Very OT but of Interest to the Likes that Hang Here

[Webstral]

On top of my other projects, I’m 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]

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.

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.

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.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by Webstral

On top of my other projects, I’m 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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.

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?

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).

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?

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.

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.?

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.

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?

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).

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?

Yes to the former, probably not to the latter.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

(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.

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 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]

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.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Hey Webstral, thanks for the info, it makes things clearer by showing just how murky and grey the situation is!

[.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.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

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.

When I joined the WA Guard, we had (in WA) have the WAARNG (Washington Army National Guard), the WA State Guard, and then there are the not state sponsored Militias that we were told was part of our job to train (if they asked, most did not), I did not ever train them but know of some of the guys I worked with who did, on orders.

[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.

[stormlion1]

Colonial Militia's during the era of the American Revolution were pretty simple things. All adults above a certain age and below a certain age gathered together a few weekends a year and practiced and drilled for several possible eventuality's. Things like Indian attacks, Invasion from the French or whomever, or even between other colonies. But they were not professionals, not by a long shot! When they attempted to use European tactics, the tactics they drilled in they got slaughtered every time. It was only when they changed tactics and fought from ambush or used cover and concealment that they had a much better time of it.
The other part of the equation for these citizen militias was that they were all armed and usually had the mixings to produce shot and shell and more weapons in there hometowns. They knew they couldn't depend on supply so they had to make there own and have there own ready to use. Every man in the militia had there own weapon, a ready supply of powder and shot, and all were close at hand. They literally could be out the door armed and ready to muster within a minute of being informed of trouble.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.

I think many Americans already considered themselves Americans by 1776, and its recorded that the British were calling American born colonists Yankees as early as 1758 and probably for decades before. The word Yankee may have originated in the 1600's as a name used by British colonists for Dutch colonists. The Americans also knew that the individual colonies should be more closely politically connected and that they should be taking a more direct role in governing themselves by this time. As early as 1643 the colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, New Haven and Connecticut formed the United Colonies of New England to unite the Puritan colonists and defend against the Indians and the Dutch colonies. The Albany Congress in 1754 was as much about closer political union between the colonies as self governance for the colonies, and common defensive measures against the Indians and the French in Canada was also a important reason for it. Interestingly only the Northern "Yankee" colonies sent representatives to Albany, with the Southern Colonies (including Maryland) and the colonies that later became part of Canada sending no representatives at all. Also what non-white Americans thought about American independence is unknown. The size of the Black population of the 13 Colonies was proportionally larger than its current proportion of the US population and it had no say at all, and it's fair to say that the Indians were no friends of the Yankee pioneers. Those Americans who still considered themselves British after the war by and large vacated to Canada, Britain or other parts of the British Empire in the America's.

Originally Posted by Raellus

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).

George Washington himself heavily criticised the Virginia militia under his charge in 1755 during the Seven Years War as being highly insubordinate and next to useless. Although I think it's fair to say that the British Army was a fairly harsh environment with flogging routinely dished out on the rank and file to keep them in line. The American civilian volunteers were not British soldiers and would not have been used to either the harsh discipline and the class riddled system of command that was then pervasive in the British military. British officers would have been used to troops obeying orders to march, drill and follow established tactics, while qualities such as motivation, individual initiative and notions of democracy would have been alien to them. On the other hand many of the militia would have been natural outdoors men, familiar with firearms and hunting and had a superior knowledge of the American terrain, environment and climate, and were on average far healthier and better educated than their British counterparts of the time.

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.

In hind sight the French contribution to the American victory proved to be pyrrhic for them. Britain more than any other power thwarted Napoleon's plans for domination of Europe and the world, and industrialised at a far quicker rate and founded an even bigger empire in the 19th Century with France getting the left over's from what Britain didn't want. In the long term it also helped create and even bigger English speaking power to make the Francophiles squirm.

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.

By and large the British Parliament didn't give a hoot what the Americans wanted.

Originally Posted by Raellus

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).

I think in the long term the Americans still would have taken the Louisiana Territory, in fact they might have taken Canada as well if relations with Britain hadn't improved.

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.

DeGaulle was just impossible to get along with unless you completely agreed with his delusions about French power and his vision of a post-war Western Europe dominated by France.

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.

I'd love to know how the US is supposed to have betrayed France.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

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.

A man who knows that there was a King Philip's War and that King Philip had a proper Wampanoag name. How splendid! I read a fascinating book on the subject maybe 3 years ago and passed it to a fellow Massachusetts man living in California.

No, reading history is not as common as it should be. Even people who read a lot sometimes shun history. Last month I was at dinner with friends who are avid readers. The dining companion on my right remarked that she usually reads two books at a time--one in hard copy and one on her tablet. She's a novel reader. I remarked that I was very pleased to have finished a 500 page hard cover book, The New Russians, in 6-7 weeks. I described the contents, and she said the whole business sounded like torture.

I think, too, that there is a popular mythology about the Revolution that tends to block out contravening information. Even intelligent people believe odd things, such as the idea that militias sprang into being in 1775 just in time for Lexington and Concord.

On a tangent, one of the things has always plagued me about my understanding of history is the number of people involved. There were perhaps 3 million people in the entirety of the American Colonies at the time of the American Revolution. On the scale of the individual, this is a lot of folks. On the scale of modern America, this is a rather small state. Iowa has about 3 million people. A small number of people had a huge impact on the future of a large nation.

Until the advent of the Internet, I struggled with the population issue regarding Greek and Roman history. How many Greeks are we talking about during the golden age of Athens? How many Romans were there during the various Punic Wars? The loss of 50,000 men on the battlefield meant something completely different to societies with 5 million people than the same loss would mean to us.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I think, too, that there is a popular mythology about the Revolution that tends to block out contravening information. Even intelligent people believe odd things, such as the idea that militias sprang into being in 1775 just in time for Lexington and Concord.

I think this also gets worse the further in history the event was, for example the story of King Canute being so proud he thought he could command the waves is pretty common "knowledge". Whereas digging deeper, the rest of the story emerges of Canute rebuffing a belief that a King could command all within his domain including the seas, by the simple act of going down to the sea and proving that the waves did not obey him. Most people don't seem to want to do the extra research required to get at the real story.

Originally Posted by Webstral

On a tangent, one of the things has always plagued me about my understanding of history is the number of people involved. There were perhaps 3 million people in the entirety of the American Colonies at the time of the American Revolution. On the scale of the individual, this is a lot of folks. On the scale of modern America, this is a rather small state. Iowa has about 3 million people. A small number of people had a huge impact on the future of a large nation.

Until the advent of the Internet, I struggled with the population issue regarding Greek and Roman history. How many Greeks are we talking about during the golden age of Athens? How many Romans were there during the various Punic Wars? The loss of 50,000 men on the battlefield meant something completely different to societies with 5 million people than the same loss would mean to us.

And further to that, other factors such as travel times in that period are sometimes hard to grasp.
This really came home to me many years ago when I was describing to a friend in Europe that I would often travel 600km (approx 370 miles) from an outback town to the city, just to spend a weekend with mates. For them, that 600km was one and sometimes two other countries.
To me, those distances are nothing, a 5-6 hour trip by car but... if I had to do it on horse, it's about a week long trek.

This helped me to put some things into perspective particularly when they talk about moving armies around before the advent of steam vehicles let alone motor vehicles.
To me, this ably illustrates the need for a well-trained militia to react to potential threats given that the regular army could be a half-week march away. Which is probably why the Minutemen are given such prominence. But, it does imply that such a militia must have access to good training and be well disciplined if it is to act in a timely and effective manner, after all, it may be required to hold the line for several days to allow the main force to arrive.
However, it does appear that over the course of time, because this implication has not been overtly stated, most people have forgotten (or haven't bothered to read between the lines) this and now seem to think that a bunch of householders grabbed their guns and fought off an empire.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

To me, this ably illustrates the need for a well-trained militia to react to potential threats given that the regular army could be a half-week march away. Which is probably why the Minutemen are given such prominence. But, it does imply that such a militia must have access to good training and be well disciplined if it is to act in a timely and effective manner, after all, it may be required to hold the line for several days to allow the main force to arrive. However, it does appear that over the course of time, because this implication has not been overtly stated, most people have forgotten (or haven't bothered to read between the lines) this and now seem to think that a bunch of householders grabbed their guns and fought off an empire.

Despite our fascination with violence military power, Americans are highly averse to actually serving. We have a Hamiltonian sensibility in that regard. We’ve been at war for 13 years in Afghanistan and were at war in Iraq for 8 years. On the order of 1% of us have been involved in uniform. The same people keep going again and again and again. Between the two wars, some guys have fought WW2 twice.

Anyway, the myth that fighting wars is relatively easy for the right kind of people justifies the American aversion to the discomfort of service. It’s human nature, really. However, some societies have done a better job of inculcating the belief that a modest amount of universal discomfort is necessary for success on the battlefield. The myth that farmers and shop keepers with no training or formal organization beat the British Army rationalizes the American aversion to service.