What The British Thought Of Patriot - OR - Eat This

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well now, I wonder what the bloody pomeys have to say about the Aussie films "Gillipili" (spelling?) and "Breaker Morant"?

James E: "cheeze burger munching morons" pretty much sums up my image of the great unwashed masses of sheeple--I'll give him that one.
 
Of Patriots and Scoundrels

by Michael Peirce

Having read the numerous critiques of Mel Gibson's new movie, "The Patriot," I must admit that I was
predisposed to like it. Watching the British get into an uproar over an imagined injustice starts my day
off right. When traitorous American liberals got in on the fun I began to think this might really be my
kind of film. Once again the Brits and the Tories have teamed up to attack freedom-loving Americans so
it's time to fire yet another shot over their bow.

Let's review what those outraged individuals have been saying about our revolutionary war as depicted
in Mel Gibson's new film:

The British soldiers behaved like gentlemen and are misrepresented in this movie.

Consider the British prison hulks where American captives were kept for an excellent example of how
they waged war. Not too gentlemanly for the American captives who starved to death there. The
massacre at Waxhaws was not invented, and Bloody Ban Tareleton was a real person – and a war
criminal. That he was popular in Liverpool after the war (a claim made recently) says more about the
people there than it does about Tareleton.

Don't forget for a second that it was the British who invented the concentration camp, not the Germans.
Remember their war of aggression against the Boers?

It was not the Americans who brought scalping to the American Indians, or brought the Indians into the
American Revolution, unleashing that particular horror against the settlers. A horror that would be
repaid in full. It was the British, paying their Indian allies by the scalp, with no qualms about who it had
belonged to, whether man, woman, or child. How very civilized. I am reminded that Lord Jeffrey
Amherst introduced a nice tweak to frontier fighting: germ warfare via smallpox-infected blankets to the
Indians who had offended the Crown..

Atrocities like those depicted in the movie never happened.

Really? Study up a bit and you'll find that the civil war that raged in the midst of all this was fought
with astonishing brutality on both sides. It should be noted that Colonel Banastre Tarelton or "Bloody
Ban" as he was called – actually commanded a Tory Legion of green-coated American loyalists who were
quite as brutal as anything depicted in the movie. In the movie Tarelton is depicted in the Tavington
character who while overage for the job (Tareleton was barely twenty when he killed his first prisoner)
certainly brings a Snidely Whiplash sort of villainy to the screen.

As for atrocities? Are these people such pollyannas? What do they think happens in a war? How many
churches were destroyed, people and all, when the British and Americans firebombed Dresden? Or is out
of line, somehow, to mention that sort of atrocity? The British practically invented atrocities.

Hasn't anyone read the classic Island Fortress, which American kids used to grow up on? A wonderful
tale about Francis Marion and the war in the South. No doubts about atrocities for those of us who grew
up on classic Americana. We fought for freedom against a wicked pack of scoundrels and their foreign
mercenaries. Are there any questions? No sir!

Twelve million Indians were killed by the Americans.

Huh? What did the settlers do, set up Auschwitz on the Hudson? It's way past time to get in the face of
liars who make such statements. To find 12 million dead Indians one must look to the sub continent;
where of course the British held sway. Ever see the images of Sepoys tied to the mouths of cannons? That
is British justice, and they didn't learn that from the Germans or from the Americans

The movie depicts the British as behaving like the Waffen SS.

Saying the British are depicted as SS men is entirely backwards – it would be far more appropriate to say
that the SS men behaved like the British. Although, even Hitler never came up with a horror like the
punishment King George used for those convicted of treason: have you by chance a clue as to just what it
means to be hanged, drawn, and quartered?

Realpolitic is a German usage but they learned it from the British, after enduring an uneasy alliance
with them during the Napoleonic Wars. For more on that see Peter Hofshroer's two volume classic on the
1815 campaign and see for yourself who started the dynamic that led to two world wars in the next
century.

It should be stated that the SS men would have found no place in Germany had not the British (and
French) pursued their abominable Versailles treaty and attendant policies which virtually assured a
second world war. Finally, it was the English who brought America into the first war, one in which we
had no national interest, but which having involved ourselves, tilted history in a way that haunts us
still.

The movie is based solely on Gibson's Anglophobia.

Wrong again. Historically speaking, in this movie the British didn't come off all that badly. We have
identified quite a few things Gibson chose to ignore which could have made the British look really bad.

Slavery was a peculiarly American problem and blacks were depicted inaccurately in the movie.

Who settled the slave states? Oh...it was the British and it was they who brought the slaves here in the
first place. Slavery was quite as legal in Britain at that time as it was in the US. Yet one never found too
many free blacks in Britain or perhaps someone would care to note a painting that shows one, or a book
that mentions one? Freeing slaves came much later and certainly not in London – that would have been
unseemly. Indeed, in Britain, white men were treated as slaves.

There were indeed free black men fighting in the revolution against the British and to those who wish to
open a book, instead of their mouth, it can be readily ascertained that it a free black was one of those
killed at the Boston massacre. See the early paintings of the battles in the South and at Breeds Hill for
contemporary views of black men at war.

Worst of all, are the lies spouted by Americans revisionists who claim that the colonists didn't really own
their own personal muskets, the assault rifles of the day.

When you hear this particular bit of mendacity, tremble, for your very freedom is at stake. As a recent
college graduate told me over lunch: he had at least six classes which used frequent references to the
Communist Manifesto and other Marxist claptrap, but could not remember a single class that discussed
the verities of the American experience or our history. His degree is not in economics by the way, but in
computer science. Bar the doors, there are ravening wolves out there.

The liars who say we did not own our own weapons know very well what actually went on back then,
they just don't want you to know – it is merely a tactic. One imagines them finally collecting all our
personal weapons and then turning around and taking off the smarmy mask and croaking in a paroxysm
of devilish humor, "Surprise!" And darkness gathers over the land…

As to the movie itself? I was kind of disappointed – I'd heard the battle scenes ran too long and found quite
the opposite to be true. I missed the stirring sound track of "Last of the Mohicans" but no one could fault
the visual imagery. John Ford could have helped a lot with this movie but the bottom line I guess, is this:
I loved it despite its flaws. I hadn't had so much fun since I sang every verse of Johnny Horton's classic
"The Battle of New Orleans" to a bunch of British types in the Corporal and Private's Mess in Salisbury. It
really riled 'em when I got to the part where it says "They RAN through briars and they RAN through
the brambles and they RAN through places where a rabbit wouldn't go!" Everybody but the Brits joined
in on the chorus and we all had a great laugh. Eventually, though, even the Brits saw the fun and we
moved on to "I'm proud to be a Londoner." In these perilous times however, it's no longer fun and every
thing is about ideology. Our country (and theirs too, by the way) has sunk into a despotic morass and
sadly, the time for fun is well behind us.

So God bless Mel Gibson, and the men and boys who shouldered their muskets and drove those rascals
back across the Atlantic, where their empire finally festered and died. There are quite few of those type of
people still hanging around, gnawing at the fabric of our republic, so keep your powder dry and for God's
sake, do NOT let those miserable scoundrels take your guns. The enemy is always the same, although he
has switched from red coats to black SWAT drag; and his intention is always the same, which is to
enslave us. Our response, too, must always be the same.

July 14, 2000

Mr. Peirce fought with the Rhodesian freedom fighters (the Ian Smith side, of course).
 
It was a movie, for Christ's sake. A movie created for the purpose of entertainment. It has a protagonist and an antagonist, basically intended to bring the audience's emotions to a boil or whatever. Well, some antagonists are meaner than others.
If the Brits don't like it, they don't have to watch it.
I enjoyed it and will purchase it when it goes on sale; if this chaps the Queen's butt, then so bloody be it!
 
Johnny Horton: I've got his greatest hits on cd. Worthwhile. Don't forget "Sink the Bismark" and "North to Alaska".

"The Battle of New Orleans" refers to the War of 1812, not the Revelutionary War.

The Brits did a lot of nasty things in their time. No denying it. So have we. So have most empires throughout history. Man is just a pretty nasty creature when you get down to it.

The British did pretty much stand alone against the Germans after the fall of France and before we entered the war. There were the Russians in the east, but initially they were allies with the Nazis and then the Germans rolled over them. Yes there was lend lease, but consider, "American equipment, British (or Russian) bodies".

The Battle of Britain was fierce. Take nothing away from that stand. Its a diservice. You have to wonder if they'd be up to it today though - given their sheeple attitude. A guy I work with is married to a Brit. I mentioned this to him. His opinion is they have a different viewpoint of personal freedom than us, but if push came to shove he thinks they would still react with the same determination they had in WWII. To quote, "Don't underestimate the British."
 
MikeH, I wonder when you're going to realize that NONE OF US care what the British think of the Patriot, or basically of anything else.
 
Brits stand alone against the nazis? The Americans and the Russians saved the world from the nazis! Yes THE RUSSIANS!
 
Talk about revisionist history! The British Empire, the warm and fuzzy version! Try telling it to the Scots (my ancestors) or the Irish, or the Indians, or the Zulu, or the Chinese. I really liked the Patriot, but it was just a movie. Atrocities committed for Queen and Country in real life would have been too extreme for the movies.
 
Mike H,

Do you have a source (citation) on that drivel? If I can get an e-mail address, I'll give him some news from "across the sea"!

(I'm in just the right mood this morning!)

Forest Grump

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Jack, welcome fellow Scotie. More single malt in my family tree than sap.

Monroe,..how about Fopbrittletwitbrat. Rather Germanic compilation but what the heck, plenty of the elitist German blood in em anyway.

So the brave Brits stood alone against the mighty German onslaught. Tell that to the headstones of my American cousins, and the Poles, Canadians, Aussies etc that fought with the Brits before America officialy entered the European war. Tell that to the multitudes of Americans who freely gave their arms so the socialist Brits could defend their precious homeland.

Thy have not had a militia for so long that when TSHTF they have to holler for help from those who are of a lower class. We cowboys have always answered the call. Time to quit and start mendin our own fences.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
RikWriter, did you miss the long line of replies to this thread? I think a few people are interested. ;)

Any comparison of American atrocities vs. British atrocities in the Revolution is meaningless anyway. The war was fought on American soil and never on British. Americans never had the opportunity to fire a British town (well, loyalist towns, I suppose) nor many chances to attack British women and children. But their treatment of American tories was supposed to have been pretty rough.

I know I'll get flamed for saying this, but doesn't anyone remember when we first discussed the movie here? Most of us thought the scene with the burning church was overkill then, hard to believe and unnecessary and probably not very accurate. Now this Brit says the same thing and we're mad at him? Why?
 
Right yee are laddie buck Sam I am. Sam be a patriot in his own right, having fought evil aggressors from all points of the compass.

Tom B:

The bloody Russians before WW-2 had a (non aggression agreement) buddy pact with Hitlers bully boys. Hitler just stabbed uncle Joe Stalin in his keester or back and the fight was on. In other words those two despots were two of a kind. Loggistics put Russia closer to the war zone than us. We had to use Britain as a sort of aircraft carrier to launch our bombers from. Nearly 80,000 American aircrews lost theri lives over the skys of Europe. Not sure about that figure...might be a little high could have been 60 to 70 K.

Jim
 
Don,

1) I believe the church-burning in the film may have been a reference to
Waco rather than the Revolution. Personal feeling, I admit. Yet, I have the
itchy suspicion that The Patriot was playing a dual role. Although it was set
in the time period of our Revolution, the transgressions in The Patriot make a
good list of the transgressions of our current federal government. Perhaps
I’m spending too much time on TFL. (?) ;)

2) What chaps my hide is the Brits saying they were the (only) villains in the
movie.
- Only ONE Brit was the villain. He was a tyrannical officer of little moral
character, despised by both his subordinates and his superiors. Lord
Cornwallis clearly showed his distaste for this low-life officer. The villain was
an aberration of mankind, not merely of Britain.
- Gibson's character noted that during the earlier French and Indian War the
French/Indian forces committed the atrocity of slaughtering every man,
woman, and child in a Colonial town. He (Gibson) explains that he took part in the Colonials’ reprisal which was at least as severe an atrocity. No group was innocent of atrocities according to The Patriot.

Clearly there was only ONE villain in the movie and he happened to be a Brit.
Yet every single group represented in the movie was shown or explained to
have committed atrocities. Therefore the Brits’ misrepresentation that they
were singled out is a combination of whining, America-bashing, and ego
masturbation.

Their elitist, self-serving narcissism is perhaps their greatest “tradition”. It
also was a major cause of the demise of the British Empire.

Like the Nazis, the Brits are wrong in thinking they are The Master Race.
They are merely a good people, remarkably like most of the world in that respect.

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited July 19, 2000).]
 
Saw the Patriot twice, :)Enjoyed it twice ;)
Took it for what it was worth,Historicaly.
And if the Brits don't like it....They can just BITE ME :D There I said it and got it off my chest :)

------------------
We preserve our freedoms by using four boxes: soap,ballot,jury, and cartridge.
Anonymous
 
Hi Don....I remember the church scene discussions and I did not comment at that time as I had not as yet seen the movie.

Now that I have seen it, I am neutral about it; a bit rough, yes: But it fit quite well and may have been historically correct. The Brits may not have invented the "rape, pillage, burn, starve, torture" bit as a part of formal warfare. They sure brought that system to a higher level. On nearly every continent. Even when the high command publicaly professed to humane treatment of the enemy, the soldiers in the field were pretty much left to their own devices, with horrible treatment to enemy, civillians and neutrals. Prime example is the Boer war.

I am neither an anglophile nor an anglophobe. I would rather judge any people on an individual basis. I have some dear friends who were born and remain Brits.

The English high command could learn humanity from the Khans, Alexander the great etc.

The Germans sure learned how to run a concentration camp and entertain the troops at the expense of the detainees from the Brits actions in Africa etc.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
Don Gwinn - go read a book about John Paul Jones and you'll see that we did indeed raid the United Kingdom. Of course, Canada was also British at the time, so the raids and attacks up there were on British subjects.

I was surprised to see how few are willing the give the Brits any credit for hanging on against the Nazis. June 1940 - December 1941 - no one else was fighting them.

And we didn't "go to their aid." Hitler declared war on us and we had to fight him. We didn't attack him until he declared war on us.
 
Morons? To hell with those socialistic, ungrateful, unwashed, lying, figurehead worshipping, Adam Henries. Next time a Limey with a condescending attitude starts spouting off, politely remind them that we "morons" and "savages" whipped their a$$es good the last time they tried to impose their will upon us.
 
Finally got around to reading Winston Churchill's 'History of the English Speaking Peoples' recently. While admitting that 'Patriot' overdid the British atrocities, the above work amply demonstrates that English history is pretty blood-spattered. Perhaps they don't teach history very well over there either.

------------------
 
Before we go overboard congratulating the British for "standing alone" against Hitler, it should be pointed out that without the brilliant "peace in our time" treaty negotiated by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (as I recall), there might have been some surviving European nations (Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc.) to confine Hitler to a smaller dominion. Churchill's views were extremely unpopular at that time (too cowboy?). It was only when the SHTF that the British government and people turned to Churchill to lead them, and the American people to give them firearms to defend their homeland. By the way, one at least of those guns was returned and was featured in a pictorial in a recent NRA magazine.

Ledbetter
 
It's:

In 1814 we took a little trip,
along with Col. Jackson down the mighty Mississip',
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans,
And the fought the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.

I was living in New Orleans when that song came out. They used to play it on the radio all the time, not surprisingly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top