Without wading too deeply into the debate over my colleague Matt Yglesias's patriotism, let me just say that while I'm second to none (well, okay, maybe not none) in my appreciation for the American founding, I think that anyone doesn't feel at least a frisson of regret over how the split between the American colonies and Great Britain happened ought to return to their history books and reconsider.
« Cameronism and Grand New Party | Main | Alan Wolfe, Renaissance Man » Albion's Seed09 Jul 2008 10:10 am Comments (103)
What's your point? That the British were evviilll men? Worse than what we put the Iraqis through? 
As a first generation Irish-American I'm quite happy to say that armed revolution against the British and their empire was always a good idea. Fuck 'em.
Great, now MoeLarry is a fellow Mick, and I'm inclined to agree a little. Having said that, MoeLarry, the lymies should have sent your ancestors to a penal colony in Australia.
As a British expat I'm quite happy to say that armed revolution against any empire is a good idea. Empires are not moral. However, revolutionaries who attack civilian populations (terrorists), are the scum of the Earth. Wouldn't you agree MoeLarryAndJesus?
I can only understand what you and Yglesias are saying as, Britain's loss of America was a ridiculous policy blunder (or series of them) which should never have happened and so we should be stunned and amazed people were that dumb. Because beyond that what you guys are saying is goofy. Britain, for example, has nowhere near the civil liberties America does, so for a guy like Yglesias who bitches (I think, correctly) about domestic spying and habeas and so forth to advance this argument about America's independence is beyond dumb. The written Constitution, the tradition of devolution to the regions, other fundamental things on which you and Yglesias both seem to agree, don't exist in Britain or are new. The very series of blunders which made America independent really broke the power of the monarchy, so without the Revolution you might still have America living under a king (granted, one still very much constrained by Parliament -- but much more powerful than today's Queen). And I don't particularly look at England's handling of India for the two centuries after American independence and think, damn, I wish we'd had that.
But since MoeLarry is a fellow Mick, and I share some of those sentiments toward the British Empire, I'm ultimately inclined towards the colonists. Having said that, MoeLarry, the lymies should have sent your ancestors to a penal colony in Australia.
India had a native civilization that existed for millennia. Ireland also had it's own culture and language. The United States is the creation of mostly British-descended people living in colonies created by Britain. Also working on ideas mostly from French and British philosophers. It's not like it was a revolt of Iroquois or Cherokee reclaiming their independence. In the classic sense there is no nationality called "American", in the way Ruthenian or Choctaw is a nationality, there was a bunch of colonies which formed a nation.
Sanjay, I think Cromwell decapitating of a ruling monarch was more of a blow than the loss of the American colonies a hundred years later.
Oh God, I'm agreeing with a sentence of Ferrell's: I agree, Ross, that the war was regrettable and think the Brits had a valid point or two. And now find that the Irish ancestry is another thing that links me, Moe and Ferrell. I also think comparing the Irish and Indian situations to America are misleading at best, partly for the reasons Thomas R mentioned.
Hrmmmm . . . had we stayed a bunch of British colonies, we'd probably experience the following: 1. No separation between us and Canada. We really are similar nations, aside from big differences in our political system. I don't think that, when Canada was separated out into the Commonwealth as a more or less independent country, that the US would have been separate. Basically, Canada would be the size of the US and Canada combined in such a circumstance. 2. DC would not exist. After all, it was built to be the capital of the US. We would either have had Canada's capital Ottawa eventually, with state/provincial capitals, or New York City would have become the capital on the basis of sheer impressiveness. 3. Better access to the BBC. This is a temptation for me . . . after all, the Beeb has the best news coverage, and Doctor Who would be on broadcast type channels! Still, being an American is something I do enjoy, Doctor Who notwithstanding. I can see some benefits to being under British rule for years instead of rebelling, but in the end, that's not how it happened. I like the benefits of being an American and what that entails, and since I can't do anything to change the past anyway, don't spend too much time worrying about this. Unless I'm trying to do counter factual history for the fun of it, which I admit, I really enjoy.
The stripping of power from the British monarch had been going on for centuries before America was even known of: Magna Carta anyone? Indeed, the notions behind the 1776 declaration were inextricably linked to British radicalism. As for the development of democracy since independence, I think the UK is no worse. We abolished slavery before you, gave the vote to (some) women before you, had no equivalent to Joe MacCarthy, Jim Crow, segregation. Compare the US to Canada (ie, the bit of North America which stayed loyal): better, worse, no different? Re empire: how about the Philipines, Hawaii, Puerto Rica, etc? Above all, who originally owned America, and how were they dispossessed, and when will they get it back?
"I think that anyone doesn't feel at least a frisson of regret over how the split between the American colonies and Great Britain happened ought to return to their history books and reconsider." I have to admit that I'm ignorant enough so that I have never felt even a frisson of regret. Can anyone tell me what they think Ross is referring to? Is this one of those things conservatives understand intuitively and liberals just cannot grasp without it being explained in monosyllables?
Wouldn't a real Conservative hold that we would be better off if Britain had lost the War of the Spanish Armada?
Respectfully I disagree, Americans owe a great deal to British institutions and Common Law. Habeas Corpus and the Petition of right are of direct British descent and have had and continue to have a direct impact on American Jurisprudence. Just as intriguing is the notion that British empiricism (John Locke) evolved into American Pragmatish (William James). Yes both sides had issues and in many respects it was the British Policy of Salutory Neglect that ultimately led to the attitudes that would lead to seperation when Britain finally turned to her American colonies after dealing with the continental issues that had so taken up her time. However I take issue with the idea that I should feel a shudder of regret over the founding of my nation. Fredrick Jackson Turner postulated that it wasn't British institutions that were responsible for the shaping of America but the Process of Westward expansion. In many respects I agree. I also believe that many uniquely American Traits would be somehow less so if we had remained Tied to the British Empire. For one I rather seriously doubt if the whole idea of American Exceptionalism would have found room to grow with our country tied to British intrests and British Ideas. I also rather seriously doubt if either the Mexican American war or the Spanish American War would have taken place with America still bound up with the intrests of the British Empire. Although slavery would have been abolished 30 years earlier (this would have been a good thing) no one can tell how such an action might have effected the attitudes of the Southern Colonies. This is my county and it has had its own unique experience, and when I swore to defend this country I did not swear to serve His or Her Majesty I swore an oath to support and defend the consitution of the United States. The British still don't possess a written constitution, and while many arguments may be advanced for the advantages to an unwritten constitution as an American, heir to a specific institutional memory which owes as much to Daniel Webster and John Marshall as it does to Coke, Pym, and Milton (the pamphlateer). In a large part the study of history is the creation of a national mythology which binds us together and gives us a common outlook despite our cultural differences. That is why when I left the service I chose to major in history. However to use an Englishman to justify why I don't feel any regret over the course of the revolution "This is my country right or left."
Re empire: how about the Philipines, Hawaii, Puerto Rica, etc? Above all, who originally owned America, and how were they dispossessed, and when will they get it back? Um, the Philipines is an independent nation, and Puerto Rico is free to become an independent nation if they so choose. Hawaii is a state, and states cannot leave the Union. That argument was settled in 1865.
Can anyone tell me what they think Ross is referring to? Presumably, that many people died because -- as well put in one of the greatest movies of all time -- "rich white slaveowners didn't want to pay their taxes." But generally, I agree with Sanjay above (except for the India comparison, which isn't really analogous). While in hindsight you can say the war and the events leading up to it were sort of silly, the outcome was so serendipitously positive for the causes of human rights, republicanism, capitalism, etc, around the world that it's sort of silly to look back with any regret.
TDE writes: "However, revolutionaries who attack civilian populations (terrorists), are the scum of the Earth. Wouldn't you agree MoeLarryAndJesus?" Generally, though there was very little sympathy in England when the Brits were murdering Irish citizens right and left. Sometimes you reap what you sow, and it was the British who began the killing of civilians in the Anglo-Irish conflicts, not the other way around.
Ferrell writes: "Having said that, MoeLarry, the lymies should have sent your ancestors to a penal colony in Australia." It's limeys, you moron. And they should send you to a penile colony because you'd be happier there.
>Re empire: how about the Philipines, Hawaii, >Um, the Philipines is an independent nation, and >Puerto Rico is free to become an independent >nation if they so choose. Hawaii is a state, and >states cannot leave the Union. That argument was >settled in 1865. Phew. I'm a Limey but even I know that a million Filipinos died trying to win their freedom from America. Shall we go into the skullduggery re the acquisition of Hawaii and Puerto Rico? (Oh, and I should have mentioned the funny stuff in Cuba and Guam.)
Be careful what you wish for Ferrell - Moe's invective is far more welcome, and as equally inventive, in Australia: "Mark Latham, who already accused Mr Howard of being an "arselicker" of the Bush Administration and described this visit as "a conga line of suckholes" heading to Washington" Latham was the Leader of the Opposition at the time.
tomtom quotes and writes: ""I think that anyone doesn't feel at least a frisson of regret over how the split between the American colonies and Great Britain happened ought to return to their history books and reconsider." I have to admit that I'm ignorant enough so that I have never felt even a frisson of regret. Can anyone tell me what they think Ross is referring to? Is this one of those things conservatives understand intuitively and liberals just cannot grasp without it being explained in monosyllables?" I believe Ross is admitting that most people of a conservative bent would have opposed the American Revolution. And they would have. Ross would have been a leading cheerleader for the Redcoats and would probably have written a book called "Grand Old Colony." Jonah Goldberg, er, Goldsmith would have been calling for the mass execution of all rebel leaders. Peter Leavitt would have been writing hourly fan letters to King George, juts like he does now.
Ross: you're a fellow-travelling Jacobite, aren't you? As such, the frisson of regret you feel might be somewhat different from Matt's.
I believe Ross is admitting that most people of a conservative bent would have opposed the American Revolution. Well, and taxation without representation is really bad, and all, but wars aren't very much fun either. On April 18, 1775, I don't think many people living in the colonies had hopes of fighting a war for independence. Both sides should have been able to settle the dispute like good Christians.
>Generally, though there was very little sympathy >in England when the Brits were murdering Irish >citizens right and left. Not true. But fortunately the people of Northern Ireland are no longer murdered for voting the wrong way. Thank god we beat the IRA.
Really? My opinion is close to the reverse. I have sympathy for those who were Loyalists at the time and think the Founders were great but flawed, but I have no regret that a separation happened. The one good thing that might have happened is that slavery might have been abolished in North America earlier (and most likely without a civil war), but the vagaries of history are so unpredictable that it can't be proved that that would have happened.
I don't think the IRA lost. They are in government now, all the money is being laundered and becoming 'respectable', and they just wait a few decades for demographics to make Catholics the majority in Northern Ireland. About the sympathy bit - depends on when. When it was Cromwell, there certainly wasn't any sympathy. Quite why that statue is still in Parliament I have no idea. Warty murdering bastard.
**Generally, though there was very little sympathy in England when the Brits were murdering Irish citizens right and left.** Really? When was that, during an age of empire? Empires are not moral, I said as much in my comment. That said, I reject your point with regards to anything like recent history. Growing up in the UK in the 70's & 80's, there was in fact huge support and anger against the government for anyone wrongly killed by the British military and great sympathy for the hunger strikers etc. It was the right wing government of Thatcher who pursued the hard line 'shoot to kill' policy. ** Sometimes you reap what you sow, and it was the British who began the killing of civilians in the Anglo-Irish conflicts, not the other way around. ** "Sometimes you reap what you sow," I had never, prior to living in America, heard terrorism against a democracy so blithely dismissed. Since moving here, I've found it to be remarkably common place and framed in the way MoeLarryAndJesus has done, as some sort of justified (or at least understood...) action. Terrorism against civilians... Scratch the surface and it's right there. Even now, after 9/11. I mean wtf? Is this just a case of becoming what you hate?
Ross and Yglesias sound like a bunch of fucking traitors. You'd rather there wasn't a Revolutionary War? Really? And be treated like the Irish were until very recently? Pathetic hack bloggers. These guys aren't even out of diapers and yet The Atlantic deems them worthy to write garbage like this under their brand. Fuck you traitor bastards, go to England and stay there you whiny fucks.
James, the IRA lost in one way. If they had renounced violence considerably earlier and pursued democratic solutions, I expect they would have stronger support across the UK. I mean look at the SNP and their progress toward devolution. They already have their own parliament. And it's all for the good.
>I don't think the IRA lost. Point taken. ;-) But, to be boringly literal, the IRA wanted to force Northern Ireland to unite with the south, against the wishes of its people. (A bit like the US invasion of Canada in 1812, just to haul this back on topic.) They've stopped fighting: Ireland isn't united. >they just wait a few decades for demographics to >make Catholics the majority in Northern Ireland. Which is fair enough.
Douthat: "I think that anyone doesn't feel at least a frisson of regret over how the split between the American colonies and Great Britain happened" ross douthat, loyalist. why am i not surprised?
>And be treated like the Irish were until very >recently? Nope, to be treated like Canada. Free healthcare, no slavery, "colour" spelt correctly, and all the maple syrup you can eat.
The irony is that the colonists wanted to be free riders on the security efforts of the Empire. Now we successors of the Loyalists are the ones who freeride. What I appreciate about what Matt and Ross are doing is that they are at least correcting all the idiocy about how tyrannical George III was. When sane, he intervened in politics a bit more than his predecessors and successors in the Hanoverian line, but he was a constitutional monarch and a good egg. Not totally swift, and a bit too big on showing resolution and will, but a pretty decent guy. But even as a descendent of United Empire Loyalists, I have to agree with James Kabala's position. The Revolution wasn't justified, but there is no regretting its consequences. Eighteenth century Britain was already an experiment in liberty, but America became a new and different one, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Yeah, well I still root for the injuns when I watch Last of the Mohicans.
Clarification: I do think the Revolution was justified, but I can at least understand and sympathize with those who thought differently at the time, whereas I don't understand a similar position taken today.
TDE replies: "I had never, prior to living in America, heard terrorism against a democracy so blithely dismissed. Since moving here, I've found it to be remarkably common place and framed in the way MoeLarryAndJesus has done, as some sort of justified (or at least understood...) action. Terrorism against civilians... Scratch the surface and it's right there. Even now, after 9/11. I mean wtf? Is this just a case of becoming what you hate?" I'm never surprised by how blithely many Brits dismiss the long centuries of oppression and murder committed by their country against Ireland - up to and including the recent past - but expect everyone else to get all upset because there were some consequences on their own land. I'm opposed to what the IRA did to ciilians, but Mountbatten and Thatcher were fair game. So too would Churchill have been in an earlier time. Tough shit if you don't like that attitude - I don't like mass murder and enforced starvation being pooh-poohed with an "oh, but that was the age of empire." As for the IRA, their acts of violence were equaled by what the Ulster Protestants were doing, and don't waste your time telling me that England really cared all that much about that.
James, you should agree with much more of what I say.
Moe, Yup, the Ulster Protestants were considerably bloodier than the Irish Republican Army, and with less justification. And the state of Northern Ireland itself has rather little reason to exist, since it has no historical or organic roots, and the Ulster Protestants are really of Scottish origin. If a strong Protestant like W.B. Yeats was able to find a place for himself in Catholic Ireland, that shows that the Ulster Scots had little reason to secede. James Kabala, I don't think there's much doubt that the British got rid of slavery before the Americans, and also that as cruel as they were towards the Native Americans, they were less cruel than the independent Americans. that is why so many Native Americans like Tecumseh sided with the British in the war of 1812. Early 21st century USA has developed into something with which I have a fair number of problems so I have a hard time working up too much enthusiasm either for or against the Revolution. Britain had had its own revolution in 1649, which was much more of a socioeconomic, political, and religious upheaval than the colonial revolt that was the American Revolution, so it seems dubious that social change would not have eventually come to Europe.
Moe's a little confused if he thinks the American Revolutionaries would have had sympathy for the Papists of Ireland. One of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence is that the Crown allowed French Catholics in Quebec to retain their laws. Another was that the Royal Proclamation guaranteed Indian lands against colonial theft.
**I'm never surprised by how blithely many Brits dismiss the long centuries of oppression and murder committed by their country against Ireland** Blaming the sins of the father on the son, is not going to, and hasn't gotten, NI anywhere. I oppose British rule on principle. And for you to dismiss my recognition that Empires are immoral and worthy of armed uprising against as blithe, does nothing but let your prejudice shine through. And your sympathies towards terrorist action are disgusting. Do you ever really consider how views like your have done nothing but perpetuate death, division and suffering for decades? Or do you just justify it with talk of the potato famine that ended 156 years ago? It's redundant to point out how freaking badly the US was behaving at that time. **As for the IRA, their acts of violence were equaled by what the Ulster Protestants were doing,don't waste your time telling me that England really cared all that much about that.** You're wrong (again) but I won't waste my time fighting your preconceptions.
Pisslord says: "Moe's a little confused if he thinks the American Revolutionaries would have had sympathy for the Papists of Ireland. " I never said or implied anything of the sort. What the fuck are you talking about?
TDE quotes and replies: "Blaming the sins of the father on the son, is not going to, and hasn't gotten, NI anywhere. I oppose British rule on principle. And for you to dismiss my recognition that Empires are immoral and worthy of armed uprising against as blithe, does nothing but let your prejudice shine through. And your sympathies towards terrorist action are disgusting. Do you ever really consider how views like your have done nothing but perpetuate death, division and suffering for decades? Or do you just justify it with talk of the potato famine that ended 156 years ago? It's redundant to point out how freaking badly the US was behaving at that time. " I have no such sympathies. But why do YOU continue to pretend that all of the "sins" were by "the father"? British depredations against Ireland didn't end when the Empire did. They continued until quite recently. Does the phrase "Bloody Sunday" mean anything to you? What about rubber bullets, or groundless internments, or British cops locking up innocent men after framing them? What about the fucking Crown perpetuating a Jim Crow-like system of bigotry and oppression against Caholics in Northern Ireland? I guess none of that matters at all. "**As for the IRA, their acts of violence were equaled by what the Ulster Protestants were doing,don't waste your time telling me that England really cared all that much about that.** You're wrong (again) but I won't waste my time fighting your preconceptions." It's not a preconception, it's a fact. If you're going to pretend, for instance, that Margaret Thatcher gave two shits about Protestant terrorism in Northern Ireland I'm just going to laugh in your face.
Hector writes: "Moe, Yup, the Ulster Protestants were considerably bloodier than the Irish Republican Army, and with less justification." Yeah - it's amazing what you can get away with when the police are blatantly on your side and the national (UK) government pretends you don't exist half the time.
I'm a Limey but even I know that a million Filipinos died trying to win their freedom from America. And from which scholarly source did you acquire that datum?
Nice and slimy strategy there Deco. Instead of your usual trick of attacking data you don't like by smearing the researcher, let's go from another angle. I assume you accept that Filipinos did die. What amount exactly would you feel 'ok' with?
'In 1908 Manuel Arellano Remondo, in General Geography of the Philippine Islands, wrote: “The population decreased due to the wars, in the five-year period from 1895 to 1900, since, at the start of the first insurrection, the population was estimated at 9,000,000, and at present (1908), the inhabitants of the Archipelago do not exceed 8,000,000 in number.”' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#CITEREFBoot2003
**If you're going to pretend, for instance, that Margaret Thatcher gave two shits about Protestant terrorism in Northern Ireland I'm just going to laugh in your face.** You're going to have to stop arguing against things I haven't said... **Does the phrase "Bloody Sunday" mean anything to you?** Yeah, the soldiers who did it were from the Parachute regiment, based in the military town where I grew up, Aldershot. It was subsequently bombed. As was the nearby town of Guildford. **What about rubber bullets,** Used to reduce incidents like Bloody Sunday. Do I need to point out how many soldiers were killed by sniper fire? **or groundless internments** I opposed it, as I oppose the current detention policies of the US admin. **or British cops locking up innocent men after framing them?** And women... fucking awful, and opposed by many, many Brits. And they were set free and compensated by a British legal system. Not executed, fortunately. **What about the fucking Crown perpetuating a Jim Crow-like system of bigotry and oppression against Catholics in Northern Ireland? I guess none of that matters at all.** Of course it matters, but tell me, does any of it justify the terrorism you supported? I'm a non religious British ex pat, who hated Maggie (for lots of reasons), who saw the effects of terrorism up close, who opposes British rule in NI, but who will not tolerate those who use moral relativism to defend acts of terror. As I mentioned before, I'm amazed how often people in America will take your tone; it's really a perfect example of what caused NI to be the festering sore it was up until very recently.
TDE quotes and replies: "**Does the phrase "Bloody Sunday" mean anything to you?** Yeah, the soldiers who did it were from the Parachute regiment, based in the military town where I grew up, Aldershot. It was subsequently bombed. As was the nearby town of Guildford." Was that the bombing that prompted the false conviction of the Guildford suspects? What penalty was paid by the soldiers who committed those crimes, by the way? And are you suggesting that the subsequent bombing somehow justified the shootings? "**What about rubber bullets,** Used to reduce incidents like Bloody Sunday. Do I need to point out how many soldiers were killed by sniper fire?" That sort of thing happens to occupying armies who are enforcing a clearly unfair system, doesn't it? Do you root for the warden in prison movies? "**or British cops locking up innocent men after framing them?** And women... fucking awful, and opposed by many, many Brits. And they were set free and compensated by a British legal system. Not executed, fortunately." And supported by many more Brits! Deny that and I'll piss in your milkshake. And of course some of the unjustly imprisoned died there. Perhaps their corpses were set free, but so what? "Of course it matters, but tell me, does any of it justify the terrorism you supported?" I did no such thing, you dishonest fuck.
TDE again: "I'm amazed how often people in America will take your tone; it's really a perfect example of what caused NI to be the festering sore it was up until very recently." Riiiggghhhttt - and the Crown supporting a criminal police department and institutionalized discrimination and violence against the Catholic part of the population of Ulster (shove "Northern Ireland" up your ass) had nothing to do with it. Sure it didn't. Fuck you and Ian Paisley with a sharpened hockey stick.
"Of course it matters, but tell me, does any of it justify the terrorism you supported?" **I did no such thing, you dishonest fuck.** Hmmm... **I'm opposed to what the IRA did to ciilians, but Mountbatten and Thatcher were fair game. So too would Churchill have been in an earlier time. Tough shit if you don't like that attitude** Speaks for itself. Moe, if your not part of the solution you're part of the problem. In all my political action in the UK I always took the view we should end our presence in NI and let the people there decide for themselves. You sir, have a bug up your ass. Use that hockey stick on yourself.
"While in hindsight you can say the war and the events leading up to it were sort of silly, the outcome was so serendipitously positive for the causes of human rights, republicanism, capitalism, etc, around the world that it's sort of silly to look back with any regret." I'd have to largely agree with this. I'm not sure it's fair to say we'd end up with a world like today, except with Canada over all of North America, if there'd been no Revolution. It's plausible to me that several of the Latin American nations wouldn't have become independent until later. Other independence movements might also have stalled and several nations might never exist. Also that a "British North America" would have had a lower population and less inventions. I think it would've been less likely to encourage "land rushes" for immigrants to settle. So the German-descended population would likely be much less. German-Americans are a greater percentage of our population than Germans are in Canada and many of the Germans in Canada originally came to settle the US. (Or in the case of the Hessians to fight the colonials) The position of American Indians and blacks would probably be better though. Still on balance I think it'd likely be a slightly more primitive and more Eurocentric world. Which doesn't mean they were actually noble. Although I'm surprised an American can get away with saying this and not be viciously attacked. (I say it because I'm a rather eccentric American)
I think Matt's getting a bum rap on this, but also that his was not particularly a point worth making. Counter-factual speculation can be fun, but ultimately history happened as it happened, and we cannot know what might have happened alternatively. But I think the people that have credited the revolution for the latter development of modern democracy are making an even more specious argument. Britain was becoming more democratic, and they did abolish slavery before we did (of course that was an easier thing to do in Britain, but still they deserve some credit). Our revolution was largely driven by an (inflated and idealized) idea of the rights of Britons that obviously predated the revolution itself, and given that these memes of equality and liberty have proven so powerful, we shouldn't suppose that they would have died without the aid of Jeffersonian rhetoric. Indeed, the most immediate sense in which the American Revolution transformed Europe was rather accidental. Deep in debt because they supported us, the French government was weakened by teetering on the edge of insolvency for much of the decade before the French Revolution, that great explosion that changed everything. The ideas of Rousseau, Voltaire and other philosophes were powerful in themselves. Nor did the occasionally arrogant French really suppose that the provincial colonies offered much an example to the capital of culture, except in so far as they saw us through Rousseauist romantic lens as unspoiled simple folk, exuding exemplary republican virtue. Whether Americans really want to see ourselves as innocent, goodly noble savages at this date is another matter.
One of the aims of terrorism is to provoke the opposition into injustice. Over the course of its 30 year campaign the IRA certainly managed that. Our duty, though, it to maintain an equality of indignation. No doubt, Joe, your anger here against the Brits is matched eleswhere by an equivalent rage against the IRA.
TDE replies: "Moe, if your not part of the solution you're part of the problem. In all my political action in the UK I always took the view we should end our presence in NI and let the people there decide for themselves. You sir, have a bug up your ass. Use that hockey stick on yourself." The "bug up my ass" involves the fact - and it was a fact - that the fucking Crown DID "let the people there decide for themselves." And the result was discrimination and injustice for many long decades. You sir apparently were perfectly okay with that. Margaret Thatcher sure was, and it almost got her ass blown up on the toilet.
TDE, The problem with 'letting the people there decide for themselves' is that there is no 'people' and no 'there'. There is no historical warrant for a Northern Irish state and a Northern Irish people. There are Irish, there are English, and there are Scots. Creating the state of Northern Ireland was the equivalent of artificially gerrymandering a completely meaningless and ahistorical state solely for the purpose of allowing some relatively recent immigrants to rule the roost over the indigenous inhabitants of Ireland. In this country, we call that Jim Crow.
Hector, That's not actually true; the Protestant settlers came over from Henry VII onwards, often from Scotland. You can debate the legimitacy of the land they took, but if by relatively recent you mean the timescale I describe, then it would apply every non 'Native' American also.
**There is no historical warrant for a Northern Irish state and a Northern Irish people** So other than letting the people who live there now decide, what do you suggest? Shipping those protestant Scots back to Scotland? I've made the point earlier in this thread that if the IRA had given up violence earlier the likelihood of a united Ireland would be greater. My point about the 'sins of the father' is that whatever country you talk about, lets say the US, when you go back far enough you find hideous behaviour where one group or another is maligned (slaves, Native Americans). I don't happen to believe that those historical wrongs justify terrorist violence against modern democracies. I'm not sure what your point is, because I'm not commenting in defence of a British ruled NI, historically or now. When one starts to justify terrorism or 'understand it' or take the attitude of 'you reap what you sow', you will find yourself able to accommodate evil acts. Empires, which NI is not in as much as CA is not part of American Empire, are not moral and should be struggled against as I've said from the beginning. I'm just still struck that even after 9/11 there are plenty who will justify Irish terrorism here in the US. It needs to be pointed out, that it's a crock.
Henry VIII onwards Sorry
TDE, No, I don't think that the Ulster Scots should have been shipped back to Scotland. I think they should have accepted a place in the Irish Republic. There were a fair number of Protestants south of the border, you know. While they had to abide by Catholic laws concerning divorce, birth control, mixed marriages and the like, and to accept that the Catholic church was the 'national religion', they weren't seriously oppressed and for the most part were as patriotic as the Catholics.
For U.S. citezens (well, most of them, anyway), now and historically, the revolution was a good thing. For the rest of the world, not so much.
sidoko writes: "One of the aims of terrorism is to provoke the opposition into injustice. Over the course of its 30 year campaign the IRA certainly managed that." Of course the injustice by "the opposition" was occurring before the IRA began its campaign. Why are you unable to acknowledge that?
>they had to abide by Catholic laws concerning >divorce, birth control, mixed marriages and the >like, and to accept that the Catholic church was >the 'national religion', Wow. And could you have accepted that? Birth control, abortion (even after rape), divorce all illegal? The priest the most important man in the village, part of most Catholic country outside the Vatican? A country that stayed neutral while Ulstermen were fighting the Nazis alongside you and us, whereas Ireland sent a message of condolence to the German Embassy when Hitler died? Think of NI as the Canada of Ireland: the bit that decided to stay Loyalist. Aren't they entitled to be different? Why on earth should they be bombed and murdered into union with a country so different from their own?
TDE writes: "I'm just still struck that even after 9/11 there are plenty who will justify Irish terrorism here in the US. It needs to be pointed out, that it's a crock." I'm just still struck that even after Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo there are plenty who will excuse state terrorism against civilians in Northern Ireland. It needs to be pointed out that it's a crock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_%281972%29
sidoko writes: "A country that stayed neutral while Ulstermen were fighting the Nazis alongside you and us, whereas Ireland sent a message of condolence to the German Embassy when Hitler died?" You expected Ireland to fight on England's behalf? Seriously? Exactly how fucked in the head are you? Ireland experienced its own Holocaust in the 19th century at the hands of England. Next you'll be demanding that Armenia take up arms in support of Turkey.
>You expected Ireland to fight on Ireland decided not to join the worldwide fight against barbarism. Fair enough. I was only pointing out the differences between NI and the Republic. (Any chance you could drop the obscenities? It makes you sound like a fool.)
Hector and Sidoko: See Gates, John M. "War-Related Deaths in the Philippines, 1898-1902, The Pacific Historical Review, v. 53:3 (1984). He urges caution because of the poor quality of the Spanish colonial figures and the insufficienies of the American census of 1903, but offers this (pg. 376), "Including deaths caused by Spaniards, cholera, and Filipino revolutionaries, the maximum number of people known to have died because of the war would appear to be no more than 360,000, even when one uses projected growth rates for the Islands considerably in excess of the highest postulated by Peter Smith, the demographer having studies the pre-war period most closely. Using Smith's maximum projected growth rate of 1.5 percent/year, the upper limit of war related deaths would be less than 234,000 (see table 2). If the 137,000 to 200,000 deaths from cholera were excluded, the number of war-related deaths would drop dramatically."
Right Deco, We go back to my original point. Instead of desperately trying to find data which fits your view, what amount of deaths are you 'ok' with? 360,000? 260,000? 100,000? It was a disgusting part of America's past and you are quibbling about how many died, as somehow that is the point. you piece of shit.
Sidoko, I'm against abortion, as any Christian (Catholic or not) should be. As for divorce and birth control, no of course I would not like it if they were illegal. But I would like to think that in such a situation I would fight to change the law by persuading my fellow citizens. Not that I would run crying to Big Daddy John Bull to try to make me a separate country with no basis in history. In point of fact the Protestants and liberal Catholics did fight for divorce and birth control and mixed marriages to be more widely tolerated, and eventually in time they succeeded. Guess what, they didn't need a separate country to do it. Moe's point about Irish neutrality in the war is very well taken. Play with fire, you get burned.
>a separate country with no basis in history. As was pointed out earlier in this discussion, the Scottish Protestants have been in Ireland far longer than non-Native-Americans have been in North America. I've no problem about Ireland choosing not to fight Hitler. I was only pointing out one of the many reasons why people in NI feel separate from the Republic.
Re: Basically, Canada would be the size of the US and Canada combined in such a circumstance. The resulting nation would contain all of Canada and all the US east of the Misissippi (including Florida which was under British rule in 1776 and only reverted to Spain as a result of the American Revolution). Further west I think that Louisiana would have been added during the Napoleonic Wars, and Oregon most likely would hve fallen to British rule too. However the Southwest is another matter. My guess is that it would host an independent Republic of Texas. Alaska is another question mark: the Russians may have been disinclined to sell it to the British, but it might have changed hands in the 20th century. Hawaii most likely would be independent as a former British colony. Re: That's not actually true; the Protestant settlers came over from Henry VII onwards, often from Scotland. Given that Henry VII died before the Reformation that would be extraordinary if true. And in fact Scotland was not joined to Britain (in fact was often hostile) until 1603 when James VI of Scotland became James I of England-- and it was he who started exporting the poor and the criminal from Scotland to Eire. Re: Ireland experienced its own Holocaust in the 19th century at the hands of England. A bit extreme there. The British did not actively murder the Irish, but did allow them to die in huge numbers during the famine by neglect. The true state of affairs was not well known in Britain itself by the way. When Queen Victoria toured Ireland toward the end of her life she was surprised how empty of people it was as the true severity of the Famine had been kept even from her. Re: Ireland decided not to join the worldwide fight against barbarism. Neither did Spain, Portugal, Switzerland or Sweden, while Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia, Finland, Austria, and Italy joined Der Fuhrer's cause. Perhaps we can restart WWII by arguing who's acceptable these days and who is not.
JonF, You seem to be able to read the original message I posted but not the correction I posted two posts later, where I corrected it to Henry VIII - It's not that difficult a typo to make. And as I stated 'onwards' it included all migration after that point, so it doesn't negate what I said about the Scottish element. Not quite sure what points you are trying to score here. Oh - and it's not simply an issue of neglect - even after crops failed, produce was still being exported from Ireland under the Whig government.
sidoko replies: "Ireland decided not to join the worldwide fight against barbarism. Fair enough. I was only pointing out the differences between NI and the Republic. (Any chance you could drop the obscenities? It makes you sound like a fool.)" Don't be such a prissy prick. Ireland was busy recovering from being under the thumb of a barbaric tyrant itself. For one example of this, see how the vicious, amoral British executed wounded men after the Easter Rebellion. It's the sort of thing that would have made Himmler proud.
JonF quotes and writes: "Re: Ireland experienced its own Holocaust in the 19th century at the hands of England. A bit extreme there. The British did not actively murder the Irish, but did allow them to die in huge numbers during the famine by neglect. The true state of affairs was not well known in Britain itself by the way. When Queen Victoria toured Ireland toward the end of her life she was surprised how empty of people it was as the true severity of the Famine had been kept even from her." Yes, it's a bit extreme. But only a bit. During the famine huge amounts of food were being shipped out of Ireland daily. Relief efforts were meager and often maliciously disgusting, as when Protestant "charities" would offer meals in exchange for service attendance. As for Queen Victoria, fuck the old bitch. She knew damn well what was going on. "Ottoman Caliph Abdülmecid declared his intention to send 10,000 sterling to Irish farmers but Queen Victoria requested that the Caliph send only 1,000 sterling, because she had sent only 2,000 sterling. The Caliph sent the 1,000 sterling but also secretly sent 3 ships full of food. The English courts tried to block the ships, but the food arrived in Drogheda harbour and was left there by Ottoman sailors."
Nice and slimy strategy there Deco. It is a forensic conuring trick called 'asking a question'. Instead of your usual trick of attacking data you don't like by smearing the researcher, let's go from another angle. Who did I smear?
My desperation consisted of a simple search for a text string in a general full-text database of scholarly literature and browsing through the first 100 or so citations, a laconic way of going about these things. There were not more than two or three pieces that spoke to this question. While we are at it, just what is this view of mine that the data 'fits'?
You stay classy.
Moe, Wow. When the Turkish Sultan, of all people, show themselves to be more humanitarian than you, then that's saying a lot. Looks like 'bitch' is the right word for Queen Victoria.
Deco, I've seen your previous posts where you've attacked research or opinion you don't agree by disparaging the researcher. Recently with the Nixon's Piano: But also Alan Guttmacher Institute and Brad DeLong among others. Your balance on America abroad is amply shown in this post: http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/presidential_reputations.php Not to mention what was essentially your shrug at Latin American atrocities. You have happened to pick the lowest estimate I've ever seen, by a scholar who 'prefers' to publish on the web, and whose main published work is essentially 'just how good was Reagan'. What were the figures for the other two pieces by the way? You stay classy I'm not the one trying to derail what was a question of an immoral American occupation which caused huge loss of life into a debate on the 'numbers'. You've tried similar things before also. If you're classy, I'd rather stay vulgar than be scum like you. How many Filipino deaths was 'ok' for you? You never answered. And I repeat: You are a piece of shit.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Mr. Deco's statistic for the number of Filipinos who died as a result of the American occupation happens to be correct. That works out to a death rate about 23 times greater than the rate of political killings during the Soviet occupation of Poland (picking an arbitrary example). I wouldn't hesitate to call the Soviet domination of Poland a terrible imperialism, and by extension I would say the same thing about the American occupation of the Philippines. Of course, one could say that you can't judge the rightness or wrongness of a political regime purely by its rate of executions. I would agree. However I would still say that the American occupation of the Philippines had very little to justify it. If Russia was wrong to occupy Poland then America was even more wrong to occupy the Philippines.
The other article offered no estimate of war dead on its own account. It was about the progression of the subsequent cholera epidemic and penned by a pair of medical geographers. The third article was, as I recall, part of an exchange of viewpoints. I was having some trouble maneuvering around in the database in question and lost track of it in the search results. The article to which I made reference was published in 1984 in what is, as far as I am aware, a reputable academic journal, the Pacific Historical Review. I am not aware of the author's other published work. There were not any 'tells' in the portions I read which suggested a tendentious exercise, but in order to make a judgment on that you would have to assemble a bibliography on the topic and review it, a rather time consuming exercise. It is my understanding that the American troop force in the Philippines averaged about 40,000 during those three years, so I would tend to be skeptical of seven figure death tolls among the native population, most especially since the census conducted in 1903 put the total population at 7.6 million.
I actually have no opinion on the normative question you have stated, and no real argument concerning it. Happy trails.
> the vicious, amoral British executed wounded >men after the Easter Rebellion. Yes, the death penalty is what you get for starting a pitched battle in the middle of a city. If you don't want to be treated like soldiers then don't act like them -- and don't spend the next hundred years wallowing in pathetic self-pity.
sidoko writes: "Yes, the death penalty is what you get for starting a pitched battle in the middle of a city. If you don't want to be treated like soldiers then don't act like them -- and don't spend the next hundred years wallowing in pathetic self-pity. " So now you're defending the practice of lining wounded men up agains |
Since I bitch so much when I think you're wrong, I should point out when I agree completely.
Which means no doubt you'll get slated by everyone else.
Posted by James | July 9, 2008 11:13 AM