History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

[joecct]

Every ship (14,576) sunk in WW2 (blue = Allies).

Computer, filter out ships sunk by submarines.

 

[joecct]

I’m reading “The Bomber Mafia” on a recommendation. It’s amazing how Curtis Emerson LeMay is idolized by so many…I’m attributing this to a general lack of knowledge about LeMay vs Kennedy (actually advocating we conduct a preemptive nuclear strike on USSR) and LeMay’s role in drafting Operation Northwoods.

Curt is our Bomber Harris.

 

[Kepler]

This is such a brilliant series.

 

[aparch]

https://www.tiktok.com/@counterpointpolitics/video/7152960289464388910

The real Boston Tea Party protest is the perfect analogy of American politics, and we're fed a lie in school about it.

 

[MichVandal]

https://www.tiktok.com/@counterpointpolitics/video/7152960289464388910

The real Boston Tea Party protest is the perfect analogy of American politics, and we're fed a lie in school about it.

Most of the reason the British moved into Boston (slowly at first, accelerated post tea party) was due to smuggling. John Hancock made huge amount of money smuggling stuff into the US. And he became a "hero" because he had the most significant signature on the declaration. And his actions was very mirrored by the Kennedy family- who made a ton of money smuggling alcohol into the US. And his kid became a US icon as President.

Next time the FF is in Boston, go and really seek out what happened. It's really, really interesting. The Boston Tea Party stop actually tells the real tale. And the tea is really good there.

Not to say that British were saints or a better way, but knowing that rich smugglers manipulated the minds of colonial citizens to start a revolution so that they can make a whole lot of money sure sounds like it's never stopped in the US.

(and yes, there was a more balanced movement to separate from England at the time, more about rights and freedom- which is why those words were in all of our documents- but we can't forget the impact greedy smugglers had on the psyche of the citizens. I don't know nearly all of the full details, but have learned some interesting things)

 

[psych]

Most of the reason the British moved into Boston (slowly at first, accelerated post tea party) was due to smuggling. John Hancock made huge amount of money smuggling stuff into the US. And he became a "hero" because he had the most significant signature on the declaration. And his actions was very mirrored by the Kennedy family- who made a ton of money smuggling alcohol into the US. And his kid became a US icon as President.

Next time the FF is in Boston, go and really seek out what happened. It's really, really interesting. The Boston Tea Party stop actually tells the real tale. And the tea is really good there.

Not to say that British were saints or a better way, but knowing that rich smugglers manipulated the minds of colonial citizens to start a revolution so that they can make a whole lot of money sure sounds like it's never stopped in the US.

(and yes, there was a more balanced movement to separate from England at the time, more about rights and freedom- which is why those words were in all of our documents- but we can't forget the impact greedy smugglers had on the psyche of the citizens. I don't know nearly all of the full details, but have learned some interesting things)

I’ve read some of the real* history. I think I’d have been a Tory in the Revolutionary War. I generally don’t knowingly associate with religious zealous and smugglers.

 

[solovsfett]

Curt is our Bomber Harris.

Yep!!

 

[Kepler]

Tuca & Berti had a great reference in their latest season in a elementary school history class. "We'll explain how the European birds discovered Bird America before the birds who actually lived there." Later, "the Bird Civil War was fought over the economy and Bird States' Rights."

 

[Kepler]

This is absolutely the best retelling of Crossing the Rubicon I have ever seen.

 

[Kepler]

This is stupid and interesting.

 

[aparch]

I swear to God I learn a little more history each week thanks to TikTok.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRgRoE6a/

 

[Kepler]

TIL the number of Americans who were legally held as slaves throughout all history was roughly equal to the present population of Michigan (10M).

 

[Kepler]

TIL the British promised emancipation to slaves who rose up against their rebel masters.

 

[psych]

There’s an interesting article Vox posts every year around the 4th of July that argues we’d have been better off as a nation waiting for our independence a la Canada, especially since slavery was abolished in the British Empire long before we did it.

 

[Kepler]

There’s an interesting article Vox posts every year around the 4th of July that argues we’d have been better off as a nation waiting for our independence a la Canada, especially since slavery was abolished in the British Empire long before we did it.

I'm guessing if we are still Britain no Louisiana Purchase and then during the Napoleanic Wars we have ourselves a vicious colonial war. On the other hand, we either don't have the Civil War, or we have the South rebel once London abolishes slavery and Grant gets the OBE.

Or we corrupt Britain and they never abolish slavery because the ROI is higher.

The US overtook the British Empire in population in 1860 and in GDP in 1890. Had we stayed in, we (and Canada, who we never separate from) might have wound up the tail wagging the dog and have never left. Britain would simply have become a globally dominant empire with a London-Toronto-New York financial axis, an Atlantic core in the original islands and the American Atlantic shore, and then wild hinterlands with millions of weird, colorful indigenous peoples in the North American West, Egypt, India, and Australia.

UK "overseas" possessions, 1921:

 

[MichVandal]

There’s an interesting article Vox posts every year around the 4th of July that argues we’d have been better off as a nation waiting for our independence a la Canada, especially since slavery was abolished in the British Empire long before we did it.

Given the economy of the south, I really don't see that sticking. It's a good theory, but when your goods are so very labor intensive- like cotton and tobacco- it would have been almost impossible to end it without force or some serious give back. And even so, while slavery was abolished- they didn't treat their people all that well.... see India.

And it would have been a very long wait- Canada didn't get partial independence until 1867, and not complete independence since the '70s. Given all of the cheating of taxes and smuggling going on, there would be some conflict at some point.

 

[MichVandal]

I'm guessing if we are still Britain no Louisiana Purchase and then during the Napoleanic Wars we have ourselves a vicious colonial war. On the other hand, we either don't have the Civil War, or we have the South rebel once London abolishes slavery and Grant gets the OBE.

Or we corrupt Britain and they never abolish slavery because the ROI is higher.

The US overtook the British Empire in population in 1860 and in GDP in 1890. Had we stayed in, we (and Canada, who we never separate from) might have wound up the tail wagging the dog and have never left. Britain would simply have become a globally dominant empire with a London-New York financial axis, an Atlantic core in the original islands and the American Atlantic shore, and then wild hinterlands with millions of weird, colorful indigenous peoples in the America West, Egypt, and India.

UK "overseas" possessions, 1921:

We probably would have taken Louisiana by force instead of money and treaty. France and England were at war when that happened. Just like we were at war with England.

And depending on how that turned out, conquest may have lead to a global war with Spain.

As for never leaving the UK- given when Canada went sort of independant, that's a good theory. Canada got independence at the same time the US bought Alaska, and at the time, apparently, we still assumed the US would take the entire continent- so when we got Alaska, Vancouver Island and BC would change to the US. But Canada was granted some independence, and put together a pretty loose set of colonies to keep the US from getting more territory. Meaning there would have been no reason to grant independence to North America had the US not existed.

 

[Kepler]

Given the economy of the south, I really don't see that sticking. It's a good theory, but when your goods are so very labor intensive- like cotton and tobacco- it would have been almost impossible to end it without force or some serious give back. And even so, while slavery was abolished- they didn't treat their people all that well.... see India.

And it would have been a very long wait- Canada didn't get partial independence until 1867, and not complete independence since the '70s. Given all of the cheating of taxes and smuggling going on, there would be some conflict at some point.

This is assuming an "American" identity even developed, or that independence would ever be sought. It is entirely possible that instead the culture of a New England -- a broader, wider idyllic English identity in the tradition of Wordsworth and Keats (Whitman would fit right in) may have taken root. Rather than defining ourselves as anti-European we might instead have become uber-European, carrying the seeds of ancient Greece into the Western sunset. You can imagine all sorts of ways that would appeal to both cultural and mercantile narratives. America as England's "city of the broad shoulders," writ large.

 

[Kepler]

Meaning there would have been no reason to grant independence to North America had the US not existed.

Yes, that's what I was trying to get at in my verbose way. Nor may there have been any desire.

The big war in the near term is Britain v Spain (likely supported by France). Britain wins eventually because of sea dominance. Britain cannot extend sovereignty over the former Spanish Habsburg American and Asian territories, but they can project enough force via their North American and Indian bridgeheads to sever those areas from Spanish control and "liberate" them.

Those possessions which are culturally distinct enough are "liberated" by the British and become newly created states, with advantageous trading relations with Britain across British-patrolled oceans.

At this point it's pretty much game over for global conquest so with industrialization comes an eventual world war of EVERYBODY against the British vampire squid. But British financial and industrial power is off the charts. They (we) are pretty much the Harkonnen in this scenario, with everybody else as the Fremen.

 

[MichVandal]

This is assuming an "American" identity even developed, or that independence would ever be sought. It is entirely possible that instead the culture of a New England -- a broader, wider idyllic English identity in the tradition of Wordsworth and Keats (Whitman would fit right in) may have taken root. Rather than defining ourselves as anti-European we might instead have become uber-European, carrying the seeds of ancient Greece into the Western sunset. You can imagine all sorts of ways that would appeal to both cultural and mercantile narratives. America as England's "city of the broad shoulders," writ large.

Well, at the time, greed was the American identity for those who were willing to pay for for the war. So there has always been an American identity. It was a matter of convincing the rest of the population to go with it.

Once the greed made a nation, they had to let the smart people tie it all together. Without those lofty ideals, it was not an easy thing to convince a simple farmer to send his kids off to die for a tea smuggler.

And I think it could be suggested that it was kind of a desperate move to give slaves freedom to fight the revolution- given how hard it was to bring troops across the ocean AND defend the rest of the world at the same time. Part of the reason we won was that it became so hard to defend the colonies among the rest of the world and the war with France. It was a war of economic attrition that we barely won.