TURИ

repoman wrote: Look, the choice of word is no accident. Of all the possible terms that could have been used they chose that one specifically.[/i]

Well, unfortunately for you, and every other audience, we have know way of knowing exactly whoever wrote that line was thinking at the time.

So, let me follow your logic. You complain about the use of the term insurgent, because you fear some left-wing perspective inherent in its use, particularly concerning the American Revolutionary War because, I assume from your disturbance, because the American revolution was in the right. When it was pointed out to you that it was, in fact, not anachronistic. So, basically your entire point is moot and fallacious. The term has a modern valence associated with uprisings in occupied Iraq, and therefore, it cannot be used to describe any other uprising, justified or not? Is it so important that Islamic terrorism and insurgency be especially evil that even language associated with it cannot be used elsewhere?

Here's the uncomfortable truth. To the British in the 13th colonies, the American rebels were insurgents. To the Americans (and allies) in Iraq, those resisting the post-Saddam rule were/are insurgents. Just or unjust, this doesn't change the meaning of the word "insurgent" or forbid its use outside of the context of Iraq.

Well I'm not going to go too much farther with this because I've said what I wanted to.

However, the word is used to illicit a response. Now you can stick your fingers and humm as loud as you want and pretend that is not the case. That's up to you.

The use of the word may not technically but anachronistic but it sure the hell is unusual if not singular. I would challenge you to find any single use of the word in reference to the Revolution in anything other than a very academic military text if even then.

The modern connotation elicited by that word is directly tied to the fighting in the Middle East.

And where in the FUCK did I say it can't or shouldn't be used? Don't put words in my mouth. You don't like, don't agree with, or don't want to admit that my point has some validity. So what? Don't try to widen the argument by pretending I said that it can't be used. I was making comments based on my reaction to it's use in this context.

repoman wrote:
The use of the word may not technically but anachronistic but it sure the hell is unusual if not singular. I would challenge you to find any single use of the word in reference to the Revolution in anything other than a very academic military text if even then.

But it's not. A quick search on Google brings up a pretty good selection of hits.

I didn't get the feeling that it was being used to elicit the response that you claim. I still feel that it's use was very appropriate in the context of the time and events being depicted.

If you don't feel that insurgents was the best word to use, what would you recommend? I'm not trying to hammer you, I'm just genuinely curious. Your post has been the only thing I've read that took issue with the show on this point.

repoman wrote: However, the word is used to illicit a response. Now you can stick your fingers and humm as loud as you want and pretend that is not the case. That's up to you.

...

I was making comments based on my reaction to it's use in this context.

So, first you claim to know the exact reason why the word was used. Good for you. This is generally referred to as the authorial intention fallacy, hence my complete disagreement with your diatribe.

I didn't see the show, nor do I plan to.

What is interesting is how you've begun frothing at the mouth at the very use of a single word. It's appearance obviously prompted discomfort, particularly your discomfort at any point of comparison between insurgency in the Middle East and in the American Revolutionary War. Then the paranoid assumption that this is some reflection of the vast conspiracy of the liberal media.

It's fascinating how such a - rather unremarkable, to see the reviews - show has touched on so sensitive of a political nerve in so innocuous a fashion. If art should be provocative, I guess this show has succeeded gloriously.

Count Orlok wrote:

repoman wrote: Here's the uncomfortable truth. To the British in the 13 colonies, the American rebels were insurgents.

Even more uncomfortably, the vast majority of English troops in the war were American born. There was exactly one Soldier at the Battle of the Cowpens that was British born -- Banastre Tarleton. His entire force was North American born. What shall we call those American red coats? Loyalists? Is that too positive?

British military history is full of counter-insurgency. India, Africa, Ireland . . . their institutional knowledge in the subject is second to none. Now, you read about India and the insurgents there are commonly considered freedom fighters by Americans. Ireland is more of a mixed bag. The Boers are universally called insurgents and generally considered troublemakers. Negative? A tough call. I think you were looking for a fight on this one and I think it soured you on the show. Your choice of course. It's a free country.

S.

I thought the show was pretty good, if not fantastic, and an interesting subject. I will keep watching, but at this point only because it's between Sherlock, House of Cards, Walking Dead, etc.

I enjoyed it. Really loved the intro, and also was enthralled by the scene with the British Ranger bayonetting corpses, as the camera started from up in the sky, showing the sea of red and bodies. Gripping stuff.

I'm not in love, however, with any of the actors chosen. That was the one negative for me. Need to now watch the second episode.

Sagrilarus wrote: Yes, it's running on AMC here in the states. It's about spies in Long Island during the American Revolution...had him using an AR-15 in the first episode....they are aiming at keeping it thoroughly in the era.

S.

You lost me. AR-15's in the American Revolutionary War?


As an aside, let me give you a little insight into the whole freedom fighter / revolutionary / insurgent / terrorist thing.

I used to work as a salesperson for a sales agency that sold capital equipment, manufacturing chemicals and supples, et c. Most of my customers were for the military. For every "transparent armor" or "bomb robot" project I worked on, I worked on 10 "Spectre avionics", "drone electronics", "nuclear weapon fuse" or "big fucking cannon" project. My kid asked me about what was on a train that passed by our house, and I knew it was the same track that went through the Raytheon plant that makes the B1B block system, and probably the same one that travels through the Crane NWS site in Indiana. So, I told her the truth, that lots of things, from grain to missiles, and from food to great big guns goes through. She asked me how I knew, and I told her. She asked why I help make guns and missiles, since they kill people. I said that they only kill the bad guys. She asked who the bad guys are. I really didn't have a good answer. I quit a few months later and took a position in the recycling industry...even took a pay cut.

The fact is that there are very few true "bad guys" anymore - it's all relative. Terrorists are bad guys. Anyone who blows up civilians for political reasons is a "bad guy", if there ever was one. But many of what our politicians call "bad guys" used to be our allies. We supplied the Taliban (before they were the Taliban) with weapons. Osama used to be a CIA contact against the Russkies.

So, when it's no longer simple to tell "the bad guys" from the "good guys", the terms become irrelevant. One side sees freedom fighters, the other sees insurgents. If the government is illegitimate, sure, it's easier, but who is the one that decides if it's illegitimate? Certainly not outsiders. Shit, to half the people in the US and probably 70% of the rest of the world, Americans are the "bad guys". Is a guy who blows up a Federal Building (I hate to say it, but it's a valid military target) a terrorist, insurgent, or freedom fighting revolutionary? These questions are simply too hard for my feeble mind to surround, and thus I refrain from labeling anyone except the terrorists who blow up people who don't kneel and face east thrice daily.

So, no more being part of the M.O.D. squad for me, because I'm not wise enough to know the good from the bad, and every time I hear about a drone strike on an HVT that had "acceptable collateral damage" I wonder if I sold them the solder or pick-and-place equipment that made the drone, or the radio, or the computer, that blew up some kids because they happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Sagrilarus wrote: What shall we call those American red coats?

Patriots.

Schweig! wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote: What shall we call those American red coats?

Patriots.

Shut up, Hessian.