Hi class,
Please post your reactions to our PRE-THANKSGIVING LOYALIST VS. PATRIOT DEBATE from last Wednesday. What good points were raised? Which side do you think won and why? Please keep the comments grounded in history and avoid making personal attacks on your classmates :)
See you in class!
Ms. Rosenberg
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Hello Ms Rosenberg. This is Kenny Lo from your 4th Period Class.
I thought that the Patriot and Loyalist debate was spoken well and detailed. There were some question from the neutral that were interesting that made the debate captivating and somewhat confusing. I believe that the patriot had good points about Parliament giving the colonist taxes without their consent of the people. The Parliament passes the Sugar Act and Tea Act without asking or thinking about how the colonist would react to it. The loyalist also, had some good points such as protecting the Indians from the colonist and being the founder of the colony which means the colonist should stay loyal with England.
In my opinion , I think the patriot won because there were several factors that was in play. First, the taxes that Parliament passed did not let the colonist to have any other option. They were forced to pay the taxes or die. England was basically using the colonies to gain self-economic interest.
Second, the Boston Massacre was the event that led to the drawing of lines between England and the colonies. So much for the "protection" that the loyalist had said. The taxes that the colonist pay were to the redcoats, judges and officials of England. So basically, the colonist were paying their taxes to get killed. Finally, I think that the patriot had no other choice than to rebel against England. They had their right to say "I'm not taking this anymore." especially when the poor and merchants had no money.
Giving this as their final choice, the patriot were to either fight with England for freedom or become a servant to England.
The Patriot Vs. Loyalist debate is quite difficult to have a winner and loser.The two sides raised a good point however I thought loyalist did a better job.
The patriot's stated that without Britain's control Individual liberty will not be threaten and thier own government can be established.
However how is it possible to establish a government without control.More specifically the Patriots wanted seperate legislation which will lead to anarchy.
Someone stated from the loyalist side that "what is the difference between British taxing colonies as opposed to the colonies taxing thier people?",which I thought was a clever table turner.
As a reply to what kenny said "I think that the patriot had no other choice than to rebel against England. They had their right to say "I'm not taking this anymore." especially when the poor and merchants had no money."
Why "rebel" when there is a way to settle an agreement with England(for ex.meetings).
It was the patriots who threw the snowball(Boston Massacre) that sparked the war.It has come to my understanding that the actions taken by revolutionary committees were “illegal”, and a symptom internal tyranny.
Kitty stated that patriots were violent toward the neutrals ,it's either "you join us or you die"
So therefore I ask how can such a group that wants "escape" from British control use violence to obtain "escape"? Wouldn't this mean Patriots will use its people for benefit, with the act of violence.
-Suzanne Li pr.4
Hmm...Ms. Rosenberg - I didn't think this debate would be so heated! Before this class discussion, I thought arguing for the patriot side would be easier, but I realized that the debate indeed sparked a lot of arguments for both sides.
I wouldn't speak for ALL the patriots because some were forced to become a patriot for the sake of their lives. However, those who persecuted loyalists and neutrals were morally wrong! The patriots had beliefs and values, but they deprived the loyalists and the neutrals their right to hold their own beliefs. It's the same as the intoleration of different religions in England. Why would the patriots become the same "monsters" (Thomas Paine's Common Sense) and deprive people of their rights? Didn't they want America to be an independent, united nation? How can everyone unite if these "monsters" shut people out by threatening and persecuting them? Maybe America IS England's child - "the apple does not fall far from the tree".
Oh yeah - Based on the debate last Wednesday, it is pretty hard to decide who won because people kept thinking the loyalists were people making the laws in England, or so it seemed. Both sides made legitimate points, but I have to say, there were some things that really could have been counter-argued.
This is Alyssa Strykers from Period 7!!!As a neutral i was very convinced by the loyalists!
They made very decent points such as how we should help the mother land because they helped us in the French-Indian war, that we should pay our taxes to the land that helped us get where we are. They seemed very sure and stable about their opinion as well. The patriots were almost convincing but they kept circling back to the taxes and how soldiers would take advantage of us!
In my opinion both sides were strong but the Loyalists conveyed their opinion with more detail to be convincing.
The debate seemed more of loyalists and patriots debating with each other, rather than actually trying to win neutrals over.
I believe that the neutral side won. The patriots and loyalists were too busy arguing with each other that they paid no heed to the neutrals and forgot that their goal was to get more people to join their side. Whilst the neutrals kind of were in the background to play it safe. Not before long, the major voices for the patriots and loyalists were starting to lose their edge. This allowed the neutrals to jump in and further weaken both parties. The patriots may have won the debate between them and the loyalists, but they had neglected the neutrals for the most part. Lastly, there were still neutrals that have yet to join a side since they saw that by being a patriot or a loyalist had its disadvantages and it was safer for them to be in the middle to appeal to both thepatriot and loyalist forces.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily agree that the neutrals "won" because neutrals never won back then. Plus, neutrals can't win in a debate, or can they? - not really sure about that...but I do agree that the patriots and the loyalists ended up arguing instead of "advertise themselves" to appeal to the neutrals. I can see why Kitty chose to stay neutral. But the other neutralists were convinced by the points both sides made, which was the main purpose of the debate.
while i think the debate was very bias since we all know what side one in the end i think in all honesty that the patriots won. We were making such good points that the loyalist didnt even know how to respond to them. I also believe that many people didnt have their facts straights and some questions should have been left unanswered on all 3 sides. It was also hard to debate on something which you never will know what it would feel like first hand so I think if you were to put people in different predicuments that many opinions would change. For example if your daughter would to get rapped by a british soldier would you still support the loyalist cost. I think it was an exciting debate but if we were to have one in the future i think it should be more organized and people should do more research on the subject.
Neutrals didn't win back then but we're talking about the debate here.
To Janard - If you think about it, debates are not supposed to have a side that wins because in every debate topic, there are alway points that can be counter-argued. I do agree that our debate was really unorganized - mainly because not everyone had the chance to speak. Maybe if we formed smaller groups, we could spark some real heated issues about the patriots & the loyalists.
And Janard, it is quite inappropriate to say that we haven't done our research, because 1) One should not believe every single thing he or she reads in the internet or the textbook. Remember Howard Zinn's essay and the book Lies My Teacher Told Me ?
2)We all read from the same chapter in the textbook, and maybe some people conveyed points that were irrelevant or false, but you have to remember that people confused the loyalist side as being the ones who were imposing the taxes...
To Kitty - I don't think neutrals were supposed to win in the debate...they were supposed to be convinced to go to either side. It wouldn't make sense if neutrals won because they wouldn't win anything.
Supposed? Neutrals may choose to stay neutral. "It wouldn't make sense if neutrals won because they wouldn't win anything"-Patriots want independence, Loyalists want America to return to their imperial colonial state and Neutrals simply want to stay out of this whole situation; Neutrals want peace.
Your like saying a mediator should not mediate between two conflicting people since they do not gain anything.
Your comments are excellent and thought provoking.
A few thoughts:
1) I think there was some confusion and disorganization in the debate but I wanted you guys to work it out as you continued to make points. The ultimate goal was for you all to sort through the organized chaos of this loyalist v. patriot forum and try to empathize with the different perspectives on the eve of the American Revolution.
2) The goal of the debate was to figure out why certain colonists chose to stay loyal, neutral or rebel...I added the element of trying to convince the neutrals to choose a side to add some higher stakes in the "debate." To be historically accurate, most neutrals would have chosen the side which best fit their economic needs and protection at the particular moment.
3) I think that the most successful participants kept the discussion/debate grounded in facts...one of the problems when we do a debate is that everyone is so focused on WINNING that they lose sight of the original purpose of the debate: to empathize with people in the past and stay grounded in what happened in the past. Of course it's fine that we make a few anachronistic points...but it was necessary for the debate to make sense for the loyalists to remember that they were defending their position as COLONISTS to stay loyal to England.
4) I think the next time we have a debate of this sort it would be fun and more educational if we give each participant a particular character and role and motivation. The point of this debate was just to put all the big revolution ideas together and understand the main arguments...
5) I will put up a new question...hopefully you will keep up the awesome comments!
MS. ROSENBERG
But neutralists aren't mediators
I thought that the patriot vs. Loyalist debate permitted many of the students to fully express their opinions on this colonial time period. Though the debate got a bit out of hand, students conveyed their opinions as if they lived during that era which appealed to the class. I honestly don't think that there was a winner or loser during this debate. It was very difficult to pick a winner due to the lack of time we had during the period. Neutrals evidenatally cannot win a debate due to the fact that they haven't chosen a side to defend. A debate is a process in which two groups of people argue over a topic that leads to a winner and loser. There is no way that someone who didn't have a well developed idea on whether the Patriots or Loyalists should win or not , should win a debate ( i am reffering to the neutrals).
"A debate is a process in which two groups of people argue over a topic that leads to a winner and loser. There is no way that someone who didn't have a well developed idea on whether the Patriots or Loyalists should win or not , should win a debate ( i am referring to the neutrals)."
Then, by your definition, what we had was definitely not a debate, since there were obviously not TWO but THREE groups. Since, we did not have a debate then I would have to agree with you that Neutrals should not win a debate. Of course, we never had one in the first place by your definition.
Haha! We shouldn't attack each other about whether or not the discussion we had was a debate! Let's just drop it because I don't think it's necessary to argue about that issue in here. But two groups did actually debate while neutralists were in the middle to decide whether or not they join a side. The neutralist side was to question if being a patriot or a loyalist would be beneficial.
The debate between the loyalist and the patriots really balanced out equally, the arguements that help sway your decision really cancel out as the debate goes on. Neutral was actually the correct place to stand.
The loyalist can argue that during this time where kings and parliments had total control over political issues it's better to stick with the winning side, king and the parliment obviously had a more central and organized government creating a strong foundation for the "empire" even though that there are somewhat of a benefit to be free and independant. to fight along with the mother country not only garentee trade routes to continue to flow and there is 0% chance of total bankruptcy in the colonies since the colonies are the source of good for the british they won't let it fall.
patriots had the advantage of currency and economy. For patriots their main goal was to be free from limitless taxation of what does not benefit them one bit. this can cause the arguement of the British trying to engulf the whole colony in order to achieve their own satisfactory. The British paid no attention to the life of the colonists, whether they were withering away due to the tax imposed on them or not, it was none of the parliments concern and that brought a major uproar. for people to follow and be loyal, they need something in return but if a person only worries about their on greed, in the end the only thing they would get in return would be a small increase in their salary but losing an entire colony.
Every point in the history book that was studied can be used to argue a side, whether it is slavery, trades, economy, life style or even self rights can be used on both sides. The only difference between the patriots and the loyalist are their goals, but the tactic that can be used to argue are similar if not the same. one way though that would have made the arguement go far more better was if the goal was stated and proof of what being on that side would allow them to achieve, if people on at least one side used this way to change the perspective it would have been really affective. I wasn't able to do that because i was a neutral, and it was correct to stay as neutrals, weak leaders aren't able to gather strong men.^.^
Post a Comment