Something important that he oversimplifies, as is his name, is that the British viewed themselves as having spent the money and protected the colonies. Meanwhile many colonists who were on the front lines themselves, had actually protected themselves and their communities. Many people drafted were colonists themselves too. So the colonists thought of the British as asking for money when they had done most of the work in North America, so they obviously disagreed with the taxes being levied on them.
Not to mention the colonists strongly advised the British troops to adopt better tactics against Native American ambushes during the Seven Years War (due to their experience with Native attacks) and the arrogant generals ignored them. This led to many casualties often at the colonists' expense. And after the war, the British made a proclamation line forbidding further colonial expansion westward so they wouldn't upset their Native allies. This angered many colonists who suffered cross border raids from the natives and couldn't pursue them and couldn't expand their settlements westward from the crowded east coast. It also didn't help that they had to fend for themselves while the British rarely sent troops to protect them.
Correct. Also, the American colonists' conflict with the Native Americans and the French was almost literally continuous from 1607 onward. British efforts to defend them (beyond the colonial militias themselves) were periodic and generally left many American towns and farms vulnerable to attack. So, the Americans had been defending themselves for more than 150 years, with only occasional help from British troops. The idea that the British could then tax the Americans for "payment" without any representation in parliament did not hold water to many Americans.
That's a good point. I've been a soldier. If the government introduced a new tax to pay for my work and I didn't get an exemption, I'd be like "So you want me to pay for me, and you barely even pay me?". Except back then, they might not have been paid at all. 3 hots and a cot as we say, and now you want to charge me for oh so luxurious "room and board"? Get stuffed.
Something very interesting to note is the fact that only 33% of the colonies supported independence, while another 33% supported Great Britain, and 33% legit didn’t care. It really goes to show that it only takes a few brave men to take action to make the biggest difference in the world
Yes, but don't tell people that, it spoils their illusions....we love Hollywood versions of history because it makes us feel safe that we aren't being lied to, and the simplified history is all most people wish really to know. If you can find a book called Liberties Exiles by Maya Jasanoff. I think you will find it interesting.
Just a side note, when they say the British burned down a town in Massachusetts, and they highlight a place in modern Maine, it's because Maine used to be part of Massachusetts. My home state, New Hampshire, divided the two parts. Maine only became a state in the lead up to our civil war.
Most of the founding fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence were in their 20's, and a few in their 30's. Most people think of them as old men at the time, due to their portraits, but they were surprisingly young. It's surprising that they had so much wisdom at their young age.
As an American I learned all this stuff when I was a kid at school. Am very curious about Sikh culture and beliefs. Would love a video on that :) namaste
One of the main things about Sikh culture is their reputation as warriors. Look up the story of 21 Sihk warriors holding ground against an Afghan force of a few thousand. By the time it ended, all the Sihk had died, but had taken out about 1400 enemies. Battle of Saragarhi. Those men demonstrated the legendary ferocity of the Sihk warriors that day.
A real underlying motive for the taxes was so British inspectors can inspect warehouses and ships because the colonies were all super into illegal smuggling (hence their obsession with "free trade"), there were even entire smuggler towns and counties. Illegal smuggling and piracy has always had a large role in American history.
16:21 I have a 6x great grandfather who was under Washington in the New York campaign, he later died in November of sickness from the cold in Coryells Ferry (now called New Hope) a month before they crossed the Delaware river there and elsewhere. He immigrated from Germany and was only in America for a little over 1 year when he died. He was older, his son's were a private and a captain.
The American colonies had an advantage that India did not have. Most people, but not all, decended from British blood and the colonial governments were based on the British system of government. The British, although they had the most powerful army and navy in the world could not defeat America for basically two reasons. 1) The navy did not have enough ships to carry supplies to all their colonies nor could they protect their lines of communication and tthey, lbecause of the shortage of ships, could not transport soldiers and 2) the British army in America was too small to fight a guerilla type war. The British also had to think about rebellion in other areas of the empire, especially India and Ireland along with territories in the West Indiies. Certainly the circumstances are a lot more complicated than the OverSimplified video but it was entertaining.
Also Lord Cornwallis who lost at Yorktown Virginia to Geroge Washington after the American Revolution. Was promoted and sent to India and became comander and chief of Brtish India on February 1786. or Governor General. He set up administrative and legal reforms. And altered cvil administration and land management practices. He reformed aspects of the East India Trading Company by reducing nepotism and political favoritism. And promoted people on the basis of merit. Cornwallis passed the Cornwallis codes. A series of acts to help the East India Trading Company rule better. And layed the foundation of Brtish rule in India. He outlawed child slavery opened a Hindu College which still exists today in modern India. And defended Tipu Sultan the ruler of the Mysore Kingdom in the 3rd Anglo Mysore War and taking half of the Mysore Kingdom territory for the East India Trading Company. His defeat over Tipu Sultan in the 3rd Anglo Mysore war made up for his military defeat in America against Geroge Washington.
Although I am also Indian but I want you to react to more oversimplified videos, they are really informative and entertaining. Infact I first learned World War 2 through oversimplified. Please don't limit yourself to American videos and also do French and Russian revolution
I enjoyed watching your reaction to this video. Yes, at first, independence was not the goal. The "Americans" WERE British at the time, and they wanted at first to just settle their differences. But the British were arrogant and would accept nothing less than complete surrender. And so the rest is history. But at the time, Britain was probably the world's most powerful nation on Earth. It would have been absurd to think that the American colonies could have beaten Britain alone. As you will see in Part 2, the American colonies got a lot of help from Britain's rivals. France was especially important, and it's fairly certain that American independence would not have been achieved at that time without the assistance of France.
Technically we were British citizens but not all British. Certainly the French did see themselves as British and still had sympathy with France. And the Irish definitely did not claim to be British. It is the same as indians in the UK, they might be British citizens but they are still Indians. It was over 150 years by that time with people who had no clue as to what the UK was. They did not identify as British. So technically we were a British colony, but we had our own form of government, the House of Burgesses and the Continental Congress.
@@moorek1967 The point is, everyone was a British subject at the time. And if we're referring to the political elite that spearheaded the American Revolution, they certain considered themselves British, until the break with Britain. The ethnic and racial diversity of the colonies at the time is a separate issue.
@@PerthTowne The British might have considered them British subjects but I have heard nothing from history of people proudly proclaiming it. The French Huguenots still considered themselves French and the Dutch were still Dutch. In fact, wasn't New York one time under a Dutch name? Fort Christina was Swedish. Delaware was also French as it was named for De La Warre. The French and Indian War kind of changed all of that. The Yamasee War in Florida was won by an Irishman who defeated the Spanish and now we have Florida and Georgia. He lived in South Carolina. They didn't do all of that as British subjects in their eyes, they saw themselves as separate from the British. I would hardly say the Dutch, Swedes, Spanish, French, and Germans from the various German states even thought they were subjects of the Crown. Only a portion considered themselves as British subjects. You could say politically they were subjects but they certainly did not. I have not one single ancestor from the Colonial era that said they were British. Of the 5 ancestors who fought in the Revolution, fought to not be British subjects. Not even my Swiss 4th great-grandfather was British. There were more than the British here.
@@moorek1967 I have no idea why you feel this argument is worth anyone's time. Yes, there were many ethnic groups of people in the British colonies. But they were all British subjects. I didn't say they "proudly proclaimed" it or that the German settlers of Pennsylvania or the French in South Carolina FELT British, but they were subjects of Great Britain living in British colonies. They didn't have to like it, but that was the reality. If we're referring to many of the leaders of the American Revolution, people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and on and on, they WERE descended from British ancestors. These were members of the political elite, which is actually what I was referring to initially. THEY definitely considered themselves British. But they were all legally British subjects. It's not open for debate.
@@PerthTowne As you could see, I said "technically" British subjects, but you have to think a bit. The British had their colonies and the Dutch had colonies and the French had colonies and the Spanish had colonies and the Swedes had a colony. THOSE were colonies of their respective countries and not British. You have completely misunderstood, I was not talking about ethnic groups but nationalities. And only the original 13 were British only to the extent of in name only, except New York which was Dutch. I think maybe the whole entire country of The Netherlands would agree with you....you think, seeing as they were a different country colony? How about you change your username to St. Augustine Towne and inform the oldest non-British city in America that it was a British colony and they were British subjects. Perth Towne, are you Australian? All states AFTER the Revolution were not British but American. The entire Louisiana Purchase was bought from the French and William Seward under Lincoln bought Alaska from Russia, and the Russians had many settlements in Alaska. While the Founding Fathers had English ancestry, they did not consider themselves as British which is why we had that whole Revolutionary War thing. We aren't Australia and Australia didn't have our experience. Oh and don't tell me about the "founding fathers were political elites because they were British" because as I said I am descended from Colonial America which was here before all of those men were born and I descend from the Jay family, you know that John Jay who was first supreme court judge? Yes, that elitist politician. No, they did not consider themselves as British because they were not Loyalists who went to Canada. But we did get the French Acadians from Canada which became the Cajuns. To say we were British subjects,it was only for 100 years and certainly not everyone agreed with it. New Amsterdam probably should remind everyone of the fact it was a Dutch colony.
There's actually an interesting link between Indian and American history here! The cause of the Boston Tea Party is closely linked to matters relevant to India: In 1773, the British East India Company (yes, that one) was in dire financial state (caused in large part by events in India at the time), and they urgently required government intervention to keep them in business. In order to save the British East India Company, Parliament passed the Tea Act of 1773, which effectively gave the British East India Company a monopoly on tea sold in the American colonies. It was technically the Tea Act of 1773, and not just the taxes, which caused the Boston Tea Party-which quickly escalated into revolution after British retaliations. In history classes in America, the first example of a monopoly that American children are introduced to is often the British East India Company after 1773. The British government effectively told the American colonists: "you will buy tea from the British East India Company in order to prevent it from going bankrupt". The American response was to destroy as much of it as possible to prevent its sale. ---- So in a sense, the American Revolution happened when it did because of Parliament's attempt to keep the British East India Company afloat.
The oversimplified don't cover this, but in 1780 the Indian Kingdom of Mysore declared war on the Britain and the British East India Company, ostensibly in support of the Americans and France. The second Anglo-Mysore war is a seminal moment in the history of warfare as it saw the modern use of rockets in warfare by Mysore. Those rockets became reworked a few years later became the famous and deadly congreve rocket used during the Napoleonic Wars. The Kingdom of Mysore was one of the first foreign powers the United States established diplomatic relations with after its independence, doing so before establishing relations with most European states at the time.
I'm from Massachusetts. We have a holiday called patriots day. I went to Lexington to the minute man trail and they did a reenactment of the battle. It was great.
i'm glad you guys got around to this one. i teach U.S. and World History to college freshmen and sophomores here in the U.S. and the kids really love reading The Ramayana, learning about Classical India, as well as Colonialism and the Partition. i adore Indian culture. yes, the parallels between out colonial experiences are interesting, yet rather distinct as well.
I believe I heard y'all say at one point you have a movie reaction channel, if so the movie "The Patriot" (2000) with Mel Gibson would be one to check out, as it involves an American family at the start of the Revolution, where the father wants peace but is forced to take a stand and the sufferings they endured at the hands of the British. It's loosely fact-based but does have some actual history and shows something of life back then and how the war was fought. It's a very good movie.
The oversimplified videos are the best videos to get to the heart of the matter of historical events. The sad thing is that once thrown out of most of North America, with the exclusion of what is now Canada, the British turned their attention to India, and that is a sad history.
@@nedeast6845 yes the British had some holdings in India they did not control most of it. After losing the American Colonies the British turned their attention to Africa and Asia. That’s when they started to impose more direct rule over Indians. And then especially later on during the American Civil War when the profitable British textile industry lost access to cheap Southern cotton. Britain began to take more cotton from India instead.
@@nedeast6845 also the First British colony in India was established 1608 in Surat. The first British colony established in North America was 1607 in Jamestown, Virginia. And that was the first successful one. The British colony at Roanoke, Virginia lasted 1585-1590 before it was abandoned.
@@hitlerhongchrist2045 no they put a lot of interest in India. That’s where they grew all the cotton and then later Opium which was sold to China. Then when the opium war happened Britain took over Hong Kong.
Washington wrote in his final will that every single person indebted to his family through contract or slavery was to be released from that debt and made free. In an age where not only racism was INCREDIBLY common, but also the idea of slavery and it being a class of human (there were slaves of every race as were the rules of war before the modern age), he was an example for men to be better than the environment around them. Thats why i STILL consider him one if the best presidents in U.S. history dispite his rough beginning and history
Mark 14:33. "Unknown fate", always gets me. As in, why is it that way? Hasn't anyone ever been curious enough to investigate that fate? Not even treasure seekers? 🤔
I am always impressed with your curiosity and excitement to learn. I would add that your humor is marvelous. Thank you for creating such a nice channel. I have finally subscribed and joined your Patreon. I am an admirer from the plains regions of the United States, small towns, lots of corn fields.
OverSimplified discussed Great Britain taxing the American colonies. I would like to elaborate on this principal cause of the American Revolution. According to the royal charters that established the colonies, Parliament did not have the right to tax them. Only the colonial legislatures were authorized to levy taxes. Parliament did have the authority to regulate trade, so perhaps a persuasive legal argument could have been made that taxes on trade goods should have been considered regulation of trade. In lieu of taxes, Americans believed they were already paying for their defense by Britain. Under the system of mercantilism which required the colonies to sell their exports to only Britain and buy imported goods from only Britain, British merchants had a monopoly and were earning most of the profits. Also, like most agricultural societies back then, there was very little money in circulation in the colonies with which the taxes would need to have been paid. Much of the trade between Americans was one product or service for another. Some Americans at the time questioned the wisdom of the British refusing to listen to their grievances, because war meant the British would lose the profits on trade--either temporarily if they won the war or permanently if the colonies did.
Now I want to learn about India’s independence from Britain because I had no idea there was a massacre. The only few things I heard about it was that the Queen just let the colony go and the transition was peaceful. Crazy how it seems there’s misinformation on both sides so that Britain can hide from their atrocities.
@@nedeast6845 I can’t answer for India, but for America yes. But specifically to Black Americans. I don’t need any because my family came much later. But Black Americans want reparations for slavery and I think they should be looking to the British Royal Family, not white Americans who had no control of the situation. It was the British who brought the slaves in and bought and sold the cotton for profit. Most slave owners were British loyalists during the revolutionary war and many went back after independence was won. In order to get support of independence from the south, freeing the slaves was delayed, and even after, cotton was still being shipped to Britain up until the Civil War. A lot of the royal family’s money came from slavery.
Another thing to consider is that many of the colonial families arrived in north America as a result of the Enclosures and Clearances. Where a few hundred thousand people in Britain were forced off their ancestral farmlands to be replaced by sheep.
I had read differently, in Barbara Tuchman’s “The First Salute”, telling the story (among others) of the continental warship Andrew Doria (no relation to Andria), the first warship bearing the continental flag to be saluted by a foreign power, the Dutch, at Caribbean island of Sint Eustatious. Oversimplified, the story she told was that the colonies were nice but the spice islands were better and with an ongoing war with France, the money from the islands were better. The colonies sent them tobacco and pine tar for sealing the hulls of the Royal Navy. Oversimplified, it wasn’t till the Great War they really began to miss us.
@@marshalllindsay315 The colonies also sent rum manufactured from sugar from the British West Indies, whiskey, furs, lumber for ships and metals and were a large market for British manufactured goods including clothing, glass, paint, tea ,books, paper, sugar and a ton of other stuff
Yes you know so I took history class you know the early 60s that all the stuff was explained you know a chalkboard and through text but this simple little video really explains it in a nutshell is going on and I wanted to want I think I wear more from this that I didn’t my two years in high school history
Some teachers in America have classes where they want to teach about colonial and revolutionary times. The teachers start taxing the items in the class for no reason.The kids argue and say it’s not fair. The taxes go higher. Some students find a dean to complain to, some do nothing. Eventually the teachers user that experience to have the students understand how “taxation without representation “ can lead to a revolt.
Ok, but to make it really realistic once the kids have revolted against the teacher, they tax classroom items at an even higher rate, but everyone is too tired to put up a resistance against it.
The one error he makes is he says the issue was taxation. It was taxation without representation. Some taxes in England where they could vote for Parliament actually went DOWN. These taxes were the nose of the camel.
If you guys are interested i recommend the mini series John Adams with paul giamatti. spans Adam's whole life from the boston massacre to his death but the first half of the series focuses on the revolution.
(I went back and watched this video that was released before I was subscribed) It is interesting to note that the majority of "Americans" at that time were basically 2nd and 3rd generation descendants of British settlers. That's one reason the colonists in America were not treated as harshly as the people of India were. Another interesting thing to consider is that the British were unable to deploy all of their military strength against the American colonies bc they needed to maintain a strong military presence in their other colonies around the world, including India. So in a way you can say that India helped us gain our independence from Britain🫡
You guys should react to ‘how many countries England has ever invaded’ because I know that most Indians don’t learn about other parts of the British empire (generally) would love to see your reactions to just how many countries was ‘visited’ by Britain!
PLEASE, if you want great insight into the US culture that most Americans don't know, search for "Thaddeus Russell Mises Caucus California Mixer" and skip to 33:00. It's a great talk about how lower class people changed our culture. His book is a must read.
A big reason why some colonists wanted to remain under British rule was because a lot of the colonists considered themselves to be English. Even if they were born in America, in the beginning a lot of people were still racially English, Scottish and Irish. Their entire law code and culture was basically English. That’s why they wanted representation in Parliament.
There is another reason that the US revolted not listed here. After the French and Indian War most of France’s territory in North America was split between Spain and Britain. At this time the majority of people living in the British half lived East of the Appalachian mountains. After the war many Americans wanted to move into the wide open spaces on the western side of the mountains but the British wouldn’t allow it. This was because the Brit’s wanted to get this land exclusively for the Natives so that there wasn’t tension between them and the settlers. Just shows you how deep some topics go.
Here's something to demonstrate the conflicted mindset of the colonists at the time. There was a long standing tradition among the colonists to toast to the health of the king when people gathered. That tradition continued on both sides (including among the officers of the military and the militia) even during open warfare, until some of the rebels figured out how demoralizing it was to praise the enemy. The colonists proudly proclaimed themselves to be "British-American" all the way up to the outbreak of hostilities. Fighting the British in war was extremely divisive. The distinction between the rebels and the loyalists caused a lot of internal conflict. Loyalists were treated poorly, which is why so many of them left, abandoning their homes and livelihoods and families.
They at first didn't consider independence because they considered themselves Brittish citizens. Unlike India where they were invading a completely different people and culture.
I really want oversimplified to make a video on Indian revolution and India's war for independence. But I'm also scared that our Indian brothers with get their sentiments hurt and protest against the best of history explanation.. wait.. aren't we used to it? 🤔🤔
It has been said that the Stamp Act was the most stupid law ever passed. It raised taxes on lawyers, who love to argue. Taxing playing cards raised taxes on sailors, who loved to fight. Taxing both groups at the same time was not going to end well.
Fun fact, the soldiers who were involved with the "Boston massacre" were found not guilty, and their defense lawyer was one of the founding fathers, and later became the 2nd U.S. President
In my view the only thing that Americans hate more than fighting a war is losing a war. We have to be pushed pretty hard to piss us off but once we get mad we will not quit until we win. That was the biggest problem we had with Korea and Viet Nam. They were not lost by American troops but by American politicians.
It makes sense that the American colonies didn't want independence right away, because they basically were British. The colonies were not not the indigenous people, but immigrants, mostly from Britain. Although many of these immigrants fled Britain, because of religious persecution, that was the biggest issue. They were still more culturally similar to Britain than any other country and Britain was the most powerful country in the world at that time, so it makes sense that they would want good relations, but the colonist went to America in hopes of gaining more freedom, so when Britain pushed to hard the colonies fought back like a cornered animal that had been beaten one too many times.
Yeah. By the revolution a majority of the colonies had been born in America, or were even 2nd or 3rd generation born. They were still racially like the British and majority Protestant. The Americans viewed themselves as British but the British viewed the Americans as a bunch of backward yokels.
How people saw themselves really varied. Many people saw themselves as English people who lived in America. Many saw themselves as citizens of New Jersey or Massachusetts who had this lopsided relationship with Britain. Britain was all about "lets just send the army in and start bossing people around." (this a pattern that gets them into trouble later). Britain needed much more finesse if it was going to keep these colonies and it messed up. Frankly - it did not have a complex enough government in London to rule over 2.5 million people 6000 kilometers away.
Being a person who has some familiarity with world history (including Indian history)- I immediately recognized the looks on your faces when you realized that British troops had open fire on civilians. Time has smoothed some things over - after the revolution there were some very hard feelings on both sides - for a number of decades.
True. The British and Americans recognized mutual economic interests very soon after the Revolution, but they were politically and militarily antagonistic. The U.S. and UK entered a period of detente in the middle 1800s, but they were not truly allies until the very late 1800s. Even in WWI, the U.S. refused to place its troops under British command, and the U.S. was not technically in a military alliance with Britain until we entered WWII in 1941.
Why did the Americans want to stay with Britain? 1) Most Americans identified as Englishmen even if they were not ethnically so. So they felt their own king was treating them badly not a foreign king. 2) Many of the older Americans had fought bravely for King and Country in the French Indian War (7 Years War). So going against this king (previous king’s grandson) felt like they would have wasted all that blood sweat and tears for nothing. 3) French Indian War devastated a lot of people. No one wanted to fight anyone. They just wanted to farm and drink tea and forget the horrors of war. Hope this helps.
@@JacobSantillan Well it looked more like a garden of Eden then than it does now! and if the native peoples did get it back and sent all the invaders (decendants) away, you'd probably be looking for another country to live in, and most European countries would soon be getting a bit overcrowded.
@@tomnicholson2115 Not going to happen. Conquest (and even reconquest) are stories as old as humanity. Europeans won. Those who hate that they did would rather guilt themselves into civilizational suicide because they can't be beat in a stand up fight. Maybe it works? Maybe it doesn't. But if you want the blood to keep flowing, keep it up. You may get your wish in a form you like the least.
@@JacobSantillan Not my wish, but I'd guess a lot of the indigenous people of America wouldn't mind you all (the invaders decendants) leaving! I guess what I'm getting at is that the Indian and American independence struggles aren't similar at all, basically the British never left America, just renamed themselves Americans and carried on with the business the British had started, leaving the Indian independence struggle the only successful native one.
Something not to be overlooked by non-Americans is that the Continental Army was primarily a collection of citizens who brought their own personal firearms to fight against the British. The "gun culture" always existed in America, so much so that the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution. The right to bear arms is a bulwark against a tyrannical government that may attempt to infringe on individual liberties.
You forget tho that Indians are native to India, whereas you are possibly decended from the invaders (well if your and American) that stole America from the natives of America!
The taxing and revolt was very similar in America and India. The difference was it was more like a civil war with the British fighting their own people in America. America had a big advantage that the Indians did not in that they knew exactly how and what the British would do...because they were also British. America ended up leaving one King George for President George...🤣
You have to watch Scott Horton's Enough Already playlist. It's about the US's terrorism wars and how they connect to each other. His book is a must read.
You need to be very careful about making analogies between the American and Indian colonial experiences, since they were very different. Mostly that is because most people in the American colonies were of the same culture, race and religion as the British, which was not the case in India. If the British treated Americans like second-class citizens, then they frequently treated Indians as third or fourth-class if not subhuman. Much of the American experience was about trying to convince the British that those in the colonies were the same as them, while there was little hope or chance of persuading the British of that in India.
I was going to say the same. Had the Boston Massacre been rioting Native Americans rather than white anglo-saxon protestors, there would have been a holy hell of a lot more than 5 killed.
Good point. The British did generally look down upon the American colonists, believing they were inferior in education, breeding and even stature and health, etc. (Even though by the time of the Revolution, there were multiple colleges and universities in the colonies, and the average American was probably healthier and wealthier, in terms of land, than the average Brit). But the true racism and discrimination shown to Indians was equaled in North America only by the treatment that all whites, British and American, showed toward the Native Americans and African Americans at that time.
@@johnalden5821 "The British did generally look down upon the American colonists, believing they were inferior in education, breeding and even stature and health" Can you give contemporary sources for these assertions? Thanks
@@nedeast6845 literally read any biography from the time or history book. The British viewed the Americans as a bunch of yokels. All of Europe did. America was a largely rural, agricultural society in the beginning. Even after they achieved independence Britain and Europe viewed America with contempt.
@@nedeast6845 Georgia was created as a penal colony. After America won its independence, Britain founded Australia for the same purpose. Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Massachusetts were all created as a safe haven for religious minorities, groups who were often persecuted by the Anglican British government. Many Brits settling in America were not from London, but were rural folks from the north, which added to the "country bumpkin" mentality. Finally, America was looked upon as a place for a second chance at life, which to the aristocracy meant they were failures the first time. It's pretty safe and uncontroversial to say that Americans were looked upon by the ruling British class as second class citizens.
The natives in India took thier land 'back' from the British, but the natives in America never managed to get rid of the British at all because the British there just revolted from their home country called themselves Americans and carried on stealing native lands. So comparing Indian independence and American independence isn't really possible! unless you ignore the native peoples of America of course.
@@tomnicholson2115 The similarities are not on that single aspect. Rather in terms of government formation, economics, innovation, and so much more. You may have missed the forest for the tree,on this one 😁
The idea that Britain levied harsh taxes because they felt America owed it to them for protection from the French gets tossed around a lot by amateurs. Sure, Britain deserved some compensation they were owed but they were not intervening in some foreign conflict just to protect America; they were protecting their own territory (the colonies) against encroachment from their ancient rivals (the French). Britain would've intervened regardless if America needed protection or not. It was about safeguarding their interests from the start.
wow, thankfully, someone who has actually read history, and understands! I am afraid you are a lone voice blowing in the hyperbolic wind. The worst thing you can do is give kids a simplified version of history, and assume that every teacher tells the truth, and to rely upon the Indian and Hollywood movie churners to explain history to children. Although, I wonder, how many children really are interested in learning and challenging authorities and the set blurbs? How many children have the gumption or courage to write a different thesis to what the syllabus demands? I hope you like the historian David Starkey.
@@nedeast6845 dude you seriously need to get a life. The world isn’t one big conspiracy! The taxes were a major reason for the war but not the only reason, everyone knows that 🙄
Yeah but the British really didn’t defend America. It was the American militias who fought against the French and Indians in North America. The British used their army and navy to fight in Europe, Pacific, and India. The British weren’t just in debt because of the fighting in North America. They had huge debts for fighting all across the world. And the Americans were expect to pay more for that????
In the grand scheme of things Boston massacre wasn't actually that huge, it's just that the patriots used it has an excuse to fuel hatred against the brits. Also most Americans at the times had English ancestry and thus were treated far better than the indians or the africans. I highly suggest that you check out a channel by the name of "whatifalthist" he's an incredibly intelligent young man with a very practical view on history, and events. He makes some of the most interesting videos I've ever seen, his videos keep me thinking for days.
The British were also incredibly brutal towards the people of Ireland as well. The British government propped up British lords that they had put in power earlier. The Irish were made so poor under this system that the only food they could afford was potatoes. In 1844 the potato crop failed. The British parliament and monarchy moved fast to protect the interests of wealthy British lords in Ireland by passing the corn laws. Under these laws it was illegal for anyone to import grains to Ireland. The British royal navy even intercepted several ships carrying food donations from America heading to Ireland. Over the next six years more than 70% of the Irish people starved to death. Millions more Irish people were forced to sell everything they had for a ticket on a barely seaworthy deathtrap ship going to the US or Canada. The Irish called them coffin ships. My ancestors were among the Irish refugees who survived a voyage aboard a coffin ship and made it to New York. Most of Ireland won its freedom from the British empire in 1921. But the British colonial holding in northern Ireland remains to this day. In the 1990s the British government gave actual licenses to kill to pro British fascist hooligans in northern Ireland. The British government provided them with intelligence and even paid them. No one in the British government has ever been charged with a crime for their involvement with unionist death squads. Fortunately the American and Irish governments were able to convince the British to accept the good Friday accords. In the peace deal the British were forced to accept self determination for northern Ireland. In the event of a referendum by a simple majority in favor of Irish reunification in northern Ireland the British will have to withdraw. The referendum might happen as soon as just two years from now. Polls show that a majority of people in northern Ireland now support reunification.
You should write Oversimplified a and encourage him to do a video about Indian independence. I'm sure it would be both funny and informative... By the way, if you like Oversimplified, you should watch his video about the Emu War. That is his funniest one.
What I can never understand about India is this: the Indian population in 1850 was about 175 million The British population in India, including soldiers, in 1850 was at most about 100,000 So how did the British manage to subjugate and rule such a huge country with so few soldiers and people? Were the indian people useless at fighting?
You're just going to have to research it; it's incredibly complicated. India didn't really exist back then, like it does today, as a nation state. It's a subcontinent with multiple ethnicities and a long history--like anywhere. The British didn't simply invade the continent and subjugate it. When the British established their first colony in India, It was ruled over by the Mughal Empire. The Mughals were brutal invaders from what is now Uzbekistan and they brought Islam to the subcontinent. When the British asked the Mughals to establish a trading colony, their presence was welcomed. The British weren't the only Europeans in India doing this. Some Indians saw life as better in the British colonies and invited the British to overthrow their Mughal overlords. Eventually, the British learned to use local politics to their advantage to then take control of the whole subcontinent. But, take everything I said with a grain of salt and research it yourself. Like I said, it's extremally complicated and generalizations don't do the history justice. There were Indians who supported the British in India, and Indians in 1850 didn't think collectively and had varying opinions and interests. Remember that India as a nation is a modern concept created by the British, as a common enemy for their mistreatment of Indians during WWII, and the idea of a nation state is a more modern concept. Like, were the people of the Indus Valley Civilization Indians? How about the Indo-Europeans that conquered them? Were the Mughals Indian since they came from central Asia? Many Mughal generations lived and died in India for centuries. If they became Indian over time, when did it happen? Many British generations lived and died in India as well. Were they Indian? Race, ethnicity, and nationality are social constructs that don't exists physically, only in our imaginations.
You both seemed surprised that the colonists wanted to reconcile with the British, and weren't thinking of independence at the beginning, but I think that points to the big difference between the American Revolution and the Indian Revolution. To the Americans at that time, the British were *them.* Most of the American colonists back then were from England or Scotland or Ireland or other areas of the British Isles. Most of them had family back there, even if they hadn't seen them in a long time (maybe a generation or two or three) and didn't expect to, because of the hardships of travelling across the ocean. But there were still roots in the British Isles. They thought of themselves as British, so this was a dispute with their own government, with the Crown their families had been loyal to for centuries. At first, they didn't want to split up, they just wanted the British Crown to treat them more fairly. For India, in contrast, the British were foreign invaders. You're a completely separate people, with your own history and culture, and the British just came in and took over, as foreign rulers. So it makes perfect sense that Indians from that time would've been thinking of nothing but independence. It was your country from the start, and you wanted it back. For us, though, it took quite a bit of abuse before we decided, "Okay, that's it, let's kick these guys out."
Because in India we where not white people America Australia Canada New Zealand was inhabited by Brtishers and other white people from Europe that made these lands there own home. It was the same race same ethnic white people from Europe same cvilization western cvilization Europe both where Christians etc. In India the local populations where brown South Asians In a Asian country India different race different ethnic background different cvilizations Asian cvilization.
@@TheAaronChand America Australia Canada and New Zealand were not inhabited by Britishers, they were invaded by Britishers! as was India, India is the only one of those countries that successfully kicked the British out, the natives of all the others still live in conquered countries.
You've got to ask if taxation were the reason India and America had a revolt for independence, why is one a super power and the other an international joke of a country?
international joke with 4th most powerful military 3rd in space reserch, 1st in software development the more i listen to americans the more i am convinced they are the most rude,thickheaded,self centred,ignorant and arrogant people
That's pretty rude, the natives of India did manage to gain their independence, the natives of America, well not so much! The stolen United States may have become a superpower but they will likely always be invaders decendents. Besides that tho the Americans did have a 200year headstart!
They fail to tell you, the English colonies had no money to pay a tax ... except by piracy against the Spanish colonies (pieces of eight). The main economy was as a terminus of the Triangle Trade ... slaves from Africa to the Caribbean, sugar from the Caribbean to Virginia, and tobacco from Virginia back to Britain. India had the stamp act tax (all official papers had to be provided by the government). Where did the Congress Party of India come from? ;-) India faced a British Empire even stronger than back then ;-( Why are Americans opposed to gun control?
Well today the gun control debate is a little silly. The Brit’s ain’t coming back anytime soon to take back over, no foreign country is. And anyway the US has a standing army now to defend itself. So those who want totally free access to guns are anti-government wack jobs
The British definitely underestimated the Americans. Looking back, of course they would just negotiate peacefully and keep the territory. The amazing thing is how a bunch of settlers on a largely unexplored new continent managed to defeat the greatest super power of the world at the time. The US is the best.
Well, you have a well trained army from an established empire on one side... And yeah, it's easy to underestimate the other side. There used to be fundraising for expeditions to the new world. Settlers were used to not having the next supply ship. The fend for yourself mentality started early. By the time of the revolution, it was deeply entrenched. It's why we have the right to bear arms. Should push come to shove, our civilians should be able to take on an army. And we did!
@@alexiaNBC Same in Iraq. Kinda an awkward gentleman's agreement. We clearly had more power, but we were clearly on their turf. So you don't blow up my platoon and we just drive by without shooting. No clear end, that's for political figures to figure out. (Edit: Or to quote a German in WW1 on Christmas Eve; "English! If tomorrow you no shoot, we no shoot!")
I enjoyed your reaction and especially pointing out the similarities that the British empire imposed on all of its colonies. I have always had one issue with this video when he allows his objectivity to slip and feels compelled to add that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves while he penned that "All men are created equal". What this video fails to mention is that in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson completely condemns slavery "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobium of INFIDEL Powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another." Maybe for full disclosure the video maker should have mentioned that.
Do not underestimate how much money the rich Virginia planters owed to the British banks. A successful revolution would be nice way to avoid repayment. Also, after the Seven Years War the English did not want the colonist migrating west (they wanted to avoid a war with the Native Americans as well as the Spanish). Many colonists wanted to move west from the crowded and already spoken for east coast and were less concerned about a fight. Finally, the English had trained colonial troops and officers who formed the nucleus of the American army. Add to this what was stated here and you have powder ready and dry, all one needs is a match.
Virginia farmers had to still pay the British banks back after the war. It was a huge debate post-independence as the farmers wanted the government to pay the debt back
You guys HAVE to react to; The Stereotype Song; By Your Favorite Martian on TH-cam, it would be a great and very funny video to see! Love the content keep it up!
It's amazing how the involvement of the French is completely ignored and missed out of history. The French initiated and funded the revolutionary war and just like 1812 war used it as a diversionary tactic hoping to draw British troops away from Anglo-French hostilities. A other strangely ignored fact is this was a civil war. The British against the British, where do you think these people came from? It was a separatist movement. It wasn't native Americans resisting, it was British people who had moved to America (or the 50,000+ deported criminals sold on the docks as Indentured servants) and wanted to break away. Of course history has ignored indentured servitude completely because it doesn't fit the current narrative.
In Junior High Schools across the United States the involvement of the French is taught well. We learn of Lafayette and in fact if you search his name, you will find at least nine towns in the United States named after him. That is not counting the many more streets and counties named for him as well. You also might want to learn about the Pulaski Legion and who led them if you believe everyone the British fought were other British. His memory is honored in many places as well. It wasn't a Civil War as the United States was a COLONY, never granted the rights that British citizens had. Keep in mind, you responded on a channel run by kind folks from India. They will know their history and understand the difference between being a Colony or really British Citizens.
Very true! I'm actually a descendant of an indentured servant who sadly lost his life during King Philip's War in I think 1676. Both him and his his eldest son were both killed by native American war parties near Boston Massachusetts. Before his death my ancestor had finally worked off his debts and was released from servitude.
Conversations that include sudden subject changes do not interest me. I appreciate that you have an interest in history. But you've got a problem with personal bias. I addressed your points. No dodging and ducking allowed.
@@danielbruns1675 Personal bias? Check the record, check history and set your own bias... But don't just dismiss it because you don't want to believe it or others to read it. This is a thread started by me, why do you feel the need to suppress the exchange? I've posted historical fact not personal biased and it's been deleted twice.
Something important that he oversimplifies, as is his name, is that the British viewed themselves as having spent the money and protected the colonies. Meanwhile many colonists who were on the front lines themselves, had actually protected themselves and their communities. Many people drafted were colonists themselves too. So the colonists thought of the British as asking for money when they had done most of the work in North America, so they obviously disagreed with the taxes being levied on them.
The Crown didn't care about the colonists.Only thing it was protecting was its own interest.And ultimately they wanted the new world all to themselves
Not to mention the colonists strongly advised the British troops to adopt better tactics against Native American ambushes during the Seven Years War (due to their experience with Native attacks) and the arrogant generals ignored them. This led to many casualties often at the colonists' expense.
And after the war, the British made a proclamation line forbidding further colonial expansion westward so they wouldn't upset their Native allies. This angered many colonists who suffered cross border raids from the natives and couldn't pursue them and couldn't expand their settlements westward from the crowded east coast. It also didn't help that they had to fend for themselves while the British rarely sent troops to protect them.
Correct. Also, the American colonists' conflict with the Native Americans and the French was almost literally continuous from 1607 onward. British efforts to defend them (beyond the colonial militias themselves) were periodic and generally left many American towns and farms vulnerable to attack. So, the Americans had been defending themselves for more than 150 years, with only occasional help from British troops. The idea that the British could then tax the Americans for "payment" without any representation in parliament did not hold water to many Americans.
That's a good point. I've been a soldier. If the government introduced a new tax to pay for my work and I didn't get an exemption, I'd be like "So you want me to pay for me, and you barely even pay me?". Except back then, they might not have been paid at all. 3 hots and a cot as we say, and now you want to charge me for oh so luxurious "room and board"? Get stuffed.
Plus tea is gross 🤮
Something very interesting to note is the fact that only 33% of the colonies supported independence, while another 33% supported Great Britain, and 33% legit didn’t care. It really goes to show that it only takes a few brave men to take action to make the biggest difference in the world
Yes, but don't tell people that, it spoils their illusions....we love Hollywood versions of history because it makes us feel safe that we aren't being lied to, and the simplified history is all most people wish really to know. If you can find a book called Liberties Exiles by Maya Jasanoff. I think you will find it interesting.
That’s how it is today in American politics. 1/3 likes one half, 1/3 likes the other half, and 1/3 doesn’t give a monkeys knuckle.
The last 1% were the natives getting screwed in the back ground 😏
@@A_Name_ lol, that’s horrible
@@BuntTheBlunt accurate tho lol
Just a side note, when they say the British burned down a town in Massachusetts, and they highlight a place in modern Maine, it's because Maine used to be part of Massachusetts. My home state, New Hampshire, divided the two parts. Maine only became a state in the lead up to our civil war.
Most of the founding fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence were in their 20's, and a few in their 30's.
Most people think of them as old men at the time, due to their portraits, but they were surprisingly young. It's surprising that they had so much wisdom at their young age.
As an American I learned all this stuff when I was a kid at school. Am very curious about Sikh culture and beliefs. Would love a video on that :) namaste
One of the main things about Sikh culture is their reputation as warriors. Look up the story of 21 Sihk warriors holding ground against an Afghan force of a few thousand. By the time it ended, all the Sihk had died, but had taken out about 1400 enemies.
Battle of Saragarhi. Those men demonstrated the legendary ferocity of the Sihk warriors that day.
@@Maeshalanadae I know a little bit but not told by a Sikh... Am not oblivious I just want to learn more :)
@@Maeshalanadae be a sponge not a rock
@@danielman4057 I'm not a Sihk, I'm an American of Northern European heritage. XD
A real underlying motive for the taxes was so British inspectors can inspect warehouses and ships because the colonies were all super into illegal smuggling (hence their obsession with "free trade"), there were even entire smuggler towns and counties. Illegal smuggling and piracy has always had a large role in American history.
16:21 I have a 6x great grandfather who was under Washington in the New York campaign, he later died in November of sickness from the cold in Coryells Ferry (now called New Hope) a month before they crossed the Delaware river there and elsewhere. He immigrated from Germany and was only in America for a little over 1 year when he died. He was older, his son's were a private and a captain.
The American colonies had an advantage that India did not have. Most people, but not all, decended from British blood and the colonial governments were based on the British system of government. The British, although they had the most powerful army and navy in the world could not defeat America for basically two reasons. 1) The navy did not have enough ships to carry supplies to all their colonies nor could they protect their lines of communication and tthey, lbecause of the shortage of ships, could not transport soldiers and 2) the British army in America was too small to fight a guerilla type war. The British also had to think about rebellion in other areas of the empire, especially India and Ireland along with territories in the West Indiies. Certainly the circumstances are a lot more complicated than the OverSimplified video but it was entertaining.
Also Lord Cornwallis who lost at Yorktown Virginia to Geroge Washington after the American Revolution. Was promoted and sent to India and became comander and chief of Brtish India on February 1786. or Governor General. He set up administrative and legal reforms. And altered cvil administration and land management practices. He reformed aspects of the East India Trading Company by reducing nepotism and political favoritism. And promoted people on the basis of merit. Cornwallis passed the Cornwallis codes. A series of acts to help the East India Trading Company rule better. And layed the foundation of Brtish rule in India. He outlawed child slavery opened a Hindu College which still exists today in modern India. And defended Tipu Sultan the ruler of the Mysore Kingdom in the 3rd Anglo Mysore War and taking half of the Mysore Kingdom territory for the East India Trading Company. His defeat over Tipu Sultan in the 3rd Anglo Mysore war made up for his military defeat in America against Geroge Washington.
Although I am also Indian but I want you to react to more oversimplified videos, they are really informative and entertaining. Infact I first learned World War 2 through oversimplified. Please don't limit yourself to American videos and also do French and Russian revolution
Oversimplified has videos on the Russian Revolution. ( I forget if they have the French.)
@@josephwalsh7546 they do. They also have the Napoleonic Wars.
Yeah.. learning about French Revolution broke my heart.. so many innocent lives lost just cuz of one dumb@$$ who thought he was God
the Russian and French revolutions killed royalty. We did not. The Russians killed millions of people who didn't agree with them
I wish there were animated videos like this with Indian historic events, especially Many colonizations. But, certainly not copying this man's style.
"They just ASKED the British to stop...wow..."
You're right, they should have fasted instead 😅
Love you guys 🇨🇦
I enjoyed watching your reaction to this video.
Yes, at first, independence was not the goal. The "Americans" WERE British at the time, and they wanted at first to just settle their differences. But the British were arrogant and would accept nothing less than complete surrender. And so the rest is history.
But at the time, Britain was probably the world's most powerful nation on Earth. It would have been absurd to think that the American colonies could have beaten Britain alone. As you will see in Part 2, the American colonies got a lot of help from Britain's rivals. France was especially important, and it's fairly certain that American independence would not have been achieved at that time without the assistance of France.
Technically we were British citizens but not all British.
Certainly the French did see themselves as British and still had sympathy with France. And the Irish definitely did not claim to be British.
It is the same as indians in the UK, they might be British citizens but they are still Indians.
It was over 150 years by that time with people who had no clue as to what the UK was. They did not identify as British.
So technically we were a British colony, but we had our own form of government, the House of Burgesses and the Continental Congress.
@@moorek1967 The point is, everyone was a British subject at the time. And if we're referring to the political elite that spearheaded the American Revolution, they certain considered themselves British, until the break with Britain. The ethnic and racial diversity of the colonies at the time is a separate issue.
@@PerthTowne The British might have considered them British subjects but I have heard nothing from history of people proudly proclaiming it.
The French Huguenots still considered themselves French and the Dutch were still Dutch. In fact, wasn't New York one time under a Dutch name?
Fort Christina was Swedish. Delaware was also French as it was named for De La Warre.
The French and Indian War kind of changed all of that.
The Yamasee War in Florida was won by an Irishman who defeated the Spanish and now we have Florida and Georgia. He lived in South Carolina.
They didn't do all of that as British subjects in their eyes, they saw themselves as separate from the British.
I would hardly say the Dutch, Swedes, Spanish, French, and Germans from the various German states even thought they were subjects of the Crown.
Only a portion considered themselves as British subjects. You could say politically they were subjects but they certainly did not.
I have not one single ancestor from the Colonial era that said they were British. Of the 5 ancestors who fought in the Revolution, fought to not be British subjects.
Not even my Swiss 4th great-grandfather was British.
There were more than the British here.
@@moorek1967 I have no idea why you feel this argument is worth anyone's time. Yes, there were many ethnic groups of people in the British colonies. But they were all British subjects. I didn't say they "proudly proclaimed" it or that the German settlers of Pennsylvania or the French in South Carolina FELT British, but they were subjects of Great Britain living in British colonies. They didn't have to like it, but that was the reality.
If we're referring to many of the leaders of the American Revolution, people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and on and on, they WERE descended from British ancestors. These were members of the political elite, which is actually what I was referring to initially. THEY definitely considered themselves British. But they were all legally British subjects. It's not open for debate.
@@PerthTowne As you could see, I said "technically" British subjects, but you have to think a bit. The British had their colonies and the Dutch had colonies and the French had colonies and the Spanish had colonies and the Swedes had a colony.
THOSE were colonies of their respective countries and not British. You have completely misunderstood, I was not talking about ethnic groups but nationalities. And only the original 13 were British only to the extent of in name only, except New York which was Dutch. I think maybe the whole entire country of The Netherlands would agree with you....you think, seeing as they were a different country colony?
How about you change your username to St. Augustine Towne and inform the oldest non-British city in America that it was a British colony and they were British subjects.
Perth Towne, are you Australian?
All states AFTER the Revolution were not British but American. The entire Louisiana Purchase was bought from the French and William Seward under Lincoln bought Alaska from Russia, and the Russians had many settlements in Alaska.
While the Founding Fathers had English ancestry, they did not consider themselves as British which is why we had that whole Revolutionary War thing.
We aren't Australia and Australia didn't have our experience.
Oh and don't tell me about the "founding fathers were political elites because they were British" because as I said I am descended from Colonial America which was here before all of those men were born and I descend from the Jay family, you know that John Jay who was first supreme court judge? Yes, that elitist politician.
No, they did not consider themselves as British because they were not Loyalists who went to Canada. But we did get the French Acadians from Canada which became the Cajuns.
To say we were British subjects,it was only for 100 years and certainly not everyone agreed with it.
New Amsterdam probably should remind everyone of the fact it was a Dutch colony.
There's actually an interesting link between Indian and American history here! The cause of the Boston Tea Party is closely linked to matters relevant to India:
In 1773, the British East India Company (yes, that one) was in dire financial state (caused in large part by events in India at the time), and they urgently required government intervention to keep them in business. In order to save the British East India Company, Parliament passed the Tea Act of 1773, which effectively gave the British East India Company a monopoly on tea sold in the American colonies.
It was technically the Tea Act of 1773, and not just the taxes, which caused the Boston Tea Party-which quickly escalated into revolution after British retaliations.
In history classes in America, the first example of a monopoly that American children are introduced to is often the British East India Company after 1773. The British government effectively told the American colonists: "you will buy tea from the British East India Company in order to prevent it from going bankrupt". The American response was to destroy as much of it as possible to prevent its sale.
----
So in a sense, the American Revolution happened when it did because of Parliament's attempt to keep the British East India Company afloat.
The oversimplified don't cover this, but in 1780 the Indian Kingdom of Mysore declared war on the Britain and the British East India Company, ostensibly in support of the Americans and France. The second Anglo-Mysore war is a seminal moment in the history of warfare as it saw the modern use of rockets in warfare by Mysore. Those rockets became reworked a few years later became the famous and deadly congreve rocket used during the Napoleonic Wars. The Kingdom of Mysore was one of the first foreign powers the United States established diplomatic relations with after its independence, doing so before establishing relations with most European states at the time.
A lot of people don’t realize that when the British sent 25,000 troops to America in 1776, that was 1/4 of their entire army worldwide.
I'm from Massachusetts. We have a holiday called patriots day. I went to Lexington to the minute man trail and they did a reenactment of the battle. It was great.
i'm glad you guys got around to this one. i teach U.S. and World History to college freshmen and sophomores here in the U.S. and the kids really love reading The Ramayana, learning about Classical India, as well as Colonialism and the Partition. i adore Indian culture. yes, the parallels between out colonial experiences are interesting, yet rather distinct as well.
I believe I heard y'all say at one point you have a movie reaction channel, if so the movie "The Patriot" (2000) with Mel Gibson would be one to check out, as it involves an American family at the start of the Revolution, where the father wants peace but is forced to take a stand and the sufferings they endured at the hands of the British. It's loosely fact-based but does have some actual history and shows something of life back then and how the war was fought. It's a very good movie.
The oversimplified videos are the best videos to get to the heart of the matter of historical events. The sad thing is that once thrown out of most of North America, with the exclusion of what is now Canada, the British turned their attention to India, and that is a sad history.
The English were in India long before the USA was even thought of (I assume you are no relation to Myles Standish?)
@@nedeast6845 yes the British had some holdings in India they did not control most of it. After losing the American Colonies the British turned their attention to Africa and Asia. That’s when they started to impose more direct rule over Indians. And then especially later on during the American Civil War when the profitable British textile industry lost access to cheap Southern cotton. Britain began to take more cotton from India instead.
@@nedeast6845 also the First British colony in India was established 1608 in Surat. The first British colony established in North America was 1607 in Jamestown, Virginia. And that was the first successful one. The British colony at Roanoke, Virginia lasted 1585-1590 before it was abandoned.
erm i wouldnt say to india they put much more attention into china specifically hong kong
@@hitlerhongchrist2045 no they put a lot of interest in India. That’s where they grew all the cotton and then later Opium which was sold to China. Then when the opium war happened Britain took over Hong Kong.
I like this channel. Keep doing what you're doing.
Same here!!
Agreed!
Washington wrote in his final will that every single person indebted to his family through contract or slavery was to be released from that debt and made free. In an age where not only racism was INCREDIBLY common, but also the idea of slavery and it being a class of human (there were slaves of every race as were the rules of war before the modern age), he was an example for men to be better than the environment around them. Thats why i STILL consider him one if the best presidents in U.S. history dispite his rough beginning and history
Love it, can’t wait for part 2!
Mark 14:33. "Unknown fate", always gets me. As in, why is it that way? Hasn't anyone ever been curious enough to investigate that fate? Not even treasure seekers? 🤔
I am always impressed with your curiosity and excitement to learn. I would add that your humor is marvelous. Thank you for creating such a nice channel. I have finally subscribed and joined your Patreon. I am an admirer from the plains regions of the United States, small towns, lots of corn fields.
OverSimplified discussed Great Britain taxing the American colonies. I would like to elaborate on this principal cause of the American Revolution. According to the royal charters that established the colonies, Parliament did not have the right to tax them. Only the colonial legislatures were authorized to levy taxes. Parliament did have the authority to regulate trade, so perhaps a persuasive legal argument could have been made that taxes on trade goods should have been considered regulation of trade.
In lieu of taxes, Americans believed they were already paying for their defense by Britain. Under the system of mercantilism which required the colonies to sell their exports to only Britain and buy imported goods from only Britain, British merchants had a monopoly and were earning most of the profits. Also, like most agricultural societies back then, there was very little money in circulation in the colonies with which the taxes would need to have been paid. Much of the trade between Americans was one product or service for another. Some Americans at the time questioned the wisdom of the British refusing to listen to their grievances, because war meant the British would lose the profits on trade--either temporarily if they won the war or permanently if the colonies did.
Now I want to learn about India’s independence from Britain because I had no idea there was a massacre. The only few things I heard about it was that the Queen just let the colony go and the transition was peaceful. Crazy how it seems there’s misinformation on both sides so that Britain can hide from their atrocities.
Do you think Britain should pay reparations/compensation to USA and India?
Watch Sardar Udham movie, it will give you a good idea.
@@nedeast6845 I can’t answer for India, but for America yes. But specifically to Black Americans. I don’t need any because my family came much later. But Black Americans want reparations for slavery and I think they should be looking to the British Royal Family, not white Americans who had no control of the situation. It was the British who brought the slaves in and bought and sold the cotton for profit. Most slave owners were British loyalists during the revolutionary war and many went back after independence was won. In order to get support of independence from the south, freeing the slaves was delayed, and even after, cotton was still being shipped to Britain up until the Civil War. A lot of the royal family’s money came from slavery.
Another thing to consider is that many of the colonial families arrived in north America as a result of the Enclosures and Clearances. Where a few hundred thousand people in Britain were forced off their ancestral farmlands to be replaced by sheep.
I like your reactions, and the Oversimplified videos are good material.
Thumb Up #544! 👍. Thanks for the fun, digital video recording! 🎬 ✌️😎🖖
You Indians are so clever, putting the New World in the way ;-)
Those taxes are the reason Americans started drinking coffee and distilling whiskey.
I figured you guys would get it. India suffered a lot of the same British rule that Americans did, so you'd be able to see why they were so angry
The Boston tea party is the reason why America is a coffee country today. During the revolution it became a principle to not drink tea XD
In the late 18th century the American colonies were reportedly Britain's most most valuable
possession so their loss was a true disaster,
I had read differently, in Barbara Tuchman’s “The First Salute”, telling the story (among others) of the continental warship Andrew Doria (no relation to Andria), the first warship bearing the continental flag to be saluted by a foreign power, the Dutch, at Caribbean island of Sint Eustatious.
Oversimplified, the story she told was that the colonies were nice but the spice islands were better and with an ongoing war with France, the money from the islands were better. The colonies sent them tobacco and pine tar for sealing the hulls of the Royal Navy.
Oversimplified, it wasn’t till the Great War they really began to miss us.
@@marshalllindsay315 The colonies also sent rum manufactured from sugar from the British West Indies, whiskey, furs, lumber for ships and metals and were a large market for British manufactured goods including clothing, glass, paint, tea ,books, paper, sugar and a ton of other stuff
Yes you know so I took history class you know the early 60s that all the stuff was explained you know a chalkboard and through text but this simple little video really explains it in a nutshell is going on and I wanted to want I think I wear more from this that I didn’t my two years in high school history
Some teachers in America have classes where they want to teach about colonial and revolutionary times. The teachers start taxing the items in the class for no reason.The kids argue and say it’s not fair. The taxes go higher. Some students find a dean to complain to, some do nothing. Eventually the teachers user that experience to have the students understand how “taxation without representation “ can lead to a revolt.
Ok, but to make it really realistic once the kids have revolted against the teacher, they tax classroom items at an even higher rate, but everyone is too tired to put up a resistance against it.
The one error he makes is he says the issue was taxation. It was taxation without representation. Some taxes in England where they could vote for Parliament actually went DOWN. These taxes were the nose of the camel.
That map of England, Wales, and Scotland-- does no one else see a dude laughing?
If you guys are interested i recommend the mini series John Adams with paul giamatti. spans Adam's whole life from the boston massacre to his death but the first half of the series focuses on the revolution.
(I went back and watched this video that was released before I was subscribed) It is interesting to note that the majority of "Americans" at that time were basically 2nd and 3rd generation descendants of British settlers. That's one reason the colonists in America were not treated as harshly as the people of India were.
Another interesting thing to consider is that the British were unable to deploy all of their military strength against the American colonies bc they needed to maintain a strong military presence in their other colonies around the world, including India. So in a way you can say that India helped us gain our independence from Britain🫡
For a very long time the majority of Americans had roots in Europe. Some even had to fight against family. Especially so early in American history.
You guys should react to ‘how many countries England has ever invaded’ because I know that most Indians don’t learn about other parts of the British empire (generally) would love to see your reactions to just how many countries was ‘visited’ by Britain!
We were them- they were us- we sorted it out and remained family
PLEASE, if you want great insight into the US culture that most Americans don't know, search for "Thaddeus Russell Mises Caucus California Mixer" and skip to 33:00. It's a great talk about how lower class people changed our culture. His book is a must read.
A big reason why some colonists wanted to remain under British rule was because a lot of the colonists considered themselves to be English. Even if they were born in America, in the beginning a lot of people were still racially English, Scottish and Irish. Their entire law code and culture was basically English. That’s why they wanted representation in Parliament.
Happy 4th of July and 15th of August, **** the British! Just kidding haha. Well, half-kidding. 😎
There is another reason that the US revolted not listed here. After the French and Indian War most of France’s territory in North America was split between Spain and Britain. At this time the majority of people living in the British half lived East of the Appalachian mountains. After the war many Americans wanted to move into the wide open spaces on the western side of the mountains but the British wouldn’t allow it. This was because the Brit’s wanted to get this land exclusively for the Natives so that there wasn’t tension between them and the settlers. Just shows you how deep some topics go.
Here's something to demonstrate the conflicted mindset of the colonists at the time. There was a long standing tradition among the colonists to toast to the health of the king when people gathered. That tradition continued on both sides (including among the officers of the military and the militia) even during open warfare, until some of the rebels figured out how demoralizing it was to praise the enemy.
The colonists proudly proclaimed themselves to be "British-American" all the way up to the outbreak of hostilities. Fighting the British in war was extremely divisive. The distinction between the rebels and the loyalists caused a lot of internal conflict. Loyalists were treated poorly, which is why so many of them left, abandoning their homes and livelihoods and families.
They at first didn't consider independence because they considered themselves Brittish citizens. Unlike India where they were invading a completely different people and culture.
I really want oversimplified to make a video on Indian revolution and India's war for independence. But I'm also scared that our Indian brothers with get their sentiments hurt and protest against the best of history explanation.. wait.. aren't we used to it? 🤔🤔
My hometown of Knoxville is named after Henry Knox
It has been said that the Stamp Act was the most stupid law ever passed. It raised taxes on lawyers, who love to argue. Taxing playing cards raised taxes on sailors, who loved to fight. Taxing both groups at the same time was not going to end well.
Fun fact, the soldiers who were involved with the "Boston massacre" were found not guilty, and their defense lawyer was one of the founding fathers, and later became the 2nd U.S. President
It was deemed the mob attacked the troops first, which is valid reason to attack back
In my view the only thing that Americans hate more than fighting a war is losing a war. We have to be pushed pretty hard to piss us off but once we get mad we will not quit until we win. That was the biggest problem we had with Korea and Viet Nam. They were not lost by American troops but by American politicians.
Yesss oversimplified! Please react to more oversimplified videos, that are all great! My favorite being WW2 oversimplified 💪🏼
This is why sponsor spots don't work. She starts texting on her phone. He gets lost on what is going on. Most people leave before learning anything.
It makes sense that the American colonies didn't want independence right away, because they basically were British. The colonies were not not the indigenous people, but immigrants, mostly from Britain. Although many of these immigrants fled Britain, because of religious persecution, that was the biggest issue. They were still more culturally similar to Britain than any other country and Britain was the most powerful country in the world at that time, so it makes sense that they would want good relations, but the colonist went to America in hopes of gaining more freedom, so when Britain pushed to hard the colonies fought back like a cornered animal that had been beaten one too many times.
The colonies where inhabited by people from Britain, which is why they wanted to maintain their relationship..
Yeah. By the revolution a majority of the colonies had been born in America, or were even 2nd or 3rd generation born. They were still racially like the British and majority Protestant. The Americans viewed themselves as British but the British viewed the Americans as a bunch of backward yokels.
How people saw themselves really varied. Many people saw themselves as English people who lived in America. Many saw themselves as citizens of New Jersey or Massachusetts who had this lopsided relationship with Britain. Britain was all about "lets just send the army in and start bossing people around." (this a pattern that gets them into trouble later). Britain needed much more finesse if it was going to keep these colonies and it messed up. Frankly - it did not have a complex enough government in London to rule over 2.5 million people 6000 kilometers away.
Being a person who has some familiarity with world history (including Indian history)-
I immediately recognized the looks on your faces when you realized that British troops had open fire on civilians.
Time has smoothed some things over - after the revolution there were some very hard feelings on both sides -
for a number of decades.
True. The British and Americans recognized mutual economic interests very soon after the Revolution, but they were politically and militarily antagonistic. The U.S. and UK entered a period of detente in the middle 1800s, but they were not truly allies until the very late 1800s. Even in WWI, the U.S. refused to place its troops under British command, and the U.S. was not technically in a military alliance with Britain until we entered WWII in 1941.
Why did the Americans want to stay with Britain?
1) Most Americans identified as Englishmen even if they were not ethnically so. So they felt their own king was treating them badly not a foreign king.
2) Many of the older Americans had fought bravely for King and Country in the French Indian War (7 Years War). So going against this king (previous king’s grandson) felt like they would have wasted all that blood sweat and tears for nothing.
3) French Indian War devastated a lot of people. No one wanted to fight anyone. They just wanted to farm and drink tea and forget the horrors of war.
Hope this helps.
This is why Americans, culturally speaking, we *love* stories of underdog victories.
I'm guessing you wouldn't be so supportive of underdogs if the natives of America managed to get their country back!
@@tomnicholson2115 obviously not. It isn’t like the continent was a Garden of Eden before Europeans arrived.
@@JacobSantillan Well it looked more like a garden of Eden then than it does now! and if the native peoples did get it back and sent all the invaders (decendants) away, you'd probably be looking for another country to live in, and most European countries would soon be getting a bit overcrowded.
@@tomnicholson2115 Not going to happen. Conquest (and even reconquest) are stories as old as humanity. Europeans won. Those who hate that they did would rather guilt themselves into civilizational suicide because they can't be beat in a stand up fight. Maybe it works? Maybe it doesn't. But if you want the blood to keep flowing, keep it up. You may get your wish in a form you like the least.
@@JacobSantillan Not my wish, but I'd guess a lot of the indigenous people of America wouldn't mind you all (the invaders decendants) leaving! I guess what I'm getting at is that the Indian and American independence struggles aren't similar at all, basically the British never left America, just renamed themselves Americans and carried on with the business the British had started, leaving the Indian independence struggle the only successful native one.
Something not to be overlooked by non-Americans is that the Continental Army was primarily a collection of citizens who brought their own personal firearms to fight against the British. The "gun culture" always existed in America, so much so that the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution. The right to bear arms is a bulwark against a tyrannical government that may attempt to infringe on individual liberties.
Sultan Hybar Ali of Mysar fought for the Americans in the American Revolution.
Another good oversimplified video is the pig war
🔥part2
All The Story's From oversimplified a Good
We will fight any group.that theater freedom
It's one thing that India and the United States have in common is we both know what it's like to be oppressed by British rule.
You forget tho that Indians are native to India, whereas you are possibly decended from the invaders (well if your and American) that stole America from the natives of America!
Mark 15:31. And his innocent horse! 🐴🐎
The taxing and revolt was very similar in America and India. The difference was it was more like a civil war with the British fighting their own people in America. America had a big advantage that the Indians did not in that they knew exactly how and what the British would do...because they were also British. America ended up leaving one King George for President George...🤣
You have to watch Scott Horton's Enough Already playlist. It's about the US's terrorism wars and how they connect to each other. His book is a must read.
You need to be very careful about making analogies between the American and Indian colonial experiences, since they were very different. Mostly that is because most people in the American colonies were of the same culture, race and religion as the British, which was not the case in India. If the British treated Americans like second-class citizens, then they frequently treated Indians as third or fourth-class if not subhuman. Much of the American experience was about trying to convince the British that those in the colonies were the same as them, while there was little hope or chance of persuading the British of that in India.
I was going to say the same. Had the Boston Massacre been rioting Native Americans rather than white anglo-saxon protestors, there would have been a holy hell of a lot more than 5 killed.
Good point. The British did generally look down upon the American colonists, believing they were inferior in education, breeding and even stature and health, etc. (Even though by the time of the Revolution, there were multiple colleges and universities in the colonies, and the average American was probably healthier and wealthier, in terms of land, than the average Brit). But the true racism and discrimination shown to Indians was equaled in North America only by the treatment that all whites, British and American, showed toward the Native Americans and African Americans at that time.
@@johnalden5821 "The British did generally look down upon the American colonists, believing they were inferior in education, breeding and even stature and health"
Can you give contemporary sources for these assertions? Thanks
@@nedeast6845 literally read any biography from the time or history book. The British viewed the Americans as a bunch of yokels. All of Europe did. America was a largely rural, agricultural society in the beginning. Even after they achieved independence Britain and Europe viewed America with contempt.
@@nedeast6845 Georgia was created as a penal colony. After America won its independence, Britain founded Australia for the same purpose. Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Massachusetts were all created as a safe haven for religious minorities, groups who were often persecuted by the Anglican British government. Many Brits settling in America were not from London, but were rural folks from the north, which added to the "country bumpkin" mentality. Finally, America was looked upon as a place for a second chance at life, which to the aristocracy meant they were failures the first time. It's pretty safe and uncontroversial to say that Americans were looked upon by the ruling British class as second class citizens.
The USA & India have much in common in terms of independence from Britain. Only difference is India is a younger US
The natives in India took thier land 'back' from the British, but the natives in America never managed to get rid of the British at all because the British there just revolted from their home country called themselves Americans and carried on stealing native lands. So comparing Indian independence and American independence isn't really possible! unless you ignore the native peoples of America of course.
@@tomnicholson2115 The similarities are not on that single aspect. Rather in terms of government formation, economics, innovation, and so much more. You may have missed the forest for the tree,on this one 😁
The idea that Britain levied harsh taxes because they felt America owed it to them for protection from the French gets tossed around a lot by amateurs. Sure, Britain deserved some compensation they were owed but they were not intervening in some foreign conflict just to protect America; they were protecting their own territory (the colonies) against encroachment from their ancient rivals (the French). Britain would've intervened regardless if America needed protection or not. It was about safeguarding their interests from the start.
wow, thankfully, someone who has actually read history, and understands! I am afraid you are a lone voice blowing in the hyperbolic wind. The worst thing you can do is give kids a simplified version of history, and assume that every teacher tells the truth, and to rely upon the Indian and Hollywood movie churners to explain history to children. Although, I wonder, how many children really are interested in learning and challenging authorities and the set blurbs? How many children have the gumption or courage to write a different thesis to what the syllabus demands? I hope you like the historian David Starkey.
@@nedeast6845 dude you seriously need to get a life. The world isn’t one big conspiracy! The taxes were a major reason for the war but not the only reason, everyone knows that 🙄
Yeah but the British really didn’t defend America. It was the American militias who fought against the French and Indians in North America. The British used their army and navy to fight in Europe, Pacific, and India. The British weren’t just in debt because of the fighting in North America. They had huge debts for fighting all across the world. And the Americans were expect to pay more for that????
Americans and Indians have one great thing in common: getting free from Great Britain. :)
We also had to get rid of the Spanish and French lol
I recommend The Worst Internet Gun Fails by the channel Brandon Herrera
How is this one going to turn out?
may God bless you all
Sometimes mic is causing distortion
In the grand scheme of things Boston massacre wasn't actually that huge, it's just that the patriots used it has an excuse to fuel hatred against the brits.
Also most Americans at the times had English ancestry and thus were treated far better than the indians or the africans.
I highly suggest that you check out a channel by the name of "whatifalthist" he's an incredibly intelligent young man with a very practical view on history, and events. He makes some of the most interesting videos I've ever seen, his videos keep me thinking for days.
The British were also incredibly brutal towards the people of Ireland as well. The British government propped up British lords that they had put in power earlier. The Irish were made so poor under this system that the only food they could afford was potatoes. In 1844 the potato crop failed. The British parliament and monarchy moved fast to protect the interests of wealthy British lords in Ireland by passing the corn laws. Under these laws it was illegal for anyone to import grains to Ireland. The British royal navy even intercepted several ships carrying food donations from America heading to Ireland. Over the next six years more than 70% of the Irish people starved to death. Millions more Irish people were forced to sell everything they had for a ticket on a barely seaworthy deathtrap ship going to the US or Canada. The Irish called them coffin ships. My ancestors were among the Irish refugees who survived a voyage aboard a coffin ship and made it to New York.
Most of Ireland won its freedom from the British empire in 1921. But the British colonial holding in northern Ireland remains to this day. In the 1990s the British government gave actual licenses to kill to pro British fascist hooligans in northern Ireland. The British government provided them with intelligence and even paid them. No one in the British government has ever been charged with a crime for their involvement with unionist death squads. Fortunately the American and Irish governments were able to convince the British to accept the good Friday accords. In the peace deal the British were forced to accept self determination for northern Ireland. In the event of a referendum by a simple majority in favor of Irish reunification in northern Ireland the British will have to withdraw. The referendum might happen as soon as just two years from now. Polls show that a majority of people in northern Ireland now support reunification.
You should write Oversimplified a and encourage him to do a video about Indian independence. I'm sure it would be both funny and informative...
By the way, if you like Oversimplified, you should watch his video about the Emu War. That is his funniest one.
Columbus arrived in 1492. He didn't reach the mainland of America.
You guys have to react to oversimplified American civil war
What I can never understand about India is this: the Indian population in 1850 was about 175 million
The British population in India, including soldiers, in 1850 was at most about 100,000
So how did the British manage to subjugate and rule such a huge country with so few soldiers and people?
Were the indian people useless at fighting?
You're just going to have to research it; it's incredibly complicated. India didn't really exist back then, like it does today, as a nation state. It's a subcontinent with multiple ethnicities and a long history--like anywhere. The British didn't simply invade the continent and subjugate it. When the British established their first colony in India, It was ruled over by the Mughal Empire. The Mughals were brutal invaders from what is now Uzbekistan and they brought Islam to the subcontinent. When the British asked the Mughals to establish a trading colony, their presence was welcomed. The British weren't the only Europeans in India doing this. Some Indians saw life as better in the British colonies and invited the British to overthrow their Mughal overlords. Eventually, the British learned to use local politics to their advantage to then take control of the whole subcontinent.
But, take everything I said with a grain of salt and research it yourself. Like I said, it's extremally complicated and generalizations don't do the history justice. There were Indians who supported the British in India, and Indians in 1850 didn't think collectively and had varying opinions and interests. Remember that India as a nation is a modern concept created by the British, as a common enemy for their mistreatment of Indians during WWII, and the idea of a nation state is a more modern concept. Like, were the people of the Indus Valley Civilization Indians? How about the Indo-Europeans that conquered them? Were the Mughals Indian since they came from central Asia? Many Mughal generations lived and died in India for centuries. If they became Indian over time, when did it happen? Many British generations lived and died in India as well. Were they Indian? Race, ethnicity, and nationality are social constructs that don't exists physically, only in our imaginations.
Yes they were useless, Europeans have always been good at war lol
You both seemed surprised that the colonists wanted to reconcile with the British, and weren't thinking of independence at the beginning, but I think that points to the big difference between the American Revolution and the Indian Revolution. To the Americans at that time, the British were *them.* Most of the American colonists back then were from England or Scotland or Ireland or other areas of the British Isles. Most of them had family back there, even if they hadn't seen them in a long time (maybe a generation or two or three) and didn't expect to, because of the hardships of travelling across the ocean. But there were still roots in the British Isles. They thought of themselves as British, so this was a dispute with their own government, with the Crown their families had been loyal to for centuries. At first, they didn't want to split up, they just wanted the British Crown to treat them more fairly.
For India, in contrast, the British were foreign invaders. You're a completely separate people, with your own history and culture, and the British just came in and took over, as foreign rulers. So it makes perfect sense that Indians from that time would've been thinking of nothing but independence. It was your country from the start, and you wanted it back.
For us, though, it took quite a bit of abuse before we decided, "Okay, that's it, let's kick these guys out."
Because in India we where not white people America Australia Canada New Zealand was inhabited by Brtishers and other white people from Europe that made these lands there own home. It was the same race same ethnic white people from Europe same cvilization western cvilization Europe both where Christians etc. In India the local populations where brown South Asians In a Asian country India different race different ethnic background different cvilizations Asian cvilization.
@@TheAaronChand America Australia Canada and New Zealand were not inhabited by Britishers, they were invaded by Britishers! as was India, India is the only one of those countries that successfully kicked the British out, the natives of all the others still live in conquered countries.
Sweet beard bro
I dont think any conflict america has ever been involved in could be referred to as "cordial" lol
You've got to ask if taxation were the reason India and America had a revolt for independence, why is one a super power and the other an international joke of a country?
international joke with 4th most powerful military
3rd in space reserch, 1st in software development
the more i listen to americans the more i am convinced they are the most rude,thickheaded,self centred,ignorant and arrogant people
That's pretty rude, the natives of India did manage to gain their independence, the natives of America, well not so much! The stolen United States may have become a superpower but they will likely always be invaders decendents. Besides that tho the Americans did have a 200year headstart!
They fail to tell you, the English colonies had no money to pay a tax ... except by piracy against the Spanish colonies (pieces of eight). The main economy was as a terminus of the Triangle Trade ... slaves from Africa to the Caribbean, sugar from the Caribbean to Virginia, and tobacco from Virginia back to Britain. India had the stamp act tax (all official papers had to be provided by the government). Where did the Congress Party of India come from? ;-) India faced a British Empire even stronger than back then ;-( Why are Americans opposed to gun control?
Well today the gun control debate is a little silly. The Brit’s ain’t coming back anytime soon to take back over, no foreign country is. And anyway the US has a standing army now to defend itself. So those who want totally free access to guns are anti-government wack jobs
Columbus landed at
The Bahamas.
The British definitely underestimated the Americans. Looking back, of course they would just negotiate peacefully and keep the territory. The amazing thing is how a bunch of settlers on a largely unexplored new continent managed to defeat the greatest super power of the world at the time. The US is the best.
Well, you have a well trained army from an established empire on one side... And yeah, it's easy to underestimate the other side. There used to be fundraising for expeditions to the new world. Settlers were used to not having the next supply ship. The fend for yourself mentality started early. By the time of the revolution, it was deeply entrenched. It's why we have the right to bear arms. Should push come to shove, our civilians should be able to take on an army. And we did!
It's like with the Vietcong and NVA; use our knowledge of the land as the ultimate weapon against a superior army
@@alexiaNBC Same in Iraq. Kinda an awkward gentleman's agreement. We clearly had more power, but we were clearly on their turf. So you don't blow up my platoon and we just drive by without shooting. No clear end, that's for political figures to figure out. (Edit: Or to quote a German in WW1 on Christmas Eve; "English! If tomorrow you no shoot, we no shoot!")
I enjoyed your reaction and especially pointing out the similarities that the British empire imposed on all of its colonies. I have always had one issue with this video when he allows his objectivity to slip and feels compelled to add that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves while he penned that "All men are created equal". What this video fails to mention is that in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson completely condemns slavery "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobium of INFIDEL Powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another." Maybe for full disclosure the video maker should have mentioned that.
Please do oversimplified Civil War!!!
Do not underestimate how much money the rich Virginia planters owed to the British banks. A successful revolution would be nice way to avoid repayment. Also, after the Seven Years War the English did not want the colonist migrating west (they wanted to avoid a war with the Native Americans as well as the Spanish). Many colonists wanted to move west from the crowded and already spoken for east coast and were less concerned about a fight. Finally, the English had trained colonial troops and officers who formed the nucleus of the American army. Add to this what was stated here and you have powder ready and dry, all one needs is a match.
Virginia farmers had to still pay the British banks back after the war. It was a huge debate post-independence as the farmers wanted the government to pay the debt back
Just sounds exactly like our own Governments. What's the difference. Tax tax tax. Stamp taxes still!
No disrespect ...not trying to hit on your wife if she's your wife but OMG what a beautiful woman.
You guys should check out the boatlift of 9/11.
You guys HAVE to react to; The Stereotype Song; By Your Favorite Martian on TH-cam, it would be a great and very funny video to see! Love the content keep it up!
U just unlocked a junior high school memory
It's amazing how the involvement of the French is completely ignored and missed out of history. The French initiated and funded the revolutionary war and just like 1812 war used it as a diversionary tactic hoping to draw British troops away from Anglo-French hostilities.
A other strangely ignored fact is this was a civil war. The British against the British, where do you think these people came from? It was a separatist movement. It wasn't native Americans resisting, it was British people who had moved to America (or the 50,000+ deported criminals sold on the docks as Indentured servants) and wanted to break away. Of course history has ignored indentured servitude completely because it doesn't fit the current narrative.
In Junior High Schools across the United States the involvement of the French is taught well. We learn of Lafayette and in fact if you search his name, you will find at least nine towns in the United States named after him. That is not counting the many more streets and counties named for him as well. You also might want to learn about the Pulaski Legion and who led them if you believe everyone the British fought were other British. His memory is honored in many places as well.
It wasn't a Civil War as the United States was a COLONY, never granted the rights that British citizens had. Keep in mind, you responded on a channel run by kind folks from India. They will know their history and understand the difference between being a Colony or really British Citizens.
Very true! I'm actually a descendant of an indentured servant who sadly lost his life during King Philip's War in I think 1676. Both him and his his eldest son were both killed by native American war parties near Boston Massachusetts. Before his death my ancestor had finally worked off his debts and was released from servitude.
@@danielbruns1675 So you know who Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, comte de Rochambeau is?
Conversations that include sudden subject changes do not interest me. I appreciate that you have an interest in history. But you've got a problem with personal bias. I addressed your points. No dodging and ducking allowed.
@@danielbruns1675 Personal bias? Check the record, check history and set your own bias... But don't just dismiss it because you don't want to believe it or others to read it. This is a thread started by me, why do you feel the need to suppress the exchange?
I've posted historical fact not personal biased and it's been deleted twice.