So, writing a book makes you a historian. It’s not studying history?

So, you think anybody who writes a book about history is a historian? No wonder you are so lost.

Regardless, if you don’t think historians are writing history books, what do you think they’re doing?

Researching it and writing papers for other historians.

Do you think most historians write popular history books for non-historians?

What’s wrong with that?

It depends on what they did. Maybe they want to make insulting the king legal, that might be a good thing. Maybe they want to make sex with children legal…

On the other hand, any country that allows its prisoners to vote has a constituency that wants to decriminalize what ever it was that they did.

Not to mention, that arresting is not imprisonment. Merely being arrested doesn’t put you in prison, you need to be convicted first. When cops can easily follow orders from the top to arrest people with the wrong skin colour, getting people arrested is easy. But, with a decent system of courts, it’s a lot harder to convict them.

Look, I get that the context is about political prisoners. But, really, if the system is so corrupted that people are being convicted of something merely based on their politics, it’s laughable to think that it has free and fair elections and that voting by prisoners is going to change things.

Historians are the ones who break through the myths. Myths are what you’re taught in school. In school they told you all about how the US founding fathers were heroic figures fighting for their freedom…

They’re of course going to give you the surface level, popular version of what happened. If you want to actually know the real story you need to talk to historians.

Yes we do, it’s literally the reason they left in the first place.

According to what you learned in an American elementary school?

We were meant to be rugged individuals, but rugged individuals living in a community with other rugged individuals.

Also, farming has always been a hard job. People who garden are doing the kinds of farming that farmers did before automation became a thing, but they’re doing it on a tiny scale. One farmer using non-industrial methods is going to have to really work like a mule to keep just themselves and their family alive. So, gardening using those same methods is never going to produce enough calories and nutrients for anything meaningful.

That’s true, but it’s also nowhere near enough to live on.

They get a huge batch of something all at once, and then it’s a scramble to eat it, give it away, pickle it, can it, etc. But, the total number of calories produced throughout the season isn’t enough to even keep one person alive.

Enshittification. They have their users locked in, and now it’s about trying to make money for their advertisers.

There’s a subreddit where there are thousands of people. The equivalent community on Lemmy has a dozen. I participate there, but it definitely isn’t the same. I haven’t logged into Reddit in a couple of years, and I browse that old subreddit using old.reddit if that disappears the choice is logging in or using new reddit, neither of which is going to work for me, so I guess that’s it for me.

A lot worse.

We do know that the colonists hated what they considered overreaching British control

Do we? Or is that the story that has been written after the fact to justify what they did and make it seem more noble?

It sounds to me like you’re a product of the US educational system and have accepted what you learned there without questioning it.

How directly was he involved in the negotiations? Often the king is the ultimate authority in a country, but they don’t actually make many decisions themselves.

It’s well known that the colonists were looking for a reason to break away, and that the taxation issue was a convenient excuse. After all, taxation without representation was the norm. It wasn’t like all of England had the vote and had representatives in parliament. Entire cities had zero representation but were still taxed. Ireland had been part of the British empire for ages and it didn’t have representation.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight to keep it mutually intelligible for all speakers/writers.

Right, surely you must question your assumptions when there are no violent deaths at all.

The kinds of injuries they’re talking about cranial fractures, a blow to the head, multiple fractures, etc. surely are seen today in people who die on construction sites, or in car crashes or after falling off a building.

If you’re not finding those kinds of remains, something else must be happening. Maybe there was a taboo against burying people who didn’t have perfect bodies. Maybe anybody who died from violence or violent accident was given a “sky burial” or something.

I mean, put aside the idea that there was no war. Is it reasonable to think that in the bronze age, people aren’t getting mauled by wild animals? They’re not getting kicked in the head by their livestock? They’re not falling off buildings?

alot of schools

And paid for wars that were fought for the benefit of the colonists. Similar to how US taxes today are paid to the state and are used to pay for wars that the government claims are for the benefit of the American people.

Most of the US founding fathers were smugglers.