Here is one of the better entries on the Bryan Williams comments comparing the American Revolutionaries to terrorists. Some of the comments there and else where still try to justify this by stating that the actions of the colonists in the context of the times could be considered to be actions of terrorists. I would argue that that is a very flawed argument.
Let's start with the conclusion that due to some military actions, the colonists utilized Guerrilla tactics. You know, hiding beind fences or stone walls or in the forest and shooting at the red coats. I would argue that tactic would not qualify as terroistic. First, the British used similar tactics during the French-Indian war. They also used the Indians against the French, and the tactics of the Indians would truly be called terroristic. But let's not forget that the British then also used the Indians against the colonists during the Revolution.
In fact, the British thought that the Guerrilla tactics used by the colonists were so effective that they established special military units called skirmishers to use those exact tactics. (Look up the 95th Rifles if you doubt this fact.)
The vast majority of the actual battles between the colonists and the British were between uniformed regulars. The colonists used uniformed militia and regulars to fight British regulars. The colonist's army wasn't very good either. The reason they won was not because they won most of the battles. They won several key battles, and there was the intervention of the French in the naval affairs.
The British considered the colonists as 'rebels.' That tag is very appropriate in the context of the conflict. There was a great deal of sympathy in England for the colonists though.
The Tories were in many instances treated poorly. But being treated poorly isn't anywhere near the horrors that are applied to civilians in Iraq. The colonists also didn't attack civilians in general or vague and uncontrolled manners. Tories were treated as collaborators, which is an accurate description.
Read the link for the arguments with direct comparison of terrorists acts that were never seen during the revolution.
Let's start with the conclusion that due to some military actions, the colonists utilized Guerrilla tactics. You know, hiding beind fences or stone walls or in the forest and shooting at the red coats. I would argue that tactic would not qualify as terroistic. First, the British used similar tactics during the French-Indian war. They also used the Indians against the French, and the tactics of the Indians would truly be called terroristic. But let's not forget that the British then also used the Indians against the colonists during the Revolution.
In fact, the British thought that the Guerrilla tactics used by the colonists were so effective that they established special military units called skirmishers to use those exact tactics. (Look up the 95th Rifles if you doubt this fact.)
The vast majority of the actual battles between the colonists and the British were between uniformed regulars. The colonists used uniformed militia and regulars to fight British regulars. The colonist's army wasn't very good either. The reason they won was not because they won most of the battles. They won several key battles, and there was the intervention of the French in the naval affairs.
The British considered the colonists as 'rebels.' That tag is very appropriate in the context of the conflict. There was a great deal of sympathy in England for the colonists though.
The Tories were in many instances treated poorly. But being treated poorly isn't anywhere near the horrors that are applied to civilians in Iraq. The colonists also didn't attack civilians in general or vague and uncontrolled manners. Tories were treated as collaborators, which is an accurate description.
Read the link for the arguments with direct comparison of terrorists acts that were never seen during the revolution.
1 comment:
Couple of hundred pages into "A Few Bloody Noses."...
There was a period, prior to the armed conflict, in which the rebellion was basically mobs, especially in Boston. That was up to about 1769. Things calmed down, a lot, until 1774, when the politics heated up. During the lull, the real revolutionaries, Adams, et al, prepared the militia, not a mob, for the fight. Finally, when Gage ordered the taking of the Concord stand of arms (soon to be followed by the Worcester stand, if he had succeeded), the militia came out and fought the British. It was an ambush, and a running battle, with snipers and various sides attacking & withdrawing, but it wasn't terrorism. If anything, the British, who when fired on from a house, fired it and killed everyone inside, were behaving as terrorists (although the one recorded scalping of a Redcoat was probably terror inducing).
So, in conclusion, this is a bloody stupid argument. A stand up fight, snipers or no, can be an insurrection, a revolution, a rebellion, but until and unless you're targeting innocents for the express purpose of attempting to terrorize the populace, it isn't terrorism. The core issue is, we've used terms, so badly, for so long, and our educational system as sunk so low, that people can't discern differences. A very large mass of reporters see people with guns and things going bang. Could be war, could be oppression, could be terrorism, who knows. Well, there are some pretty clear definitions and they need to learn them. Sheesh!
Post a Comment