October 23, 2004

carter and matthews brainstorm on historic parallels

apparently, the two were kind of freestylin' it (as the progressive musicians say) and didn't realize that each statement topped the one before it on the overall statement-stupidity index. watch as the statements get more and more kooky and outlandish as they go on.

#1: iraqi insurgents are pretty much the same as those americans who fought against britain in the revolutionary war. (matthews, cheerleader for al-qaeda)


#2: "the iraq war is the bloodiest, worstest, scariest, quagmirest, highest in carbs..." (carter)

#3: "I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war." (carter--who is hereby struck from the historical record. as far as i'm concerned, he was never president. in fact, he never existed. one good revisionist historian deserves another).

#3 1/2: "Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonial’s really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely, and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way."

we would've had to be pretty patient. below you have the years of independence of various british colonies:

US of A: 1776
canada: 1867 (full independence did not come until 1982)
india: 1947
australia: 1986
hong kong: 1997
new zealand: 1907
solomon islands: 1978
south africa: self-governing in 1931 (not a republic until 1961)
other african colonies: most within the last 50 years [link] or [link]

yes, establishing just laws, representative democracy, and independence just takes a little patience! don't worry, they'll come! they would've arrived on their own to saddam hussein's iraq, too, if we'd have just waited a while.

as one LGF reader noted, in carter's view, the revolutionary war was "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time."

[via kyer]
see also this thread [link]
and LGF
and rightnation.us
[complete transcript]

reader edmo emails:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but India didn't get independence non-violently. Thousands of natives were killed, beaten, starved, imprisoned, and abused by the British government and military. Gandhi lead a (usually) non-violent protest movement, but many Indians used violent means to combat the British and the British certainly used violent means to try and quell the uprising.

and, indeed, he is right. there was the sepoy rebellion, which many call india's first war of independence from 1857-1859. there was the 1919 massacre at amritsar. [source] i'm no historian, especially when it comes to india, but things did not go as jimmy carter (who does not exist) said they did.

a more factual response to carter's first point:

#2: "one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we’ve fought." (carter) i don't know how to interpret this statement. the revolutionary war was not more bloody than the civil war or world war II, at least. i know that without looking them up. jimmy's writing a book on this and he can't get it right. and then, to implicitly call iraq, "the most bloody war we've fought"? there were 4400 revolutionary war deaths out of a population of 27.8 million 1780 census] versus, now, 1100 iraq war deaths of a population of 294.5 million americans. [US war casualties

Posted by travis at October 23, 2004 02:15 AM | TrackBack

(carter--who is hereby struck from the historical record. as far as i'm concerned, he was never president. in fact, he never existed. one good revisionist historian deserves another)

The best line on the blog in many, many moons.

Posted by: doug at October 23, 2004 02:56 AM

I agree wholeheartedly! I was astounded to hear such a comment about the Revolutionary War, even out of his mouth. And about the Canada thing...well, I am married to a Newfoundlander, and lived up there for a couple of years (Nova Scotia), and although I love the country and the people, I did not like the way they are still subjects of the Queen. Nothing against the Queen, mind you, but I am glad that when the people here asked George Washington to be their king, he said "we don't need no stinkin' king!" (or words to that effect). I don't think I would be comfortable becoming a Canadian citizen, for at least one reason: I could not swear allegience to the Queen of England. Got too much rebellious American patriot blood in me, I guess! (although actually several of my ancestors were loyalists in the war! oh well!) Keep up the great work; you are an inspiration to me and I am sure many many others!

Posted by: Peggy Snow Cahill at October 23, 2004 08:14 AM

Doug, I second that.

Posted by: kyer at October 24, 2004 08:44 AM

WOW!! I mean wow! That is amazing that they would be so bold. Talk about cajones... comparing the rev. war to that of the insurgents... right!
I love that they thought the revolutionary war was "unnecessary." But hey, they are right. I mean, we could have just gone on taking it up the back side. There was no need to get all bent out of shape over that. And I am sure that Carter and Matthews would have been fine not having all the wealth that this country has because of its independance. Canada, India, and Austrailia sure are rich! I am sure we would have been fine. Especially since that would have meant that England would have controlled pretty much the entire world.
Great post!!

Posted by: Al at October 25, 2004 03:44 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?