American revolutionaries may have identified with the plight but not necessarily the race or ethnicity of the Israelites in Exodus (perhaps even the Deists who may have viewed the Bible as a historic document.) They were escaping royal persecution.
Some colonial loyalists may have had a different interpretation of the Bible in mind and colored themselves the actual people of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A king is the representative of the poor. Before public education, many people may have needed the help of someone who knew them very well in order to watch over and correct them.
The Black Death is said to have made the peasant classes more powerful. Perhaps it affected the townsfolk and nobility disproportionately heavily. This may have marked a turn away from religion for the sake of saving one's soul toward the enshrinement of the needs and desires of the poorer classes.
God forbid, but kings, the helpers of the poor, may have made too few craftsmen and leaders go around farther by trafficking some of them to the peasantry. Perhaps each noble or tradesman had to surrender one child?
The Reformation may have in part been a reaction to the growing power of the Church which resulted. The emancipation of thought from doctrine may have resulted in the thinking of the Enlightenment which in part inspired the revolutionaries. But no doubt also the risk of being trafficked by the king to the laboring classes. Some seem to expect the service to this day.
The king had already taken the land the revolutionaries were on, so they weren't in need of contriving a Biblical justification for taking land from the rightful owners because the king had already taken it. They were simply fighting for the right to be in charge of their own destinies.
Recall that the National Anthem was adapted from a bawdy English drinking song. Some have said they found our flag to be a bit flashy. Perhaps that was the revolutionaries owning what they had been, or been at risk of? So it was their plight which was similar to the Israelites: potential enslavement to the poor for them or some of their children.
Incidentally, the tribes surrounding the Israelites in Biblical times may have been intent upon re-enslaving them. There's also the possibility they had been taken from the very land they are on when they wound up in Babel. One hopes they at least started out treating the nations they conquered somewhat like modern Israel treats Israeli Arabs, which is to round out the workforce and army. Some claim the Old Testament shows God allowed his chosen people to create a system of Ottoman-style slavery or pimping but it need not be read that way, although corruption may have started to creep in some time after the people demanded a king.
Now, the royalists:
The English king and perhaps the French, Spanish, or Portuguese kings may have seen to it that some laitnd was officially off-limits to settlement. The English king did this with the Proclamation Line of 1763, knowing the protected land may soon contain unofficial colonies of pirates who may then go on to facilitate trafficking and become a royalist counterbalance to the growing Enlightenment thinking among the well-off of the Colonies. Many places remained Loyalist during the Revolution. The various kings in charge of colonization may have also wanted some trafficking to go on because the natives knew where the gold was but wouldn’t tell if someone just took their land.
Not to be outdone by the faith of the revolutionaries in the rightness of their cause, the loyalists may have wanted to believe the Bible and Christianity supported their interest in slavery and their presumed right to take land. Their interpretation of the Bible may have been that “since the Israelites are special and we are Israelites, then we get to take land and the people on it for our own use.”
There may be a second reason. It dovetailed with physical appearance and identity for the loyalists. They may have had a little ancestry from the Middle East because some of them were Barbary Pirates. Europe may have had some hangers-on from the Umayyad invasion of France almost a millenium prior. Perhaps people from warmer climes moved to or raided a weakened Northern Europe during the brutal volcanic winters of 536, 539-40, and 547, and the resulting Late Antique Little Ice Age. Vikings have been found to have some Middle Eastern or North African roots in addition to European.
Some colonial loyalists may have had a different interpretation of the Bible in mind and colored themselves the actual people of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A king is the representative of the poor. Before public education, many people may have needed the help of someone who knew them very well in order to watch over and correct them.
The Black Death is said to have made the peasant classes more powerful. Perhaps it affected the townsfolk and nobility disproportionately heavily. This may have marked a turn away from religion for the sake of saving one's soul toward the enshrinement of the needs and desires of the poorer classes.
God forbid, but kings, the helpers of the poor, may have made too few craftsmen and leaders go around farther by trafficking some of them to the peasantry. Perhaps each noble or tradesman had to surrender one child?
The Reformation may have in part been a reaction to the growing power of the Church which resulted. The emancipation of thought from doctrine may have resulted in the thinking of the Enlightenment which in part inspired the revolutionaries. But no doubt also the risk of being trafficked by the king to the laboring classes. Some seem to expect the service to this day.
The king had already taken the land the revolutionaries were on, so they weren't in need of contriving a Biblical justification for taking land from the rightful owners because the king had already taken it. They were simply fighting for the right to be in charge of their own destinies.
Recall that the National Anthem was adapted from a bawdy English drinking song. Some have said they found our flag to be a bit flashy. Perhaps that was the revolutionaries owning what they had been, or been at risk of? So it was their plight which was similar to the Israelites: potential enslavement to the poor for them or some of their children.
Incidentally, the tribes surrounding the Israelites in Biblical times may have been intent upon re-enslaving them. There's also the possibility they had been taken from the very land they are on when they wound up in Babel. One hopes they at least started out treating the nations they conquered somewhat like modern Israel treats Israeli Arabs, which is to round out the workforce and army. Some claim the Old Testament shows God allowed his chosen people to create a system of Ottoman-style slavery or pimping but it need not be read that way, although corruption may have started to creep in some time after the people demanded a king.
Now, the royalists:
The English king and perhaps the French, Spanish, or Portuguese kings may have seen to it that some laitnd was officially off-limits to settlement. The English king did this with the Proclamation Line of 1763, knowing the protected land may soon contain unofficial colonies of pirates who may then go on to facilitate trafficking and become a royalist counterbalance to the growing Enlightenment thinking among the well-off of the Colonies. Many places remained Loyalist during the Revolution. The various kings in charge of colonization may have also wanted some trafficking to go on because the natives knew where the gold was but wouldn’t tell if someone just took their land.
Not to be outdone by the faith of the revolutionaries in the rightness of their cause, the loyalists may have wanted to believe the Bible and Christianity supported their interest in slavery and their presumed right to take land. Their interpretation of the Bible may have been that “since the Israelites are special and we are Israelites, then we get to take land and the people on it for our own use.”
There may be a second reason. It dovetailed with physical appearance and identity for the loyalists. They may have had a little ancestry from the Middle East because some of them were Barbary Pirates. Europe may have had some hangers-on from the Umayyad invasion of France almost a millenium prior. Perhaps people from warmer climes moved to or raided a weakened Northern Europe during the brutal volcanic winters of 536, 539-40, and 547, and the resulting Late Antique Little Ice Age. Vikings have been found to have some Middle Eastern or North African roots in addition to European.
![[Image: 708880338595ab08c831fe3fc615f4d0.jpg]](https://denyignorance.com/uploader/images/708880338595ab08c831fe3fc615f4d0.jpg)
