Was the American Revolution a mistake?

[Sigma Prime]

What is the verdict of history? Would the US have been better off if we had stuck with the British? Would slavery have been abolished more promptly? Would the American Indians have been spared the bloody ravages of so-called "manifest destiny," which was an essentially racist doctrine that treated the Anglo-Saxon man as a "supreme race" that was destined to dominate the globe? Could Hitler have been "stopped at Munich" had North America remained under the authority of the Crown? Would the UK have loosened its grip on India earlier if they had not lost their hold on what is now known as the United States of America? Do you think the Great Depression may never have happened? Let's hear your views!

[tekla]

I think there is something in the water wherever you are.  Try the bottled stuff from now on.

[Miniar]

Completely pointless "what if?".
History doesn't do "verdicts".
The past has passed and the future doesn't exist yet. Yes we should learn from it, but looking back into the past and trying to see where it all went "wrong" won't change the way things are today.
What would have happened if X? There is no way to know and it won't change the world we got to work with.

[Ellieka]

I think there is something in the water wherever you are.  Try the bottled stuff from now on.

Once again you've made me spew coffee out my nose! 

[Sigma Prime]

Completely pointless "what if?".

I wouldn't say so! I think that we can learn a great deal from history by analyzing our past mistakes! Besides, it will be a joyous occasion when we have finally burst the bubble of American exceptionalism and done away with romantic nationalism once and for all! Huzzah!

[Mister]

Would the American Indians have been spared the bloody ravages of so-called "manifest destiny," which was an essentially racist doctrine that treated the Anglo-Saxon man as a "supreme race" that was destined to dominate the globe

Because British Imperialism was always conducted with racial sensitivity and cultural preservation in mind.
Post Merge: July 01, 2009, 12:46:15 PM

What would have happened if X? There is no way to know and it won't change the world we got to work with.

Sure there is!  haven't you seen the back to the future trilogy?

[tekla]

Once you change one variable, then everything else downstream could change.  So I'm with Miniar, it's pointless.

Besides, I'm pretty much of the opinion that all revolutions are are a good thing until proved otherwise.

[Sigma Prime]

Because British Imperialism was always conducted with racial sensitivity and cultural preservation in mind.

That is a very strong point! That does undermine my claim that the bloodshed of American expansionism could have been averted! As a counter-claim, I submit that the Canadian government did far less damage to the Inuit people than the USA did to the Indians. This is partially due to the results of a British Naval expedition, led by William Edward Parry, which produced a sympathetic, relatively accurate account of the Inuit people. Slightly later in American history, Lincoln's transcontinental railroad did egregious damage to the the Indian peoples of the Western United States, and I submit that we would have conducted this project in a different spirit if it had been led by the British.

[Mister]

If you think the British went about things so differently, read up on the colonization of India.

[Flan]

If you think the British went about things so differently, read up on the colonization of India.

Or for that matter, Cecil Rhodes exploits in South Africa. (and by proxy, the rest of the continent)

[Mister]

Or for that matter, Cecil Rhodes exploits in South Africa. (and by proxy, the rest of the continent)

Another good example.

[Sigma Prime]

If you think the British went about things so differently, read up on the colonization of India.

That was part of my argument. If the energies of the British Empire had been devoted to the colonialization of North America, I believe that this would have slowed the progress of their efforts in other parts of the world for long enough to allow the social liberalization inspired by the Scottish Enlightenment to set in. Because North America was far less populous at the time, the resulting bloodshed would have been significantly less than it was in India. In fact, if they had had a greater abundance of positive experiences with the North American Indians due to their lower population density, they may have behave more gently toward the peoples of India and South Africa.

Also, it is a possibility that losing part of their territory in North America may have resulted in the tightening their grip on their other colonies. A modern parallel is the panicky reactions of the Chinese government over the secession of Tiawan. As a result of the secession of Tiawan, the Chinese government seems to be far more reluctant to allow for discussion over the expansion of political freedoms in their country, so the Tiawanese may have done more harm than good for their cause.
Post Merge: July 01, 2009, 11:14:51 AM

Or for that matter, Cecil Rhodes exploits in South Africa. (and by proxy, the rest of the continent)

Ouch! Direct hit! Yes, this damages the position that I took in generalizing Parry's expedition to the behavior of all or most British Naval officers.

As an amendment, I think that South Africa enjoys a much higher level of social prosperity as a result of being a member of the British Commonwealth. In spite of the historical transgressions of Cecil Rhodes and in spite of the Apartheid, I believe that South Africa is significantly better off due to British intervention. I believe that Anglicization has made them much stronger, in the long-term, in the area of human rights.

[Alyssa M.]

Was the American Revolution a mistake?

No.

[lisagurl]

Who do you think taught the French how to do it?

[Lisbeth]

Whatever the outcome in America, it would have profoundly changed the history of Australia.

[Mister]

Social prosperity for South Africa?  Sure, if you happen to be British, not African.

[Sigma Prime]

Who do you think taught the French how to do it?

Danged French ninnies! They ruined our language! Shaaaaaaaaaaame! Shame! However, I think that the Spanish were better teachers in regard to coordinated cultural genocide.

In fact, the British had to pay the Spanish a large sum of money to finally cut off the slave trade to Cuba, Peurto Rico, and Santa Domingo. In fact, the British established a number of treaties with other nations that led to the abolition of slavery. Also, in spite of the fact that the British practiced a form of slavery against the peoples of India (indentured servitude), it deserves to be mentioned that, while they were there, they crowded out Muslim cultures that also practiced slavery and were less keen on abolition. The British potentially did the world a service in helping to snuff out the Mughal Empire, for example.

[Lisbeth]

Social prosperity for South Africa?  Sure, if you happen to be British, not African.

Last I checked the majority of white people in South Africa were of Dutch descent, not British. That's why the Afrikaans language is a dialect of Dutch.

Danged French ninnies! They ruined our language! Shaaaaaaaaaaame! Shame! However, I think that the Spanish were better teachers in regard to coordinated cultural genocide.

I believe lisagurl was referring to the French Revolution in 1790.

[Mister]

Last I checked the majority of white people in South Africa were of Dutch descent, not British. That's why the Afrikaans language is a dialect of Dutch.

i was referring to the olde timey colonial days.

[Sigma Prime]

i was referring to the olde timey colonial days.

Okay, so let us suppose an alternate history in which the British did not have an excuse to send its navies around the world. The way I see it, this would have given Muslim dynasties freer rein in the African continent and the Orient. If I understand correctly, they did not have an abolition movement. On the other hand, the Enlightenment was still running hot in Western Europe, and they did have an abolitionist ideology.