Origin of the word patriot
-
Given that the US did not exist as a country in the 1770's , how come the local combatants are now often referred to as patriots ? How can you be patriotic to a country that does not exist , and before the defining document that framed the constitution of the country was started ? Its a bit like me declaring independance for my garden and then claiming it to be a patriotic act ? Patriotism implies an existing country ?
-
Given that the US did not exist as a country in the 1770's , how come the local combatants are now often referred to as patriots ? How can you be patriotic to a country that does not exist , and before the defining document that framed the constitution of the country was started ? Its a bit like me declaring independance for my garden and then claiming it to be a patriotic act ? Patriotism implies an existing country ?
-
Given that the US did not exist as a country in the 1770's , how come the local combatants are now often referred to as patriots ? How can you be patriotic to a country that does not exist , and before the defining document that framed the constitution of the country was started ? Its a bit like me declaring independance for my garden and then claiming it to be a patriotic act ? Patriotism implies an existing country ?
We were a sovereign nation from the moment the Declaration of Independence so brilliantly declared it so - July 4, 1776. Hence, all those fighting to defend that nation were patriots. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
History is written by the winners. Otherwise they would be called geuriillas, and terrorists. (Which they were) Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
Which they were
How so? I don't think engaging in a declared war can be characterized as terrorism. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
We were a sovereign nation from the moment the Declaration of Independence so brilliantly declared it so - July 4, 1776. Hence, all those fighting to defend that nation were patriots. "You get that which you tolerate"
Isn't that the point of what he's saying - until that date, they were all Insurgents, Terrorist etc...up until independece they were actually being UNpatriotic, since they were British, not American, and fighting the British govt..... Thank god Sir Walter Raleigh never discovered Cuba - could've had ALL SORTS of fun in Gitmo if he had ;) "Now I guess I'll sit back and watch people misinterpret what I just said......" Christian Graus At The Soapbox
-
fat_boy wrote:
Which they were
How so? I don't think engaging in a declared war can be characterized as terrorism. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Isn't that the point of what he's saying - until that date, they were all Insurgents, Terrorist etc...up until independece they were actually being UNpatriotic, since they were British, not American, and fighting the British govt..... Thank god Sir Walter Raleigh never discovered Cuba - could've had ALL SORTS of fun in Gitmo if he had ;) "Now I guess I'll sit back and watch people misinterpret what I just said......" Christian Graus At The Soapbox
And signing that bit of paper meant nothing. If they had lost, they would have been terrorists, insurgents, geurilla fighters, treasonists whatever. they would have been hung though, that is for sure. But, the signatories won, due to lack of political will in Britain. And because they won they get to write history and call themselves whatever they want. In this case patriots. Nunc est bibendum
-
So Bin Laden declares war on the US. Does that make him not a terrorist? Nunc est bibendum -- modified at 9:22 Tuesday 4th July, 2006
How often have you heard Hitler referred to as a terrorist? "You get that which you tolerate"
-
And signing that bit of paper meant nothing. If they had lost, they would have been terrorists, insurgents, geurilla fighters, treasonists whatever. they would have been hung though, that is for sure. But, the signatories won, due to lack of political will in Britain. And because they won they get to write history and call themselves whatever they want. In this case patriots. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
If they had lost
Thats a stupid argument. If Britain had lost WWII they would all be NAZI's now. So what? "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Given that the US did not exist as a country in the 1770's , how come the local combatants are now often referred to as patriots ? How can you be patriotic to a country that does not exist , and before the defining document that framed the constitution of the country was started ? Its a bit like me declaring independance for my garden and then claiming it to be a patriotic act ? Patriotism implies an existing country ?
-
Isn't that the point of what he's saying - until that date, they were all Insurgents, Terrorist etc...up until independece they were actually being UNpatriotic, since they were British, not American, and fighting the British govt..... Thank god Sir Walter Raleigh never discovered Cuba - could've had ALL SORTS of fun in Gitmo if he had ;) "Now I guess I'll sit back and watch people misinterpret what I just said......" Christian Graus At The Soapbox
RichardGrimmer wrote:
Isn't that the point of what he's saying - until that date, they were all Insurgents, Terrorist etc...up until independece they were actually being UNpatriotic, since they were British, not American, and fighting the British govt.....
"If this be treason..." "You get that which you tolerate"
-
How often have you heard Hitler referred to as a terrorist? "You get that which you tolerate"
-
fat_boy wrote:
If they had lost
Thats a stupid argument. If Britain had lost WWII they would all be NAZI's now. So what? "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
If Britain had lost WWII they would all be NAZI's now
Thats not true. While Mosley and his followers were faschists, it is not true t say that the countrty en-masse would convert to faschism if conquered by the Nazis. Look at Belgium and Holland. While some joined the Waffen SS, they were a small part of the population. Nunc est bibendum
-
Given that the US did not exist as a country in the 1770's , how come the local combatants are now often referred to as patriots ? How can you be patriotic to a country that does not exist , and before the defining document that framed the constitution of the country was started ? Its a bit like me declaring independance for my garden and then claiming it to be a patriotic act ? Patriotism implies an existing country ?
Each of the 13 colonies was a recognisable political unit with a representative government and an appointed (by the crown) governor. The colonist's "patriotism" was for their specific colony (where many had been born). Initally there were 13 separate rebellions, not one. The Declaration of independance formalized the 13 separate rebellions into a single one, with the 13 colonies participating jointly. The British called them Rebels, which from their point of view, was an appropriate epithet.
-
And signing that bit of paper meant nothing. If they had lost, they would have been terrorists, insurgents, geurilla fighters, treasonists whatever. they would have been hung though, that is for sure. But, the signatories won, due to lack of political will in Britain. And because they won they get to write history and call themselves whatever they want. In this case patriots. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
If they had lost, they would have been terrorists, insurgents, geurilla fighters, treasonists
Since none of those terms were in vogue then, the would most likely have stuck with 'rebels'.
-
History is written by the winners. Otherwise they would be called geuriillas, and terrorists. (Which they were) Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
Otherwise they would be called geuriillas, and terrorists. (Which they were)
I am sure that the british said the same thing in the 1700s, but the fact remains, we kicked your ass.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Otherwise they would be called geuriillas, and terrorists. (Which they were)
I am sure that the british said the same thing in the 1700s, but the fact remains, we kicked your ass.
-
Only becuse the French helped you, and Britain didnt have the stomach for a civil war. And there was ecconomic gain to be made by certain parties in Britain by letting the Americans have their independence. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
and Britain didnt have the stomach for a civil war.
So we kicked your ass, but it was only because you let us? Right.... :rolleyes:
-
fat_boy wrote:
and Britain didnt have the stomach for a civil war.
So we kicked your ass, but it was only because you let us? Right.... :rolleyes:
Think about it. A country 4 times as large, at the time the global super power, who would in a few years destroy the French, again. Who had at least 20% support inside the American colonies. With another 40% neutral in those colonies, leaving just 40% support for Independence. Really, do you think, if the full political will had been there you would have won? If we had been fighting the French rather than our cousins, we would have kept America in the Empire, just as we kept Canada. Add financial interest in expoiting the whole of North America, and that interest did, as is often the case today, straddle the Atlantic, and you have your reasons. Nunc est bibendum
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If Britain had lost WWII they would all be NAZI's now
Thats not true. While Mosley and his followers were faschists, it is not true t say that the countrty en-masse would convert to faschism if conquered by the Nazis. Look at Belgium and Holland. While some joined the Waffen SS, they were a small part of the population. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
Thats not true.
Damn right. A good lot of them would be dead...
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.0.0.0 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums