this post was submitted on 12 May 2026
74 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
858 readers
396 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It was against rich people, it just so happened the revolutionary side was also headed by rich people who wanted more land for themselves.
but was it tho? it was against the state, which rich people got expropriated money/land/slaves in the war?
one group of colonial rich people vs aristocratic rich people on a bog island, nothing to celebrate really
Very telling that the swamp Americans in Virginia, Carolina, and Georgia were pro-crown until the crown started to tell their slaves to break free
It was the rich people mad that the extremely rich people weren't letting them become extremely rich
That isn't true either though. The motivations were war taxes levied as a response to a war they started, being unable to compete with British tea exports, and the potential enforcement of British laws like "Don't fucking invade another country without asking you fucking numbskull". American rich people were not kept down or prevented from competing or in any way inconvenienced. They still paid less tax than the British did and still had access to free land they stole.
Don't forget the crown setting limits on westward genocidal expansion (casue it cost money to defend the settlers for little gain).
Really it's an object lesson that the bourgeoisie will never be happy