Very OT but of Interest to the Likes that Hang Here

[Webstral]

On top of my other projects, Im trying to start a blog on rebirthing the militia (a real militia) in the US. One of the chief obstacles I have encountered during discussions with others elsewhere is the fervent belief that during the American Revolution militias simply sprang into being almost spontaneously. Then, without any proper training, these militias took to the field and beat the British. The non-Americans here may not be aware of the hold the concept of untrained, undisciplined, and poorly armed mobs beating the British by hiding behind rocks and trees commands the American psyche. The military folks here know perfectly well that discipline and combat effectiveness are the products of training, not wishful thinking. Even the non-military folks who come here understand that undisciplined and untrained troops are unlikely to make a good showing of themselves against disciplined and trained troops. I appreciate this crew for that.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

This is something that has definitely been discussed outside of American circles but not necessarily as any sort of academic analysis and as far as I am aware, not as any in-depth study on the American psyche.

It's been more a case of questions such as: -
Do the Americans really not understand that it was not "Americans" fighting the British but that it was British colonists fighting against British authority
Do they not understand that the militias were probably taught how to fight by the British Army so that they could defend against the indigenous peoples and also potential invasions from Britain's European rivals
Do they not get taught that their famous generals were officers in the British military before they were in the Colonial army
Do they not learn enough history to know that the British were also fighting Spain and France at the same time as they were fighting the American colonies
Do they not know that the war in the American colonies was an unpopular war in Britain and many British officers felt that they should not be making war on their colonial cousins but should be expending all their efforts against Spain/France etc. etc.
Do the Americans not realize that they owe the French a debt of gratitude for all the assistance that France gave them and that without the Louisiana Purchase they would not exist in the form they are today
Do they not know that the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France to the American people and had its origin in a similar project intended to stand at the entrance to the Suez Canal in imitation of the Colossus of Rhodes
Do they not get taught that France left NATO because DeGaulle felt Europe had been betrayed by the USA after JFK's declaration that the US would no longer consider using nuclear weapons as a first option if the USSR invaded Europe and that this action has influenced French foreign policy ever since
Do they not realize that all their "cheese eating surrender monkey" comments just serve to reinforce the French belief of US betrayal

I'm hoping my comments are not taken the wrong way as I intend no insult. It appears to many of us outsiders that US citizens can get very emotional when their country is discussed and often miss the point of what was being discussed because they perceive attacks where none were intended.

I've had discussions with some friends who were either studying or lecturing at universities about the myth-making of America but the focus has been more on how the Wild West period has made such an impact given that it lasted a relatively short time. They found it interesting that relatively small pieces of US history were taken and given far more weight than they probably should have. They were also interested in the notion that not many Americans understood just how well the USA emerged from WW2 - going from the Great Depression into a period of massive manufacturing and then the liberties derived from the Marshall Plan boosted the US economy far beyond what anyone had projected and gave the USA the base for it's economic dominance of the world. It appears to us that none of this is given much relevance in US education.

We've also applied this same amateur examination to the grip that superheros have on the American psyche and from this discussions we've reached a conclusion that the USA has been trying to create it's own mythology, particularly since the 1930s. Whether this conclusion is correct or not requires further discussion but the underlying theme to us appears to be that the US hero worships the colonial militias, cowboys and superheros as something of a replacement for not having the history and traditions of their indigenous, European and Asian forebears.

It's been interesting trying to examine how the USA perceives itself. As an outsider to US culture, it's a little surprising to see that the USA has taken ownership of the terms "America" and "American" to refer exclusively to them because in some countries we were taught that America refers to the two continents. The inference was that anyone from North or South America was an American just like anyone from France or Poland or Greece was a European and anyone from China or Thailand or Indonesia was Asian.

Again, I intend no offence to anyone from the USA, I'm trying to show how some of us outsiders perceive the US and how we see the US perceiving itself.

[kato13]

I think i disagree with the premise that Americans think that "'Poof' we created a resistance and won the war".

I can only speak of myself and the people I am exposed to, but our perception is that there were many failures in the beginning and that tenacity, adaptability and yes European assistance were responsible for the outcome.

My earliest exposure to the history of the revolution was probably the schoolhouse rock episodes on the subject. (On recollection it may have been the "Brady Bunch" episode on Benedict Arnold.)
School House rock episode (Shot heard round the world)

(every child my age probably saw this dozens of times during Saturday morning cartoons)

I know before I started elementary school I was exposed to the facts that

• The colonists lost the first few battles
• Initially they were extremely underprepared (Valley forge and so little ammo that "Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes")
• Things were going so badly at the beginning that one of our Generals defected (Benedict Arnold)
• The French and Spanish were of great assistance.

When I recall second grade (when we first covered American history) the facts that stick with me are balanced between hardships and failure, and tenacity and adaptability. On the one hand I remember vividly the descriptions of the blackened gangrenous limbs of Valley forge, but on the other hand the visions of men hiding behind rocks and shooting the British in formation was first proposed here.

As I progressed through my urban public school education I was exposed to the concepts that SSC mentioned in his post above except the one about DeGaulle. (Whom I still don't like or respect) I probably was exposed to a little more Revolutionary history than most as my highschool was named for a foreign general who assisted during the revolution (Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben)


As I said before I can only speak to my own circle of contacts, but I personally don't believe such perceptions are close to being universally held.

[kato13]

It's been interesting trying to examine how the USA perceives itself. As an outsider to US culture, it's a little surprising to see that the USA has taken ownership of the terms "America" and "American" to refer exclusively to them because in some countries we were taught that America refers to the two continents. The inference was that anyone from North or South America was an American just like anyone from France or Poland or Greece was a European and anyone from China or Thailand or Indonesia was Asian.

Did a little research and "Americans" falls back to the British even before the US revolution. It is a truncation of "American Colonists".

[Raellus]

As someone who currently teaches U.S. history (advanced placement and "standard") in an American public high school, I think that I'm pretty well qualified to comment on what American high school students are taught. I'd like to respond to all of SSC's questions but I'm a bit pressed for time. I'm on my 30 minute lunch break right now but I will respond point by point when I get home this evening.

What students remember into adulthood is an open question. Unfortunately, not everything students are taught necessarily "sticks". I'd hazzard to guess that adults in other countries are similarly ignorant about their "true" history and probably also fall back on convenient, oft-repeated myths or half-truths. To imply that Americans are particularly ignorant and/or misinformed about their history probably isn't very fair.

As to proper militias in the U.S., I think the American Civil War pretty much sank that ship. The federal government probably doesn't like the idea of a well-armed paramilitary force not subject to strict federal government oversight and control. They'd probably tell you that the National Guard serves that purpose anyway. Proponents for a "well-regulated" militia would tell you that strict federal oversight and control would defeat the purpose of having militias. I'm not sure either side really understood what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights.

[CDAT]

I can only talk for myself and a bit the people that I talk with locally, but I find this interesting, and talk to people about it often.

It's been more a case of questions such as: -
Do the Americans really not understand that it was not "Americans" fighting the British but that it was British colonists fighting against British authority

I would have to say most "Americans" that I talk with do not understand this, on the surface they do but not really. I was talking about it the other day with my coworkers talking about the first civil war we had here and no one could understand tell I broke it down that we were all British citizens and a civil war is when you fight against you own people.

Do they not understand that the militias were probably taught how to fight by the British Army so that they could defend against the indigenous peoples and also potential invasions from Britain's European rivals

I may be wrong but my understanding is that to some extent that is correct but, mostly it is for the most part our real training came from the Prussians and French, they are what took our poorly equipped, and trained army and made it into something that could almost be call a real army.

Do they not get taught that their famous generals were officers in the British military before they were in the Colonial army

I think most do not understand this, as the impression that I get is most do not understand that most of the colonists did not plan to form their own country and thought of them self as British.

Do they not learn enough history to know that the British were also fighting Spain and France at the same time as they were fighting the American colonies

Depending on the school and the student. I took a US Wars of the 20th century class in college back in 95 or so and when we got to Desert Storm we had a very large part of the class ask what this was about, as they had never heard about it. They had never heard about Desert Storm, Desert Shield, or even the Persian Gulf War. It boggles my mind how you cannot know that it even happened for a war that every one of them was alive for and almost all of them were in high school when it happened. But as it did not involve them they did not care or pay attention is my guess.

Do they not know that the war in the American colonies was an unpopular war in Britain and many British officers felt that they should not be making war on their colonial cousins but should be expending all their efforts against Spain/France etc. etc.

The impression that I get is that most think we thought of our self as Americans even before the country was.

Do the Americans not realize that they owe the French a debt of gratitude for all the assistance that France gave them and that without the Louisiana Purchase they would not exist in the form they are today

I think that a lot of the time it is lost how much we owe the French for our independence. As for the Louisiana Purchase there are lots of things that if they happened different we would not be the same country we are today (Texas/Mexico, Alaska/Russia), so not sure that really fits.

Do they not know that the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France to the American people and had its origin in a similar project intended to stand at the entrance to the Suez Canal in imitation of the Colossus of Rhodes

I think that most know that the French gave it to us, but not why. I did not know about the plans for the Suez Canal.

Do they not get taught that France left NATO because DeGaulle felt Europe had been betrayed by the USA after JFK's declaration that the US would no longer consider using nuclear weapons as a first option if the USSR invaded Europe and that this action has influenced French foreign policy ever since

Again I if you are not careful you learn something new every day.

Do they not realize that all their "cheese eating surrender monkey" comments just serve to reinforce the French belief of US betrayal

I am sure that is 100% correct but they make it so hard sometimes. Again I am sure that all countries but head from time to time, but it seems that we (the Americans and French) are at odds with each other more than with any of our other allies.

I'm hoping my comments are not taken the wrong way as I intend no insult. It appears to many of us outsiders that US citizens can get very emotional when their country is discussed and often miss the point of what was being discussed because they perceive attacks where none were intended.

I take no insult from anything that was said, as I look at it as either it is true or a valid opinion, presented in a civil way.

I've had discussions with some friends who were either studying or lecturing at universities about the myth-making of America but the focus has been more on how the Wild West period has made such an impact given that it lasted a relatively short time. They found it interesting that relatively small pieces of US history were taken and given far more weight than they probably should have.

I see it in two parts, first it is part of what made our country what we are today, and second as we are a country without a long and deep history it is one of the things that sets us apart from most other countries.

It's been interesting trying to examine how the USA perceives itself. As an outsider to US culture, it's a little surprising to see that the USA has taken ownership of the terms "America" and "American" to refer exclusively to them because in some countries we were taught that America refers to the two continents. The inference was that anyone from North or South America was an American just like anyone from France or Poland or Greece was a European and anyone from China or Thailand or Indonesia was Asian.

I wonder how much of that has to do with the fact that North and South America in a lot of ways do so little together, also being late to the world stage we do not really have the long and deep history that a lot of the other players on the world stage have. Now that is not to say that there is not long and deep history in any of the countries, but none of them that I know of are the same country or even an off shoot country of the history, it is now for lack of a better way of putting it a history footnote for the country, rather than national identity. Using an example the Aztec very old, very rich history but they are not the nation. France and England are the same country that they have been for a long time, but at the same time they are not, neither is a true monarchy anymore but the history is still there and the lines can be traced back to their foundation.

[.45cultist]

On top of my other projects, Im trying to start a blog on rebirthing the militia (a real militia) in the US. One of the chief obstacles I have encountered during discussions with others elsewhere is the fervent belief that during the American Revolution militias simply sprang into being almost spontaneously. Then, without any proper training, these militias took to the field and beat the British. The non-Americans here may not be aware of the hold the concept of untrained, undisciplined, and poorly armed mobs beating the British by hiding behind rocks and trees commands the American psyche. The military folks here know perfectly well that discipline and combat effectiveness are the products of training, not wishful thinking. Even the non-military folks who come here understand that undisciplined and untrained troops are unlikely to make a good showing of themselves against disciplined and trained troops. I appreciate this crew for that.

Evidently reading history and common sense aren't prevailing. Those men practiced to repel Indians and French incursions. At least until the regular forces arrived. The training might not have been for European style war, but one needed a plan for counter insurgency (like "King Phillip's War-I forgot the chief's real name) and the like.

[Raellus]

Once again, it's not really fair to generalize about Americans' accurate knowledge and understanding (or lack thereof) of their own history from such a small sample size and anecdotal evidence, especially because the latter is inherently subjective. I'm sure that if I surveyed a couple dozen Australians about their own history, or asked my American friend who lives there what Australians do and don't know, I could uncover plenty of errors and misconceptions too.

Do the Americans really not understand that it was not "Americans" fighting the British but that it was British colonists fighting against British authority

By 1776, it can be argued that "Americans" were a thing. Yes, the colonies were legally subject to the crown of England, but they had no direct representation in Parliament (a major complaint in the Declaration of Independence), no landed aristocracy, and were linguistically and more ethnically diverse than their cousins back in England. A vast majority of "Americans" had been born in the colonies and very few of them had ever set foot on English (the Isles) soil. Although most were considered British citizens at the time due to fairly liberal immigration law, "Americans" included significant numbers of Irish, Germans, and Dutch, quite a few of whom didn't even speak the King's English yet. There was no state church in the colonies and one could find significant numbers of Puritans, Calvinists, and Quakers here. In addition, per capita land ownership was much more widespread in the colonies, meaning that more people could participate in local government here than back "home" in England. These are significant differences and contributed to an increasingly distinct self-identity.

Although many colonists still considered themselves English subjects in 1776- at least legally speaking- most of them also knew by then that they were very different, socially, economically, and culturally, than their island brethren.

Do they not understand that the militias were probably taught how to fight by the British Army so that they could defend against the indigenous peoples and also potential invasions from Britain's European rivals

Not so. British officers posted to the colonies during the French & Indian War (Seven Years War) frequently commented on how unlike their own troops colonial militias were, and vice-versa. Fighting in the wilderness of North America was very different than close order drill on the open plains of western Europe- wilderness fighting was not taught to the colonial militias by British regulars; it was gleaned from generations of conflict with Native Americans (Amerindians, if you will). During the half-dozen or so wars of empire during the 17th and 18th centuries (but especially during the French & Indian War), colonial fighters were appalled at the harsh discipline meted out by British officers, and by rank based on station of birth. They were quite used to electing their own officers or simply going home if they didn't like the way a campaign was being run. By the same token, many British officers viewed the colonial militiamen as being undisciplined ruffians, good for little else besides manual labor.

If you're referring to the Continental Army of the American Revolution, then yes, many colonial officers were blooded while serving alongside the British, but most did so as part of the militia. However, only a very few ever served in the British regulars. In addition, much of the experience in European-style warfare was provided by non-British sources (Lafayette, Pulaski, and Von Steuben being the most famous examples).

Do they not learn enough history to know that the British were also fighting Spain and France at the same time as they were fighting the American colonies

Many do know this. I make it a point of emphasis. Without the French, the Revolutionary War would have been a much more drawn-out affair; perhaps it would have been unsuccessful. To be fair though, the French did not provide direct military support until after the Continental army won the battle of Saratoga on its own, proving to the French that the British-American colonies had a chance of succeeding in their rebellion. After losing much of its own colonial territory in the French and Indian War, the French did not want to risk additional losses by backing a losing team. It was definitely a team-effort and I teach my students this.

Do they not know that the war in the American colonies was an unpopular war in Britain and many British officers felt that they should not be making war on their colonial cousins but should be expending all their efforts against Spain/France etc. etc.

This isn't a point of emphasis in standard courses, but AP students could probably discuss British [Whig] support for the colonists in Parliament. The vocal minority not withstanding, the majority in Parliament rebuffed the Colonists demands for redress of the representation question as early as 1766 with the Declaratory Act.

Do the Americans not realize that they owe the French a debt of gratitude for all the assistance that France gave them and that without the Louisiana Purchase they would not exist in the form they are today

Absolutely, but this doesn't make them any more pro-French. It's not like the Louisiana Territory was a gift- if Napoleon hadn't been hard up for cash and already on his heels in the Caribbean (thanks, Toussaint Louverture!), it's unlikely that the deal would have been made. This is veering into alternative history a bit, but it would have likely been taken by force, like Mexican territory was, at a later date. As the British found out in 1776 and 1812, the American colonies were just too large and too distant to control from across an ocean (a key argument made by British national Thomas Paine in his famous pro-independence pamphlet, Common Sense).

Do they not know that the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France to the American people and had its origin in a similar project intended to stand at the entrance to the Suez Canal in imitation of the Colossus of Rhodes

Yes to the former, probably not to the latter.

Do they not get taught that France left NATO because DeGaulle felt Europe had been betrayed by the USA after JFK's declaration that the US would no longer consider using nuclear weapons as a first option if the USSR invaded Europe and that this action has influenced French foreign policy ever since

No. But should they DeGaulle had lots of problems with the U.S. and had always been a particularly troublesome ally- just ask Churchill! The reason you cited was largely a fait accompli and if it hadn't been that, it would have been something else. Much of France's post-WWII foreign policy was based on maintaining its own diminishing hold on its crumbling foreign empire.

Do they not realize that all their "cheese eating surrender monkey" comments just serve to reinforce the French belief of US betrayal

No, but they should. It's unfortunate. At the same time, I think some Americans feel that the French have been ungrateful for the assistance the U.S. provided them in the two World Wars. This sentiment surely drives a lot of the France bashing that goes on today, albeit unfairly.

They were also interested in the notion that not many Americans understood just how well the USA emerged from WW2 - going from the Great Depression into a period of massive manufacturing and then the liberties derived from the Marshall Plan boosted the US economy far beyond what anyone had projected and gave the USA the base for it's economic dominance of the world. It appears to us that none of this is given much relevance in US education.

My colleagues and I make all of these points of emphasis. Our state and national history standards do too.

It's been interesting trying to examine how the USA perceives itself. As an outsider to US culture, it's a little surprising to see that the USA has taken ownership of the terms "America" and "American" to refer exclusively to them because in some countries we were taught that America refers to the two continents. The inference was that anyone from North or South America was an American just like anyone from France or Poland or Greece was a European and anyone from China or Thailand or Indonesia was Asian.

No arrogance or offense is intended. It's just easier to say "I'm an American" than it is "I'm a Citizen of the United States of [North] America". It's an abbreviation, if you will.

I hope that this was enlightening and not offensive. I just felt that I needed to set the record straight.

[Raellus]

(like "King Phillip's War-I forgot the chief's real name) and the like.

Metacom.

[Adm.Lee]

Raellus has covered just about everything I might have said, with greater authority as a history teacher.

I would only add the following: I was unaware, or had forgotten, that DeGaulle's withdrawal from NATO was linked to a policy statement from JFK. Can you give a source for this Effectively removing US nukes from the defense of NATO sounds like something that would have stood out.

Do they not realize that all their "cheese eating surrender monkey" comments just serve to reinforce the French belief of US betrayal

I will add that some things I've read that were written in the '60s and '70s indicate that American disdain for France and its warmaking capabilities go back to about this time. France's withdrawal from NATO and determination to act as another superpower, were seen as a betrayal.

Long-standing myths about French rudeness to visitors were linked to ingratitude for being rescued/liberated in WW1 and WW2.

[Targan]

I see it in two parts, first it is part of what made our country what we are today, and second as we are a country without a long and deep history it is one of the things that sets us apart from most other countries.

Lemme tell ya about living in a country without a long and deep history LOL! Or rather, a long and deep non-indigenous history. The Australian Aborigines were here for 50,000 years or more before whites got here, but most white Australians have little interest in that part of Australia's history. Ironically it was Britain's loss of the American colonies that prompted Britain to colonise Australia.

[Targan]

It's a couple of decades since my high school post-WWII history classes but hey, that's what Wikipedia is for right

Foreign policy of the John F. Kennedy administration

I think it's fair to say that the Kennedy Administration's relationship with France was complicated.

France was the first country Kennedy visited as President. He arrived to Paris with his wife Jacqueline Kennedy on May 31, 1961. Charles De Gaulle, known for his preference to speak French to foreign guests, greeted Kennedy in English. Jacqueline, who in turn spoke fluent French, intrigued the French press, which called her the "queen".

The French nuclear program was pivotal in De Gaulle's aim of restoring France's international reputation. Kennedy administration had a firm commitment to the nuclear nonproliferation. In a letter to Harold Macmillan Kennedy wrote: "After careful review of the problem, I have to come to the conclusion that it would be undesirable to assist France's efforts to create a nuclear weapons capability". Kennedy was particularly dissatisfied with De Gaulle's intentions to assist West Germany in developing nuclear weapons.

[Webstral]

I'd love to join in, but I'm not skilled at keeping my commentary apolitical on topics such as these. All I really wanted to say was that I appreciate you guys for knowing without my saying so that untrained and undisciplined troops are highly unlikely to succeed against trained and disciplined counterparts.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Hey all, thanks for the dissection/discussion of those topics I raised and giving me the leeway to raise them without offending you all! However I would point out that this was not about being unfair by making generalizations about Americans, the topics I raised have all been questions I have heard asked by non-Americans in Australasia and Europe who have not necessarily known the American viewpoint.

I do actually believe that much of the "apparent" ignorance of US citizens is a relatively recent phenomena and that it is linked to the differences in the education system of the various States (I'm thinking particularly of outcomes based education and how much of a penalty it can apply to schools that don't perform)

I also believe that it doesn't just apply to the US because it appears to me and some of my friends (wandering a little off topic here) that the last 30 years or so in the 1st and 2nd World has seen a greater emphasis on trivial information or information of no real import and a revision of various aspects of history to make them "nicer" for modern sensibilities or to overly apologize for past events that none of us were alive to witness let alone control. Particularly in the last two decades there seems to be an emphasis on judging things in the past without any context and sometimes without any actual understanding of the situation or events.

American entertainment dominates the English speaking world so those of us who are not American have a lot of exposure to America whereas the reverse is not so.
It's somewhat startling to be asked by North Americans (yeah you Canadians have been guilty of this too!) about why I speak such good English or do we have natural disasters in Australia or do we have telephones or do we have electricity, (either myself or members of my family have been asked all of these questions).
However, it's not necessarily something that cannot be understood as to why a North American would be asking - in most cases they simply haven't had the exposure to other cultures that we outsiders have had to US culture and that's a function of media/entertainment as much as it is the education system.

As for De Gaulle, I'm not sure I would ever trust the man considering the friendly relations he and other Free French leaders maintained with the leaders of the Vichy French. I get the impression that De Gaulle felt that the French were "entitled" to regain the past glories of Napoleon Bonaparte irrespective of the fact that the end of WW2 pretty much spelt the end of empire building for Western Europe.

As for Webstral's original point, it does appear to some of us outsiders that some modern militias have deliberately misconstrued the concept of the colonial militia to serve their own selfish (and even sometimes paranoid) ends.
The injustices they claim they are trying to protect themselves from seem to happen in any nation with a large population and a large bureaucracy. Unfortunately it appears that the media places such an emphasis on the fringe groups that any legitimate militia movement gets marginalized as not newsworthy.
I would like to ask though, would not the various State National Guards be the legitimate inheritors to the original militias I know they are heavily "federalized" but weren't they set up as a counter to a federal military trying to enforce federal policy onto the states

[kato13]

Particularly in the last two decades there seems to be an emphasis on judging things in the past without any context and sometimes without any actual understanding of the situation or events.

I agree with this 100%.

have been guilty of this too!) about why I speak such good English or do we have natural disasters in Australia or do we have telephones or do we have electricity, (either myself or members of my family have been asked all of these questions).

Two New Zealanders (who wrote one of the best comedies in the US) parody the mis-perception that phones are a new concept to those down-under perfectly.

In this clip they are watching video of broadcast television from home (They live in NYC in the show)



I highly recommend the show Flight_of_the_Conchords_(TV_series)