Revolutionary War

[Mikhail]

Ice Princess, I would consider someone saying that my opinion doesn't matter because of a religious belief a personal attack. However, I was correctly describing his attitude toward me. The dictionary defines that word I used as "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." which would discribe whoever said that to me perfectly. Apparently you favour certain members.

To whoever said a "camel's fluffy air extraction" doesn't belong in a logical debate, I would have to say that all logic fled the debate when the person attacked my religious beliefs and used that as a reason not to debate logically with me.

You ask what oppressions the British did on the colonies. Well, what was the policy of the European colonies toward the colonies? They would strip them of their resources with no regard towards the land or the native people of the country. In the US, they denied people the right of trail by jury, the invaded the homes without warrants, forced them to trade only with them (enabling them to charge enormous prices for manufactered good and giving little for raw materials), they banned general meetings, they taxed the colonies for wars that only benefited the mother country, not the colonists themselves, etc, etc. This is just off the top of my head. Read the Declaration of Independance if you want to here a more comprehensive list. Also, remember that in the 20th century all of the other colonies of the European powers broke away and formed their own governments after centuries of exploitation. Exploitation was what having colonies were all about, and this is not a fact that the "mother" countries denied. Colonies were places to dump your poor and unwanted and a place to get cheap labor and resources.

[son_of_angels]

1. They would strip them of their resources with no regard towards the land or the native people of the country.

First of all, white Americans were not the "native people" and we part of the problem, not the solution for the oppression of the Native Americans. These lovely people instead were usually much less kind to natives than the British were.

2. They denied people the right of trial by jury.

In British common law at this time, trial by jury was not a guaranteed right at this time, especially in extraordinary legal situations, such as overseas colonies.

3. They invaded the homes without warrants.

ditto

4. They banned general meetings.

No, the governors, duly appointed by the crown, dissolved the lower houses of the legislature as per their constitutional right. This was common in England and other parliamentary governments as well.
They also banned meetings that they knew would erupt in violence. We don't let Al Quaeda have their weekly get-togethers here either.

5. forced them to trade only with them

Let me ask you, if you create a sister corporation to say, make parts for your airplane, would you want them to sell and buy their stuff to Boeing if you work for Airbus. No. It works the same with franchises. Most of the colonies were created as business ventures funded by the crown, on conditions like this, how do you think they got over here.

6. wars that only benefited the mother country

Nevermind that Britain just funded a massive war effort in America against the Native Americans and French, it isn't right that the colonists should have to pay England back or anything.

[Mikhail]

"First of all, white Americans were not the "native people" and we part of the problem, not the solution for the oppression of the Native Americans. These lovely people instead were usually much less kind to natives than the British were."

1. I was giving a general description of the way that European nations treated their colonies, not the British alone. Also, anyone born into the many of the colonies, especially colonies such as the Americas, Australia, etc, considered their home and their native land. They were not to blame for the means by which their ancestors gained the land. The British, French, and Spanish, as well as the other European powers, only treated the natives kindly when it worked to their advantage. No one denies that no one treated the natives of any land right.

"In British common law at this time, trial by jury was not a guaranteed right at this time, especially in extraordinary legal situations, such as overseas colonies."

2. I realize this and this was the reason that it was not in the colonies. A reason for stripping someone of their rights is not an excuse. The fact remains that they were denied the right of a free trial. You have not denied this, merely confirmed it.

"No, the governors, duly appointed by the crown, dissolved the lower houses of the legislature as per their constitutional right. This was common in England and other parliamentary governments as well.
They also banned meetings that they knew would erupt in violence. We don't let Al Quaeda have their weekly get-togethers here either."

4. Once again, you have merely confirmed that the right was taken away. You have given a reason, but not an excuse. Sure, we don't allow known criminals to meet; people who's goal is to kill civilians. However, to compare the meetings of the late 18th century to Al Quaeda is a completely....well, wrong. It's like apples and oranges. Besides, the meetings did not induce violence, but the banning of the meetings was one of the links to the chain that led to the violence.

"Let me ask you, if you create a sister corporation to say, make parts for your airplane, would you want them to sell and buy their stuff to Boeing if you work for Airbus. No. It works the same with franchises. Most of the colonies were created as business ventures funded by the crown, on conditions like this, how do you think they got over here."

5. Once again, a bad analogy. This was my point exactly. The European nations looked at the colonies as possesions, which was unfair toward the colonies and infringed on their rights. Like I said, it allowed them to buy raw materials for cheap and charge high rates for manufactered goods. i.e. getting cheap labor and resources, and stripping the colony of everything of value with no regard toward the people or the land. Your analogy shows this. A company who creates a sister company is doing it benefit itself.

"Nevermind that Britain just funded a massive war effort in America against the Native Americans and French, it isn't right that the colonists should have to pay England back or anything."

That's right. To protect what they considered to be their colony so they could continue to exploit it. The French were trying to gain control so they could exploit it. Tell me how the war benefitted the colonies. The only reason the natives were a threat is because the French paid them to attack the British colonists. The only people who benefited from the war were the British.

[son_of_angels]

When I read either the Bible or the Church Fathers, or when I consider the natural state of man, it does not occur to me that trial by jury, assembly of legislators, or of town hall meetings, or making money off of every business venture are absolutely necessary rights.

By the way we should mention what this "cheap labor" you talk about really was. It was the forceful enslavement of thousands of Africans by American slave traders. Americans wanted more freedom of trade so they could participate in the infamous triangle trade, which ultimately led to the slavery of thousands upon thousands of Africans.

Yet as I said in an earlier post, when the reasons and purposes for engaging in a war do not make a war just, it is often the end which does so.