The American Revolution was an important event for the North American continent because it affected so many differing parties. As in all conflicts, the American Revolution resulted in “winners” and “losers”. The Patriots were the obvious winners in the Revolution; they gained independence, the right to practice representative government, and several new civil liberties and freedoms. Loyalists, or Tories, were the losers of the Revolution; they supported the Crown, and the Crown was defeated. Loyalists were viewed as traitors and persecuted endlessly. However, the Native Americans lost even more than the Loyalists in the American Revolution; they lost the rights to most of their land, forever confining them to existing on humiliating reservations.
The American Revolution had a positive outcome to the Patriots who were fighting for independence from Britain. The defeat of the British gave Patriots the political and economic rights they had been seeking from Britain since the start of the prolonged conflict. Patriots were now free to establish their own systems of representative government and elect officials who best suited their interests. Now the Americans would only be taxed by people who represented them, rather than an assembly of exploitative Britons with no care for American interests. American independence also brought an end to the much despised British mercantilism that had once been such an important aspect of the American colonial economy. Americans were no longer forced into purchasing British products and trading in British markets. Free trade meant that Americans would be free to trade with whoever offers the best price – and thus obtain the maximum profit.
The outcome wasn’t so cheerful for the unfortunate Loyalists who decided to remain faithful to their King during the American Revolution. Loyalists were viewed as traitors by their fellow Americans for their lack of patriotism during the Revolutionary conflict. Often, Patriots saw fit to wreak violence on the Loyalists. Patriots would tar and feather Loyalists who had been strong supporters of the British. For many Loyalists, the only escape from persecution was to leave the country. Thousands flocked to Canada and even more returned to Britain. In Britain, the Loyalists had a hard time fitting in and remained uncomfortable for the rest of their lives. Luckily, some mild Loyalists were forgiven and allowed to remain in America and live in peace. However, those who supported the King clearly felt the consequences of their decision when the Americans achieved their independence.
The American Revolution sealed the fate of the indecisive Native Americans. The disorganized Iroquois Native Americans could not agree upon which side to support during the War – and each tribe was left to decide on its own. Fatefully, the majority of the Iroquois tribes sided with the British because they believed a victorious British would restrain American expansion into the West. However, when the British were defeated, the Native American hopes were left in tatters. Also, any chances of the Parliament restricting further incursion into the depths of the content were effectively destroyed. In 1784, the pro-British Iroquois were forced to sign the humiliating Treaty of Fort Stanwix, which ceded most of the Native American land to the United States. Thus began the Indian Reservation System that confined the once-proud tribes to a degrading life on small plots of land. Many of the Native Americans became addicted to alcohol and lived miserable lives. Clearly, the American Revolution had the worst effects on the Native Americans.
The American Revolution was an important event for the North American continent because it affected so many differing parties. The Patriots gained independence and the right to practice their own style of government; Loyalists were persecuted as “traitors”; and the Native Americans lost the rights to their ancestral lands. The outcome of this conflict would forever be remembered in history for its lasting effects.
Aboukhadijeh, Feross. "Winners and Losers in the American Revolution" StudyNotes.org. Study Notes, LLC., 05 Jan. 2014. Web. 13 Mar. 2018. <https://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/sample-essays/winners-and-losers-in-the-american/>.
I can do anything better than you!"
- Competitive sports
- Political races
- Courtship rivalries
- Buying and selling
- Dealing with threats of punishment
- The lottery and other gambling
- Cops and robbers
- "Cowboys and Indians"
- Business competition
- The "rat race"
- Keeping up with the Joneses
- The struggles between:
- Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland
- North Koreans and South Koreans
- Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese
- Hutus and Tutsies in Ruanda
- Kosovo Serbs and Albanians
- Iraqis and Iranians
- Israelis and Palestinians
- NATO and Yugoslavia
- The race to the moon
- Television networks competing for viewers
- Investors competing for profits
- Siblings competing for limited "love supplies" (we call it "sibling rivalry")
- Students competing for grades
- "Wheel of Fortune" and "Jeopardy"
- "The Peoples' Court" and "Judge Judy"
- Road rage
- Our adversarial legal system
to create sides to solve disagreements by fighting to "praise and reward the use of violence and physical strength" to "start fights and make enemies" to "make war seem like an OK thing to do" to make some people "seem better than other people" to "make boys seem more important than girls."
manner and will pay a price greater than whatever benefit may come from it. For instance, the gangster may gain spoils and "power," but pays with ongoing fear of vengeful attack as well as with a reduction in the ability to love and to experience love. Similarly, punishing or demeaning parents push their children away, but end up isolated and starved for love and connection as do their children. The anti-abortion bomber may temporarily slow the pace of abortion, but will ultimately bring about an increased effort on the part of pro-choice people. The improved methods of the counterfeiter simply lead the police to improve their detection methods.
- Polarizing I call this the "Archie Bunker" syndrome. It includes polarizing into us vs. them, and into the good guys and the bad guys. This strategy might be effective in motivating people to fight an enemy or a competitor, since we're not likely to oppose someone who we see as like us or with us. But an adversarial stance simply invites the opposing side to reciprocate with an opposing adversarial response. So while this may attain short-term gains, it always results in long-term losses that frustrate the gains. I suggest that the never-ending struggles between the Israelis and Palestinians or the Serbians and the ethnic Albanians are examples of this. So too are the struggles of corporations against their competitors or their workers.
One of the casualties of polarizing into "all of mine is valid and none of yours is" is that neither side is open to recognizing or considering the legitimate desires or qualities of the other. (Consider the last argument you had with your child, spouse or lover.) In the case of commerce, it would be surprising, indeed, if either side were to help potential customers with the truth about its competitor. Consider Avis' slogan "We're number two; we try harder." It asserts, without evidence, that number one (Hertz) doesn't try hard and it obscures the fact that Avis is not the underdog, but part of one of the biggest and richest corporations in the world.
- Demonizing If I'm trying to win, there is significant pressure for me to demean my opponent/competitor/enemy to make the other bad. "We try harder" is just one example of such demonizing. Wendy's famous "Where's the beef" commercial implied again, without evidence that the other hamburger sellers were stingy with their meat.
Demonizing is an essential strategy during wars. For example, during World War II, the Japanese and German people and soldiers were depicted in Allied lands as subhuman, cruel, and not valuing life. Tojo, Hitler, Goehring and the others in charge of waging war against the Allies were depicted as objects of derision, ridicule and scorn. At the same time, no patriotic person had a moment's concern about the grief of a Japanese or German mother whose father, husband or son was a casualty of the war. In fact, in order for me to be patriotic, I must take sides against the other. On the other hand, if I am deemed unpatriotic, I am seen as unworthy; that is, I am demonized.
- Shame The adulation poured on the winner in a sports contest, particularly in a "championship" contest, tends to distract us from recognizing that losses are moments of shame. (the shadow side of Lombardi's "winning is everything"). When Steffi Graff lost to Lindsay Davenport at Wimbledon yesterday, she was perceived as a failure, even a has-been. (Yet having lost, she is now rated the second-bestfemaletennis player in the world. That this is hardly a less impressive achievement one which could have been reversed on any given day we completely disregard.) This shame is symbolized by the fact that the loser characteristically receives a much smaller financial prize than the winner does and by the fact that we are much less likely to remember the runner-up than the winner. At the Olympics, for instance, if we remember at all, we are likely to recall who won the gold medal, but not who won the silver or bronze medals.
I suggest that it was just this shame that motivated many of the people who lost their fortunes in the stock market crash of 1929 to commit suicide.
- Mistrust Trust is an early victim of the effort to win.From the perspective of winning and losing, the other person is my enemy, opponent or competitor, and is striving to defeat me: Mistrust is an inescapable consequence. It goes with the territory, then, that I must strive to conceal myself my strategies, desires and discoveries from my opponents. ("You've got to keep your cards close to your vest!") I suggest that this is to everyone's detriment.
- Deceit It follows that if I don't trust you and I must win, I cannot safely be truthful with you, I must deceive you. (Does Macy's tell Gimbels?) (Macy's and Gimbels have long been competing department stores in New York City. This expression was often used to assert that competitors don't reveal what they're up to to one another an assertion which was questioned by Santa Claus in the movie Miracle on 34th Street). From the win-lose perspective, it cannot be fathomed that it could actually be of value to be helpful to someone who is trying to defeat me.
- Scare A world in which others are opponents or enemies is a scary world. If I have been winning, it's inevitable that I will be scared of losing the reward and regard provided to me as winner. (For example, one Internet CEO, when asked today how he feels about the damage that the competition could do, replied "I wake up scared every day.") On the other hand, if I am losing, I will be scared that I will be ever-deprived of the reward and regard.
- Resentment If I am involved in winning and losing, I will inevitably harbor resentment towards both those whom I beat and those who surpass me. I resent those whom I who surpass because they require that I be ever-alert to the possibility that they may overtake me. I resent those who surpass me because, in faring better than me, they deprive me of the goodies that come from winning (money, acclaim, the girl). The Nerd and the Jock resent one another.
- Vengefulness Those who lose inevitably seek to "even the score," to get revenge. Since in almost every endeavor there are few winners and many losers, there are many among us who are seeking revenge (or waiting for the opportunity to do so). Consider, for example, road rage, drive-by shootings, shop-lifting and white collar crime.
- Over-and-over again When a conflict is "settled" in a way that is not mutually satisfactory, the side or person that views the settlement as a loss will harbor a residue of resentment and shame and a desire for revenge, and will act to "even the score" by defeating those who did the defeating. This is amply evident in the 600 year struggle between the Serbs and the "ethnic" Albanians in Kosovo, or the similarly endless struggles between the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland or the Iraqis and Iranians.
- Addictiveness As long as I am caught in the win-lose trap, I must continue to strive. If I am the loser, the only way I can exceed my shame and get the "high" is to continue striving. If I am a winner, the only way I can avoid "coming down" is to continue to win. I think that the fact that many sports stars become involved with drugs even though these are ostensibly a threat to their careers alludes to the addictive character of these people. I suspect, too, that the attempt to avoid coming down is also why sports stars and many "movers" and "shakers" frequently act outrageously in their private lives.
- Escalation Escalation prevails in all winning and losing. It is very evident when we look, for instance, at the "contest" between cops and robbers. In counterfeiting, for example, law enforcement's increasing ability to recognize counterfeits has simply led to the counterfeiters using more sophisticated means to counterfeit. In turn, this has led (and, I suggest, will continue to lead) to evenmore sophisticated means to keep counterfeiters from being able to successfully counterfeit. This is true, as well, in the competition between drug traffickers and "narcs." The more sophisticated the means of interdiction have become, the more sophisticated have become the means of avoiding interdiction. The same progression is also evident with regard to weapons of warfare, where through the centuries there has been a steady increase in the power and sophistication of such weapons. At times it was believed that such increases would somehow put an end to war. For example, Albert Nobel expected this would result from his invention of dynamite. It was also thought that the Atomic and Hydrogen bombs would put an end to war. But clearly none of this has made war any less likely and the escalation continues.
- Modeling of violence Instead of rendering our lives more loving, winning and losing perpetually provides models of and urgings towards violence. Rather than diminishing violence, it perpetuates and escalates it. (Consider, for instance, the outbreaks of spectator violence at soccer matches.)
- Obstruction of maturing When I am hooked into striving to win or to keep from losing, cooperating in searching for solutions seems to mean risking losing; it seems like a weakness. In being locked into striving for solutions through being adversarial, I am kept from recognizing those possible solutions not dictated by winning and losing. Unable to deal with conflict in a genuinely cooperative way (that is, in a mutually respectful search for mutually satisfying solutions without a "hidden agenda" and without attempting or accepting gain at the other's expense), I am robbed of the possibility of discovering and experiencing my genuine connectedness and responsibility to others.
- Diminished ability to love Love requires mutual openness. The competitive context makes this openness uncertain, perhaps impossible. In turn, this makes it difficult even impossible for me to recognize whether someone's seemingly kind act comes from care or is part of a strategy to take advantage of me. Since I'm unable to trust, I'm (most often secretly) afraid that the other person's care is not genuine, and that he or she will forsake me when in some way I inevitably fail to "win."
The way out
Download this essay in rich text format (rtf)