this post was submitted on 03 May 2025
1254 points (98.8% liked)
Political Memes
7955 readers
2434 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't interpret the history like that, and really, it's not that long ago. I think it's a relatable situation to empathize with. The way you've presented things assumes that everyone there was British and there was an outlying cast of "rebels and smugglers".
My interpretation is that this was a group of people forming their own society on a new land away from Britain. We're talking from Jamestown in 1607, through the British separatist colonizing the rest of the American East Coast to 1732 (Georgia, last of the 13 British separatist colonies). That's over a 100 years of people forming a new society, on new land, literally fighting the environments day in and day out to survive.
During this time, we have The British Military setting up bases, trying to further their Nations expanse westward. In the mix we have one of the first Corporations, being used by the British Military - The East India Trading Company, to facilitate trade between the British Militants and what I'll call Locals. The British Military gets priority on Imports, and the Locals either barter with the British Military installations or The East India Trading Company. Local Communities integrating trade as an alternative short The British Militia which results in the Townsend Acts of 1767. This allows British Militia involvement for what they see as "smugglers" and results in confiscation of goods, to support British Militia.
The Boston Tea Party (1773, 166 years after the first long-term colony") sets in motion a society's separation from British Occupants leading to The Revolutionary War of 1775 resulting in separation from The British Empire. I think it was an inevitable thing to happen as it's happened throughout history to The British Empire. As one would expect, this was literal Independence allowing the growing society to facilitate their own means, government, trade, and communities. Coincidentally, they inherited a similar civil governing structure as the base sauce was the same.
TL;DR: I don't see this as greed but growth, separation, and annexation of The British Empire (Authoritarian) + East India Trading Company (Trade Monopoly Corporation).
What formed at the end of the day is Capitalism. For me, that leads me to believe that either International Trade or the Governing Body eventually leads to Capitalism. For me, I think it's the latter. This is the same Governing body inherited from The British Empire and adapted in it's own unique ways over a large geographical area. This Governing body mixed with the International Trade and humans susceptibility to greed has lead to U.S. Capitalism. I'm not necessarily sold on Capitalism being a bad concept, but the Governing Body has to be a check for the people and the Nation. What the U.S. has grown into is unchecked Capitalism, which could flip to full Authoritarianism if the inequality gap gets too big.
Everyone was British, including the rebels and smugglers.
That's what the propaganda sells, but it's not true. Boston was as big a town as Liverpool in the 1700s. New York was roughly the same size as Manchester. Nobody was "literally fighting the environment to survive". People had city-type jobs. Benjamin Franklin was printing newspapers. John Hancock was a smuggler. Sure, there were a lot of farmers working hard on their farms, but that was true everywhere.
Leaving the British empire has happened a lot. Fighting a war to leave definitely hasn't. Which other countries have fought wars to leave the British Empire?
How do you think all this happened? The cities just got shipped in from across the Atlantic? That's the whole point of Britians expansion with the Thirteen Colonies across the East Coast of Americas - multiple attempts at forming and sustaining a base of operations to further expansions. It starts in the early 1600s, continues into the 1700s as ships continue to drop off both British Separists - those wanting to seek life in a new land - and British Militia. All of which had to build these cities to handle the import of goods needed for the British Empires expansion. It's not some Game of Thrones shit where a fleet of British ships just completely encompass the East Coast and supply it with everything it needs. Ain't no next day shipping in these days. Both Populace and Supplies would continue to come in through the century. These people had to explore, farm, forage, hunt, build shelter all in new land. Port cities would have been the first places to see the most improvement simply due to location and imports - again over 100 years, ~166 years from first landing a East Coast Colony to The Boston Tea Party.
John Handcock was born on Americans soil (not a British Separatist Import) and arguably had more right to the land and representation there of than the British Militia. He wasn't some off-shore Chinese smuggler trying to undercut The East India Trading Corporation. The propaganda is framing local trade is "smuggling" when in reality, the locals who grew up in The Americas, building the city, not fighting The British Empires war, got fed up having to deal with trading through The British and the upcharges from The East India Trading Corporation - who were relatively loyal to The British Militia.
The annexation of the British Empire has happened in more places than just the Americas - history shows that it was inevitable. A century and a half (over 150 years) is a long time for a society to grow apart from The British Empire across The Atlantic Ocean.
How do you think it happened in Liverpool and Manchester? People moved there and built up a town.
Their grandparents did, sure. By the time they were born these were established colonies and it wasn't too different from Europe.
I don't know who "Handcock" was, but Hancock was a Briton born in the colonies, sure. But, who do you think the British Militia consisted of? Militia members were locals. Even British army officers were locals in many cases. Before he became President, George Washington was a (terrible) Colonel in the British army.
You do realize that the colonists were fighting in the wars, and many of the wars were fought on behalf of the colonists, to protect them from the hostile French and "Indian" forces to their west, right?
Yeah, just like the idiotic sovereign citizens today who don't want to acknowledge that they're part of a society and that they have to live by the rules of that society like everyone else. They didn't like the government's rules so they smuggled.
WTF are you talking about?
What do you mean by "the annexation of the British Empire"? The British Empire was never annexed.
And yet, it didn't happen, probably because there was constant contact and trade back and forth between British ports in the Americas, British ports in Asia, British ports in Europe, etc.
Under the British Empire, The British Crown, as a port city, where The British primarily ruled. This is a bit different than when The British Empire was across an entire Atlantic Ocean.
Not everything was Boston and established, flushed out colonies with paved streets and whatnot. Just because "Their grandparents" hunted, farmed, and build lodging doesn't make their children's lives much different during those times. It was still very much roughing it, especially the more lower class you get. They still had to hunt, farm, forage, build, and work.
British Militia were stationed there like any other wartime, but they were still loyalists to the British Empire, whereas society at that time was clearly moving away from Britain's control over the communities.
You do realize that this wasn't some nice thing Britain was doing for the people wanting to leave Britain and had more to do with the British Empire trying to expand their reach over The World as they did in Africa and India? This is what The British did at the time, expansion and conquering through colonization.
A small group of smugglers didn't just start a Revolution across roughly ~1500 miles of the Americas East Coast on their own. This was a social change driven by that society's desire to be rid of British Occupation and Governance. Otherwise, this "revolution" would have fizzled without ongoing support, much like the "sovereign citizen" movement has.
During this period, with the British waging war and needing supplies (along with colonies needing supplies), this was primarily handled by The East India Trading Company to handle shipments and imports - this was more or less controlled by The British Empire. This meant that the local populace would need to trade and barter with the Trading Company, who favored The British Militia, which meant less fair trade/barter.
Annexation in that after the American Revolution and the British Surrender, this allowed the newly formed society to be separated entirely from the British Empire and British Militia. The colonies would no longer be under British Militia control and the society would be free to formulate it's own government and trade.
Now it just seems like you're suggesting that Britain never released its control and influence over America, which I can't agree with. America certainly grew up into a society different than Britain, certainly the revolt and removal of British Militia has apart in this.
That description fits Boston perfectly. It was in the British empire, under the British crown, in a port city where the British ruled.
Yes, just like there were rural areas in England, there were also rural areas in the colonies. There wasn't much difference except the settlements in the Americas were newer.
Yes, Benjamin Franklin was really "roughing it" when he worked in various cities running a printing press. I'm sure he was out hunting and foraging all the time. There were people who lived in very rural areas in the colonies, but that's also true of Great Britain.
Militias aren't stationed places. Militias are called up as needed. I suspect you don't know what a Militia is.
Yes, and? That doesn't change that the primary beneficiaries of their plan to expand were the colonists who lived nearby. They weren't doing it as a favour for the colonists, they were doing it as a strategic investment in the empire, of which the colonists were a part.
No it wasn't. That's the propaganda. The truth is that it was a revolution kicked off by the wealthy elite colonists who were greedy and didn't want to have to share their wealth with the government. They wanted the benefits of the wars that Britain had fought to expand the empire's reach in North America, without having to pay the bill or agree to the terms of the treaty that ended the war.
According to John Adams, only about a third of the colonists were "Patriots", or revolutionaries. The other two thirds were Loyalists or undecided. You'd think that if anything he'd be overestimating the number of "Patriots" to make it seem like there was more support for the war on his side.
No, because the people backing the revolution were rich, and could afford to raise armies to fight for their side. Meanwhile, the British were still trying to pay off the debts from the previous war. The revolution succeeded because rich smugglers like John Hancock paid the bill, not because it had near universal support.
No... as you might be able to tell from the name, the British East India company operated in... India. They were a trading company, not a company that supplied the needs of colonists in the Americas.
You might want to look up the definition of "annexation", you're not using the word correctly.
Britain never "released" control over the colonies in the Americas until the rebels won the war. Until then the colonies were an integrated part of the empire. Most colonists considered themselves as British. Some of them were Britons who had disagreements with how the government was run. But, that's like Texans today who consider themselves American but think the government should be run differently.
Apart means separate. The words you mean to use are "a part". Your grasp of history is as weak as your grasp of grammar.