02:30:45 AM Jan 7th 2013
edited by Scardoll
edited by Scardoll
I just wanted to say, the summary is kinda annoying to read. It feels like a bunch of different people with different perspectives edited over each other and added clarifications in parenthesis, creating one big, incoherent mess. I understand the need to eliminate bias, but I think objective language and summation of events (Well, as objective as possible) would do that better than just listing everybody's little irk or niggle equally. Less is more, in this case.
01:49:08 AM Dec 4th 2011
The American Revolution is oddly underrepresented in American films, given its importance to Americans - although given that 20% of Hollywood's profits come from cinemas in the commonwealth - including Monarcho-Loyalist Canada - perhaps it's just good business not to produce films where the non-American British are baddies..... I always figured it had more to do with Values Dissonance. American slaves were treated very similar to eastern European peasantry at the time and Indians were treated similar to gypsies. In Britian and ancient greece and rome it was the powerful landowners and not the majority of the population who held the power, despite being major milestones in the evolution of democracy.
07:50:39 AM Nov 24th 2011
"Roughly a third of colonists eventually came to feel this was justified; roughly a fifth never did" And the other 8/15 were undecided?
03:09:16 PM May 22nd 2010
This article really deserves a better summary; I'd take a stab at it but I don't feel my historical knowledge is up to the task.
12:16:49 AM Aug 7th 2010
I know that most visitors to tvtropes are americans, but this page needs at least SOME summary; the american revolution may be common knowledge to some but the rest of the anglosphere aren't exactly taught about it in school. I came to this page specifically to learn a bit more about the war of independence and yet again ive been greeted with huge based bias
01:56:25 PM Aug 17th 2011
I've given it a once-over from my commonwealth education. There's less bias now, I think the summary will suffice.
02:18:42 PM Aug 17th 2011
Could do with a bit more on France's role in creating America really.
02:11:33 PM Aug 20th 2011
Agreed. But how do we convey the enormous expense of it all through a straight-up narrative? I'll tack a bit on at the end, but that probably won't cut it.
05:06:14 PM Aug 21st 2011
Not saying who is who in the image. That would defeat the purpose. This has really become my pet page, hasn't it...?
05:24:03 PM Sep 23rd 2011
I'm sorry, but this page has gone the other way in terms of bias, I cannot read three lines of text without seeing some snide little comment about how the only realson American's wanted Independace was greed and they just took up the mantle of Liberty to satisfy said greed. Personal opinions of how East India Trading Company tea was "better quality". Anti Americanism is so apparent in this page its a wonder the writer can stomach typing the name of the page.
03:31:55 PM Oct 27th 2011
Agreed. This sounds like it was written by Howard Zinn in collaboration with Mrs. Trollope and George III.
07:57:50 AM Nov 24th 2011
edited by DaibhidC
edited by DaibhidC
It's also got a bit of a monarchist slant that would raise eyebrows with many British historians.
01:56:11 AM Dec 4th 2011
I think it would be good for Americans to learn some humility starting with their own history. On the other hand giving the perspectives of all people involved is a good thing too. Many times one side is never completely right and the other side completely wrong. Rather it's a mix of follies on both sides that contributed to the problem. The British wanted the colonies to help out and pay for their own defense and the colonies wanted representation in parliament so they could feel more like they were bearing the burden for the good of the crown.
11:32:46 PM Mar 27th 2012
If they had been given M Ps, the whole thing probably would've been avoided. The British crown had a point in wanting Americans to pay for their own defense, but it would've been too inconvenient to add around 25 M Ps? Americans paid taxes to their own colonial governments and in turn voted on local representation. Many Americans regarded themselves as British citizens, so why no M Ps for an increased tax burden? That's really what it boiled down to. The British crown was unwilling to grant colonial citizens representation in the House of Commons.
06:12:26 AM Jun 5th 2012
Actually, Adams completely derided the notion of representation in Parliament, considering that it wouldn't help at all if the people 6 months news away with no real idea of what's going on just happened to be from the colonies.
06:15:47 PM Sep 3rd 2012
JATE, There is a difference in pointing out mistakes American made in the past to get them to learn from it and attacking and showing as much contempt in the action as many edits to this page have had. There is also nothing wrong with being proud of your countries past when there is a legitimate reason to be proud. Such as creating a government for themselves and not falling apart in the process.