Where do these cunts get off thinking that they deserve their own country...

where do these cunts get off thinking that they deserve their own country? letting them stay independent was the biggest mistake the UK has ever made

Mexico and Britain probably feels the same about the USA.

To be quite honest, Ireland had more justification for its independence than the US

Countries aren't characters in a play, spergling.

???

We literally didn't get any representation in parliament and your policies were killing our homegrown industry. If you could have, you would have famine'd us too.

Pretty much wrong in all regards, but I've learned not to touch America's national myths

Which part is wrong? Are you denying that we didn't have representation in partliament? Or are you denying that your policies were hurting our own industries?

Hmmmm?

The ordinary person couldn't vote until the mid 19th century, "We didn't have representation in parliament", runts like you wouldn't have had any representation at all. It was basically a middle class revolt so they could larp as romans.

The restrictions allowing only landowners to vote were abolished around 1792, less than twenty years after the movement for independence started. And even so, I'd rather have land-owning Virginians voting on behalf of the interests of all Virginians in parliamentary elections than some Bong governor telling us what to do just because.

You know what landowners did when only they had the vote? Built up our industry and made us competitive with the European powers. You know what Britain wanted from her North American colonies? Primary goods and a population of impoverished serfs that could act as a market for the expensive, British-produced secondary goods.

You literally set up your American colonies to be exploited and got upset when they had enough.

>exploited

Americans paid far less tax than anyone else in the British empire, and we expended a massive amount to defend the American colonies. Look up who was involved in the tea party, half the people were smugglers and criminals who just wanted to get around the laws. The founding fathers were businessman and opportunists who just wanted to make some money, and taxes of course immediately went up higher after the revolution.

The founding fathers were plantation slave owners, slavery is an institution which actively hinders the development of industry and makes the working classes poorer and disenfranchises them economically.

You're regurgitating meme history with no basis in reality.

>The founding fathers were plantation slave owners
All of them? Wow, that's quite the discovery because I'm pretty sure that three of the most influential (including one of the authors of the Federalist Papers) weren't slaveholders - Thomas Paine, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton.

The fact that you refer to the 'founding fathers' as some sort of homogeneous ideological blob tells me all I need to know about what you know about American history, which is, admittedly, about as much as the average Burger knows.

>Americans paid far less tax than anyone else in the British empire
We also received fewer services. In fact, until you got into a pissing match with France, the military presence on the continent was relatively small. Most American settlements defended themselves entirely on their own 90% of the time. The Seven Years War was literally the only time that we actually needed Bong soldiers.

>All of them?
No, it was a phrase. Focusing on pointless pedantic demonstrates your lack of an argument.

>We also received fewer services.
Neither did the British. The state was extremely small and didn't care whether you lived or died.

It's funny that every grievance you have about Britain is exactly what you turned around and did to the south as soon as America became independent. Americans are the Jews of history, if it's economically good, who cares about the ramifications?

>spoutting off high school history propaganda
m80 it was mostly American aristocrats sperging because the British wouldn't let them expand west. 'taxation without representation' is just a huge meme. Yes they didn't have much representation in parliament, but it wasn't actually that big of a deal

...

Westward expansion was only one of many issues that Americans and Brits disagreed on. If the movement for independence was really just aristocrats sperging out as you say, then how come so many poor, rural Americans agree to sign up and fight when doing so might mean certain death? It's not like the Continental Congress had fat stacks of cash to pay their soldiers with (British regulars almost always received better pay).

The true answer, between the high school tier national myths and the bong revisionism, is that Americans had basically started to run themselves independently almost immediately after setting up in the New World, and this eventually came to a head in the late 1700s. Americans saw themselves very different from how the Brits saw them, and they had economic, military, and diplomatic means as well as the impetus to achieve independence.

loyalists are such cuckolds

>then how come so many poor, rural Americans agree to sign up and fight when doing so might mean certain death? It's not like the Continental Congress had fat stacks of cash to pay their soldiers with (British regulars almost always received better pay).

Only 2% of Americans participated in the American revolution. Why did Southerners fight for plantation owners who exploited them? Humans sometimes just want to fight for glory, for the medals so they can impress girls, for money, because they have a biological imperative to fight.

>The true answer, between the high school tier national myths and the bong revisionism, is that Americans had basically started to run themselves independently almost immediately after setting up in the New World, and this eventually came to a head in the late 1700s. Americans saw themselves very different from how the Brits saw them, and they had economic, military, and diplomatic means as well as the impetus to achieve independence.

No they didn't. The reason they gained independence (barely) was because we were fighting three separate huge European Empires at the same time, which you decided was a good time to jump ship rather than deal with supporting the country. It's basically the equivalent of the South seceding during WW2 because they can't be arsed footing the bill and don't like how liberal the north is.

I don't disagree, just that taxation without representation wasn't actually an issue worth fighting about

also
>then how come so many poor, rural Americans agree to sign up and fight when doing so might mean certain death?
why did so many peasants go to war over shoddy claims in feudal Europe? regardless, westward expansion would've been great for the lower classes too. it would bring the price of land down and make it so that any shithead could become a land owning citizen. at one point after the Louisiana purchase, land was only a dollar an acre

>No they didn't. The reason they gained independence (barely) was because we were fighting three separate huge European Empires at the same time, which you decided was a good time to jump ship rather than deal with supporting the country. It's basically the equivalent of the South seceding during WW2 because they can't be arsed footing the bill and don't like how liberal the north is.

So you wanted us to support a country that we had no say in running? Why should the Americans want to start a war with France, Spain, or the Netherlands when they were such good trading partners? I suppose we could hold some sort of parliamentary proceeding to work this disagreement out...

In 1765, the average amount of tax paid by someone in Great Britain itself was 312 pence (26 shillings) per year.

In Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New York, the average tax was 12 pence per year, or 4% of the amount paid by people in Britain. People in Virginia only paid 5 pence, or less than half that amount.

In the years between 1765 and 1775 Britain greatly increased the tax burden on the American colonists by raising customs duties. This increased the tax burden by a massive 8 pence per head, to 20 pence per year — or 6% of the taxes that people in Britain itself had to pay, rather than 4%. This injustice drove the American patriots to rebellion.

Not the other guy, but why should America have been paying taxes at all if America could just as easily run itself? At the end of it all, after independence was achieved, America was not only able to defend its own borders but also administrate its own affairs perfectly fine without Britain. What benefit would America have gotten from staying in the empire?

>why should America have been paying taxes at all if America could just as easily run itself
Maybe America should've learned to fight its own wars first.

>can be legally killed by drone at any time
>spied on 24/7 by the NSA and sixteen other intelligence agencies
>CIA can test biological weapons on you, kidnap you, drug you, or inject you with diseases in the name of national security

l-land of the free

Because Britain never formed opportunistic alliances with other nations to achieve its goals, right?

the biggest meme ever is americans idea that they're separate from britain, which led to the melting pot meme and has now led to america basically being a big country club you can check in or check out of with no identity or requirements

>So you wanted us to support a country that we had no say in running?

You don't get it do you?

Barely anyone had a say how to run british empire at that time. It's a moot point to begin with.

True, although in terms of local government, people had infinitely more say than today.

>mfw

From last week, this isn't likely to happen. Scotland and Northern Ireland will still be British in 2022

I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about the interests of the people in colonies as a whole. We sent envoys to parliament and even the king, asking for our concerns to be addressed and were rebuffed every time.

Think about it like this Finnanon - if Finland had a history of running its own affairs but was technically part of the Russian empire, and then one day Russian convicts started being dumped in your countryside and Russian officers started appropriating your homes and Russian merchants got special charters from Moscow that let them undercut local Finnish businessmen, wouldn't you be upset enough to demand that something be done? Would it be unreasonable to ask that Finnish interests, broadly speaking, be taken into consideration by the empire you're technically a part of?

And if that empire refused, would it be unreasonable to fight back against them?