Very OT but of Interest to the Likes that Hang Here

[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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by CDAT

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.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

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]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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%.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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)

[Raellus]

I am a huge FOTC fan. Their bits about the not-so-good-natured rivalry between New Zealanders and Australians are hilarious.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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?

I cannot speak for each state, but when I joined the WA State National Guard, one of the things that they told us is that by state constitution we are supposed to help train the militia. So if we are to train the militia we cannot be the inheritors of the original militias. Now having said that I do think that to most politicians they are, and it may not be in the constitutional sense but for practical purposes I think that they have taken that role, as the "real" militia being something that they cannot control scares them.

[Webstral]

Okay, so I couldn’t help myself when I read SSC’s very legitimate question about the National Guard.

The National Guard is a joint state-federal reserve for which each party contributes half of the funding. The states get control by default, but the federal government may take command of any or all National Guard units at will. Once the federal government has mobilized a National Guard, the Guard unit, that unit is available for deployment anywhere in the world for any mission at the discretion of the federal chain of command. See the US Army Vehicle Guide.

When the Constitution was ratified by the states in 1789, a militia possessed several key characteristics. The militia was a reserve formation of citizen soldiers (non-professional) organized along regular military lines. The states, formerly the colonies, had full control of their militias. The CINC was the governor, who delegated his authority to the officers, who delegated it to the NCOs, just as the Regular Army officers get their authority from the President. The state legislature authorized the regulations governing the militia, among which are what we would call today a Uniform Code of Military Justice. Among the regulations were details regarding maximum number of days of service per annum, geographical limits on deployment (often the state border but uniformly the national border), and the like. Individuals were supposed to provide their own small arms and sufficient ammunition, equipment, and supplies for 3-5 days of operation. Longer operations were supported at government expense. Governments, local or state, could and typically did provide additional small arms for those not able to afford their own, stores, and even small cannon, the latter two of which were kept at facilities called armories.

At the time, the militia was intended to defend the nation against foreign aggression and the rise of domestic despotism. This concept survives to today in the oath service members take to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. The militia was necessary for defense against foreign aggression because the new federal government was destitute. Even had the first leaders of the republic been inclined to raise and pay for a standing army of sufficient power to discourage aggression by the various European powers that might possess dark impulses, there simply was no money for anything of the sort. The states’ militia was the only viable solution to the security problem. Equally, though, the militia under the control of the states was seen as a counterbalance to the ambitions of a federal leader who might get control of the professional force. The key element is the chain of command. In 1789, and for the previous 150 years, the militia belonged exclusively to the states. Their authority to mobilize and embark on combat operations was derived from the electorate of the state through the executive and the legislature.

Things changed very quickly. Within 4 years, someone at the top realized that having the states’ militia operate solely under the command of the states violated the principals of unity of command and concentration of mass/combat power. New legislation gave the federal executive the authority to mobilize the states’ militia and deploy them as federal forces. At this point, the ability of the militia to defend against foreign aggression was enhanced at the expense of the ability of the militia to defend against domestic tyranny. The militia was set on its 110 year road to become the modern National Guard, a process which was completed with the Militia Act of 1903.

The distinction between being solely under the command of the states and being available for mobilization by the President may seem fine, but it’s everything. Soldiers obey orders from the authorized chain of command. The habits of discipline and obedience are the core of combat effectiveness for any army as long as there have been armies. The states’ militia were in a position to counterbalance the professional force in the event of federal despotism because the militia had no command relationship with the federal government. For the militia to take to the field against a Regular Army fighting for a domestic despot involved grave disobedience to the federal government but not mutiny—at least in 1789. Once the militia could come under the command of the federal government, the militia became in effect a federal reserve with a chain of command culminating not in the state executive but in the federal executive. The same risk that the Regular Army would simply follow the orders of a domestic tyrant out of habits of discipline and obedience applied to the states’ militia from 1793 onward, if in a somewhat reduced form. Orders by a state executive for the militia to secure federal facilities in the state as part of a fight against federal despotism could be countermanded by the federal authority. Again, the distinction may seem fine, but when citizen soldiers are making choices the authority of the chain of command makes all the difference in the world.

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations has made a hash of common sense by defining the militia as two things as two things it cannot be. The active militia is defined as the National Guard, which is really a federal reserve. The inactive militia is defined as everybody else. This is absurd. Calling a mass of men of military age completely lacking in discipline, training, equipment, organization, or any of the other defining characteristics of a military formation a military formation is like calling a heap of building materials a house. This farce has gone on for 200 years because opposing interest groups can agree that Title 10 is in their best interest.

The various State Defense Forces are the only forces that could pass as militia as militia existed in 1789 and for the previous 150 years. Time and a Hamiltonian sensibility have altered the militia so that the volunteers for citizen soldiery are a federal reserve with a very diminished psychological and legal basis for taking up arms against domestic tyranny, while those who prefer not to volunteer have no responsibilities whatsoever and about as much military effectiveness in the event of a need for a patriot uprising.

My kids have used their tokens for TV watching, so it’s time for me to go parent.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by CDAT

I cannot speak for each state, but when I joined the WA State National Guard, one of the things that they told us is that by state constitution we are supposed to help train the militia. So if we are to train the militia we cannot be the inheritors of the original militias. Now having said that I do think that to most politicians they are, and it may not be in the constitutional sense but for practical purposes I think that they have taken that role, as the "real" militia being something that they cannot control scares them.

Today's NG's were date back to a 1913 reorganization(it took a few years), state militias hung in until the 1950's before being eclipsed by the guard.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed, but I don't see anything there about US withdrawal, or threats to withdraw, the nuclear umbrella from Western Europe. I understand that that is what France and other European nations worried about constantly, but I never heard that it was explicitly or implicitly said.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The statement wasn't about the withdrawal of the US nuclear umbrella, it was about the use of those weapons as a first response should the Soviet Union invade Western Europe.
De Gaulle's argument was not that the US should withdraw nuclear weapons, it was that by softening the former hardline of nuclear response, it would make the Russians* believe the nuclear option would not be used to prevent aggression on their part.
De Gaulle believed that the threat of nuclear destruction was so overpowering as to encourage those involved in Europe to actively avoid another war. By toning down the nuclear deterence, it would, in his view, allow events that could lead to another war in Europe.

* de Gaulle typically referred to the Soviets as the Russians, probably because he saw them as the real power of the Soviet Union.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Webstral,
My deepest apologies for derailing your thread.

[Tegyrius]

To be fair, SSC, this is one of the most informative and civil derailments I've seen on this forum...

- C.