Why Do We Call it the French Indian Wars?

[Conquistador]

In France it's simply called 'the War in America' or more precisely 'the War in Canada / Nouvelle France' as a chapter of the ongoing Anglo-French war WAS + SYW. In their own time these last 2 where simply called 'the War in Germany': no need to make clear that it was against the Anglais

That Washington was very close to be hanged for 'war crime' when prisoner of the French is, I guess, more often mentioned here than in any English-speaking country

Usually "war crimes" (a rather 'modern' term) other than large scale atrocities/'genocide' are what "modern day" nation based governments use as blunt political objects to punish other governments that have been defeated and sometimes occupied.  The latter allows a more effective example to be made of the defeated government.

War is inherently immoral, accords like the Geneva Conventions (usually) are an attempt to moderate the horror.

Gracias,

Glenn

[Axebreaker]

I have always used the French and Indian War when refering to the conflict in North America and The Seven Years War when refering to the entire conflict.

Darkoath

Same here and I like the title French and Indian War as it invokes images in my head of wilderness and Indians that I find appealing.

Christopher 

[carlos marighela]

No matter what you call it, it was a pivotal event in human history. Had not Wolfe succeeded on the Plains of Abraham then the whole world might be listening to Celine Dion now.

[aecurtis]

Between all the doings in Europe, the subcontinent, the North American colonies, the Caribbean, South America, and Africa: the whole foofarangus properly ought to be called the First World War.  Unfortunately no-one remembered it in 1939, when a new handle was required for the Great War.

Allen

[michaelsbagley]

No matter what you call it, it was a pivotal event in human history. Had not Wolfe succeeded on the Plains of Abraham then the whole world might be listening to Celine Dion now.

Please don't joke about that... I grew up in Canada and am still getting over Dion trauma... fortunately I escaped the country before "Beiber fever"... I hear its an epidemic. (This has been corrected, my stupid phone corrected Beiber to Bribery and I failed to notice it)

[carlos marighela]

Between all the doings in Europe, the subcontinent, the North American colonies, the Caribbean, South America, and Africa: the whole foofarangus properly ought to be called the First World War.  Unfortunately no-one remembered it in 1939, when a new handle was required for the Great War.

Allen

Yes, were it not for the Portuguese and Dutch having duked it out from Brazil to the  Moluccas, via Africa, India and most other parts of the known world more than a hundred years beforehand. That would be my candidate for the First World War.

[Conquistador]

Sorry for the spotty memory but when did "formally declared war" become the SOP for European controlled Empires?  Perhaps that determines which war gets the "honors" of First World War?

Gracias,

Glenn

[carlos marighela]

There was no declared war between the Portuguese and the Dutch.

[Gallowglass]

Which is perfectly understandable I suppose from their point of view...

I must admit, I prefer wars with non-partizan labels which don't 'bake in' one or other side's perspective on the conflict... And the F&IW rather fails that test.

Shades here of the debate about the Irish Civil War or Anglo-Irish War, latterly reinvented under the in-vogue appelation: 'the Irish War of Independence'. But best not to open that particular can of worms again... 

The 'Anglo-Irish War' or 'Irish War of Independence' refers to the January 1919-June 1921 conflict, and did so ever before a single person ever thought of wargaming the thing. You'll also hear people in Ireland refer to the same time period as 'The Tan War', although that was something that older people used to say, and it's not much used these days. There's nothing new about the name. It's been called the War of Independence in Ireland pretty much since the shooting started. If people who aren't Irish want to call it the Anglo-Irish War, well, that's fine I suppose. Doesn't really change the reality of the reason for the fighting, or the outcome.

The Irish Civil War (June 1922 to May 1923) is something else again, and the clue there is in both the dates and name.

[carlos marighela]

I think Tan War is a fine name as it reminds me for my fondness of stout and lager in equal measure. More wars should be named after colours, especially the more exotic ones that feature on decorators paint charts. I think the Rose Blush War, would be a fine name for a conflict. It would also make painting miniatures a darn site easier. I vote for all future conflicts to come with Vallejo paint codes.

[Captain Blood]

Taken you three years to spot that Patrick. Thank goodness for random threadomancy eh?

The Anglo-Irish War has been known as that in most history books for the greater part of a hundred years. Reinventing that label almost a century later to put a deliberately partizan spin on the name by which the conflict is known is revisionism pandering to today's sensibilities, not the historical context at the time. Out and out independence was not a cause supported or end sought by the overwhelming majority of Irish people or even many of the protagonists when the shooting started.

But we've had this debate before, years ago, and I'm sure we aren't going to change positions on it now. And this board isn't the place for it. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it here, although in fairness, it was three years ago 

[abdul666lw]

Usually "war crimes" (a rather 'modern' term) other than large scale atrocities/'genocide' are what "modern day" nation based governments use as blunt political objects to punish other governments that have been defeated and sometimes occupied.  The latter allows a more effective example to be made of the defeated government.

I entirely agree about the political misuse of the concept in modern times.
Yet during the 18th C. there already were international agreements on  Droit de la Guerre, specially regarding the 'fair' treatment of POW; I even read England and France, being almost constantly at war for centuries, had special treaties on the matter. Besides, there were conducts deemed 'noble' and 'ignoble'. To let a prisoner be slaughtered (an officer of noble birth and the brother of an enemy commander, to boot) was decidely 'ignoble'.
Then the North-American theatre was not typical of the Guerre en dentelle: along the Mal Engueulée river, two French cadets gentihommes escorting two young ladies (kind of 'Last of the Mohicans' on the other  side) could not prevent their Indian allies to subject the girls to 'a fate worse than death', then reportedly to kill and eat them

Between all the doings in Europe, the subcontinent, the North American colonies, the Caribbean, South America, and Africa: the whole foofarangus properly ought to be called the First World War.

 
The SYW is often mentioned as the 'real' First World War, but then why not the WAS? It was basically the same, specially oversea, and with the Dutch involved. But I remark the SYW is far more popular in wargaming and English-speaking military history circles than the WAS: could it be because the WAS British record was less brilliant?

I must admit, I prefer wars with non-partizan labels which don't 'bake in' one or other side's perspective on the conflict.

It's generally the case in France, perhaps because -as already mentioned- we are not allergic to our own defeats (maybe we had more than our share?). Our military 'feasts' often commemorate 'glorious last stands': Sidi-Brahim, Camerone, Dien Bien Phu (commemorated officiously only -political correctness?- by the Légion and the Paras).
The winners write history and impose their terminology: the case of the 'ACW' is typical, it was NOT a 'civil war' for the South (having freely joined the Union they felt free to leave it): the French designation Guerre de Sécession is perfectly 'neutral'.

Btw all names including 'American' are irritatingly ambiguous, because 'America' is not restricted to the USA. The 'founding fathers' were so jealous of the identity and independence of their respective States that they carefully avoided to give a proper name to the Union. Not a nomenclatural / semantic problem at first, but later there were a number of other 'AWI' (another name imposed by the winner: it began as the 1st ACW, actually) specially in Latin America (s.l.) during the 1st half of the 19th C., but also later in Patagonia, in Canada (the French Indians uprising under Riel)...  And how many 'ACW' were (are still?) fought in Latin America?
If indeed 'God blesses America' -as so many US politicians ask Him to do- then He blesses also Cuba and Venezuela

[Patrice]

I vote for all future conflicts to come with Vallejo paint codes.

Yes but, please, not any of the fantasy paint ranges.

Do you really want to hear about a "Scrofulous Zombie Grey War" or a "Rotted Goblin Flesh War"?