatisfaction in the colonies from very early on, and much of it had to do with what many colonists considered to be unfair taxation and being given little representation in colonial governance.

In the mid 1600s my 7th great-grandfather Simon Tuttle, a Massachusetts Bay Colony merchant, was arrested and jailed several times for rabble-rousing and making threats against the Crown. His father was so dissatisfied with conditions in the colonies that he emigrated to Ireland, and he stayed there till he died.

Here's a 1664 court record about one of Simon's run-ins with the law. This time he mouthed off to soldiers (bottom half of the page):

I'm British. What we get taught was that our Parliament didn't treat the colonies very well and the colonies decided they didn't want to be colonies anymore. Beyond that, we're over it and don't give the matter much thought.

That said "The Patriot" is trash and most of the atrocities committed in that movie were actually committed by the Nazis.

happening so long ago and not really having much impact on your lives at this point.

I passed on the info about the atrocities to my teenaged son who watched the film with me, so he won't think that actually happened.

Francis Marion (the guy Gibson's character was based on) was a terrorist. You know the scene where the British colonel locks the civilians in the church and sets it on fire? Yeah... that happened, but it was Marion doing it to loyalists. (On the other hand there were plenty of equally terrorist actions by redcoats and by loyalists against rebels.)

Anyways, for all that movie's problems, I do at least like that it reminded people that the southern theater existed.

a good point about the Southern theater. I hadn't thought of that before.

That may be why I have a perhaps inflated view of General Washington.

(Trivia #1: he did not asked to be called "President Washington" or any other title, but in official correspondence he only asked to be addressed by his rank.)

(Trivia #2: by U.S. statute, Washington will always have seniority over any American officer. So when Pershing was appointed a five-star general -- a rank that didn't exist in the Revolutionary war -- Washington was appointed to the same rank one day before. If for some reason we appoint someone six-star general, Washington by law has to be appointed to that rank the day before.)

Anyways, the south in the Revolution is like the west in the Civil War: it's where the war was won, but it gets no press. Marion was a great guerrilla, but Washington did away with him the second he became inconvenient -- Trivia #3: Washington was a cold, cold bastard if you got in his way.

Thanks!

Cite your source please.

He was known as the Swamp Fox. Walt Disney did a TV series on him in the late 50's. He is remembered for the use of small force guerrilla tactics against the British.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Marion

if they got independence. The aristocracy and landed gentry were still in charge of Britain - they owned most of the land, and the voting for the 'Commons' in parliament was still entirely controlled by them, in a far more corrupt and unfair system than anything seen since in any country. America had no landed gentry, but instead something like a middle class, that was better off than the pretty powerless British equivalent - the Americans were wealthier (there was all that land to take from Native Americans, after all, and slave labour to be used). But they didn't have ultimate political power, and, being far enough away to be able to do it, they decided to fight for independence.

Americans were under a 'tyranny' in the same way that the whole of Europe, including Britain itself, and anyone living in an established state anywhere in the world, were under tyranny then, if you weren't in the '1%'. The typical American colonist was already better off than most, in terms of wealth and freedom; but there was a bit more achievable.

but no personal stories were passed down that I know of, which is too bad. I would have liked to have had that connection with my ancestors.

There was some discussion of a American Parliament. It is interesting to think what would happen if the British had given us representation in Parliament. But it seems the Americans were not really interested in that - they wanted independence instead. But had we gone that way, we might be more like Canada or Australia now and have a Parliamentary system, which on the long view, might have been preferable. No filibusters and other such procedural crap, and the government being able to get things done due to the PM being the same party as Parliament.

I can't believe that anyone would willingly watch that movie.

Disclaimer: if you were strapped into one of those Clockwork Orange chairs and forced to watch it, then you get a pass.

is a lie from the get-go.

The "Tea party" wasn't about taxes or the King or any of that. The smugglers were reacting to the price of tea being CUT by the East India Trading company, which would cut into their business. Couldn't have THAT. The leaders of that little party were some of the biggest profiteers of smuggling.

(Wow, the tea partiers really do have a lot in common with those guys. Huh.)

in Boston at one of the historic sites. It was well-documented. (Wish I knew where it was. Too many moves.)

The "tea party" DIDN"T bring the "future nation" together. It was a very divisive act in the early movement for independence.

The Boston Tea Party was an embarrassment to our Founding Fathers; Hell,
it wasn't even celebrated until the mid-19th Century.

A lot of America's supporters in England were outraged over the Tea Party
and urged restitution, which was later made.

The Boston Tea Party was the act of a mob, nothing more.