Thank you for your comment.
In relation to British treatment of Ireland it is relevant, which was the issue I was addressing.
Does even a significant minority of the population of Pakistan want to unify with India?
I agree with you that the wishes of the people of the Republic of Ireland are secondary to the wishes of those in the North with regard to unification with the Republic or any other political future. However, an artificial border was created splitting an extant nation and leaving a significant part of the population on the wrong side of the border, thus I don’t think the wishes of the people in the Republic are entirely immaterial. Perhaps partition was pragmatic but it didn’t and hasn’t solved the issues of this island and isn’t really what any reasonable person would consider “kissing Irish arse”.
That “extant nation” hasn’t been extant since 1175 as a sovereign political entity. As such, its onetime reach is hardly more relevant today than Spanish claims to South America.
So what if it’s an island? Islands are not automatically united political entities any more than peninsulas or drainage basins.
Not in any real sense, no - but define significant.
ETA: I agree with you about the arse-kissing thing. I have no idea what he’s talking about, and really, neither does he.
In what fashion? Genocide and slavery under the Europeans was kinder, gentler genocide and slavery? Did the Romans kill people twice?
Well, sort of. I mean, they were Europeans - so the people of modern day Ethiopia got killed once by the Romans and again later on by the Italians.
Well it was an extant nation in the sense that it formed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 1801. Ireland was a nation within the UK from then up until partition. I didn’t say nation state. Prior to the Act of Union there was also an Irish Parliament.
Yes, but like the current Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, its power devolved from Westminster and could have been taken away at any time.
If relative autonomy is enough, then you shouldn’t have a problem with status quo, after all.
Well I explained in my post above why I do have a problem with it. A devolved Ireland within the UK might have been the best situation but intransigence on all sides of the argument made that an impossibility and it is not something that is likely to occur again anytime soon.
You are most welcome.
One wonders if Curtis has even READ The Color Purple. :dubious:
Sure, but what’s wrong with a devolved Northern Ireland within the UK?
I’ve said it before and I’ve said it again: European Colonialism in Africa was, for the most part, well-intentioned. Exceptions exist (Congo Free State, for example) but the British and French and Germans and Portuguese and did not suddenly one day decide to go to Africa, kill all the darkies, and then play a real-life version of Risk with the African continent.*
The Missionaries (spreading The Word Of The Lord) and Traders arrived to Spread The Word (as God had directed them to do, remember?) and the Traders wanted to trade with the locals. Invariably, tensions arose and they asked for military protection from their respective Governments and before long you’ve got HM Stationer’s Office is sending out for more red cartographic ink and Germany wondering how they ended up with some place called “Tanganyika” when all they wanted was a trading concession with the local ruler.
Two books I highly recommend for anyone looking for a balanced overview of the period are The Scramble For Africa by Thomas Pakenham and King Leopold’s Ghost by Adam Hochschild.
*And before anyone mentions the Berlin Conference of 1884, European Colonialism/Imperialism in Africa had been going on for a long time before that.
No, they just developed quinine and better weapons so they could do so. And doing things like enslaving people and deliberately spreading dissension among the conquered to keep them weak was anything but benevolent. Judging by their performance in the Americas, the only reason they didn’t genocide most of the population was that the Africans didn’t mostly succumb to smallpox and such, so had a much higher population left.
Quinine was discovered by one of the Amazonian tribes and brought to Europe by the Jesuits in the 16th or 17th century, as I understand it- long before the African continent was anything more than an outline on European maps with a lot of blank space in the middle.
Africa was colonised centuries after North America, so it’s not really fair to compare 16th Century views on “Indians” with 19th Century views on Natives in Africa IMHO.
It took time for them to come up with a way to produce a good enough version in large enough amounts to keep their armies from dying.
Look, I’m sorry if you believe that the only reason the Europeans colonised Africa was because they wanted to kill the locals for no particular reason. That’s not how it happened and whilst no-one- not even me- pretends that Colonialism was all about gin slings on the verandah, cricket on weekends, and free kittens for everyone, the simple fact was that Colonialism in Africa was driven by the three Cs- “Christianity, Commerce, and Civilisation”.
Basically, the “White Man’s Burden” was the view that that White people were (by Victorian standards and attitudes) clearly superior to the Africans (after all, if they were so smart, why did they live in [del]igloos[/del] stick huts?) and it was Whitey’s God-mandated duty to share the benefits of Civilisation with his less fortunate (and darker coloured) brethren. It’s a bit hard to “Civilise” dead people, after all.
I know it’s trendy to declare Colonialism to be the Second Worst Thing Ever After Hitler, but the undeniable reality is that the reason we’re all having this conversation in English is because, several centuries ago, the people living in a smallish green island off the coast of Europe looked at a map and said “I wonder what’s over there in that blank spot? Do the people there know how awesome God and Jesus are? Do they have all the neat things we have? And can we make any money out of selling our neat stuff to them?”
Or, to put it another way: If you (as a white person living in pretty much any country outside Europe) think Colonialism was so evil and terrible, then perhaps you should give your house to the local Native Tribe and then emigrate back to whichever country your ancestors hailed from originally. I bet you’re not going to, though, are you? Of course not.
So whether you like it or not, you’re benefiting from Colonialism and Imperialism today- something that most people seem to conveniently overlook in these arguments, IME.
Also known as “kill all the unbelievers who won’t convert, loot and enslave them, and destroy their cultures”. Slavery and cruelty and mass murder in the name of profit and religion are still slavery and cruelty and mass murder.
More like “Who can we loot? Who can we enslave? Kill everyone who resists, and let God sort them out!” They were malignant greedy monsters, and rabid, murderous bigots. Rapists, slavers, looters, torturers, book burners, murderers. Vermin.
Irrelevant. I wasn’t born at the time, and I take neither blame or credit for something that happened before I was born.
All I can say is that now I understand why no-one likes getting into debates with you.
Seriously, do you actually know anything about the Colonial period or have you just decided it’s bad because that’s what everyone says at university/on daytime talk shows/the boards?
Like I said, it wasn’t all “It’s A Small World” with Pith Helmets and Steamships, but the colonists- your ancestors (assuming you’re white)- were not, as a matter of course,
either.
You don’t get to throw that sort of thing around and then say “Buuuut it’s nothing to do with me because it happened centuries before I was born.” The Colonial period didn’t end that long ago- you might be surprised to discover that you’ve just called your own great-great-grandparents “rabid, murderous bigots; rapists, slavers, looters, torturers, book burners, murderers” and described them as “Vermin”.
And let’s not even get into the implications of that statement, whereby you’ve just insulted the great-great grandparents of pretty much every European-descended poster on the boards. Seriously, are you trying to get people to think you’re a dickhead?
Regardless of the merits of Der Trihs’s position, what’s it matter that the people he’s describing may include his own great-great-grandparents? What, is it impossible or somehow hypocritical to recognize the faults of one’s own ancestors?
Between the release of the contraceptive pill and the arrival of the AIDS virus in the public consciousness.