Why are redcoats always portrayed evil in american media?

?
As a southerner I was always taught GB turned their backs cause they had bigger problems to worry about and with them acquiring Egypt the entire southern cotton import thing was null.
Care to elaborate?

All things that were never done. Don't use a movie as your source of information.

Lol. I bet you think I was using the Patriot as a source?

It's how we won our independence, and is therefore the stuff of legend. Any educated person knows the British weren't nearly as bad in colonial America as they were in say, India or South Africa. But it's the genesis story of our nation, and you can't really blame us for elevating the Founding Fathers to almost godlike status when pretty much every culture does it. It's not like we portray modern British people, or even British civilians at that time, as bad.

You've been brainwashed by British damage control (that you probably read on the internet)

Britain had no bigger issue (and they didnt acquire Egypt until a century later btw) and they did try their outmost to keep the 13 colonies
But they just were no match against an alliance of France and Spain

Then please find examples of the Brits burning people alive in a church.

Rape and pillage were not ever sanctioned by British command and if you can find examples they are probably isolated cases where officers lost control.

Rebels in all wars are executed. It was a civil war.

There is one famous case of them not honouring a surrender and that was also an isolated case.

I think he was talking about the Civil war nor the revolution.

There was give and take. We at least got along, enough that our police and theirs put their heads together on some cross-Atlantic criminals, shared some techniques, etc.

America didn't even need France or Spain. The only part they were necessary for was acknowledging us as a legitimate nation. Because, in reality, how was Britain going to hang on to the colonies? Boats take too long to travel there to reinforce shit. That and the population did not fight by conventional means and was ultimately hostile. Britain was too slow and the colonies too rebellious to hang on to. Granted, the war would have lasted far longer if we did not have their aid, and odds are it may have taken a another revolution or more, but England was beat with or without any outside help.

around that time the "great game was being played by GB and Russia for the control of India, GB and france both suported the CSA while the Russian Tsardom supported the Union.

the reason why the GB did not intervene is because of Russian political interferance.

look up US Russian relations in that era, quite favorable until the 1920s Russian Revoltion,

>mentions cases of Brits being dishonorable

>but all these tons of cases were totally isolated cases

Brit, Britaboo, or do you really not understand that when there is more fucked up shit than honorable war, that it is the rule and no longer an "isolated case"?

>soldier does something bad during a war and is probably punished for it later
>heh well I guess that means the entire army, goverment and people are responsible

Again I ask you to provide evidence of a policy or murder, rape and burning people alive.

They were isolated cases that were inflated for propaganda purposes. Do you think the british were mongolian cartoon characters raiding and burning the land and people they intended to govern?

At least Mongolians didn't pretend they weren't.

P E R F I D Y
E
R
F
I
D
Y

No, but I do see tons of cases of Brits doing shit that amounts to war crimes all the time. Or do you wanna skip over hundreds of years of it? To name a prime example that happened later, in India they executed people by tying them to a cannon and blowing said cannonball through them.

yeah funnily enough we learned that one from the natives

We're talking about the American War of Independence, don't confuse the subject.

You can't even compare the two because the Americans were seen as Englishmen and not foreigners.

Again I ask you to provide evidence of a policy or murder, rape and burning people alive.

So, you're going to disregard the countless instances of war crimes as isolated incidents until there is some paper from the Brits saying to do war crimes? Actions speak about the actual policy they had in mind than a paper.

Otherwise in the past you'll be hard pressed to find any war crimes at all. After all, there was no paper saying to do it. Give me a break with your shit tier apologetics. You can only have so many incidents of war crimes before it becomes policy in all but name. Just because the king of England never sat down and said to do horrible shit does not take away the repeated pattern of this being the case for hundreds of years. Get fucked, Nigel.

Demonize the enemy.
Hybrid warfare.

Britain wasn't actually that terrible toward the colonists when put into perspective. Hell, when you put it into perspective the British Empire wasn't really that bad toward most colonial subjects in general. The issue was that the colonists were not subjugated people. They were the descendants of British people who inhabited a territory owned by the King. They considered themselves Englishmen as well as Americans, and they wanted the same rights as the people in England. The King and Parliament failed to live up to that for the most part and, while not usually being blatantly horrible toward them, didn't really take them seriously a lot of the time. Combine that with the fact that being seperated by an ocean leads to a sense of distance, plus a certain individualism that comes with growing up in what was basically an outpost on the edge of the civilzed world, and you get an independence movement. As is typical in any sort of conflict though, both sides did their share of exaggerating and demonizing the other side. Truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

>Burned rebel towns in chruches and locked doors.

I hate to break it to you user but Mel Gibson made this up. He based it off the Oradour-sur-Glane incident in 1944.

you have to go back

You can hardly name any atrocities, try starting there, you have what? Banastre Tarleton, one guy who was hardly even responsible for the actions of his men. His horse was shot out from under him while charging and his men killed 100 or so Americans. At what point in the heat of battle did a white flag even go up?

Once battle is joined its almost impossible for a commander to call his men back. Tarleton was also on foot at this point and left behind by his men.

If you want to bring up war crimes why not "Tarleton's quarter" As the revolutionaries called it.

Google the Battle of Kings Mountain, an excellent example of a massacre, 290 men died there, that's nearly three times as many.

I would hardly even call it a war crime as it was just men losing their cool in battle, the Revolutionary officers tried to stop their men.

I ask you to provide evidence of when Mongols pretended not to be murderous, raping and monsters that burned people alive.

There were isolated cases that were inflated Jon Green YouTube videos. Do you think the Mongols were saintly civilized characters spreading religious tolerance and prosperity among the lands and people they intended to govern?

>Do you think the Mongols were saintly civilized characters spreading religious tolerance and prosperity among the lands and people they intended to govern?
They were absolutely brutal during conquest but actually pretty chill once the initial conquering and slaughter were over. They weren't ideologically motivated and actually did have a high degree of religious and ethnic tolerance within their empire.

The period of 177X-183X was a time of massive decline in the British Officer Corps, primarily from the issue of paid commissions. Middle class merchants were trying to buy their way into aristocracy via military service who had never managed a thing other than a business in their life, and given carte blanché to solve issues with guns. Basically there were very few men of merit and who could withstand pressure and a bunch of fucking pampered nonce's running almost all of the colonies like their were their own private fiefs. Furthermore, The USA never really forgave the British for gang-pressing merchant sailors into the British Navy during the Napoleonic Wars.

Basically, the infantry and Navy were not assholes- but the people who commanded them by and large certainly were. They were the result of nearly eight generations of unchallenged naval might and had grown stupidly fat off of the reach of the Empire- absolutely inept.

The King of France bankrolled almost the entirety of the American Revolution. It drove France into bankruptcy, and they did it all to spite the English. You're a fucking idiot if you think France's only use was to 'legitimize' the Government- it funded the first several years of all the revolutionary military movements AND forgave Washington for illegally entering French colonies, killing the villagers as they slept, and then washing out the blood and selling the homes to new Colonists. France was a big deal.

>American Revolutionaries caught a few times "surrendering" and then firing at the British when they get close
>wtf why are they shooting us when we surrender?

Just perfidious Anglo things

Yes, but they only managed that because of their barbarous reputation of fucking you up if you weren't chill. Not perfidy.

>American British friendship wasn't a thing til the late 1800's

It certainly wasn't a warm friendship like most nations have but America actually established relations surprisingly quickly after the Revolution.

They got their independence but they knew how important it was to become pals with Britain again as soon as possible since Britain was still the major driving power in global trade.

It was such a retarded strategy

>let's spend all of our money to weaken the British Empire!
>heh, that'll show them, you mad Britain?
>oh shit, we have no money now
>oh shit, Britain basicaly has no threat in Europe now
>oh shit, what the fuck was my end game with this?

>America didn't even need France or Spain

>treated the south Africans bad
Are you referring to the Anglo Zulu war?

>yanks
Britain didn't want to commit without France and France was busy fucking about with Mexico.

Go away Mel, just because the Scots are IrnBrupilled doesn't mean everyone else is.

>That and the population did not fight by conventional means and was ultimately hostile.

Absolute bullshit
I love how Americans love to mix up there independence war with Vietnam
The "revolution" was fought almost entirely in a conventional manner (pitched battles) and had very little population support (most people were neutral)

Because Americans like myself are fucking retarded when it comes to portraying history in media. Please re-absorb us, UK.

>50 COLONIES WHEN

Napoleonic France was the biggest threat Britain had faced since the Spanish Armada
What left Britain without threat in Europe wasnt the French Revolution but the Russian winter of 1812

>propaganda
They're just movies. Americans are villains in American movies too.

>"America being thankful GB didn't intervene in the civil war"
Britain would have regretted it. The Yanks had a better navy and would have been able to overrun Canada.

>shoot people with a cannon from far away
>Fine

>shoot people with big gun at point blank range
>OMG WTF THIS IS A WARCRIME PERFIDIOUS MURDERERS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

That wasn't the point. The point being an intervention would've complicated the situation to the point where we'd probably end up on the central powers in WW1

NOW

/thread

They bought the freedom memes too hard.

Read about what English did to Boers in concentration camps, you'll feel sick

>Don't forget muh 6 GORILLION boers nigel!
>>inb4 lindybeige

Anyone who believes that AND who believes that jews died intentionally during the holocaust has never actually read a real history book in his life.

I live in New Zealand where schools are less biased than anywhere else on earth, we were taught about how the Boers were treated extremely cruelly in concentration camps
Also there is lots of information online if you don't trust the NZ education system

Colonial power's armies were purposefully recruited from the lowest element in their society because they knew they'd be willing to do heinous shit to keep people in line. That doesn't mean they were all evil but a lot of the biggest assholes would've been recruited into their army.

>Carte blanché

Lmao just quit while you're ahead lad

Even us Scots (in fact, even the majority of Scottish nationalists) take a very critical view of Braveheart and Mel Gibson in general. Braveheart is practically ahistoric and makes factual errors that even a child who has been through the Scottish school system would notice. We also don't like the idea of our independence movement being characterised by a racist anti-semitic australian on a horse.

Except thats not true at all. The army was often full of societies scum because they were the only people that would join. It wasn't a policy "oh lets hire only cut throats and thieves so they're extra brutal" it was more that only people that had failed every other option joined the army. Just loke today, its generally full of the more violent and lesser educated.