Star-spangled banner - an English view

[I think not]

[/color]


True, but some will point them out. I agree with that. As much as I do admire Americans because of their patriotism, I roll my eyes at the glaring mistakes and falsehoods, Hollywoods propaganda machine, produces.

It has created a meglomaniacal patriotism or global bigotry, that is generally based on conjecture and shear fantasy. But history is always recorded by its victors.

Britian was guilty of many abuses, as was and is Canada, Australia, America, etc. etc. That does not make one any better then or less complicit then any other.

I really don't understand why some people claim Hollywood is a propaganda machine. I was always under the impression they provided entertainment. The few documentaries that come out of Hollywood, believe or not, make the statement that they are indeed a documentary.

Movies are intended to entertain by exaggeration and not educate. What am I missing?

 

[CDNBear]

I really don't understand why some people claim Hollywood is a propaganda machine. I was always under the impression they provided entertainment. The few documentaries that come out of Hollywood, believe or not, make the statement that they are indeed a documentary.

Movies are intended to entertain by exaggeration and not educate. What am I missing?

You likely, are not missing a thing.

You as most have a firm grasp on reality and facts. The problem is, and I have witnessed it myself. Some people have actually quoted snippets from movies to bolster an arguement with me. Yes Hollywood, is purely about entertainment, and maybe I was a bit over exagerating a tad. But I'm sure you've seen this too.

It's getting increasingly difficult to find people who do not rely on Hollywood to get there historical information.

I could list historically incorrect movies for you, but I suspect you were attacking my assertion, not the concept. You likele already know of which movies I would list, anyways.

 

[I think not]

You likely, are not missing a thing.

You as most have a firm grasp on reality and facts. The problem is, and I have witnessed it myself. Some people have actually quoted snippets from movies to bolster an arguement with me. Yes Hollywood, is purely about entertainment, and maybe I was a bit over exagerating a tad. But I'm sure you've seen this too.

It's getting increasingly difficult to find people who do not rely on Hollywood to get there historical information.

I could list historically incorrect movies for you, but I suspect you were attacking my assertion, not the concept. You likele already know of which movies I would list, anyways.

OK, I see where you are coming from. And I concede you are correct. I have often found people quoting something in a movie as being "documentary evidence" of a historical event. I have also travelled throughout Europe extensively and have heard people getting a skewed view of life in the US because of their perceptions through the movie industry.

But is Hollywood to blame for this? Hollywood produces movies having a target audience in mind; the American population. If they happen to reach an audience beyond the US, it is because there is a market for it. Trying to dissect a movie to find "historical inaccuracies", like "Braveheart" is quite frankly; dumb.

You go to the movies to be entertained, you go to the library to learn.

 

[CDNBear]

You go to the movies to be entertained, you go to the library to learn.

Absolutely, how do we get the word out.

My wife would like to thank you for your disecting is dumb comment, she just hates it when we watch movies about war or action movies and I blurt out, how that would not blow up like that, or a real platoon would not putthemselves in that position, etc etc. Thanx, lol.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

Your very right ITN, that was a ficticious biography, but there are a great many people who will swear this as fact. Another point I was thinking bout the other day though. Do you think the US would have won if it was facing Wellsley on the ground and Nelson at Sea?..as opposed to the second-rate cornwallis?.

It's worth pondering, considering Sam Houston, a veteran of the 1812 war, relied on the tactics of the said Duke Wellington which allowed him to beat Santa Ana in 8 minutes?.

 

[I think not]

Your very right ITN, that was a ficticious biography, but there are a great many people who will swear this as fact. Another point I was thinking bout the other day though. Do you think the US would have won if it was facing Wellsley on the ground and Nelson at Sea?..as opposed to the second-rate cornwallis?.

It's worth pondering, considering Sam Houston, a veteran of the 1812 war, relied on the tactics of the said Duke Wellington which allowed him to beat Santa Ana in 8 minutes?.

Yes there are some that would swear by it, I call them idiots because they have a hard time discerning fact from fiction. Having said that, I grew up in New York City and never once learned about Georgie not lying. I only became aware of this fiction by a teacher that referenced it in high school. I had to go figure it out on my own.

As for your hypothetical scenario, Nelson (as far as I can recall) participated in a few naval battles until the end of the Revolutionary War. Don't really know much about Wellsley.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

Well, Arthur Wellsley (or the Duke of Wellington as he's known) was, as you probably know beat Napoleon at waterloo, basically Sam Houston followed his tactics against Santa Ana by the book...basically got them all on a level boggy feild (although there was a hill there, which annoyed old wellsley) and basically rounded em up and destroyed la grande armie in about half an hour...slightly longer than that of the mexicans.

But nah, that just goes to prove that a navy is worth nothing in a land battle.

 

[EagleSmack]

hehe.....

but if "by virtue of being british" makes you an ass...

I'll emigrate...


I'll get me coat

Your "RED" coat?

 

[EagleSmack]

Your very right ITN, that was a ficticious biography, but there are a great many people who will swear this as fact. Another point I was thinking bout the other day though. Do you think the US would have won if it was facing Wellsley on the ground and Nelson at Sea?..as opposed to the second-rate cornwallis?.

It's worth pondering, considering Sam Houston, a veteran of the 1812 war, relied on the tactics of the said Duke Wellington which allowed him to beat Santa Ana in 8 minutes?.

This is a good debate and it should be taken elsewhere wrt the Duke of Wellington and Nelson.

I've been away from the forums for awhile so I'll be jumping around a bit and hope I am not restating other people's points.

I am a HUGE fan Wellsley and somewhat of Nelson.

I think that Nelson or any British Admiral could have squashed the US Navy in it's infancy. The US just didn't have the Ships of the Line like England did. We had a couple of nice victories between frigates but when the British navy committed more ships our frigates basically put to port and stayed quiet. There is no way our small frigates could compete with England's. it has nothing to do with bravery or tactics. Bigger ships with more guns are usually going to come out on top.

Now as far as Wellington is concerned I believe he would have suffered the same fate as Cornwallis if he had been around during the Revolution. Washington knew he could not stand toe to toe with British Redcoats. They were just better. BUT... if he could keep his army intact and bleed England of men and money that was enough to win the war. And it was.

It has been awhile since I read about Waterloo but I believe Wellington said of Waterloo and the French...

"They came on in the same way and we drove them back the same way."

Massive columns of French troops marched up a hill and were driven back by British lines of muskets.

And having a MASSIVE and FRESH Prussian Army smash into Napoleon's right flank late in the battle didn't hurt the British either.

 

[EagleSmack]

I'm going to split some hairs here on the "Loyalist" thing. A VERY large percentage of the Loyalist didn't voluntarily leave the USA.......they were run out on a rail after the confiscation of all they owned.

A large portion of the Loyalists RETURNED to the USA after things calmed down a bit..........hardly evidence of their desire to remain British.

Many of the "Loyalists" just backed the wrong horse because of family ties, business connections, whatever. A good number of them shared the same ideals as the Revolutionaries..........

The Loyalist were in a tough spot. When you read about the Revolution and the events leading up to it you will truly find out that the demands of England were not that harsh. The colonies WERE British subjects and were asked to pay their share. The British did NOT want to fight it out with the colonist and made every effort to appease them. However events were out of the control of England and the colonies and a lot of it's people were hell bent on independence no matter what the British consented to. In the book "Iron Tears" (a great read by the way) England basically said

"ANYTHING! We'll give you ANYTHING... just leave the word INDEPENDENCE out of it!"

But as we know the Continental Congress said that word MUST be included in ANY treaty.

So there was war.

 

[EagleSmack]

And the GW posts wrt legend vs facts.

He never chopped down a Cherry Tree and he never said that famous quote.

"Father... I shall never tell a lie. I chopped down the cherry tree."

He did not through a silver dollar across the Potomac River either.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

And the GW posts wrt legend vs facts.

He never chopped down a Cherry Tree and he never said that famous quote.

"Father... I shall never tell a lie. I chopped down the cherry tree."

He did not through a silver dollar across the Potomac River either.

EagleSmack, my goodness, are you American?, because I've just read your last few entries and found myself thinking "my god, this fella's dead right"...shocking!!!.

Yes, I know that was an Arthur Wellsley line "they came at me in the same old manner in the same old fashion"...or something like that. Also, and avid-nationalist Englishman I know, also pointed out America's success with frigates.

I just feel that to vhemently oppose the British Empire is wrong, America, like it or not, would be nothing without it, nd hence I never understood why they wished to dismantle it....just an English view, but would you agree with the point about most of the colonialist being freemasons?, and having their own interests at heart?.

I certainly agree that Britain actually had little to do with the revolutionry zeal of the founding fathers, and thus there was nothing good or bad they could have done to prevent it. Although it does irritate when patriots bang on about the harsh british yolk, when actually, they wanted rid, no matter what anyway.

 

[EagleSmack]

EagleSmack, my goodness, are you American?, because I've just read your last few entries and found myself thinking "my god, this fella's dead right"...shocking!!!.

Yes, I know that was an Arthur Wellsley line "they came at me in the same old manner in the same old fashion"...or something like that. Also, and avid-nationalist Englishman I know, also pointed out America's success with frigates.

I just feel that to vhemently oppose the British Empire is wrong, America, like it or not, would be nothing without it, nd hence I never understood why they wished to dismantle it....just an English view, but would you agree with the point about most of the colonialist being freemasons?, and having their own interests at heart?.

I certainly agree that Britain actually had little to do with the revolutionry zeal of the founding fathers, and thus there was nothing good or bad they could have done to prevent it. Although it does irritate when patriots bang on about the harsh british yolk, when actually, they wanted rid, no matter what anyway.

Yes I am very much American but there are two sides to every event. A real student of history needs to look at the opposing view point to get a grasp of what really happened. Now that is not to say that the opposing side is always right but you have to see what they had to say.

During the Revolution and before the Revolution the Founding Father's had a well oiled propaganda machine. I mean like the type the Soviets had during the Cold War. Plus they had the "Mobs" in the bigger cities. Now they were called mobs but they were controlled mobs. They moved and acted at the behest of the Rebel Leaders. Most were trouble makers but some were fervent in their belief that the Colonies should be independent. The mobs played a key role in whipping up fervor for independence and it spread to the countryside. The pounding of fists on the table about the "harsh British yolk" was just a sign of those times. That is just the way it was.

I know that many were freemasons but I don't think being a Freemason had much to do with it. I do believe that the Revolution had a lot to do with self interest of powerful Colonial Leaders wrt trade and business. For example the colonies wanted to trade with France. England basically said

"Trade with France! They're our enemies for crying out loud! Don't you get it! No way."

But I will concede that the independence of the colonies would have come eventually. In the long run I think having a strong US was beneficial. Technically it was wrong because the colonist were British subjects so in essence it was treason. But not all of the colonist felt as though they were British. They did not feel as though they should be governed by a King across the ocean. Again, that is just the way it was wrong or right. The average merchant did not feel as though he should answer to Parlimentary laws from England.

Do you know of the book I talked about... Iron Tears? It was England's view of the Revolution. One of my favorite books actually. Even the title has a strong meaning. The title meant that Britain shed Iron Tears during the Revolution. Iron meaning the musket balls, cannon balls etc. It went on that Britain did not fire them out of anger but of sadness. They did not want to fight but they HAD to fight. They just could not let the colonies go without a fight.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

Yes,

I know exactly the book you are refering to. Also, I agree, didn't William Pit the younger die of a heart attack in the house of commons whilst trying to plead with the government to stop "this lunacy"?. I think he did.

If you read back a bit, I made reference, and compared the decleration of independence to the magna carta. Now as you probably know, parts of that ancient document are referred to in the declaration and it is acknowledged in the nation's capital. But I reckon it was more similar than that.

I think that, as you say, it was hyped, it was made to look like the poor verses the rich in jolly old England (now, I can tell you, most cities in England at that time, Manchester for example, were a lot poorer than most of the colonies) which wasn't the case. I just think it was a group of wealthy people sitting down the current status quo and making them meet their demands just like what the several documents that make up the magna carta are about (land barrons wanting their share off the king) and hyping it to look like it's for the people.....when it's actually only for a section of the people.

I've heard the war of 1776 called the "second civil war" here, we were brother's, and effectivly one of those brother's invoked the watching enemy of the other's, fought with his backing and won. But the brother wasn't content with that, after seeing the other brother virtually dominate everything after their squable, the other brother set about allying itself with the old brother, while secretly trying to humble him, to which they managed.

You see, that was, in my opinion a pretty good euthanism of what many people here think happened...I would tend to agree. But you seem like a sensible kind of American to me EagleSmack, and I think you'll comprehend this little diatribe.

But I just don't buy all the historical propoganda, either side.

 

[EagleSmack]

Yes,

I know exactly the book you are refering to. Also, I agree, didn't William Pit the younger die of a heart attack in the house of commons whilst trying to plead with the government to stop "this lunacy"?. I think he did.

If you read back a bit, I made reference, and compared the decleration of independence to the magna carta. Now as you probably know, parts of that ancient document are referred to in the declaration and it is acknowledged in the nation's capital. But I reckon it was more similar than that.

I think that, as you say, it was hyped, it was made to look like the poor verses the rich in jolly old England (now, I can tell you, most cities in England at that time, Manchester for example, were a lot poorer than most of the colonies) which wasn't the case. I just think it was a group of wealthy people sitting down the current status quo and making them meet their demands just like what the several documents that make up the magna carta are about (land barrons wanting their share off the king) and hyping it to look like it's for the people.....when it's actually only for a section of the people.

I've heard the war of 1776 called the "second civil war" here, we were brother's, and effectivly one of those brother's invoked the watching enemy of the other's, fought with his backing and won. But the brother wasn't content with that, after seeing the other brother virtually dominate everything after their squable, the other brother set about allying itself with the old brother, while secretly trying to humble him, to which they managed.

You see, that was, in my opinion a pretty good euthanism of what many people here think happened...I would tend to agree. But you seem like a sensible kind of American to me EagleSmack, and I think you'll comprehend this little diatribe.

But I just don't buy all the historical propoganda, either side.

Well if you read a lot of my posts you will see that I lean far to the right and defend the US and the current US Administration a lot throughout this WHOLE forum.

But England has a legitimate arguement on the unfairness of the Continental Congress and Ldrs. of the Rebellion. The French & Indian War practically bankrupt England and all they wanted was the colonies to pay their fair share. I am well aware of the conditions in England from reading history books and I agree that things were harsher over there. Poverty in England was rampant. I can tell you are a proud Englishman but that was not a time you would have wanted to live through. But Propaganda in the colonies would make the N. Koreans of today look in awe.

Even the Boston Massacre was not as it appeared. These soldiers were being set on by a HUGE mob, an orchrestrated mob and were being pelted with rocks, bricks and being surrounded. So they acted in self defense. You can try to second guess the young officer that gave the order to fire but believe me I can bet that it wasn't done with an angry vengeful face... I bet he was scared to death and all of the soldiers were as well. But that is being presumptious. I can only offer what i THINK may have been going through their heads.

Sort of off topic but I was amazed when I did research on the common British soldier and sailor. How they were almost to a man from the most detitute parts and class of England and were treated horribly through discipline. But they managed to be the best at what they did. A little known fact was not one French Column broke a British Line during the Napoleonic Wars.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

Once again, I agree. I think however, the British Army sent to the colonies was the exception to the rule, pure and simply because they lost. They probably tried their best not to give an inch, but the patriots (if you could call them that) out numbered them.

I think when Britain fully realised the situation, it had no taste for war against it's (effectivly) own people, why would it?. The way it's explained over here, the large amount of money was used to fund the ongoing global war with France, and not just that of the new world, but certainly they could be wrong.

The fact that Britain at the time had just "found" a whole new continent and was making big inroads into India might also have swayed them to stop fighting and sue for peace. I don't honestly understand why Benji Franklin, Washington and co felt they needed to insult Britain more by having it signed in Paris, which to an Englishman, is a dastedly thing to do (from a man who previously wanted to join our ranks none the less).

The thing I found funny though was the burning of Yorktown, I mean, I can imagine a British General saying "look, seriously guys, you've got your land, you've just burned ours, and you DONT think we'll march hundreds of miles....unnopposed and burn down YOUR capital? haha" I think that was being a wee bit too confident.

 

[EagleSmack]

Once again, I agree. I think however, the British Army sent to the colonies was the exception to the rule, pure and simply because they lost. They probably tried their best not to give an inch, but the patriots (if you could call them that) out numbered them.

I think when Britain fully realised the situation, it had no taste for war against it's (effectivly) own people, why would it?. The way it's explained over here, the large amount of money was used to fund the ongoing global war with France, and not just that of the new world, but certainly they could be wrong.

The fact that Britain at the time had just "found" a whole new continent and was making big inroads into India might also have swayed them to stop fighting and sue for peace. I don't honestly understand why Benji Franklin, Washington and co felt they needed to insult Britain more by having it signed in Paris, which to an Englishman, is a dastedly thing to do (from a man who previously wanted to join our ranks none the less).

The thing I found funny though was the burning of Yorktown, I mean, I can imagine a British General saying "look, seriously guys, you've got your land, you've just burned ours, and you DONT think we'll march hundreds of miles....unnopposed and burn down YOUR capital? haha" I think that was being a wee bit too confident.

I am putting your quote in here so I can go back and forth. i love talking about this stuff.

I am not sure I get what you mean by the British Army that was sent here was the exception etc.. But let me make a point and observation about the Colonial strategy wrt fighting. Whenever the Colonials stood toe to toe at the beginning they were outmatched by sheer experience. Numbers factored into the fight but discipline is what kept the Brits in line and the lack of it sent Colonials running for their lives. Washington knew that he could not, except in favorable situations, fight a battle on equal grounds. That is why he avoided contact and when the British came looking for him he would move. If the Colonial army was destroyed in a Waterloo type battle I think the Revolution would have been over, for the time being anyways. GW KNEW he had to keep the army in tact. As long as there was a standing colonial army, there was a Revolution. Just like Grant and Lee in the US Civil War

"The heart of the rebellion is not Richmond... it is Lee's army." <- Grant

The British position was the same. The only place that England controlled was where the boots of their army were.

I am not sure if the British were forced into signing a treaty there. Technically they did not have to sign anything. I think that it may have been that France was the only country that recognized the US as a country and that is where our delegates were. Also that the fight was not just with the Colonies but with France. My opinion is that it was just a matter of convienence for all 3 countries unless you had some documentation that Franklin and Washington set out to insult Britain. At Yorktown it was the British that tried to insult Washington by...

1. Cornwallis sending his second in command to surrender
2. Offering the sword to the French first

That was an insult as well.

now the Burning of Yorktown... do you mean in the War of 1812?

 

[Daz_Hockey]

I am putting your quote in here so I can go back and forth. i love talking about this stuff.

I am not sure I get what you mean by the British Army that was sent here was the exception etc.. But let me make a point and observation about the Colonial strategy wrt fighting. Whenever the Colonials stood toe to toe at the beginning they were outmatched by sheer experience. Numbers factored into the fight but discipline is what kept the Brits in line and the lack of it sent Colonials running for their lives. Washington knew that he could not, except in favorable situations, fight a battle on equal grounds. That is why he avoided contact and when the British came looking for him he would move. If the Colonial army was destroyed in a Waterloo type battle I think the Revolution would have been over, for the time being anyways. GW KNEW he had to keep the army in tact. As long as there was a standing colonial army, there was a Revolution. Just like Grant and Lee in the US Civil War

"The heart of the rebellion is not Richmond... it is Lee's army." <- Grant

The British position was the same. The only place that England controlled was where the boots of their army were.

I am not sure if the British were forced into signing a treaty there. Technically they did not have to sign anything. I think that it may have been that France was the only country that recognized the US as a country and that is where our delegates were. Also that the fight was not just with the Colonies but with France. My opinion is that it was just a matter of convienence for all 3 countries unless you had some documentation that Franklin and Washington set out to insult Britain. At Yorktown it was the British that tried to insult Washington by...

1. Cornwallis sending his second in command to surrender
2. Offering the sword to the French first

That was an insult as well.

now the Burning of Yorktown... do you mean in the War of 1812?

Yes, I did mean 1812, but the two examples there, kind of show the (probably not intentional) arrogance and distain they felt for these (in their view at least) traitors. But I did mean what is now modern day Toronto


I made a broad statement about the "exception to the rule", what I meant was, that they simply lost, however galant they were. Unlike Blackleaf, if you've read my posts, you'll know I'm no stranger to the US, I've spent almost a year there (and will spend 3 months back there in June). I don't dislike any American, some things clearly annoy me, but to be honest, it's only the (in my view over-zealous) stuff like singing to your nations flag every morning (not usual in any other country) or the almost blind faith people have in their leaders, past or present. But as you say, it probably comes down to some very good PR.

 

[EagleSmack]

Yes, I did mean 1812, but the two examples there, kind of show the (probably not intentional) arrogance and distain they felt for these (in their view at least) traitors. But I did mean what is now modern day Toronto


I made a broad statement about the "exception to the rule", what I meant was, that they simply lost, however galant they were. Unlike Blackleaf, if you've read my posts, you'll know I'm no stranger to the US, I've spent almost a year there (and will spend 3 months back there in June). I don't dislike any American, some things clearly annoy me, but to be honest, it's only the (in my view over-zealous) stuff like singing to your nations flag every morning (not usual in any other country) or the almost blind faith people have in their leaders, past or present. But as you say, it probably comes down to some very good PR.

Well as far as the Pledge of Allegience and singing the National Anthem before sporting events... hey thats America. That's how we do it. it is part of our culture regardless of other counties. I mean we do that not to bother England or Canada, we do it for us. There is nothing wrong with loving your country. You folks love yours and are proud of your countries. Why does it upset you?

You know what is a great movie? A Fish Called Wanda. I loved Kevin Klein and how his character viewed the English. Wasn't that a stereotype of the type of American that you speak of?

"Oh you British think you're so superior... If it wasn't for us... etc etc." That was classic.

Personally I can't think of many things the British do that get me upset. Except maybe Hooligans. I never got that. But then again it doesn't really get me upset but I think it would stink going to a sporting event with the possibility of getting pummeled unconsious for no other reason than supporting the other team.

Back to the topic. I completely understand the disdain felt by the conquered to the victors. It was an unlikely series of events that happened to get Cornwallis stuck in Yorktown w/o any support. I am sure they were very humiliated.

I also agree that the war was costing just too much money and it was not worth the cost in blood and treasure any longer. What did amaze me was the support that the Rebellion DID have in England. I had no idea that so many powerful people outwardly opposed the war and relished in the King's defeat.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

Indeed!, sorry, bit of excitement there, but i think the popular support given to the colonies by the upper echelons of British society simply reinforce my view that it was indeed the same type of people from Magna Carta days (Barrons and such like, the wealthy) who promoted, fought and won this squable.

They had a lot of support in Britain, and I wouldnt be suprised if a lot of those who supported them didnt go to the US afterwards and become people like Churchill's American ancestors (although they actually inpart fought in the war, suprisingly against his father's ancestors, amazing man that Winston Churchill, I think he did a lot to bring the two countries together).

I know my grandmother's ancestors had no such luck, the Franklin's. Bitter and angered they settled back near berkshire, never truely wanted by the rich folk there (probably the same lot that supported the US cause)...I see now they're trying to say her distant relative, George (or was it Charles?) was a barstawerd and not Ben's son after all....see PR, even when a man is long dead.

As for football Hooliganism in the UK, it's just different here, OK, most spectator sports there are also pre-dominantly father/son events, most are usually "sit down, grab a hotdog" enviroments...here, it used to be (because football hooliganism is almost gone now) unemployed young men taking their frustrations out on one another at a big gathering...now it's virtually all gone...basically because they've been priced out of the market.....sorry that was wandering off topic.