r/worldnews Sep 22 '22 Silver 2 Helpful 4 Wholesome 7 All-Seeing Upvote 2 Take My Energy 1 Take My Power 1

Zelenskyy calls on Russians to 'protest' and 'fight back' against Putin's draft if they 'want to survive' Russia/Ukraine

[deleted]

60.3k Upvotes

View all comments

Show parent comments

21

u/jisaacs1207 Sep 23 '22

Isn’t it agreed that the French and Indian War was just a proxy environment of the Seven Years War, which means that it really wouldn’t have happened without the monarchy?

3

u/Riothegod1 Sep 23 '22

Yep, and with the resulting Royal Proclamation it was decreed “The American Indian is to go unmolested”. This meant the 13 colonies had nothing to show for the war effort. And that’s not getting into the turmoil caused by restoring Quebec language and religious rights to secure their loyalty. Especially since winning meant Canada had to take on all the loyalists fleeing country.

5

u/Aschrod1 Sep 23 '22

Ehhhh… but why was there conflict there in the first place and what did the Americans do after gaining independence? The colonial militia was on board and the promise of further expansion is a big motivator. Anecdotally, GW the great was a surveyor and land speculator. It’s possible part of the impetus for revolt was also that Indian territory was off limits after the 7 years war. The same people stayed in power after the revolt too. The colonists were uh… real bad people as a collective who really liked land. So we can wink and say fuck you George, but it was also what we showed we wanted also. 🤷🏼‍♂️

2

u/jisaacs1207 Sep 23 '22

The Proclamation of 1763 was unpopular, for sure, but in terms of the reason for the French and Indian War-it was kind of just an extension of the Seven Years War. It’s really only named the French and Indian War in American history books, from my understanding, because it is only seen as a different thing by Americans. It, otherwise, is just another venue of a global conflict.

Realistically, having to pay for an imposed war after generations of salutary neglect would be enough to rattle anyone-even today.

2

u/Aschrod1 Sep 23 '22

Oh for sure, but blaming it completely on the Master is not the same as admitting the subject was complacent as well. The reasons the colonists fought in the war are the same reasons the Americans bought, stole and fucked across a continent that will take countless generations to settle completely in a little under 100 years, 200 if you want permanent US. The war would have happened Monarch or no. At that time? Probably not. But it’s foolish to just say British did it. Global conflict. 🤷🏼‍♂️ People don’t work that way.

2

u/jisaacs1207 Sep 23 '22

Are you arguing that the 7YW didn’t come first, that it wasn’t a global conflict, or that the F&IW wasn’t just one part of it?

There were something like 3-4 continents involved in the 7YW with more than a dozen venues-the Americas were just one. To put this in to perspective, the 7YW was as close to a world war that the 1700s could get-we don’t refer to WW theaters as separate wars but as campaigns.

Anyways, outside of arguing wording, it’s the revocation of the unofficial salutary neglect that was the issue. As you had said, generations of colonists became complacent in that they weren’t going to be ruled like the Spanish ruled their colonies. The colonists were neglected in pretty much every way prior, and then had a fight brought to their doorstep that they were then told to pay for.

The situation was jarring.

1

u/Aschrod1 Sep 23 '22

Shapiro, let’s return to the actual context and scope of the claims I made. You drifted way off topic my friend. The colonists revolted on the pretext of grievances, a chief one was being unfairly taxed as subjects of a King that neglected their desires and gave them limited representation. A chief driver of debt was subsidies and direct war material spend related to the 7 Years War. Meanwhile they (the colonists) payed far less in tax than their equivalents in Britain and a disproportionate amount of treasure was spent on a war the colonists would have sought and fought anyway at some point. The colonists involvement and the results of their involvement and willingness to participate as well as the British paying exhorbinant sums to defend a backwater. I take great care to say that the “British did it”. Is a very poor argument to such a complex situation. While I laud your rhetoric, calm down dude. It’s ok to ask questions and pursue a thread, but that went off on a tangent that, while I’m equipped to talk about, is not in context.🤣

1

u/rainbowjesus42 Sep 23 '22

Also didn't GW basically kick it off by illegally starting shit over the Ohio Valley?