What's the British take on the Revolutionary war?

[Takeda Shingen]

I know that this is about the UK, but as an American I hear two sides. The first is the standard ultra-patriotic spiel about the rag-tag American patriots casting off the shackles of British oppression and tyrany to give birth to the greatest nation in the history of man. The other is neatly summed up by the quote from the film Dazed and Confused, charcterizing the revolution as a movement of aristocratic slave-owning white men who didn't want to pay their taxes.

For me, the truth is probably inbetween. Taxation without representation probably wasn't so cool, and the motives of the new American 'aristocracy' were probably less than altruistic. I also think that a number of my fellow Americans also forget that we needed the French to attain victory, and that victory wasn't so much total as it was the British throwing up their hands and going home.

[Platapus]

The Fiction book "From Powder Monkey to Admiral" by WHG Kingston written in the late 1800's is the story of three British boys in during the time of the American Revolution. The book gives interesting insight in to the attitude of the British citizens during this war.

I understand this book has been scanned and is available in a digital form. I have an original copy which, unfortunately, I abused as a kid.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Platapus

The Fiction book "From Powder Monkey to Admiral" by WHG Kingston written in the late 1800's is the story of three British boys in during the time of the American Revolution. The book gives interesting insight in to the attitude of the British citizens during this war.

I understand this book has been scanned and is available in a digital form. I have an original copy which, unfortunately, I abused as a kid.

Hmm. Looks like it's time to check the Kindle free book listings.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Hmm. Looks like it's time to check the Kindle free book listings.

Yup. If you have a Kindle, you can get it free right here:

http://www.amazon.com/Powder-Monkey-...6084758&sr=1-4

Downloaded it just now.

[Platapus]

Dr. Howard Zinn's "A peoples history of the United States" is also a good reference. He delves into why many of the colonists were not in favour of fighting in the revolution and what purpose the Declaration of Independence was intended for.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Dr. Howard Zinn's "A peoples history of the United States" is also a good reference. He delves into why many of the colonists were not in favour of fighting in the revolution and what purpose the Declaration of Independence was intended for.

Zinn's book is terribly biased, actually. It is bad history, and takes an anti-American tone at every possible turn. It was used (parts) in a university history class I took, and it is terribly sourced... really awful. You'd do better to learn American History via wikipedia than if that text were your only basis (unless you live abroad, and hate the US, then it will preach to the choir (even if it is contradicted by most all sources contemporary to the described events)).

Anything with "people's" in the title is a overt statement of the politics of the writer (ie: "people's republic," etc, and Zinn fits right into that company).

Better for the revolution might be 1776, or even John Adams by McCullough (for very readable books that are also worth reading). Another very readable book is His Excellency: George Washington. It shows Washington's motivations (partially economic) for deciding to become a revolutionary (nice because it is a biography that concentrates on the "important" bits as they related to his decisions as general and President, and not about every minute detail of his childhood, etc, like some other Washington tomes).

My take has always been that the colonies were grossly mismanaged by the British. The situation in the colonies was nothing if not telegraphed before hand. You can't really transition from a model where almost anything goes, with nearly complete local autonomy to dictating from across the ocean. They created an independent-minded people, then didn't give them enough avenue for local power, AND power in Parliament. Had they gotten out in front of the situation, and given the US real representation in Parliament I don't think the Revolution would ever have happened in the first place. There were some in England in favor of such a solution, too, this is not just 20/20 hindsight.

[Platapus]

I think you are confusing your opinion of Zinn (who was an admitted socialist) with the quality of his work.

Anything with "people's" in the title is a overt statement of the politics of the writer

and you talk about Zinn's bias?

His writings are not perfect (show me a historian who is). Yes he does have a different interpretation than some other historians. But his research and citations have been reviewed.

If your University class only used parts of his work, I would question the academic integrity of your instructor. Few historical references can be taken piece meal. This is especially true with Zinn as he did have a habit of jumping around thematically in his history.

Was your instructor using Zinn to criticize him?

If you treat historical interpretations in the light of "hating the US" you will be limited in your understanding of history. History has many interpretations. If you limit yourself to one culture's interpretations you will only know one culture's interpretations.

If you don't like reading Zinn, that's great. But to say that his research is without merit or use, is inaccurate.

I, for one, have an open mind to historical interpretations that I don't completely agree with.

[tater]

You tink a university history professor should stick to a single text, and take it hook, line and sinker? Really? I'd prefer a US history prof capable of actually writing a US history, and picking and choosing from various sources. That is after all Zinn's book is—it's a survey book using secondary sources. It's not like any text of an entire nation's history is gonna be great, they'll all be retreads, regardless of the author. I think in many ways his book really requires that you already know the basic storyline, in fact.

It's like WW2 pacific histories that use Morrison as if it were a primary source. Look at all the WRONG takes on the IJN at Midway that were simply retreads of Morrison and Fuchida (taking Fuchida uncritically (even though he was discredited in Japan) since he was the only japanese author they had translated).

Zinn's take on Hiroshima is of course wrong (he thinks the cable from the jap ambassador saying they should negotiate proves something (yet ignores the response from Tokyo—"hell no!")

His stuff about the Pequot was missing a lot (which I know since I grew up near where they were wiped out, and we learned about it in much detail). Eberything missing pushed the story in one direction (Euros BAD, natives, happy, living in harmony).

And no, the prof was not using Zinn only to criticize, this was at a U here in the US, so the prof was likely every bit the socialist that Zinn was. Zinn says that his history is biased right in the book. He claims that since all the others are biased the other way it's OK. The later stuff (recent history) is terrible. The earlier parts are better, but the narrative is clearly designed to go a little too far in the opposite direction of enshrining the Founders.

Myself, I prefer scholarly books with, you know, proper footnotes and citations—even if the text itself is well-written (it is very well written, and pretty readable).

[Platapus]

Well you have established your credibility on this topic by your posts.

[Oberon]

As a Brit I figure that you've probably made a better job of it than we have, and chances are you would have had independence anyway post WWI when our economy got screwed, or at least a greater level of freedom, like Oz or Canada. So, no real biggie.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

For me, the truth is probably inbetween..

I remember one History professor I had, he was a real character. He liked to bring in relics of the period. Brought in a real 1700 era musket once, family heirloom i think he said. Almost got busted for it. Anyway, what i remember him most for, was his personal theory. He called it the "cocktail napkin theory". He figured some of our more outstanding incidents in history, started in the pub. Boston tea party being his primary example.

[jumpy]

Don't forget the french having any excuse to stick one over on the english...
How would the colonial civil war have shaped up without the aid of the french? (rhetorical question - we'll never know, or care at this juncture hehe).

Just so long as everyone understands that 'The Patriot' was about as historically accurate as 'Braveheart', or 'U571' for that matter. The first two were good stories, nothing more. As for U571, well, the less said the better haha.

[Platapus]

Barbara Mitchel is a historian I know. She is currently writing a book on the involvement of Cuba (as a Spanish colony) in the Revolutionary War.

Most histories don't address the assistance we got from Cuba.

Can't wait until her book is published. Maybe if I sweet talk her, I can be one of her reviewers.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by jumpy

How would the colonial civil war have shaped up without the aid of the french? (.

Is that what the British history books call it?

[jumpy]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Is that what the British history books call it?

No, that was my reference - 'colonial' because it pertains to a colony (at that time at least), and 'civil war' seeing as we were pretty much fighting ourselves (subjects of a colonial territory) rather than say, the french directly - they being a sovereign nation, which the US subsequently became.

I think our history books just refer to it as a whole lot of effort that turned out not to be worth the aggro, possibly in part because of the french /jk


Looking back to my history lessons, the colonial scuffle was not something on the curriculum, other than in brief passing to mention settlers to the new land and a dispute over taxes and ownership of land, coupled with the english tradition of empire building and dishing out a pasting to the french and the innate temperament of the colonists to america wanting to set up shop and not be bothered by all the problems and intrigues (both political and religious) that beset the old country of europe. That's my sweeping overview.
I guess it might have been something I might have studied in more detail had I chosen A-level history, or perhaps a degree in the same.