Well, the women didn’t get to vote, either. I guess we need to give Texas back to Spain.
Sort of. Just to clarify a bit…
Ottoman control was established in the north Gulf region when Hasa voluntarily accepted Ottoman overlordship in 1550. But they were primarily interested in combatting Portuguese and Safavid influences and they never really sought to eliminate the local chieftaincies, which in effect functioned as the Ottoman vassals. With the decline in the Portuguese ( expelled from the Gulf around 1650 ) and Safavid threat, Ottoman interest wained and by 1670 was effectively minimal. The al-Sabah family became prominant in the Kuwait region after the afore-mentioned mid-1700’s.
However the Wahabi campaigns in the early 19th century re-peaked Ottoman interest and finally in 1870-1871 they ( too the surprise of many ) definitively reasserted themselves in the north Gulf in a military campaign and fairly effectively so. They still ruled through local chieftains in some areas ( like Kuwait ), more directly in others ( like in some districts to the south of Kuwait ) but their claims were recognized both internationally and locally. Kuwait was considered an administrative district of the province of Basra, Sheikhs Abdallah and Muhammed of Kuwait ( 1871-1896 ) held Ottoman titles as such, owned estates along the Shatt al-Arab in what is now southern Iraq ( around Faw ), and engaged in military actions at the behest and command of the Ottomans in 1871, 1878, 1892, and 1894. Further Britain recognized Ottoman suzerainty over the territory. Even after the coup of 1896, when Prince Mubarak ( 1896-1915 ) killed his brothers and seized the Sheikhdom, the break with the Ottomans was not inevitable. He initially sought to win acknowledgment and a shiny Ottoman title of his own ( with the help of hefty bribes to corrupt officials ), but was stymied by the hostile governor of Basra that sought a military campaign to remove the Sabah’s and establish a more direct rule. But internal arguments and other pressing problems elsewhere in the empre distracted them and they dithered too long. By 1899 Britain had been invited in signed their agreement with Mubarak, but it was most certainly not recognized by the Ottomans. The signed, but never ratified Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913 ( obviously forestalled by WW I ) would have returned Kuwait to Ottoman suzerainty, but would given the al-Sabah’s de facto independence as a sort of protectorate under which the Ottomans could not interfere in internal affairs. In 1923 Turkey relinquished all claims to previous Ottoman teritories.
Iraq has pretty much claimed Kuwait based on the above since it was first created ( and particularly after independance in 1932 ) and the whole affair is slightly confused, since Kuwait really was de facto incorporated into the Ottoman empire as a vassal entity from 1871-1896 ( or, ambiguously, 1899 or even 1913 ).
However I have to say I personally find the Iraqi claims to be pretty weak. For one thing saying they ( Iraq ) are the legitimate successors to the Ottomans in the region is quite a stretch, even if I were inclined to give much credence to Ottoman claims ( which I don’t, particularly - certainly not in this day and age ).
The above based on material culled in part from The Ottoman Gulf:* The Creation of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar* by Frederick F. Anscombe ( 1997, Colombia University Press ).
- Tamerlane
And furthermore, does Iraq have any stronger claim to rule Kuwait than Kuwait has to rule Iraq? Even if we accept that it should be one country, why should it be one country ruled by Saddam?
Well, I stand corrected.
I bet you wouldn’t say that to my face, would you?
Historically, of course, the term used for residents of Texas before statehood is “Texian”. “Texan” is a post-statehood creation.
And, really, what did Imperial Japan do in Manchuria that was so different from Britain in India? The big difference is that Japan had the misfortune of doing it a century too late, when such behavior was frowned upon by the rest of the world (eventually).
Likewise, Iraq and Kuwait. A century earlier, who would’ve cared?
My comment about Kuwait and Texas was not historical, it was hypothetical. It was also rather elliptical, but I thought you guys were smart enough to figure it out.
Here is the scenario. Suppose the US had lost their bid for independence from Britain. Britain carves up N. America into a bunch of fiefdoms to make it easier to control. One fiefdom that it carves off from the rest is the Republic of Texistan. Britain does this to ensure a steady supply of cotton for its textile mills. (Incidentally, that is one reason why the US annexed Texas, to monopolize the supply of cotton, and of course you need slaves to pick cotton, and Mexico had outlawed slavery.) One of the fiefdoms, called Midwestistan, historically has viewed Texas as part of its territory, and they need a port to the Gulf of Mexistan to export their cotton. Midwestistan and Louisianistan fight a prolonged war over access to the Missisipistan River. Britain, master of divide and conquer, sells arms to both sides, including chemical and biological weapons. After the bitter and bloody war, Midwestistan is broke. Texistan starts dumping cotton on the world market, driving the price down, resulting in great loss of revenues for Midwestistan. Furthermore, Texistan starts picking cotton on the other side of their disputed border with Midwestistan. The leader of Midwestistan, Sodamn Insane, meets with the British ambassador to Midwestistan named May Graspy. She tells Sodamn Insane that Britain has no stake in border disputes in the Middle West. British state department officials proclaim that there are no treaties that obligate Britain to defend Texistan. Sodamn Insane figures its not a green light, its not a red light, its a yellow light, so floor it! He invades Texistan to reclaim the territory he feels belongs to him. Britain makes up this story about Midwestistanians raping armadilloes and proceeds to bomb Midwestistan. Britain also tricks Soddy Nebraskia to allow British troops to be based on their sacred sod. This angers a Soddy prince named Summa Cum Lauden (Yale '06) who declares a fatwallopupsidethehead on Britain. Summa Cum Lauden tells the people of the world not to buy British cotton clothes, and to spin their own cotton cloth. He is declared a terrorist by the cotton moguls, whoops waitaminnit, that was another terrorist, Mohatma Gandhi.
In conclusion, the annexation of Kuwait by Iraq was analogous to the annexation of Texistan or Texas or whatever you want to call it.
I trust that clears up the confusion.
So in other words, you took something that happened in the past, but invented a set of circumstances that never happened and then compared it to a different situation that would not be analogous except by way of your imaginary scenario that you didn’t bring up until now?
That would make you at least 180 years old.
Yup, that’s about the size of it. Doesn’t anybody here have a sense of humor?
I bet he would, and I would too. Texas has done nothing but poison the politics of this great country. Our greatest president, JFK, was murdered in Texas by LBJ and a cabal of Cabells, so that LBJ could escalate the Vietnam war and make his friends at Brown & Root, General Dynamics, and Bell Helicopters rich (including Nazi war criminal Walter Dornberger). And now we have this Bushy Cabal of pseudo-texans (they weren’t born there but they had to go there to get annointed with Satan’s holy water, oil) trying to start WWIII and enrich any corporation that gave them enough money.
How do you get to Texas? Go west until you smell it and head South until you step in it.
We should give Texas back to Mexico and let them suffer.
But the Dallas Cowboys can stay in the NFL, ok?
The Hawaiian Kingdom was stolen at gunpoint in 1893, hardly a peaceful model. The vote for statehood didn’t happen until 1959, and a lot of Hawaiians voted against it. This information was suppressed until several years ago.
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/us-occupation.shtml
I live in Hawaii. If you promise not to mangle the history of Hawaii, I promise not to mangle the history of Texas.
**
Put your tinfoil hat back on please.
Marc
Eh, not really a huge correction Neurotik - I think that in the final analysis you are essentially correct. The Iraqi claim is pretty weak. I’m just a minutia-whore :).
mystic2311: Far be it to actually put words in anyone’s mouth, but based on past discussions I suspect tomndeb has a pretty good handle on the Hawaiian annexation and I’d even be willing to bet would be pretty comfortable putting the word “peaceful” in quotes.
I think his point was just that Hawaii was stolen not by out-and-out conquest, but rather by way of a comparatively less overt coup by American settlers.
- Tamerlane
What led you to believe I ever took it off?
As imperial aggressions go, it was fairly bloodless, I admit. Most of the genocide (unintentional perhaps) was done by viruses early on, viruses as mundane as the common cold. As distinguished from our escapades in the Philippines where we liberated the Filipinos from the Spanish and then killed 300,000 of those who tried to liberate themselves from us.
"Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait was no different than the US annexation of Texas. "
It was different, Iraq is too weak to do so and withstand outside intervention. Its not really a moral dilemna its one of common sense. Don’t invade other countries unless you can repel invasion. It is not an internal matter. It can and in this case does affect everyone. So naturally foreign powers will intervene for their own interests.
mystic Let’s review. Which of the following choices represent your “information” which was suppressed until several years ago?
l. The Hawaian Kingdom was stolen at gunpoint in 1893,…
-
The vote for statehood didn’t happen until 1959…
-
…and a lot of Hawaiians voted against it.
First, could you tell me who surpressed whatever it was that was surpressed? Big coverup again? Conspiracy?
Just a matter of record, the vote for/against statehood was submitted to a general election ballot as early as 1940, when, one assumes that the general population hadn’t been as diluted as it was by the time the 1959 vote came around. The results?