Colonials are stupid and ungrateful children that shouldn't be allowed to govern themselves because they are barely more than savages
Parliament represents you regardless of whether or not you consented, voted, had a government, or feel represented.
No member of Parliament has an obligation to their constituents, and instead has an obligation to the Empire.
The rights of Englishmen do not exist outside of England
Britain has no obligation to protect her colonists. If they were harmed by anything that wasn't France or Spain, then fuck off with that nonsense and deal with it yourself.
OP's picture is propaganda. If you have a choice, you certainly want English liberty rather than the insanity of France... but the English didn't like sharing the blessings of liberty outside of Englishmen exclusively within England, and only in the way that the state allowed.
France funded the American Revolution to the point it was broke when the hard winters followed.
France's spending on the American Revolution was a major cause in the French Revolution.
The UK has always treated her colonies well. Look at Australia, Canada and the African colonies. They went on to become some of the most prosperous nations in their respective regions.
Great Britain has not treated her colonies well. It treated her colonies better than many other Empires, and the Anglo tradition was extremely beneficial. And while we are certainly more friendly with our former imperial masters than most former colonies; the Brits fucking love pretending they didn't do shit to earn EVERYONE being utterly furious at them.
The Welsh have endured multiple attempts at ethnic cleansing and genocide from the English. The crippling of the Welsh national identity had long been a primary objective of dozens of English kings, despite the fact that the Welsh were basically the original Anglo-Celts who lived in England and were driven west, rather than the English Anglo-Saxons. English Supremacism always meant that the Welsh were seen as an inferior sub-class of Brits.
This pattern quickly re-emerges in the Scotts who were given much the same treatment multiple times. Anglicization may have benefited the Scots in the long term, but it was a dedicated effort to eradicate Scottish history & identity, and was an effort to exterminate the Highlander people's altogether. The ending of the Scottish Parliament showed how useless "Virtual Representation" really was because the Scotts didn't have any real representation in government. Great Britain was never really about Britain, but primarily only about England.
Then, of course, there is the Irish. The Irish were considered a kind of sub-human race of savages that ought to be exterminated. The English launched multiple ethnic cleansing campaigns against them. The English attempted to subjugate Ireland by creating a kind of English feudal ruling class that would rule over the Irish. The Irish themselves were never represented, even in Irish governments, because of what the English saw as an innate inferiority and savagery. They couldn't be allowed to govern themselves. That treatment would continue even into the infamous Irish famine; which may have even been an intentional famine against the Irish. Benjamin Franklin was terrified that the "Intolerable Acts" were basically lifted from Irish subjugation, and that the fate of the Americans would be similar to that of the Irish, especially under the rule of British military governors.
Australia is a prison state, by it's definition. The blessings of individualism and liberty were never tolerated there. They are one of the only Anglo countries that is effectively an illiberal state. Once again, the insane smug supremacism of a ruling class of Anglos who are just so much better than you, explains the cultural context that led them to become this way.
In South Africa we can talk about the Boer Wars. Again, the British government has an objective, doesn't care what anyone wants, and will kill everyone who stands in their way, and builds concentration camps if you've got a problem with it. The Boers were already independent, and weren't a British colony. And losing one war of independence apparently doesn't send a clear enough message to dissuade the British trying again.
In India, the massacres are much more obvious and clear, because it seems to be the only ones where the British actually want to admit that they fucked up.
And finally we get to the Canadians, who have probably the least abuse done to them except in the initial conquest of Canada, where the Acadians were (once again) ethnically cleansed from their homeland and forcibly sent out to sea to die. They wandered the shores of North America until they managed to make it (with casualties) to Louisiana, where they settled in a completely alien environment and became Cajuns. The guerrilla war on the Canadian border during the American Revolution was about as vicious as the guerrilla war in the Deep South. All of the complaints the Americans had about the Brits were replicated in Canada. The difference is that once the British government legitimately had a threat of being overthrown in an area, they played nice with their colonists all of the sudden. And since one war of independence isn't enough to convince the British to fuck off, the War of 1812 showed that when Britain decides to treat you as an enemy (which is every time you refuse to recognize her superiority), her top priority is to burn every standing structure between her ships and your largest population centers. Had they gotten to Baltimore, they would have razed the whole fucking city to the ground.
The Americans are a nation almost entirely built of populations trying to flee British rule. Colonized by Puritans, disaffected Roundheads, Scots, Ulstermen, Irish, left-over Germans, etc.
The British Imperial tradition is simple. Just say, "Fuck you. I'm better than you. You're inferior to me. That's why I'm in charge, kill yourself. If you have a problem with it, I'll literally exterminate your people and burn everything to the ground."
The English people just tend to be wildly ignorant of what the British government tends to do.
As for France, them being broke is hardly an explanation of the rise of the Revolution. For the most part, it deal with their king's wild mismanagement and the aristocracy's inability to prevent a revolution by improving government policy. There was no reason for the French to be enduring famines outside of incompetence.
I wonder what they said about the American revolution.
They said:
OP's picture is propaganda. If you have a choice, you certainly want English liberty rather than the insanity of France... but the English didn't like sharing the blessings of liberty outside of Englishmen exclusively within England, and only in the way that the state allowed.
France funded the American Revolution to the point it was broke when the hard winters followed.
France's spending on the American Revolution was a major cause in the French Revolution.
The UK has always treated her colonies well. Look at Australia, Canada and the African colonies. They went on to become some of the most prosperous nations in their respective regions.
To sum up I disagree with your characterization.
Great Britain has not treated her colonies well. It treated her colonies better than many other Empires, and the Anglo tradition was extremely beneficial. And while we are certainly more friendly with our former imperial masters than most former colonies; the Brits fucking love pretending they didn't do shit to earn EVERYONE being utterly furious at them.
The Welsh have endured multiple attempts at ethnic cleansing and genocide from the English. The crippling of the Welsh national identity had long been a primary objective of dozens of English kings, despite the fact that the Welsh were basically the original Anglo-Celts who lived in England and were driven west, rather than the English Anglo-Saxons. English Supremacism always meant that the Welsh were seen as an inferior sub-class of Brits.
This pattern quickly re-emerges in the Scotts who were given much the same treatment multiple times. Anglicization may have benefited the Scots in the long term, but it was a dedicated effort to eradicate Scottish history & identity, and was an effort to exterminate the Highlander people's altogether. The ending of the Scottish Parliament showed how useless "Virtual Representation" really was because the Scotts didn't have any real representation in government. Great Britain was never really about Britain, but primarily only about England.
Then, of course, there is the Irish. The Irish were considered a kind of sub-human race of savages that ought to be exterminated. The English launched multiple ethnic cleansing campaigns against them. The English attempted to subjugate Ireland by creating a kind of English feudal ruling class that would rule over the Irish. The Irish themselves were never represented, even in Irish governments, because of what the English saw as an innate inferiority and savagery. They couldn't be allowed to govern themselves. That treatment would continue even into the infamous Irish famine; which may have even been an intentional famine against the Irish. Benjamin Franklin was terrified that the "Intolerable Acts" were basically lifted from Irish subjugation, and that the fate of the Americans would be similar to that of the Irish, especially under the rule of British military governors.
Australia is a prison state, by it's definition. The blessings of individualism and liberty were never tolerated there. They are one of the only Anglo countries that is effectively an illiberal state. Once again, the insane smug supremacism of a ruling class of Anglos who are just so much better than you, explains the cultural context that led them to become this way.
In South Africa we can talk about the Boer Wars. Again, the British government has an objective, doesn't care what anyone wants, and will kill everyone who stands in their way, and builds concentration camps if you've got a problem with it. The Boers were already independent, and weren't a British colony. And losing one war of independence apparently doesn't send a clear enough message to dissuade the British trying again.
In India, the massacres are much more obvious and clear, because it seems to be the only ones where the British actually want to admit that they fucked up.
And finally we get to the Canadians, who have probably the least abuse done to them except in the initial conquest of Canada, where the Acadians were (once again) ethnically cleansed from their homeland and forcibly sent out to sea to die. They wandered the shores of North America until they managed to make it (with casualties) to Louisiana, where they settled in a completely alien environment and became Cajuns. The guerrilla war on the Canadian border during the American Revolution was about as vicious as the guerrilla war in the Deep South. All of the complaints the Americans had about the Brits were replicated in Canada. The difference is that once the British government legitimately had a threat of being overthrown in an area, they played nice with their colonists all of the sudden. And since one war of independence isn't enough to convince the British to fuck off, the War of 1812 showed that when Britain decides to treat you as an enemy (which is every time you refuse to recognize her superiority), her top priority is to burn every standing structure between her ships and your largest population centers. Had they gotten to Baltimore, they would have razed the whole fucking city to the ground.
The Americans are a nation almost entirely built of populations trying to flee British rule. Colonized by Puritans, disaffected Roundheads, Scots, Ulstermen, Irish, left-over Germans, etc.
The British Imperial tradition is simple. Just say, "Fuck you. I'm better than you. You're inferior to me. That's why I'm in charge, kill yourself. If you have a problem with it, I'll literally exterminate your people and burn everything to the ground."
The English people just tend to be wildly ignorant of what the British government tends to do.
As for France, them being broke is hardly an explanation of the rise of the Revolution. For the most part, it deal with their king's wild mismanagement and the aristocracy's inability to prevent a revolution by improving government policy. There was no reason for the French to be enduring famines outside of incompetence.