The French and Indian War was an extremely bloody conflict that is considered by some to be the very first world war. At the time, the British and the French had colonies and territories all over the world. As a result, these areas helped partake in a war that was halfway around the war. Most of this war was fought in North America. The French and British colonies were pitted against each other because each wanted the fertile farm lands of the Ohio River Valley. Both had Native American allies, but the French had the upper hand in this because of the way the French had handled them; they did not want to come and convert them, take their lands, or enslave them, they just wanted to create trading outposts and profit from the furs. Because the French did not intend to colonize, they did not have near as many people settled, which puts them at a serious disadvantage to the heavily colonized British colonies. The article I will be critiquing was written by Keith Sinzinger.
Keith Sinzinger worked at The Washington Post from 1985 to 2008 as the
Assistant Foreign Editor. In the article “A Question of Loyalty- How Essential Was the French and Indian War to the American Revolution?”, Sinzinger is very well organized, in most parts of the article reverting to writing chronologically. This type of organization helps the reader stay on topic, and also helps the author get his points across. The author does answer most of the questions that he sets out to answer. Throughout much of the article, Sinzinger tells about how the Revolution started, the causes of the Revolution, and the effects that the French and Indian
War had on how it started and also why the French were so eager to help the colonists win their independence over imperialistic Britain. This reviewer did agree with Sinzinger’s points on how the French and Indian War affected the outcome of the Revolution because the way his points are organized effectively make his arguments clear. This researcher did not find a direct quote that aroused attention. This reader almost detects a bias that Sinzinger might actually feel sympathetic for the Tories that were punished for staying loyal to the Crown. Sinzinger mentions several different punishments that go into detail about how he might feel bad about being tormented for their personal political beliefs. This author uses several different books in this article such as: Tories: Fighting for the King in America’s First Civil War, Liberty’s Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World, and A People’s History of the American Revolution . On top of those sources, Sinzinger also uses quotes taken from people living during the Revolutionary period and also from Barbara Clark Smith, a curator at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History. This author did not use any words that this reader did not know. The basic vocabulary is very simple throughout this article which is something this reader would recommend advancing a level or two. This reviewer liked how organized this article is. This allows readers to follow along easily and also to comprehend what he is trying to say without much speculation. This researcher did not like that towards the end of the article, Sinzinger appears to sympathize with the Tories. It may have been true that they were being persecuted for their allegiances, but they were not defenseless, and they also fought back.
In this article, I enjoyed the beginning the most because Sinzinger provided valid reasons as to why the French decided to aide the colonial revolutionaries in their fight for independence. I disliked most of the ending because of the author’s apparent sympathy for the Tories. These
people were persecuted, but they waged war on the Patriots by joining the British ranks and also when both the patriots and Tories unleashed destruction upon each other in the countryside. Aside from learning that Sinzinger is a Tory, I figured out that much of the French’s reasoning in helping the revolutionaries had to do with payback from the French and Indian War. Sinzinger made apparent that the entire reasons for the Parliamentary taxes on the colonies were for the repayment of war debts, which the Americans turned against them with all of their boycotts. Had the British not been desperate for money, the boycotts may not have worked as Sinzinger showed in the War of 1812.
A professional writer will make a clear, mistake-free paper for you!Get help with your assigment
Please check your inbox
I'm Chatbot Amy :)
I can help you save hours on your homework. Let's start by finding a writer.Find Writer