Anonymous OP 3w

America often compares itself to Ireland, so let’s look at that. In Ireland, independence was gained for the indigenous culture which had been colonized. An Irish independence that looked like the American one would be like if the Ulster Protestant settlers declared their independence, and then proceeded to colonize and genocide the indigenous Irish.

8

Anonymous OP 3w

We almost always hear about the taxes and “no representation” as factors for the revolution but they weren’t the only ones. One reason the colonists weren’t happy was that Britain had temporarily prohibited colonial settlement past the Appalachians to avoid pissing off the indigenous tribes. And after Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation, the South was furious that Britain might start liberating slaves. Some of the motivations were literally “they’re gonna fuck with our colonizing”

6

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

It was very fascinating for me to learn that the social conflict which proceeded the Haitian revolution was actually very similar, with revolting elite creoles seeking to gain better trade and treatment. And then well… they gave guns to their slaves and that kinda went out the window. Same goes for Latin American independence. Was originally the colonist elites getting pissed.

6

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

No there absolutely is nuance. The colonists themselves were marginalized when compared to the citizenry of the metropole, and that’s what drove the American Revolution. But that’s still distinctly different from a colonized people.

6

Anonymous OP 3w

Yeah I would agree with that.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

I mean one could even argue that the prioritization of the colonists under free America was even worse for the colonized people than when colonization was controlled from the metropole. Under a free America, subjugation of Native Americans was considerably more aggressive and rapid than under the British.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Our best comparison of what “British empire manifest destiny” would look like is Canada which was still pretty severe, but not quite as much as the USA. I do wonder though if America wasn’t present as a competing force, would the British even prioritize settler expansion across North America?

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Yeah like the British had the policy of trying not to let colonist past the Appalachians. I think we might have a semantics disagreement on who is colonized but I feel like we generally agree.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

It’s kind of an interesting alt history question. I feeeeel like the British would have expanded colonial settlement past the Appalachians eventually but I feel like surely it would be less aggressive than American expansion.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

I think it still would have happened just bc of settlers still wanting to push to the west but it would’ve been slower for sure.

1