Why do amerifats overhype their win in the american revolutionary war? Great britain were still experiencing the effects of the 7 years war, which was very expensive for them. And deliberately not mentioning that France helped them is stupid.
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
frick else do they have to base a national identity upon?
They can kill someone like saint floyd, it ain't that hard to kill American heroes.
This website is more obsessed with George Floyd than fricking reddit.
I haven't heard this guy's name in months, but on IQfy he's brought up constantly.
It’s our origin story, however much it’s mythologized, and is full of colorful characters on all sides and kino battle scenes. Of course most battles were fought with line infantry and conventional tactics but the myth of humble oppressed farmers grabbing their rifles and sniping at arrogant redcoats from behind stone walls is powerful, and in some cases was true. It’s trivial compared to other wars, where a major pivotal battle like Cowpens featured a couple of thousand combatants, but the war led to the growth of a continental and eventually global empire, for better or worse.
No one discounts that the French, Spanish and Dutch dogpiling the Brits at the end was a deciding factor, and that they decided to cut their losses rather than lose sugar islands more valuable than the 13 colonies put together. Today, few Americans care or even know anything about the Revolution—just a bunch of slave owners in powdered wigs or something, or material for a minstrel show like Hamilton.
One thing that bugs me is the origin of the US flag. All I ever read about the topic is some girl made it with old rags or whatever, and the bars represent the 13 colonies. Ah, and also the stars represent the 13 colonies.
To me it looks like the East India Company flag with a firmament in place of the Union Jack. What is that supposed to mean?
The truth is that it used to be our british red ensign before we added the white stripes, in the first few years of the rebellion it was basically this because most of our grievances were against parliament. As the war raged on and republicanism started to gaon more popularity we replaced the union jack with stars representing the colonies. the red and white stripes were not only inspired by both the sons of liberty flag but the east india company as well since we both had similar issues with parliament.
>This cope
I always find this funny because he says this after America murdered a general and got literally no retribution. Hell an American president even made jokes about it to no consequences. I'd rather not worship men that get blown up and die like dogs than put my faith in idiots that get killed on a whim to the laughter of the American public.
triggered
I haven't even thought of General Soolimimi until today, doubt that's the same for you farouk.
Imagjne your national hero being a bomb chucking wannabe insurgent who got gibed by an 18 year old American flying a drone from Kansas
it's not about the war itself, it's about gaining independence and becoming the first country to embrace enlightenment ideals
Why can't Anglos grapple with the fact that after WW2, they became a US satellite state, basically a vassal? They lost their entire professional class in the war and the British Raj soon after. They've been losers ever since. Lots of "culture" that nobody actually seems to give a shit about, and a growing demographic of supercharged terrorists that resent their immigrant status.
>We speak English today thanks to UK not USA !
>We're not loosers !!
>We speak English...
>loosers
Embarrassing.
Well, we have our own separate language from the Pax American language
>29%
>29%
Because it's their foundational moment? Why do the English hype up King Arthur or 1066? Why do the French care about their revolution? The Turks Ataturk?
>Why do the French care about their revolution?
I mean, it literally involved the entire world
Damn, I thought from listening of the British Historians present here that the French had a smaller global impact than the British
Care to explain how it's overhyped? Though I doubt you're capable.
>And deliberately not mentioning that France helped them is stupid
This never happens, you're making this up based on how your mental portrait on an American, based entirely on IQfy experience, should act. Even the super patriotic documentaries I watched growing up that said Britain had the best army in the world never downplayed France; though Spain and the Netherlands were ignored.
This. All Americans are taught to suck French dick and rightfully so, anyone who disagrees knows nothing about America.
>Care to explain how it's overhyped?
You'll often hear Americans go about how they defeated the largest empire in the world or some shit
That's how it's overhyped, by confusing the tiny ass British "empire" of 1776 (the 13 colonies, the eastern shore of Canada and some Carribean islands) with the massive British Empire of 1920 (the one that spanwed 1/3rd of the world)
we got money from the dutch
spain kept the brits occupied in the carribean
the french gave us money, weapons, and military support
everyone hated britain back then
we don't.
Mentioning the fact France is the reason the US exists sends americans into utter cognitive dissonance almost everytime.
Either because they're the homosexual east coast type who hate their own country and love to appear "more european" or because they're stupid rednecks who got completely brainwashed by neocons during the Iraq war (and to be contrarian to the first mentioned).
It doesn't.
The US is the reason France exists, btw.
>deliberately not mentioning that France helped them
Wtf are you talking about
>Why do amerifats overhype their win in the american revolutionary war?
Hurr durr why do people hype up their national genesis and independence war???
Are you fricking autistic, OP? Obviously countries will hype up the war that made their country exist. What a stupid fricking question, Jesus.
>homie the left built him statues
Yeah, statues I'd have never heard anything about if /misc/tards didn't kvetch about them every week.
>Obama mentioned
I didn't listen to Obama's speech and nobody I talk to (and I attend a Liberal Arts College) mentioned Obama's speech either
>Yeah, statues I'd have never heard anything about if /misc/tards didn't kvetch about them every week.
Things exist whether or not you hear about them
Yeah, but you don't have to make such a big deal about them when nobody else is, moron.
Xirs this is the IQfy board
I think the revolutionary war is so beloved due to it being the birth of their nation, not because they beat the bongs
Jannie warned me and told me to go post about George Floyd on /misc/, but I can't because I'm banned from /misc/ for having said I'm bald
>impotent 3rd worlder seethe thread
Literally every US school stresses the importance of French involvement, particularly with the battle of Yorktown. You're just an obsessed gay
>drains France's coffers in our revolution, causing even more economic stress in their country
Thanks frogs
>When their revolution comes around we don't help
The founding fathers were dicks.
Hey man our deal was with the french royalty, besides we didn't have the money or resources to pitch in for the frenchie's revolution
our "revolution" was a war of independence. no royal heads rolled.
they KILLED our benefactor and his whole fricking family while completely uprooting what government france had.
Reported
Washington was a really shitty general. All he did was hang on until France, Spain and Holland exerted so much pressure that Britain had to choose what to fight for and chose the West indies.
>Washington was a shitty general because he played to his strengths and exploited the enemy's weakness
Do people think war is some sort of video game match that is meant to be balanced and fair?
People think that leaders are supposed to magically create ideal conditions for them to entirely dominate any situation
Washington wasn't the best tactician (getting slapped at Fort Necessity showed that), but as a strategist and politician? He was miles above anybody else on the Continentals.
He had an army of 20,000 pre-New York campaign that melted down to 2,000 by Trenton/Princeton. That's a 90% causalty rate of death/wounded/disease/desertion in a single campaign season. Dude just lost the most popular city in the colonies, the only thing separating him and the 20-30,000 British was the Delaware and European winter nappy time. How many generals would have completely folded under that?
He knew the goal was to lure the British further into the hinterlands, stretch their supply lines, and make the war so expensive they'd accept terms of peace. And he did this while maintaining his political relationship with Congress, ambitious military rivals like Lee and Gates, and turning a bunch of hick militia and raw recruits into an actual army with little money, equipment, powder, food.... literally fricking everything.
I legit doubt anyone else in Washington's situation would have done better, so I think the idea that "hurr hurr Washington never defeated the British in a pitched battle of 10s of thousands like Nappy or Hannibal! hurr hurr!" really ignores the fact that the fact Washington hung on and won is a major feat of arms itself. As a shitty general? Maybe? But as a political leader? A war-time leader? Dude kept that shit together and the strategy won. Shit tactical skills be damned.
Seriously, it's like calling Grant a shitty general because all he did was leverage the Union industrial and manpower advantages to bleed out the Confederates in costly and exhausting battles and siccing Sherman on Deep South to remind them that war is hell. Yeah, of course he leveraged his side's advantages, who the frick wouldn't?
Washington was a better general than Napoleon. I saw it on TV
Armies abanondoned, Napoleon 2, Washington 0
really makes you ponder.
usa is the only country to beat the british in a war permanently
We forget Spain, we talk a lot about Frances help even in elementary school. Also it would be strange not to celebrate your war of independence vs a world power.
>your war of independence vs a world power
English are a worldpower of honorless mechant. They are effeminate homosexuals for fighting
>They are effeminate homosexuals for fighting
The butthurt you can find on this board lmao
>german language
why bong
Because I'm also German.
My mum is a Kraut and I'm visiting family here so my Google defaults to German results
>Anglo-German
vermine
>Trafalgar
Kek
>Also it would be strange not to celebrate your war of independence vs a world power.
The issue is that you guys treat 1776 Britain as if it had been a hegemonic superpower with a massive empire
In reality Britain was like the 5th most powerful country in Europe, and Spain (who was on your side) had the largest empire by far.
Spaniard didn't fought side by side with the Americans unlike the French.
late 18th Britain was definitely more powerful than Spain. The size of the Empire isn't everything.
>late 18th Britain was definitely more powerful than Spain.
Debatable, but it was definitely less powerful than France, Austria, Russia, Prussia...
>The size of the Empire isn't everything.
Indeed
But the size of the empire (the 1920 one, brought to 1776 by normie ignorance) is the entire reason why some moron assume that Britain was somehow "powerful"
>Prussia...
Only if you define power as being the fighting ability of the land army.
Prussia was funded by the British economy for the duration of the 7 Years War and absolutely couldn't have survived without British subsidies. Their ability to project power outside of central Europe was also negligible, whereas Britain was capable of fighting in the Philippines and America at the same time.
>late 18th Britain was definitely more powerful than Spain. The size of the Empire isn't everything.
kek
>Muh British Empire
>Muh Biggest Empire
I'm not British.
It's the only successful revolution in history.
Fun fact: the guy next to the horse is Alexander Hamilton
The same one from the musical!
Fr why's he white washed here.
Rent free