How did the British perspective differ from the American perspective about the Revolutionary War?
There isn't really a good answer to this question because it's so broad. It presumes that there as a single American perspective and a single British perspective, and the reality is that there were multiple perspectives on both sides. The Revolutionary War was actually America's first Civil War. Whigs (rebels) squared off against Tories (loyalists), sometimes splitting families. Both sides believed that they were morally justified. In the broad view, the conflict was brought about by changes in the crown's policies toward the colonies. Under the direction of William Pitt the elder, the crown had basically seen the colonies as a long-term investment. They were creating a new nation that would be rich and powerful and the crown would profit by having favored trade deals. This policy changed after the Seven years War with France (known in America as the French and Indian War), and King George III sought to get the colonies to help replenish the treasury by taxing them. There was a schism in Parliament over this policy. Under the British Bill of Rights, if Parliament wanted to tax the colonies as British possessions, then the colonies had the right to representation in Parliament. That would have meant 20-30 seats, based on population. The crown ignored that, enraging many in the colonies. It gave inertia to a growing movement for self-rule. This lead to a series of increasingly violent conflicts between British soldiers and officials and colonists in New England. In an effort to quell the potential for rebellion, the British hit up the idea of seizing arms from the colonists (in addition to private arms, communities often had stores of public arms, and most gunpowder was stored communally, away from the homes, because of it's volatility). On Aril 19, 1775, a bungled attempt to seize arms from the town of Concord, MA, led to a massacre of colonists in Lexington, and the overwhelming armed response by colonists sparked the Revolutionary War.
From an artist's perspective, is the American flag a good design?
It is actually pretty hard to come up with an objective approach, when it comes to evaluate the US flag, in the name of design, as it is one of the biggest pumped up symbols of 20th century, with the whole hollywood and entertainment business marketing shit.But is it bad? of course not. It is a damn flag. Flags doesn’t had meanings just because how well designed they are. They just represent a unity of people as country or what so ever. Design of the flag is not that important.But, if anyone asks my objective opinion about it, I think it is way weird to create a rectangle at top left corner, to gather all the stars that represents all states. I mean the states and stars thing makes sense and cool, but placing them into another rectangle area with a blue background? meeh. That is kind of being lazy. That is not creative enough designwise. I also look for a vertical or horizontal symmetry at any national flag, which US flag don’t have any.By the judgement of minimalism and simplicity, I would vote Japan or Swiss flags are much better designs comparing to most national flags. They are cool, unique enough, simple by design and bold enough to make a mark.And the flag below, is the version of war time flag, represents the Japanese Imperial Army. Damn that is cool shit.Paolo Brandon disagreed with me about the importance of flag design. :) Feel free to disagree. But let me correct this, I didn’t mean flags should be designed without any graphic design concern. I meant, it will not effect the power of any flag. If it would, we wouldn’t know many terrible flag designs as well known nation’s flags. (I will not name names)Even when most flags have been designed, graphic design was not an established profession. So please, don’t manipulate what I write with demagogic assumptions. :) But you may disagree as much as you want. I respect that.
Who Started the Cold War? American and Soviet Perspectives?
Who was George Kennan and who was Nikolai Novikov? What was happening in 1946 and what was the context of the two documents? What was Kennan’s view of the Soviet Union and what were his policy recommendations to the United States government? In Novikov’s view what was the goal of U.S. foreign policy and how did he believe the U.S. would go about achieving these goals? Why was it so hard for both sides to find common ground? need help badly thanks!!
As an American, we were taught a certain perspective of each world war. So, what was different with the lessons in school from the perspective of Germany or Russia? Was is still the axis and allied?
I don't remember the word axis from my school years in Germany, it’s not very common. The old guys in town, whom you cherish in a way as a boy, would either go berserk when you asked them about their Nazi past or fall to dust by talking the same s*** over and over again. There was no “finest generation”, no Veterans Day, no big fatherland war as in Russia. War Was attached to something unspeakable, a fear that even the grown ups couldn't stand. All the flags and badges and who did win or lose was not important in my family. If only this would never return.
What was the perspective of the Native Americans regarding Custer’s Last Stand?
they viewed it was a great victory. Before the battle, the chief did a self-torture ritual to induce visions, he brought back a great victory but was warned not to rob the dead.