I was walking across a bridge one day and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, “Stop! Don’t do it!” “Why shouldn’t I?” he said. “Well, there is so much to live for.” “Like what?”
“Well, are you religious?” He said yes. I said, “Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?” “Christian.” “Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Protestant.” “Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?” “Baptist.” “Wow, me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?” “Baptist Church of God.” “Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?” “Reformed Baptist Church of God.” “Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?”
He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915.” I said, “Die, heretic,” and pushed him off.
Only Spain, and some of the Italian states. There was, of course, persecution of Protestants in the other Catholic countries (as there was persecution of Catholics in Protestant countries, including England), but no formal Inquisition.
USED to happen in RSA, where the sentiment wasn't religious at all but likely a Boer dominated regime happy at the thought of all those rooinecke (Limeys) being blown to bits.
I’ve seen various ‘what if’ types of analyses which have Fawkes being successful.
Far from instigating a successful revolution, the backlash would have likely meant a pogrom of Catholics.
You have to consider that there was already widespred anti-catholic feeling, and that the number of conspirators was actually quite small, and did not represent anything like a critical number of people of power and influence.
There would have been a power vacuum, and it would have been filled in, probably on the back of a campaign to rid the nation of any trace of catholicism.
Were you raised in the US? As far as I’ve been able to discern, most people here are only vaguely aware of who Guy Fawkes was–perhaps because the overbearingly Protestant slant of our early founders must have had an influence on what things from the old country were remembered and what things were deliberately forgotten, if such a thing is possible.
That’s a reasonable guess, but for the Catholics, who were already semi-underground and hiding in fear, this would not have meant much of a change. Any hope is better than none.
Okay, let’s assume Fawkes succeeded in killing both James I and Princess Elizabeth. Was anybody clearly next in line or would a war of succession erupt.
Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, would have taken the throne, but he was only 10 years old (and died at the age of 18, so he never became king). So there would be some kind of regency needed, and I’m not sure who was best qualified to be regent.
Sadly that joke is uncomfortably close to the truth.
We have Catholics, Anglo-Catholics and Protestants over here.
The Protestants are further divided into Baptists, Wesleyans, Congregationalists, Anglicans, Lutheran, Methodist, Pentecostal, Free Churches, Anabaptists, Quakers, Presbyterian and Adventists…
The contemporary Free Church of Scotland is that part of the original Free Church of Scotland that remained outside of the union with the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland in 1900. It remains a distinct Presbyterian denomination in Scotland to this day, and is commonly referred to (in Highland English, and mostly by outsiders) as The Wee Frees, though this nickname is sometimes used for the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (also occasionally known as The Wee Wee Frees).
Erm, I think you’re getting confused about who gets to celebrate the event - it’s an English/Protestant festival because the ‘evil Catholic’ plot was foiled. It’s the only public holiday that has been celebrated consistently in England for over 400 years (seeing as Cromwell at one point cancelled Christmas), so if you celebrated it in the RSA, it would’ve been promoted by your BRITISH overlords, not the Boers.
And to the OP, I don’t see why you wouldn’t view GF as a terrorist. You would if he was trying to blow up the Senate in 2008, whatever his grievances.
Remember Remember the fifth of November, gunpowder, treason and plot.
Seeing as it’s an event celebrating the saving of the English Government from destruction, I can imagine exactly why the US founders weren’t that bothered about celebrating it.
It was celebrated in Colonial Boston as “Pope Night”, and the Pope would be burned in effigy. During the Revolution, George Washington wrote the city a letter asking them to stop it, saying basically, “You idiots, we’re planning on invading Canada and getting it on our side, and insulting their religion doesn’t help”. The celebration sort of died out after that. This site might be interesting:
No, a terrorist is a person who wants to inspire terror in the populace for political ends, like by setting off a car bomb in a crowded market. The Gunpowder plotters were trying to overturn the government by violent means, like by blowing the king and all of Parliament to perdition, so they were revolutionaries. It’s a not-particularly-subtle distinction that’s been misplaced in the past few years.
There can be crossover, too. When the IRA set off car bombs in areas far away from the center of government they commited acts of terrorism, but blowing up Lord Mountbatten and shooting an RPG at 10 Downing were direct acts against the government.
Did anyone else catch the re-enactment on TV. Sadly, I can’t remember the name or channel or when it originally aired, but it looked like a British program. They built a full scale model of the Parliament Building, with model attendees made of color coded body gel. They had old-style gunpowder made.
They successfully proved that the Parliament Building would have gone up in spectacular fashion, with great loss of life and damage to nearby buildings, which has apparently been a matter of debate. It was quite a big bang.
So by that logic, would you say that the planes that crashed into the World Trade Centre was a terrorist attack, but the plane that crashed into the Pentagon was a ‘direct act against the government’ and therefore not?
Don’t get me wrong, I can see your wordsmith argument, but I can also see that a minority group, perceived ‘at the time’ to be influenced by external threats (those foreign swarthy papists who want to overun our country! The Spanish Armada would be pretty fresh in the minds of the people) blowing the seat of government to kingdom come would be a pretty terrorising prospect for the people.
I can also assure you that the missile thrown at Downing street, and the bomb the IRA planted at the Grand Hotel in Brighton in an attempt to destroy the Thatcher cabinet, were most certainly viewed as Terrorist activities by the populace.
Yeah, I don’t have a problem with that interpretation. Clinching it is that it was a direct act against the military. Its effect may have been like a terrorist attack, but to me it was not significantly different from kamikaze pilots flying into Allied warships.
Even the WTC attacks could be seen as acts of war, attempting to destroy the financial system by attacking it directly. On the other hand, there is no “higher” purpose to blowing up a pub or falafel stand than to simply make the populace afraid to live their normal lives.
Of course, people have disagreed with me before. Hell, I’m disagreeing with my own “not-particularly-subtle distinction” phrase of a few hours ago because I’m seeing a lot of gray areas between warfare and terrorism, whether it’s seen as a bonus to get scared people out of a damaged Pentagon or vice versa.
Yes, I can see that. I guess it all boils down to the ‘one man’s terrorist…’ argument. I can quite imagine that the suicide bomber in a market place would actually LOVE to be the suicide bomber in the government building, but just can’t get there. The WTC is just a massive marketplace, after all.
But on a side note, I find the different perspectives on history fascinating. My girlfriend, who would be the first person to admit that she has little knowledge or interest in historical events, always assumed Nov 5th was a Catholic celebration. She comes from a (distinctly minority) Catholic (and Catholic-schooled) Welsh education, and she was taught by the Nuns that the reason she was going out lighting bonfires on Nov 5th was in celebration of her Catholicism. She’s quite furious with me since I told her it was an event in opposition to Catholicism, and that towns such as Lewes, in Sussex (England), still burn an effigy of the Pope rather than Guy Fawkes.
(She’s still coming to a bonfire party with me at the weekend, however, so she’s got over it)