It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

American LEOs= British Redcoats

page: 1
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Ive been putting a lot of thought into 'why' the police in America have been cast in the light they have.

I wont have any links in this thread, and this is highly just my perceived opinion. So feel free to move on if you dont like the discussion. I just wanted to put the idea out there and get some feedback.
--------------

Firstly, Id like to cover the role of the British redcoats in America leading up to the Revolutionary war and hope to draw parallels to our modern LEOs.

The redcoats were originally placed in the colonies to " keep the peace" amongsrmt the colonies when tensions began to rise between the colonists and the monarch.

Though, there was a large majority at the time that still supported the monarch and another majority that couldnt care less, there were still a few that perceived the monarch as over reaching and felt the colonies had no representation in parlament.

Most of the colonists at the time where only a generation or so removed from being british nationalists themselves. So its not a stretch to say that they and the redcoats were equal socially. The redcoats just happened to work for the monarchy and enjoyed the perks of such.

Their only responsibilty in the begining was to ensure social integrity and enforce a presence.

When tensions rose and many of the colonists began to loathe the laws and misrepresentation of the monarch, the redcoats presence was amped up and they were more heavily supplied with munitions. ( security beefed up).

Effectively, there were few ambassadors and 'tax collectors' sent to the colonies as well. These 'tax collectors' became the physical face of tyrany in the colonies, and the redcoats, their enforcers.

We all know how the rest of it went down. A few small squabbles here and there between colonists and redcoats over a few years culminated into outrage and fueled the fire that eventually lead to an all out revolution.

Lets fast forward a couple hundred years and see where we are today.

The police, in their modern form were initially started to 'keep the peace'. They reported fires and helped keep social order.

They began to modernize and their duties were more defined. They started actively searching out criminals and those that posed a threat to citizens.

Now, over the last 50 years we have seen politucal tensions rise once again. There is a large faction of the American populace that no longer feels they have true representation in our government. There is a majority that still backs the government, and yet another majority that just doesnt care.

In these last few years, as tensions rise, we see LEO agencies being re-equipped with military grade weapons and munitions. We see the LEOs being used by the states to squash or deter riots and rallies (rebellion).

In modern America, the elected officials have become the physical face of tyrany and the LEOs their enforcers.

Again, as before, the officers are our equals socially, they are citizens that happen to work for the state and enjoy the perks of that.

We have had squabbles between law enforcement over the years and even a recent uptick of violence between the citizens and officers.

Now, I ask you, given the points presented, is it a far stretch to say that law enforcement is the modern equivalent to the british redcoats of old?

Is it any wonder, given history, that most Americans, whether consciously or subconsciously despise LEOs?

Maybe Im just reaching myself. But thats why I wanted to bring this here for discussion.

Aaaaand GO...




posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
AYE, THE FACE OF TYRANNY REARS ITS UGLY COUNTENANCE.....
In Canada we have little better than real redcoats who are the feds occupying army...they call the RCMP....


+5 more 
posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Dont insult red coats.

They (for the time) where a lot more professional and well behaved than your LEO. And had more accountability! When a redcoat screwed up he got a flogging or a hanging rather than a pay rise!



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

History may or may not repeat. It does seem to echo sometimes. The ones who fancy themselves in control are courting a lesson in fact. Keep on poking that dog and it will snap back.
edit on 7-6-2014 by skunkape23 because: correction



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

Firstly, you can't have two majorities when talking about the same single subject. One is a majority, the other a minority.

The British military where not sent to the colonies to keep the peace. They where sent to protect the colonists from aggressive acts by Native American Indians.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Actually you can have two majorities. Less than 1/3 of the colonists were 'anti- establishment' and the rest were split on their opinion. Leaving two opposing ideals that were a majority to the other. Even split, they wre a majority compared to the colonists that opposed the monarch.

And as I stated, the redcoats were sent to keep the peace and social order. They were to squash any rebellion against the monarch. The natives were the first enemy on an already growing list.

If you wish to pick apart the details of the OP there are plenty if other threads to do that. If you dont care for the discussion then please move on. The historical details are mot the main point of the OP. Which is why I found no reason for sources and links. The American Revolution is pretty well documented and the stories are known. Moreover, the main point in the OP isnt the details, rather the emotions and thoughts burned into the pysches of Americans today compared to the Americans of yesteryear.

Its the shared sentiments that we have towards LEOs is todays America and those of our ancestors.

edit on 7-6-2014 by Chickensalad because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

Americans are given the "propaganda" version of the revolution.
Here is The British side of it. The truth probably lies somewhere between both.

www.redcoat.me.uk...



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

ICCS Org
Although the history of British interference is noble effort, the current situation remedy is far more noble and important to focus your attention.

The International Court of Crimes and State is putting enormous effort on taking Queen Elizabeth, and both recent Popes are already convicted of killing, raping children...even drinking their blood...eating their body whole.

Constitutional Sheriff's training is occurring on US, Canada at an increasing rate. This will arrests of Ninth Circle Vatican freaks and their conviction.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

Your point is that law enforcement officers in the US don't really work for the American people anymore, but rather for a "foreign" entity, just like the British redcoats did?

If so, I think you're partially right.
Your Government isn't working for your people anymore, and your LEO are now answering to the same overlords your Government is working for.

Nevertheless, people sadly need to be policed. At least in the state of society and system we're currently living in.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ColCurious
Yes, that is a condensed version.

The redcoats and modern police both, started out BY the people and FOR the well being of the people.

They were/have been used AGAINST the people by tyrannical governments.

Is it a wonder that most Americans are weary of encounters with police given this veiw-point?

And thats not to say that everybody shares this veiwpoint either.

But, to me, it seems there is always this underlying tone to most with anti-police veiws. And it seems to be a tone that most cant logically explain or understand. Some would just call it anti-authoritarian. I on the other hand question Why that is.

Why are there so many that despise/fear/hate law enforcement these days but cant clearly explain in logical terms why? Of course, they can give you an emotion fueled reason why. But there has to be logical reason. Thats what Im bringing into question.

Im not denying police corruption or the obvious abuses of power or even the excessive uses of force. In fact I bring as evidence of my OP.

I believe those in LE share the same sentiment burned into their psyche. They have just chosen to be on the other side. To enjoy the perks of enforcing for the tyrannical government. Whether that too is consciously or subconciously can be argued.

But, it seems there has been a proverbial libe drawn in the sand now. And people are now choosing their sides.

Im just attempting to define that line in a logical manner. Maybe just for myself but to also help us see the problems clearer.

We cant fix a problem if we cant logically define the problem

edit on 7-6-2014 by Chickensalad because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
So why would the military not be the red coats? A central controled organization. The police are not, in fact what they have, do and such are controled at the local level. If you do not like your Sheriff you can vote him out. And for all he chatter about the police being militarty like 99% of the have a hand gun and a shot gun. Maybe it would be better to compair the red coats to the national guard, they would be the ones to put down a rebellion.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Don't Go West, Young Man

Even though they fought hard to gain new land during the French and Indian War, the British tried to prevent American colonists from settling in it. It was already hard for them to govern the colonies from overseas. The British believed that if Americans moved west over the mountains, it would be too challenging to regulate trade and taxes, and that their resources would be spread too thin.


Royal Proclamation of 1763


The Quartering Act of 1765 required the colonies to house British soldiers in barracks provided by the colonies. If the barracks were too small to house all the soldiers, then localities were to accommodate the soldiers in local inns, livery stables, ale houses, victualling houses, and the houses of sellers of wine. Should there still be soldiers without accommodation after all such publick houses were filled, the colonies were then required to take, hire and make fit for the reception of his Majesty's forces, such and so many uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns, or other buildings as shall be necessary.

Quartering Act of 1765

The official history says that His Majesty's Government was trying to save money by having a part of the army paid for directly by North America. Similar to a tax to support the troops, a tax in the form of free room and board. Money was always in short supply for governments before fiat money and socialist banking.

It looked like the troops were there to collect taxes and keep the colonists in line, in addition to the added expense of quartering. The British were directed at controlling the population rather than growing the economy.

This time in history was before economics as we know it today. In the 1760's, economics was a branch of Moral Philosophy. The Founding Fathers probably had beliefs and theories about the free market but there was no terminology for it at that time.

The Founding Fathers knew that freedom fostered economic growth.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

Since the political face of tyranny and their LEO enforcers are not really the heart of the problem I hope that when the SHTF this time the disenfranchised go after the actual problem. Starting with the banks and the elitist 1%.

As far as LEO = Redcoats there is some surface similarities. Let's not take our focus off the real bad guys though and identify the real enemies of freedom. You can't resist oppression if you don't know the root causes.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

I suppose I see the police more akin to the redcoats because of the physical presence and intimidation tactics.

I dont see the military as anywhere near the same. They occupy foreign bodies. The police occuoy and enforce domestically.

I agree to the above post about who the true enemies are. And the colonists agreed on that as well. Im simply saying that the redcoats/police have been used as personal enforcers by the oligarchs.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Personally I do not believe that the grievances of the American colonies were well-founded, but it does not matter considering there was a war fought. One could argue that the war was not just in itself, but the fact that the Americans drove the British from American soil means they did actually create their own country, whether their reasons were just or not. Might makes right in this instance, so to speak. So no one would actually claim that Britain had any claim to the US, considering they were driven from US soil via a war. Does that make sense?

From the British point of view the American colonies were in rebellion. Refusing to abide by British law dictated this. So theoretically the Americans were breaking the law in certain ways. So the soldiers in America were basically trying to quell an insurgency, which is a bit ironic in my opinion when looking at US actions today, but that is beside the point. In fact, while I do not necessarily believe that the Founding Fathers of America were justified in engaging the British at Lexington and Concord to kick off the war, the government they set up during these years was superior to that of the British at the time, the parliamentary monarchy or whatever one wishes to call it. I think the monarchs played much too great a role in government, and a system of democratic or republican democracy, in theory, is superior in many instances, although not all.
In an unstable country democracy can simply not work all of the time, or a country where the population is divided on religious beliefs or other beliefs that break them into factions from which they are willing to be violent towards others. On a large scale I mean, since obviously we have groups in the US but since they are not using violence or attempting to gain power through violence but rather through politics, democracy works a bit better.

Anyway, I do think there are some police officers who do actually view citizens as being in rebellion in a sense, considering they treat them with hostility. But I do not think it is so widespread. And the government is not sending the police out specifically to prevent rebellion either, although the British soldiers were also tasked with enforcing the law which likens them to police officers. The more I think about it I believe that arguments could be made for and against this idea, and parallels could be drawn that make sense. But for all the similarities there are also differences considering that the situation itself is different. Not a bad comparison by any means however.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chickensalad
The redcoats and modern police both, started out BY the people and FOR the well being of the people.

They were/have been used AGAINST the people by tyrannical governments.

Is it a wonder that most Americans are weary of encounters with police given this veiw-point?

Some would just call it anti-authoritarian. I on the other hand question Why that is.

Why are there so many that despise/fear/hate law enforcement these days but cant clearly explain in logical terms why? But there has to be logical reason.

Im not denying police corruption or the obvious abuses of power or even the excessive uses of force. In fact I bring as evidence of my OP.

I believe those in LE share the same sentiment burned into their psyche. They have just chosen to be on the other side. To enjoy the perks of enforcing for the tyrannical government.

We cant fix a problem if we cant logically define the problem


Red Coats, OK, appropriate enough by the definition you earlier provided. I believe you have already cited the problem several times over, a tyrannical government, at least in the viewpoint of the many that now feel oppressed by it.

We now have an over-abundance of self-serving laws that rather than maintain an orderly society act to foment discontentment and violence even, and are rigorously enforced and exploited at local levels on up by agencies and a system that will profit by them. When these efforts don't bring about the desired sense of order the public willingly goes along with stricter measures and enforcement tactics which in turn makes matters worse, much like the finger trap toy that tightens more upon its captive as one tries harder to pull away from it. Ultimately it is our own misplaced altruism that makes the problem worse, our attempt to "do the right thing" that ends up working against us.

There are many tentacles of this insidious device grasping ahold of our freedoms but the War on Drugs perhaps sheds light on the most easily demonstrable evil and is the most deep-reaching into our personal privacies. At the outset the camapign against these possibly dangerous substances appears just and necessary and harbors no dangers of loss of liberties or fear of punishment for those not involved in the game, unless the innocent party just happens to share the same house number as a suspect the next block over. Then the consequences can become messy and perhaps unresolvable.

A nightmare scenario has an innocent home being raided in the dark and wee hours of the morning. SWAT comes to serve a warrant, apprehend a suspect, and search the premisis for further incriminating evidence. The team's impatience has them breaking through the door before the residence emerge from sleep, the family dog barks at the intruders and is in turn shot. The child in the house is the first roused by the commotion and is then traumatized by what he observes, letting out a cry the father emerges from his bedroom shotgun in hand to ward off intruders that may harm his family and is shot dead on the spot. Of course the "Redcoats" have the wrong home, but no matter, the alleged suspect that sold a $10 bag of weed to an undercover agent is ultimately the one held responsible for any collateral damages that might occur in the process of carrying out justice.

In other scenarios that notoriously occur, a vehicle is stopped by enforcers on a highway while enroute in a neighboring state or community to purchase a used vehicle from a private individual. With mild intimidation the driver, or his passenger has been ruled also able to give consent, they allow a search of their vehicle which yields nothing more incriminating than a few thousand dollars cash they had with them to haggle price with and make their purchase. That money is confiscated because it "could be used to commit a felony drug purchase." It most often proves very difficult if not impossible to retrieve that confiscated money after considerable time and expense.

OK, so it is no wonder we are losing respect for our system of laws and justice. We must share some of the blame, a little of it perhaps, but it is all an insidious device used against us under the cover of law and order, fair play, and all that is good in our society. It becomes a tough argument to label it as tyranny and oppression, since it is all for our own protection, but I am inclined to call it that. I could go on with near-infinite more examples but I see little reason or need to continue in order to make the point.


edit on 7-6-2014 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The official history says that His Majesty's Government was trying to save money by having a part of the army paid for directly by North America. Similar to a tax to support the troops, a tax in the form of free room and board. Money was always in short supply for governments before fiat money and socialist banking.


Fiat money existed at that time. We've had fractional reserve banking since the mid 1600's. The concept was 100 years old by then.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

They are a predatory racketeering club. Casual crimes, oppression and general ugliness against the citizenry, whom they see as subordinates.

Today's US LEO's are more like the feudal lords against the peasants. IMO, red coats probably believed they were fighting for a cause --the crown and the English way of life.

Tell me what cause LEO's are fighting for? Their own pride --that's it.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The official history says that His Majesty's Government was trying to save money by having a part of the army paid for directly by North America. Similar to a tax to support the troops, a tax in the form of free room and board. Money was always in short supply for governments before fiat money and socialist banking.


Fiat money existed at that time. We've had fractional reserve banking since the mid 1600's. The concept was 100 years old by then.



Fiat money wasn't the sole currency. The commodity money based on gold and silver directly competed with the fiat currency and this competition restricted the amount of fiat money that could be used.

Although there was fiat money, it had more market controls on it than the fiat money of the 20th century, and it was not the only money in circulation.

The governments could not print, or caused to be printed, all of the money needed to pay off governmental debts.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Chickensalad

Firstly, you can't have two majorities when talking about the same single subject. One is a majority, the other a minority.

The British military where not sent to the colonies to keep the peace. They where sent to protect the colonists from aggressive acts by Native American Indians.


And of course the French.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join