Question culminating from latest Observer issue

[Roy Pitchford]

I do not pretend to be a historian (however both my parents are), but I would like to think that I have a logical mind on most occasions. So, I believe that criticism of Palin on this particular account may have been too severe, if the historians are correct.

However, what I have a problem with about what she said is this. She thinks he ran to warn the British, but the historians say he was captured. Even a historical novice can see the subtleties inherent there. I believe he did speak to the British, but Palin seemed to insinuate he willingly sought them out. Possibly an error on her part just because she was speaking off the cuff. Fine.

Having re-read the quote just a moment ago, I disagree with your interpretation of her statement. I don't think she thinks he sought the British to warn them about the colonists.
However, since neither of us is mind readers, I don't think either of us should state that we know what she thinks.

But the thing I have a bigger problem with is the fact that people keep calling these colonists Americans.

I was not under the impression that they were anything other than rebelling colonists at the time. The Declaration of Independence didn't come until the next year, so really, they didn't have a formal banner to rally around. SO THEY ARE ALL BRITISH STILL. Really angry and dissatisfied British, but British.

I have a huge pet peeve about people referring to anyone pre-1776 (the declaration) as being American. The colonists viewed themselves as loyal British subjects with the same rights as people living in England. If you remember your history, they didn't want a proper split at first, they just wanted their rights corrected, they even petitioned the crown. So Americans didn't make the colonies and Americans didn't found Jamestown, etc. But too often that is what is reported or taught. But Americans did not exist officially until 1776. So if you want to be picky, Paul Revere DID warn the British, just the rebellious ones.

Was Gandhi Indian or British?

[Thealexa Becker]

Roy,

Why are you comparing apple with oranges? Ghandi is Indian. The British settlers are British. He wasn't a descendant of a British colonist who still called himself British. Not even remotely similar to what I am saying.

That is like asking if Pocahantas was British. She wasn't.

Also, I don't think that even Sarah Palin knows what she said.

[Roy Pitchford]

Roy,

Why are you comparing apple with oranges? Ghandi is Indian. The British settlers are British. He wasn't a descendant of a British colonist who still called himself British. Not even remotely similar to what I am saying.

That is like asking if Pocahantas was British. She wasn't.

Also, I don't think that even Sarah Palin knows what she said.

Pocahontas was born circa 1595, before the land would have been considered a British colony, so of course she wouldn't have been British. Ghandi was at least born during the British colonial period.

George Washington, his father and his grandfather were all born in the New World. He was a member of the American colonies with British citizenship. He's still American.

Did you know that Basil Rathbone, despite having 2 British parents and being born in Johannesburg in 1892 (I think it was a British colony at the time), is considered South African, despite having British citizenship?

[Thealexa Becker]

Roy,

Why are you comparing apple with oranges? Ghandi is Indian. The British settlers are British. He wasn't a descendant of a British colonist who still called himself British. Not even remotely similar to what I am saying.

That is like asking if Pocahantas was British. She wasn't.

Also, I don't think that even Sarah Palin knows what she said.

Pocahontas was born circa 1595, before the land would have been considered a British colony, so of course she wouldn't have been British. Ghandi was at least born during the British colonial period.

George Washington, his father and his grandfather were all born in the New World. He was a member of the American colonies with British citizenship. He's still American.

Did you know that Basil Rathbone, despite having 2 British parents and being born in Johannesburg in 1892 (I think it was a British colony at the time), is considered South African, despite having British citizenship?

Everyone was British in the American colonies before they became the United States. This is before the end of the Revoluntionary war. There were Spanish colonies in the Americas. Those people were still Spanish.

Basil Rathbone was considered a British Citizen. So, that doesn't mean anything that he was born in South Africa, it matters what his citizenship was. He went back to England anyway when he was three.

George Washington became American after he rebelled. Before that he was British.

Ghandi would not be considered British because the native people of India were considered lower class and inferior, no more than people considered Pocahantas or any other Native American to be British, or American for that matter. If you look him up no one says he is British.

Seriously, it isn't that hard. British rebels had to be British before they could become Americans after rebelling.