View Poll Results: Was the American Revolution a Mistake?

Voters
12. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    0 0%
  • No

    11 91.67%
  • Not sure/don't know

    1 8.33%
  • Other

    0 0%
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 56
Thanks Tree56Thanks

Thread: 3 reasons the American Revolution was a mistake

  1. #41
    Veteran Member Snikitz's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    13,627
    Thanks
    4649

    From
    Split between Minnesota and New Orleans
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Of course, none of this is true. Every story has a "telling" and history is a story. Historians emphasize different things--they even leave things out. They explain events in different ways and draw different relationships between events and people. The idea that history is an objective study as is science (or even CAN be) is silly.

    Listen to an American and a Brit explain the causes and results of the American Revolution. They will both be totally accurate, but they'll tell very different stories. The same is true for pretty much any historical event.
    Missing the point Ras - that is History.

    Editing History to suit an agenda is not.

  2. #42
    Done "clowning" around Puzzling Evidence's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    12,809
    Thanks
    5553

    From
    Es reconocido en buena parte del mundo y casi siempre se lo asocia al talento y la creatividad.
    Quote Originally Posted by BDBoop View Post
    Nope. I always lead them to the best humor.

    In case it escaped your attention, I am the proud possessor of a quick wit which quite frequently bears a razor edge. THANKS, MOM!
    Lol! The crew!

  3. #43
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    19,392
    Thanks
    17008

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Snikitz View Post
    All true - but they do not second guess history or change it correct?
    On the contrary, historians OFTEN engage in counter-factuals; they ask questions such as:

    (1) What if Truman had decided to DEMONSTRATE the power of the atomic bomb to the Japanese by, say, exploding one ten miles offshore from Tokyo? How would history be different?

    (2) What if Hitler had decided to launch an invasion of Great Britain before turning his eyes east to the Soviet Union?

    (3) What if Lincoln had survived the assassination? I.e., what if Booth's bullet had been just a few inches off, leaving Lincoln only wounded?

    (4) What if Hannibal and Carthage had DEFEATED Rome? How different would history be?

    Just for a FEW examples....Historians are ALWAYS asking themselves questions like this. If you don't think so, it can only be because you don't read much history.

  4. #44
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    19,392
    Thanks
    17008

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Snikitz View Post
    Missing the point Ras - that is History.

    Editing History to suit an agenda is not.
    EDITING history to suit an agenda would indeed be historical revisionism.....like claiming that the Third Reich only killed 'a FEW Jews'. Und das ist verboten. But asking counter-factual questions about history is NOT.

    In FACT, the very question raised in the OP to this thread is a counter-factual question: what if the American Revolution had NOT happened? What if we had remained tied to Britain? Would this be a better world, or not? It is an INTERESTING counter-factual question!

  5. #45
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    60,528
    Thanks
    27160

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Snikitz View Post
    Second guessing history is a foolish endeavor.

    Take the idea that slavery would have ended sooner. Zip zero nada to base the concept on past personal opinion.
    Wasn't talking to you, nor was I speaking about the basic premise of the OP.

  6. #46
    Worst Person on the Site Yeti 8 Jungle Swing Champion, YetiSports 4 - Albatross Overload Champion, YetiSports7 - Snowboard FreeRide Champion, Alu`s Revenge Champion boontito's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    78,798
    Thanks
    52180

    From
    out of nowhere!
    Quote Originally Posted by Snikitz View Post
    All true - but they do not second guess history or change it correct?
    No one changes history... unless you have super powers we're not aware of.

  7. #47
    vulgar? Rasselas's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    56,940
    Thanks
    29452

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Snikitz View Post
    Missing the point Ras - that is History.

    Editing History to suit an agenda is not.
    There is no history written that does not do just that. There's no way to tell a story without a point of view. If you read a history book and you like what you read, and then you read another history book that makes you mad, that contradicts what the previous history book said, they can both be objectively accurate, but neither will be objective. Like everyone, you just see history that you like as "objective" and history you don't as "edited." We're all like that. Recognizing this fact is part of being a critical thinker.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy and boontito

  8. #48
    vulgar? Rasselas's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    56,940
    Thanks
    29452

    From
    in my head
    History records that Harriet Tubman helped over 300 slaves to freedom. That's what history books said for decades because one historian wrote this and everyone else just quoted him. A later historian took a very careful look at records and discovered that she helped maybe 70 or so slaves to freedom, and indirectly helped another 70 or so. Records aren't precise, but a more careful accounting can only count maybe 150.

    So...did she help 300+ or only 70? Is the "revisionist" history wrong simply because it came later? That wouldn't make sense.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey and boontito

  9. #49
    Veteran Member Dr.Knuckles's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    96,486
    Thanks
    2663

    From
    Vancouver
    Quote Originally Posted by Snikitz View Post
    Second guessing history is a foolish endeavor.

    Take the idea that slavery would have ended sooner. Zip zero nada to base the concept on past personal opinion.
    If not for the American Revolution, the 13 colonies would have remained part of the British Empire. And the British Empire abolished the slave trade in 1807, and slavery as a whole in 1833.

    Independent US in...Google says 1808 and 1865

    So it's at least plausible.

    But I agree, so much would be different it's impossible to say such things.
    Last edited by Dr.Knuckles; 4th July 2016 at 05:28 PM.
    Thanks from PACE

  10. #50
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    19,392
    Thanks
    17008

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    There is no history written that does not do just that. There's no way to tell a story without a point of view. If you read a history book and you like what you read, and then you read another history book that makes you mad, that contradicts what the previous history book said, they can both be objectively accurate, but neither will be objective. Like everyone, you just see history that you like as "objective" and history you don't as "edited." We're all like that. Recognizing this fact is part of being a critical thinker.
    Exactly. What Snikitz apparently does not understand is that ALL historians 'edit' history. No historian can POSSIBLY relate EVERYTHING that happened in some particular time period, in some particular area; so they HAVE to 'pick and choose' what they are going to include. INEVITABLY, some people are going to have complaints about what some historian did or did not choose to include.

    For example: A few years back, the state of Texas, which has outsized influence on textbook choices in America, rejected a U.S. History textbook that was widely praised in academia for its balance and coverage of important topics in American history. What did Texas object to? They objected to one line in the book, where the authors were reporting that some 500,000 women worked as prostitutes in the Old West. They weren't objecting to the ACCURACY of this statement, because it IS accurate. No, they objected because they did not think high school juniors and seniors were capable of absorbing that kind of 'information'.

    The authors of the textbook rightly REFUSED to censor their textbook, and as a consequence, millions of American high school students were deprived of an excellent textbook. Shameful, really.
    Thanks from Friday13

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 3 reasons the American Revolution was a mistake
    By GoaTlOver in forum Current Events
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 7th July 2015, 03:50 AM
  2. Do they want a second American Revolution?
    By JWills23 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 1st June 2014, 11:54 AM
  3. American Revolution?
    By Singularity in forum Opinion Polls
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 1st November 2011, 03:24 AM
  4. second american revolution???
    By wingrider in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 21st March 2009, 06:25 AM
  5. The Second American Revolution
    By michaelr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 21st August 2008, 09:05 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed