You’ve done nothing but demonstrate that you know some minor details about the Revolution, state them confidently, and then draw sweeping conclusions from them with an arrogance that makes you sound like a flat-earther screaming about buoyancy and “8 inches per mile squared” as though that single fact explains everything.
You don’t know. You simply don’t. The Revolution was over 250 years ago, the historical record is necessarily subject to interpretation and dispute, and there is no reason I should automatically accept either the official record or your interpretation of it as gospel.
I’m not some early-American-history aficionado. I’ll freely admit that. But I know enough to recognize that the Revolution was not simply an economic class war orchestrated by wealthy elites while poor people were sent off to die for them.
And here’s the important distinction: many of the facts you’ve presented are largely correct. I’ve actually taken the time to fact-check some of them, and I’m perfectly willing to admit when you’re right. The problem is that your conclusions don’t necessarily follow from those facts.
You’re taking historical events, selecting an interpretation of them, and then presenting that interpretation as though it were an established fact. That’s precisely the kind of historical reasoning that should make someone skeptical, regardless of whether some of the underlying facts are correct.
Take the Boston Massacre. Paul Revere’s famous engraving was absolutely dramatized and was not an accurate representation of what actually happened. We know this today, and it is reasonable to conclude that the image functioned as revolutionary propaganda and helped shape public opinion against the British.
Where I disagree with you is the leap from that fact to the conclusion that this demonstrates some deliberate governmental psychological operation designed to manipulate the population into fighting a war for the benefit of wealthy elites.
That’s an interpretation. It may be argued. It may even contain elements of truth. But you haven’t established it simply by establishing that Paul Revere produced propaganda.
And yes, I’m getting some of this information from the National Archives and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. I can already anticipate your response: “That’s not what the evidence actually says,” followed by another confident explanation of why the sources I’ve consulted are somehow less authoritative than whatever historian you happen to have read.
I’m not interested in replacing one unquestioned narrative with another.
I’m perfectly willing to accept documented facts. I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge uncertainty. I’m perfectly willing to change my position when the evidence warrants it.
What I am not willing to do is accept your interpretation of those facts merely because you state it confidently.
The historical facts matter. Their interpretation matters too. But those are two different things, and you’ve repeatedly treated them as though they were the same.
That’s the problem with your argument.
But do go on about AI and whatever else helps you sleep at night dawg. Good day.
Oh please, if your are going to crash out just walk away.
ou know some minor details about the Revolution
I know a lot, but the more you know the more you don’t. I think this is more a reflection of your knowledge.
flat-earther screaming about buoyancy
Absolute garbage. Is this you argument!? That I am just like a flat earther. Why are you acting so fucking stupid. If you don’t agree with me that is fine, I don’t give a fuck. Being an a little bitch about it is unbecoming.
You don’t know. You simply don’t
Let’s see, I have studied this at Uni and on a personal level for years. You are studying it right now. Good for you.
I’m not some early-American-history aficionado. I’ll
Clearly.
economic class war orchestrated by wealthy elites while poor people were sent off to die for them.
I am waiting for your evidence. This describes most wars and revolutions except for Haiti which, unlike the American Revolution, was actually revolutionary.
You’re taking historical events, selecting an interpretation of them, and then presenting that interpretation as though it were an established fact.
What is this? Are you describing what a historian does… I am flattered.
Paul Revere’s famous engraving was absolutely dramatized and was not an accurate representation of what actually happened. We know this today,
They knew it back then as well. It was a lie created to manipulate people and is one of countless examples. It helps to expose the mythology around the American Revolution. Another example is Join or Die, which Ben Franklin borrowed from an early colony anti-French campaign. I always find its messaging very apt as in if you didn’t join them they would kill you (not the British). Obviously this is my cynical interpretation.
liberate governmental psychological operation designed to manipulate the population into fighting a war for the benefit of wealthy elites.
Do you know what propaganda is? Your denial of reality here is pretty comical.
But you haven’t established it simply by establishing that Paul Revere produced propaganda.
He was a propagandist that made his wealth after helping the colonies revolt. He reaped the rewards selling his lies to unsuspecting colonists. You see, if you are willing betray your fellow man you can gain material wealth. This forms some of the true messaging of the American Revolution. A lesson future politicians and leaders would take to heart as they committed massive genocide by ignoring the treaties they made.
That’s the problem with your argument
Well listening to you go “nuh uh” hasn’t convinced me of anything other than you are naive.
But do go on about AI and whatever else helps you sleep at night dawg. Good day
You know what’s funny? I don’t think I’ve ever had an argument on this platform where the person I was arguing against didn’t suddenly have some sort of credentials in the very subject we’re discussing. It’s incredibly convenient.
It is quite obvious that whatever university you went to did not do a very good job teaching you what scientists, historians, and academics actually do in their respective fields.
You are claiming that the Revolutionary War was essentially a class conflict specifically intended to enrich America’s wealthy elite.
I have presented you with facts and evidence demonstrating that this characterization is not supported by the historical record. I even pointed out that roughly 20–30% of the colonial population remained loyal to the Crown, meaning that there was substantial support for the British side within the colonies themselves. There were also foreign powers, most notably France, that allied themselves with the American revolutionaries.
From everything you’ve shown me and told me so far, apparently I’m supposed to be lacking some supposedly “nuanced” understanding of the Revolutionary War that just happens to align with your very particular interpretation of it.
But please understand this, because apparently your university failed to teach you this distinction: you are presenting facts about the Revolution, but your conclusions do not follow from those facts.
Your argument essentially amounts to:
“There was propaganda during the Revolution + wealthy people participated in the revolutionary government + officers tended to be wealthy + poor people fought in the war = therefore the Revolution was an economic war in which wealthy Americans used poor Americans as cannon fodder.”
That’s not an argument. That’s a sequence of observations followed by a conclusion that hasn’t actually been demonstrated.
You even brought up something about genocide, which I genuinely don’t understand. What genocide are you talking about, and how exactly does that follow from the evidence you’re presenting about the Revolutionary War? Is that another conclusion you’re importing from some modern political framework and projecting backward onto the eighteenth century?
This is precisely the problem with your reasoning. I am not disputing that wealthy people had economic interests. I’m not disputing that propaganda existed. I’m not disputing that wealthy men held positions of political authority. None of those things are controversial.
What I am disputing is your leap from those facts to the claim that the Revolutionary War was fundamentally an economic class war waged by wealthy Americans for their own enrichment.
If that’s your conclusion, then demonstrate it. Show the evidence that establishes the causal connection rather than continuing to list unrelated facts and treating the conclusion as self-evident.
The most infuriating and dangerous person on the face of this planet is someone who is stupid but genuinely believes himself to be intelligent. And you are making a remarkably strong case for that particular category.
So, once again: the problem isn’t that the facts you’re presenting are necessarily false. The problem is that the conclusions you’re drawing from them are not supported by the facts you’ve presented.
So far, your entire argument has been:
Fact about the Revolutionary War → unsupported personal conclusion → repeat.
I’d say you’re a waste of time, but you are providing me with entertainment, so I suppose I should thank you for that.
I don’t think I’ve ever had an argument on this platform where the person I was arguing against didn’t suddenly have some sort of credentials in the very subject we’re discussing. It’s incredibly convenient.
Hence why I commented on it to begin with. The difference is I have studied this and your are in denial trying to play catch up.
You are claiming that the Revolutionary War was essentially a class conflict
This is indicative of most revolutions except perhaps Haiti
It is quite obvious that whatever university you went to did not do a very good job teaching you what scientists,
Man, you are so full of shit it isn’t funny.
But please understand this, because apparently your university failed to teach you this distinction: you are presenting facts
Were you raised to act like an idiot?
I even pointed out that roughly 20–30% of the colonial population remained loyal to the Crown, meaning that there was substantial support for the British side within the colonies themselves.
Yes, that is why they resorted to violent acts and propaganda to take control.
You even brought up something about genocide, which I genuinely don’t understand
That is clear. You have no context of what was happening and what happened afterward.
What I am disputing is your leap from those facts to the claim that the Revolutionary War
Well you have failed miserably at that.
The most infuriating and dangerous person on the face of this planet is someone who is stupid but genuinely believes himself to be intelligent.
And you have the gal to call me insufferable. Projection must be your middle name.
I’d say you’re a waste of time, but you are providing me with entertainment,
Every time I think you couldn’t act anymore stupid you prove me wrong.
Actually went to UNI for this. So I’m a little bit of an expert. But what you don’t know is that this is actually just propaganda. The rich elite of our society wants you to think this. But in reality they’re just trying to hide the fact that you’re stupid.
Okay, you’re starting to irritate me.
You’ve done nothing but demonstrate that you know some minor details about the Revolution, state them confidently, and then draw sweeping conclusions from them with an arrogance that makes you sound like a flat-earther screaming about buoyancy and “8 inches per mile squared” as though that single fact explains everything.
You don’t know. You simply don’t. The Revolution was over 250 years ago, the historical record is necessarily subject to interpretation and dispute, and there is no reason I should automatically accept either the official record or your interpretation of it as gospel.
I’m not some early-American-history aficionado. I’ll freely admit that. But I know enough to recognize that the Revolution was not simply an economic class war orchestrated by wealthy elites while poor people were sent off to die for them.
And here’s the important distinction: many of the facts you’ve presented are largely correct. I’ve actually taken the time to fact-check some of them, and I’m perfectly willing to admit when you’re right. The problem is that your conclusions don’t necessarily follow from those facts.
You’re taking historical events, selecting an interpretation of them, and then presenting that interpretation as though it were an established fact. That’s precisely the kind of historical reasoning that should make someone skeptical, regardless of whether some of the underlying facts are correct.
Take the Boston Massacre. Paul Revere’s famous engraving was absolutely dramatized and was not an accurate representation of what actually happened. We know this today, and it is reasonable to conclude that the image functioned as revolutionary propaganda and helped shape public opinion against the British.
Where I disagree with you is the leap from that fact to the conclusion that this demonstrates some deliberate governmental psychological operation designed to manipulate the population into fighting a war for the benefit of wealthy elites.
That’s an interpretation. It may be argued. It may even contain elements of truth. But you haven’t established it simply by establishing that Paul Revere produced propaganda.
And yes, I’m getting some of this information from the National Archives and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. I can already anticipate your response: “That’s not what the evidence actually says,” followed by another confident explanation of why the sources I’ve consulted are somehow less authoritative than whatever historian you happen to have read.
I’m not interested in replacing one unquestioned narrative with another.
I’m perfectly willing to accept documented facts. I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge uncertainty. I’m perfectly willing to change my position when the evidence warrants it.
What I am not willing to do is accept your interpretation of those facts merely because you state it confidently.
The historical facts matter. Their interpretation matters too. But those are two different things, and you’ve repeatedly treated them as though they were the same.
That’s the problem with your argument.
But do go on about AI and whatever else helps you sleep at night dawg. Good day.
Oh please, if your are going to crash out just walk away.
I know a lot, but the more you know the more you don’t. I think this is more a reflection of your knowledge.
Absolute garbage. Is this you argument!? That I am just like a flat earther. Why are you acting so fucking stupid. If you don’t agree with me that is fine, I don’t give a fuck. Being an a little bitch about it is unbecoming.
Let’s see, I have studied this at Uni and on a personal level for years. You are studying it right now. Good for you.
Clearly.
I am waiting for your evidence. This describes most wars and revolutions except for Haiti which, unlike the American Revolution, was actually revolutionary.
What is this? Are you describing what a historian does… I am flattered.
They knew it back then as well. It was a lie created to manipulate people and is one of countless examples. It helps to expose the mythology around the American Revolution. Another example is Join or Die, which Ben Franklin borrowed from an early colony anti-French campaign. I always find its messaging very apt as in if you didn’t join them they would kill you (not the British). Obviously this is my cynical interpretation.
Do you know what propaganda is? Your denial of reality here is pretty comical.
He was a propagandist that made his wealth after helping the colonies revolt. He reaped the rewards selling his lies to unsuspecting colonists. You see, if you are willing betray your fellow man you can gain material wealth. This forms some of the true messaging of the American Revolution. A lesson future politicians and leaders would take to heart as they committed massive genocide by ignoring the treaties they made.
Well listening to you go “nuh uh” hasn’t convinced me of anything other than you are naive.
Indeed dawg, have a good day.
My God, you are insufferable.
You know what’s funny? I don’t think I’ve ever had an argument on this platform where the person I was arguing against didn’t suddenly have some sort of credentials in the very subject we’re discussing. It’s incredibly convenient.
It is quite obvious that whatever university you went to did not do a very good job teaching you what scientists, historians, and academics actually do in their respective fields.
You are claiming that the Revolutionary War was essentially a class conflict specifically intended to enrich America’s wealthy elite.
I have presented you with facts and evidence demonstrating that this characterization is not supported by the historical record. I even pointed out that roughly 20–30% of the colonial population remained loyal to the Crown, meaning that there was substantial support for the British side within the colonies themselves. There were also foreign powers, most notably France, that allied themselves with the American revolutionaries.
From everything you’ve shown me and told me so far, apparently I’m supposed to be lacking some supposedly “nuanced” understanding of the Revolutionary War that just happens to align with your very particular interpretation of it.
But please understand this, because apparently your university failed to teach you this distinction: you are presenting facts about the Revolution, but your conclusions do not follow from those facts.
Your argument essentially amounts to:
“There was propaganda during the Revolution + wealthy people participated in the revolutionary government + officers tended to be wealthy + poor people fought in the war = therefore the Revolution was an economic war in which wealthy Americans used poor Americans as cannon fodder.”
That’s not an argument. That’s a sequence of observations followed by a conclusion that hasn’t actually been demonstrated.
You even brought up something about genocide, which I genuinely don’t understand. What genocide are you talking about, and how exactly does that follow from the evidence you’re presenting about the Revolutionary War? Is that another conclusion you’re importing from some modern political framework and projecting backward onto the eighteenth century?
This is precisely the problem with your reasoning. I am not disputing that wealthy people had economic interests. I’m not disputing that propaganda existed. I’m not disputing that wealthy men held positions of political authority. None of those things are controversial.
What I am disputing is your leap from those facts to the claim that the Revolutionary War was fundamentally an economic class war waged by wealthy Americans for their own enrichment.
If that’s your conclusion, then demonstrate it. Show the evidence that establishes the causal connection rather than continuing to list unrelated facts and treating the conclusion as self-evident.
The most infuriating and dangerous person on the face of this planet is someone who is stupid but genuinely believes himself to be intelligent. And you are making a remarkably strong case for that particular category.
So, once again: the problem isn’t that the facts you’re presenting are necessarily false. The problem is that the conclusions you’re drawing from them are not supported by the facts you’ve presented.
So far, your entire argument has been:
Fact about the Revolutionary War → unsupported personal conclusion → repeat.
I’d say you’re a waste of time, but you are providing me with entertainment, so I suppose I should thank you for that.
Yes, you are.
Hence why I commented on it to begin with. The difference is I have studied this and your are in denial trying to play catch up.
This is indicative of most revolutions except perhaps Haiti
Man, you are so full of shit it isn’t funny.
Were you raised to act like an idiot?
Yes, that is why they resorted to violent acts and propaganda to take control.
That is clear. You have no context of what was happening and what happened afterward.
Well you have failed miserably at that.
And you have the gal to call me insufferable. Projection must be your middle name.
Every time I think you couldn’t act anymore stupid you prove me wrong.
Nope, you’re wrong
Propaganda
I studied this
Personal attack
Irrelevant gibberish about genocide.
Lol, pathetic.
Actually went to UNI for this. So I’m a little bit of an expert. But what you don’t know is that this is actually just propaganda. The rich elite of our society wants you to think this. But in reality they’re just trying to hide the fact that you’re stupid.
Can’t help yourself, acting like a clown now. Cheers!