Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The America Revolution was the largest act of wealth redistribution the world has ever known.

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 20, 2012, 6:53 a.m. EST by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The Crown invested billions of today’s dollars and hundreds of years into the colonies. The colonies pasted down through the family like any other trust fund asset. There is no doubt that legally. Internationally recognized, King George owned America. The Founding Fathers stole this country from him; they had some crazy idea that because they had built this country with their sweat and blood, they had more right to it than the person who had made it all possible with billions in investment, imagine that. Well I think we might be getting close to needing another revolution.

148 Comments

148 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17440) 2 years ago

Erm........actually, several generations had lived in the colonies dealing with Kings that didn't speak English. So, all of a sudden they had a King that did speak English and that put an end to a few shenanigans.

The colonies were like the biggest welfare drama queens of the day. They wanted things like protection but they didn't want to pay for it. The majority of the Founding Fathers were rather rich compared to most people and held positions prior to the "revolution". A large portion of people living at the time thought that they were trading one crown for another.

It wasn't a "social revolution" either.

And when it was all over the US actually whined and cried for trade relations to be restored.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

When you refer to "welfare drama queens" is that a reference to the billions of investment that I also refer to?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

Not unless you are counting the soldiers as protection and paying the people to run it.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I was simply referring to money spent for all reasons, it seems you jump to attack before thinking, a common problem.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

The clock is a tickin'. You wanted to oversimplify shit because it suited you at the time. That's the problem.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

What if you don't want to present a four year program you can't refer to the American Revolution?

So not having any problems with the FACTS of the post you decided to jump in just to spout off bullshit?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

I presented facts. The ones that you seem to want to oversimplify because it suited you at the time. Kind of like the NRA attempt to twist history.

Clocks a tickin', what else do you have?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

You presented a rant that could be said about anyone at anytime really.

You have not once address the central position of the post which that the King owned America.

I had thought you were at least intellectually honest, beginning to doubt that now.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Great way to miss the entire point, speak much American?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

Perfectly, it's the bullshit that I can do with out.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Bullshit like this?

2 points by GirlFriday (14113) 1 year ago Erm........actually, several generations had lived in the colonies dealing with Kings that didn't speak English. So, all of a sudden they had a King that did speak English and that put an end to a few shenanigans. The colonies were like the biggest welfare drama queens of the day. They wanted things like protection but they didn't want to pay for it. The majority of the Founding Fathers were rather rich compared to most people and held positions prior to the "revolution". A large portion of people living at the time thought that they were trading one crown for another. It wasn't a "social revolution" either. And when it was all over the US actually whined and cried for trade relations to be restored.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

Nope, bullshit like you twisting history for your own propaganda.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

So it is your position that the King did not own America under the Law at that time?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

If you don't understand my position then read the paragraph again.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

So I read it and did not see how it applies to the post really, but getting to the post. Do you hold that the King did not own America? Since you did call the post bullshit and all I was interested in your thinking.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

Then read it again. I mean, you dug up a year old post not because you want to understand my thinking behind it but because you wanted to argue.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Assigning motives to others is often a failed project.

Your comment seems more a reflection on people (in rant form) in general rather than the subject of the post.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

Clock is a tickin'. Assigning motives to others is often a failed project

But, not in this case.

What else do you have?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Maybe I just wanted to bump the post, I didn't give a shit if you argued or not, maybe I wanted to see if you had undergone any personal growth in the past year, there could be any number of reasons.

I have already ask you do you disagree with the position that the King owned America?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

Ya, because personal growth on my part would somehow make you less of a douche bag. Later.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

We've no fear of ever finding out.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

What's to find out? You're a douchebag. What makes it even better is that you cannot stand that there are other conversations taking place. You are about as transparent as they get. Now, run along little creepy thing.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

Here, let me make this real simple for you. You have made an attempt to justify a revolution by oversimplifying events for the redistribution of wealth while playing to both sides. It's bullshit. It was a bullshit thread a year ago and it's a bullshit thread now.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

You have completely misread the post and it's intent, I'm not surprised you seem to have a rather closed mind the few times we have chatted.

Your desire to judge is exceeded only by your incompetence.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

You are a dolt. You wanna have a petty ass fight? Let's go. You have the next 10 minutes of my time for you to act like a big ass jack off. Let's roll.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Are you like covered in nothing but BUTTONS?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

A towel and a t-shirt. I just got out of the shower, hence, the 10 minutes.

Your 10 minutes are up, asshole.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

It was enough to KICK YOUR ASS

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

You didn't do anything but make yourself look like a bigger scumbag then you already did. But, thanks for playing.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

When was the last time you actually kicked someone's ass? Actually got in a real fight?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

are you coming back?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

ummm, OK, I thought I might be getting into some history here, off hand I don't see anything in your post I would really disagree with.

So if you would allow me, my point here is that the GOP has stolen the Revolution for their own propose, (freedom for the rich to do as they wish) this is something their think tanks started long ago, making the Revolution only about “freedom”. I just wish to point out that the Revolution was about many things including if it was stealing the King's property to rebel.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17440) 2 years ago

LOL.Ah, crap....... I knew I should have drank another cup of coffee.

I agree. They have stolen it and it seems a repetitive fight that we must have. Vigilance.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

No problem they been setting that hook as long as most us been alive, maybe longer.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

So let's give all the land back to the Native Americans? Problem is, they aren't around any more. There are people who are their descendants, and we (many of us) are the descendants of those who stole the land from them. There is no one to give the land back to, except the dead.

From what I understand, the Native Americans did not practice the concept of land ownership. The "theft" of land by the europeans was more like an extermination of the native people in order to institute and protect property rights in this country. There are two ways in which property can be obtained: Trade and conquest. The property of this country (land) was obtained by the Europeans through conquest of the native people. The property was then obtained by the ex-European Americans through conquest of the portion of this country belonging to Europe, who quitclaimed this land in the peace treaty ending the revolutionary war.

It is true that this country had a bloody beginning and that the bloodshed continues. Now it is the corporate US, obtaining ownership and control of land and people through dubious contracts. When that beings to fail, they will surely turn to war.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

You predict a violent revolt by Americans against American Corporations? A civil war?

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

Not American corporations, but the private corporation dba the United States. And I hope it does not come to that. They are militant in nature and have daunting resources at their disposal. It would not be pretty.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The private corporation doing business as the United States? I am trying to understand.

You predict that private corporations that have influence over the US government are militant? That they are powerful and will turn that militancy on the people of the US?

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

nope. Read here: http://teamlaw.org/HistoryOutline.htm

But be sure to do your own research to verify this. Some of the information in this history (and on the rest of the site) is inaccurate. But the overall history is correct.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Not yet.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

It's the "they will surely turn to war" part that I am trying to understand. A statement with the certainty of "the sun will rise tomorrow".

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

sorry I jumped in, not my words, so I will step back.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I do like that last part, please read on to get my gest.

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Or option three, you could "buy" property, acquire title, and thereby own it. I mean, territory has always been important to humans, even primitive tribes recognized forms of territorial autonomy (and often fought to defend it). Every attempt in recent history to divest property owners of their property, has failed miserably. What we're talking about isn't a revolution against an outside force. Divesting people of property ownership would require endless infighting among ourselves. Who gets to decide how many square feet someone's house should be? Will it be the mob?

Yeah, there's more injustices in history than I can count, there's more injustices on earth today than I can count, capitalism (as it's practiced today) does have a very exploitative tendency. Yet, most of the arguments I hear are largely emotional. They ignore the nuance of history, the finer details, the benefits of scientific innovation (and the role of capitalism in spurring those innovations and delivering them to consumers), they paint with a broad brush, etc.

How about some concrete proposals? Former lobbyist (convicted in a scandal involving an Indian casino), has come up with a great list of proposals (like shutting the revolving door, ending all gifts to members of congress, etc.). There's one or two merit worthy Constitutional amendment proposals floating around the Senate (to overturn Citizens United), restore Glass Steagall & trade reform (both of which have been proposed by members of congress), more stimulus, expanding Pell Grants, student loan forgiveness (at least up to a reasonable amount), a "homeowner bailout" ... etc.

If we want to give employee owned companies a chance, why not create a small business loan program specifically designed to lend money to employee owned enterprises, co-ops, non-profits, and similar entities? If we want more participation in our democracy, instead of allowing congressmen to hold private meetings with lobbyists, why not require them to hold regularly scheduled public meetings in their home districts (and for that matter, enact term limits, so there's a robust rotation in congress, making entrenched corruption less likely)? Also, why not enact better protections for labor unions (so we unionize a much larger share of our workforce)?

I mean, there are concrete things we can fight for ... that could actually induce change (as opposed to complaining about remote history or the behavior of far away countries that we have no control over).

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I don't recall mentioning the Native Americans, I was referring to international law at the time.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

found this in the declaration of independence

at the bottom of the list of grievances with King George

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Do you think the whole “crusade” endeavor that Bush took us on was an attempt at this?

Of course as unpopular as it might be to point out, the Founding fathers only represent one side of the augment. (history being written by the winners and all) I am sure you are aware of the many other opinions held at the time. Not that I think the FF got it wrong, just pointing out that the revolution was more complicated than just freedom.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the list of grievance starts with the colony government being unable to govern

because King George will not sign the laws the colony governors pass

.

"He has refused his Assent to Laws,

( the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. )

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance,

  • unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained;
    • and when so suspended,
      • he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

True enough, honest real democratic representation was at the core of the fight.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

Weird, don't know where I picked the Native Americans bit up. Looks like it might have been from the post below by thunderclap, actually.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Life is a learning process, I have learned that if you use the word "stole" and "America" thinking people everywhere, think about the Native American plight. I will have to remember this the next time I want to get thinking people thinking. I hope that if you look through this thread you will see my intent more clearly. Thank you stopping by.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Trevor claims Goldman paid for this.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Free Trade as practiced today is the largest wealth distribution scheme the world has ever known. Manufacturing which was the mainstay of the American and European Middle Classes was moved to India and Asia, transferring wealth to those sectors and decimating the US and European Middle Classes, creating more poverty here and greater wealth for the corporations that own the manufacturing plants... the 1%

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Capitalism is method to funnel money to the top, by design.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

government should serve the people, people are who put government into existance, people sure as hell shouldnt serve the government, as the government didnt put people into existance.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I agree this concept that the Revolution was just about freedom, without talking about representation. Anything that weakens the one person one vote, equal access to all is a violation of the intent of the Founding Fathers. The Citizens United was clearly wrongly decided because it conflicts with this clear intent of the Founding Fathers. The Robert’s Court has decide that it their will and their judgment that should rule the land, not the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (34861) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Here's an opportunity to have government take a step back in the right direction.


208,244 signatures so far for Bernie Sanders petition as of 10:04am central time 02/27/2012

http://sanders.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?mailaction=clickthru&gpiv=2100081904.557411.411&gen=1&mailing_linkid=34578

Read it and find out. What it is all about.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Saving-American-Democracy.pdf

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Revolution 2.0 - Direct Democracy to return power to the people.

http://osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

"I'm tired of hearing it said that democracy doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work. We are supposed to work it." - Thomas Jefferson

Love me some Jefferson. Thanks!!

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

I see you're still selling lies on this forum.....

Just to correct you, again.....that quote is not from Thomas Jefferson, it is from Alexander Woollcott, not even in the same century.......

I am sure you DON"T love Jefferson, as his, and your, philosophies are 180 degrees out of phase....

Here is Jefferson, tell me how you love this:

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it."

or this:

"I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."

or this:

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground."

or this:

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

or this:

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.

or this:

The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.

See.....I "DO" love and respect Thomas Jefferson, and his stand on individual liberty......

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You are the proven lair. So these guys got it wrong huh or are you just lying again?

http://osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

you're not only a liar, but you're dumb too.......

Spend a day in a library...huh? you'll be better for it....

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. Ronald Reagan.....

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Wikipedia? Hmmm I like Wikipedia, looks like you might be useful in research, you have no talent for debate or policy.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

you seem to have no talent for anything but parroting idea's that have been debunked over and over again since the dawn of time........

you are a fool, and a proud one at that.......how unfortunate.....

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

oh please, you're too kind, but now go on let the debunking begin...

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

history has already shown the failure of your idea's of uniformity masquerading as "equality", the tyranny of attempting to equalize outcome, and the foolishness of demonizing achievement.....all one needs to do is to spend a day in a library to understand it...

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You do seem to have a lot of opinions about things I've never said, but hey you can have all the opinions you want.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Hey slammer comfrimed it you got this one right, it was Alexander Woollcott's quote, damn important concept no matter who said it.

"I'm tired of hearing it said that democracy doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work. We are supposed to work it." - Alexander Woollcott not Thomas Jefferson

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Hey Sparky is this guy right?

I see you're still selling lies on this forum.....

Just to correct you, again.....that quote is not from Thomas Jefferson, it is from Alexander Woollcott, not even in the same century.......

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Yes it's true - It is Alexander Woollcott's quote. They change their web site recently - it's a typo !! The meaning of the words are more important than when they were said or who said them. It's about applying past thoughts to present issues. The failure your friend is speaking of is that of a representative republic. If HE ever visits the library; he will learn that a direct democracy has never been tried here.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Np, I just try to my stuff straight, if you look around here you might even see me saying opps, I got that wrong. Of course the righties can never do that because once they did people would expect it all the time and that's all they would be doing. Thanks for the update, keep up the good work!

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

If all they have to pick on is a typo - they sure don't have many arrows in their quiver :)

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

it's all debate tatic, right now they talking about R. Santorum on MSNBC pointing out that he has a B.A, M.B.A. and a J.D. yet comes off as blue collar everyman. Politics may be performance art, however nothing say that art can't tell the truth as easy as fiction. That's our job :).

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (263) 2 years ago

Humanity needs revolutions every time.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I trust that this time, with the tools the Founding Fathers gave us, it will be without blood.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

This land was originally stolen from Native Americans (Indian tribes) and then claimed to be owned by George through his own creation of land deeds as proof of ownership, right? So the colonists "stole" the land from someone who'd received stolen property. There truely is no honor among thieves.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I feel the right has framed the America Revolution as purely a "fight for freedom". This plays to their belief of the freedom of the wealthy is its greatest accomplishment, freedom to do as they wish in their lives as well as their control of our government. The arguments presented by the GOP today regarding the sanctity of private property were presented long ago by those that supported the King, and his rightful ownership of America. They spoke of how ungrateful and immoral it was to attempt to steal the King’s property With this post I was addressing the legal situation at the time more than the moral one.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

FRF, you no doubt have already read this at some point. For others reading along here's a link I found concerning the Royal Proclamation:

http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-policy/royal-proclamation-1763.html

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thank you for the link, I actually wrote this off the cuff from what I remember from high school history, but this AM I will invite a friend with an advanced degree to join us. This document concerns "unsettle lands" I think, would need to look into that. I can see how my use of the word "stole" has invoked much discussion of the Native American plight. A subject worthy of many discussion points. My intent here is trying to point out that the American Revolution was not just about "freedom" this concept is actually one that has been promoted by think tanks from early on.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Terrific stuff. Thanks. I'll look forward to the continuation of this topic here.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thank you for stopping by, I like your stuff too, I feel we must change the mindset, if we are to reach minds. The right has spent many decades instilling the ideas that support their policies that the rich should be "free" to do as they wish, by making the revolution about freedom not representation. I thought I would just jump right to their “your stealing” argument and point out it is not the first time that one has been used.

[-] 0 points by buik6 (18) 2 years ago

definitely bring in the guy with an advanced degree. i advise you to have her start a different topic because this one appears to be about how the white man stole this land from the indians, despite your intent

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

sent the email, don't know if he will stop by, having a life and all, but hey it's fun here, right?

[-] 0 points by buik6 (18) 2 years ago

its fun for like 5 minutes and then its like, fuck this

yes i am also alive

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I understand your position, if you don't mind let me ask you this, do you ever get frustrated by simple positions that really make no sense if you think about them 5 minutes? Are you a liberal? I find that there is a creative process here, that I hope one day will match the power of their “think tanks” it may just seem like shouting, but for some of us, we have heard these shouts for many years.

[-] 0 points by buik6 (18) 2 years ago

honestly, i am not very easily frustrated by humans and their positions; i find it hard to blame people for being what they are... everything is genetics and experience and while we can change our experience to some degree, there is NO three-year-old who can do it and when you're three, thats when you learn the most about the world. jaded, abusive, loving, hateful, or beautiful, if you're exposed to these things early its almost impossible to get away.

some of my ingrained positions, if i think about them for more than 5 minutes, are weak, simplistic, motivated by jealousy or fear, etc. so why shouldnt other people be allowed to be idiots, ruled by things over which they have no control, if i am allowed to be one : )

i think instead of categorizing myself a liberal, i am just empathetic. and theres nothing i can do about it; it is my upbringing to care about others who are hurting, and i really have no say in the matter. i actually dont want to be this way because sometimes it is painful.

also, in my opinion, humans are happiest when creating new facts, rather than living by the established ones. because of this, i see no other way but up for us. and if many many people do not agree with me, that makes my creation more pertinent and more beautiful.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

Stole? capture is not theft...... to the victor go the spoils...

another of histories lessons the collectivists think they can ignore......

right or wrong, it just is the fact of the world.....

ownership belongs to those who can defend it, nothing more......

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Well, I think most Native Americans found the concept of land ownership quite strange, no?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You really should read this:

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnkin5.html

It seems that the rebellion against British rule allowed a certain group of the colonial elite to replace those loyal to England, give some benefits to small landholders, and leave poor white working people and tenant farmers in very much their old situation.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It's a bit suspect since most Americans never owned guns, which is how it starts.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

From the same chapter in Howard Zinn's book:

The American victory over the British army was made possible by the existence of an already- armed people. Just about every white male had a gun, and could shoot. The Revolutionary leadership distrusted the mobs of poor. But they knew the Revolution had no appeal to slaves and Indians. They would have to woo the armed white population.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The best evidence shows maybe as high as 50% of families had guns, quite a few, more than today, but I don't know about the words "about every"

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1489&context=wmlr

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Half of households is a lot. But what's your point exactly?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Granted, half is a lot, truth is I was still stuck with some old thoughts, that would have put the number lower, I like to save time by going with the most widely accepted data, so it did somewhat change my point, given that there has been updated sources.

So giving the paper a better read, I think the gist is that the people in general were not so hot for the war. I would have to say that would agree with my memory from school and what not. In whole I think there were many factors as well as a confluence of certain people that led to this experiment in democracy.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Howard Zinn's version of the story is that the revolution was actually all about the interests of the 1%. He traces the dominance of the elite all the way back to even before the revolution. IMHO, the "People's History of the United States" should be required reading for all Occupiers.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Certainly a focus on the “freedom” aspects plays into the hands of the 1% today. The GOP pushes the idea that the Revolution was all about freedom, then they go on to say that the freedom of the wealthy to do as they please is its greatest accomplishment. I am not a history buff or expert, this is just my recollections from H.S. history and a bit of reading. I do welcome those who wish to open the examination of the Revolution up to see if lessons can be learned there to help us here. The general concept that those with wealth and power tend to be at the fore front of lasting change is probably true today. As we move forward, we will find more and more friends among the 1% as they become aware that this is truly the only way to maintain any kind of stability in the country. We must ensure that we get the lasting changes that we need to ensure that it is always the best ideas that command the most attention not the most money.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Howard Zinn:

Charles Beard warned us that governments-including the government of the United States-are not neutral, that they represent the dominant economic interests, and that their constitutions are intended to serve these interests. One of his critics (Robert E. Brown, Charles Beard and the Constitution) raises an interesting point. Granted that the Constitution omitted the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," which appeared in the Declaration of Independence, and substituted "life, liberty, or property"-well, why shouldn't the Constitution protect property? As Brown says about Revolutionary America, "practically everybody was interested in the protection of property" because so many Americans owned property.

However, this is misleading. True, there were many property owners. But some people had much more than others. A few people had great amounts of property; many people had small amounts; others had none. Jackson Main found that one-third of the population in the Revolutionary period were small farmers, while only 3 percent of the population had truly large holdings and could he considered wealthy.

Still, one-third was a considerable number of people who felt they had something at stake in the stability of a new government. This was a larger base of support for government than anywhere in the world at the end of the eighteenth century. In addition, the city mechanics had an important interest in a government which would protect their work from foreign competition. As Staughton Lynd puts it: "How is it that the city workingmen all over America overwhelmingly and enthusiastically supported the United States Constitution?"

This was especially true in New York. When the ninth and tenth states had ratified the Constitution, four thousand New York City mechanics marched with floats and banners to celebrate. Bakers, blacksmiths, brewers, ship joiners and shipwrights, coopers, cartmen and tailors, all marched. What Lynd found was that these mechanics, while opposing elite rule in the colonies, were nationalist. Mechanics comprised perhaps half the New York population. Some were wealthy, some were poor, but all were better off than the ordinary laborer, the apprentice, the journeyman, and their prosperity required a government that would protect them against the British hats and shoes and other goods that were pouring into the colonies after the Revolution. As a result, the mechanics often supported wealthy conservatives at the ballot box.

The Constitution, then, illustrates the complexity of the American system: that it serves the interests of a wealthy elite, but also does enough for small property owners, for middle-income mechanics and farmers, to build a broad base of support. The slightly prosperous people who make up this base of support are buffers against the blacks, the Indians, the very poor whites. They enable the elite to keep control with a minimum of coercion, a maximum of law-all made palatable by the fanfare of patriotism and unity.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnkin5.html

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Interesting look at the economic factors around the Revolution, what do you draw from this?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the property owners needed self rule

because rule all the way over in England was not addressing local issues

and the property owners wanted to keep their land

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Good summary, thanks Matt.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

For months I've been trying to point out that the anarchist faction within Occupy that aspires to unify the 99% behind the idea of "revolution" will fail, because most Americans don't want to burn the whole system down. For exactly the reasons that Howard Zinn outlined. Most Americans are invested in the system. Although they have their complaints about how things work, the system does enough for most middle-class Americans to win a broad base of support. Most of us know that the elite 1% wield far more power than we do, but this is not Bahrain.

What that means is that in order to unify the 99% behind the idea of making changes, Occupy must work within the existing democratic framework. The Tea Party has demonstrated that it is possible to work within the system to make government more responsive to your concerns. When people on the left complain about the Tea Party hijacking Congress and forcing issues, they're acknowledging that it is possible to work within the system and get results.

Electing candidates is the way to achieve change. Not encampments, or shutting down ports, or throwing glitter on people, or interrupting events with 'mic checks'. And the way to elect candidates that truly represent the concerns of the 99% is to focus on common-ground issues that transcend the left/right dichotomy.

This may seem like a strange thing to bring up, but Comedy Central understands this already. The rally that thay had in response to the Tea Party rally was not about left-leaning ideals. It was about unity. Common sense. Jon Steward and Stephen Colbert make fun of BOTH sides of the aisle, because their commercial interests require them to appeal to a broad base of support. So Colbert is educating America about Super PACs, which is not a partisan issue. Likewise, corruption from the influence of lobbyists is not a partisan issue.

Occupy needs to understand the need to build a broad base of support. They need to stop demonizing "Repelicans" and stop talking about wedge issues like labor unions and environmental regulations. They need to find the discipline to avoid turning Occupy into a cornucopia of traditional liberal issues. They need to find the strength to empathize with conservatives, to find a political platform that they can use to win support from all kinds of different voters. Not just radical leftist activists. Even radical liberal activists groups like Earth First have the discipline to focus like a laser beam on one specific issue. If Occupy's one issue is representing the concerns of the 99% in the context of their relative lack of power compared with the 1%, then they need to learn to really represent all of the 99% so that they can get something accomplished.

Getting arrested and getting an un-focused leftist message on the nightly news is not an accomplishment, if the goal is to represent the 99%. Because, as Howard Zinn pointed out, most Americans actually support the cops. Not radical leftist protesters. Because even though we might be suspicious of the 1% having too much power, our cops and our system do enough for most of us that we support it. Even if there are things that we would like to change about it.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I too am unwilling to throw out the Constitution; I could not trust what might follow. I also feel that voting is an important, if not the most important, act. However I do feel that the GAs and their actions are what gets our concerns into the public discussion so I support them. I also feel that voting for anyone, or failing to vote against anyone, who wants to keep the 1% safe from tax increases goes directly against our goals.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I personally disagree. I do think that the very wealthy can probably afford to pay more in taxes. But I see that as a distraction from fighting for the interests of the 99%. We're fighting FOR the 99%, not necessarily AGAINST the 1%.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

To protect the retriement of the 99%, taxes will have to be rased on the 1%, those unwilling to take on that fight can hardly say they support the 99%.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

That would only be true if it were a zero-sum game. It's not. The interests of the 99% are hopelessly intertwined with the interests of the 1%.

[-] 0 points by kylelee34 (48) 2 years ago

The Founding Fathers stole this country from him; they had some crazy idea that because they had built this country with their sweat and blood, they had more right to it than the person who had made it all possible with billions in investment, imagine that.<<

I wonder how Native Americans would feel about that opinion. I think taking their land was probably a bigger redistribution of wealth.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Howard Zinn covered that, too:

What did the Revolution mean to the Native Americans, the Indians? They had been ignored by the fine words of the Declaration, had not been considered equal, certainly not in choosing those who would govern the American territories in which they lived, nor in being able to pursue happiness as they had pursued it for centuries before the white Europeans arrived. Now, with the British out of the way, the Americans could begin the inexorable process of pushing the Indians off their lands, killing them if they resisted, in short, as Francis Jennings puts it, the white Americans were fighting against British imperial control in the East, and for their own imperialism in the West.

Before the Revolution, the Indians had been subdued by force in Virginia and in New England. Elsewhere, they had worked out modes of coexistence with the colonies. But around 1750, with the colonial population growing fast, the pressure to move westward onto new land set the stage for conflict with the Indians. Land agents from the East began appearing in the Ohio River valley, on the territory of a confederation of tribes called the Covenant Chain, for which the Iroquois were spokesmen. In New York, through intricate swindling, 800,000 acres of Mohawk land were taken, ending the period of Mohawk-New York friendship. Chief Hendrick of the Mohawks is recorded speaking his bitterness to Governor George Clinton and the provincial council of New York in 1753:

Brother when we came here lo relate our Grievances about our Lands, we expected to have something done for us, and we have told you that the Covenant Chain of our Forefathers was like to be broken, and brother you tell us that we shall be redressed at Albany, but we know them so well, we will not trust to them, for they [the Albany merchants] are no people but Devils so ... as soon as we come home we will send up a Belt of Wampum to our Brothers the other 5 Nations to acquaint them the Covenant Chain is broken between you and us. So brother you are not to expect to hear of me any more, and Brother we desire to hear no more of you.

When the British fought the French for North America in the Seven Years' War, the Indians fought on the side of the French. The French were traders but not occupiers of Indian lands, while the British clearly coveted their hunting grounds and living space. Someone reported the conversation of Shingas, chief of the Delaware Indians, with the British General Braddock, who sought his help against the French:

Shingas asked General Braddock, whether the Indians that were friends to the English might not be permitted to Live and Trade among the English and have Hunting Ground sufficient to Support themselves and Familys.... On which General Braddock said that No Savage Should Inherit the Land.. . . On which Shingas and the other Chiefs answered That if they might not have Liberty to Live on the Land they would not Fight for it....

When that war ended in 1763, the French, ignoring their old allies, ceded to the British lands west of the Appalachians. The Indians therefore united to make war on the British western forts; this is called "Pontiac's Conspiracy" by the British, but "a liberation war for independence" in the words used by Francis Jennings. Under orders from British General Jeffrey Amherst, the commander of Fort Pitts gave the attacking Indian chiefs, with whom he was negotiating, blankets from the smallpox hospital. It was a pioneering effort at what is now called biological warfare. An epidemic soon spread among the Indians.

Despite this, and the burning of villages, the British could not destroy the will of the Indians, who continued guerrilla war. A peace was made, with the British agreeing to establish a line at the Appalachians, beyond which settlements would not encroach on Indian territory. This was the Royal Proclamation of 1763, and it angered Americans (the original Virginia charter said its land went westward to the ocean). It helps to explain why most of the Indians fought for England during the Revolution. With their French allies, then their English allies, gone, the Indians faced a new land-coveting nation-alone.

The Americans assumed now that the Indian land was theirs. But the expeditions they sent westward to establish this were overcome-which they recognized in the names they gave these battles: Harmar's Humiliation and St. Glair's Shame. And even when General Anthony Wayne defeated the Indians' western confederation in 1798 at the Battle of Fallen Timbers, he had to recognize their power. In the Treaty of Grenville, it was agreed that in return for certain cessions of land the United States would give up claims to the Indian lands north of the Ohio, east of the Mississippi, and south of the Great Lakes, but that if the Indians decided to sell these lands they would offer them first to the United States.

Jennings, putting the Indian into the center of the American Revolution-after all, it was Indian land that everyone was fighting over-sees the Revolution as a "multiplicity of variously oppressed and exploited peoples who preyed upon each other." With the eastern elite controlling the lands on the seaboard, the poor, seeking land, were forced to go West, there becoming a useful bulwark for the rich because, as Jennings says, "the first target of the Indian's hatchet was the frontiersman's skull."

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnkin5.html

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

No doubt the Native American plight desevers much discussion, I am not surprised using "stole" and "America" in the same post it was bound to happen. This is my intent here:

My point here is that the GOP has stolen the Revolution for their own propose, (freedom for the rich to do as they wish) this is something their think tanks started long ago, making the Revolution only about “freedom”. I just wish to point out that the Revolution was about many things including if it was stealing the King's property to rebel.

[-] 1 points by kylelee34 (48) 2 years ago

As well as only allowing white land owning males the right to vote...might not be the type of revolution you want associate your self with.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

That's OK, as imperfect as it was I'll take the American Revolution as an overall good thing.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This was the first of the "fundamental" posts really.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Least we forget.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

come out come out where ever you are....

[-] -2 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

What school taught you that garbage? do you feel that gandhi stole india from the british?

[-] 2 points by Progression (143) 2 years ago

America was stolen from the Native Americans so whats your point?

[-] -2 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

the indians never had a chance. . they advanced from nothing to nothing for centuries.

[-] 3 points by buik6 (18) 2 years ago

thats because they had it made already. a much preferable existence than ours; certainly harder but without cunts like you.

[-] 1 points by Progression (143) 2 years ago

This is also not related to your original comment so who is deflecting now? Why won't you explain your point about Gandhi stealing India? Is it because the Native American argument destroys your weak metaphor?

By the way, the Native Americans excelled at agricultural and architectural technologies. They did not excel at war technology but its a far cry from 'nothing'. Did you fail high school?

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

if you think the indians excelled at architecture where does that leave the romans who where building masterpieces thousands of years ago?

[-] 1 points by Progression (143) 2 years ago

Still deflecting from your original comment because you have been proven wrong?

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

wrong about what? the romans invented the arch thousands of years ago. their roads and aqueducts still exist. ever seen or been in the pantheon? a marvel of architecture and engineering.

[-] 1 points by Progression (143) 2 years ago

"do you feel that gandhi stole india from the british?" If you are done playing dumb and deflecting, whats your point here?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So I gather you never studied American history?

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

regarding india , did gandhi steal it from the british?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I don't actually live in India.

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

you could apply the same " arguement" you made about the usa to india. " I don't actually live in India",................ to use an old phrase, is a cop out.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

How about we talk about America instead?

I think I see the "cop" but he an't out yet.

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

I asked you about your "arguement " in relation to gandhi and india. If you defend gandhi, you would defending the founders of the usa, so you keep deflecting.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Ok so what was your question in regards to the American Revolution, I have no interest in your strawman.

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

you won't give an honest answer because it would ruin your "arguement" about america.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Hey I don't really want you to go away, I guess you know quite a bit about the American Revolution, that's why you don't ask questions about it, you know already that my statement (post) is true.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Why don't you take your strawmann and see if someone else wants to defend it

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the strawman argument falsely equates a proposition with a superficially similar proposition (the strawman)

the strawman argument refutes the strawman while claiming to have refuted the proposition

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Strawman arguments

falsely equate a proposition to a similar proposition

& refute the "strawman"

while claiming to refute the proposition.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thanks Matt, I'm starting to think you don't take sides, so much as ref. We need that goodness knows. Thought I was going to make your "you" list for a minute there, I hope you understand I have a point of view, I'm honest in defending it and doing the best I can.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

"starwmann"? new word?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

[-]2 points by MattLHolck (5080) 1 day ago

the strawman argument falsely equates a proposition with a superficially similar proposition (the strawman)

the strawman argument refutes the strawman while claiming to have refuted the proposition

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

the word you posted was "starwmann"

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thank you.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (34861) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Your whole premise to compare the Revolutionary War to the East Indian retaking of their society/country from British conquest....... Is how one would say laughable.

[-] -3 points by smellyowsloozer (-51) 2 years ago

factsfun, my little dumbbell friend....I assume you wish to return America to it's rightful owner...King George?

You OWS assholes are really funny

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thank you for the feedback.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (34861) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

We are in that needed revolution, "HERE" and "NOW". Revolution need not be bloody to be successful. It just needs support of the population. This is also about proper economic distribution.

We are moving forward!

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I agree, I believe it was Asimov who said “violence is the last recourse of the incompetent”. Thank you for stopping by.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34861) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Like I said a good post for stirring up consideration about where we came from and where we are trying to go.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I feel the American Revolution has been framed purely in the terms of "freedom", but at the time it was very much a question of property.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (34861) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Proper representation, and the fight against corruption. Yeah pretty much like today.