Of course long-term humiliation was a factor in the Columbine killings. So were 26 chromosomes and opposable thumbs. Damn near everybody is humiliated in high school, and many (maybe even most?) are humiliated as badly Klebold and Harris. Whatever it was that made the difference for those two to become mass murderers, it was something a lot more important than humiliation.
Minty:
it doesn’t apply to “everyone”, at least not in the context that it was described. I might have used the wrong word: perhaps I should have used “factor”, or “variable” (to use the terms from qualitative and quantitative research, respectively). A relatively small level of what we call humiliation (and defining that term would be admittedly useful- I wish I could find the study itself) might not be enough; there could be a certain threshold of “humiliation” (however it is defined) that is required before someone begins to entertain the notion of terrorist acts. Is it deterministic and as simple as cause->effect? Probably not- there are no doubt other factors/variables involved. Political science is not so simplistic, just like economics, sociology, and any other social science. The answers are often complex. Still, if this is the case, then studying humiliation could certainly be a useful tool for predicting the growth of terrorist activity.
Sofa King:
It might not be, but it might bring into effect other problems as well. Ought Implies Can, and it’s not exactly easy to suspend a people’s rights and hold them in subjugation until the will to resist dies out. This is, of course, assuming that it ever truly “dies out”- while your examples are interesting, I doubt they’re representative of the experiences and reactions of conquered peoples the world over throughout history.
Besides, your conclusion that “humiliation is the price of defeat” is debatable as well. While humiliation may often accompany defeat, you haven’t given a reason why it must be the price of defeat. That very belief might be part of the problem. (I’m not saying it is, but it’s a possible avenue of criticism of your conclusion.)
I’m not entirely sure that’s true. The proximate cause of the “Troubles” was not the oppression of northern Catholics - which had been going on for decades - but the loyalist fear that that oppression was about to be lifted. If it actually had been lifted in the 60s it’s hard to see that loyalists (in which I include the RUC and B-Specials) would have responded any more positively to it.
Also, minor nitpick, but the British Government had already granted Catholics at least some of those rights in the Government of Ireland Act 1920 - at least on paper. What the British Government needed (and failed) to do was compel Stormont to uphold them.