The American Revolution has often been taught to kids in American schools as a teleological certainty...

The American Revolution has often been taught to kids in American schools as a teleological certainty, a necessary event for the rest of American history to unfold the way it has, on behalf of freedom. Yet while this mythic narrative of the Revolution has served the needs of promoting American exceptionalism and assimilating children, especially immigrant children, into the folds of American flag waving and citizenship, it has always seemed like pretty shitty historical analysis to me because it was a story based not so much on the careful interpretation of evidence, as it was a feel good story based on the needs of American nationalism.

So I've begun to take a second, closer look and try to determine, based on the evidence, whether the American Revolution was justifiable. What do you think Veeky Forums?

In particular, I would like to focus on whether the American Revolution was or was not justifiable with consideration towards its main intent/outcome. Since this is such a subjective topic and is bound to get heated, I would simply ask that we keep to empirical fact based analysis rather than getting into how we feel too much, though obviously some feeling/extrapolation may be necessary.

no revolution is justifiable, it's simply usurpation. and revolution always leads to civil war.

who the fuck cares. so if you determine that the revolution wasn't "justifiable" through some half-baked metaphors and arbitrary standards, what difference does it make? are you gonna go back in time and change it? are you gonna change your life at all? no. who the fuck cares. do your homework and fuck off

>, it has always seemed like pretty shitty historical analysis to me because it was a story based not so much on the careful interpretation of evidence

uh history is just for fun, it's not real or important, better to have a country myth than care about what really happened since no one can ever know

From the few books I've read, I get the impression that the British were in the right, only they severely bungled because they failed to recognize that the americans had a quite skewed interpretation of all british actions, seeing any attempt to exert a semblance of control as "tyranny" (despite George III literally being brainwashed to believe in parliamentarism) or as part of a bizarre catholic conspiracy involving king and parliament.

I have just been thinking a lot about it because I recently went through and read the declaration of independence and noted how much of it was spent on providing reasons for the Revolution and perceived injustices. Thought it would be an interesting thread topic for Veeky Forums.

I also get that feeling. It seems to me that the colonists got a little too comfy with their autonomy and when the Brits tried to exceed the slightest bit of their monarchial power they freaked out and called it tyranny. The only mistake the British crown ever made was not being assertive and ruling with an iron fist from the beginning, but obviously that was difficult due to geography.

really ends justify the means

England only benefited from it
America was created
the revolution didn't devolve into a gaggle of retardedness like all the rest
any bad elements paid for their bullshit come civil war
Frogs got trolled
and the newfound autonomy allowed it to take advantage of the industrial revolution making it rich

yep you put it better than i did. The problem I think was that on the one hand, the British were too callous to recognize the consequences of their actions; and those very same actions, as i mentioned, were poorly executed. That's a fault of the smugness of British MPs, which I think was justified because constitutionally they were in the right. It's also the fault of the premodern nature of British administration, which was poorly staffed, underfunded, used as patronage and was not well rationalized with led to overlapping jurisdictions and leaving officials with a poor idea of what one's responsibility was. This is why a coordinated British policy against the American problem was so poor. I personally think the Revolution could have been easily defused with some coordinated propaganda campaign through letters, newspaper articles, pamphlets and tracts and some sort of commission to investigate colonial problems. perhaps the colonies could have used a visit from the king or leading ministers for symbolic purposes. Perhaps most importantly, the MPs needed to let american representatives into parliament or create some other institution through which american grievances could be aired and addressed. Without that the Americans clearly felt themselves subordinate and at the whims of the monarchy for the continued existence of its colonial representative bodies. And sadly the British MPs had a condescending view of the Americans as children that needed a guiding hand. This idea only could have worked had the British put the colonists in their place militarily.

American society still reminds me a lot of the 19th century when it comes to historical education. You rather tell stories than teaching kids about history.

This is why you get a STEM degree, people.

>Yet while this mythic narrative of the Revolution has served the needs of promoting American exceptionalism and assimilating children,
Has it really? Pedro Abdul and Jamal didn't seem awfully enamored by American history or as they used to call it, "white people shit" back in high school. All they cared about was the free school lunch and selling shitty weed.

Well I would hazard a guess that any kid of any race that doesn't particularly care for academics is going to be like that. I meant more of the Ellis Island kiddos who were turned into patriotic Americans via the mythologized American history they were taught. If you ask most adults in America about the American Revolution, they will speak of it like it was gods gift to the earth and it was inevitable because of the evil Brits and muh freedom, all because of this story they are fed early on.

Agreed. A lot of people seem to think it's necessary to not teach the full history because children won't understand the nuances of historical context. My counter question is: When are they ready? When is it late enough in their development that they will be able to handle the fact that history isn't a story with heroes and villains? Because I'm pretty sure kids are coddled into their teenage years when it comes to American history.

It's not the message of the propaganda that matters, it's the messages propaganda prevents from being said. Yeah, state education system is an indoctornation machine with the explicit purpose of generating complacent and ignorant wageslaves and dogmatic college graduates to exploit and administrate them. In America education is not a priority, it's is filled to the brim with disgusting propaganda and a narrow and biased worldview, kids are not taught to their potential or to their need, they are looked at collectively for their utilitarian values, which is why they are trained to "go to college", "join the workforce", JOIN THE ARMY.
Children that achieve in an acedemic system that requires mechanistic skills and little liberty for critical thought and curiosity. Along with concepts and rhetoric that is against the state's intrests being actively ignored, trivialized, and obfuscated. It's manufactured consent and outright Orwellian

I think whether or not something is justifiable depends on who you are.

That makes sense. I was mostly looking for opinions, I made sure to specifically ask for empirical evidence in the OP to prevent people just flaming each other, but I understand the subjective nature of this kind of analysis.

Damn /:

Unless you are a monarchist I don't see how you could oppose the revolution.
To the right, a nation coming together to repel a foreign ruler from their land and establish a government based on the self-interest of the nation is favorable.
To the left, the people coming together to free themselves from colonial oppression by an imperialist aggressor is favorable.

Well war needed to be justified beyond "because I said so" in the premodern era. The declaration of independence is essentially the colonists declaring their right to war and arguments for war on Britain for independence, not just a document saying they are doing it. So when I said "justified" I didn't just mean as a means to an end (modern us), but within the context of when the American Revolution occurred.

The way I see it is that for the most part the colonies governed themselves before the French and Indian war. Afterwards, they weren't willing to give up their self governement.

Personally, I think justified is a pretty useless term when talking about an event such as this. But I will go into it more.

>Did the colonist have legitimate greivances.
Yes, their system of of governemnt was changing and they wereally losing power.
>Did the British act like tyrants.
No, it's just that the colonies were becoming bigger and needing larger investments. Its natural then that as they grew the British would take more intersting in the colonies.

American """"""""""""""""""""""revolution""""""""""""""""""""

You know I considered calling it the American Revolt simply because I like the term more for the situation, but decided against it because American Revolution is ubiquitous with the mythologized narrative I mentioned in the OP.

that would be nice cause the dutch fight against spain for independence was called the Dutch Revolt. The parallel is better than comparing it to the french revolution because it was a matter of local elites wanting self government.

>The British are taxing us so heavily and we get nothing out of it.
>Fuck off Britain

thats a fucking terrible looking burg

Yeah just what this board needs, more fucking retards "justifying" historical events through their 21st century moral lens

American Nationaist here.

It was a totally justifiable proxy war committed by France against her longtime rival, England. Thankfully, we got liberty out of it.

Americans will Call out bait on shit like
"Hitler dindu nuffin"

but cant even call bait on their own weakest trigger.

Welp here's another (OP) response. Seriously guys cmon. dont even respond to this guy.

False
See Gustavus III revolution

wasn't that more of a coup than a revolution

Most revolutions lead to more political instability or an even worse regime.

The American revolution did the exact opposite and that is why it is rightly viewed as a triumphant and mythological moment in history.

The French Revolution intended to replace a rotten system with a society based on Liberty, fraternity and equality, it just got hijacked by Robespierre and Napoleon.

honestly, americucks should be banned from Veeky Forums

it's hilarious how such a cultureless and historyless nation can be so opinionated. we're far beyond the point of absurdity

>Most revolutions lead to more political instability or an even worse regime.
Sort of. There's actually two kinds of revolutions - proper political revolutions, like the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution which do tend to be bloodbaths because they involve societal change at every level, and colonial revolutions like the American Revolution which are much more tame because they only involve throwing off outside governance, leaving the internal social order unchanged.

This. In my country it isn't even called American revolution because it wasn't one. It was American war of independence.

As i child i barely knew shit about the revolution
All i knew was "important guys BTFOd britian"
As i got older and began to learn more about it, the more i realized that it was just a french proxy war that ended up fucking them over as it putting them.in even more debt and helping light the flame of the french revolution
For some reason, im still mystified by how lucky the americans were in so mony battles