The protestants arriving was critical in establishing Massachusetts as an English stronghold
my point exactly. funny how i’m “wrong” but you reply by explaining how i’m right.
Claiming that citing supporting evidence is cherry picking is ridiculous
proving you wrong isn’t ridiculous, it’s just inconvenient for you. claiming that is ridiculous is ridiculous. besides, your “supporting evidence” proves me right. again.
What about the French Indian War? Is that American history under your fine line model? How about the Boston Massacre? None of the involved parties there would have even considered independence at the time.
From Wikipedia:
The French and Indian War (1754–1763) was a theater of the Seven Years’ War, which pitted the North American colonies of the British Empire against those of the French, each side being supported by various Native American tribes. (source)
…
The Boston Massacre (known in Great Britain as the Incident on King Street[1]) was a confrontation in Boston on March 5, 1770, in which nine British soldiers shot several of a crowd of three or four hundred who were harassing them verbally and throwing various projectiles. The event was heavily publicized as “a massacre” by leading Patriots such as Paul Revere and Samuel Adams.[2][3] British troops had been stationed in the Province of Massachusetts Bay since 1768 in order to support crown-appointed officials and to enforce unpopular Parliamentary legislation.
In the 18th century, Boston was the capital of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, an important shipping town, and along with Philadelphia and present-day New York City, one of the most influential political, economic, and cultural cities in the Thirteen Colonies of pre-Revolutionary British America. Boston also was a center of resistance to unpopular acts of taxation by the British Parliament in the 1760s.[5] (source)
im enjoying your tantrum and your attempt to speed-run the Kubler-Ross model.
you’re still wrong, though. try getting your facts straight next time :P