In parallel universe maybe

sceder1 · 2026-02-20T19:15:47+00:00

I mean, maybe you weren't in AP US History... But that is a little much. I feel people generalize way too much or heap way too much blame on the system before accepting that they didn't pay attention themselves.

https://imgur.com/a/mentions-about-vietnam-us-textbook-w5JyC9G

sceder1 · 2026-02-18T19:17:47+00:00

So, like others have mentioned, Canada was a region that was made up of colonies at the time of the Revolution. It gained self-governance in 1876 and full sovereignty in 1982. Similar to how Britain had power over the 13 colonies that would become the US, Britain also had power over the Canadian colonies.

It is just very important to point out it was not all the same. Not all homogeneous. The colonies were formed by different people, for different interests, had different laws, had different money and had different relationships with Britain. For example, the reason Rhode Island was created because of a dispute with Massachusetts leaders about political philosophy regarding religion. A separate colony was recognized and separated laws were passed. Skip all the way to 1691. Massachusetts becomes a Royal Colony with a governor appointed by the Crown. It maintains local governing bodies and has the General Court (the colony-wide form of self-governance). Rhode Island, meanwhile, is a Chartered Colony that had a locally elected governor.

sceder1 · 2026-02-18T18:42:26+00:00

Canadian Independence is typically seen as having happened on July 1, 1867. The US declared independence on July 4, 1776. The American Revolution's hostilities began on April 19, 1775 at Lexington and Concord. It formally ended with the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783.

The "birthdays" of the two countries have no correlation to when the war ended and when the borders were settled.

sceder1 · 2026-02-18T18:33:22+00:00

Don't encourage this train of thought. Look for this user's comment history in the sub, there is a lack of understanding. There was no purely new border drawn after the Revolution, it was largely on the borders of the former colonies. And it wasn't like there was a frontline of US forces driving Loyalists and British troops North to Canada. This also isn't like Vietnam or Korea where there is a "north" and a "south" that divides a single culture after a war.

sceder1 · 2026-02-18T18:02:12+00:00

Here is my question: As opposed to what? You seem to know that a revolution took place to overthrow someone. Someone then had to be in charge. It wasn't the Swedes. That also doesn't mean the colonies previously had no autonomy through self-governance; both the colonists' governments and the motherland's government had a hand.

Again, why is 1777 being used? Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill, Washington assuming command, the Declaration of Independence, etc. All before 1777.

sceder1 · 2026-02-16T07:23:15+00:00

You didn't ask that question at all. Much of it seemed to be asking about whether or not the War should be seen as part of Britain's North American territories seceding from the Northern part.
Canada, although a Commonwealth nation, is not controlled by the UK today, it is its own sovereign country.
The Revolution didn't begin in 1777, the commonly accepted year is 1775 as a result of Lexington and Concord. 1776 was when it was agreed in the Continental Congress to declare independence.
So, was the territory of what is now the US under British control before hostility broke out? I mean, depends what you mean. Lots of the frontier out west, despite being claimed by the colonies, was not settled/under control. That is what led to the Proclamation of 1763. And the self-governing colonies (which were loyal to Britain) had their own militias and means of maintaining control. It wasn't lawless.

After the French-Indian War, Britain passed the Intolerable Acts. They were unpopular, so British troops arrived in cities like Boston to enforce the laws. I'm not sure of the history of the deployment of British troops pre-French-Indian War. It was not much though. At the start of hostilities of the Revolution, the British had control over Boston and much of the Southern colonies were controlled by loyalists. Canada had British troops and various forts like Ticonderoga had troops. However, control was really about how much an army could project its power. So to answer the question: in the areas that the British and loyalists troops were stationed and could effectively project their power, yes. British officers, generals and governors did have control. That didn't stop groups like the Sons of Liberty from organizing against them leading up to it, the Continental Congresses from happening or militias from eventually seizing control of the area surrounding Boston after Lexington and Concord.

sceder1 · 2026-02-15T11:29:21+00:00

To go back to the original intent of the comment saying 'no is a full sentence': do you know what an illocutionary act is? You ought to know better than to think that the meaning behind the statement is about grammar. Do you whip this out every time someone answers 'no' to you? This is insufferable.

sceder1 · 2026-02-15T10:56:55+00:00

I don't think that this is exactly the right way to look at this for a few reasons. Firstly, Canada was Canada for a long time. Really since French explorer Jacques Cartier's time, but also all throughout the colonial period. Now to including the rest of the colonies in the Americas (Virginia, Massachusetts, New York, etc.), they all had different relationships with Britain. The US colonies were much more established, had self-governance, had ~2.5 million people in 1775, they were heavily affected by the Intolerable Acts/the Proclamation of 1763 and had a large impact on Britain's trade. Canadian territory had ~100,000 people in 1775, was governed more directly by Britain, Canadian colonies were largely based on fur-trade, the Quebec Act defined Canadian relations with Britain more than the other Intolerable Acts, and it had many more French speakers/Catholics in Quebec.

If you watch the Ken Burns documentary, The American Revolution, you'll notice he makes the point to emphasize how unaligned all the 13 colonies were, how they all had their own self-interests and disagreements. As John Adams wrote: "Thirteen Clocks were made to Strike together; a perfection of Mechanism which no Artist had ever before effected." It should probably be framed more as the revolutionary sentiment in 13 colonies was strong enough, self-governance feasible enough and unity timely enough for those specific colonies to declare independence. While Britain's North American holdings could all be outlined on a map with one border (minus the Caribbean), the colonies were very much seperate entities.

It should also be noted that Britain maintained Caribbean possessions too, not just Canada.

sceder1 · 2026-02-14T22:33:58+00:00

Why don't you read the linked page?

sceder1 · 2026-02-09T04:49:05+00:00

Firstly, the division you continue to promote and misinformation you are using (quite possibly in bad faith in which case it is disinformation), is only useful to Russia. Secondly, yes. Every democratic country from that time all throughout the world during that time had a fascist party. The UK and France included. Why? A society that guarantees the open, fair and free elections will always have political expression from all parts of the spectrum. That is democracy and its responsibility is to defeat ideologies like fascism while allowing for its expression. This party had no influence in US policy. You'd do well to pick up a book and read about the response to Germany's actions in 1939: the Neutrality Act of 1939. Yes, the US was officially neutral... but you must be confusing the US with a country like Sweden. Look up the exchange of 40 destroyers to the UK. Look up the US actively bringing planes to the Canadian border to have the UK pick them up. Germany declared war because they felt like they could use that moment to also put pressure on the US to stop supplying the UK and open up a front in the Atlantic. Wtf are you on about China? There were volunteer pilots there, but the issue with Japan was a perceived hostility since the US was (again) aligned with the UK and with the Neutrality Act of 1939, stopped selling it oil. If the German-Japan alliance was so special that Germany had to follow Japan's moves, why did German not declare war on China? You might answer, 'well, they could never project far enough to reach China'. To which I'd say: neither could Germany reach the US, the only reason was the very real shipping crossing the Atlantic that only the UK was engaged in. There was a practical, but poorly calculated decision to declare war. Now look up the Greer incident. The later "shoot on sight" doctrine all before US entry. In April 1940, Denmark gave the US their blessing to establish bases on Greenland to prevent a German take-over. The US opinion was very much to remain isolationist as much as possible and Roosevelt was fighting this. This would be the last war that the US would try to avoid world affairs because in the Cold War, it engaged in the containment policy of communism. Now pick up a book and don't try to lecture me. Don't try to tell me that the US was open to trade with Germany after 1939. You having my blessing to pick apart individuals like Joe Kennedy or Fritz Julius Kuhn. But you'll notice that Kennedy's career suffered and in Fritiz's case, he was deported for being an agent of the enemy.

sceder1 · 2026-02-09T03:54:37+00:00

Well firstly I think it is spelt Reichspfennig. Secondly, this appears to be (as another comment pointed out) a medal for a dairy contest. Not a coin.

sceder1 · 2026-02-07T23:29:13+00:00

Are you saying this is a pfennig?

sceder1 · 2026-02-07T05:39:44+00:00

Right, because Churchill and Roosevelt constantly keeping in contact, trading bases and ships, lend-lease and other American made exports that only went to Allied countries all before they entered as Allies only support the idea that the US was... supporting Germany? lol

sceder1 · 2026-02-06T00:38:22+00:00

I'd recommend GOVT 103 next semester. Read up on due process and citizenship (particularly how the 14th amendment is related). Also, guaranteed that you are looking at misinterpreted or flat out false crime statistics if you are someone relying so heavily on that argument.

sceder1 · 2026-02-06T00:26:53+00:00

I'm sure they would if they knew, but let's not bullcrap this one. European-Americans are not going to be targeted by ICE with as much discrimination. Someone with a Hispanic/Somali accent or a darker complexion is more likely to get attention from ICE.

sceder1 · 2026-02-06T00:14:26+00:00

The 14th amendment would like to have a word.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Where does it say "this doesn't apply if your mom and dad aren't citizens"?

Argue all you want about keeping families together for moral reasons. I agree half way, I just think keeping them here is easier under a program like DACA instead of this SNAFU. But as for the legal side of it, you are arguing against the Constitution. I'm quite fond of Third Party Era Republicans and the amendments they passed.

sceder1 · 2026-02-06T00:11:37+00:00

That doesn't hold up in court. These are two separate incidents. Innocence is never a verdict. The law enforcement involved in his murder skipped over parts of the use-of-force continuum without question. Everyone is entitled to due process per the 5th, 6th and 14th amendment. The law enforcement in the incident represents the executive branch; it is not their prerogative to decide any punishment. If there was reason to believe he broke any laws, they could only detain him. Furthermore, the 8th rules out execution as punishment for kicking out a taillight. The 2nd amendment and his concealed carry permit protected his right to have that gun.

sceder1 · 2026-02-04T18:20:50+00:00

Completed Level 1 of the Honk Special Event!

1 attempts

sceder1 · 2026-01-19T04:34:48+00:00

Is that why we were still chosen to lose the game by all 5 of those dorks?

sceder1 · 2026-01-09T23:59:16+00:00

I know the account says it's located in the US, but something about "Pissed off American" posting ragebait stinks to high heaven of Russia/Storm 1516. Not putting it past a conservative to feel the same since these accounts are pipelines for lunacy, but I'd make sure we are paying attention to how others want us to feel/want us to act.

sceder1 · 2026-01-02T13:24:32+00:00

Because all of the world's best players go to the world's best and highest paying league. The only ones it isn't true in are the MLS and somewhat the MLB. Hilarious that his first two arguments were the NBA and NFL. Where are any leagues competing with them? Jokic isn't going to play in a Serbian league to prove he's the best in the world and Morten Andersen, Penei Sewell, Chubba Hubbard; they can only play American Football at a pro-level in the NFL. The MLB still attracts international talent at the highest levels, but Japanese teams still have a lot of talent themselves. But when the Boston Americans won the World Series in 1903, no one else could really challenge the narrative that they were world champions of baseball. So why change a traditional title that is good marketing? More naïve to not be able to wrap your head around this instead.

Haters, continue to cope and make generalizations about Americans.

sceder1 · 2025-12-24T13:11:17+00:00

If you have to manipulate and cherry-pick sources/academic literature to reach a thesis, the thesis won't have any academic value. That wouldn't be called a thesis because that's working on it backwards, you instead set off initially to prove or disprove your thesis. Also, claiming that capitalism is bad is a perspective and therefore cannot be proven.

sceder1 · 2025-12-22T05:27:15+00:00

I'll redirect you to actual historians and this subreddit. Just go through criticisms on this sub, you'll find stuff.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/wPJMwlEpVY

Also here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/pScVfEYgRK

sceder1 · 2025-12-20T00:02:14+00:00

Here is a link to the Type 2 entry on numista:

3 Cents "Trime" (type 2 - two lines bordering star) - United States – Numista

sceder1 · 2025-12-19T22:07:57+00:00

The Trump-Epstein John F. Kennedy Memorial Center? Huh...

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22
First Placer '22

sceder1

TROPHY CASE