Like you, I have ancestors who were Minutemen, served in various capacities in support of the American cause - and I may have one or more who were Loyalists and moved to Canada after Independence was won. So I like to think I would have followed those ancestors who supported independence but the me who lived then wouldn't be exactly like the me who lives now so it's hard to be definitive.
Your final insight is so incisive: that the versions of ourselves who might live in the past would not be the same people we are now. So many factors would have been different in our upbringings and experiences that it can be difficult to say where our loyalties might have fallen!
Born British, now an American... Back in the 70s, we were definitely taught to think of the two sides as "rebels" and "loyalists". The Americans were a rag-tag bunch of ungrateful upstart colonials who overthrew a legitimate government because they didn't want to pay their fair share of taxes or support the heroic army that was protecting them from the Indians, the French, and other marauders.
I have a somewhat different perspective since moving to the US 15 years ago. Definitely more along the lines of "both sides had a point, but on balance, America was much better off without the Brits."
Interesting to hear perspective from British history teaching - I don’t think it even came up in my education! At school or uni. Astonishing given its fundamental importance.
I do agree with your latter point, though: the prevalence of the idea that on balance America was better off without the Brits. Most of my knowledge comes from popular history/historical fiction, and that seems to be the prevailing opinion.
When I first got here, I found myself veering towards the traditional American narrative, then I read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn, which gave me a very different perspective. Most of the rebels weren't acting from ideological reasons, he suggests, just selfish ones.
It’s also interesting to consider that England was moving away from slavery and many of the people fighting for independence were slave owners who feared a loss of income. Separation from England bought another 75 years of the slave trade.
But, of course, that wasn’t the story sold to everyday people.
There have been many moments when I have wondered to myself if the revolutionary war was necessary. On one hand, England eventually recognized that keeping colonies was expensive and complicated. On the other, the US served as an example that democratic self-rule across a wide swath of land was possible.
I think it’s harder to revolt if you’re a white-collar or “intangible” worker (think: tech) and revolution means - what - not just a loss of income, health insurances, etc., but also you’re relatively without valuable skill without all of these institutions bolstering that skill’s value.
Sure, for the leaders, sedition and revolution in the 18th century meant death - but in a way I feel like revolution was a lot less risky to the common person than it is now.
In events today of civil disobedience, people line up to align themselves with the powers that be. Some are furious at the idea of people blocking traffic or doing anything disruptive and seem to think that the best rebellion exists in some mythical "perfect time and place" which makes its point whilst also being easy to ignore. The impression I've gotten recently is that far more people supported the crown and in fact, many of the rebels took up arms very reluctantly.
Like you, I have ancestors who were Minutemen, served in various capacities in support of the American cause - and I may have one or more who were Loyalists and moved to Canada after Independence was won. So I like to think I would have followed those ancestors who supported independence but the me who lived then wouldn't be exactly like the me who lives now so it's hard to be definitive.
Your final insight is so incisive: that the versions of ourselves who might live in the past would not be the same people we are now. So many factors would have been different in our upbringings and experiences that it can be difficult to say where our loyalties might have fallen!
Born British, now an American... Back in the 70s, we were definitely taught to think of the two sides as "rebels" and "loyalists". The Americans were a rag-tag bunch of ungrateful upstart colonials who overthrew a legitimate government because they didn't want to pay their fair share of taxes or support the heroic army that was protecting them from the Indians, the French, and other marauders.
I have a somewhat different perspective since moving to the US 15 years ago. Definitely more along the lines of "both sides had a point, but on balance, America was much better off without the Brits."
Interesting to hear perspective from British history teaching - I don’t think it even came up in my education! At school or uni. Astonishing given its fundamental importance.
I do agree with your latter point, though: the prevalence of the idea that on balance America was better off without the Brits. Most of my knowledge comes from popular history/historical fiction, and that seems to be the prevailing opinion.
When I first got here, I found myself veering towards the traditional American narrative, then I read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn, which gave me a very different perspective. Most of the rebels weren't acting from ideological reasons, he suggests, just selfish ones.
“A new sense of unity and energy” emerging in the U.S.?
It’s also interesting to consider that England was moving away from slavery and many of the people fighting for independence were slave owners who feared a loss of income. Separation from England bought another 75 years of the slave trade.
But, of course, that wasn’t the story sold to everyday people.
There have been many moments when I have wondered to myself if the revolutionary war was necessary. On one hand, England eventually recognized that keeping colonies was expensive and complicated. On the other, the US served as an example that democratic self-rule across a wide swath of land was possible.
I think it’s harder to revolt if you’re a white-collar or “intangible” worker (think: tech) and revolution means - what - not just a loss of income, health insurances, etc., but also you’re relatively without valuable skill without all of these institutions bolstering that skill’s value.
Sure, for the leaders, sedition and revolution in the 18th century meant death - but in a way I feel like revolution was a lot less risky to the common person than it is now.
In events today of civil disobedience, people line up to align themselves with the powers that be. Some are furious at the idea of people blocking traffic or doing anything disruptive and seem to think that the best rebellion exists in some mythical "perfect time and place" which makes its point whilst also being easy to ignore. The impression I've gotten recently is that far more people supported the crown and in fact, many of the rebels took up arms very reluctantly.