[Mark_Rowlinson]

Trust me to get hold of the wrong end of the stick....

However, the feeling was conveyed by the presentation of the material that these men had to overcome their inbred loyalty to their former nation in order to boot out the British from their new one.

As an aside, my mother's father was born in Northern Ireland of a protestant family.  Just after the First World War they bought arms (rifles, pistols, machine guns) from the Germans in case they had to fight the British in order to stay British.  (Wonderfully Irish logic there.) Their fear was that Britain might give the whole of Ireland to the new Republic of Ireland at some future point.  That it did not may have been a cause of relief for him, but there's been much too much blood spilt ever since and doubtless would have been whatever the outcome.

[T_MacWood]

The imbred loyality the American's had toward the crown was eroded by decades of separation and England's treatment of them. Of course the percieved disrespect the American's felt pales in comparison to what the Irish had to endure from the British.

[TEPaul]

"While it is true the colonists were of British decent or background, a hundred plus years (1640+) of development created a uniquely American character. Exacerbated by England's disrespectful attitude toward these Americans. I disagree with Mark's take, by 1775 they were not mostly Englishmen, they were Americans."

Uh, Tom, you can call them whatever you want to but until the Revolution they were mostly British emigrant colonists who lived in thirteen colonies over here under the control of the British government. I'm sure if any one of them decided to return to Britain they wouldn't have had to reapply for British citizenship to get a motor scooter license.  

Until the Revolution the English colonists in America thought of themselves as living under what they referred to as "Rights of Englishmen". The differences in interpretation of what some of those "Rights" (of "Englishmen") meant was essentially what led to the American Revolution against England! When England was defeated by the Colonists in the Revolutionary War the British "Colonies" in America were no more!  

There was a good deal of self-rule before the American Revolution but the important thing to realize is the Thirteen Colonies in America were British colonies largely populated by British emigrants. When Mark Rowlinson said they were essentially Englishmen fighting against their own government and former homeland, he's right.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

All I can say is that you'd better find a better excuse than golf to get me back to the formative states of burgeoning America and leave me in the company of an objective historian who can put me right on each and every issue.

But this is semantic.  

I learned a great deal more about American golf and its fantastic heritage by being honoured to visit or play The National, Yale, The Creek, Ridgewood, Gulph Mills, Rolling Green, Merion, Four Streams and Winged Foot.  That means as much to me as it must to most GCA-educated Americans fortunate enough to play St Enodoc, The Adlington, Royal Ashdown and Royal North Devon as well as Royal St George's and Hoylake.  The comparison is not to be argued over.  They are chosen randomly, but they are reasonably to be compared in terms of the degree of enlightenment and uplift they each give to a visiting golfer new to a totally foreign golfing experience.  I value my brief exposure to East-Coast golf at this level greatly.

[Kent Salisbury]

The USGA and R & A appear to do an excellent job with the history and tradition of the game, but how does this impact the future?

This is a hard question to answer considering the Tiger factor.  Without him, how exciting would this be to the average viewer? Sure, many of us would still participate and play golf, but would the non-traditional person be getting involved in the game.

This is where the USGA can do better. The USGA committees are still full of blue blazers and the game is still considered to be a game played by the privileged at private country clubs.

Tiger has been around on the national level for almost 11 years and we still have no other black player on the PGA tour. Was not able to see the entire field at the Merion, but the future of the game amongst participants appears to be the unchanged.

We can talk all we want about First Tee Program and they may help long term, but what responsibility do private clubs have? I approached my club about letting some gifted under-privileged kids (3) to have access to the course and range and was laughed out the door.

Access for some of these kids would show them an entire different side to society and only improve their games and development.

History and tradition is important, but when Tiger leaves I'm afraid the game may digress in terms of participation if the USGA and PGA Tour do not have better results getting the non-traditional participant involved in the game at the highest levels.

[T_MacWood]

Sean
No need to go down the what if trail...what if the Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbor.  You can call them whatever you want--Colonists, Virginians, Americans--they were not Englishmen.

Ciao

TE
Give me a break. Am I a Scot/Irish immigrant? One hundred + years later are the Liberians American immigrants.  Next you are going to tell me Ghandi was an Englishman. Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson etc were not Englishmen in 1775.

Mark
I suspect the orignal Catholic inhabitants of Ulster did not consider themselves Englishmen either.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Give me a break."

Tom MacW:

OK, you've got a break.

"Am I a Scot/Irish immigrant?"

I doubt that. You were born in the United States of America weren't you?

"One hundred + years later are the Liberians American immigrants."

Not if they're US citizens.

"Next you are going to tell me Ghandi was an Englishman."

Why would I say that? Did Ghandi and his forebears come from England?

"Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson etc were not Englishmen in 1775."

Do you think it's just coincidence that almost all the signers of the Declaration of Independence were of English descent who lived in the Thirteen British Colonies in America until app 1775 under the governemnt of Great Britain?  

Mark Rowlinson said;

"...it made me realise for the first time that these were mostly Englishmen, not native Americans, who were fighting their own homeland in order to establish this new nation."

And you said to him:

"Come again?"

I was merely pointing out that Mark Rowlinson's remark is an historically accurate one and there was no historic reason for you to ask him the question----"Come again"?  

[T_MacWood]

"I was merely pointing out that Mark Rowlinson's remark is an historically accurate one and there was no historic reason for you to ask him the question----"Come again"? "

So you believe Thomas Jefferson and George Washington considered themselves Englishmen in 1775? Like me, I thought they were native born in America.

"...it made me realise for the first time that these were mostly Englishmen, not native Americans, who were fighting their own homeland in order to establish this new nation."

This not historically accurate.

[TEPaul]

"So you believe Thomas Jefferson and George Washington considered themselves Englishmen in 1775? Like me, I thought they were native born in America."

Tom MacWood:

That they and you were born on American soil and if that fact causes you to see little difference between men like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin (all of British descent) and the men of their time who lived in the Thirteen British Colonies in America that in large part in 1775 operated under the British Governement and yourself app 200 years after the governement of the United States of America was formed then that's your good right, I suppose. To me, though, that is not a particularly intelligent perspective on the differences of their time vs ours.

Were men like those three and their contemporaries and colleagues (most all of whom were of British descent), particularly those in colonial and state government at that time (most all of whom were of British descent and could be considered to be technically "Englishmen" or part of the "British Citizenry" of that time even if they lived in the British Colonies) before the American Revolution against BRITAIN imbued with some "American" spirit and particularly some highly unique and creative political imaginations?

They most certainly were. Why that was and particularly WHAT that was is a subject of eternal fascination to some  Americans as well as political theorists the world over for the last 200 years.

Since you seem so interested in history and its best writers, on this particular subject I'd suggest to you a rather short and incredibly perceptive book (on this very subject)---Bernard Bailyn's "To Begin the World Anew" (The Genius and Ambiguities of the American Founders).

It should interest you greatly as in it there is a theme that you seem almost fixated by given your obvious interest in the Arts and Crafts Movement and its basic theme of "regionalism" (provinicalism) in the arts.

That theme of this book by Bailyn is the creativity and the originality of "provincial" influence and thought as conceived and promulgated by these men of British descent of that time. Obviously the hallmark of their political imaginations was that for the first time in history power in the form of government did not have to be indivisible to survive itself and to effectively satisfy and represent the governed.  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

To support the historical accuracy of Mark Rowlinson's remark just ask yourself these questions;

Were men such as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and their contemporaries and colleagues (who were of British descent) part of the "British Citizenry" (even if technically) prior to 1775 and prior to the American Revolution and prior to the creation of the government of the United States of America or were they not? Were the increasingly rebellious British Colonies in America prior to 1775 attempting to define and defend what were known at that time as the "Rights of Englishmen" or were they not? Having answered those questions, the second question is, do you not see a rather marked difference between them that way and at that time and yourself in this time as an American? Just saying they, like you, were born on American soil is in no way a definitive similarity between them of their time and you in yours. If you do not see those marked differences and distinctions, I guess you don't see much historical significance in the American Revolution against Britain and its governance in the British Colonies in America nor in the creation of the government of the United States of America.

Those men of that time who made up the majority of the Colonial governments of the British Colonies in America of that time (most all of whom were of British descent) were part of the "British Citizenry" (even if technically) and today you most assuredly are not.  

[T_MacWood]

"Were men such as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and their contemporaries and colleagues (who were of British descent) part of the "British Citizenry" (even if technically) prior to 1775 and prior to the American Revolution and prior to the creation of the government of the United States of America or were they not? "

Yes, if you define “British Citizenry” as being anyone inhabiting a British colony. Gandhi falls into this group…as does Michael Collins in Ireland and King Feisal in Arabia. Were they Englishmen too?

Were all the Canadians, Kenyans and Australians prior to WWII Englishmen too. If so you have a very broad definition of an Englishman.

"Were the increasingly rebellious British Colonies in America prior to 1775 attempting to define and defend what were known at that time as the "Rights of Englishmen" or were they not?"

Yes. And as I said before for decades many of those Revolutionary leaders, and their forbearers, considered themselves both British and American.  Unfortunately they did not have the rights of Englishmen, and they were treated by the English like second-class citizens, consequently they fought for their independence in 1775.

I disagree with those who doubt there was such a thing as an American in 1775. It is clear after one hundred plus years of separation and isolation in the American frontier that a uniquely American spirit developed.

Marks remark ”...it made me realise for the first time that these were mostly Englishmen, not native Americans, who were fighting their own homeland in order to establish this new nation" is not historically accurate IMO.  

Was George Washington an Englishman in 1775? Is it true that George Washington was not an American (native of America) or a Virginian? Did the British consider Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, et. al. Englismen? I don’t think so...maybe you should re-write Mark's statement, replace Englishman with British Citizenry, and replace native American with Indian.  
 

[TEPaul]

"Yes, if you define “British Citizenry” as being anyone inhabiting a British colony. Gandhi falls into this group…as does Michael Collins in Ireland and King Feisal in Arabia. Were they Englishmen too?"

No sir, that is not what I said at all. That is not an "if" I used in any of this and either, apparently did Mark Rowlinson. He talked about "Englishmen", and obviously in this context that would be men in the colonies (perhaps those in government in the colonies back then) who were of English descent and whose recent ancestors had immigrated from England. This distinction would certainly not apply to people like Ghandi, Collins or Feisal.  In the native countries of Ghandi, Collins and Feisal there was some form of governement in place before they became a part of the British Commonwealth and that was scarely the case in America unless you're talking about other brief European colonial governements or Native American Indian tribes.  

[TEPaul]

"Was George Washington an Englishman in 1775? Is it true that George Washington was not an American (native of America) or a Virginian? Did the British consider Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, et. al. Englismen? I don’t think so...maybe you should re-write Mark's statement, replace Englishman with British Citizenry, and replace native American with Indian."

I did not say that Washington was not born in America (your definiton of a "native American"----whatever that means to you back then?). I did not say he was not a Virginian. What I said, and Mark said, is a person such as Washington before 1775 was considered to be a British citizen. Why was this? Simply because his forbears were citizens of Britain and they, nor he did nothing before 1775 to give that up or renounce that. All that changed OBVIOUSLY, when they revolted in war against England, against English rule in the British colonies in America and formed their own independent government (independent from England, that is).

Bringing up the "citizen" status of Canadian, Kenyan, Australians etc at particular times with lineage not formerly from England has nothing to do with this as much as you seem to be trying to make it seem so.  

[TEPaul]

"and they were treated by the English like second-class citizens, consequently they fought for their independence in 1775."

Tom MacWood:

That's not the question, and it's not the point here. We all know they fought for their independence in 1775 and why. If you recognize that they fought for their independence and from whom one wonders what you thought they were in the first place? And if you recognize they were treated like "citizens", even if second-class ones, then it seems you've conceded the point here (even if you may not have realized it).

"I disagree with those who doubt there was such a thing as an American in 1775".

Go ahead and disagree with it then but I can't see who said there was not such a thing as an American in 1775. What Mark Rowlinson said was they were Englishmen (many of them) who fought their homeland, and that is completely accurate despite whatever you want to say about Ghandi, Collins, Feisal, Canadians, Kenyans or Australians.  

Germans, Irish, Dutch, French etc who were in the British Colonies in America and without the borders of the Thirteen British Colonies in America---do you think they were "second class citizens" of Britain too? No, they weren't, they were citizens of those other countries who had emigrated from those countries who were in the British Colonies in America or without them in the so-called "Territories" that had little in the way of organized governments.  

[ForkaB]

Mark Rowlinson, being English, probably forgets that as of 1776 "England" was just one of the parts of "Great Britain"--which was created from the political merger of Scotland and England in 1707 (the crowns were merged in 1603, before anybody from those parts even thought about moving house to the New World).

Roughly 1/3 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were in fact Scottish (probably few if any of them from the GAP area, which was a notorious hotbed of running dog imperial collaborationists).

As for your initial question.......  What exactly was the question, again?

[TEPaul]

Richard:

Oh for God's Sake, you can't be serious. Mark didn't forget Scotland--it's just that he can't see that it should be taken seriously---not yet anyway. Maybe in another couple of hundreds years. Scotland is just some cold windswept area with golf courses with cow, sheep, rabbit and dog turds all over them, and men who wear skirts and blow on loosely sewn animal skins and shit. This kind of place cannot be taken seriously when we're comparing it to the Great ENGLAND!

"If I should die, think only this of me;
That there's some corner of a foreign field
That is for ever ENGLAND. There shall be
In that rich earth a richer dust concealed;
A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware,
Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam,
A body of England's, breathing English air,
Washed by rivers, blest by suns of home.

And think, this heart, all evil shed away,
A pulse in the eternal mind, no less
Gives somewhere back the thoughts of England
 given;

Her sights and sounds; dreams happy as her day;
And laughter, learnt of friends: and gentleness,
In hearts at Peace, under an English heaven."
Rupert Rivere

And God save all English Kings and Queens, and please Dear God don't let that incompetent "waste of oxygen" and waste of beautifully tailored cottons and wools and linens and silks, Prince Charles, and his conniving whore anywhere near The Throne! If he didn't actually murder that sublime example of English womanhood, it should nevertheless be assumed he did---in a manner of speaking, of course. (I believe the problem with that balding weasel-faced wastrel is he spent far too much of his important minority and early majority in Scotland, where ultimately nothing good comes of IT)

Quite!

[T_MacWood]

TE
Rich is correct there was a significant number of Scot/Scot-Irish signers...I believe there was also a Dutch descendant at the second continental congress as well. The population (about 4 million) of the colonies was 48% English descendants, the remainder a combination of African, Scot, Irish, German, Dutch, French, Swede, Spanish, etc. Not including 800,000 Indians.

Mark did not say the leaders of the American revolt were British descendants or British citizens or British subjects...he said they were Englishmen. He also said they were not native Americans. He is wrong on both counts...I'm not sure why you continue defend and explain away this misstatement

[Jack_Marr]

Mark
I suspect the orignal Catholic inhabitants of Ulster did not consider themselves Englishmen either.

That's right. In fact, Ulster was the original stronghold of nationalism before the flight of the earls. Hugh O'Neill and Hugh O'Donnell etc.

...and Ulster is different to Northern Ireland, of course, but that's just splitting hairs.

[Terrie Bloom]

May I digress back to the original topic more or less...to ask whether you think the movie "The Greatest Game Ever Played"
will generate interest in golf history?

[TEPaul]

"Mark did not say the leaders of the American revolt were British descendants or British citizens or British subjects...he said they were Englishmen."

Tom MacWood;

Come again?





(Is it possible that even you could make a statement like that on this particular discussion? I have literally never seen anyone as capable of losing the forest for the trees as easlily as you can)  

[TEPaul]

Terrie Bloom:

Interesting question. I hope so, in some way. Good movies on golf have never been easy to make, unfortunately.

[T_MacWood]

"...it made me realise for the first time that these were mostly Englishmen, not native Americans, who were fighting their own homeland in order to establish this new nation."

Defend away!

[TEPaul]

Why should I or anyone else continue? I've completely explained the accuracy of his statement all day today. It's so thoroughly obvious there is nothing To defend.

[T_MacWood]

Whatever you say.  

[Terrie Bloom]

I actually have a specific interest in promoting golf history. I work with the Boston Public Library to make available to the public, for a reasonable price, reproductions from some of the negatives donated to the Library over the past 100+ years. There is a pretty strong golf collection, particularly from the Donald Ross courses in eastern Massachusetts. I currently have available tournament pictures from the 1930s at Winchester, Weston, Belmont and Kernwood. Most have Francis Ouimet, Gene Sarazen, or Bobby Jones in them. Most of this material has not been available previously, and has been digitally reproduced from glass negatives.
 
I am also going to be adding more material relating to Francis Ouimet during the 1913 Open as well as other photographs of him taken around that time. I am hopeful that this will be of interest given that "The Greatest Game Ever Played" will be opening soon. That is why I was wondering whether avid golf historians such as you think that a movie theme centering around golf history can fly.

I have learned through this process that most golfers are indeed not that interested in the sport's history (although most at least smile when they see how the game was played 70+ years ago). I would agree with the assessment of previous writers to this discussion that baseball history is a much easier sell (my company sells Red Sox and Boston Braves memorabilia at all Red Sox home games, so I can vouch for this statement). Any thoughts or advice?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()