Happy St. Patrick’s Day

by Henry Farrell on March 17, 2015

And as a St. Patrick’s Day present, a lengthy article on Ireland, written by an American journalist, which (a) hasn’t a hint of stories about fairy rings and the Little People, and (b) actually gets things right. Patrick Radden Keefe’s story on Gerry Adams and the murder of Jean McConville does an excellent job at summarizing multiple perspectives on a complex story, while making it clear which of those perspectives is most believable. And this, on Gerry Adam’s Twitter account:

Adams is now sixty-six and a grandfather, and his evolution into an approachable grandee has found its surreal culmination on Twitter. He intersperses studiously boring tweets about small-bore political issues with a barrage of cat pictures and encomiums to sudsy baths, rubber duckies, and Teddy bears. (“I do love Teddy bears,” he told the BBC. “I have a large collection of Teddy bears.”) One characteristic tweet, from last January: “Dreamt I was eating Cream Eggs. Woke up this morn. Pillow & beard covered in chocolate & cream thingymebob.” The Irish writer Damien Owens has likened all this to “Charles Manson showing you his collection of tea cosies.”

{ 740 comments }

1

Ronan(rf) 03.17.15 at 1:52 pm

Coincidentally I was thinking of that Michael Lewis story last night, because I started reading the book ‘The Burning Of Bridget Cleary’, which is about folklore and fairies. (or more specifically the process of modernisation. Admittedly the story was set in 1895)
Here’s a quick review, most behind a paywall :

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v22/n01/declan-kiberd/astride-a-white-horse

“In the spring of 1998 a Dutch TV crew arrived in the parish of Moyvane, Co. Kerry. They were making a documentary about poetry and landscape, and interviewed a farmer about a fairy-mound in one of his fields near the village. He explained that for many local people it was a forbidden place, and that he had never dared to plough it over because of the distress it would cause. As he was saying this, his mobile phone rang. The TV crew carried on filming as he transacted his business. ‘Tell us, sir,’ the interviewer said when he’d finished, ‘a modern man like you surely does not believe in the little people.’ ‘Of course I don’t,’ he chortled. ‘But I’m very frightened of ’em.’”

And my grandfather (from west Donegal), from what I remember of him, spoke like that. And he was a pharmacist, so I’d assume to some degree a man of science.
I’m not saying people neccesarily believed in them up until recently, but that might be beside the point. They certainly used them for purposes of storytelling and explanation, and carried the superstition over into other parts of their lifes.
Im sorry for going off topic, but I was genuinely thinking about it this morning.

2

uair01 03.17.15 at 2:38 pm

Unrelated to the above (sorry for that) but there is a heated discussion going on about a “poetry” reading by Kenneth Goldsmith. Issues like that have drawn discussion on this weblog also. Feel free to delete this post if it disrupts the thread.

http://hyperallergic.com/190954/kenneth-goldsmith-remixes-michael-brown-autopsy-report-as-poetry/
https://www.facebook.com/kenneth.goldsmith.739?fref=nf

3

John Holbo 03.17.15 at 3:32 pm

Damn, I was thinking of posting some Flann O’Brien, but (now that I look at it again) I think it might involve what you call fairies of a sort:

“Fergus (‘The Pooka’) MacPhellimey, a species of rural demon, was born of respectable but poor parents in the County Cork, in 1876, a year memorable for the ravages of potato scale and shepherds’ scurvy. His father, known far and wide as The Crack MacPhellimey, was a hard working devil-tinker who attended fairs for the purpose of seducing farmers’ boys from righteousness by offering them spurious coins of his own manufacture which (by means of a secret chemical process) had the effect of rotting the pocket or mattress which contained them and imparting a contagious dry tetter to the human body – the object of the traffic being to make the afflicted boys utter curses and ungodly maledictions.”

It goes on like that for a little while.

4

Bruce Wilder 03.17.15 at 3:52 pm

“Charles Manson showing you his collection of tea cosies.”

!

5

In the sky 03.17.15 at 4:37 pm

6

Phil 03.17.15 at 5:00 pm

Except it plainly isn’t anything like Charles Manson showing you his collection of tea cosies, unless you want to – literally – pathologise the political choices of an awful lot of people in both parts of Ireland (polling in the Republic of Ireland currently puts Adams’s party at just under 20%). Which is not only disrespectful but rather unhelpful, I’d have thought.

7

William Berry 03.17.15 at 5:35 pm

@Phil: Well, yeah, except I think it’s a reference to Adams possibly being guilty of a brutal murder and, perhaps, being a master of mad bombers who blew up women and children.

8

Sean Matthews 03.17.15 at 5:40 pm

“From being a vivacious girl . . . she has become, at thirty, a gaunt spectre, prematurely aged and deprived of any further desire to live,”

Speaking as an Irish catholic who lived there until 1986, my immediate reaction is ‘poor thing’.

9

Map Maker 03.17.15 at 6:03 pm

It is like Charles Manson – Sinn Fein never got more than 2% of the vote in the Republic of Ireland during the troubles. Gerry Adams has gotten his image remade far more charitably than he deserves.

10

Sean Matthews 03.17.15 at 6:05 pm

The article, by the way, is short on a few details. McConville’s hands had been sufficiently mutilated that the traces were still detectable when her body was finally discovered, and she was made to kneel in front of her grave before being executed with a bullet in the back of the head.

11

Stephen 03.17.15 at 6:16 pm

But whatever you may think about Gerry Adams’ career as a mass murderer, there is no denying that he has been of enormous service to Her Majesty’s Government.

Wars start when there are enough people, on both sides, who would fight rather than make peace. Wars end when, on at least one side, some of those who were ready to fight are dead and enough of the others have changed their minds. It looks as if the unique aspect of the contribution of Adams, and his allies, to the peace process was to make sure that enough of those on his side were deceived into thinking that defeat was victory; and that enough of those would never change their minds were assisted to become dead.

12

Hidari 03.17.15 at 6:25 pm

” being a master of mad bombers who blew up women and children.”

As opposed, I presume, to sane bombers not blowing up women and children.
Any examples of them spring to mind?

And the comparison to Charles Manson (!) is, frankly, out to lunch.

13

Ronan(rf) 03.17.15 at 6:31 pm

The article’s jumps into southern politics do (IMO) show signs of being almost completely wrongheaded. Certainly the relationship between Gerry Adams and the southern electorate is much more contested than he implies, and not even close to being resolved. It’s one thing to win a seat in Louth, another to head the main party in government.
The rise of Sinn Fein also doesn’t represent any sort of support for armed Republicanism or legitimisation of the Provos but (1) dissatisfaction with the other political parties (2) a lot of constituency work by Sinn Fein in (mainly) working class urban areas. The reason a lot of people might not ‘care’ about his past (and a LOT do) is mostly explainable generationally, that a lot didnt grow up with the Troubles in any meaningful way. (Or who, perhaps, are more undecided on whether he’s the man who brought the IRA kicking and screaming into the peace process, or whether he’s the man who brought them kicking and screaming into a pointless war) The idea that Irish journalists dont speak about his IRA past is also nonsensical. Rightly or wrongly this is more or less all a large section of them do speak about.
I agree with Phil that the comparison to Manson pathologises him. (as does most rhetoric now around the North, that they were all criminals, or victims of history etc This doesnt really allow for the sort of peace building a lot of former combatants on both sides have led the way in, from the bottom up) It also misses all the other questions he could have asked, about how reconcilliation will work in the north. How you can ever get justice for the innocent murdered in the Troubles. How do democracies deal with individuals or organisations with violent pasts. What kind of moral choices did the peace process require, were they worth it. How do you hold the likes of Adams accountable. What does that even mean. I mean he dances around these questions, but doesnt deal with them explicitly.
I agree with those who say Adams is responsible for great, unjustifiable acts of evil. I also dont know where acknowledging that truism gets anything. ( I do think he should step down, that he doesnt have the moral authority to head a major party in a long established democracy. I think that’s largely a meaningless position aswell, though )

(dont get me wrong, I thought it was a good article, for what it was looking to do. Although the martyrisation of Price and Hughes was a little much)

14

William Berry 03.17.15 at 6:35 pm

@Hidari: Clever.

Well, not really.

Crude oppositions are your default mode of thinking, then.

You must have a point of some kind, but I am not interested enough to wonder what it might be.

15

William Berry 03.17.15 at 6:38 pm

Bottom line: The reference to Manson seems just a throw-away and nothing to get worked up about.

16

PlutoniumKun 03.17.15 at 6:49 pm

The article is beautifully written, but like most writing on the topic, seems ultimately self-defeating, not to mention just a little biased in its avoidance of the issue of the Price sisters association with the Real IRA and its aim to discredit Adams and the peace process.

I really don’t think there is anyone in Ireland who isn’t aware that Adams denials are a convenient fiction concocted as part of the Peace Process. There can be no reasonable doubt that he was present (at the very least) when brutal killings were planned and discussed. As electoral patterns show (i.e. the failure of the allegations to make a dent in Sinn Fein’s polling, or his personal popularity in his constituency), most voters don’t see any difference between Adams evasions over this and (for example) Fine Gael’s embracement of Michael Collins, a man who also ordered the cold blooded killing of alleged informers and security agents. The agony of the McConville family is palpable, but for most people it seems to be passing into the history books. This may infuriate the right wing media* in Dublin, who are determined to use it to undermine Sinn Fein, and are baffled by how little impact it has had on Sinn Feins popularity, but the reality is that a very significant chunk of voters think ‘well, thats all terrible, but its in the past’, and have moved on.

I do think there is a huge amount of interesting things to write about Gerry Adams, but his precise title in the IRA in the early 1970’s is one of the least interesting things. A key issue that I think future historians will highlight is how he took a very narrow minded nationalistic movement and made it into a populist slightly left of centre one is likely to be one of his longer lasting legacies. I don’t think its a coincidence that Sinn Fein have at their core a disenfranchised working class male vote north and south of the border, while the Republic is almost unique in Europe in not having a significant quasi racist anti-immigrant movement. At least so far, Sinn Fein have harnessed some very negative energies into a (relatively) positive anti-austerity movement. The roots of this go way back to 1970’s Belfast and Adams is a very significant figure in this transformation.

*along with a significant sub-set of the left wing anti-nationalist commentariat.

17

Theophylact 03.17.15 at 7:02 pm

A lot of murderers end up as “statesmen”. Begin and Arafat come immediately to mind, but there are scores of others, almost certainly including Mandela.

18

Igor Belanov 03.17.15 at 7:21 pm

A lot of generals have ended up as heads of government as well, whether elected or not.

Unwillingness to allow terrorists to occupy political roles is hardly likely to induce them to embrace non-violence means or encourage them to lay down arms. If the only option is to continually hunt them down, then I fear there would be a lot more victims on all sides.

19

Ze Kraggash 03.17.15 at 7:25 pm

“A lot of murderers end up as “statesmen”.”

Show me a statesman who is not a murderer.

20

In the Provinces 03.17.15 at 7:43 pm

Willy Brandt. Mohandas Gandhi.

21

Bloix 03.17.15 at 8:07 pm

Little of what the PIRA did counts as terrorism, as I define it: violent acts of public theater intended to alter the emotional states of the intended audiences (e.g., the WTC attack, designed to enrage Americans and exhilarate Muslims, and having no military purpose ). Mostly, the PIRA made war. It conducted attacks on the ability of the British to maintain public order. Usually it tried to avoid killing people who were not involved in maintaining British rule in Northern Ireland. The Mountbatten assassination was an exception – that was pure theater. Other theatrical tactics – hunger striking, funeral processions – were not terror.

The murder of Jean McConville was not terror, either. It is clear that the PIRA – and Adams – were persuaded, rightly or wrongly, that she was a low-level informer who was a threat to their activities. They killed her for military reasons.

As the article explains, they did not want her death to be known or linked to them, and so they disappeared her. Disappearances are usually the province of state-sponsored terror, because the state needs deniability. Weak insurgent movements like the PIRA usually take credit for their victims, to demonstrate the inability of the authorities to protect the public.

The PIRA tended to disappear informants because the public killing of spies would have demonstrated a degree of disaffection among Catholic civilians. Killing people like McConville was not intended to instill general terror – it was done to eliminate specific enemies. This doesn’t mean that the people they killed were genuine threats – they were violent, paranoid men and they didn’t care much for due process.

Only eighteen people were disappeared during the Troubles and the PIRA has admitted involvement in nine cases. This is not nearly enough if the goal is terror.

Adams’ apology to McConville’s son is interesting:

“For what it’s worth, I’ll apologize to you. It was wrong for the Republican movement to do what they did to your mother.”

Keefe reads this as Adams’ way of apologizing for her death while distancing himself personally from the murder. Maybe so. Perhaps he has come to conclusion that she was not an informer. But it may also mean that Adams does not apologize for her death, but only for her disappearance.

22

Stephen 03.17.15 at 8:31 pm

Bloix: have a quick look at the Sutton Index of Deaths on the CAIN site.

Largest category of deaths caused by the IRA: 493 civilians.

“Mostly, the IRA made war”. Really?

23

Stephen 03.17.15 at 8:34 pm

Ze Kraggash @19: “Show me a statesman who is not a murderer”.

Gandhi? Mandela? Kerensky? Attlee? Carter? Do I have to go on?

24

Z 03.17.15 at 8:51 pm

To me, the interlocking politics of Northern Ireland and Éire are to me an enduring mystery. For instance, that Gerry Adams could transition smoothly from being a Member of the Parliament to being a member of Dáil is puzzling to me. And what is the future of Northern Ireland? Increased autonomy? Increased integration? Awkward status quo? Relaxed status quo? The article did not seem especially hopeful in that respect but could also be a reflection of the main topic. Anyway, it was a great if somber read.

25

Trader Joe 03.17.15 at 9:01 pm

@20 Bloix
Where would the Lloyd’s bombing and numerous Tube bombings – both actual and threatened – fall into your hirearchy of theater. Seems to me those were designed to exert public pressure and could neatly be classified, under your system, as legitimate terror acts in as much as they were aimed directly at the public and targeted their emotional state (i.e. you can get blown up anywhere).

26

Phil 03.17.15 at 9:32 pm

Very few of the IRA’s British bombings were spectacular. Several of them were military, a couple were economic (Manchester Corn Exchange, Canary Wharf), but many – probably most – of them were just about causing continuing inconvenience and disruption. Fear, not so much – if they told you that the tube station was closed due to a bomb threat, you didn’t think “OMG I could actually be blown up by an actual bomb!”, you thought “OK, where’s the next station from here?”. We lived with it; it was just a pain for the police & a constant nagging reminder for the government.

I’m actually surprised Adams’s apology went as far as it did. Surely that’s as far as he could possibly go without actually claiming responsibility and thereby earning himself a prison sentence and ruining Sinn Fein’s political chances. There are those who would see both of those as good outcomes, of course, but we can’t really expect Adams to be among them.

27

Bloix 03.17.15 at 10:00 pm

#24 – “i.e. you can get blown up anywhere”

Most of the time when the IRA killed innocent civilians – innocent in their world-view – it was the result of a fuck-up. Their policy was to give warnings prior to the destruction of property. They wanted to bring the war to England but they did not target English civilians. And this was a reasonable strategy – they wanted the English to conclude that Ireland was unpleasant and expensive, not that the IRA needed to be crushed at any cost.

I have read allegations that in some majority-Catholic border areas the IRA did murder uninvolved Protestants in an effort to drive out Protestant families – to ethnically cleanse them. I don’t know nearly enough to know if that’s true or not.

28

Ronan(rf) 03.17.15 at 10:05 pm

Z – the IRA were generally seen as a greater threat in the Republic than in Britain. To the British they were an inconvenience, to the Irish state they were a potential ideological threat. For example in the early 70s, when there was a possibility the British would withdraw, the Irish government let them know they wouldn’t support it. (there was a fear that withdrawal could lead to an island wide civil war) Irish governmental policy was largely (with arguably some divergence) set to undermine ‘the armed struggle’ and legitimise constitutional nationalism in the North (Sinn Fein’s rise,politically, in the north after the hunger strikes was the impetus for the Irish PM to make the initial push for the Anglo Irish agreement (afaik) )
Among the population it’s more difficult to say but, afaik (with the caveat I’m not from a generation that grew up with it really), the main feelings were largely ranging from indifference to hostility, with a smaller section from sympathy to outright support. But southern and northern politics are quite distinct.
Gerry Adams, and Sinn Fein’s, rise has to be seen primarily in the wake of the financial crisis and the failures of all the main political parties in the south. Adams ability to seamlessly transfer to a seat in the south is because he ran on a safe seat on the border. (Where there is more sympathy for the IRA/Sinn Fein, as these areas were much more directly affected by the Troubles) Sinn Fein have spent the past decade plus building serious on the ground support in the Republic, but the issues and policies they campaign on are entirely different than in the north. They are solely related to southern domestic and economic problems.
I cant say anything really on the relationship between the northern and southern wing of the party, it gets too complicated and I dont know enough on the specifics.

29

Theophylact 03.17.15 at 10:15 pm

Ze Kraggash @ #19: I meant murder as a career move toward becoming a statesman. For most US Presidents, statesmanship is a prerequisite for murder, rather than the reverse, with notably rare exceptions.

30

Tabasco 03.17.15 at 11:15 pm

“It was wrong for the Republican movement to do what they did to your mother.”

Adams should, or could, have said, “It was wrong for the Republican movement to kill [or, murder] your mother”. He would then have avoided the we/they problem, but would have earned himself a rebuke from the Word grammar checker.

31

Val 03.18.15 at 4:57 am

Stephen @ 22
“Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion. Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.” Wikipedia

So of the deaths they can calculate, about 65% were civilians. No “terrorism” involved, of course.

Not defending Adams, just saying.

32

Ze Kraggash 03.18.15 at 5:20 am

@29, Bush was CIA director. Also, there must be plenty of unsolved murders they committed, a-la The House of Cards.

33

Peter T 03.18.15 at 5:25 am

Do you have to kill personally, or order it done, or is it enough to initiate policies that lead to death? Gandhi and Mandela both did the last, Kerensky tried to continue the war, Attlee was a soldier in World War I and a member of the War Cabinet in World War II, Carter approved a few military operations which led to death…

Death is the currency in which the mistakes of statesmen are paid. Sometimes also it pays for their successes.

34

ZM 03.18.15 at 5:47 am

Ze Kraggash,

“there must be plenty of unsolved murders they committed, a-la The House of Cards.”

I read about how it was likely George Senior and Jeb were responsible for the murder of a CIA drug runner who had left the CIA or something, Barry some-one-or-other I think he was

35

ZM 03.18.15 at 6:23 am

I also remember when I was young before Bill Clinton was elected president our public broadcaster in Australia showed a documentary about him, and he was quite horrible when he was governor because to maintain popularity in his electorate he electrocuted a black man who had killed someone but then turned the gun on himself but instead of killing himself he gave himself a lobotomy.

The black man asked if he could leave his apple pie dessert for after his electrocution :/

36

Bruce Wilder 03.18.15 at 8:06 am

ZM: “a black man who had killed someone ”

A convicted murderer, in other words, executed in accordance with law.

I get the impression most people do not take moral judgments seriously. It is all just anecdotes as vehicles for expressing petty resentments.

37

ZM 03.18.15 at 8:10 am

Bruce Wilder — but he had lobotomised himself straight afterwards — he was not at all likely to kill anyone else so it was purely retributive sentiment which Bill Clinton appeased for the sake of popularity seeking so he could try to be president afterwards

We do not have capital punishment here in Australia even for murderers who don’t lobotomise themselves afterwards.

38

In the sky 03.18.15 at 8:25 am

“It is all just anecdotes as vehicles for expressing petty resentments.”

Oh, the irony.

39

Collin Street 03.18.15 at 8:30 am

A convicted murderer, in other words, executed in accordance with law.

I get the impression most people do not take moral judgments seriously. It is all just anecdotes as vehicles for expressing petty resentments.

If it’s the “law”, it’s not your moral judgement, is it? I mean, you might get pretty good decisions out of the law, but by its nature, “in accordance with the law” can’t represent your decisions and you can’t claim any moral credit for them.

Not that all law is immoral, not for a second. It was hashed out by smart people… but it wasn’t done by you. You don’t have any input in the process, you didn’t make any decisions, you can’t claim any credit. Your moral judgement has to be yours or it’s someone else’s.

40

etv13 03.18.15 at 9:14 am

The article suggests that Price and Hughes and others were unhappy about the compromises Adams made for peace because it left the horrible things they had done without justification. But I am at a loss to understand how any outcome could justify murdering children, or Jean McConville and others like her. Seriously, could someone explain to me what the British did in mid-twentieth century Northern Ireland that any reasonable person could think justified the sort of ‘armed struggle’ the Prices and their ilk engaged in?

Reading articles like this reinforces in me a sense of gratitude to Dr. King, other members of the Civil Rights movement, and African-Americans generally for their magnanimity and sense of restraint, in the face of what seems to me to be far greater provocation than anyone in mid-twentieth-century Northern Ireland faced.

41

sanbikinoraion 03.18.15 at 11:20 am

etv13 the flipside is surely that without the armed struggle the Brits would not have thought it worth the effort to pursue a peace settlement that led to a semi-independent Northern Ireland…?

42

Henry 03.18.15 at 11:25 am

From the Wikipedia entry on one of the IRA’s most notorious innovations – the proxy bomb.

“Catholic man Patrick “Patsy” Gillespie (42) lived in the Shantallow area of Derry and worked as a cook in Fort George British Army base in the city.[9] The IRA had warned him to stop working at the base or risk reprisal. On one occasion, the IRA had forced him to drive a bomb into the base, giving him just enough time to escape. However, the bomb failed to detonate.[9]

On 24 October 1990, members of the IRA’s Derry City Brigade took over Gillespie’s house.[10] While his family was held at gunpoint, he was forced to drive his car to a rural spot on the other side of the border in County Donegal.[10] Gillespie was then put in a van loaded with 1,000 pounds (450 kg) of explosives and told to drive to the Coshquin permanent border checkpoint on Buncrana Road.[10][9] An armed IRA team followed him by car to ensure he obeyed their commands.[8] Four minutes from the checkpoint, the IRA team armed the bomb remotely.[8] When Gillespie reached the checkpoint, at 3:55 AM,[8] he tried to get out and warn the soldiers, but the bomb detonated when he attempted to open the door.[9] IRA bomb makers had installed a detonation device linked to the van’s courtesy light, which came on whenever the van door opened. As a safeguard, the bombers also used a timing device to ensure the bomb detonated at the right moment.[9] Gillespie and five soldiers were killed.[10] Witnesses reported hearing “shouting, screaming and then shots” right before the explosion.[8] The bomb devastated the base, destroying the operations room and a number of armoured vehicles.[8] It was claimed that the death toll would have been much higher if soldiers hadn’t been sleeping in a recently built mortar-proof bunker.[8] The blast also damaged 25 nearby houses.[10]”

Other fans of the armed struggle in comments here might like to acquaint themselves with the allegations about sexual abuse by our brave volunteers that are bubbling up. But I suppose then lads will be lads, there was a war on, everyone who’s making allegations has their own agendas, and you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.

43

Trader Joe 03.18.15 at 11:27 am

@27 Bloix
“Most of the time when the IRA killed innocent civilians – innocent in their world-view – it was the result of a fuck-up. ”

So it doesn’t count when its an f-up? Why do we keep hanging all those Iraq deaths on Bush and Cheney then – clearly it was just a f-up. The Lloyd’s bombing, Montbatten, McConnel etc. quite a string of them then…guess the PIRA was just the most f-ed up political activist group ever, it couldn’t have had anything to do with terror.

I fully agree that over time Tube bomb-threats were just an inconvenience, that sort of numbness is inevitable after dozens of the things perpetuated over years. That’s not how they seemed at first, it was viewed as a distinct escalation and bringing the battle from “over there” to “at home.” Its your definitition not mine, but if this sort of consistent long-term effort doesn’t count I’m not sure what would ever meet your definition short of aircraft smashing buildings.

44

Jim Fett 03.18.15 at 11:36 am

Henry @42

Well, sure it sounds bad when you put it like that, but if we call them “freedom hostages,” liberation murders” and “justice bombs,” then I think we can agree that it’s all good.

45

novakant 03.18.15 at 1:04 pm

Henry

To me there are two ways of talking about this:

1.) we can look at particular actions the IRA has taken and also at the character and motivations of the key players – this will likely result in universal moral condemnation, which is fine as far as it goes

2.) we can compare the actions of the IRA to similar actions of e.g. the US/UK governments and their proxies – this should ideally result in some soul-searching and less self-righteousness on our part

Both are important, but number 1.) is history and so to me number 2.) is more relevant since it might actually lead to policy changes in the future (one can dream, right?).

The point is not to excuse terrorism, but to make people aware the our government’s actions are often no better and sometimes even worse than terrorism.

46

novakant 03.18.15 at 1:05 pm

aware that our government’s actions are often no better …

47

Bloix 03.18.15 at 1:27 pm

#43 – I’m not defending the IRA. I’m talking tactics, not law or morality. I’m pointing out that they didn’t generally kill innocent people for purposes of terror. Their usual method was to target soldiers and officials, and to kill others when they had determined that killing the specific individuals would advance their cause. When they did kill masses of civilians indiscriminately – like Bloody Friday in 1972 – it was generally because they had set a bomb and telephoned a warning but the warning got fucked up in some way, not as a part of a strategy.

48

Ronan(rf) 03.18.15 at 1:31 pm

Afaict two things can be true:

(1) that compared to similar organisations, or even in most ‘wars’, the IRA did generally use violence tactically and discriminately (as did the security forces) See Marc Mulholland on this thread (3 comments) for a rough outline on who the IRA judged legitimate targets:

https://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/22/legitimate-targets/#comment-165533

So Bloix’s comments are (afaik) more right than wrong. (although I don’t really get the definition of terrorist that Bloix is working from)

(2) That the IRA’s ‘war’ was illegitimate and not justified by the context. So the above is moot, more or less, as a moral judgement.

On ethnic cleansing by the IRA on the border. Afaik a lot depends on the definition of ethnic cleansing, but they did target Protestant families with the intent to drive them out of areas (afacr, but could be wrong, by specific policies targetted at individuals and families ie bombing businesses, killing the eldest son etc) Henry Patterson has written a new book on the border (which I haven’t read) which apparently makes the argument that it was ethnic cleansing.

49

Ronan(rf) 03.18.15 at 1:31 pm

crossposted with Bloix’s last comment.

50

Z 03.18.15 at 2:00 pm

Thanks for your explanations, Ronan.

Henry @42, how would you explain the apparent enduring electoral popularity of the IRA/Sinn Fein (since I take it is an open secret that prominent members of both organizations are the same) twenty years after then end of violent struggle, given the horrible crimes they have committed (genuine question)?

In another case I am more familiar with, the popularity of Hamas in Gaza, a significant part of the answer is straightforward: social welfare is provided in a large part by Hamas-organized social reliefs groups (commonly run by women). But in (Northern) Ireland?

51

Dave 03.18.15 at 2:42 pm

It’s hard to disagree with the volunteer in the article who reflects that not a single death was worth it.

52

Phil 03.18.15 at 2:46 pm

If somebody did say ” there was a war on, everyone who’s making allegations has their own agendas, and you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs” – which AFAICS nobody has done on this thread – what should our reply be? Would it be

A: Right enough, there was a war on, and let’s face it the British Army does terrible things all the time and they never get called on it, so never mind.
B: Yes, there was a war on, but war is governed by law just like every other human activity, and the people who committed those war crimes need to be judged like any other war criminal.
C: No, there was no war; there was a series of tragic and horrible events caused by a group of armed gangs who believed that they were fighting a war, and by the state’s responses to them.
D: There was no war, there was no justification for believing that there was a war (as witness the whole of constitutional Republicanism); there was only psychopathic violence cynically justified by claiming to believe that there was a war.

I think A’s a bit of a strawman; I don’t believe that many people are seriously advancing it these days – certainly not Adams or McGuinness. I think what Adams & people like him are holding the line against isn’t B or even C, but D. If British and Irish political culture could grant the history of the provisional IRA some legitimacy, grant its world view some reality – even legitimacy & reality in the eyes of its members (keeping Thomas’s theorem in mind) – I think the main obstacle to admitting that its members committed, organised and ordered some pretty foul crimes would disappear.

53

William Berry 03.18.15 at 3:07 pm

Peter T @33:

Now you are getting into Camusian territory.

Merely to be alive and in the struggle, merely “to act, is to kill” [comma added].

54

john b 03.18.15 at 3:36 pm

Bloix: the mainland bombings in Guildford, Birmingham and Brighton are fairly major counter-examples. By murdering large numbers of mainland civilians, the IRA absolutely caused terror among the populace.

In the first two cases, they also created a situation where the local cops abandoned the rule of law in order to round up Evil Terrorists before they Killed Again, which I suspect is something that Islamists active in western countries have noted.

55

john b 03.18.15 at 3:39 pm

[it seems odd those haven’t been quoted above, when we’ve discussed innocent-casualty-free bombings like Canary Wharf and justified-target bombings like Mountbatten & Nieve]

56

Bloix 03.18.15 at 3:50 pm

#42, 43 – I don’t see the reason for the sarcasm.

I believe that we are all agreed that the IRA was brutal in its methods of killing British soldiers and of people who they thought were collaborators. I believe that we are also agreed, more or less, that the IRA did not target people based on their ethnicity or religion or class in order to induce terror in people sharing that status. (There is a possible exception that they may have targeted Protestants in certain rural border areas in an effort at ethnic cleansing. But if they did this, they did it in order to drive specific families away, not to inspire wide-spread terror among Protestants.)

They were not like 19th anarchists or their 20th c descendants like Baader-Meinhoff (“the propaganda of the deed”) or the Army of the Republika Srpska or modern-day Islamists like Al Qaeda or ISIS, each of which killed or kills unaffiliated civilians of a targeted class, religion, or ethnicity in order to induce an emotional reaction among a large audience.

I don’t think it’s useful to say, of people who we hate and fear, that anyone who tries to understand their motivations and strategies is an apologist.

57

Bloix 03.18.15 at 4:02 pm

#54 – We’re crossing.

Birmingham – a major fuck-up. There were telephoned warnings but not clear or early enough to allow the areas to be cleared. The IRA disavowed the attack and declared itself “horrified” and said that the bombers deserved the death penalty. (I mention this not to say that I believe that the IRA was not involved, but to make the point that the IRA clearly believed that the civilian deaths did not serve its purposes.)

Brighton – the goal was to kill Prime Minister Thatcher, who in IRA eyes was not an innocent civilian.

Guildford – the goal was to kill soldiers.

58

Ronan(rf) 03.18.15 at 5:08 pm

“I think A’s a bit of a strawman; I don’t believe that many people are seriously advancing it these days – certainly not Adams or McGuinness.”

(A) most certainly is the Adams/McGuinness line. Adams/McGuinness perspective is fundamentally “it was all the fault of the British so we should concentrate primarily on the crimes of the British state”‘, even though the historical evidence shows it was the paramilitaries, and especially the PIRA, that were the main drivers of the conflict.

” If British and Irish political culture could grant the history of the provisional IRA some legitimacy, grant its world view some reality – even legitimacy & reality in the eyes of its members (keeping Thomas’s theorem in mind) – I think the main obstacle to admitting that its members committed, organised and ordered some pretty foul crimes would disappear.”

If you were to sum up Irish ‘political culture’ during the Troubles(as it related to the IRA) it could be summed up as a generation debating the legitimacy of the IRA. Certainly this was the case among historians, journalists and the political class. This debate has been had. The fact that the consensus has come to some unpleasant conclusions for the PIRA doesnt mean that the question wasnt dealt with seriously, or that the context hasnt been taken into account.
But beyond that I dont know what you mean by legitimacy, or even what more legitimacy the PIRA could want? They have been the vocal point of a peace process (which is an act of legitimation), accepted as legitimate political actors, sold internationally as peacemakers. The reason Adams wont acknowledge the crimes of the past is because there’s no political incentive to do so.

59

Ronan(rf) 03.18.15 at 5:11 pm

typo -FOCAL point (I think)

60

Trader Joe 03.18.15 at 5:44 pm

@47 and @57 Bloix

First, I don’t view you as an appologist by any means, that said, I struggle with where you draw the line between “war” and “terror” and while I grant your point that most of the PIRAs efforts were directed at police and military, many of them quite directly were not.

I guess I’m not that forgiving of the F-ups since they give legitamacy to the threat of all the times the bomb doesn’t go off, the tube station gets cleared or it explodes but at a time no one is around. Such tactics didn’t endear the cause to anyone who didn’t already support it and the mistakes tangibly cost them support – particularly in the U.S. which bankrolled a right good bit of it.

Whether it was Al Queda calibre terror is not the point – every paramilitary post the IRA has upped the ante. At the time, it brought the conflict directly into the lives of civilians which makes it an act of terrorism in my mind. I grant this was only part of their gameplan, and maybe not the most important part, but it seems a little contradictory to say they were only bomb makers when the screwed up, the rest of the time they had their principles.

61

Phil 03.18.15 at 6:01 pm

Ronan – no, I don’t believe A is the Adams/McGuinness line – as witness the McConville apology. It certainly was in the past, but the tone has changed significantly since the ceasefire (and, let’s face it, you wouldn’t expect the tone to change before).

Alan McBride lost his wife in the bungled, semi-abortive bombing of Frizzell’s fish shop; the guy planting the bomb blew himself up, and Gerry Adams was one of his pallbearers. McBride has said that for years the only apologies he could get were heavily qualified half-apologies: “we’re sorry for your loss, but no one is working harder for peace than Sinn Fein”; “what happened that day was wrong, but you have to understand what was going on at the time”. Then one day he set up a meeting with a former senior IRA member, who said “what happened that day was wrong”. McBride said that the relief he felt when the other shoe, finally, didn’t drop was enormous. And the fact that he’d received an unqualified apology was what made him able to listen to the IRA man’s own story. It’s easier to “understand what was going on at the time” when you’re not being told to forget about your own story.

beyond that I dont know what you mean by legitimacy, or even what more legitimacy the PIRA could want?

Writers not comparing an elected politician to Charles Manson? People not applauding that comparison? People like Eoghan Harris not denying SF any historical roots at all before 1969?

62

Phil 03.18.15 at 6:19 pm

On IRA terror vs Al Qaida terror, here’s something I wrote about a different bunch of bomb-planting headbangers.

While the term ‘terrorist’ cannot entirely be avoided in discussing [left-wing ‘armed struggle’] groups, a sharp distinction must be drawn between their actions and terrorist acts such as the Piazza Fontana bomb: indiscriminately lethal attacks on apolitical targets, calculated to produce maximum alarm.

Author’s note: see also 9/11, 7/7, the Madrid bomb, the Bali bomb, etc.

The actions of the ‘armed struggle’ groups were mainly directed against property rather than people; all violence against the person was directed against individuals, and most was non-lethal; and targets were invariably selected for political or strategic reasons, albeit with varying degrees of accuracy. Interviewed by a former member of the Red Brigades in 1997, former Minister of the Interior Francesco Cossiga went so far as to deny that the Red Brigades had been terrorists … In most cases, the covert violence of the armed groups was ‘sectoral’, applying paramilitary methods to open confrontations already taking place: industrial conflict, political street battles, internationalist protest and conflict with the police.

A lot of that can be read across to the PIRA. They did some horrible things, as Henry points out, but the logic of what they were doing was very different from Al Qaida’s. Which relates to my point about preferring answers B and C to D – if the only alternatives are “you were brave warriors in the Republican cause, and bad things always happen in war” and “you were evil psychopaths, and your evil deeds prove it”, we’re never going to arrive at a position everyone can agree on, and nobody’s ever really going to be held accountable. “You were honourable people fighting in the name of a legitimate historical cause, and you committed crimes which can’t be forgotten or forgiven” would be a big step forward, it seems to me.

63

Trader Joe 03.18.15 at 6:30 pm

@62
“You were honourable people fighting in the name of a legitimate historical cause, and you committed crimes which can’t be forgotten or forgiven” would be a big step forward, it seems to me.

I think some would be willing to say that if the PIRA would say something resembling, ‘We were terrorists sometimes, but we think we had our reasons’ (obviously they wouldn’t say it just so)

History has chosen to go the path of letting it be water under the bridge since neither side is willing to be the first to say their half of the above…in a few generations, maybe, but right now too many of the living know too many of the dead.

64

Sean Matthews 03.18.15 at 6:38 pm

if the only alternatives are “you were brave warriors in the Republican cause,
and bad things always happen in war” and “you were evil psychopaths, and your
evil deeds prove it”, we’re never going to arrive at a position everyone can agree
on, and nobody’s ever really going to be held accountable.

Of course, if one of those alternatives happens to be closer to the truth than the other, then that is not progress. Holding people to account for heroic if misguided deeds is different from holding people for acts of psychopathic meaningless violence.

“You were honourable
people fighting in the name of a legitimate historical cause, and you committed
crimes which can’t be forgotten or forgiven” would be a big step forward, it seems
to me.

It seems to me, personally, not.

65

engels 03.18.15 at 6:58 pm

indiscriminately lethal attacks on apolitical targets, calculated to produce maximum alarm. Author’s note: see also 9/11

Using proxy bombs to attack a building called the ‘World Trade Centre’, the Pentagon and the White House? (NB. I’m not saying there isn’t a difference between Al Quaeda’s ideology and tactics vs. the IRA’s…)

66

Phil 03.18.15 at 6:59 pm

If you’re reading “heroic but misguided deeds” when I write “crimes which can’t be forgotten or forgiven”, I’m not sure how far we’re going to get.

There wasn’t anything heroic about the killing of Baha Mousa or Jean-Charles de Menezes – they were dreadful crimes – but I’d still call the British Army & the Metropolitan Police honourable people.

67

Phil 03.18.15 at 7:01 pm

engels – Bali, Madrid and 7/7 fit that bit of the def. better.

68

Bloix 03.18.15 at 7:05 pm

#61 – Phil, note the missing tooth in the photo of Sharon McBride in her wedding dress. She must have spent her life holding her lips so that it didn’t show, but on her wedding day she smiled wide. The modesty of the lives that were shattered in that explosion is just heartbreaking.

The link to your article at #62 is broken – would you post it again? I’d like to read it.

69

Ronan(rf) 03.18.15 at 7:18 pm

Eoghan Harris has a very specific agenda, as do most of the writers at the Sunday Independent. I don’t think his perspective has any real influence on anything. That article also seems completely contradictory to what his position was during the 00s (the last time I read him) that the PIRA were more or less indistinguishable from the 1916 rebels.
I’m also not sure why Sinn Fein are the victims in this broader story ? There is a lot of intra elite dispute over who are the ‘heirs of 1916’ and how the commemorations should be organised. As is true in such contested, symbolic events, politics involves itself, as much from Sinn Fein, as from Fianna Fail, as from ‘the families’ etc etc
There are also any number of ways to cut this, so I could equally ask what would such a commemoration signify to Unionists ? Why is the Republican tradition the only tradition we care about ?
Not being smart, but I dont know what the Alan McBride story is meant to say? Of course understanding the context is important, as is where the other side is coming from. But this is obviously going to happen (and is, afaik, though mainly from the bottom up) in the North, rather than the UK or the South. Those who suffered were mainly in the North, not in the UK or Republic. What could either Southern Ireland or the UK add here? If you’re saying they should have some sort of truth telling process, or a reconcilliation commission, then I agree. But it’s going to be pretty difficult to set up, and in part because the Sinn Fein leadership object to multiple ideas of what the process would look like. Again, Adam’s isnt a reactive victim of everyone elses behaviour, he is a calculating political actor who will do what is in his and his partys interests.
I still dont understand what specifically you want Irish and British political culture to acknowledge ? The dichotomy really isnt between “you were brave warriors in the Republican cause, and bad things always happen in war” and “you were evil psychopaths, and your evil deeds prove it” Most people accept that they werent (mostly) literally evil individuals commited solely to criminality and mayhem, but that they were borrowing from and arguably continuing traditions with deep historical roots. But so were a lot of groups. Do we adopt the same stance with all of the paramilitaries, even those still going at it ? I still dont see why this means we treat them with kiddy gloves or sideline all the people who came from the same conditions, were born into the same traditions, and made better choices. Or indeed how there are any meaningful payoffs to doing so.

70

Ronan(rf) 03.18.15 at 7:23 pm

I would prefer, personally, for the Irish political class and certain journalists to actually debate Sinn Fein on their policies rather than Gerry Adam’s past,but that’s not going to happen any time soon (And just to add, a lot of the stuff that’s really getting at Adam’s reputation isnt really tied to ‘the armed struggle’, it’s mainly covering up rape allegations, including in his own family and also not during the Troubles)

71

nick s 03.18.15 at 8:47 pm

Bloix — if your definition of terrorism doesn’t include randomly grabbing people off the streets and leaving their battered bodies to be found a couple of days later, or murdering the heirs to family farms and business in border towns, then that’s entirely a matter for you.

I don’t know nearly enough to know if that’s true or not.

Well, maybe you ought to consider something that rhymes with ‘putting the duck up’ instead of spouting recycled Cause gobshitery in the mode of Rep. Peter King. The PIRA also terrorised its own community (as the Protestant paramilitaries did theirs) and drove the best and brightest young people out of Northern Ireland for a generation. ‘Military reasons’, my arse.

72

Collin Street 03.18.15 at 9:28 pm

Bloix — if your definition of terrorism doesn’t include randomly grabbing people off the streets and leaving their battered bodies to be found a couple of days later

Well, no: Bloix’s point/claim is that it wasn’t random.

[people who disagree with you usually do so for reasons that don’t make sense according to how you see the world: if they saw the world as you see it, then they’d agree with you. This means that mapping what people-who-disagree-with-you think into how you see the world is kind of futile: the distinctions they make are the distinctions you ignore. “So you mean X, not Y” and similar usually represents that pattern of thinking.]

73

Bloix 03.18.15 at 10:05 pm

#71, 72 – as usual on these threads, I learn a lot from the people who disagree with me. If nothing else it inspires me to read online.

Random killings: in the Kingsmill Massacre of January 1976, gunmen stopped a minivan carrying 12 workingmen – 11 Protestants and 1 Catholic. They shot the 11 Protestants, killing 10 of them. Later someone placed a call saying that the killings were in retaliation for the random murders of six Catholics the previous night, and that if the Loyalists stopped their random attacks on Catholics there would be no more random attacks on Protestants.

The caller claimed to be from a non-PIRA group, and the PIRA repudiated the attack and said it wasn’t them and they were opposed to such killings. But in 2011 a police investigation concluded that the killers were members of a PIRA unit – although one that might have been acting against the wishes of the central leadership.

Obviously if the killers were armed and organized PIRA members, then the killings were morally and legally the responsibility of the PIRA. But that doesn’t mean they were conducted in accordance with the policy of the PIRA, which is a meaningful distinction if you’re trying to understand what PIRA leaders like Gerry Adams thought they were doing.

So, was the Kingsmill Massacre terror? On reflection I think it was – it was intended to terrify ordinary Protestants into refraining from cooperating with Loyalist militias just as much as it was intended to persuade those militias into refraining from murdering Catholics.

Which tells us that terror can be a defensive strategy as well as an offensive one.

74

engels 03.18.15 at 10:27 pm

#67 Er yeah, that would be why I didn’t quote that part of Phil’s assertion (I don’t object to it…)

75

nick s 03.18.15 at 10:38 pm

Bloix’s point/claim is that it wasn’t random.

In many cases it was: drive over from the Falls Road to the Shankhill (or vice versa), pick an unlucky sod walking down the street, and done. Call a taxi driver out, done. Reprisal attacks were better if they were random. I’ll grant that the statistics show that the UVF and its cohorts win the random-murder contest, but there’s plenty on both sides.

(They’d never ask whether someone was a Catholic or Protestant. They’d try to avoid asking for names. Where d’y’live, where do you go to school, where do you go shopping, what team do you support?)

that doesn’t mean they were conducted in accordance with the policy of the PIRA, which is a meaningful distinction if you’re trying to understand what PIRA leaders like Gerry Adams thought they were doing.

They were running mobs to control their own community and strike at the other. They were petty, shitty criminal enterprises in the poorest bits of the UK, administering beatings and leg-breakings and kneecappings a-plenty with the assistance of military-grade kit and a steady stream of income from Oirish enthusiasts in the US. Much of that was directed towards petty criminals in places where the RUC feared to tread, in best mafia fashion, but enough of it was towards people who simply wouldn’t run errands for the local bosses.

Don Corleone died playing with his grandson in the garden.

76

engels 03.18.15 at 10:43 pm

Hrm. I’d been asuming hyper-linked Phil was a different commenter to plain ol’ Phil but I now think otherwise. Since all you (he) wrote was ‘see also’, my objection was probably a bit off-target anyway.

77

Bloix 03.18.15 at 11:30 pm

#75 – “Don Corleone died playing with his grandson in the garden.”

One question that puzzles me is why the Irish reaction to English occupation was political violence, while the Sicilian response to Italian occupation was pure banditry.

78

engels 03.18.15 at 11:34 pm

the mainland bombings in Guildford, Birmingham and Brighton are fairly major counter-examples. By murdering large numbers of mainland civilians, the IRA absolutely caused terror among the populace.

I don’t know if the Brighton bombing is a good example because Thatcher was the target and the five deaths came about as a side-effect. If Thatcher was a military target then had the operation been a success, five deaths from collateral damage might be comparable with the noncombatant death rate of 3 to 1 in British military operations in Iraq Val noted above (operations which have undoubtedly ’caused terror in the populace’ Iraqi too). (As above, this is not defend the IRA or to claim that they were a legitimate military force.)

79

Val 03.19.15 at 1:36 am

Ok I’ll declare my interest up front. A significant proportion of Australians have Irish ancestry, and it is usually Catholic. My grandmother was Irish, she was Catholic and was born in County Armagh. I’ve visited Ireland and know some of the things that happened to the Irish under British rule, particularly in the famine.

All that admitted, I still have to say that I’m shocked by the apparent hypocrisy of some commenters on this thread. I guess a lot of you are British or American, and like us Australians (even though against the wishes of the majority of citizens in the Australian case at least), your governments and military authorised and fought the Iraq war from 2003.

As I pointed out above, estimates of Iraqi people who died in that war range up to about 500,000 and it appears that the majority of them were civilian non-combatants.

I’m not trying to justify what the IRA did, I don’t agree with it, but I am disappointed by the hypocrisy here.

Are the British, American and Australian governments ‘terrorists’, because they killed civilians? Are the military of those countries “terrorists”? Are the citizens of those countries who supported the way or didn’t actively oppose it supporting or condoning “terrorism”?

Because it seems to me you can’t have it both ways. If targeting civilians makes you a terrorist, you can accuse Adams and the IRA of being terrorists, but only if you admit that your own governments and militaries are terrorists too.

And just to make it clear, I am totally opposed to war and terrorism as a means of resolving disputes within or between countries, although I accept we have a long way to go before we can end those things.

80

Main Street Muse 03.19.15 at 2:29 am

I have a relative who was shot and killed by the IRA back in the days following the partition – he was not quite Irish enough because he had accepted the partition and thus was murdered. On a visit some years ago, we saw the house where this happened and talked with the old woman who lived there who’d been a little child when it happened. She remembered how kind my relative was and the blood on the stairs. Supposedly the murderer – a Kerry man – fled to America.

My family in Ireland LOATHED the IRA (they were Republic of Ireland people, not living in Ulster.)

Years ago, I spent time in London as a student – I’m still terrified of bags left unattended due to the signs and warnings all over the tube to be wary of bags left unattended. The story of the murder of the widowed mother of ten is beyond unbearable.

“I do love teddy bears….” WTF.

81

Hogan 03.19.15 at 2:33 am

the Sicilian response to Italian occupation

ITYM Italian, French, Spanish and German occupation.

See you at vespers?

82

Tabasco 03.19.15 at 4:07 am

What about the real IRA (Omagh etc)? Surely someone can find a way to argue they weren’t really terrorists.

83

ZM 03.19.15 at 5:33 am

“Because it seems to me you can’t have it both ways. If targeting civilians makes you a terrorist, you can accuse Adams and the IRA of being terrorists, but only if you admit that your own governments and militaries are terrorists too.”

I also have Irish ancestry and agree. One of my grandmothers immigrated half the way around the world here as a twelve year old with her older sister, who was so homesick that they returned to Ireland just two years later, before coming back here to Australia due to the poverty and lack of opportunity there.

Also in this part of the world post-colonial state building has been very problematic and often at a high cost to people that may be no longer held in living memories in the British Isles, just in books.

My favourite history professor who specialised in Indonesian history often spoke about her favourite history student – Kirsty Sword Gusmao. Who after graduating went to Indonesia and Timor and would take secret messages to imprisoned Fretlin [the East Timorese resistance] guerrilla soldiers , which was how she met Xanana Gusmao – who went from being an imprisoned “terrorist” under Indonesian rule to President and Prime Minister of an independent East Timor (now he wants to retire and be a pumpkin farmer).

East Timor would not have got its independence by this point of view – it was fortunate that Wahid came in before 2001 – since the West Papuan independence struggle now has very little chance of succeeding now especially with the transmigrasi policy.

84

William Berry 03.19.15 at 6:10 am

“ITYM Italian, French, Spanish and German occupation.”

Hell, even Roger, with his host of Norman knights, and a fleet that controlled much of the Mediteranean for a while from Sicilian ports (centuries earlier, of course, but still).

85

Phil 03.19.15 at 9:21 am

By murdering large numbers of mainland civilians, the IRA absolutely caused terror among the populace.

john b – I’ll give you Birmingham (21 dead), although note that warnings were given – the bomb wasn’t intended to go off unannounced and kill large numbers of people, a la Piazza Fontana or Madrid. But the Guildford bombs killed four soldiers and one civilian. As for Brighton, it absolutely did not cause terror among the populace – I was there. It was big news, obviously – we went down the next day to see the hole in the Grand Hotel – but I wasn’t scared; it wasn’t me they were trying to get. It did make me hate the IRA that bit more* – what would have happened to British politics if Thatcher had been assassinated doesn’t bear thinking about.

*The irony of this discussion is that if you put me in a room with actual IRA sympathisers – like, say, most of the British radical Left for most of the 80s – I’d be the one denouncing them. They had no hope, no legitimacy and no justification for carrying on; as such they became a magnet for people who just liked the violence, and degenerated into banditry and racketeering as a result. I see Adams as somebody who realised a lot of this quite early on & spent several years trying to turn the ship around without getting murdered for his troubles. And eventually, of course, succeeded.

86

Phil 03.19.15 at 9:28 am

Bloix – it’s not an article but a book; the link’s back up now.

Ronan – the point of the McBride story is simply that the apology did eventually come – things have shifted to that extent. (And a good enough apology for Alan McBride – somebody who’d devoted years of his life to denouncing Gerry Adams as a terrorist.) What more do I want? I’d settle for a world in which the mention of Adams or McGuinness wouldn’t always prompt somebody to say “IRA – crazy murdering bastards!” or words to that effect, as if (a) it was news or (b) we’d all forgotten and needed to be reminded. If Adams is getting in trouble over non-PIRA-related crimes & cover-ups, that’s all to the good. (Assuming it is stuff he actually did, but that’s another can of worms.)

87

engels 03.19.15 at 10:28 am

I find it noteworthy that Bloix, who has previously opined at length on these pages on the ethical unconscionability of BDS as a response to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, should defend paramilitary violence as the appropriate response to the British occupation of Northern Ireland.

88

Stephen 03.19.15 at 10:53 am

Phil@62: I have some problems with “You were honourable people fighting in the name of a legitimate historical cause”.

It seems to me that if you ask: what were the IRA fighting for that could not be achieved by peaceful, constitutional means? the only answer is: the conquest of Northern Ireland and its incorporation into the Irish Republic, against the wishes of most of its population.

Now, in previous centuries, conquering and annexing the territories of others was often seen to be legitimate. Among liberal European democracies in the late 20th century, it wasn’t.

Engels who thinks in terms of “the British occupation of Northern Ireland” may have a different definition of liberal democracy from mine.

89

engels 03.19.15 at 11:03 am

Stephen, did you actually my comment? It was addressed to Bloix. Responding to the substance of people’s arguments might be fun than trying to police their use of key-words you dislike. Just sayin’.

90

engels 03.19.15 at 11:15 am

To clarify: if I say ‘it’s interesting that B believes X and she also believes Y,’ you can accuse me of mischaracterising B’s views, or you can assert that it is not in fact interesting at all. What you can’t do is snipe at me for ‘thinking in terms of Y’. Or rather, you can do it, but you come across more like a spambot than someone who is trying to interpret what other people think and respond it.

91

Phil 03.19.15 at 11:16 am

It seems to me that if you ask: what were the IRA fighting for that could not be achieved by peaceful, constitutional means? the only answer is: the conquest of Northern Ireland and its incorporation into the Irish Republic, against the wishes of most of its population.

Debating-society logic only gets us so far here. It seems to me that if you ask former IRA members and supporters who haven’t recanted their former allegiance what they were fighting for, military conquest of an unwilling population is one answer you’ll never get. So either those people are both aggressive nationalists and pathological liars, or that’s not ‘the only answer’ at all.

There’s no such place as ‘the Irish Republic’ – it’s the Republic of Ireland. And as for ‘most of its population’, the majority of the population of the Northern part of the island of Ireland – the part that corresponds to the old province of Ulster – identify as Irish and Catholic. The majority of the population of the six-county province of the ‘Northern Ireland’ don’t, but that’s because the border of the province was drawn in such a way as to create that majority. But I assume you knew that.

92

Phil 03.19.15 at 11:19 am

Should be the six-county province of ‘Northern Ireland’ – my phrasing was quite tortured enough without an extraneous ‘the’.

93

Ronan(rf) 03.19.15 at 11:26 am

Phil – I agree with you there. But it just seems to be one of those things (like any discussion of Blair or Bush) that will, rightly or wrongly, always be spoken about on those terms. (I have to say I dont have any real sympathy with any of the main characters who have an option to make it stop, which is a comfortable retirement)
What’s wrong with speaking off “the British occupation of Northern Ireland” ? A lot of people did see it that way, and certainly the British Army did tend to behave (at a times at least) as an occupying force. Or at least that’s the story Ive heard.

94

Ronan(rf) 03.19.15 at 11:27 am

second part is response to Stephen.

95

Ronan(rf) 03.19.15 at 11:29 am

“It seems to me that if you ask former IRA members and supporters who haven’t recanted their former allegiance what they were fighting for, military conquest of an unwilling population is one answer you’ll never get.”

Maybe that’s not what they would have said, but for all practical purposes it’s what they would have got

96

Phil 03.19.15 at 11:34 am

I’ve probably mentioned this here before, but in 1989 I was at the Socialist Conference when Gerry Adams (then under a broadcasting ban) was the surprise guest; he gave a speech which basically amounted to “thanks for supporting the Republican Movement, please carry on supporting the Republican Movement, but don’t start criticising the Republican Movement because you’re British so we won’t listen”, and to my great dismay got a standing ovation. (Some fallout in the organising groups later – which I personally did my best to stir up – but generally the mood was a melange of opposition to the broadcasting ban, support for British withdrawal & ultimate reunification, and who else are you going to support anyway.)

The interesting thing about it, from this vantage point, was something he said quite early on, about the choice of opposing the IRA (like the Labour Party did) or supporting it (like most of the people there). He said, “don’t let’s get hung up on the hook of supporting the IRA. If you do support the IRA, good! Well done! But that’s not the issue.” Looking back now, that sounds an awful lot like “will you toytown revolutionaries please stop talking about the fecking IRA…”

97

Niall McAuley 03.19.15 at 12:15 pm

Bloix at #77writes: the Irish reaction to English occupation was political violence.

The Troubles were not an “Irish reaction to English occupation”. Both IRA and Loyalist paramilitaries were Irish. The longstanding grievances which led to the civil rights marches which sparked the violence were between the minority Irish Catholics and the majority Irish Protestants within Northern Ireland. The British army were initially welcomed by the Catholic community on the streets, as preferable to the RUC police force and B Specials, seen as an arm of a sectarian state.

98

Phil 03.19.15 at 1:16 pm

Niall – that’s correct as far as it goes, but I think it takes out too much of the context. “The majority Irish Protestants” – or their political representatives – saw themselves as British, within a British province (whose borders had been drawn to make them a majority); it certainly didn’t play out as an intra-Irish dispute.

One of the things I always do when I’m teaching (or researching) counter-terrorist legislation is to look where it came from. The UK-wide Terrorism Act 2000 incorporated the Emergency Powers Act (NI), which incorporated (among other things) the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act, which followed on from a whole series of anti-‘rebel’ and anti-Fenian legislation going back to before the foundation of the Republic. (The line can be extended back to “An Act for the Suppression of the Rebellion which still unhappily exists within this Kingdom, and for the Protection of the Persons and Properties of His Majesty’s faithful subjects within the same” (1799). The Acts of Union of the United Kingdom and Ireland weren’t passed until 1801.)

99

Ronan(rf) 03.19.15 at 1:34 pm

Well the PIRA’s war specifically was over what they perceived as a British occupation, and they used (and in some ways manipulated) the instability caused by the Civil Rights movement, the reaction to it and then the hamfisted response from the British , as a way to legitimise their agenda.
I would say that bloix is wrong that the ‘Irish reaction to English occupation was political violence.’ For some it was, but generally a small section of the population. Which isnt to say anything about the legitimacy or not of that violence in general, just it shouldn’t be overstated as to how central political violence was.

100

Niall McAuley 03.19.15 at 1:43 pm

Phil, yes, the majority Irish Protestants saw themselves as British. That doesn’t mean they weren’t (and aren’t) Irish.

They certainly, definitely and categorically are not English, per Bloix.

And the anti-rebel legislation in NI going back to Partition is part of what I referred to as the sectarian state of which the RUC were an arm.

The troubles started (or restarted) in the 60s as an intra-Irish dispute when members of the majority attacked minority civil rights marches and provoked rioting.

They are only one part of a longer intra-Irish dispute stretching back to Partition, and then back 400 hundreds of years to the Plantation of Ulster.

101

Bloix 03.19.15 at 2:45 pm

I don’t see how one can call the Tudor conquest and the Stewart colonization of Ireland an intra-Irish dispute.
I accept the correction from English to British.
The national myth of the Protestant Irish is that they are Orange, not Green – conquerors, not compatriots, settlers, not natives.
Yes, they are also Irish. But there’s a lot of tension in their self-identification as both Irish and British.

102

Stephen 03.19.15 at 3:27 pm

Phil: you seem to have a problem with the borders of Northern Ireland having been drawn so as to contain a Protestant majority.

Surely at the time of partition the options were:

Draw borders so that the majority within NI who wished to remain within the UK, did so.

Draw borders so as to create a NI that remained within the UK even though the majority there did not want to.

Refuse to partition Ireland, forcing a northern population into a state they did not want to be part of.

Of the three, I think the first was the least bad. If you want to argue that partition should not have been along the old county boundaries, I would agree: but I suppose you know that a more sensible partition was intended, and also know why it was not achieved.

103

Niall McAuley 03.19.15 at 3:29 pm

Bloix – I didn’t say the Tudor conquest or the Stewart colonization were intra-Irish, but neither of those happened in the 1960s or 70s, or even the 1920s.

By the 1960s, the Planters had been here for 350 years – definitely long enough to qualify for the Irish soccer team.

104

Niall McAuley 03.19.15 at 4:19 pm

Stephen: the Border was decided by Westminster so that the largest number of people possible would remain in the UK, given that the border would use county borders, and a majority in the new NI would want to remain.

This means it was decided to ensure that NI was as large as possible, and the the disaffected minority in NI was as large as possible, using county borders.

Adding any other Ulster county would have given a Nationalist majority.

From the 1910 election, Tyrone would probably have been majority nationalist. The 1918 election would suggest Tyrone, South Armagh and South Down (as well as a single constituency isolated in the Falls in Belfast) would all have been majority Nationalist.

But the idea was not to make as many people happy as possible, it was to create the largest viable NI possible.

105

Igor Belanov 03.19.15 at 4:41 pm

I think the current situation of a de facto Northern Irish polity which enables inhabitants to seek additional identities across the border and over the Irish Sea is a significant step forward, and I hope a non-sectarian state can be fully entrenched at some time in the future.

That said, prior to 1922 Ireland had clearly been regarded as one entity, and until the union of 1801 there was an Irish parliament that covered the whole island. Anyone supporting the Northern Ireland of 1922 on the grounds of self-determination would have had to welcome Hitler’s annexations of Austria and the Sudetenland.

106

Phil 03.19.15 at 5:06 pm

Stephen – my point was simply that when you say that ‘most of [NI’s] population’ would oppose reunification, this is not as strong a point as it sounds, given that the creation of NI as a political entity was predicated on the existence of a majority against reunification. Some majorities – and hence some forms of democratic legitimacy – are more securely grounded than others. The population of Ireland is majority-Nationalist(!), so we don’t count Ireland as a whole. The population of Israel and the occupied territories is majority-Arab, so we don’t count Israel and the occupied territories as a whole. The population of South Africa is majority-Black, so we… never mind.

107

bianca steele 03.19.15 at 5:26 pm

I was trying to think of a US/Canada parallel to @104 (the hordes of Tory refugees, from families settled after 1688, fleeing from persecution in New England), but then remembered that it’s essentially the plot of Infinite Jest: draw a line from Lynn to Lowell to Albany to Buffalo, and give everything north of it to Canada (directing the wrath of Quebec separatists toward the US, which is one of the spots where the analogy breaks down; moreover the novel seems to take place in a world where Canada isn’t a Commonwealth country; or maybe one in which the US and Mexico are, as well).

108

Stephen 03.19.15 at 5:38 pm

Niall: the border was not, initially, intended to remain along county borders: that was merely a temporary measure until the Boundary Commission (one northern, one southern member, neutral chairman) could recommend something better. Some of the Commission’s suggestions were eminently sensible: South Armagh, for instance, to go to the Free State. The trouble was that not only did they recommend the transfer of less of the six counties to the south than the Irish Government had hoped for, they even went so far as to suggest that areas of Counties Monaghan and Donegal with a clear Protestant majority, temporarily freed from British rule, should be joined to the north. That was obviously intolerable. The temporary boundaries stayed.

NB that the Monaghan/Donegal problem has since been solved, with the disappearance of most of the Protestants.

109

Stephen 03.19.15 at 5:55 pm

Phil@90: there’s another explanation for IRA sympathisers being unwilling to admit that their aims would include military conquest of an unwilling population, other than their being both aggressive nationalists and pathological liars. They are of course the first, and some are also the second: but many were and are, I think, just having difficulty in thinking clearly.

I remember trying to explain to a friend, an Irish Catholic of republican sympathies, that the obstacle to a united Ireland is that many people in the North don’t want it. She replied, passionately, “But they OUGHT to want it!”. She’s an intelligent woman, with a good degree from a good university, but was not applying her mind to the problem.

Many IRA sympathisers, I think, honestly but entirely mistakenly believed that if they could shoot and bomb enough targets, the British army and administration would quit the six counties, and it would then be discovered that despite everything they had said and done over the years the northern Protestants would then tamely submit to a united Ireland.

Others, more in touch with reality, accepted that many Protestants would object to being incorporated, but hoped that most of them would leave for Britain, and that the remnant who resisted would be overcome by the victorious IRA and the Irish army.

I do not think that either of these beliefs was realistic, but I am glad we never had to find out.

110

Stephen 03.19.15 at 6:00 pm

Igor: if Hitler’s annexations had been simply a matter of accepting self-determination, he would have had a very good case. That was one of the factors hampering Chamberlain: if as a good liberal you accept the principle of self-determination, how can you ignore the truth that most Austrians, and most Sudetenlanders, did genuinely want to be part of a united Germany?

But it wasn’t such a simple matter. Hitler’s Germany was highly objectionable, to put it mildly, in a way that British rule in northern Ireland wasn’t.

111

Stephen 03.19.15 at 6:02 pm

But Phil@105: the population of the UK as a whole may have been opposed to Irish home rule, pre-1914; that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have paid attention to the wishes of the Irish, and equally it doesn’t mean that the Irish shouldn’t have paid attention to the wishes of the northern Protestants.

112

MPAVictoria 03.19.15 at 6:54 pm

So many of these debates come down to “self-determination for me but not for thee”.

113

Hal 03.19.15 at 7:20 pm

Phil@105

The population of Israel and the occupied territories is majority-Arab

Not quite.

http://passblue.com/2014/02/02/israeli-palestinian-population-growth-and-its-impact-on-peace/

114

Stephen 03.19.15 at 7:41 pm

MPA Victoria: that does seem to be Phil’s position. It’s not mine.

115

Phil 03.19.15 at 8:14 pm

Hal – you’re right; current figures give a total population in the region of 12.7 million, of whom 6.6 million are Jews, 5.5 million Arabs and 0.6 million ‘Other’. My mistake was partly lumping in the ‘Others’ with the Arabs and partly assuming that the 2.7 million people on the West Bank were all Arabs; actually the settler population accounts for half a million.

As for self-determination, I’m a great believer in the right to secede. What I’m less sure about is the right to secede from state A so as to be ruled by state B, which is what both Henlein and Carson demanded; it scarcely seems to qualify as self-determination. (Irredentism from within the terra irredenta – is there a special term for that?)

116

Igor Belanov 03.19.15 at 9:00 pm

Self-determination or not, the great unanswered question about the devolved NI state is whether the troubles would have occurred if Catholics hadn’t been treated as second-class citizens for 40 years.

117

JakeB 03.19.15 at 9:10 pm

if Catholics hadn’t been treated as second-class citizens for 40 years

A bit longer than that.

118

Suzanne 03.19.15 at 9:15 pm

“…… most voters don’t see any difference between Adams evasions over this and (for example) Fine Gael’s embracement of Michael Collins, a man who also ordered the cold blooded killing of alleged informers and security agents. ”

@16: Not to mention that the Blueshirts have “embraced” personalities and politics rather more sinister than the Big Fellow’s.

119

Igor Belanov 03.19.15 at 9:20 pm

@116

By the Northern Irish ‘statelet’ for 40 years.

120

Hidari 03.19.15 at 10:28 pm

At the risk of stating the bloody obvious, saying that one is ‘in favour of democracy’ is saying that one is against sin: it’s something that everyone agrees with. The devil is in the detail.

One question that has to be asked, and answered, before the democracy process even gets off the ground is ‘who gets to vote?’ (closely related to another question of: what are the territorial borders of the democracy?).

The Sinn Fein/PIRA position has always been pro-democracy. But they answer the question of ‘who gets to vote’ in a very different way from the UK Government. According to Sinn Fein/PIRA the two legitimate political entities are (mainland) Britain and Ireland (i.e. all of Ireland, including the North). It is reasonable to assume (although it’s not a foregone conclusion) that in an all-Ireland referendum, most Irish people would vote for a united Ireland. And I believe (although the UK government does not trumpet the fact) that a majority of the British people have always favoured some form of withdrawal from Ireland. Certainly, a majority of the people of NI oppose a United Ireland. But its the presupposition that NI is a coherent or meaningful political entity is precisely what Sinn Fein/PIRA deny. To them, NI is simply another gerrymander: a line drawn on a map solely to ensure an illegitimate majority.

And I have some sympathy for this view. After all, just recently, 45% of the Scottish people expressed their desire to not be part of a United Britain. I seem to recall CT being not much in sympathy with their opinions. How much more sympathy would people have had if they had (via the threat, or reality, of violence) ‘carved out’ a large section of Scotland as their own, renamed it, with the boundaries carefully drawn to ensure a pro-Yes majority, declared ‘independence (or that this new ‘state’ was now part of a foreign country: Denmark perhaps) and then insisted that it was people who opposed this who were the anti-democrats?

But this is essentially what the ‘Unioniists’ in NI did, although the comparison is not exact.

121

ZM 03.19.15 at 10:50 pm

Val: “Ok I’ll declare my interest up front. A significant proportion of Australians have Irish ancestry, and it is usually Catholic. My grandmother was Irish, she was Catholic….

All that admitted, I still have to say that I’m shocked by the apparent hypocrisy of some commenters on this thread.”

My grandmother came from Ireland also, and was Catholic. She came here with her sister when she was twelve and her sister was so homesick they went back to Ireland after two years, then returned to Australia again due to the poverty and lack of opportunities.

While you in Ireland and the United States became the possessions of England in the 15th-16thC so I guess you’re all quite used to it – here in the Southern Hemisphere colonial possession by England and the other European Empires is more recent, and then there has been the strife of post-colonial nation building.

The terrible effects of some of this is still in living memory in our region, where maybe all the people in Ireland with memories have died.

One of my Asian history professors often talked of a favourite student who grew up about half an hour away from my town. After graduating she moved to Indonesia and riskily delivered messages from the outside to imprisoned Fretlin (the East Timor resistance) soldiers in gaols. This is how Kirsty Sword Gusmao met her husband Xanana Gusmao who went from a guerrilla soldier to Prime Minister and President of the fledgling independent East Timor (now he wants to retire to be a pumpkin farmer).

With the sort of views expressed here how could the East Timorese have gotten their independence?

They were fortunate that Gus Dur became president of Indonesia before the global war on terror. It is unlikely the West Papuan resistance will gain independence for West Papua now given the war on terror and the transmigrasi policy and big mining corporations.

(I wrote a similar comment yesterday but it disappeared in moderation so hopefully the wording of this one works)

122

Ronan(rf) 03.19.15 at 11:59 pm

From what I can make out my grandmother’s father (on my fathers side) was a member of the RIC during the 1920s. On a back road where I grew up there’s a memorial to the dead from a firefight between the RIC and IRA (no relations involved). Her husband, my grandfather’s, family had differen’t sympathies, but never anything more than that. (afaict)
On the other side, my grandmother was (what I would term, but she might not)a Redmondite. As the story goes her father walked through Ballybricken, Waterford in 1932 and refused to remove his hat for the national anthem. Maybe not true, but still told over 60 years later. She despised the Provos more than anyone I knew. Her husband (from Donegal) just didn’t talk about it. Her sister, who ran a farm with her husband in Tyrone, wanted ‘colours’ at her husbands funeral. The one time I remember my mother visible upset (enraged) by politics, was after Warrington, admonishing my young nationalist sympathies.

I came across this quote recently by Danny Morrison in relation to Warrington:

“I am not fighting for anybody but my family, and those in West Belfast and elsewhere in Nationalist areas who considered themselves oppressed. No one I know of in this jail has lifted a gun or planted a bomb in the name of the people of the people of the Twenty-Six Counties
Don’t use IRA killings as an excuse to truncate your nationality and identity, the fact that you consider yourselves far too new-fashioned to be old-fashioned.
In your sophistication, your smugness, your aloofness, your hypocrisy and your forgetfulness, you are as guilty for prolonging this conflict as I am for participating in it.”

How can all of this be cut into something coherent? ( I understand my family story could, but everyone altogether?)

123

bianca steele 03.20.15 at 2:24 am

ZM:

For the most part, CT seems to be oriented too much toward European Union and its implications to have much thought to spare for the post-colonial world. For me, I’m embarrassed to admit I know almost nothing about Australia (I did read Kangaroo once, for a high school class, and I once dreamed I was hiking in New Zealand and stopped for lunch at a place that had a Red Sox memorabilia store).

124

Phil 03.20.15 at 8:20 am

She despised the Provos more than anyone I knew

What always enraged me about the Provos was their insistence that they were the Republican Movement and the Republican Movement was them – to believe in the reunification of the island you had to be a Republican, and to be a Republican you had to support SF, because, well, who else was there? I used to hear this a lot, mainly from British leftists with no stake in the conflict at all. But then, who wants to be told it’s all a lot more complicated than they thought? (I do, but I’m interested in history.)

125

dsquared 03.20.15 at 8:29 am

unless you want to – literally – pathologise the political choices of an awful lot of people in both parts of Ireland (polling in the Republic of Ireland currently puts Adams’s party at just under 20%)

I would be very surprised indeed if Ireland turned out to be the only country in the world in which there weren’t about 20% of the electorate who were demonstrably pathological and willing to support the most outrageously disgusting people in the name of nationalism. Do the fans of Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders get the same sort of respect? Should we be twice as solicitous of ZANU-PF since it has more than 40% support? More locally, can you swear that you’ve never used the derogatory phrase “Kippers”?

126

Stephen 03.20.15 at 8:38 am

HIdari: try another parallel, the Mexican claim to Texas, California and neighbouring regions.

Suppose someone argued that a free vote in both Mexico and the disputed areas (which were once part of Mexico) would give a majority in favour of reunification, even though the vote in Texas, etc, would be against it.

By your reasoning, that would be the right thing to do, and Texas should become Mexican again whatever the actual Texans think.

Not my idea of democracy. Of course, the actual conquest of northern Mexico wasn’t my idea of democracy either; but standards change.

As for your parallel with Scottish independence: the point I think you are missing is that NI didn’t leave to become part of another state. It stayed in the same state that it was in before 1922.

come to that, am I the only person to find it ironic that Irish nationalists argue that Ireland, being one island, has to be be one state, while Scots nationalists argue that Britain, although one island, has to be partitioned into two states?

127

Niall McAuley 03.20.15 at 8:55 am

My own grandfather and his family (Catholic) were burnt out of their home in Belfast not far from Sandy Row in the 1920s.

This does not incline me to want share a country with the Loyalists of today.

128

Phil 03.20.15 at 9:09 am

I can swear on whatever you like that I’ve never likened Nigel Farage to Charles Manson, or to any other psychotic killer. I’ll extend the same charity to both the le Pens and to nice old Uncle Robert. People have what they consider to be valid reasons* for supporting all of these, and people have reasons for supporting Sinn Fein – and “because I worship Death and Gerry is His servant” really isn’t one of them.

*You might argue that “being a racist shitbag” isn’t a valid reason. To which I’d reply, firstly, that I thought we were talking about Sinn Fein, but secondly that political behaviour is very rarely as straightforward as a voter thinking “I’m a racist, which party is the racist one?”. Even if people end up putting a cross next to the Racist Party Of Racism, you can bet they’ll tell you what they’re really doing is expressing the very real concerns of the white working class. And if that’s what they think they’re doing, that’s what they are doing – and you’re not going to get through to them by saying “Oi, racists, stop being racist!”. Nor, in Ireland, is it going to do much for the political debate to address SF supporters by saying “Oi, supporters of vicious murderers, stop supporting vicious murderers!”

129

Phil 03.20.15 at 9:11 am

PS Best response to political canvassing ever:

“Well, I’m a racist, so I’ll be voting for the Liberal Democrats.”

Can’t argue with that.

130

Puss Wallgreen 03.20.15 at 9:12 am

“What I’m less sure about is the right to secede from state A so as to be ruled by state B”
In fact, as Conor Cruise O’Brien pointed out, northern Irish Unionists were demanding the right to “secede from the secession”, ie stay in state A rather than participate in the creation of a new state B. I’m not sure what is intrinsically problematic about that. In any case, I would be grateful if anybody can construct a convincing counterfactual history of how a million northern Irish Protestants, mobilized and armed to the teeth, could have been forced into a single Irish Free State in the early 1920s, and how a stable parliamentary democracy could have been constructed on that basis.

131

ZM 03.20.15 at 9:48 am

bianca steele,

“For the most part, CT seems to be oriented too much toward European Union and its implications to have much thought to spare for the post-colonial world. For me, I’m embarrassed to admit I know almost nothing about Australia (I did read Kangaroo once, for a high school class…”

Well I suppose how to discourage Europeans from their historic tendency of going to war on each other regularly and then extending this warfare everywhere else in the world is a difficult to solve problem — but as Val said the IRA killed far fewer people than our governments sending of our militaries into Iraq recently. Maybe if the EU becomes a better sheltering umbrella then small areas that want to breakaway might find it easier to break away peacefully.

(I haven’t read Kangaroo but D H Lawrence was only here fairly briefly so it is more likely to be like his other books than like an Australian book. I prefer the older Australian authors mostly, but if you are short of time for reading Australian books you could have a mini-Australian-film-festival — My Brilliant Career, Picnic At Hanging Rock, Storm Boy, The Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith, The Year My Voice Broke, Rabbit Proof Fence, Romulus My Father, One Night The Moon are all good — if you want something more cultish then The Cars That Ate Paris or Dogs In Space might be more to your taste, and there are a number of comedies I haven’t mentioned)

132

Phil 03.20.15 at 10:20 am

how a million northern Irish Protestants, mobilized and armed to the teeth, could have been forced into a single Irish Free State in the early 1920s

Well, it depends how far back you set your time machine. From the point where there were a million northern Irish Protestants armed to the teeth, mobilised, angry enough to fight & presumably at some level scared of what would happen if they didn’t, and given official endorsement for all of this by senior British politicians, there probably was no better option than at least a temporary partition of the island. (Which isn’t to say the actual partition we got was inevitable at that point – far from it.)

The point would be not to deal with those conditions differently but to find a way to stop them arising. Saying that outcome Y was inevitable at time X doesn’t mean it was always going to be inevitable. It also doesn’t imply that outcome Y is just or sustainable or commendable in any way – or give any reason to oppose a project to reverse it (unless you always oppose projects that are difficult).

133

dsquared 03.20.15 at 11:02 am

#128 on the other hand, if the leader of a political party is both a cold blooded ideologue who has ordered the murder of innocent women, and the owner of a twitter feed where he talks about rubber duckies and nude trampolining, I think it’s pretty unreasonable to demand that nobody sees this as bizarre or makes jokes about it. If Gerry Adams really doesn’t want to be seen as a weird and highly unpleasant gruesome clown figure, he’s going to have to meet us half way.

And even his own voters would surely have to agree “yes on the whole he’s not what you’d call a typical modern career politician”. Maybe that’s what they like about him, like Boris Johnson and George Galloway. Or maybe they get a frisson from the fact that he’s almost definitely guilty of manipulating damaged people into committing atrocities for him. In the latter case, they’ve got more in common with Charles Manson fans than they might care to admit.

134

Puss Wallgreen 03.20.15 at 11:05 am

Yes, had working class Ulster Protestants been convinced by the merits of a Gaelic-speaking peasant autarky or had British politicians and civil servants ceased to represent what they perceived to be the interests of the British state and developed an unlikely affection for the tenets of Irish Republicanism things may have been different, but that is so unlikely it doesn’t even qualify as a thought experiment. My point is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong or unjust in a border that reflects political realities, hence your complaint that a border drawn to maximize the concentration of the number of people opposed to separation from the UK is somehow illegitimate or unusual or lacking in democratic legitimacy is misplaced. The delineation of rather arbitrary borders to reflect such realities was in fact the norm in the post 1918 period.

135

dax 03.20.15 at 11:42 am

“I would be very surprised indeed if Ireland turned out to be the only country in the world in which there weren’t about 20% of the electorate who were demonstrably pathological and willing to support the most outrageously disgusting people in the name of nationalism.”

Blair, Bush II, and Netanyahu come to mind far in front of Le Pen fille.

136

djr 03.20.15 at 11:59 am

a million northern Irish Protestants

If this had been a complete and accurate description of the population of Northern Ireland then history over the following 90 years might have been somewhat different. More like 700,000 Protestants and 500,000 Catholics.

137

Phil 03.20.15 at 12:09 pm

And maybe the people who voted for Nelson Mandela got a kick out of thinking that he was just as hard as Winnie underneath it all – only of course he wasn’t (but, you know, maybe he was).

Or maybe they had good reasons for supporting him. And maybe “lots of people support somebody I could never support in a million years; they must be crazy” isn’t a very useful line of thought; it certainly wouldn’t do much for the level of discussion if any of those people came by.

138

Phil 03.20.15 at 12:11 pm

there is nothing intrinsically wrong or unjust in a border that reflects political realities

Clearly not, but there’s nothing intrinsically just in it either. A settlement that reflects political realities can still be a settlement which it’s right to try and change, even to the point of (tactically) refusing to recognise it.

139

Igor Belanov 03.20.15 at 12:24 pm

@134

Hardened revolutionary William Gladstone and many others in his terroristic Liberal Party had no problem accepting the idea of Home Rule for the whole of Ireland, and had the million Ulster Protestants joined that polity they would have formed a substantial bloc weighing influence against your so-called ‘peasant autarky’. ‘Gaelic-speaking’ is also something of a red herring given that even De Valera didn’t manage to get more than a small minority of the Irish using that language routinely.

140

Puss Wallgreen 03.20.15 at 12:40 pm

That many English people have been enthusiastic about Home Rule is hardly news – the problem was convincing Irish Protestants of its virtues, and the prospect of being a substantial bloc with some influence within a peasant autarky, though doubtless beguiling, was evidently not enough to counter the attractions of membership of an advanced capitalist liberal democracy. “Gaelic speaking” was certainly not a red herring if you wanted a job as a teacher or a civil servant in the Irish Free State.

141

bianca steele 03.20.15 at 1:26 pm

ZM,

No, Kangaroo isn’t an Australian book, more of a European in Australia book. It’s what Lady Chatterley’s Lover might be if you decided the really interesting part was the half chapter where Lord Chatterley’s talks about fascist politics, and got rid of all the romance and added a lot about half-made world-like “dark gods” of nature that make Europeans go crazy. It’s not like his other books that I’ve read, though, much more straightforward reading.

142

stevenjohnson 03.20.15 at 2:43 pm

I think one reason the New Republic folded is the “even the liberal” market niche was so crowded, with the David Remnick New Yorker and today’s New York Review of Books and the Atlantic providing extremely effective competition.

As to the specific article? The tacit assumption that the police authorities in 1972 would have no interest in pursuing a criminal case against the IRA is extraordinary. The bland agreement that the McConville family will of course withhold eyewitness identification of participants in their mother’s murder because the IRA is slaughtering people on the streets of Belfast is equally extraordinary.

The dubiety of the article is found even in the small things. The writer accepts the McConville children were familiar with every nook of the apartment, which would include her underwear drawer and where she kept her tampons/pads and legal documents relating to her late husband’s pensions. Really? The article plucks at the heart strings with runny mascara, as a daughter grieves over being jerked around by false reports from the IRA the woman’s body was on the coast in Carlingford. It was instead found…on a beach near Carlingford. Somehow there are no conclusions to draw about how reliably key details can be known after so many years?

I don’t think there’s any great reason to value this article. Rather than draw personal conclusions as to why people want to spread stories like this, perhaps it would be better to consider this: Is the religion of the elites an essential component of national identity? That is the only reason I can conceive for the assumption by some that “NI” is in some sense “British.” And it is the only reason I can conceive for the assumption by some that the role of the Church in the Republic isn’t a scandal (still.) It seems a compelling question. After all, if the partition of Ireland was wise and good, so too was the partition of India, including assigning Kashmir to India because the elites were Hindu. And of course if the religion of the elite is all that matters in defining nationality, then it is right for the Jewish state to take all of Palestine.

Again, is religion of the elites an essential component of nationality? (For bonus points, how is this to be distinguished from “race?”)

143

Hidari 03.20.15 at 8:50 pm

@126
Perhaps a comparison with the current situation in the Ukraine might be nearer the mark.

144

trackhorse 03.20.15 at 9:27 pm

@Ronan
The Sidhe are by no means “little people”. They are tall, strong, beautiful, capricious, and very dangerous.

145

Val 03.21.15 at 3:27 am

ZM @121
Thanks ZM for trying to get some conversation going around the point I made, but disappointingly I don’t think many here are prepared to look at this.

In addition to the points you and Bianca made respectively about the recency of the Australian colonial experience and the possibly euro centric focus of CT (seems like Europe and North America from my perspective), I’d add another –

I think most commenters and authors (excepting JQ) on CT are from UK or North America? And I think they are therefore more at the centre of the US-Anglospere empire, and perhaps therefore less aware of it than we in Australia are, being peripheral to that empire, both socially and geographically? They’re more embedded, perhaps.

146

dsquared 03.21.15 at 3:44 am

And maybe the people who voted for Nelson Mandela

this comparison is the sort of thing that kind of fails the basic test of “can you say it out loud without either giggling or tailing off shamefacedly”.

” maybe “lots of people support somebody I could never support in a million years; they must be crazy” isn’t a very useful line of thought; it certainly wouldn’t do much for the level of discussion if any of those people came by.”

If the twentieth century has taught us nothing, it’s that you really, really, really shouldn’t let “millions of people support this person” shape your judgement of whether or not “this person is a dangerous weirdo”. In any case, who said “crazy”? I don’t know why all these people make such a pathologically bad choice. In a lot of cases, probably because they’re not paying attention and have, incorrectly, assumed that if someone can get 20% of the vote he can’t be all bad.

147

Val 03.21.15 at 3:47 am

Just following up my previous point, I’ve also noticed that there seems to be relatively little interest in Indigenous issues on CT, too (ie as well as relatively little interest in imperialism) – when discussion does get going there seems to be a disproportionate number of Australian commenters afaict.

I find this particularly surprising re North America, because I know from other forums I’m involved with that there are active discussions about indigeneity there.

On the whole I get the impression that issues of imperialism, colonialism and indigeneity don’t have quite the same engagement on CT as they do on Australian left wing sites. I think discussion has moved on from this thread, unfortunately, but I’d be interested to hear views on this.

148

Peter T 03.21.15 at 4:46 am

“this comparison is the sort of thing that kind of fails the basic test of “can you say it out loud without either giggling or tailing off shamefacedly”.”

I must say I found the original remark obscure. But what we giggle at is – as the next line acknowledges – not a good test. At one point this included “let’s have full adult franchise”, “let’s allow women to vote”, “serfs have rights, too” and much else. Along, of course, with a lot of less positive statements. “Why can’t everyone be reasonable and agree with me” does not, on the historical record, carry a great deal of conviction.

149

Stephen 03.21.15 at 7:50 am

Hidari @142: the parallel between the Ukraine and Northern Ireland does not seem obvious. Would you care to elaborate?

150

ZM 03.21.15 at 8:07 am

Val,

“On the whole I get the impression that issues of imperialism, colonialism and indigeneity don’t have quite the same engagement on CT as they do on Australian left wing sites.”

This is a bit of topic from Saint Patrick’s Day, but I have started to think that both the mainstream and “left” in Australia is more progressive in these areas you’ve mentioned than in the UK and USA (I’m not sure about Canada?).

I can think of maybe three main reasons for this —

Despite our current blunderbus Prime Minister’s recent efforts (before he offended the Irish Prime Minister with a Saint Patrick’s Day message implying the Irish were all drunkards) to make up a narrative of Australia just being bush until it was wonderfully improved by British foreign investment most of our narratives of the early British settlement are not very fond of Britain — even old narratives impressed by the explorers and early European settlers have to account for the penal settlements and convicts and poverty stricken immigrants going so far from home in the North to an inhospitable new land with seemingly harsh and temperamental weather. So even they start out with the great cruelty of society and politics in Britain casting out criminals who largely committed minor crimes, and poor people.

And today with our papers all marking the death of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser it seems appropriate to note the bipartisan commitment to multiculturalism. As far as I can tell the commitment to multiculturalism here is more advanced than in the UK or USA, and of a different kind with less emphasis on assimilation. And multiculturalism has by and large worked well and been accepted at the community level too (sometimes even more than at the political level — one of Pauline Hanson’s speechwriters used to live here, and although he would write speeches for her he was born of Italian immigrants and his wife immigrated from Asia [he is quite nice as long as you avoid politics — he used to generously bring a restaurant I worked in bundles of fresh herbs from his garden]. I think indigenous issues are more well received by more people in Australia — it occurs to me that we have largely moved on from kitty representations of indigenous people, but in the US (maybe due to a longer history of European settlement) from here representations of US indigenous people seem not to have moved on as much. And the welcome to/acknowledgement of country rituals help maintain a more constant reminder of indigenous people.

Also I think our take on neoliberal economics was maybe sufficiently different to than implemented in the UK and USA that we have remained more fair economically and this has helped our communities be less fractious. I heard Ross Garnaut emphasise this at a talk last year, and although I’m not 100% convinced he is much more familiar with all that past policy than I am. And people I know who have immigrated from the UK say living in Australia is a bit like living in the UK 20 or so years ago.

151

Robert Hanks 03.21.15 at 9:12 am

#55 – a small correction, or perhaps not so small: the Canary Wharf bombing was not casualty free. The blast killed Inan Bashir and John Jeffries, who were working in a newsagent’s nearby.

152

novakant 03.21.15 at 12:53 pm

If Sinn Fein voters are like Charles Manson fans, what does that make the people who reelected Bush, Blair and the associated cabal after Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo etc. !?

153

Ronan(rf) 03.21.15 at 1:40 pm

Val and zm. I’m genuinely lost as to what points youre making ? That crooked timber posters, with no interest or expertise on the subject , should write more about the complicated topic of indigenous Australian history ? That a post on Gerry Adams is somehow remiss for not mentioning European colonialism in Indonesia? How are either of you in anyway affected by, now more or less non existent , European colonialism , rather than the product of it ? What is it that we’re missing? That the relationship between ireland and the mainland UK was complicated ? That some conceptualized this relationship as imperial ? That we don’t understand the importance of the famine to irish social and economic development, emigration and traditions of irish separatism ?
This relationship (between ireland and the UK, historically and presently) has been much more contested up until very recently than that between Australia and the “empire”. But that relationship is complicated. Ireland’s history isnt just that between an oppressive centre and oppressed periphery. A lot of irish were committed and willing participants in British colonialism. As were a lot of other people, from all races classes and nationalities ,whose descendants might not be willing to admit to it.
I’m not trying to be snarky or confrontational here but I’m genuinely not following what the point is or what relevance this has to the topic at hand ?

154

Donald johnson 03.21.15 at 3:01 pm

Val, ZM, and novakant–

I agree with you, but I’m not sure who if any here disagree. I know almost nothing about the IRA and am willing to accept that Gerry Adams is a terrorist and the teddy bear thing is weird, but then Bush took up painting when he moved back to Texas and he likes his dog, so it seems that unpleasant people can have hobbies and normal human affections. Are people here saying that Adams and his supporters are are worse than the typical Western politician and supporters because there are fewer degrees of separation between Adams and his victims than between a typical President or PM and his victims? If I were going to single out the creepiest living member or ex-member of Parliament , it would be Blair. Maggie is dead or she’d be on the list for being pals with Pinochet.

155

Stephen 03.21.15 at 3:24 pm

Novakant: much as I dislike and despise Tony Blair, I don’t think you can blame him at all for Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, and his degree of blame for the mishandling of Iraq after the invasion is less than overwhelming
For lying about the reasons for the invasion, blame him as much as you like.

156

Val 03.21.15 at 8:01 pm

Donald J @ 152
I got the definite impression that some people here were claiming that Gerry Adams was not just a terrorist, but a particularly creepy one, while refusing to acknowledge that the imperial project, which Adams was fighting against, had murdered a lot more civilians than the IRA.

It may be they think that Adams was particularly creepy not just because of teddy bears and chocolate, but as you suggest, because the murders which he may have authorized or been complicit in were of people who were relatively close to him in social and geographical terms. If so, then that’s possibly a discussion worth having – is it worse or more brutal to kill civilians you know, including mothers, than to kill civilians you don’t know (also including mothers)?

However that’s not the conversation that people were having, as far as I could see.

Ronan (rf) @ 151
I’d like to respond to your comment because there are some interesting points in it, but I’m not going to because of the disrespectful way you’ve chosen to begin it. Accusing people of wanting to do something silly, which they’re clearly not doing, isn’t a good way to begin a conversation or avoid being “confrontational”. Maybe you could acknowledge that and we could have a sensible discussion?

157

dsquared 03.21.15 at 10:18 pm

If Sinn Fein voters are like Charles Manson fans, what does that make the people who reelected Bush, Blair and the associated cabal after Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo etc. !?

I wish CT had a plug-in that let you post a sound file of a hack comedian saying “Am I right?”, and an audience whooping and clapping. I bet people would use it a lot.

158

ZM 03.21.15 at 11:11 pm

Ronan(rf),

“Val and zm. I’m genuinely lost as to what points youre making ? That crooked timber posters, with no interest or expertise on the subject , should write more about the complicated topic of indigenous Australian history ? That a post on Gerry Adams is somehow remiss for not mentioning European colonialism in Indonesia? How are either of you in anyway affected by, now more or less non existent , European colonialism , rather than the product of it ?…. A lot of irish were committed and willing participants in British colonialism. As were a lot of other people, from all races classes and nationalities ,whose descendants might not be willing to admit to it.”

I raised that in our region there have been recent independence and resistance movements such as the successful one in East Timor, or unsuccessful one in West Papua, so the stance on Gerry Adams that is based on a critique asserting all violent resistance is wrong is problematic here (although some people that have suggested this in this thread have not come across as pacifists in other threads).*

In terms of indigenous matters and colonialism — I think Australia has built quite strong public dialogues and discourses in these areas (still unfinished and complicated though — look at our present awful treatment of refugees for example). And these dialogues tend to not only be at the government level, but at the local community level too. I find it difficult to grasp what the equivalent of these are in the UK and USA?

You ask about whether Val or I would expect a CT poster without expertise should write about Australian indigenous issues — but in Australia I think it would generally be assumed that someone who wrote on politics and policy would take some interest in and have some knowledge about indigenous issues.

I suppose since England had ever so many colonies it is hard for the descendants of Empire to bear in mind all the different effects on different peoples the English Empire had. But I think even if it might be too difficult to be aware of all of these effects — there should be more acknowledgement and understanding.

Often it seems like a story of how England had an Empire then after the world wars it no longer had an Empire and English colonialism is over and England can go back to just being a small island again with a few possessions in other continents like the Falklands.

But this has three glaring faults:

1. The effects of Empire continue to have ramifications in the colonised countries even if England no longer has political dominion over those realms.

2. England/Britain herself was also affected internally by colonialism. You note this in a way by saying that some Irish were supporters or participants in colonialism. But also think of all the great buildings in London that were built with profits, priceless art and cultural collections, the profitable economy built on the extraction of resources and labour from foreign lands.

3. During and immediately after World War Two England had to rely more on its own resources — so people had to grow their fruit and vegetables in allotments etc. But then England when back to having an economy where they take much more resources from than they give to foreign lands — mostly from those lands who had been under European imperial yolks.

So I think people in the British Isles should have more dialogue on colonialism and their present unfair economic dealings with other parts of the world.

But I am not sure how you would make a palatable story for British people — maybe you could make it like Shakespeare plays and put most of all the blame on conniving powerful figures, and have most of the population be like gardeners and gravediggers that just remark quietly and ominously about the goings on in the Kingdom they but don’t know what to do about it and would rather steer clear of the trouble, except then lots of them get put into workhouses or sent to Australia as convicts drafted into world wars or die in aerial bombings at home so then they make a grand collective effort to reign in the despicable powerful people that somehow feature in too much of English history — but then in a terrible misfortune the unwise younger generation sadly get distracted by the fun of London in the swinging sixties like in a Julie Christie movie which allows for the return of the despicable figures in the forms of Thatcher and Blair.

*The other stance on the IRA seems to be based on territory boundaries and the demographics within — but there seems to be a case that at least a lot of the population in the Southern territory of Northern Ireland may have preferred independence from England.

159

Ronan(rf) 03.21.15 at 11:56 pm

I think this is built on a few false premises though (1) that objecting to the PIRA is objecting to all resistance (2) the idea that it is the English primarily, rather than Australians, who should do most to acknowledge the crimes commited against the indigenous people. You are a rich independent country. People in the isles aren’t just Australians who missed the boat (3) the idea that people in England, or the uk, are deeply ignorant of very basic parts of their history ( which isn’t to say people shouldnt approach their history clear eyed and apologise where relevant, And even perhaps offer some form of reparations. I agree they should. I just dont understand why the impression in Australia is that European colonialism is a big secret ?)

160

Ronan(rf) 03.22.15 at 12:19 am

I’m on a phone and won’t have access to a computer for a mumber of days so will have to leave it here ( just to let you know that a lack of replies isn’t me ignoring)

161

Val 03.22.15 at 12:53 am

Ronan @ 160

Well when you do come back (if this thread is still open), maybe you could engage with this:
“Val and zm. I’m genuinely lost as to what points youre making ? That crooked timber posters, with no interest or expertise on the subject , should write more about the complicated topic of indigenous Australian history ? … ” etc

Just looking at that starting point, ZM and I had both clearly stated that what we were surprised by was the apparent lack of acknowledgement by CT commenters of the impact of imperialism/colonialism on indigenous peoples (and I had specifically said in the North American context) compared to what we observed in Australia. It was obvious that we were both seeing that as part of an apparent broader failure to acknowledge the impact of imperialism, rather than expecting CT commenters to become experts on Australia’s first peoples.

That was the most obvious example, particularly because it was first, but in general there was an ‘I’ll suggest you’re saying simplistic or silly things, and say I’m puzzled by it’ tone to your whole comment. We weren’t saying silly or simplistic things, and I’m pretty sure you know that, so why do it?

Isn’t it better to have a conversation on the issues, which are actually interesting in themselves? I’m not looking for an apology, but I think we should all aim for a good standard of discussion. In particular I think male commenters (as I think you are) should be very reflective about whether you’re condescending to women.

162

djr 03.22.15 at 1:06 am

ZM: May I ask if you have ever spent much time in the UK? It’s just that your impression of left (or even mainstream) discourse in the UK about these topics seems is quite different to mine. The talk of things being in living memory in Australia but just in the history books over here is particularly jarring on a thread which is about significant violence which happened within the last 50 years. Possibly relevant to note that (IIRC) Henry is Irish, posting about events that happened on the island of Ireland within his lifetime.

163

Ronan(rf) 03.22.15 at 1:14 am

Val- that is genuinely the way I read your comment. I couldn’t understand the relevance and really didn’t get the point. I also found the conversation between you and zm condescending, as it seemed to ignore large parts of the thread and take your interlocutors as ignorant of basic aspects of “their history” . I would answer the reason indigenous people have been ignored is primarily because it’s irrelavsnt. anyway, as I said I won’t be going on with this much more. So I’ll leave it there

164

Ronan(rf) 03.22.15 at 1:18 am

I do agree with you it’s an interesting topic, but one I couldn’t add to

165

ZM 03.22.15 at 2:27 am

Ronan(rf),

“think this is built on a few false premises though

(1) that objecting to the PIRA is objecting to all resistance”

Well this is what people have been saying – violent resistance is wrong and violent resistors shouldn’t like teddy bears. But what about violent resistors that like pumpkin farming? How is it different?

” (2) the idea that it is the English primarily, rather than Australians, who should do most to acknowledge the crimes commited against the indigenous people. You are a rich independent country… ”

My point is not that Australians should not acknowledge colonialism here – my point is that English/British people should do more acknowledging of British colonialism than they seem to me to do.
Maybe just gardeners and gravediggers dimly mutter about it verbally and this broad common concern doesn’t get reflected in the UK media or CT comment threads though

” (3) the idea that people in England, or the uk, are deeply ignorant of very basic parts of their history …. I just dont understand why the impression in Australia is that European colonialism is a big secret ?”

I do not have the impression British colonialism is a well kept secret in the UK known only to a few – I am bewildered as to how I gave you that impression? As above, it seems to me from Australia that you in the UK do not have much of an ongoing public dialogue about colonialism and indigenous people affected by hundreds of years of Westminster’s policy making in comparison to us here.

166

ZM 03.22.15 at 2:34 am

djr,

“ZM: May I ask if you have ever spent much time in the UK?”

Nope, I’ve only been to Bath to visit a friend.

” It’s just that your impression of left (or even mainstream) discourse in the UK about these topics seems is quite different to mine. ”

Well above I said I found it difficult to grasp what the UK equivalents were of our public dialogues on colonialism and indigenous people. If you could sum them up then maybe I would have a better grasp of what contemporary UK discourse is on these matters.

“The talk of things being in living memory in Australia but just in the history books over here is particularly jarring on a thread which is about significant violence which happened within the last 50 years. ”

I meant living memory of England taking over Ireland and English actions hurting Irish people such as in the potato famine . In parts of Asia nation building is quite recent and ongoing including violence. And in Australia the indigenous stolen generation are still with us.

167

Val 03.22.15 at 3:47 am

Ronan @ 163
Ok i accept that it may be genuinely the way you read my comment, but can’t you see that could still be problematic? You could for example, have read the comment/s again and thought ‘oh I see what she’s getting at’. You didn’t have to assume I was saying something stupid. I’ll leave it at that.

I was trying not to be condescending, but it’s difficult when you are making criticisms like that. The thing is, it does seem to both ZM and myself that a lot of people on this thread (and I would say the OP) seem a lot less conscious than we are – and than we think educated left wing Australia s generally are – of what the impacts of imperialism were, and continue to be.

The Irish famine isn’t that long ago you know – maybe people should remind themselves about it http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

It would be interesting to hear Henry’s view of the relationship of the famine, the IRA, and Gerry Adams, for example. I reckon it could be a more nuanced discussion.

Just to make the point clear, so no one gets confused again – the points ZM and I are making are about imperialism and resistance, in a variety of contexts, because imperialism seems to have been left out of the earlier discussion.

(ZM please feel free to add if that’s too brief a summary).

168

Val 03.22.15 at 3:57 am

And – who are terrorists? If imperialists kill civilians (as they do), does that mean imperialists are terrorists? Or are only resistance fighters who target civilians classified as terrorists?

I think those are good questions, worth discussion.

169

Ronan(rf) 03.22.15 at 5:48 am

Ok val. And I apologise for getting a little unnecessarily snarky and condescending in response initially. I’ll try give you a decent reply over next few days (if I can get to a comp) with my personal opinion on that. Just to say initially I don’t think the famine or even British imperialism are the best ways to frame “the troubles ” (Henry also wrote about the famine once iirc, if u search the sidebar thing in the corner)

170

Stephen 03.22.15 at 10:32 am

ZM@166: you aren’t strengthening your case by writing of “living memory of England taking over Ireland and English actions hurting Irish people such as in the potato famine”. There is no such possible living memory. By writing as if there is, you are showing yourself to be either astonishingly ignorant, or prone to melodramatic exaggeration.

And the takeover of Ireland was a Norman/Welsh/English/Scottish business.

It would be interesting to know what you think were the causes of the potato famine, what the rest of the UK did to help Ireland in the famine, what more could have been done (given the limitations of contemporary medicine, knowledge about fungi, and transport; also the coincidence of the famine and the financial crash), and whether the undoubted errors of Russell’s government were due to blundering incompetence or deliberate malice.

171

Val 03.22.15 at 11:02 am

Stephen @ 170
I’m sure ZM can defend herself, but I’ll just mention that I think you are taking her to be saying the opposite of what she is actually saying.

Just to repeat what I said to Ronan, assuming that the person you’re talking to is saying something stupid isn’t a great way to have a conversation.

Also – whether or not you think the English were responsible for the appalling rate of death in the famine, surely it must have crossed your mind that the Irish – or at least some of them – might think so.

172

Ronan(rf) 03.22.15 at 11:25 am

Val – Stephen is a man who would go to any lengths to excuse any and all British misbehaviour in Ireland. Honestly, even on the famine you’re not gonna get him to admit anything worse than good faith incompetence !

173

ZM 03.22.15 at 11:38 am

Stephen,

“ZM@166: you aren’t strengthening your case by writing of “living memory of England taking over Ireland and English actions hurting Irish people such as in the potato famine”. There is no such possible living memory. By writing as if there is, you are showing yourself to be either astonishingly ignorant, or prone to melodramatic exaggeration.”

You have misunderstood because you are not relating that quote to my earlier comment which it referred to :/

In my comment you quote from I was writing in response to djr who had responded to an earlier comment I made at #121 where I said:

“While you in Ireland and the United States became the possessions of England in the 15th-16thC so I guess you’re all quite used to it – here in the Southern Hemisphere colonial possession by England and the other European Empires is more recent, and then there has been the strife of post-colonial nation building.

The terrible effects of some of this is still in living memory in our region, where maybe all the people in Ireland with memories have died.”

djr responded that the IRA’s killing was in living memory — so in what you quote I was clarifying to djr that when I spoke of people in Ireland with living memories all having died by now I was talking about people with living memories of England taking over Ireland and effects of English actions like the potato famine.

As I remarked in #121 I expect all such people have died so there are no living memories of these matters — unlike in our region in the South.

So if you had read my comments properly you would have realised you did not need to remark on the interesting fact that “There is no such possible living memory” :/

174

Ronan(rf) 03.22.15 at 11:50 am

Val – if you’ve never read it you might like to check out “the outer edge of ulster” by Hugh Dorian. It’s a history of what it was like to live through the famine by someone who did (although decades later) Gives a lot of insight into what it was like to live through as the country fell apart.

175

Val 03.22.15 at 11:59 am

Thanks Ronan. I visited Ireland with my mother some years ago, it was the first time Mum had been back since she was a child. She’d never lived in Ireland but she used to spend a lot of her school holidays there, with her grandmother on the farm.
During the visit I bought a book on the famine, I can’t remember what it was called (and don’t have it with me now) but it was heartbreaking.

I read the earlier post by Henry you mentioned, I find it hard to work out where Henry stands on these issues.

176

Abbe Faria 03.22.15 at 1:14 pm

“I got the definite impression that some people here were claiming that Gerry Adams was not just a terrorist, but a particularly creepy one, while refusing to acknowledge that the imperial project, which Adams was fighting against, had murdered a lot more civilians than the IRA.”

What makes you think the IRA was fighting an imperialist project? It was literally seeking to use force of arms and colonisation to extend the influence of the Irish Republic in Northern Ireland, with backing from the United States and before that the Nazis. They were imperalists.

177

Ronan(rf) 03.22.15 at 1:17 pm

Val, to answer your 167. My problem with explanations to ‘western imperialism’ is that I think they tend to obscure more than they clarify. Nobody, certainly I wouldnt assume Henry, would deny that Western imperialism has been a major driving force in modern world history, but the extent to which contemporary problems are primarily the result of western imperialism or domestic conditions in the country under discussion is going to be (IMO) dependant on what specifically we’re talking about.
In the case of Northern Ireland, the main problem was a sectarian northern state that found it difficult to accomodate Catholic political and economic demands. The main fault lines were domestic. London might be blamed for not paying enough attention to the way that state had developed, and should (IMO) bear some culpability for the way they responded to the crisis in the late 60s/early 70s, but the main drivers of both the domestic crisis and then the conflict were domestic actors.
You could, I guess, make a ‘British Imperialism’ argument about the roots of the conflict. Most plausibly about the partition of Ireland in the 20s. But as Puss Walgreen notes above there were very few good options about what to do with northern Unionists, and any policy that forced them into a southern state could very plausibly have led to ethnic civil war and would have degraded Irish democracy. You could trace that blame to back to the plantations of Ireland but then we’re entering into an extrememly deterministic view of history that works as little more than a morality play. Ireland had real problems of economic underdevelopment and political factionalisation independent of England.
I would say the same problem exists with using the famine as some sort of explanation for the PIRA, it obscures more than it clarifies. Whatever problems existed with the northern state were resolvable politically. It was not apartheid South Africa or even the Jim Crow South, the context didnt justify the amount of violence that ensued. Gerry Adams and the PIRA leadership used this context to push their own agenda, which did not have popular support either in the north or south, to use violence to unite Ireland, even though it is arguable the same condition could have been met through political action.
This wasnt an anti colonial struggle equivalent to what had/was happening in the global south, it was a campaign of violence with little legitimacy and little chance of ataining the expected goal. I dont think the famine really explains any of this, except perhaps as background to explain the relationship between Ireland and the UK, narratives among Irish nationalists and aspects of the armed tradition in Irish history. But the explanation doesnt go far.

178

Ronan(rf) 03.22.15 at 1:20 pm

typo – “even though it is arguable the same OUTCOME WE GOT could have been met through LEGITIMATE political action.”

179

Ronan(rf) 03.22.15 at 1:23 pm

“to extend the influence of the Irish Republic in Northern Ireland, ”

What are you talking about ?

180

Ronan(rf) 03.22.15 at 1:29 pm

I’m sorry Abbe that was a little short, but they weren’t trying to extend the influence of the Irish Republic into the North. They were trying to extend their influence into the South.

181

Abbe Faria 03.22.15 at 2:03 pm

The IRAs goal was Irish unification (or later a compromise of cross-border institutions). Expanding the territory and influence of the Republic of Ireland and its own power, by military force and by driving out protestants. This is literally imperialism. And they literally had the support of the Nazis and United States, two massive imperialists, who saw this as in their strategic interests. Also, the history of England and Ireland are long and complicated but do include a time when both were invaded by Norman imperialists.

I’m trying to suggest that Vals approach of pointing at the UK and shouting ‘Imperialist’ is naive.

182

Ronan(rf) 03.22.15 at 2:08 pm

I was going to say I was being overly pedantic and wrong to call you up on the phrasing. I do think ‘they had the support of the Nazis and United States’ is over the top though. The Provos, as opposed to the wartime IRA, (obviously) didnt have support from the Nazis,and they had support from elements of the Irish diapora in the US primarily rather than the US state (afaik) But I guess it’s splitting hairs.

183

ZM 03.22.15 at 2:20 pm

“I’m trying to suggest that Vals approach of pointing at the UK and shouting ‘Imperialist’ is naive”

You could blame the Normans if you like I suppose. I would blame the Vikings for inspiring Alfred the Great to unify the five kingdoms – five distinct kingdoms couldn’t have been such a bother to the globe as a unified England would become.

I read part of a chapter once where the author said the hospitable and until then happy to stay in their own country Anglo Saxons were infected by greediness by the Normans – except he said that the naive old chronicle used the word greed but to be more sophisticated he would call it acquisitive.

I don’t know how you can quarrel though that after the English were infected by acquisitiveness by their Norman conquerors they took to imperialism with abandon?

184

Igor Belanov 03.22.15 at 2:46 pm

Seems the USA started off as an imperialist country then, stealing those 13 colonies from the poor UK.

185

Ronan(rf) 03.22.15 at 3:37 pm

Val – from Tom Garvin’s ‘Nationalist revolutionaries in Ireland’ , which might get to your question more specifically:

“In an unpublished paper, J.G.A. Pocock has characterised Ireland’s political experience since the Great Famine of the 1840s as one of revolutionary politics in the paradoxical context of a society which was becoming steadily more stable. The Irish revolutionary movement derived its energies from a series of grievances that were slowly being rectified. 2 The real enemy of the Irish rebel was not the British soldier or police but the reformer and the continuing steady adjustment of Irish society to commercialised, capitalist, modern civilisation. Emigration also acted as a safety valve to drain off the discontented and unemployed young. A further twist that can be added to this argument is that the rebels themselves sensed its validity and were tempted to preserve those evils in the society that generated discontent and helped their political project to survive.
Ireland has indeed been a modernising society since the Famine of 1845– 7, although that modernisation has been slow and has been resisted by many elements. The tragedy of the Famine was itself the occasion of a great, even convulsive, modernising change. 3 In some ways, few European societies have travelled as far as Ireland has in the ‘long century’ since 1847. This is so despite a persistent popular and even academic stereotype of the country as unchanging. The highly disciplined and austere Tridentine Catholicism of modern Ireland dates from the mid-nineteenth century. Linguistically, the country was also transformed; the language of the masses changed from Irish to English, and literacy in English replaced the non-literate use of Irish.
To change language entailed changing cultural worlds, and millions migrated mentally from the medieval Gaelic world to the modern world of the English language. Few countries have undergone so sudden and complete a linguistic shift; in parts of the island, the exchange of languages appears to have occurred in one generation. Again, the agrarian property system was revolutionised as a consequence of the Land War of the 1880s, as the land was transferred from a mainly Anglo-Irish and Protestant landlord class and became vested in the mainly Catholic and post-Gaelic tenantry. This tenantry in turn evolved into a newly dominant stratum of small-and medium-sized owner-occupier farmers. 4
The economy was revolutionised. Whereas in 1830 agriculture was mainly subsistence and the island was encumbered with a huge landless rural proletariat, by 1890 commercial agriculture, based mainly on cattle exports to England, had become important. The rural proletariat had largely melted away and the owner-occupier farmer dominated the scene. An important turning point in the life of any underdeveloped country had been reached and passed; Ireland since the 1880s has had many serious problems , but they have been insignificant when compared with the appalling situation of much of the population prior to the Famine. By the end of the century the main outlines of the process were obvious; 5 one Anglo-Irish observer of that time saw it clearly as a huge social and cultural revolution, one which could not fail to be followed by a political revolution.”

186

Igor Belanov 03.22.15 at 5:10 pm

@185

That is one of the peculiarities of nationalism as a political project. It rarely achieves prominence when grievances are objectively greatest and differences most wide, but when development is gathering pace and adopting a similar trajectory to that of the core state.

187

Stephen 03.22.15 at 6:08 pm

ZM

I apologise. I should have realised that when you wrote “I meant living memory of England taking over Ireland and English actions hurting Irish people such as in the potato famine” you did not mean, as I honestly thought you did, there was a living memory of England taking over Ireland and English actions hurting Irish people such as in the potato famine. Which is, of course, nonsense; but I do not see what else your words could be taken to mean.

Having now been referred to your earlier posts, I now understand that what you intended to write, but rather seriously garbled, was that there is a living memory in Australia of mistreatment of indigenous peoples, while there is no such living memory of the Irish conquest, famine, etc. On that, we can happily agree.

Incidentally, have I got that nomenclature right? When I was young they were called aborigines, and “indigenous peoples” is now a no-no phrase in some parts of the British media since it is thought to refer to pre-recent-immigration populations, and as such to give aid and comfort to the EDL and UKIP. Since we have recently discovered that “people of colour” is OK but “coloured people” is double plus ungood, I realise one has to choose one’s words most carefully.

On your belief that the English, uniquely, are responsible for Ireland’s problems, and that imperialism is relevant to the recent problems in NI, I do not agree at all.

I would, by the way, be very grateful for a reply from you or Val re your beliefs about the famine. I am always ready to learn from the deep insights that so many Australians have into the history of the other side of the world.

188

Stephen 03.22.15 at 6:25 pm

Ronan: actually, on this thread we agree about very many things. Where we differ is that after I wrote asking “whether the undoubted errors of Russell’s government were due to blundering incompetence or deliberate malice” you think you can conclude that “even on the famine you’re not gonna get him to admit anything worse than good faith incompetence”.

As for blundering incompetence in UK government policy in Ireland in the 1840s, I have no problem in identifying a great deal of it.

Come to think of it, you can delete “in the 1840s”.

And “in Ireland”.

And “UK”. That’s what governments often, but by no means always, do.

But for deliberate Government malice in the 1840s, I’m prepared to be persuaded. So, persuade me. Antipodean argument on the lines of “it was an English government” won’t do.

189

Ronan(rf) 03.22.15 at 6:35 pm

The idea that there is no recent memory of Irish opposition to membership in the Union (or England ‘hurting’ the Irish, whatever that might mean) is bizzare beyond belief. Whatever one might think about the Irish Revolution, it did actually happen, and framed a lot of that relationship (particularly among the elite) up until quite recently. There was, of course, quite recent living memory of war and rebellion.
Yes, I agree there is no recent living memory of the ‘original conquest’, or whatever. As for the famine, that’s more debatable and depends on what we define as a living memory. Is there really living memory of ‘English colonialism’ in Australia ? Rather than a living memory of Australian racism ? Orally, I could imagine, there is. But that would also be true of the famine, somewhat, up until relatively recently. But as a living memory ? (I’m not sure what that means)?
I guess I dont know much about Australian history so can’t answer these questions.

190

Ronan(rf) 03.22.15 at 6:42 pm

You’re right that I misread you slightly Stephen, although in fairness you could forgive me for assuming your priors. ; )
I can’t argue that specifics of the Famine as I dont know it well enough, although my impression of the debate is it has come to a soft cnsensus on blundering incompetence + malice.

191

Stephen 03.22.15 at 7:18 pm

Ronan: I suppose, but am open to correction, that by “living memory” is meant “within the memory of people who are still alive”. In that sense, the events of 1916-22 and subsequent misfortunes are still, more or less, within living memory, the famine is not. If it means “people now living remember having been told about it by their grandparents” of course it goes back much further, but how far is admissible?

Possibly relevant anecdote: in the diocese of Gloucester, it was quite recently proposed to amalgamate two rural parishes, each occupying a deep and isolated valley in the Cotswolds. The Bishop went to one parish, the parishioners debated the proposal, and agreed it was necessary. He went to the other; they heard him out in silence, and then without discussion all said No.

The Bishop, when leaving, said to the churchwarden that obviously he’d said something wrong, but what could it have been?

`The churchwarden replied “No, Bishop, it weren’t nothing you said, and nothing you said couldn’t have made no difference. No way are we going to go in with that lot.They wouldn’t help us when the Danes did come.”

Danish invasions of south-west England, late 9th century AD. Living memory?

As for assuming my priors: they are my own and I will defend them to the death.

I should have pointed out that the antipodean argument seems more fully to be “it was an English government and the English are uniquely evil”.

192

stevenjohnson 03.22.15 at 7:51 pm

^^^”it was an English government and the English are uniquely evil…”

If “uniquely evil”=biggest empire, you may have a point.

193

Stephen 03.22.15 at 8:41 pm

If size of empire = evilness of empire, yes, if British empire = English empire.

If you consider possibility that some empires are better than others, and that British =/= English, then no.

If you consider possibility that in some ways, empire may be improvement on pre-imperial situation …

194

djr 03.22.15 at 11:27 pm

ZM @ 183:

the hospitable and until then happy to stay in their own country Anglo Saxons were infected by greediness by the Normans

Happy to stay in the country that they themselves had taken over a few centuries earlier, perhaps, given that the Angles and Saxons started out in Germany. I think that demonstrates why it’s pointless to try to label some groups as goodies and some as baddies and work on that basis – within Europe, history is one group after another dominating their neighbours, and quite frankly none of them behaving acceptably by 21st century standards. Often events were triggered by one group gaining a slight technological advantage, though certainly nothing as one sided as when the British (or, in this context, maybe I should say “proto-Australians”) arrived in Australia.

I will try to respond to your point @ 166 later in the week.

195

Peter T 03.23.15 at 12:00 am

“The real enemy of the Irish rebel was not the British soldier or police but the reformer and the continuing steady adjustment of Irish society to commercialised, capitalist, modern civilisation. Emigration also acted as a safety valve to drain off the discontented and unemployed young.”
and
“millions migrated mentally from the medieval Gaelic world to the modern world of the English language.”

This is reminiscent of Samuel Huntington’s “forced draught urbanisation”. It has a certain plausibility analytically, while entirely failing to capture the human experience. And, in particular, the human experience of those it was done to. As in “well, sorry about the dead kids, the emigration, the loss of language, but let’s move on, shall we.” You will not get at the roots of politics until you understand the rage this kind of approach inspires.

196

Ronan(rf) 03.23.15 at 12:13 am

Well it continues:

“Pre-Famine culture was ruthlessly dismantled by the people themselves in the decades after the Famine, almost as if there was a hatred for the heritage that had led them to such disaster. Diet, superstitious beliefs, sexual life, ideology, political life, dress and kinship systems were radically remodelled. The cultural revolution of Victorian Ireland prefigured much of what is happening in the underdeveloped world of the later twentieth century, where the efforts of peoples to cope with the invading culture and international economy of the West often bear an uncanny resemblance to the almost desperate attempts of the Victorian Catholic Irish to come to terms with the overwhelming culture and power of imperial England . “

197

Val 03.23.15 at 3:03 am

Stephen @ 187
“I would, by the way, be very grateful for a reply from you or Val re your beliefs about the famine. I am always ready to learn from the deep insights that so many Australians have into the history of the other side of the world.”

And I, similarly, am always grateful for living examples of patronising Englishmen talking down to the colonials. On imperialism, I rest my case, your honour.

198

TM 03.23.15 at 3:50 am

Bloix 56: the RAF (aka Baader-Meinhof) never committed indiscriminate acts of terrorism. The number of victims (on both sides) was also relatively small, in marked contrast to the extreme hysteria and paranoia exhibited in the state’s reaction.
Another attempt at keeping the record straight…

199

ZM 03.23.15 at 3:52 am

I must say I think these late exchanges bear out what Val and I were remarking on about the differences between the Australian and UK (or USA) discourse on Imperialism/Colonialism/Indigenous peoples.

I think that the UK attitude to invasions and empires is the key difference , and from where the other differences spring. The UK attitude seems to be that invading other countries is perfectly understandable :/

200

ZM 03.23.15 at 3:55 am

Stephen

The fault my good fellow was in your memory and comprehension, not my sentences :/

I was just replying to another commenter who was quite evidently aware of the content of my previous comment so I didn’t need to write a lengthy paragraph repeating the content of my previous comment. If you wished to join our exchange the least you could do was try to follow the exchange before rushing to insult me by quoting me out of context.

It is usual to use the word Indigenous now — I think probably because Aboriginal has overtones of less enlightened times. But it is also used, just not as much. When I was a teenager the word Koorie was used sometimes, but it was found inappropriate as it referred to peoples of a specific geography within Australia. At the local level in Australia it is appropriate to refer to the local group, so where I live is in the country of the Dja Dja Wurrung people.

I did not say the English were uniquely responsible for each and every problem ever encountered in Ireland :/ They are just responsible for those problems relating to the English taking over and being horrible and making everyone speak English instead of their own tongue etc. If only Downlandish English people could have contented themselves with cruelly tormenting the long suffering Uplandish folks who unfortunately got tethered to the uppity Downlandish ones in their effort to thwart the Danish invasions.

201

ZM 03.23.15 at 3:59 am

Ronan(rf),

“The idea that there is no recent memory of … England ‘hurting’ the Irish, whatever that might mean… is bizzare beyond belief”

Well I guess you might be right since you live in Ireland so you are more likely to know about what’s current in living memory in Ireland than myself — but what do living people remember about the cruelties of England over the last century?

” Is there really living memory of ‘English colonialism’ in Australia ? Rather than a living memory of Australian racism ?”

In the case of Australia (rather than our region which I also referred to) I was thinking particularly of the living memory of the stolen generations — which is the name for indigenous people taken from their families as children in the mid 20thC.

The period of colonisation itself would be remembered not so much in memory but in oral histories as well as in history books and archives — if I have time later I want to make a comment about memory, oral culture, and history in D-squared’s New Zealand post — so I won’t go into a discussion on those matters here just now.

I would also point out that your comment seems to me to evince one of the distinctions I would identify between UK and Australian understandings of colonialism — from what I (rightly or wrongly) have come to gather is the standard UK perspective it is like you see the UK once started a colony in Australia then Australia got independence and English colonialism ended then and there — but from here the UK started a colony and we are still living in it , we have got parliamentary independence since the Australia Act in the 1980s but we share a Royal family and a Westminster system of government, common law, a language etc etc. Australia didn’t revert to what it was before English colonialism so in that sense the presence of colonialism is an ongoing living legacy.

202

ZM 03.23.15 at 4:03 am

djr

“Happy to stay in the country that they themselves had taken over a few centuries earlier, perhaps, given that the Angles and Saxons started out in Germany. I think that demonstrates why it’s pointless to try to label some groups as goodies and some as baddies and work on that basis – within Europe, history is one group after another dominating their neighbours, and quite frankly none of them behaving acceptably by 21st century standards“

Well as Stephen mentions in Gloucester the villagers still are bear scars from the attempted Danish invasions in the 9th century. Just think how bad the scars from colonialism are here without more than a thousand years having passed by.

Anyway I was just trying to help you out with putting the blame on the Norman invaders — if you think the Anglo Saxons were already acquisitive since they invaded the land themselves anyhow — why did you try to blame the Normans?

Also I don’t think your argument about invasions and empires is sound. Imagine if court judges took that attitude :

“Well I had a plaintiff who committed murder last week, and three last month, and I have lost count of all the numbers of murderers I have judged before then. Murder has happened so often historically why moralise about it at all. It is so simplistic and naive to say some people who murder are baddies, and those who don’t murder are goodies. We ought to take a more sophisticated and nuanced view.”

We would never get any murderers put in gaol with this sort of an approach and we couldn’t even try to make them feel ashamed about murdering people.

203

Val 03.23.15 at 6:20 am

Ronan @ 189
“Is there really living memory of ‘English colonialism’ in Australia ? Rather than a living memory of Australian racism ? Orally, I could imagine, there is. … I guess I dont know much about Australian history so can’t answer these questions.”

There are debates about this kind of thing here all the time – but they are not phrased as you phrase them. ZM referred to the stolen generations, which is definitely within living memory. There was attempted genocide in Australia, not just in terms of the number of people killed, but because the policy was to “breed out” Indigeneity (or “Aboriginal blood” as authorities conceptualised it then), and then a policy of removing children (stolen generations) in the twentieth century, particularly those who looked white … I can’t do it justice in a short post, but it was the legacy of imperialism.

(It’s a bit complicated, but one related thing is that you can’t tell by looking who has Indigenous heritage in Australia. I know personally about five women who are fair-skinned blonde- or light brown-haired, and have Indigenous heritage. Whether they claim Indigenous identity is a different issue and depends on their circumstances.)

My vague and perhaps unfair impression is that English people often think we’re a bit silly about all this stuff, we make so much fuss about it. I think a lot of English people (and I still have English relatives) just don’t get it, yet it’s constantly in the news here, and some of our (white) politicians have been known to weep in Parliament over this history. I know this is a digression from the OP, but maybe it can help you understand why we might see these issues differently, and cast a critical eye on British imperialism, even though in another sense, we’re the products of it.

204

ragweed 03.23.15 at 7:04 am

Val – I just lost the start of a long post about the state of the conversation on indigenous people in the US, due to the vagaries of this new tablet I have been using. Rather than try to re-write it, let me just say that the conversation in the US as a whole happened a couple of decades ago, but its current state varies regionally. My home in Seattle just declared Indigenous People’s day as an official holiday to replace Columbus day, and is debating making a tribal sovereignty program a required part of the public education system for all schools. In contrast Arizona has banned any mention of ethnic studies, oppression, or colonialism in the school system.

I will be glad to share more about indigenous politics in the US, but in trying to stay on topic with the thread, I thought I would share an interesting story on the connections between the two. In the late 60’s, a group of activists with the American Indian Movement in the Minneapolis-St Paul area started two “Cultural survival” schools which attempted to create urban schools centered on the experience of Native people in those cities, mostly Ojibwa, Ho-Chunk, and Menominee. The schools focused on teaching Native language, culture, history and experience, as well as teaching traditional western subjects from a cultural perspective. In I believe 1973, three AIM members that were founders of the school were invited to Northern Ireland by SF/IRA members who were trying to set up Gaelic-centered schools as part of the political program, and wanted to consult with the Native American experience with establishing these schools. Whether this was opportunistic or sincere I could not say, but at least some people felt there was a connection. In fact, Indian Country Today Media Network recently ran an article about the historical similarities between Irish and Native American experiences of colonization, though this story was not part of it.

205

Val 03.23.15 at 8:32 am

Ragweed @204
Thanks so much, that’s really great, and it really does bring the thread back together again. What an interesting story and how it points up the cultural aspects of imperialism/colonialism and the difficulty in maintaining cultural heritage. There is work going on here on preserving Indigenous languages, but some have already been lost, sadly.

I would love to hear more about the conversation on indigenous people in the US, if it’s too off- topic here please feel free to leave more info on my blog (linked through my name) or contact me through there (my Monash university email is available there).

Something I have been learning, particularly through my involvement in CT, is how variable the U.S. is, how some parts are so progressive and some so regressive, as your example shows.

206

Ronan(rf) 03.23.15 at 10:46 am

“My vague and perhaps unfair impression is that English people often think we’re a bit silly about all this stuff, we make so much fuss about it.”

Well (although I’m not English) that wouldn’t be my take on it. I think it seems a good idea and positive way to deal with the past. But, not being smart so genuine question, is there anything beyond talking and memorialisation, like reparations or affirmative action for aborigine people ?

“I would also point out that your comment seems to me to evince one of the distinctions I would identify between UK and Australian understandings of colonialism — from what I (rightly or wrongly) have come to gather is the standard UK perspective it is like you see the UK once started a colony in Australia then Australia got independence and English colonialism ended then and there”

Well, that would be my opinion as a first take. (I don’t know what you can say about the standard UK perspective) I can understand the way colonialism as a historical reality and political narrative works among the Australian left, but I dont see how the English (or British, or whatever) can have any present day culpability for(or even expectations to have deep knowledge of )what is, at the end of the day, Australian history.
Perhaps unfarily Ive read some of your posts on this as a way of avoiding taking responsibility for the problems faced by indigenous people in the here and now, which are the results (in large part, I would guess) from the way people who are now Australians have dealt with the indigenous population, and policies that have excluded indigenous people from economic and political life. Of course British colonialism should be acknowledged, but you seem to be building a story where all evil manifests itself in England, and everyone else have been passive victims of English malfeasance.

But it is an interesting subject, so thanks to you and Val for the explanations so far and any more that might be coming. I do think that you (ZM) are generalising a little about how much relevance *this aspect* of British colonialism has outside of Australia (or similar white settle colonies) though.

“Well as Stephen mentions in Gloucester the villagers still are bear scars from the attempted Danish invasions in the 9th century. Just think how bad the scars from colonialism are here without more than a thousand years having passed by.”

Speaking generally and not to the specific case of the indigenous people of Australia, I think (personally) what matters more and what causes more pain, are present day circumstances rather than the ‘scars left by history.’ Which is not to say that the second bit isnt important, or indeed that the history helps create the present day circumstances, but rhetorically (to me) it does seem that sometimes the story surrounding indigenous communities falls a little bit into romaticisation,or imagines deep suffering that will take generations to resolve itself. (Whereas my personal opinion would be that resolving the conditions in the present will deal with the historical scars, as far as they could be said to carry down through generations.) I think it sometimes seems to drift into a support for some type of ‘blood and soil’ nationalism as well. Though that might be a different kettle of fish.

207

Ronan(rf) 03.23.15 at 11:07 am

“Well I guess you might be right since you live in Ireland so you are more likely to know about what’s current in living memory in Ireland than myself — but what do living people remember about the cruelties of England over the last century?”

I think this might get to the heart of why I’m disagreeing with you so much, which is that I think you’re running with too general a model of what ‘British colonialism’ was, or what it can be remembered as. As I think I said above, Irish people have been both deeply involved wiling participants in British colonialism, and have also been (or imagined themselves to be, depending on your perspective) victims of British colonialism. (and a whole lot in between, a lot of which has nothing to do with British colonialism) They have been victims as a people on the periphery of the Union, and perpetrators as people in the heart of the Empire.
Any lived memory was from the revolutionary period (around 1912 – 1922/3) where an Irish struggle for independence developed. A lot of the living memory as it applies to the British (rather than internal Irish divisions) was how the British responded in that period militarily. A lot of that resentment lived up until quite recently and was exacerbated by the Northen Irish Troubles. (Im rushing now so wont say any more at the minute. There was also an oral history collection that took place vis a vis the Famine in Ireland in the – i think -1920s – 50. Im not sure when, but Ill try to link to it later)

208

bianca steele 03.23.15 at 12:17 pm

Ronan,

This isn’t my debate, but who are these people who are now Australians? Captain Cook? The Queen?

What do you think should be the attitude of former British colonies, particularly the ones whose are members of the Commonwealth, to the home country?

What should be the former imperial center’s attitude to those who, though not precisely regicides, did refuse proper obedience to ancestral Crown and Church?

Just something to think about.

209

Ronan(rf) 03.23.15 at 2:19 pm

Bianca – for the purposes of this conversation all I mean by Australian is ‘person with Australian citizenship.’ I don’t object to the British state (or monarch?) being seen as having culpability for crimes committed against indigenous people in the process of colonisation, but I havent thought anything beyond that to know what that culpability would mean in practice. (or indeed if such responsbility has been accepted) I genuinely dont have any answers to the rest of your questions.
My main objection is more to ZM’s use of ‘English’ as shorthand for ‘the source of all evil in the world’. I can certainly understand why an Australian leftist perspective might highlight things like ‘colonialism’ and ‘the dispossession of indigenous people’, which I’d assume is mostly because that’s what it means in their country/region. But theyre the most obvious heirs and beneficiaries of said dispossession, not random people in present day England.
Which isnt to say (1) I’m a fan of the British Empire, at this level of generality and distance or (2) that we shouldn’t ‘talk about it’, acknowledge it, apologise for it (or whatever – I’m not even British so dont even know who the ‘we’ is here) I just think the story of western imperialism comes to have less and less explanatory relevance as the decades roll on.

210

Phil 03.23.15 at 2:31 pm

If I’m not entirely mistaken Ronan is actually from a “former British colony”, albeit not one that’s a member of the Commonwealth. Although I suspect Commonwealth membership means very little in this discussion – you may be thinking of the Commonwealth realms, the subset of the Commonwealth which shares the monarchy with the UK (viz. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea and another ten nations with a combined population of two million, mostly islands).

Who are “now Australians”? Anyone with Australian citizenship, I’d imagine. Anyone born in Australia, maybe. Anyone born in Australia since 1931, definitely – but I’d imagine that even in 1930 there were people with ancestors on the First Fleet who’d have been a bit peeved to be told they were secretly British.

211

ZM 03.23.15 at 2:47 pm

Ronan(rf),

“but I dont see how the English (or British, or whatever) can have any present day culpability for(or even expectations to have deep knowledge of )what is, at the end of the day, Australian history.”

Australia is like it is now because England colonised the country. While the parliaments of the two countries formally severed all ties in the 1980s — except for the Queen — this did not erase colonial history, nor did it change that we speak English, have a Westminster parliament, have common and conscience law from England etc . It seems it is easier for England to forget us in Australia than for us to forget her.

If you like you can think of it as like at the end of the Tempest where Prospero says of Caliban — who he taught to speak English (even though Prospero is Italian) and other things, and from whom he learnt where the berries and things were on the island — : “this thing of darkness I acknowledge mine” . Although I would be hesitant to compare Indigenous people to the character of Caliban without substantial qualifiers, it seems to me that the English conversely to Prospero remain very reluctant to acknowledge the wrongness and negative effects of their colonialism.

But even if the English were greatly repentant unfortunately history is not like a play, so they can’t just take all the effects of their actions back to England with them in a boat like Prospero does at the end — except sailing for Milan rather than England.

“Perhaps unfarily Ive read some of your posts on this as a way of avoiding taking responsibility for the problems faced by indigenous people in the here and now…”

This would be an inaccurate representation of my views , but it might be how they could come across to you since generally I get cross at the glossing over of the effects of Anglo colonialism here and also there are never any threads on CT about Australian indigenous issues as far as I remember.

“[problems] which are the results (in large part, I would guess) from the way people who are now Australians have dealt with the indigenous population, and policies that have excluded indigenous people from economic and political life.”

There are a range of problems and they are not simply about recent exclusions of Indigenous people from economic and political life.

There are the scars of having their world invaded (a lot of Indigenous and other sympathetic Australians campaign for our Australia Day public holiday in January to be called Invasion Day instead), and as Val mentioned there was the stolen generations and assimilationist policy in the past.

What you might not realise is that many Indigenous people did not and do not necessarily want to have to assimilate all together or much at all into Anglo culture. Since the 1970s we have a policy of multiculturalism rather than assimilation — but it so happens that this is easier to achieve in painting and cookery, say, than in law and economics. As an illustration of how a simple economics approach would not be appropriate we have recently had a backlash against our foot-in-mouth Prime Minister who rudely said Indigenous people living in remote communities chose to do so as a “lifestyle choice” implying they should move to cities for employment etc.

Also another difference I think is that, at least from here, Ireland and Wales and Scotland — or, rather, their peoples — seem to have largely had their pre-Anglo cultures domesticated/erased and are more assimilated into English culture — which as England became a coloniser at the start of the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution tends to be hostile to other non-materialist conceptions of the world.

For instance, I think it would be likely considered quite offensive here in Australia if someone wrote the equivalent of what Henry wrote in the OP “hasn’t a hint of stories about fairy rings and the Little People, and (b) actually gets things right” e.g.. “hasn’t a hint of stories about Bunjil the Eagle and Lalalganook, and actually gets things right”.

” I think (personally) what matters more and what causes more pain, are present day circumstances rather than the ‘scars left by history.’ … my personal opinion would be that resolving the conditions in the present will deal with the historical scars…”

Even if you were set on only focusing on the problems of the present I think you would be pulled into the past anyhow.

As the past assimilationist policies are fairly widely considered morally wrong and misguided as well as ineffective there is not much agreement about what resolving present conditions would involve, and there has to be an acknowledgement that any government policies aiming to address unsatisfactory conditions would need to recognise the wishes of Indigenous people — who are not all of one mind either.

212

bianca steele 03.23.15 at 2:54 pm

Phil,

Thanks, I didn’t know there was a different between the two.

Ronan, I meant this: problems faced by indigenous people in the here and now, which are the results (in large part, I would guess) from the way people who are now Australians have dealt with the indigenous population, and policies that have excluded indigenous people from economic and political life

Which suggests–implausibly–that any problems were caused by those people after they’d separated themselves from England, and not by any regime imposed from London, and not because of any ideology disseminated from England or from Europe more generally. Or, at a minimum, that having created Australia by force, it’s now been granted to the white English-speaking residents, and with the benefits of being a nation just like England they now get to deal with all the problems themselves (but in the process are somehow required not to identify the source of the problems, in any way, with “Englishness”).

213

bianca steele 03.23.15 at 3:00 pm

For instance, I think it would be likely considered quite offensive here in Australia if someone wrote the equivalent of what Henry wrote in the OP “hasn’t a hint of stories about fairy rings and the Little People, and (b) actually gets things right” e.g.. “hasn’t a hint of stories about Bunjil the Eagle and Lalalganook, and actually gets things right”.

This. This is probably the most peculiar thing about English[*] people that I’ve ever encountered, their way of finding certain things, like folklore, utterly ridiculous (and assuming they wouldn’t ever happen to meet someone who’s not embarrassed by it). OTOH a genteel American way of handling it is to scoff at Stonehenge and Avebury and reserve one’s admiration for Taos.

* – and apparently Irish people, as this thread really is demonstrating that what I’d thought was an English sense of humor was instead, or also, Irish.

214

Niall McAuley 03.23.15 at 3:06 pm

ZM, you are reading Henry’s tone completely backwards in his Little People remark.

An Australian version might be to say that an article a) hasn’t a hint of hats with dangly corks, XXXX beer or convicts and b) actually gets things right.

Irish people used to hate the American Leprechauns & Paddywhackery image of Ireland. In recent years, we have been reclaiming it in ironic fashion: you will now see Irish people dressed as the American stereotype Leprechaun supporting our rugby team at matches.

(Who won the Six Nations at the weekend – thread crossover!!)

215

Ronan(rf) 03.23.15 at 3:24 pm

“Which suggests–implausibly–that any problems were caused by those people after they’d separated themselves from England, and not by any regime imposed from London, and not because of any ideology disseminated from England or from Europe more generally”

No it doesn’t suggest that. (and in fact in that same comment I accepted that, of course, the history matters. How could it not?) It suggests that the relationship between the indigenous people of Australia and present day Australians is so specific to Australia and independent of the day to day problems faced by most English people that expecting English people to know or care about it is unrealistic. I’ve accepted, and I dont think anyone hasnt, the culpability of the ‘British empire’ in this entire affair, which covers ideology, colonialism etc. (and have said that that culpability could be recognised by the British state) But again, Australians (as much as they apparently imagine themselves now as great enemies of THE EMPIRE – much like Americans, astonishingly) are those who have benefited most, and those who at the end of the day have to resolve this problem.
A genuine question, to get to something more specific than these sweeping generalisations, what exactly would it mean on a practical level for ‘English people’ to accept collective responsibility for the indigenous dispossession in Australia ?

“What you might not realise is that many Indigenous people did not and do not necessarily want to have to assimilate all together or much at all into Anglo culture”

Sure, but I dont know what “assimilate all together or much at all into Anglo culture” means? There is(obviously, as you know I dont doubt) no pure indigenous culture on one end, and a pure Anglo culture on the other. There are stages of assimilation, different methods of adapting a culture, various ways to combine ‘traditional culture’ to a ‘modern’ one. So saying they dont want to assimilate ‘altogether’ would make me assume they want to assimilate to some extent ? Or that they have done so, in a lot of ways? So what aspects of life dont they want to assimilate? Or who is the they we’re speaking about ? Is there homgenity within this commuity ? Can their preferences be so easily defined ?

216

bianca steele 03.23.15 at 3:33 pm

Ronan,

So, your position is that the British Empire no longer exists, and therefore, English people–including those who count themselves among the global left–shouldn’t be expected to know anything about indigenous issues in Australia?

My answer would be: First, ZM seems to think the British Empire still has a hold on the country where she lives, right now. You seem to be trying to argue her out of it, using points that apply to the Republic of Ireland, because the British Empire does not any longer have a hold on the country where you live.

Second, does England not still have a cultural hold on its former empire, especially the primarily English-speaking parts? If it did not, Australians would not have any reason to identify problems within their country as originating in London-based imperialism. At the same time, other English-speaking peoples would have less reason to try to argue Australians out of their own attitudes.

Sure, but I dont know what “assimilate all together or much at all into Anglo culture” means?

Are you assimilating “assimilation” to modernization? They’re not at all the same thing. We’ve been over this on the Charlie Hebdo thread. There’s more than one approach to multiculturalism.

217

Phil 03.23.15 at 3:38 pm

dsquared @146 – on Mandela, see this post (and comments!). Obviously nobody’s suggested this was part of the man’s appeal, partly because it would have been in poor taste but mainly because it’s unnecessary: there are and were plenty of good reasons for supporting Nelson Mandela. I’m suggesting that it’s equally unnecessary in explaining the appeal of Gerry Adams – not to me or you, but to literally quite a lot of people.

As for [not letting] “millions of people support this person” shape your judgement of whether or not “this person is a dangerous weirdo”., I agree; I’m saying we should let it shape our judgment of whether they’re dangerous weirdoes (or dangerous-weirdo fans). If millions of people support a dangerous weirdo, then what they’re supporting isn’t Dangerous Weirdoism but a political philosophy, something they can talk about and justify to each other. That’s how people work; that’s the difference between supporting a political party and being a cult member. It even works when the weirdo in question doesn’t consciously have any ideas of his or her own. Silvio Berlusconi entered politics with no agenda beyond preserving his own power base and keeping the Commies out. In theory the result should have been a weird kind of political vacuum punctuated by bursts of anti-Communism and ad personam law making; in practice I could tell you a “Berlusconist” position on any debate you care to mention.

Obviously(?) when I say we should treat former Provos as honourable people with a legitimate political project, I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be held to account for what they did, and I’m not saying everyone should support that project. Part of the problem with delegitimating people like Adams, it seems to me, is that it makes them harder to hold them to account or to engage with politically.

218

engels 03.23.15 at 3:39 pm

Well I never knew that Australians of European ancestry saw themselves the victims of colonialism before. You live and learn.

219

Ronan(rf) 03.23.15 at 3:40 pm

Bianca – no, that isnt the ‘debate’ at all, but I dont have time to go back over it so Im leaving it there for a while.

220

bianca steele 03.23.15 at 3:41 pm

Forgot to mention (I probably have here already before), on the IRA and US attitudes to the conflict, when I moved up here in the mid-80s, if you’d gone by the Boston papers, you’d have thought Massachusetts was under the thumb of an evil dictator named Margaret Thatcher.

221

engels 03.23.15 at 4:00 pm

I got the definite impression that some people were … refusing to acknowledge that the imperial project, which Adams was fighting against, had murdered a lot more civilians than the IRA

I haven’t read the thread properly but I’d have thought it’s more likely they were disagreeing that ‘fighting the imperial project’ is an accurate description of Adams’ intentions or actions. For comparison, would you say that Osama bin Laden or Man Haron Monis were fighting the imperial project? (A genuine question, in case it comes across otherwise…)

222

Donald Johnson 03.23.15 at 4:17 pm

“I haven’t read the thread properly but I’d have thought it’s more likely they were disagreeing that ‘fighting the imperial project’ is an accurate description of Adams’ intentions or actions. ”

I’ve wondered that myself, though from a position of almost total ignorance. I read the New Yorker piece. I’ve read accounts of the Irish Famine, parts of a novel about the uprising in 1798, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, an essay by Graham Greene about the British use of torture, and I saw the Crying Game and a John Wayne movie where he beats the hell out of some Irish country landowner. From this info it is hard to have an informed view.

223

bianca steele 03.23.15 at 4:36 pm

There’s also this (which I suppose counts as distant government support for the IRA); I think the movie is going to be out soon.

224

engels 03.23.15 at 4:58 pm

Donald- sorry- what?

225

Stephen 03.23.15 at 6:10 pm

Val@197

I note that you make no attempt to answer my question about the famine.

I do not see that you have any case against what you call imperialism, except to say you’re against it, whatever it is.

I do not know why you think I’m English. Powers of telepathy?

AS for being patronising (defined as “treating with an apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority”): well, given ZM’s ranting about “if only Downlandish English people could have contented themselves with cruelly tormenting the long suffering Uplandish folks who unfortunately got tethered to the uppity Downlandish ones” it’s difficult to avoid a feeling of enormous intellectual superiority. Wouldn’t you agree?

226

engels 03.23.15 at 6:23 pm

Sorry to be clear: pace Ronan I think Western imperialism ia still very much alive amd it’s historical legacy is great present-day practical importance. I just find the idea that Gerry Adams, the 7/7 bombers, eg., and Paul Keating were all battling something called ‘the [English?] imperial project’, and that eg. white middle-class Australians were the victims of British imperialism rather than its agents or accomplices rather odd.

227

Stephen 03.23.15 at 6:24 pm

Phil@217: you write “we should treat former Provos as honourable people with a legitimate political project”. The point that Ronan and I have been making is that the political project of the Provisionals was to conquer by force and incorporate into a united Ireland the majority NI Unionist population , against their very well know wishes.

Forgive me for not regarding that as an honourable or legitimate project. If you disagree, please explain why.

228

Phil 03.23.15 at 7:35 pm

Again with the leading questions, Stephen! I’m pretty sure that’s not an adequate account of Ronan’s position. In any case it bears no relation to either the political or the military strength of the Provos at any time since their formation, so unless you’re going to add “total and sustained divorce from reality” to the charge sheet it’s not going to fly.

I’m writing as a long-time opponent of the Provos – or, more relevantly on this side of the water, of Provo sympathisers; it’s a position that has given me an inordinate amount of trouble over the years, from political allies, from friends and on one occasion from my own parents. When it comes to Gerry Adams I’m not a big fan. I just think SF are a serious political force, with roots in a serious political tradition, in both parts of the island, and believing (or affecting to believe) that they’re the Charlie O’Manson Fan Club doesn’t serve any good purpose.

229

Stephen 03.23.15 at 8:00 pm

Phil: I perceive no leading question (in the usual sense of a question that suggests the particular answer required). ” If you disagree, please explain why” simply requests you to provide an answer. What it may be is entirely up to you.

I agree that in reality, the Provos were never by themselves going to be able to force the NI unionists into a united Ireland. Whether they thought that, with help from the RoI and maybe the US they might, I don’t know. If not, then “total and sustained divorce from reality” does seem an accurate description. Do you really think that they had any aims that could not be brought about by peaceful and constitutional means, apart from forcing the NI unionists into a united Ireland?

I would add that the serious political tradition of believing that the NI unionists didn’t really mean what they said about not wanting a united Ireland does indeed go back for a hundred years or more. That doesn’t mean I don’t think it was always an inexcusable delusion.

230

stevenjohnson 03.23.15 at 8:01 pm

“If size of empire = evilness of empire, yes, if British empire = English empire.

If you consider possibility that some empires are better than others, and that British =/= English, then no.

If you consider possibility that in some ways, empire may be improvement on pre-imperial situation …”

Oh, dear, I thought I was just making a joke. I’m not very witty so I never pass up a straight line.

No, I don’t think there’s any sense to ranking empires on scales of goodness, particularly when skin color seems to take such a powerful in any scoring system.

Second, when I remember the occasions that the Scots or Irish or Welsh massacred the English I’ll take the notion British=/=English more seriously. The Irish sack of Liverpool or the Scottish clearances of the Cotswolds or the Welsh slaughter of New Model Army supporters in the Fens, perhaps?

As for the supposed civilizing mission of empires, I’m afraid I don’t believe you really mean anything but the European empires. No, I’m not at all sure that India and China and Africa and South America were worse off before the gifts of mass murder, depopulation from disease, wholesale disruption of advanced economies and deliberate preservation of collaborator elites. Yes, I do think the question implies a repulsive set of moral values.

231

Stephen 03.23.15 at 8:11 pm

StevenJohnson: I said nothing at all about skin colour, did I?

For reciprocal difficulties, try the Irish conquest of the Brythonic/Pictish/English parts of Scotland, the Irish conquests of south and south-west and north-west Wales, the Scottish ravaging of considerable parts of northern England over the centuries, the Scottish invasions of the 17th/18th century, the centuries of Irish slaving raids along the British west coast, Alastair the Devastator’s conquest of north-east Scotland, the Irish invasion of England in 1487, the various Irish bombings of England over the last few generations …

And please don’t tell me that I can’t possibly mean anything but European empires. From where do you get your belief in your powers of telepathy?

232

Ronan(rf) 03.23.15 at 8:20 pm

Bianca – just to reply to your comment and clarify.

No, of course I don’t mind one way or the other if the global left or specific English people take an in interest in indigenous issues in Australia, or anywhere else. I agree with ZM that it’s an interesting subject, and one that British Imperialism is deeply implicated in. (But the same is true beyond that, ie current ‘nation building’ projects in the developing world, in general when ‘indigenous’ communities come into contact with, and are remade by, Imperialism/capitalism/modernity/state building, call it what we will)
What I was objecting to was (what i read as) ZM’s story which centred around rogue English people causing mayhem and mischief everywhere they went since the occupation of Wales until yesterday. A person can tell any story they like if they squint hard enough, but anyone really wanting to deal with the legacy of western imperialism, IMO, is going to have to start by getting over the usual hate figures (and implicating us all in it, so to speak)

On the second part, no this is backwards. The way this subthread started was (afaicr) with trying to fit the PIRA into a story of the famine and indigenous revolts against imperialism (sorry if I misremembered this.) This might be true at a pretty general level (the second part particularly, ie a percieved response to colonialism seen in the context of more general, global anti imperialist trends), but it doesnt really clarify much. (imo) I was also just making the point that Irish anti colonialism and our relationship to the Union and Empire was always more complicated and contingent than nationalist narratives might have it.

On the next part. Most people in Australia, I would imagine, dont see themselves under the boot of the British Empire. Some in Ireland actually still do ! (though a small minority) I actually think ‘native Irish’ agitators have more cause for complaint on this than Aussies.(Though only because Aussies have zero cause for complaint.) Of course the indigenous people of Australia have MUCH more cause for complaint than all of us. Again, these (Aussies) are the descendants of the participants (willing or not) and beneficiaries of British Imperialism in the region. Again, I dont object to attempts to understand the history and make it right, but the idea that *English people* are the main actor in NOW making it right in Australia strikes me as bizzare.

The last bit in your comment is a quote from ZM that I copied, not something I said.

ZM – I’m genuinely sorry if any of that misstates your position. It’s been a long thread and we might be talking past eachother. I’ll probably leave it at that on this topic specifically, although I’d be interested in anything you (or Val) had to say on the topic of indigenous populations in the region in general (Dont take my 215 to you as hostile. Reading back I see it might look that way.)

233

bianca steele 03.23.15 at 8:47 pm

Ronan,

There’s a difference between “under the boot of the English” and “influenced by English culture.” Every time ZM has said “this comes from England,” your response has been “stop blaming the English and take responsibility for Australia!”, which is an odd response (especially given that England is in some sense sovereign over Australia).

It seems to me–I may be wrong, I suppose–that in your view it’s optional to see oneself and one’s country as under colonial influence: that it’s a choice. You can “blame things on the parent country” or you can “see yourself as independent.” Various things must follow from that choice, I can’t think what all of them might be. To me it seems, to say the least, implausible.

On your other comment, I realized that part was ZM’s words, and I meant to respond to what you wrote that followed from it, not to the quoted part.

Anyway, I read her comments very differently from you, that we have to understand European imperialism and its limitations in order to move on from it. I didn’t see her at all as complaining about imperialism against white people, but rather suggesting that white Australians should lessen the consequences of imperialism against non-whites by rejecting European colonialism and the ideologies that supported it. By extension, Europeans should join Australians in doing that. (This isn’t my own position, but I do see the logic of it.) Though if your response is typical of those from Old Europe, perhaps she does have something to complain about?

Sorry if I got either of your positions wrong.

234

Ronan(rf) 03.23.15 at 9:01 pm

“Every time ZM has said “this comes from England,” your response has been “stop blaming the English and take responsibility for Australia!” ”

No this has not been my response ‘every time’ (in fact, not once in those words)

Bianca, I genuinely cant follow the conversation any longer and dont want to rehash it endlessly. I might have misunderstood ZM, you certainly have me. So at this point I really dont see any point going on with it (Im not saying that snarkily, but understanding eachother isnt going to occur at this stage)

235

Phil 03.23.15 at 9:18 pm

bianca – “given that England is in some sense sovereign over Australia”???

Even if you mean ‘Britain’ (there hasn’t been an England in the nation-state sense since 1707) there’s no sense in which Australia isn’t a sovereign state. HMQ is the Queen of Australia as well as the UK, if you’re thinking of her.

236

bianca steele 03.23.15 at 9:30 pm

Phil,

Thanks again. I guess I really don’t understand the differences at all. So it is not the case that rejection of Britain’s supremacy by an Australian, Canadian, or Jamaican (and, once, Bahamian) is a kind of, if not treason, at least something not quite done?

237

bianca steele 03.23.15 at 9:30 pm

Ronan:

Again, no worries.

238

The Temporary Name 03.23.15 at 9:40 pm

Thanks again. I guess I really don’t understand the differences at all. So it is not the case that rejection of Britain’s supremacy by an Australian, Canadian, or Jamaican (and, once, Bahamian) is a kind of, if not treason, at least something not quite done?

Wiki says 16 of 53 members of the Commonwealth of Nations retain Elizabeth II as sovereign.

239

ZM 03.23.15 at 10:16 pm

Niall McAuley ,

“ZM, you are reading Henry’s tone completely backwards in his Little People remark.
An Australian version might be to say that an article a) hasn’t a hint of hats with dangly corks, XXXX beer or convicts and b) actually gets things right.
Irish people used to hate the American Leprechauns & Paddywhackery image of Ireland. In recent years, we have been reclaiming it in ironic fashion:”

Yes, but as you remark in Australia we would think it is appropriate to be ironic about corks in hats and beer drinking — but I think it would generally be considered offensive to be ironic about indigenous spiritual beliefs.

240

stevenjohnson 03.23.15 at 10:40 pm

“StevenJohnson: I said nothing at all about skin colour, did I?”

Skin color has played a powerful role in every putative ranking of imperial goodness that I’ve ever seen. I wasn’t commenting on yours since you don’t have one. Good luck coming up with one that doesn’t curiously match a skin shade spectrum.

“For reciprocal difficulties, try the Irish conquest of the Brythonic/Pictish/English parts of Scotland, the Irish conquests of south and south-west and north-west Wales, the Scottish ravaging of considerable parts of northern England over the centuries, the Scottish invasions of the 17th/18th century, the centuries of Irish slaving raids along the British west coast, Alastair the Devastator’s conquest of north-east Scotland, the Irish invasion of England in 1487, the various Irish bombings of England over the last few generations …”

Yes, I agree that the Stuart empire’s use of Scottish and Irish troops to sustain their absolute rule over England is a convincing example of Scottish and Irish support of an imperialism crushing the native English population. I’m not sure how the rest of your examples about one set of Britons, Scots and Irish, conquering another set of Britons, the English, are relevant here. The British empire you see marked on historical atlases began after Cromwell, and there wasn’t any of that Scots and Irish beating on the English. Perhaps you just believe that some Britons are more British than others? Your last example, bombings, isn’t empire at all, it’s violence aimed against the heart of the empire, England.

“And please don’t tell me that I can’t possibly mean anything but European empires. From where do you get your belief in your powers of telepathy?” You just passed on an opening to dazzle the CT crowd with your triumphant explanation of what non-European empires you did mean. This isn’t going to convince me I can’t read the subtext of your posts.

232
Ronan(rf) 03.23.15 at 8:20 pm

241

ZM 03.23.15 at 10:52 pm

engels,

“Well I never knew that Australians of European ancestry saw themselves the victims of colonialism before. You live and learn.”

I don’t think I have argued this at all, I have been arguing that England and the British Isles should care more and be more sorry for their imperialism and colonialism.

Also what you say would be dependent on family histories — some people’s ancestors came out here to be judges and governors or squatters (property owners) in the new colony and other’s were brought by force out as convicts or left because in the British Isles their lands had been confiscated through enclosures/intra-Britiish English colonialism and then they were subsequently impoverished or forced into the predatory industrial and mining labor system etc. Where I live a lot of people came hoping to find gold and make their fortunes, but lots of fortunes and lives were lost here as well. But the inequalities and miseries within the British Isles — which might be called colonialism in Ireland and Scotland and Wales but within England I’m not sure what you call it except the sad results of uniting against the vikings — were often related to reasons for moving to Australia.

But in immigrating here and making their lives here they were re-making this country in the image of Britain and were complicit in the British government and elite’s colonial and imperial project, and there were those who were directly involved in violence towards indigenous people, and those who displaced them with force to take their lands, and many more who were guilty of turning a blind eye to what was happening, or of saying suffering such things to finally die away was the inevitable fate for a primitive people.

These are uncomfortable issues still in Australia — but I think the difference with the UK is that we are regularly engaging in public discussions about them — whereas the UK seems just to try to be washing its hands of empire.

This is one of our important political speeches about it by former Prime Minister Paul Keating — but where are the speeches by the UK Prime Ministers?

https://youtu.be/CRNG3srP6zY

242

Ronan(rf) 03.23.15 at 11:16 pm

ZM- the point I was trying to make was that in the case of Australia you’re talking about the people who took and settled the land apologising to those they took it from (ie a domestic conflict) You are not talking (afaik) about Australian’s apologising for their complicity, militarity, in numerous Imperial wars oustide of Australia, and their role in maintaining the British Empire, militarily, economically, ideologically. The expectations are different.
I do agree, as I said above, that Europeans Empires should have some process of making up for their Imperial past, whether through reparations, historical truth telling processes, less restrictions on immigration from specific countries etc. But this is not what is happening in Australia. It isn’t apologising for the Australians role in maintaining British hegemony, it’s making a domestic conflict right. (afaict)
So what’s the equivalent that could happen in the UK and Ireland to what the Australians are doing vis a vis the indigenous population ?

243

Val 03.23.15 at 11:22 pm

Stephen @ 225
“AS for being patronising (defined as “treating with an apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority”): well, given ZM’s ranting about “if only Downlandish English people could have contented themselves with cruelly tormenting the long suffering Uplandish folks who unfortunately got tethered to the uppity Downlandish ones” it’s difficult to avoid a feeling of enormous intellectual superiority. Wouldn’t you agree?”

No I wouldn’t. ZM has a quirky, quasi folkish way of writing sometimes, it’s playful that’s all. Otherwise the statement above says more about you than ZM, and what it says isn’t nice. I won’t respond to any such comments in future.

244

Val 03.23.15 at 11:33 pm

Engels @ 218
“Well I never knew that Australians of European ancestry saw themselves the victims of colonialism before. You live and learn.”

Again can I point out that kind of comment really doesn’t help the debate. It might make you feel good, but all it’s saying is ‘you people are so dumb and I’m much better than you’.

You know perfectly well that no-one’s saying that, so what’s the point?

245

engels 03.23.15 at 11:57 pm

‘You know perfectly well that no-one’s saying that’

No, I didn’t actually. I think it may have been Zm’s comment about how Australia ‘still feels like’ a British colony (which I thought was a bit silly) together with points about the lasting negative legacy of empire (which I tend to agree with) which I interpreted that way, but I’ll try to look and reply properly if I’m at a computer. I agree with her/his point about the lack of accounting for empire by mainstream British politicians, I think.

246

Val 03.24.15 at 12:18 am

Ronan, Engels, anyone else interested

ZM and I were talking about the apparent reluctance of some people in this thread to acknowledge the impact of imperialism and colonialism. We contrasted this to our experience in Australia.

By repeatedly questioning or sometimes trying to denigrate our experience or intelligence (rather than perhaps just accepting that we do know more about what happens in Australia than you do), you put us in a difficult position where we either have to give you a kind of crash course in Australian history and contemporary society, or get diverted from the main point about imperialism. Even when ZM does try to give you a crash course, you don’t really seem to take it in, for example @242 where Ronan doesn’t acknowledge the difference between representatives of the British state and convicts.

(I could also talk at length about free settlers and assisted passengers, the latter of whom included a lot of Irish people, and who were widely looked down upon by those of English and Scottish heritage. Also Irish people at different times comprised a disproportionate amount of convicts, and it’s arguable that a lot of them were political prisoners. The first and only major organised uprising of convicts was by Irish settlers, and our most famous bushranger, Ned Kelly, saw himself as a representative of the oppressed Irish in Australia).

I think a lot of what you are saying, Ronan, and engel’s later comments (not @218) are interesting and valid, but I do also think the discussion is being affected by defensiveness, which makes it difficult, but tends to support what ZM and I are saying – there seem to be some CT commenters who really aren’t comfortable acknowledging imperialism and its impact.

I studied history for quite a few years, so I guess from that point of view I’m just more used to talking about things like imperialism, colonialism, insurgency, and so on than many people (as I also am much more used to talking about patriarchy, as a feminist historian), but I don’t think it’s lack of education in history that causes the defensiveness I see. I do think that some people are not prepared to acknowledge or confront the full impact that imperialism has on oppressed, conquered or vassal people (and engels @ 221, I probably would include bin Laden as someone who saw himself as fighting the imperialist project – understanding the way such people see the world isn’t the same as justifying what they do. Monis was a violent criminal with mental health problems, you can’t judge anything from him)

I know I’m in danger of conflating things said by engels with things said by Ronan, or others, here, but if I try to respond to every specific point it’s too long-winded. I’m absolutely no expert in Irish history, but I do know in general that when a country has been subjected to imperial conquest, it usually leaves a legacy of problems. Often one of these is problems over partitions and borders that don’t entirely work. So in saying that the IRA problems were just about the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, it sounds like (I say this from the point of view of someone who is not a specialist in this area and hopefully with humility), you are ignoring history and the legacy of imperialism.

247

Val 03.24.15 at 12:24 am

where I said “The first and only major organised uprising of convicts was by Irish settlers’ – I obviously meant by “Irish convicts” – Erk.

248

Phil 03.24.15 at 12:27 am

bianca – there is no supremacy; the British government has no say in what goes on in Commonwealth nations. Sixteen of those nations have the same Head of State, but in those nations this is largely if not entirely a ceremonial role. The Queen of Canada, who is also the Queen of the UK, might conceivably play the role of tie-breaker if some weird and wonderful constitutional deadlock arose in Canada, but it’s not at all likely to happen – and if she did so she’d be acting on advice from the Canadian government, the Canadian civil service and her own personal advisors, in that order.

There are people in the “Commonwealth realms” who would rather live in a republic, but I don’t think anyone would see that as rebellious. There are people in the UK who’d rather have a republic, after all.

249

Ronan(rf) 03.24.15 at 12:43 am

Val – this is not my reading of the thread. We were talking about Irish history, specifically the Troubles, when the topic changed: ie comments 83, 121, and your own in between.
for example:

“While you in Ireland and the United States became the possessions of England in the 15th-16thC so I guess you’re all quite used to it – here in the Southern Hemisphere colonial possession by England and the other European Empires is more recent, and then there has been the strife of post-colonial nation building.

The terrible effects of some of this is still in living memory in our region, where maybe all the people in Ireland with memories have died.”

we then got on to indigenous Australian history, nothing specific just the manner in which Australia was dealing with its past whereas Britain (or more specifically England) was not. ie 150
Which is fine. But my question above that you respond to:

“Ronan doesn’t acknowledge the difference between representatives of the British state and convicts. ”

was dealing directly with this point and I have made it over and over again. What is it ZM thinks the British state/English people etc should do to make up for colonialism ? Is Australia making up with its indigenous population really comparable to Britain making up for its colonial crimes (crimes Australia was directly implicated in) ?

I have not told you I know more about Australian history than you. ie

“although I’d be interested in anything you (or Val) had to say on the topic of indigenous populations in the region in general”

In fact I dont think Ive offered a meaningful opinion on Australian history.

In between all of this we were berated for our ‘euro centric’ focus ie 123, 147.
even though the topic of the thread was Irish history (not British colonialism in Australia etc)

Val – I am happy and interested to read what you have to say about Australian history or imperialism, but please don’t rewrite this thread. I like ZM’s comments a lot, enjoy her (as you said) ‘quirky, quasi folkish way of writing.’ But it does lead to reasonable misunderstandings (as no doubt do my own posts)

So how about we put all of what went before aside and talk about something specific? I am genuinely interested in hearing anything you have to say about indigenous rights in Australia (or whatever the topic) but there are genuine disagreements with a lot of the way ZM frames the history of British Imperialism. People have a right to respond to that.

250

Ronan(rf) 03.24.15 at 12:47 am

“but there are genuine disagreements with a lot of the way ZM frames the history of British Imperialism”

which *isnt*, I should add, support for Imperialism. Those are two different arguments

251

Val 03.24.15 at 12:48 am

Ronan @ 242
“So what’s the equivalent that could happen in the UK and Ireland to what the Australians are doing vis a vis the indigenous population ?”

The British could say sorry. Have they ever done that? (I’m asking, I genuinely don’t know)

It was a huge thing here when our former PM Kevin Rudd said sorry for the Stolen Generation. Also Keating’s Redfern speech, which ZM linked above, which acknowledged that we (current white Australians, descendants of the original invaders) stole the land.

Someone asked about reparations – there hasn’t been much concrete, that’s a real weakness. We’re now having a conversation about changing the constitution but I think we should go back to the issue of treaty first.

Has any British PM ever said sorry for the famine, or for anything specific? I don’t know if it’s very common to actually apologise for the whole invasion because that could open up a big can of worms, but saying sorry for specific bad things while acknowledging the general issue of invasion and takeover is something. I guess it’s not relevant now because peace has been achieved, hopefully long lasting, but that is an example of the kind of thing that states can do.

252

Ronan(rf) 03.24.15 at 12:50 am

Val – ignore my above and we can start from here ? (reply in next box)

253

Ronan(rf) 03.24.15 at 12:56 am

“Has any British PM ever said sorry for the famine, or for anything specific?”

(if youre asking about Ireland specifically?) Tony Blair apologised for the Famine in the lead up to the 1998 good friday agreement. (I dont know enough about the specifics, but link below)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/blair-issues-apology-for-irish-potato-famine-1253790.html

The Queen made a recent trip to Ireland (I wasnt living there at the time, but I think in 2011) where she acknowledged ‘sad and regretable’ mistakes, but stopped short of an apology. I’m not sure if there’s anything beyond that.
Certainly there’s no systematic process as seems to be the case in australia, but the context is a bit too different, I think, for that to make sense.
More generally i’m not sure about apologies the British state has made to former colonies (I seem to remember something being said in India or Pakistan, but cant remember)

254

Val 03.24.15 at 12:56 am

Ronan @ 249
Our posts crossed although I think we’re on the same path now. Just one point though – I didn’t think you (in particular) specifically questioned my knowledge of Australian history. It was more about the apparent (and apparently uncharitable) misreading of what ZM and I were saying, originally (and probably only once) by you but then by several others quite a few times.

Anyway happy to put that behind us.

255

Val 03.24.15 at 12:57 am

haha we keep crossing over – I have to for a while now so that will stop it! cheers

256

ragweed 03.24.15 at 6:28 am

@211, 213, 214, 239 – My understanding is that the Irish disdain for much of the leprechaun and paddywackery imagery is actually quite old and is less a matter of distaste for the folklore and mythology of the Irish than it is distaste for the trivializing and stereotyping. Yates, who had great respect and admiration for the Irish folk tales and traditions, complained in the 1890s that Crofton Croker, the first folklorist to collect many of the Irish tales, so focused on making humorous stories for non-Irish audiences and created much the “stage Irishman,” as the drunken buffoon that was beset by leprechauns and faerie spirits.

In that sense, there is a great similarity between the Irish response to American stereotypes with the response of Native American’s to misrepresentations of their culture. If anything, the Native American response is even more outspoken, especially when it comes to the misuse of sacred objects and symbols (like the war bonnets of some of the plains tribes), or offensive and stereotyped costumes (“Poca-hottie”) that show up every Halloween and by the fans of sports teams with Indian-themed mascots.

I don’t know if indigenous Australians face the same issues, but Native Americans often confront both direct racism in the form of derogatory images of drunkenness and savagery as well as overly romanticized stereotypes of Native spirituality and culture that are often equally clueless about the actual experience and culture. So while I cannot see most Native people in the US denigrating the actual traditions and stories of their own or other tribes, you do see statements like:

“I make lousy fry bread. I’m usually feather-free. I don’t start conversations with phrases like “as my grandfather once said” and then burst into poignant lectures about the religious traditions related to my Native identity, let alone anybody else’s.” – (Cynthia Leitich Smith, Muskegee writer of children’s and young-adult fiction).

or “It’s the corn-pollen, four directions, eagle-feathers school of Native literature. People are more interested in our spirituality than anything else. Certainly, I’ve never received that kind of pressure because I never wrote that kind of stuff…” (Sherman Alexie, Spokane-Coeur d’Alene author).

And many others. Its a complicated relationship sometime between honoring the culture and stereotyping the people.

257

stevenjohnson 03.24.15 at 1:48 pm

Phil@248 “there is no supremacy; the British government has no say in what goes on in Commonwealth nations.”

Perhaps I misremember or never properly understood, but wasn’t royal prerogative used to dismiss Gough Whitlam? (Exercised by the Governor-General, not the Queen personally.) And, doesn’t Stephen Harper’s use of prorogation of Parliament also depend upon royal prerogative? (Again, in the person of the Governor-General.)

258

Stephen 03.24.15 at 2:39 pm

Stevenjohnson@240: ah, the subtext story. If I have understood you correctly, you are attacking not what I have said, but the beliefs you are sure I must have even though I’ve never said anything about them.

Well, obviously I have no defence against that, but I’m not sure one is needed. When somebody writesin favour of some aspect of socialism, the argument “ah, but you’re really arguing in favour of the Gulag” doesn’t really need a counter-argument, does it?

259

Ronan(rf) 03.24.15 at 2:56 pm

Phil @228 – I think you might like Roy fosters new book “vivid faces”, about how the revolutionary generation in Ireland ‘made themselves’ in the late 19th early 20th century. If u ever got around to it( I’ve only read bits and pieces so far) I think it might be up your alley.

260

Stephen 03.24.15 at 3:16 pm

Val@246: if I may, I would like to agree with you completely when you say “when a country has been subjected to imperial conquest, it usually leaves a legacy of problems”. I would go further: history of all sorts usually leaves a legacy of problems. In the case of the Northern Ireland/RoI /IRA problem, one item in the legacy is of course the British (not English) conquest of Ireland.

Another is the long Catholic/Protestant wars in Europe, their overspill into Ireland, and the subsequent perception by Irish Protestants that the Catholic church was their enemy and would crush them if it could. I think it’s significant that full Catholic emancipation only happened after the British governments perceived that the Spanish had gone bankrupt, the French had gone atheist, and neither could any longer use Ireland as a springboard for invading England in the Catholic interest. That it has taken the Irish Protestants longer than the British to realise that Catholicism is not the danger it was may be due to their more recent persecution by Catholics.

Of course, the legacy of the terrible sufferings in the famine is an understandable factor. But it does not justify the belief among some Irish that the famine was a deliberate result of malevolent British, or usually English policy, not of blundering incompetence.

I am learning a great deal about Australian history from your contributions, Thanks.

261

Niall McAuley 03.24.15 at 3:24 pm

ZM writes: I think it would generally be considered offensive to be ironic about indigenous spiritual beliefs.

Whereas in Ireland, we would be offended if anyone thought we were serious about the Little People.

Even if we are.

262

stevenjohnson 03.24.15 at 3:53 pm

Stephen @258 Subtext is the implications of the text. It may be unintentional on the writer’s part, or it may be misread, but it is still written, because all words and context have connotations that cannot be decreed away, no matter how convenient for your argument. Your implications are genuinely deplorable. The few facts or positive opinions you dare to express are nonsense, like the claim it was the British queens Elizabeth and Mary sending Essex to the Pale or the Scottish besieging Drogheda, all no doubt assisted a bevy of Welsh bureaucrats lording it over the wretched Cockneys. Most of all, the cure for misreading is to state what you really meant. Your problem is that you can’t do that without giving your game away.

“When somebody writes in favour of some aspect of socialism, the argument “ah, but you’re really arguing in favour of the Gulag” doesn’t really need a counter-argument, does it?” Actually, I think I’ve correctly read this board as pretty much agreeing that anyone arguing in favor of Communism does have to have a counter-argument about the Gulag. You haven’t said what “aspect” of imperialism you’re arguing for. The usual has been the imposition of the basics of industrialization, but that refers specifically to European colonial empires of relatively recent vintage. But you have claimed specifically not to have those in mind! (Prudently withholding any hint as to what you supposedly were really thinking.) Keeping your opinions secret, then shrieking “Gotcha!” when someone supposedly guesses wrong is a mockery of reason.

263

Phil 03.24.15 at 4:49 pm

It seems to me that the role of Governor-General of Australia is much more “head of state in all but name” than it is “mouthpiece of the boss lady in the Old Country”, and it seems to me that this has been the situation for some time. But then, I’m not Australian.

264

Phil 03.24.15 at 4:59 pm

But in any case, even if every political intervention by a HoS-like figure in Canada and Australia was in fact triggered by a private phone call from Buck House (which I don’t think anyone’s ever suggested), this wouldn’t implicate the British government. As I said above, if the GG did try and drag HMQ in, she’d take advice from the national government, the national civil service and her own advisors in that order – not from the British government.

Honestly, it’s almost as if you people are unfamiliar with the workings of a modern constitutional monarchy.

265

The Temporary Name 03.24.15 at 5:15 pm

And, doesn’t Stephen Harper’s use of prorogation of Parliament also depend upon royal prerogative? (Again, in the person of the Governor-General.)

Sure, but it remains “Stephen Harper’s use”.

266

ZM 03.24.15 at 7:55 pm

Prime Minister Whitlam was dismissed by the Queen on the advice of Governor General Kerr using the crown’s reserve powers – these are for very important matters and we don’t talk about them much since they are controversial. I think the queen will next use them on the parliament to get it to act respectably on climate change so they can’t change irresponsibly from election to election but keep on track til 2050 or they will be dismissed.

I found a review summarizing a book on the Irish famine blaming English cruelty rather than bumbling incompetence:

“In the opening chapters, The Famine Plot outlines the brewing of a catastrophic event. Religious oppression after Henry VIII’s abdication from the Catholic Church, the outlawing of education for Catholics; English landlords that spent their rent profits in London; failed rebellions including that of 1798; and a tradition of English racism for the Celt as being a lazy, popish, tribal, and feckless people.

By the year 1800, after hundreds of years of invasions and oppression from their English neighbors, Ireland was brought under the umbrella of the Kingdom of Great Britain with the Act of Union like Scotland and Wales. But as Coogan rightly specifies, even important English Parliamentarians on the eve of disaster admitted that Ireland was not governed like a kingdom, but instead was only occupied by colonial soldiers that protected English businesses to extract Ireland’s natural resources.
…..
However, Coogan saves his best argument for the most pertinent players during the Famine. Taking apart the philosophies of …. English policymakers and their economic and religious treatises that prevail still today, he points directly to the heart of the matter…. begin[ning] with Providence:.

“Providence, the divine will, was declared to have a large bearing on the subject, as it generally does when the rich debate the poor, or the strong confront the weak. It was an era in which in America the indigenous Americans were going down before a similar doctrine: Manifest Destiny,” he writes.

In this religious invocation by English political economists, God divinely chooses who shall live and who shall die and governments are not to intervene against His will. That God rarely chose them for death and instead chooses the most vulnerable of the peoples was certainly convenient for the powerful.
….
[Next], Coogan points to laissez-faire capitalism as affecting how English colonial rule could justify standing by while a famine raged next door.

Years before the Famine, English economists decided that raising cattle in the Irish land would be much more fiscally productive than depending on the feckless Irish to pay rent on it. A plan was needed to exchange the Irish people for cattle.

English policy during this time was smitten with the ideas of Adam Smith, the Scottish economist and “moralist” who famously outlined the philosophy of capitalism in Wealth of Nations. …. In Ireland, the perversions of an economic doctrine guiding morality would justify extermination.
….
In recent years, on numerous blogs, Facebook, and in general conversation, there has been great cynicism toward the use of the term “famine” to describe what actually happened.

As Coogan points out succinctly, a famine occurs when there is no food to be eaten, which was only true of the potato. But Ireland under Britain’s colonial rule exported grain, corn, cattle, and many other foodstuffs on a regular basis. “Ireland had no shortage of food,” Coogan writes.

. The London political economists of the time, however, termed these exports from Irish lands “cash crops,” which effectively meant they were the lawful property of the business community and not to be allocated for relief. With evidence such as this, the debate in Coogan’s book turns the description of the Great Hunger from “famine” to “extermination” and even “genocide.”

Coogan’s intent here is not to say that England caused the blight of the potato. That was a matter of nature, of course. Instead he points directly to allowing its people for which it was responsible within the terms of the Act of Union, the Kingdom of Great Britain, to be so vulnerable as to be completely dependent on one crop.

Furthermore, the deliberate attempt to utilize a natural disaster to “inflict conditions that bring about its physical destruction” is another powerful and ringing interpretation of the United Nations charter.

Here, Coogan levels his stare adroitly on the prevailing economic philosophy and the political economists in London at the time when he uses a famous quotation from the Irish Nationalist John Mitchel, who described the situation at the time as “God sent the blight, but the British sent the Famine.”

The Famine Plot then describes Trevelyan’s followers in London as imposing an absurdity when they enforced, sometimes with soldiers and ships, the policy that “Ireland’s property should pay for Ireland’s poverty,” therefore expunging responsibility from London’s colonial lap with no more than a stroke of a pen and fatally placing care for the Famine in the metaphor of the economic market’s cold “invisible hand.”

To impose an illogical, calamitous condition such as Irish taxes needed to pay for Irish relief, Coogan states, is the perfect analogy to the idiom “extracting blood from a stone.”

The taxes levied on Anglo landlords in Ireland were high, but when the poor could not pay their rent, they were evicted. Often by force, these starving families were sent to the countryside while their homes were destroyed to make way for cattle grazing.

The consequence of eviction was devastating, and the poor were often too weak to travel and so desperate that they tried eating the grass, like cattle. In enforcing this policy, Coogan declares, genocide can be interpreted.

At the time, even some Englishmen agreed that “famine” could not be a truly intellectual description. As Coogan underscores, one English parliamentarian resigned in indignation feeling as though he is “an unfit agent of a policy which must be one of extermination.”

This policy of extermination went on to include the “work scheme,” such as road building, which didn’t pay a laborer enough even to fill his own belly, never mind the rest of his family.

Also, the Poor Law Extension Act of 1847 that “effectively undid much of the benefits of the soup kitchens and brought an incalculable amount of suffering and death upon the starving.” The Workhouse, which became only a place for the sick to die, at one point, only allowed “fit” people within its gated doors. This meant that those considered too weak, such as children, the elderly, and women, were turned away, often by force.

All of this in the name of improving the economy and allowing God’s divine will to take shape was well within Trevelyan and many of his peers’ direct plans when he described the Famine as a “mechanism for reducing surplus population.”

Trevelyan is also quoted as saying, “The greatest evil… is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the Irish people.” And finally, “The judgment of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson.””

http://www.bookslut.com/nonfiction/2013_01_019854.php

267

Phil 03.24.15 at 8:32 pm

As far as I can see Whitlam was dismissed by the effective Australian head of state, John Kerr, acting (as he had to) in the name of the titular head of state, Elizabeth Windsor. While you’ve got a titular head of state, he or she will inevitably be invoked when the effective head of state gets involved in politics – which, hopefully, he or she very rarely will.

268

Phil 03.24.15 at 8:36 pm

…although I realise that that last phrase will have an odd ring to it in countries with a presidential system of government!

269

ZM 03.24.15 at 8:46 pm

No, the Governor General advised the Queen and the Queen agreed and dismissed the Prime Minister. But this is controversial in Australia still, and there is some evidence that the U.S. through the CIA was involved – Kerr had been in one of their funded organisations and a former agent said there was talk of the CIA involvement. Also the Governor General is not really the effective head of state – they mostly do community events and see visiting important foreign people since the Queen lives so far away and has other realms too – so they are just her temporary stand ins and they change every few years.

270

Phil 03.24.15 at 8:58 pm

No, the Governor General advised the Queen and the Queen agreed and dismissed the Prime Minister.

Formally, yes.

As you say, the episode is an enduring political scandal. But nothing turns on the Queen’s role in the whole business; nobody’s suggesting that she had strong views on the matter or influenced any of the key decisions. She was simply the titular ruler in whose name Kerr acted.

they mostly do community events and see visiting important foreign people

You’re describing the workload of our Head of State (viz. the Queen).

271

ZM 03.24.15 at 9:09 pm

Well the same thing happened in Papua New Guinea recently except with more military involvement and a brief secession, but in that case the Queen agreed with the Prime Minister and dismissed the Governor General. I suppose she must play it by ear.

272

Phil 03.24.15 at 10:30 pm

Are you talking about Sir Serei Eri? Can’t see anything more recent. If so, he resigned, so the point’s moot. Not that we were arguing about the role of the monarch in the first place – at least, I wasn’t. As I said above, “even if every political intervention by a HoS-like figure in Canada and Australia [or PNG] was in fact triggered by a private phone call from Buck House (which I don’t think anyone’s ever suggested), this wouldn’t implicate the British government.”

273

ZM 03.24.15 at 10:42 pm

It wouldn’t implicate the UK government since 1986ish when we got The Act of Australia which took away the oversight of the Australian government by the Privy Council by acts of the Australian and UK parliaments (although the Australian constitution can only be altered by referendum so I think this should have gone to referendum, I’m not sure it is very valid to take away oversight by the privy council only by acts of parliament).

The Queen does not like to act without the advice of the current Governor General it is true — I wrote to Her Majesty just the other year to ask her to intervene when our Prime Minister was changed from one person to another person via telephone calls in a Chinese restaurant — a most improper procedure for changing Prime Ministers — but Her Majesty’s secretary wrote back to say HM would forward my letter to the governor general for advice — but the governor general at the time of the incident was the mother in law of the man who counted the votes in the Chinese restaurant, so she was hardly going to be amenable to telling him he had to only count votes properly in parliament not in restaurants if he wanted to change Prime Ministers* :/

*Now he is the Leader of the Opposition

274

ZM 03.24.15 at 11:00 pm

“Are you talking about Sir Serei Eri? Can’t see anything more recent. If so, he resigned, so the point’s moot.”

No — I’m talking about the PNG constitutional crisis of 2011-12 – this is a confusing tale involving two prime ministers, an acting prime minister, a governor general an acting governor general, and two police commisioners, and two heads of defence.

Prime Minister Somare went to hostpital, and Sam Abal was acting Prime Minister, then the parliament decided they wanted to have Peter O’Neil as the Prime Minister so Governor General Ogio made him Prime Minister, but then when Michael Somare recovered from his illness he wanted to be Prime Minister again and took the matter to court, the judges decided Somare had been removed unlawfully, but the governor general was tardy about making him Prime Minister again saying he could’t understand the court’s judgement.

Parliament continued to support Peter O’Neil as Prime Minister, but then the Governor General decided since he had a court order he had better reinstate Somare as Prime Minister, then the Parliament rebelled and suspended Ogio and made the Speaker, Jeffrey Nape, acting governor general — but the Queen never revoked Ogio’s title as Governor General — then the parliament recognised Ogio as Governor General again.

Then the two Prime Minister’s each chose a Police Commissioner so there were two Police Commissioners too.

Then there was a mutiny under colonel Sasa who Prime Minister Somare appointed as head of defence, and under his leadership a group of soldiers put the other head of defence under house arrest, and Colonel Sasa told O’Neil he had to step down from being the other Prime Minister within a week.

It is a bit more complicated than what happened with Whitlam — but I expect this is what can happen if the governor general allows parliamentarians to count votes in restaurants instead of parliament — if we continue down this sorry irregular path we will one day end up with multiple numbers of every title :/

275

ZM 03.24.15 at 11:08 pm

““Are you talking about Sir Serei Eri? Can’t see anything more recent. If so, he resigned, so the point’s moot.” No the constitutional crisis from 2011 — I summarised it for you but the comment is in moderation. I think the govt there have declared a state of emergency this year, after the PM being charged with corruption last year — so it is not looking that good since the constitutional crisis

276

Ronan(rf) 03.25.15 at 12:05 am

This is quite a good review of some recent books on the famine (including Coogans), which also gives a background on the debate over the ‘incompetence or maliciousness’ debate (for anyone interested)

http://www.drb.ie/essays/a-jig-in-the-poorhouse

277

Norwegian Guy 03.25.15 at 12:41 am

I really can’t say much about anticolonialism, but AFAICS Irish nationalism resembles that of other European nations, including my own. It’s growth in the 19th and 20th centuries is quite similar to national awakenings all over Europe. While some nationalisms failed, many nationalisms were at least as successful as the Irish one. Some of them did better and were able to achieve independence for the whole of the contested territory. In addition to a number of countries in Central and Eastern Europe, you have Norway (1905), Finland (1918), and Iceland (1944).

No, the unusual thing about Ireland isn’t nationalism, but the strong unionist tradition. You don’t find anything like that in Norway or Iceland. There’s a Swedish-speaking minority in Finland, but it’s hardly Ulster Unionism. Even Montenegro, where 44,5% voted against independence in 2006, wasn’t partitioned, despite unionist majorities in the districts bordering Serbia. I can’t recall that a partition of Scotland was part of the debate before the recent referendum there either. Henry Farrell has actually touched upon the threats of armed rebellion by the unionist minority before: https://crookedtimber.org/2009/12/10/bonar-law/. AFAIK, no-one tried to preserve united Czechoslovakia with the use of arms, even though a majority of the population was opposed to its dissolution.

By the way, Kosovo has a large number of politicians with a paramilitary background, including people with links to organised crime. What to say about politicians like Hashim Thaçi and other former Kosovo Liberation Army figures? There must be some parallels both to the IRA of the Irish War of Independence and to the IRA of The Troubles.

278

Donald johnson 03.25.15 at 12:53 am

Engels–I was just joking about my ignorance of late 20th century Irish history. I’ve never known what to make of the IRA–I know both sides committed atrocities, but never understood whether there was anything horrible enough about British rule in Northern Ireland in the late 20th century that would explain the support given a terrorist group. I could certainly understand it in the 19th century.

279

Norwegian Guy 03.25.15 at 1:10 am

Actually, Finland declared independence in 1917, not 1918. My bad.

And the 19th century development from a rural, pre-capitalist economy to a modern monetary economy wasn’t unique to Ireland. It happened in other European countries as well. Funnily enough, aforementioned Finland managed this while the use of a non-Germanic language was on the rise, so there’s no reason that the Irish language had to decline in order to modernise.

280

Ronan(rf) 03.25.15 at 1:15 am

@275 – afaik you’re right, most comparisons put it in that context, primarily the wartime revolutionary movements in Europe. (the specific form the separatist movement took cant be understood outside of the context of WW1)

281

Ronan(rf) 03.25.15 at 1:36 am

“No, the unusual thing about Ireland isn’t nationalism, but the strong unionist tradition. ”

I’m not sure, ethnic groups cut off from their prior community/state after a nationalist revolution is surely common enough? (not in all cases, but a significant amount)

282

Bruce Wilder 03.25.15 at 1:59 am

Donald johnson: . . . whether there was anything horrible enough about British rule in Northern Ireland . . .

Whether one concurs or not in some fatuous cost-benefit analysis, one can note that reforms of various kinds have been enacted, as part of efforts to end the violence. The shape of at least some of the reforms imply some broadly shared acknowledgement of defects of the prior regime. Whether the prior regime had within it the means or motivation to reform? That might be relevant alongside the simple weight of oppression, however one might measure such a thing.

283

Val 03.25.15 at 2:32 am

Donald Johnson @ 276
“I’ve never known what to make of the IRA–I know both sides committed atrocities, but never understood whether there was anything horrible enough about British rule in Northern Ireland in the late 20th century that would explain the support given a terrorist group.”

Returning to my earlier question about who is or is not a terrorist, can I ask why, if you “know that both sides committed atrocities”, you designate one side (the IRA) as a “terrorist group”?

For example, if the British army shot and killed 14 people who were taking part in a demonstration in 1972, does that make the British army “terrorists”?

I know that the British government classified the IRA as a terrorist organisation, but is this a “correct” usage, or is it because they were a non-state actor and therefore, in Weber’s terms, seen as having no legitimate right to use violence? As I’ve said before, it appears that people think of “terrorists” as organisations that kill civilians, but in fact states seem to kill civilians without being called terrorists.

284

ZM 03.25.15 at 2:44 am

“As I’ve said before, it appears that people think of “terrorists” as organisations that kill civilians, but in fact states seem to kill civilians without being called terrorists.”

The Indonesian state (via the military) killing the Australian journalists known as the Balibo Five was associated with Australian support for the East Timor Resistance.

But I think the idea of “terrorism” is also associated with “backwardness” — as in Dsquared’s post where he looks at the Welsh, Maori, and Afghan populations — and sees the British as having a stake in economically modernising Afghanistan and lifting it out of the “warrior culture” as happened in Wales and New Zealand — or in Ireland in this thread — indeed if I recall correctly some comments here have said that Ireland’s problems lay in it economic underdevelopment rather than in English colonialism.

285

Bruce Wilder 03.25.15 at 3:03 am

ZM: Ireland’s problems lay in its economic underdevelopment rather than in English colonialism.

!

Because those two causal arguments are so distinct and easy to separate in any interpretation of the history of Ireland.

286

ZM 03.25.15 at 3:38 am

But if Ireland had stayed independent then it wouldn’t have been subjected to a free trade agreement with England and could have stayed a protectionist country; and then if England hadn’t begun colonising countries in the British Isles and then elsewhere its economy it could not have extracted land and resources and labour from all the colonies and then its own economy would not have over-developed so much to be greatly more advanced than Ireland’s.

So their economies would have been more similar, and not think that Afghanistan was so backwards today.

England’s economy is still over-developed economy, even after two world wars and decolonisation — especially in London:

“The ecological footprint of Londoners was 49 million global hectares (gha), which was 42 times its biocapacity and 293 times its geographical area. This is twice the size of the UK, and roughly the same size as Spain.”

So evidently the English economy is heated and over-developed and needs cooling, and maybe Welsh people can go to Afghanistan and bond over their shared experiences and learn how to live without such an over-developed economy as a new counter-terrorism strategy.

287

Donald johnson 03.25.15 at 3:53 am

Val–you’re lecturing the wrong person. I have no problem accusing Wesern governments of state terrorism. I know that in guerrilla wars Western governments often behave as barbarically or worse than those they oppose. What I don’t know in the case of the IRA are the root causes. Not every group has a just cause quite apart from whether they commit crimes in its name, but again, whether this is true of the IRA I don’t know.

288

Val 03.25.15 at 4:01 am

Bruce Wilder, ZM

There’s a kind of imperialist recipe for “economic development”:
1. invade or take over the governance of a country
2. dispossess the indigenous people or local subsistence farmers etc
3. appoint imperial representatives to take over the land
(where there is an existing developed hierarchy in the country you’re invading, make alliances with the local leaders, as well as or instead of 2 and 3)
4. obtain labour supplies – use local people or import convicts, slaves etc as needed
5. start growing cash crops
6. export cash crops back to imperialist power, which purchases them at a favourable rate and uses them for local consumption or for manufacturing (they can also export the manufactured goods back to the colony at a good rate of profit since those goods will be perceived as superior to locally made items)
7. some people in the colony will make money and in the long run, even some of the oppressed groups may – at least in theory they will have a chance to – but in the worst case scenarios (eg Australian Indigenous people, Irish peasants) an awful lot of them will have died first

289

Val 03.25.15 at 4:15 am

Donald Johnson @ 285
Sorry Donald for “lecturing”, it was just that you used the word terrorist specifically for the IRA (but not for eg, Ulster forces or British Army) in your previous comment, and I was wondering why you did.

It’s in context that several people near the start of the thread were expressing a particular repugnance for Gerry Adams as terrorist who was presenting himself as a kindly teddy bear and chocolate loving grandfather, I’m not sure if you saw all that. I wondered why Adams was singled out as particularly and peculiarly revolting given the huge number of others, including eg George Bush or our own former PM John Howard, who authorised a war which lead to many thousands more civilian deaths than Adams authorised (which he denies anyway). So I was interested in the way the word terrorist is used to construct certain people as particularly morally repugnant, but not others who do the same things. Sorry if you knew all that, will stop lecturing now :)

290

Bruce Wilder 03.25.15 at 4:16 am

Val @ 286

Indeed.

Though you forgot to mention settlers as a political and economic force.

291

Donald johnson 03.25.15 at 4:25 am

I wasn’t offended, just slightly surprised as I agreed with you and a few others up thread about how Adams is no worse a person (IMO) than people like Bush. But I suspect the majority of people around here would agree. I could be wrong.

292

Val 03.25.15 at 4:36 am

BW, yes I forgot the free settlers. My own great grandparents (on my father’s side) were free settlers. They were trying to get away from an English society that they found oppressive and illiberal, but they also acquired land that had been taken from Indigenous people, and made money from it. (My position on that is that I give money to Indigenous causes as well as supporting them. I know it’s not ideal but this isn’t an ideal world and that seems like the best I can do.)

People like my ancestors are more insidious in a way, for sure.

The other thing about this recipe though is it’s quite similar in a way to what the IMF and World Bank did in Africa in the late twentieth century too.

I visited Kenya last year and it’s frightening how much power and wealth has accrued to some families there, in some cases those families who apparently led the rebellion against the British. I don’t know enough about this to make sense of it really, but it seems imperialism eventually conscripts even those who oppose it, in some ways (who were often people who were educated in Britain or the US, of course).

293

Val 03.25.15 at 4:42 am

@ 289
Sorry Donald, missed that! I don’t know if most would agree though, it seemed like some of the people early in the thread (who seem to have gone now) really did see Adams and the IRA as particularly repugnant. Maybe because the IRA bombs were a bit close to home for some people.

294

Phil 03.25.15 at 8:45 am

Wikipedia on the PNG crisis:

the majority in parliament responded, on 14 December 2011, by “suspending” Ogio and declaring Jeffrey Nape, as Speaker of the National Parliament, as automatically acting governor-general. However, there is no indication the Queen of Papua New Guinea, Elizabeth II, who appoints the governor-general as her representative in the country, revoked Ogio’s commission as viceroy. On 19 December, parliament again recognised Ogio as governor-general and O’Neill as prime minister

That to me sounds like the elected politicians of PNG saying “we really need a better way to appoint and dismiss our head of state”, and QEII saying “leave us out of it”. Or, more probably, saying “Guinea did you say? Oh, Papua New Guinea – we went there the other year, didn’t we? Aren’t they the ones who worship Phil as a god? Silly fools. What have they been up to now?”

295

Phil 03.25.15 at 8:57 am

Ronan:

ethnic groups cut off from their prior community/state after a nationalist revolution is surely common enough? (not in all cases, but a significant amount)

I think what is unusual about the Six Counties is having enough of a concentration of a minority loyal to the old ruling power in one region to make a kind of re-secession or pre-emptive irredentism viable, and having the government of the ruling power endorse this (or get bounced into endorsing it by its own extreme fringe). I can’t think of any other examples of this offhand, apart from the Sudeten Germans.

296

ZM 03.25.15 at 10:45 am

“That to me sounds like the elected politicians of PNG saying “we really need a better way to appoint and dismiss our head of state”, and QEII saying “leave us out of it”. Or, more probably, saying “Guinea did you say? Oh, Papua New Guinea – we went there the other year, didn’t we? Aren’t they the ones who worship Phil as a god? Silly fools. What have they been up to now?””

Well the Prime Minister they tried to instate was investigated for corruption last year — then he disbanded the corruption investigating body :/ And apparently one reason the Minister has made a State of Emergency in 2015 is so they can privatise the state electricity assets. So I don’t think this particular parliament is of a good enough quality to make some new fangled way of electing Prime Ministers — they’d likely choose something even more corruptible than how they have somehow managed to make a system where you get two Prime Ministers at once and two Defence Chiefs and Two Police Commissioners.

Perhaps after his stay with our defence forces in Australia Prince Harry can visit PNG. The Queen is likely bemoaning quietly to Prince Phillip how the parliament beheaded her ancestors and pretended others abdicated only to go and conquer more foreign lands under the name of the crown that they would;t obey themselves, and then leave her with being Queen to so many countries and she can hardly sleep at night for all the troubles in her kingdoms, realms and other territories — let alone when she thinks of the future and the innocence of Prince Charles who says this year will be the year of a new Magna Carta for climate change and sustainability, never thinking of the barons.

297

Stephen 03.25.15 at 10:52 am

Donald Johnson, Val: many people find no difficulty in regarding both Gerry Adams and George W Bush as deeply repulsive, and responsible for unjustifiable actions. But the parallel would be stronger if GWB had repeatedly and publicly asserted that he never had anything to do with the US armed forces, so he didn’t.

298

Stephen 03.25.15 at 10:58 am

Phil@293: if you want another example, try Canada in 1812. The US had successfully seceded from the British, and believed that the next logical step was to make Canada secede too and join the US, whether or not the actual Canadians wanted that. Fortunately this ambition has waned in Washington: it took till 1998 for it to be officially rejected in Dublin.

The Sudeten question is complicated. For one thing, the Germans had been in those parts for longer than the Czechs had: successful Slavic imperialism in the early middle ages, you know.

299

Val 03.25.15 at 11:49 am

Donald Johnson
I just read back through this thread and realised I’d actually had a conversation with you about the George bush thing previously so … I dunno, I’m losing the plot I guess :) sorry

300

bianca steele 03.25.15 at 12:34 pm

The thread made me think of Jamaica Kincaid’s essay “On Seeing England for the First Time,” and this essay seems appropriate.

301

Donald johnson 03.25.15 at 12:55 pm

The fundamental similarity is that Bush and Adams both have innocent blood on their hands and deny it.

Don’t worry Val–I sometimes lose track of who said what in a long thread.

302

engels 03.25.15 at 1:24 pm

Val

I wondered why Adams was singled out as particularly and peculiarly revolting given the huge number of others, including eg George Bush or our own former PM John Howard, who authorised a war which lead to many thousands more civilian deaths than Adams authorised (which he denies anyway).

Not to defend the concept, but terrorism is supposed to mean political violence which targets civilians (or sometimes which is intended to coerce a civilian population). The war in Iraq wasn’t an act of ‘terrorism’ under this definition because civilians weren’t targeted (as a matter of policy) and the aim wasn’t to coerce Iraqi civilians but to depose the Iraqi government. It’s true that a great many more civilians (or ‘innocents’ in Donald’s language) were killed as a result than were killed by anything Adams authorised, so you could argue that Bush’s actions were morally much worse than Adams’ (this is why I agreed with your initial point). But just pointing out the civilian deaths in Iraq and asking ‘what’s the difference’ seems to ignore the way the word is typically employed.

Btw you didn’t answer the question I asked about Osama bin Laden and the Sydney hostage taker, which was not whether they see themselves as fighting imperialism but whether you would categorise them that way.

303

Ronan(rf) 03.25.15 at 2:11 pm

The reason Gerry Adams was singled out is because the article linked in the OP was specifically about Gerry Adams ordering the murder of Jean McConville. It wasnt about Iraq, or George Bush or John Howard. I would be surprised if many here (certainly none of the main pagers) had any particular time for Bush, Howard or the Iraq War, but the topic was on Northern Ireland, Gerry Adams in particular, and the victims of paramilitary murder. That’s why that is what people spoke about.
I agree there are a lot of questions that might follow from that; when is violence legitimate ? Is violence from non state actors less legitimate than that from the state? Is there a difference, morally, between personally ordering the murder of a single mother of 10(?) and being the head of an administration that authorised a war that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands ? Was Gerry Adams fighting an anti Imperial war ? Did the PIRA have a popular madate for what it did? Did it need one ? Did the context justify the violence ? Are the paramilitaries actions less legitimate since there was a peaceful political process (which the majority utilised) where they could have resolved their grievances ? Could they have resolved their grievances politically ? If not, did their grievances legitimise their violence ?
But to answer these questions we have to look at the situation specifically, rather than engaging in rhetoric about ‘colonialism’ or aspects of Irish history that are probably not overly relevant.
The actions of the security forces in Northern Ireland have been researched and debated at length over the past decades. I’d be surprised if anyone with a passing interest in the conflict didnt know the broad outlines of this; Bloody Sunday, internment, the initial militarisation of the conflict, the use of counterinsurgency tactics (mainly) on the border, collusion. Some of this has been acknowledged by the British State, other aspects havent. But more has been done to clarify their role in the conflict by the British than has been done by the paramilitaries. And the fact remains that it’s very difficult to make the case that the British were the main drivers of the conflict rather than the paramilitaries, primarily the IRA. The paramilitaries killed far more (I think approaching 90% of the dead) with the PIRA killing most.
I would say as well (and this isnt snarky, as is none of the above. Perhaps my tone comes across a little aggressive at times so Ill try and change that, but it’s not the intent) , that a lot of people in England/Britain, particularly on the left,*are* aware of their imperial past, it’s just that in a lot of ways those debates petered out as the Empire wound down. People In Britain and (particularly) Ireland are aware of the relationship between these countries historically and the questions involved, to what extent was it colonial, to what extent were the Irish implicated in Empire, how (ie not always violent) the Irish responded to British rule and why etc. But answering these questions does require moving on from tales of ‘English’ oppression and Irish subjugation (even if that is an important part of the story, particularly at certain points)
I do agree with a lot of what Phil said above, that we need a more sophisticated way of looking at the Provos and Gerry Adams, but the reason a lot of people might have expressed contempt for Adams is because some commenting above grew up with it in various contexts (either in England, The Republic or the North) That’s going to explain a good deal about what they think of Gerry Adams and the paramilitaries.

304

novakant 03.25.15 at 2:41 pm

#300

The strategy of “shock and awe”, as employed in Iraq, explicitly targets the civilian population. Also the sanctions against Iran are targeting civilians. There is no difference to terrorist actions, except that the number of civilians harmed or killed is generally a lot higher.

305

engels 03.25.15 at 3:08 pm

Novakant, sanctions aren’t ‘political violence’ and ‘shock and awe’ doesn’t ‘explicitly’ target the civilian population.

306

Ronan(rf) 03.25.15 at 3:17 pm

Susan McKay wrote on article on Jean McConville (which the one in the OP seems to borrow heavily from) that gets more deeply into the complexity of the situation

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/susan-mckay/diary

She also wrote a decent enough book on the stories of the (mainly uninvolved) dead from the conflict. I think that’s probably a more useful avenue for investigation/activism/support, backing the victims of violence rather than the perpetrators. (whether ‘imperial’, ‘anti imperial’ or everything in between)

307

Harold 03.25.15 at 3:52 pm

Sanctions and “shock and awe” cause collateral damage to innocent civilians, then, even if they aren’t “explicit targets.” Hmm.

308

Bruce Wilder 03.25.15 at 4:14 pm

Ronan(rf): the fact remains that it’s very difficult to make the case that the British were the main drivers of the conflict

I don’t think it is the least bit difficult. It may be the least difficult part of the case to make. The British are there. Their being there makes them main drivers of the conflict, for good and ill. If you cannot manage to get that much right . . .

309

Ronan(rf) 03.25.15 at 4:29 pm

Good point Bruce. Never thought of it like that

310

Bruce Wilder 03.25.15 at 4:39 pm

Now you are being snarky!

311

Donald Johnson 03.25.15 at 4:40 pm

Sanctions often are meant to hurt the civilian population as a way of pressuring the government. There was evidence of this with the Iraqi sanctions, though generally the US would deny it. I said “often”, but if sanctions are harsh enough that should probably be changed to “always”.

312

Stephen 03.25.15 at 5:04 pm

Bruce Wilder @306: of course you’re right, that the British were there did make them main drivers of the conflict: if by “the British” you mean the section of the NI population who regarded themselves as UK citizens, not Irish. All the IRA had to do was get rid of them, one way or another, and the conflict would have been over.

(I realise that Bruce’s comment may have been made very ironically. I do hope it was.)

313

Stephen 03.25.15 at 5:09 pm

Harold@305: agreed, sanctions and “shock and awe”, even if aimed at the enemy government and its armies, may often cause collateral damage to innocent civilians. Trouble is, apart from naval battles in mid-ocean or armies clashing in a desert, it is difficult to fight any war at all without causing collateral damage to innocent civilians. Now solution, of course, is never to fight a war at all, but …

314

Phil 03.25.15 at 5:20 pm

“Who killed more civilians” is a very different question from “who was the main driver of the conflict”, which again is a very different question from “how could the conflict be resolved”, which is also a very different question from “how did participants in the conflict aim to resolve it”.

315

TM 03.25.15 at 5:26 pm

The whole thread seems unsatisfactory to me, probably unsurprisingly given the OP. Debating which historical figure is the worse monster isn’t getting us very far. There is no contest between GWB and Gerry Adams over who is responsible for more unjustifiable deaths and suffering. The semantics of how you call their crimes is beside the point. Murder is a horrible crime unless a whole lot of people are killed, then it is heroic. The most admired historical figures are among the worst monsters. They only fall in disrepute and (sometimes) are judged as criminals when they lose. That of course is the problem built into the seemingly attractive idea of an international war crimes tribunal: only the losers of history will be dragged before such courts, never the winners, however greatly they may deserve it.

Gerry Adams has done terrible things – which, as many have pointed out, can be said about most statesmen – and also deserves a lot of credit for his role in bringing about a peace settlement that actually worked and brought a decades-long conflict to (hopefully) an end. And so btw does Tony Blair, who could by now be remembered as a revered peace maker if he hadn’t chosen to be a war criminal instead.

Having said all that, it seems clear to me that the (P)IRA’s strategy of armed struggle was a disastrous failure from the very beginning, and I wish leftists would stop reflexively making excuses for secessionist movements. IRA, ETA, PKK, LTTE and many others once were supported as worthwhile causes by many on the left because of their appeals to anti-imperialist struggle and revolutionary romanticism. All of them have failed at reaching their goals, have left great suffering in their wake (not all their fault of course), and I would argue have mostly closed rather than opened up spaces for progressive politics in their respective polities. They were all based on exclusionary nationalist ideology impossible to reconcile with an emancipatory vision of leftist politics (*). Their goals were not equality and rights for all but more power for their particular group, with the predictable effect of frightening almost everybody on the other side into antagonism. Non-armed civil rights movements, which appealed to universal values, were crushed by both side’s regression into nationalism and militarization. Exclusionary nationalism is anathema to all the left holds dear and it is a mystery why anybody on the left would want to support it. Armed secessionism, while causing untold bloodshed, has mostly failed and, where it was successful (Croatia etc.), almost always led to ethnic cleansing. Nonviolent secessionism has also mostly failed. I’m grateful that Quebec and Scotland have gotten to make their choice without bloodshed but still, the best that can be said for these movements is that they wasted huge amounts of political energy.

(*) I once heard an ETA supporter claim that their nationalism was not exclusionary because anybody willing to learn Basque was welcome.

316

Stephen 03.25.15 at 5:26 pm

Val @287: can we, without lecturing each other, agree on one thing?

The armed forces of a state can be terrorists, in the sense that they use violence which targets civilians. When Goebbels called the allied bombers “terrorflieger” he had a point.

A distinction which I think worth making, though, is that in NI there was no obstacle to removing the disadvantages of the Catholic population (which were real, though limited) by peaceful, constitutional means. Terrorism was therefore unjustified. In WW2 such means could hardly be applied to Germany. You may differ here: if so, I would like to know why.

On another thing: we would agree that in NI, both sides committed terrorist atrocities.

I would say that, in the sense that both the Republican and Loyalist armed gangs did so, as part of the deliberate policy of their leaders. I have no time for either. What the UK forces did was sometimes completely unjustifiable, but that was not part of of government policy. Bloody Sunday, for instance, was a disgrace, but it was not as if anybody ordered a group of paratroops, who had been told to arrest some rioters, to dash into a part of Derry where they had been told not to go and open fire on civilians who were mostly no threat to anybody. Again, you may disagree, but if so I would like to know why.

317

Stephen 03.25.15 at 5:38 pm

ZM@284: I wonder if things were quite that simple. If you look outside the English/Irish dichotomy, you will see that Germany, for instance, has at all relevant times been far more economically developed than Ireland: and yet Germany hardly extracted land and resources and labour from any colonies.

Maybe one of the factors was that Ireland is desperately short of coal and iron?

318

Ronan(rf) 03.25.15 at 5:39 pm

Phil – I agree with you it’s a different question. But (genuine question) how would you make the argument that the PIRA, at least past the mid 1970s, or the paramilitaries and domestic political spoilers more generally *weren’t* the main drivers of the conflict ? My understanding of British policy (as a generality) was that their main interest was in staying to ‘protect’ the Unionist community. Certainly at the times when it did seem at least plausible that they might pull out, the Irish government let it be known they didnt wan’t them to. (as they didnt want responsibility for the security situation) So the conflict was primarily one between domestic political groups fighting for control over the state. What is the resolution in the 70s/80s to that conflict ?

If you mean that I’m underplaying the extent to which Loyalists helped drive the conflict (ie the ‘primarily the PIRA’ bit) then I agree that’s a fair complaint.

319

Ronan(rf) 03.25.15 at 5:46 pm

Or more specifically British policy was to contain the conflict and not allow Unionists be ‘forced’ into a united Ireland.

320

Bruce Wilder 03.25.15 at 6:53 pm

Stephen @ 314: What the UK forces did was sometimes completely unjustifiable, but that was not part of government policy.

I am not ashamed to admit that my powers of snark are just not up to this challenge.

321

Greg 03.25.15 at 7:22 pm

FWIW, they are well-meant and I know what they are getting at, but I feel uncomfortable with claims like “Bush is a terrorist.” Terrorism (as it is widely understood) and “official” state warfare are obviously not the same thing. They are different in scale, nature, proximate goal and process, and all of these matter.

The state’s use of armed forces is backed up by a whole universe of social contracts, institutions and processes that are (seen to be) legitimate – the fact that violence is carried out in the name of the state is not a small thing, and it is not irrelevant to any of the parties involved – the perpetrators, the victims or the people in whose name it is carried out.

I certainly feel that this is true when it comes to civil conflicts / occupations. I’m pretty sure the Tamils, Gazans and Timorese I know would react badly if you told them they were victims of terrorism. Partly because that elides the fact that the whole state apparatus, not just the military, was/has been brought to bear against them. Partly because the violence directed against them was often not tactical or strategic: it was punishment. It was its own justification. It was the end, not the means.

322

TM 03.25.15 at 7:50 pm

319: “I feel uncomfortable with claims like “Bush is a terrorist.””

You probably wouldn’t argue that state violence is legitimate qua definition. But if it isn’t, by what criteria can we judge perpetrators of political violence like Bush or Adams? I think we can’t escape the fact that political violence is always judged by who wins, not by any moral standards. See 313.

323

The Temporary Name 03.25.15 at 7:59 pm

But if it isn’t, by what criteria can we judge perpetrators of political violence like Bush or Adams?

“War criminal” seems okay to me.

324

Val 03.25.15 at 8:21 pm

Greg @ 319

Reading your comment, Greg, it sounds as if you think the states of Sri Lanka, Israel and Indonesia are worse than “terrorists” (defined as non- state actors). Is that intentional?

I guess the question I’m trying to get at is whether “terrorist” is often used as a label to mark one party in a dispute as illegitimate (here, originally by the British government to label the IRA as illegitimate) and then used by others without recognising the tactic of delegitimisation embedded in the term. I don’t think in general the IRA targeted civilians, and the case in the OP was about targeting someone perceived as an informer (I am not trying to justify it).

Engels @ 300
Yes I do think bin Laden was fighting imperialism, if you accept that US imperialism (which is enacted through political, economic and cultural domination, rather than occupation or colonisation, though backed up by force) is real. I do think US imperialism is real and is a problem – as we are seeing in Australia through the TPP negotiations – although I don’t see violence or terrorism (targeting civilians) as the answer to it.

Moreover, of course, bin Laden and his ilk are fighting against aspects of western culture that I support, such as (some) freedom for women to participate in society on equal terms.

As I said, I don’t think you can draw any conclusions from a disturbed individual such as Monis.

325

Stephen 03.25.15 at 8:26 pm

Val: I’m not clear here. When you say that “terrorist” was used as a label to mark the IRA as illegitimate, do you mean that you regard the IRA as legitimate, or that the British government should have done so?

If so, from what did their legitimacy derive?

326

Stephen 03.25.15 at 8:36 pm

Bruce Wilder @318: I would not so easily underestimate your powers of snark.

Seriously, if you believe that before Bloody Sunday the British government gave orders to the Paras to the effect of “Go into the Bogside and shoot some Catholic civilians” you need to explain why you believe that.

Similarly, if you believe that before Bloody Friday Gerry Adams did not give orders to the effect of “take some car bombs into Belfast and let them off”, a similar explanation would aslo oblige.

327

Ronan(rf) 03.25.15 at 8:41 pm

Stephen – of course bloody Sunday was a result of British policy ie the decision in general to militarise the conflict and specifically to use the paras. The fact that the pm didn’t explicitly order the shooting dead of protesters is beside the point. This is the same argument the ira made, civilian casualties were (mostly) “collateral damage”. And that’s mostly true, but they were still the result of an ira strategy which was willing to take risks with civilians life’s

328

Ronan(rf) 03.25.15 at 8:48 pm

Or that the ira were willing to define “legitimate targets” quite broadly.

Do you not think the dead from collusion can be seen as a consequence of British policy ?

329

Stephen 03.25.15 at 8:52 pm

Ronan: well yes, but “militarising the conflict” wasn’t, as I remember it, quite like that. The decision to send in the troops to preserve the peace wasn’t intended to result in a low-level conflict: that was the result of the IRA’s policy of attacking the troops who were initially seen as the protectors of the Catholics.

You do have a point that the decision to send the paras against a mob of lightly-armed rioters did result in a few of them going way beyond what their commanders had intended. But most, even of the paras deployed on Bloody Sunday, didn’t do that, and none war intended to. With hindsight, of course, none of them should have been deployed at all.

Collateral damage, as I understand it, is a matter of using force against a legitimate target that unintentionally causes damage to bystanders. I do have some difficulty in applying that to either Bloody Sunday or to the IRA’s bombing campaign.

I am tempted to look up and quote the Ballad of Claudy, but you probably know it.

330

Val 03.25.15 at 8:53 pm

Stephen @ 323
I mean that neither side was more legitimate than the other. In this case, I (partly for reasons of family as discussed earlier) tend to see the IRA as having a more legitimate cause, though I don’t support their methods.

331

Stephen 03.25.15 at 9:00 pm

Val: the cause of the IRA, as I understand it, was that the Protestant majority of NI should be conquered and forced into an united Ireland against their will: and the cause of the British government was that they should not.

Interesting that you regard these as legitimate, but the IRA as more so. I’m not sure what family background could explain that.

332

Stephen 03.25.15 at 9:17 pm

Ronan@326: yes of course, the IRA did define “legitimate targets” very broadly indeed. You probably don’t need a list of their more notorious very broad examples. Doesn’t mean they were right to do so.

As for the dead from collusion, it depends what you mean. Some republicans appear to believe that anything evil done by the loyalists was a result of their collusion with Evil Brits, and anything apparently evil done by republicans was also inspired by Evil Brits.

There’s a problem. In order to bring about the military collapse of the IRA, the British (and the Irish Special Branch) had to make sure they were infested with informers. To do that, they had to cover up the activities of some of those. Is that collusion? If so, why was it wrong?

333

Stephen 03.25.15 at 9:21 pm

Ronan: that apart, I do very much agree with your 301 and 306. And I am grateful for the reference in 274 to the DRB review, which needs some thinking about. I would like to hope that ZM will read it also: it might persuade her not to take Tim Pat Coogan as gospel.

334

Ronan(rf) 03.25.15 at 9:24 pm

I’m not saying anything, good or bad, about those policies, just acknowledging that they were policies and had consequences. That, afaict, was what Bruce was responding to.

As I’ve made clear, I dont think the Provos had a legitimate reason to wage war (so all deaths were unjustified), and think that the security forces were *mostly* reactive to the paramilitaries behaviour, but I dont think that excuses everything they did.

335

Greg 03.25.15 at 9:24 pm

Val – if we’re generalizing, and I guess I am, then yes. (I wouldn’t agree with the definition of terrorists as non-state actors though).

TM – I liked your last paragraph in 313. I also have little to no patience with secessionist movements (more generalizing). But I really don’t agree that legitimacy or morality is judged by who wins. Plenty of winners are condemned by history, by their contemporaries, or never win the political legitimacy for their victories to stick. Examples are not hard to come by. Yeah, as The Temporary Name says, war criminals.

336

Stephen 03.25.15 at 9:28 pm

Ronan: I also do not think that the IRA had a legitimate reason to wage war, and that there are no excuses for some of the things the security forces did; though not I think many of them. Glad to see we’re not too far from concord.

Val, I fear, isn’t.

337

Greg 03.25.15 at 9:41 pm

Oh, and yes terrorism is a label used incorrectly to mark groups as illegitimate, but it is also a real thing that we can talk about.

So, clarification – all terrorist violence is illegitimate (because it targets civilians), some state violence is, and illegitimate state violence is generally worse than terrorist violence.

And while there will always be debate about what state actions are or are not illegitimate, we’ve agreed some pretty clear international laws on the matter, which is about the best we can do.

338

Phil 03.25.15 at 10:09 pm

How far to extend the label of ‘terrorism’ is a live issue in the growing academic discipline of Terrorism Studies – the two main positions being “‘terrorist’ is a label that we use to identify a particular sort of insurgency” and “‘terrorism’ is the systematic creation of terror as a weapon of policy, whoever does it and whyever they do it”. I personally take a third position, which is that ‘terrorist’ is primarily a label used to delegitimate & depoliticise, and therefore we should use it as little as possible. When somebody sets out to cause mass casualties so as to create widespread terror, fair enough, they’re engaging in terrorism – or, for those who want a different word for what states do, they’re using ‘terror tactics’. But most political violence isn’t like that.

Ronan:
how would you make the argument that the PIRA, at least past the mid 1970s, or the paramilitaries and domestic political spoilers more generally *weren’t* the main drivers of the conflict

Depends what you mean by ‘driver’, depends what you mean by ‘conflict’. Loyalist supremacism, down to very basic things like not bothering to provide portaloos along march routes (because you can always go and piss up a side street), made sure that some kind of conflict was never going to go away – and Loyalist violence was what created the Provos. But I’d agree that once the PIRA and the UDA were out there, their very existence made it hard to put the violent conflict back in the box. Ironically, their Republican heritage may have been a big part of the problem; if they’d stuck to pure ‘defenderism’ – if they had been a local militia dedicated to defending Nationalist areas and nothing more – it might have been easier to stand down.

339

William Berry 03.25.15 at 10:29 pm

I don’t know a great deal about the conflict in NI (a little more than most people and a whole lot less than some other people?) but as a person of the left I have real difficulty understanding why anyone who considers him/ her-self left of center wouldn’t think the British should just GTFO of NI.

Does anyone really think that in the (mostly) secular state of the Ireland of today that the loyalists who decided to stay would be discriminated against in the way (mainly economically and culturally?) the Irish Catholic minority of Ulster has historically been discriminated against?*

*Completely uninterested in the opinion of the righties (Stephen, et al) in the thread.

340

engels 03.25.15 at 10:31 pm

I think the word terrorism is ideological and generally unhelpful but is it true that it is depoliticising? Maybe it is within academic discussion but from the point of view of policy it seems the alternative in many cases would be to classify the people concerned as criminals, which seems more depoliticising to me.

341

Ronan(rf) 03.25.15 at 10:41 pm

I dont know if Ive been cast with poor Stephen as a right wing lunatic, but I’ll offer an opinion anyway. I do think a united Ireland NOW would protect the interests and identity of Unionists. I also dont think it would have in the 192os. The reason there isnt a united Ireland is because a majority in the North dont agree with my postion (for whatever reason, and including on recent polling a majority of Catholics)
I think a united Ireland with genuine consent, in the long run is probably if not inevitabl then likely. So long as the words ‘genuine consent’ are keptin mind (ie not just when it becomes a demographic possibility)

342

William Berry 03.25.15 at 10:55 pm

No, Ronan, I think you are little quirky (me too!) but pretty cool, near as I can tell.

343

Ronan(rf) 03.25.15 at 11:03 pm

I also think the British should then reconquer the country and start the process all over again ; )

344

Ronan(rf) 03.25.15 at 11:04 pm

Seriously though, that (the first part) would be the mainstream view at this stage. When they get themselves together in the North, we’ll all discuss it further.

345

Phil 03.25.15 at 11:42 pm

The ‘terrorist’ label depoliticises in the sense that a terrorist’s beliefs are beliefs that mustn’t be discussed – just as a terrorist’s demands are demands that mustn’t be granted. Terrorism isn’t non-political (like crime), it’s anti-political (like treason).

346

engels 03.25.15 at 11:56 pm

Thanks, that makes sense.

347

Phil 03.25.15 at 11:59 pm

It’s also worth mentioning that the Republic of Ireland, when founded, effectively laid claim to the whole island. My reading of this constitutional claim is that it was a dead letter more or less from day one, but Unionists understandably didn’t like to think that the RoI had it in reserve. So, as part of the broader peace process, there was a referendum in the Republic on dropping that clause, which passed by a huge margin. I’ve got a friend in Dublin; he’s the sweetest, mildest, most charming man you could ever meet. The only time I’ve ever seen him angry was when I asked him why he’d voted to drop the clause, if he wanted to see the island reunited some day. His reply was, essentially, that of course he wanted reunification, but that holding on to some fatuous, meaningless constitutional statement wasn’t going to bring it any closer – and might push it further away by making peace harder to achieve.

So that’s another reason why Ireland isn’t going to be reunited any time soon – taking reunification off the agenda, at least under that name, was part of the price of peace.

348

Val 03.26.15 at 12:06 am

Stephen @ 329
My Irish great grandparents were a Catholic family living in County Armagh near the border. The border is a very arbitrary thing from that perspective and rather than the IRA cause being about ‘forcing’ people in Northern Ireland to be part of the Republic, it could be seen as about ‘allowing’ them to be. Whoever was to blame, many Catholic people in Northern Ireland undoubtedly felt they weren’t getting a fair deal.

I don’t think you’re really interested in other viewpoints though.

349

TM 03.26.15 at 12:26 am

William 337: national borders are a big deal nowadays. The politicos call this the Westphalian system. Whatever, fact is that any self-respecting state/country regards this thing called Territorial Integrity as sacrosanct (ironically this is especially true for countries that have themselves been formed by secession). Some of the bloodiest conflicts have been fought about just that, territorial integrity. So the suggestion that any state should just give up part of its territory because a part of that region’s population (and it may even be a minority) demands it is never going to be an easy sell. By what criteria exactly do you suggest to decide whether territorial integrity should be respected or a right of secession be conceded? Why exactly should the British get TF out of NI, and btw, who exactly are “the British”?

350

TM 03.26.15 at 12:30 am

Val 347: respectfully, all borders are arbitrary. The error is to think that there some sort of natural borders that we could agree on and thereby solve all territorial conflicts. There aren’t. And as just stated, questioning some country’s territorial integrity is always asking for war. Why would that ever be regarded as a left-wing position?

351

Val 03.26.15 at 12:56 am

TM @ 349
Have you read that great thing Ursula La Guin wrote about patriotism in the Left Hand of Darkness?

“How does one hate a country, or love one? Tibe talks about it; I lack the trick of it. I know people, I know towns, farms, hills and rivers and rocks, I know how the sun at sunset in autumn falls on the side of a certain plowland in the hills; but what is the sense of giving a boundary to all that, of giving it a name and ceasing to love where the name ceases to apply? What is love of one’s country; is it hate of one’s uncountry? Then it’s not a good thing. Is it simply self-love? That’s a good thing, but one mustn’t make a virtue of it, or a profession… Insofar as I love life, I love the hills of the Domain of Estre, but that sort of love does not have a boundary-line of hate. And beyond that, I am ignorant, I hope.”

I completely agree with that, but I’m just talking about a catholic peasant family who possibly found themselves on the wrong side of a political border, from their perspective. I don’t know, I never actually met my great grandparents or my grandmother on that side, I’m just going on vague recollections of things my mother said. The farm’s gone now, lost in The Troubles.

352

Greg 03.26.15 at 1:08 am

Phil

OK, that’s interesting on Terrorism Studies, thanks. I guess I thought terrorism was a type of guerrilla warfare, which uses unpredictable strikes on civilian and symbolic targets in order to produce widespread fear. In other words, somewhere between the two positions you sketched out (as a guerrilla tactic, it’s only really available to weaker forces in certain contexts), and much more limited.

I agree that the terms “terrorism” and “terrorist” are used for ideological purposes (partly why I prefer narrow definitions) but I have to think some more about the issues you and engels raise of depoliticization. Thinking aloud, if terrorism is a particular, illegitimate kind of political violence, shouldn’t it be the aim to depoliticise the act, to prosecute the violence as a crime (as you would a war crime), and leave the political part to be reclaimed by politics?

353

William Berry 03.26.15 at 2:18 am

@TM: I did say I wasn’t interested in the opinion of the righties. But:

Nice condescension, though. I had an undergraduate major in history (99th %ile on subject GRE) and am familiar with the concept of the Westphalian System (1648, after all, is widely considered the beginning of “modern” European history). Anyhow, f*** the Westphalian System. I am not a nationalist and believe that there will never be a lasting peace in the world until the concept of national sovereignty gets tossed into the dustbin of history.

And if you don’t know who the British are, you are not half as smart as you think you are.

354

William Berry 03.26.15 at 2:21 am

Yeah, I know, it’s the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but still.

355

Stephen 03.26.15 at 9:01 am

William Berry: personally, I am interested in the opinions of others, and I think that arranging people along a simple left (=right) to right (=wrong) axis is over-simple.

If I have understood you rightly, you believe that there should be no form of national sovereignty, but at the same time it’s very important that all of Ireland should be united. Have I got that wrong?

356

Stephen 03.26.15 at 9:26 am

Val@348: about the arbitrariness of the border of NI you are of course right. There’s a well-known picture of a house with one end in Monaghan and the other in Fermanagh. I tried to explain earlier (not as a demented right-wing opinion, but as a matter of historical fact) why the county boundaries were not originally intended to be the national boundaries, and why a more rational border was abandoned. For what it’s worth, I also agree that South Armagh should never have been made part of the north. (There is a story, I’m not sure it’s true, of Thatcher proposing to cede South Armagh to the Republic, and a horrified Haughey refusing the offer on the grounds that it would mean recognising partition.) Your great-grandparents have my sympathy.

But even so, there is no way, as TM points out, of constructing a workable land border that will leave all nationalists on one side and all unionists on the other.

When you say that the IRA’s position was that they wanted to “allow” people to be part of a United Ireland, I think with respect that you are mistaken. After all, the UK government’s position is that they are happy to allow people to be part of a United Ireland, if that’s what they want, but actually a large proportion (including, as Ronan points out, many northern Catholics) don’t want it. The IRA’s position throughout the troubles was that what unionists want doesn’t matter.

But I sometimes wonder whether all the republicans in south Armagh, where the economy has traditionally involved a prosperous cross-border smuggling trade, really want a united Ireland either.

357

Stephen 03.26.15 at 9:31 am

Ronan@341: you may be horrified to find that I also largely agree with your opinion there. I can see a possibility of a peaceful, harmonious, modern Ireland that did not exist in earlier times, and if it was by genuine consent I would have no real objection. But that consent has never existed, does not now exist, and will take a very long time to develop.

Is it right-wing lunacy to say that the same factors apply to the evolution of a peaceful, harmonious reunion of Britain and Ireland?

358

Stephen 03.26.15 at 9:41 am

Greg@352: in as far as the IRA’s tactics (and the Loyalists’) have unpredictable strikes on civilian and symbolic targets in order to produce widespread fear, it has for many years been a very reasonable tactic of UK and Irish governments to prosecute the violence as a crime, as you would a war crime. Trouble is, to prosecute war criminals you have to win the war first. That has largely been done in NI, but not by depoliticising the issue. And given the way it’s been won, it’s now difficult to prosecute remaining war criminals.

359

Phil 03.26.15 at 10:02 am

if terrorism is a particular, illegitimate kind of political violence, shouldn’t it be the aim to depoliticise the act, to prosecute the violence as a crime (as you would a war crime), and leave the political part to be reclaimed by politics?

Yes, and at this point my clever redefinition of ‘depoliticise’ comes back to bite me!

I think what the ‘terrorism’ label does is to suggest that certain kinds of violence are particularly abhorrent because they’re carried out with a political goal, and at the same time that certain kinds of political goal are abhorrent because they can only be pursued through violence. So a key part of defeating terrorism is identifying those political goals and putting them beyond the pale, if you’ll pardon the expression – if you don’t salt the earth of political debate (or cut off the oxygen of publicity), people will hear those ideas, some of them will be persuaded, and the inevitable result will be more violence.

To ‘depoliticise’ a terrorist act in the way that you suggest – to say, never mind about what you were doing it for, let’s focus on what you did – would break the connection between abhorrent action and abhorrent politics. As such, it would open the way for the political programme the bombers thought they were promoting to be taken seriously as a political programme, setting aside the fact that people did horrible and unjustifiable things to promote it.

360

Stephen 03.26.15 at 10:30 am

Phil: fine, but how do you “take seriously” the aspects of a political programme that can only be pursued through abhorrent violence?

361

TM 03.26.15 at 2:33 pm

Val 351: I love that quote, thanks. On the question of people finding themselves “on the wrong side of a border”: In cases of contested territoriality, there are always some people going to end up “on the wrong side”. The only solutions are (1) ethnic cleansing, (2) refusing to be defined by nationalism, or (relatedly) (3) stopping to take borders so seriously (or working towards a world without borders, or some such).

The third solution proposed here is not to be conflated with WB’s “solution” at 353. I like Stephen’s retort at 355 but let’s be clear: to say “f*** the Westphalian System” and oss national sovereignty into the dustbin of history is just asking for naked Hobbesianism where the stronger can do to the weaker how they please. Which, come to think of it, doesn’t look like such a promising way of helping oppressed minorities.

362

Phil 03.26.15 at 2:56 pm

Stephen – name me a political programme that can only be pursued through violence and I’ll tell you. (Hasn’t your position on this thread concerning the IRA been that reunification could and should have been pursued peacefully & through constitutional means?) That’s the point of ‘terrorism’ as a label – it binds together acts of violence & political demands, such that when we see ‘extremist’ demands we automatically think ‘violence’.

I see political violence as a tactical choice – sometimes an obligatory choice but usually a mistaken choice. This is why I think it’s good & useful to separate the politics from the violence, and one of the ways in which it’s useful is that it makes it easier to hold the people who committed the violence to account. I’m not sure what part of this you actually disagree with.

363

Niall McAuley 03.26.15 at 3:03 pm

Stephen writes: There’s a well-known picture of a house with one end in Monaghan and the other in Fermanagh

There is a scholarly consideration of the economic impact of Partition on individual houses, especially public houses, in Spike Milligan’s Puckoon.

364

Stephen 03.26.15 at 5:54 pm

Phil: yes, certainly, my position is that Irish reunification could be, and should have been, pursued peacefully & through constitutional means: just like the improvements in the treatment of northern Catholics, which have been achieved. But as I see it, such reunification can only be peacefully achieved through the willing consent of all parties. I don’t think that’s impossible, but I do think it’s a long way off.

The IRA’s political programme during the troubles, however, was not eventual peaceful reunion by mutual consent. It was reunion, now, whether the northern majority consented or not. I don’t know how often Gerry Adams (who was never in the IRA, ho ho) denounced what he called “the Unionist veto”: that is, the principle of consent. And such reunion without consent could only be achieved, if it could be achieved at all, through the conquest or expulsion of the northern majority, by violence. That is the part of the IRA programme I found unacceptable. I hope you would agree.

You may reply that such conquest or expulsion was never in fact practicable: probably not, but (as Ronan agrees) it was the only way the IRA’s programme could be achieved. You could truly say that it is no longer Sinn Fein’s programme: indeed, but that is only after a successful campaign of bribery, blackmail and bullets has brought most of the surviving IRA to change their minds. With the enthusiastic collaboration, of course, of Gerry Adams.

Lastly, I think you might agree that the net effect of the IRA campaigns, 1920s – 1990s (and after, for the residual IRAs) has in fact been to delay by many decades a united Ireland by mutual consent. “I blew up her father’s shop, I set fire to her house, I shot both her brothers, and still the damned bitch doesn’t want to marry me.”

365

Suzanne 03.26.15 at 6:52 pm

@364: Your arguments are not entirely without justice, Stephen, but the notion that it was mainly IRA violence that stood in the way of Mutual Consent and dances round the maypole is pretty funny, as if all would be different if the Irish nationalists of the past century had never learned from Carson et al. that sometimes your political position can gain in persuasiveness when you start waving guns around.

366

Stephen 03.26.15 at 8:35 pm

Suzanne: if you believe that Irish nationalists pre-Carson had never advocated or contemplated violence, well, God bless your ignorance.

AS for the obstacle to mutual consent, all I’m saying is that it was there from well before Carson’s time, and that IRA violence made obstacles more rather than less strong. “Be my brother or by Christ I’ll blow your kneecaps off ” does not seem to me to be a persuasive argument. You are of course free to differ, with no threat at all to your kneecaps.

367

ZM 03.26.15 at 11:01 pm

Thanks Ronan and bianca steele for the links you provided — I’ll put them in my reading list for a rainy day.

I think I overlooked another reason for the different approaches in the UK and Australia to colonialism — in the UK I guess you do not want to increase antipathy too much between people in your present day national community or near neighbours, whereas in Australia we can point out the grievous injustices of English colonialism and so forth but because the English are so far away (and don’t listen anyway) we don’t have to worry about causing present day hostilities.

368

ZM 03.26.15 at 11:18 pm

Stephen,

“ZM@284: I wonder if things were quite that simple. If you look outside the English/Irish dichotomy, you will see that Germany, for instance, has at all relevant times been far more economically developed than Ireland: and yet Germany hardly extracted land and resources and labour from any colonies.”

I am quite dubious that Germany was such a prosperous economy before it was unified in the 19th C.

I had a quick look and they just had a nice un-unified rural economy for a long time (was it a more advanced rural economy than Ireland’s? ) then the Thirty Years War in the 17th C proved ruinous – so I doubt it was so much more peaceful and prosperous than Ireland in the 17th C.

The population didn’t recover till the 18th C — then there was some economic expansion in Austria, Saxony and Prussia — but just slow growth overall.

Then there was bloody unification and industrialisation to make Germany a great state like France and Britain — then there was World War One and World War Two since Germany wanted to gobble up other countries resources to become as powerful and wealthy as Britain.

These two world wars were a great disaster in my view.

If — rather than pursuing economic growth through Empire building in emulation of Great Britain — Germany had instead tried to set a good example for Britain as a humble European country who just used her own resources then things might have been more peaceful in the 20th C and maybe London would have emulated this and not now in the 21stC be a small city that consumes more resources than can be found in land the size of Spain.

369

Greg 03.27.15 at 1:44 am

Phil: the terrorism label is used as a move to classify “…certain kinds of political goal [as] abhorrent because they can only be pursued through violence.”

OK, yes, this I get. It’s a move to make the politics inseparable from the violence, which would then preclude any possibility of depoliticising the terrorist act and prosecuting the violence as a crime.

370

Ronan(rf) 03.27.15 at 1:13 pm

Stephen, I’d assume for the sake of accuracy that you’d share JJ Lee’s qualification of the situation ?

“I shared the standard view, still widely held, that by arming through the Ulster Volunteer Force in 1913– 14, Orangemen were responsible for ‘bringing the gun back into politics’. This conveyed the impression that somehow Irish politics under the Union were conducted without regard to the power of the gun. In fact Irish politics were conducted within the framework prescribed by the power of the gun— the British gun. The presence of British troops in Ireland was the precondition for British rule , and therefore, in the circumstances, for the nature and conduct of politics. The sentence should instead convey the fact, not that Ulster unionists brought the gun back into Irish politics, but rather that the arming of the Ulster Volunteer Force ‘brought an alternative to the British gun into Irish politics’.”

371

Stephen 03.27.15 at 6:02 pm

Ronan: yes, but with some reservations.

One is that all governments depend on access, when necessary, to armed force. The gun, or the sword, has always been a potential factor in politics: of course, from a liberal point of view, or from the point of view of running an efficient government, it has been highly desirable to keep it only potentially usable, and to pursue politics by non-violent means.

At times this has not been at all the case: Britain and Ireland for much of the 17th century, and more sporadically so in the 18th. After the Union, politics were of course at first decided by the presence of British troops, and later also by the presence of the (largely Irish Catholic) RIC; I don’t know their relative importance. Without them, I’m sure things would have been very different. Mind you, 19th century (or subsequent) Britain with neither army nor police would also have been very different, and I doubt the results would have been altogether edifying.

As the nineteenth century went on, things changed. The nature and conduct of politics under Parnell was not, I think, so much determined byBritish armed force. By 1913, with Home Rule imminent, the influence of British guns on Irish politics was temporarily unimportant. Not that threats of violence had altogether gone: the IRB hadn’t gone away, you know, and their only problem with guns was that they didn’t have enough of them.

Then the UVF brought guns back in a big way. It seems to me a pity that Redmond & Co did not see that, just as the liberal theories of government to which they had appealed meant that the UK government had to agree that Dublin should not be governed from London because the Irish people didn’t want it, the same liberal theories meant that Belfast should not be governed from Dublin because … But there we are.

I hope you will agree with at least some part of this. I do appreciate a discussion with someone with good information and an open mind.

372

Igor Belanov 03.27.15 at 6:54 pm

What did the liberal theories say about ‘Belfast’ governing the Falls Road?

373

Stephen 03.27.15 at 8:04 pm

Igor: pretty much what they said about Dublin “governing” Kingstown: that is, there is a limit to the size of exempted areas.

374

Val 03.27.15 at 8:42 pm

Stephen @371
“One is that all governments depend on access, when necessary, to armed force. ”

You have crossed into an area of interest of mine, so I will just add that not all human societies depend on armed force for governance. Some Neolithic societies, for example, showed quite large permanent settlements, and clearly had systems of governance, but did not depend on weapons to enforce this. They seem to have relatively peaceful and egalitarian, especially Catalhuyuk (see eg Hodder, who questions “goddess” theory but accepts egalitarianism).

I remember there were Neolithic excavations in Ireland that I visited, I can’t remember much about them and googling is taking too long to find anything much. Others here may know more.

However the widespread assumption (eg Weber) that all societies have depended on “legal used violence” to maintain order seems to be wrong – a cheering thought.

375

Val 03.27.15 at 8:43 pm

“legalised” sorry – damn spell check!

376

Stephen 03.27.15 at 9:44 pm

Val: I haven’t read much of the literature on Catalhoyuk, but I don’t see how you get from “a relatively egalitarian society” to “no dependance on weapons to enforce governance”. Given that CH depended considerably on hunting (Melaart and Hodder are I think agreed here), many people must have had regular access to bows and spears. So if some delinquents behaved against the accepted rules of governance, what do you think would have happened?

377

djr 03.27.15 at 11:50 pm

ZM:

in the UK I guess you do not want to increase antipathy too much between people in your present day national community or near neighbours, whereas in Australia we can point out the grievous injustices of English colonialism and so forth but because the English are so far away (and don’t listen anyway) we don’t have to worry about causing present day hostilities.

I think this highlights what I find infuriating about this conversation. Sometimes you talk about colonialism as being a bad thing that all of us who are successors to 18th / 19th century Britain should acknowledge and regret. Here I entirely agree with you.

But other times you talk about “English” colonialism as though it’s something specific to people in England, as though it’s a disease we pick up from the water supply. This makes it sounds as though you blame 19th century farm labourers or factory workers in England for the treatment of indigenous people in Australia, but think that this treatment had nothing whatsoever to do with the people who actually went to Australia. Yes, I know there were convicts and people driven to emigrate by extreme poverty, but free settlers vastly outnumbered convicts and life in the 19th century was pretty unpleasant for a lot of people whether they stayed in England or emigrated. The successors of the latter bunch are still very much in possession of the land they took.

To be clear, I doubt this really is your view, but it is what comes across from your writing at times, and may explain why you’ve found other people in the conversation to be “defensive”.

378

Ronan(rf) 03.28.15 at 12:04 am

Stephen – I don’t necessarily think the ‘same liberal theories’ mean that. For practical reasons, imo, they meant that . But morally or theoretically ? I think it’s little more than a matter of ideology. (I’ll get back to you tomorrow on the the rest over next few days)

379

Bruce Wilder 03.28.15 at 1:13 am

Stephen, Ronan, Phil:

A question relating to the OP: do you think Gerry Adams has accomplished anything and what is that?

I ask assuming we recognise that his politics, for good or ill, has turned on very slowly trading away the homicidal passions of the PIRA, for a constitutional order more inclusive or privileged for his political party. I am not asking for counterfactual claims it did not have to be this way. Given that it has been the way it has, do we credit him with Weberian slow boring of hard boards?

What is the significance of the resentments of those survivors feeling ill-used?

Or, of the resentments of opponents, who sought a different order?

Without inviting lengthy counterfactual, how far should we go in identifying the alternative order attached to said resentment, now or in the past?

380

Bruce Wilder 03.28.15 at 1:16 am

Çatalhöyük circa 7000 BCE was not very orderly, really.

381

Ronan(rf) 03.28.15 at 1:39 am

I said early on and believe that Adams (to simplify) brought the ira kicking and screaming into the peace process, that sinn Fein are a legitimate and (from a left perspective useful) political party , that his political opponents are using his past to undermine sinn Fein , and that the political class and media should debate sinn Fein on their policies not his past ( ie go back to plutonikuns first comment above for what, I agree though hadn’t thought of in that manner, is the interesting questions on adams et al.) I’ll reply properly when not on my phone.
(I also think the ed malonoey “thesis” as represented in the article – that his biggest crime is selling out his ‘comrades’- is ridiculous)

382

Ronan(rf) 03.28.15 at 2:26 am

It seems obvious to me that the main factor in sinn Feins popularity ( in the south at least) is a result of doing the long term hard work of building political alliances (particularly in working class areas) not around nationalism , but political and economic dissatisfaction. Part of it is rural conservative nationalism, but as time goes by less of it.
When I first left ireland 7/8 years ago they were slowly building themselves in the county I’m from, now they’re close to winning their first seat. I think that’s a positive development, I also don’t want to be sold any bullshit about anti imperialist struggles( which admittedly THEY don’t claim. At that level )

383

Ronan(rf) 03.28.15 at 2:33 am

..which isn’t to say I’d vote for them personally. I just think I value clientilist politics and constituency work more than the UK/US style of funnelling money into the pockets of the uber rich and calling it institutionally mature democracy

384

Phil 03.28.15 at 10:29 am

Bruce – I hold no brief for Gerry Adams; the only reason I came into this thread in the first place was to try and drive a wedge between ‘disagree with’ and ‘denounce’, or between ‘oppose’ and ‘anathematise’.

A fair amount of Provo discourse, and a lot of radical left Provo-sympathiser discourse, was toytown-revolutionary nonsense. Operation Motorman was in 1972; from that point on there should have been no doubt in anyone’s mind that the British Army could do the Provos a lot more damage than vice versa, and that a revolutionary armed struggle in NI was not repeat not on the cards. By the time of the Thatcher government (it seems to me) the IRA strategy wasn’t so much armed struggle as armed blackmail – this is what we can do; you can’t make us stop doing it; sort out the Province or it’ll carry on, and it’ll get worse. (Thatcher’s “ignore them and they’ll go away” approach was spectacularly misjudged – it probably prolonged the conflict by a decade, not to mention very nearly killing her personally.) In broader political terms, it seemed to me at the time, the Provos (and their counterparts on the other side) were a purely negative influence – a block on the development of any kind of class-based politics in NI.

But applying a broader political context to NI in the 1980s was a mistake – almost a category error (which is probably why it felt like banging your head against a brick wall). One of the oddest things about this thread has been the way the historical background of imperialism swims in and out of focus, or looms impossibly large before vanishing into the distance: some comments seem to imply that anyone British ought to denounce Governor Eyre, the depopulation of Tasmania and the sack of Drogheda every time we speak; others seem to treat it as a harmless quirk of demographics that Billy Johnson and Andrew Wright live on one side of town while Brendan Maguire and Declan O’Doherty live on the other. A divided island, an aggressive Loyalist culture (where else is marching through another group’s area upheld as a cultural tradition?) and British troops on the streets – I don’t think these things can be ignored or set at naught if we’re thinking about NI in the 1970s and 1980s; for a lot of people these were the pressing issues. Nor, more importantly, should they be ignored when thinking about what’s been achieved since – or who it was achieved by (David Trimble and Seamus Mallon, initially – but how long would the agreement have held if Adams and McGuinness had set themselves against it?).

385

ZM 03.28.15 at 10:58 am

djr,

“I think this highlights what I find infuriating about this conversation. Sometimes you talk about colonialism as being a bad thing that all of us who are successors to 18th / 19th century Britain should acknowledge and regret…. But other times you talk about “English” colonialism as though it’s something specific to people in England”

Well this goes back to our earlier argument in the thread — what both Val and I have noted is that the UK dialogue on colonialism and empire seems quite different from the dialogue here in Australia. You said maybe I wasn’t familiar with England so how would I know the state of the dialogue — and I said I’d only visited Bath so perhaps you could sum it up for me, but you didn’t.

There are numerous awful things settlers did here and they are discussed with a reasonable frequency but also with discomfort and some people try to downplay them in various ways — we had what we called the History Wars here for a while about the matter.

You seem to me to be downplaying the fact that Australia was purposefully colonised as a project of Empire by Great Britain as a political entity — a political entity which was centred in England and had expanded from England as she took over her neighbouring countries before doing the same to as many other countries as she could.

British settlement here was not a process of various sundry settlers taking boats to Australia and in a ramshackle way deciding to set up houses and live here.

In terms of who made the decisions in Great Britain — both the Whigs and Conservatives were in favour of empire I think (maybe with dissenters?) — the High Tories were not in favour for some time then they gave in and favoured it too. Common people didn;t get the vote till after WW1 so they didn’t have a political party till then — I have not read what the new Labour Party’s view on colonialism and empire was between WW1 and 2.

I cannot think of much I have read about what the common people in England thought about colonialism and empire for the several centuries of its duration . Maybe there is a social history of this ?

One of the sailors in The Tempest complains something like that the English would pay a pound to see a dead indigenous American but not stop to give a penny to a living beggar on the street. But his character was from Milan I think rather than an English sailor.

Also the gentrifying of the middle classes and then the common people over the centuries probably came at the expense of colonies where resources and labour were extracted from — as you see from how there needed to be rationing when imports were few during WW2.

And this over-consumption continues today as you can see from my figures about just the residents of London consuming as much as could be extracted from land twice the size of the whole United Kingdom. So I can blame this on the bad habits got during colonialism too.

386

Rich Puchalsky 03.28.15 at 2:16 pm

I think that a lot of this latter part of the thread has to do with Irish people rejecting the idea that they are in any way indigenous rather than a European ethnicity like any other. In another recent thread I wrote about the lack of justification for the Falklands / Malvinas War, and wrote that the Falklands were a colonial possession of the UK. Someone else retorted that I could hardly see the war as one of colonial liberation since Argentina was a settler state. But I hadn’t meant to imply that the war was one of colonial liberation, and wasn’t. Colonial possessions can be contested by different states without having the war over them be one of anti-colonialism.

387

Phil 03.28.15 at 2:35 pm

You seem to me to be downplaying the fact that Australia was purposefully colonised as a project of Empire by Great Britain as a political entity — a political entity which was centred in England and had expanded from England as she took over her neighbouring countries before doing the same to as many other countries as she could.

This is dreadful stuff. England conquered Wales before there ever was a ‘Wales’; what we now call Wales was first settled in Norman times (in other words the conquest of Wales began not long after the conquest of Yorkshire). The United Kingdom began as just that, a union of kingdoms – James I and VI would be mightily surprised to hear that ‘England’ had taken over his country. Ireland certainly was conquered, by successive British governments from the Commonwealth on. But to say that what became known as the British Empire simply represented ‘doing the same’ to other places as had been done in the conquest of Ireland is idiotic, frankly. Ghana was settled for gold, India for trade, America for religious freedom and Australia to set up a penal colony.

I have no idea what you mean by saying that ‘High Tories’ were not in favour of empire, or for that matter what period you’re referring to. As for whether most people in Britain were in favour of empire, I think most people in most periods are in favour of arrangements which benefit them. That doesn’t mean that they had any say in the decisions establishing and maintaining the empire, or that they should bear any blame for the crimes of empire.

Yes, the blockade in WWII led to rationing, but all this shows is that Britain was dependent on imports; the effect would have been the same if Britain’s major trading partners had been the USA, Brazil and Italy. As for over-consumption and “the bad habits got during colonialism”, if there were a correlation between former possession of an empire and levels of present-day consumption Portugal would out-consume the USA, which seems unlikely.

388

Stephen 03.28.15 at 3:27 pm

Bruce, Ronan, Phil:

Weber went on to say: “Certainly all historical experience confirms the truth – that man would not have attained the possible unless time and again he had reached out for the impossible”. Up to a point that fits Gerry Adams’ career: he reached out for the impossible, then attained the possible. Thing is, though, that his initial impossible aim – military defeat of the British, followed by northern Unionists either consenting to a united Ireland or fleeing – was the opposite of what he later attained – disarmament and withdrawal from action of the IRA, retention of NI within the UK, with a continuing British presence.

Like most people, I am grateful for the change in his priorities, and give him credit for his actions. There are, though, some grounds for resentment. One complication is that in the earlier part of his IRA membership he was one of the hardest of the hard-liners, implacably hostile to the 1973-4 truce, and to the abortive Sunningdale compromises which could (you’ll say this is counterfactual, but I think that when evaluating what happened one has to consider seriously what might have happened) have led to a settlement much along the present lines, but thirty or so years earlier with many fewer dead. In the 1980s, having got rid of all his rivals in the IRA, charging them with an unworthy desire for compromise, he at some point changed his mind and started working, surreptitiously, for compromise. One interpretation of this would be that he was against a compromise peace unless it led to the elevation of G Adams to high status in the post-settlement period.

Another complication is that, from some time in the mid-1980s, IRA operations were betrayed to the British, and to Dublin, in a way devastating to the IRA’s hopes of an Irish Tet offensive, or equivalent victories. See Eksund or Loughgall for a couple of the more spectacular defeats. The identities of the traitors is of course obscured, but there is a suspicion among some of Adams’ former associates that he was, if not directly responsible, at least responsible for reorganising the IRA’s internal structures in a way that was supposed to block penetration by British intelligence but did in fact ensure that such penetration was lethal. I don’t resent that myself, but some people might.

Furthermore, Adams does go on with his insistence that he was never in the IRA. Why he does that I am not sure, but everyone knows it isn’t true. Possibly he enjoys telling a massive lie and so irritating his former enemies. Martin McGuinness, who has never denied his past, has come to no harm. Possibly McGuinness’ better reputation is due to his honesty, possibly to the fact that peace came to Derry in a more gradual way than to Belfast.

Lastly, Adams’ involvement in covering up cases of rape and child abuse by IRA members does make for an understandable degree of resentment.

389

Igor Belanov 03.28.15 at 3:46 pm

“The IRA’s hopes of an Irish Tet Offensive”

?????

390

Stephen 03.28.15 at 3:46 pm

ZM: Phil’s critique of your position has considerable merit. To follow it up, I would note the subordinate absurdities of your post. Before WW1 the “common people”, as you call them, were not excluded from voting: look up the second and third Reform Acts, 1867 and 1884. True, there was not universal suffrage, but most adult males had the vote.

And it would have been news to Keir Hardie that before WW1 there was no party representing the labour interest.

I have no idea what you mean by the gentrifying of the common people. Can you defend your use of this extraordinary phrase?

The Tempest is set in the Mediterranean, not the Americas.

I don’t know where you got your figures for the ecological impact of London. I would suggest that you provide similar figures for other great European cities – Hamburg, Berlin, Frankfurt, Munich, Milan, Turin, Rome, Naples, Vienna, Warsaaw, Prague, Budapest – that developed in countries with little or no associated overseas empire. Are you in favour of depopulating them also?

391

Stephen 03.28.15 at 5:57 pm

Igor@389: see https://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/new-myths-of-the-peace-process-no-3-the-1987-pira-tet-offensiveor-one-last-push/

NB that I’ve never said the IRA Tet offensive was at all likely to succeed.

392

Stephen 03.28.15 at 6:08 pm

ZM: thinking more about your complaint against the ecological footprint of London, it’s even more absurd than I has at first realised.

Sure, the area needed to supply the large city of London is much greater than the area of London. But that is true, by definition, of any large city. Hell, it’s true of market towns and country villages. It’s even true of my house: there is no way that I could provide, from the limited extent of my house and garden, everything I and my family need.

It’s true that if I ha a house with sufficient surrounding fields, meadows, woodland, streams or rivers, barns, stables, cowshed, pigsties, chicken coops and so forth I could in principle provide all I and my family need. Better add a flint mine or such for making tools. If we’re thinking in terms of iron tools, forget it.

But I don’t think that every advance on Neolithic autarky represents evil English imperialism.

393

Ronan(rf) 03.28.15 at 7:57 pm

“I think that a lot of this latter part of the thread has to do with Irish people rejecting the idea that they are in any way indigenous rather than a European ethnicity like any other.”

Yeah, I think this gets to the heart of the disagreement.

394

novakant 03.28.15 at 11:06 pm

“The Tempest is set in the Mediterranean, not the Americas.”

Not that it matters, but this is incorrect: the location of island in The Tempest is not at all clear from the text and several of Shakespeare’s sources as well as the context of the story point towards the Americas, more specifically the Carribean.

395

ZM 03.29.15 at 1:41 am

Stephen,

1. As well as incorrect presumptions about the setting of The Tempest you seem to downplay the fact that although some common people could vote before WW1 it was hardly the majority. you say “True, there was not universal suffrage, but [after 1884] most adult males had the vote” — yet as we all know the common people were half of them females.

Although the three 19th C reform acts increased the number of voters — in 1780 just 3% of the population were enfranchised to vote in Wales and England and due to English discrimination Scots had an even smaller proportion of their population enfranchised at 0.17% — even after the third voting reform act in 1884 “an estimated 40% of all men still did not have the right to vote”.

So with 40% of common men precluded from voting and all common women, it is evident a majority of the common people were prohibited from voting.

“I have no idea what you mean by the gentrifying of the common people. Can you defend your use of this extraordinary phrase?”

2. The definition of Gentrify is “to renovate or convert so that it conforms to middle class taste; to render middle class”. There are numerous instances were common people after being flung from their homes and communities in the countryside after enclosure were expected to conform to middle class norms and aspirations.

If you can’t fathom this and need an example — just think of D H Lawrence’s mother playing the piano in his poem — would a common woman be doing this is 1430? I really don’t think she would — she would sing and maybe have some smaller more portable instrument capable of fewer notes and play it outdoors or in a small house probably not much good for acoustics so a piano would be wasted. Due to gentrification D H Lawrence wasn;t like his dialect speaking miner father causing a great concern with notions of masculinity which he wrote extensively about until he resigned himself to his death from tuberculosis and wrote poems about lettuces instead. If D H Lawrence hadn’t been gentrified as so many of the common people were his books that bianca steele and I were talking about earlier in the thread would have been quite different.

3. “I don’t know where you got your figures for the ecological impact of London. I would suggest that you provide similar figures for other great European cities … Are you in favour of depopulating them also?”

I got the figures from “City Limits: A Resource Flow and Ecological Footprint Analysis of Greater London”

I am not going to provide you with resource use figures for other European cities — if you think they are important for this thread you can utilise google and find them yourself to share.

I never said anything about depopulating London — obviously what I think is that Londoners should consume less not move elsewhere — the fact you jumped to a solution where acquisitive Londoners should colonise other countries as new settlers is rather telling…

396

Bruce Wilder 03.29.15 at 1:49 am

That Shakespeare took inspiration from the wreck of the Sea Venture at uninhabited Bermuda on its way to Jamestown colony and the dispute there among the leaders of the expedition, is well-known. The fictional context of the play would place the Island in the western Mediterranean, as Milan, Naples, Algiers and Tunis are referenced, and the wrecked ship appears to be sailing from Tunis to Naples.

397

Val 03.29.15 at 3:14 am

Phil @ 387
“This [ZM’s comment] is dreadful stuff … idiotic frankly. … Australia [was, according to you, “settled”, but in fact colonised] to set up a penal colony”.

This view of why Australia was colonised is very simplistic and a misunderstanding of what actually happened, as anyone who knows much about it could tell you. Colonisation, as such, was out of favour at the time, particularly because of what had happened in America. However the British government was strategically and economically interested in Australia (as were the French). The penal colony was a kind of ‘suck it and see’ experiment – if it didn’t work, they only lost convicts, if it worked, they had a new land and a convict servant class to work it (which happened in fact).

I don’t blame you for not being expert in Australian history, but I do blame you for being offensive about ZM. Cast the mote from your own eye, etc.

398

engels 03.29.15 at 3:44 am

‘Cast the mote from your own eye’

Words to live by!

399

ZM 03.29.15 at 3:57 am

With regard to The Tempest and its setting —

one — the setting is not really determinable from the text, Prospero sets sail with his library of books and some provisions of food, but we are not told how far he sailed nor the direction he sailed in nor where the island was he ended up in. The text however clearly engages with English colonial settlement in America

two — the setting is perfectly irrelevant to the piece of dialogue I brought up — which was specifically about English attitudes to dead native Americans and beggars:

Trinculo :

“Were I in England now, as once I was, and had but this fish painted, not a holiday fool there but would give a piece of silver. There would this monster make a man. Any strange beast there makes a man.

When they will not give a doit to relieve a lame beggar, they will lay out ten to see a dead Indian.”

400

ZM 03.29.15 at 4:23 am

Phil,

“This is dreadful stuff. England conquered Wales before there ever was a ‘Wales’; what we now call Wales was first settled in Norman times (in other words the conquest of Wales began not long after the conquest of Yorkshire).”

This is true of Australia also — there were various language and kinship groups in a complex web of relations throughout the continent — yet while you say my comment is “dreadful stuff” just afterwards you then say Great Britain “settled” “Australia to set up a penal colony” :/

And Yorkshire seems to have been an English polity from the time of Anglo conquest/settlement in the 600s, unlike the kingdoms in Wales

“James I and VI would be mightily surprised to hear that ‘England’ had taken over his country.”

James I and VI took over England through inheritance. I am fairly sure he was far too jaded to be all that surprised that English people decided that their Crown was not supreme after all when it was a Scottish Crown that took over the English Crown, rather than vice versa.

“Ireland certainly was conquered, by successive British governments from the Commonwealth on. But to say that what became known as the British Empire simply represented ‘doing the same’ to other places as had been done in the conquest of Ireland is idiotic, frankly. Ghana was settled for gold, India for trade, America for religious freedom and Australia to set up a penal colony.”

As you say ‚ they were all settled or colonised by the UK to fulfil various desires from the UK. I agree.

“I think most people in most periods are in favour of arrangements which benefit them. That doesn’t mean that they had any say in the decisions establishing and maintaining the empire, or that they should bear any blame for the crimes of empire.”

This is an example of what I keep remarking is the great distance between Australian and English dialogues on colonialism and empire. I would say — and would be interested in Val’s opinion or others from Australia — that the idea that descendants and beneficiaries of colonialism and empire do not “bear any blame for the crimes of empire” is a very right wing attitude in Australia nowadays. Centre and left attitudes tend towards notions of collective historical responsibility and reconciliation.

“Yes, the blockade in WWII led to rationing, but all this shows is that Britain was dependent on imports; the effect would have been the same if Britain’s major trading partners had been the USA, Brazil and Italy.”

Britain was dependent on imports from colonies — I notice how the UK economy becomes based on finance soon after you can’t keep all the colonies anymore after WW2 — and London consumes resources from land more than double the size of the whole land of the United Kingdom — perhaps people in poor foreign colonies would like to consume a greater share of their land’s resources :/

“Portugal would out-consume the USA, which seems unlikely.”

Apropos of nothing, my favourite story of Portugal’s empire is how the Portuguese royal family moved to Brazil as they liked it more there and so asked an Englishman to take care of Portugal for them — the Portuguese people were very disgruntled however and the royal family eventually had to come back. This is not an endorsement of Portugues imperialism however.

I would point out that the USA is an outpost of English imperialism that broke away from Westminster’s control. It is not surprising that it overconsumes like London.

401

Phil 03.29.15 at 10:49 am

Val – thanks for the correction, but it doesn’t affect my main point, which is that the three centuries of British imperialism was a complex phenomenon, with different motives and different actors involved at different times and places. Saying that Britain did the same thing to other countries as it had done to Ireland (let alone that England did the same as it had to Wales, Scotland and Ireland) is a massive over-simplification.

ZM – you’ve missed the point about Yorkshire, which is that the conquest of the Welsh kingdoms by the Normans began soon after the conquest of England by the Normans. The point is, it wasn’t a case of ‘England’ conquering ‘Wales’.

As you say ‚ they were all settled or colonised by the UK to fulfil various desires from the UK.

Various different ‘desires’, not all of which even involved the British state.

the USA is an outpost of English imperialism that broke away from Westminster’s control. It is not surprising that it overconsumes like London.

No, this won’t do. The thirteen colonies broke away from EnglishBritish control – and then what? Where did they get the empire which, according to you, is the foundation of over-consumption? Conversely, how would your theory explain the present-day over-consumption of Germany, say, or Italy? All First World nations over-consume to a greater or lesser extent; not all First World nations are former imperialist powers.

This is more interesting, though:

I would say — and would be interested in Val’s opinion or others from Australia — that the idea that descendants and beneficiaries of colonialism and empire do not “bear any blame for the crimes of empire” is a very right wing attitude in Australia nowadays. Centre and left attitudes tend towards notions of collective historical responsibility and reconciliation.

This is probably the bit we should be discussing. As a white English man from a working-class background, I don’t feel I bear any responsibility for what the British ruling class did to Ireland or Africa or India or China, let alone what the settlers did to Australia. Nor is anyone, in British politics, asking me to. We officially memorialise the Holocaust but not the Bengal famine, let alone the Irish famine.

I suspect one reason why the Australian approach is so different is the simple fact that you’re talking about the indigenous people of your own country. That, and perhaps something to do with class. If I think of Welsh or Scottish people being systematically disadvantaged in their own country – something which has happened in the relatively recent past – I feel solidarity and anger much more than shame and guilt: I feel as if those people were screwed over by much the same people as would screw me over if they had a chance, and for much the same reasons (nationality being mainly a pretext). This is also how I feel about Irish people being systematically disadvantaged for being Irish, within the island of Ireland – which, in a sense, is where we came in.

402

Igor Belanov 03.29.15 at 11:48 am

Actually I find the idea that nations are some kind of family with a collective responsibility and destiny to be a very right-wing one.

403

ZM 03.29.15 at 11:57 am

Phil,

“you’ve missed the point about Yorkshire, which is that the conquest of the Welsh kingdoms by the Normans began soon after the conquest of England by the Normans. The point is, it wasn’t a case of ‘England’ conquering ‘Wales’.”

I honestly don’t know what your point about Yorkshire, Wales, and the other colonies is.

Yorkshire was already settled/colonised by Anglos since the 600s. Then there was the Viking invasions — but I already blamed the Vikings earlier for causing Alfred the Great of the Kingdom of Wessex to think it was a good idea to unify all the English kingdoms.

Due to the Danish invaders Yorkshire had some Danish customs but before the Norman conquest the Kingdom of Wessex already had control of Yorkshire and it was part of Northumberland.

And although you blame the Normans for unifying Yorkshire with the other English kingdoms (even though it was already unified with the other kingdoms by that time) — you fail to remember that I tried to help someone with blaming the Normans above by telling them about how a bit of a chapter I once read said the Normans brought “acquisitiveness” to England which was blameless of the fault before.

Anyway — William The Conqueror had the greater claim to the Crown of England at the time — so it was not really conquering.

The Normans only had to conquer England because the English refused to recognise his greater claim — he was at least a Blood Relative whereas the King the English set themselves on coronating after the death of Edward the Confessor — Earl Harold Godwinson — was only an In-Law :/

So this is another example of how the English are such nationalists they don’t follow the rules of monarchy properly — if their proper King is a Norman Viking they prefer an English Earl In-Law to be King — and if they can’t escape from coronating a Scottish King they then prefer some confused notion of parliamentary sovereignty.

“Various different ‘desires’, not all of which even involved the British state”

Yes — they wanted some colonies for rubber, and some for gold. I fail to see how this counters the charge that England colonised her neighbouring lands then other further away lands. As the resources are not distributed evenly throughout the world it would not make sense to colonise everywhere for exactly the same reasons.

And it is quite nonsensical to think that colonisation did not involve the British State — I already pointed out that your idea of jaunty British folks deciding all by themselves to sail to Australia to make a colony was quite inaccurate — it was decided in Parliament to make a colony here.

Exactly which other colonies do you think were settled in this muddled way without Parliament’s say so?

“The thirteen colonies broke away from EnglishBritish control – and then what? Where did they get the empire which, according to you, is the foundation of over-consumption?”

America still mainly speaks English and has customs more like English than any other culture. They were a colony but wanted independence. Once the colony was independent of Britain did all the British immigrants go back to Britain? No — the British colonists stayed in America and the British colony did not go away it just stopped having oversight from the Parliament in Westminster and the King.

“how would your theory explain the present-day over-consumption of Germany, say, or Italy? All First World nations over-consume to a greater or lesser extent; not all First World nations are former imperialist powers.”

After unification Germany tried to get a large empire too but it lost two world wars and never got an empire. However, the independent colony America helped Germany and other countries develop to consume more resources with the Marshall Plan.

Do you really think that the global distribution of resources and financial capital has nothing at all to do with imperial history? That it is just an unfathomable quirk of history that European cities and settler outposts like Australia and America now consume more resources than African ones or Indian ones?

404

Phil 03.29.15 at 12:07 pm

I honestly don’t know what your point about Yorkshire, Wales, and the other colonies is.

I don’t know why not, since you’ve just quoted it. Here it is again: “The point is, it wasn’t a case of ‘England’ conquering ‘Wales’.” You said something inaccurate. I corrected it.

So this is another example of how the English are such nationalists they don’t follow the rules of monarchy properly

“The English”? The English in 1066 equals the English in 1603 equals the English in 1788 equals the English in 1845? This isn’t even worth correcting, it’s just nonsense.

your idea of jaunty British folks deciding all by themselves to sail to Australia to make a colony

When did I advance this idea?

Exactly which other colonies do you think were settled in this muddled way without Parliament’s say so?

Again, you’re putting words into my mouth. What I said was that British imperialism was a very long & complex process, not all of which was driven by the British state. See, for example, the East India Company.

the British colony did not go away it just stopped having oversight from the Parliament in Westminster and the King

I know. They also stopped having any stake in the British Empire, which – on your argument – should have led the United States to be a frugal nation living within its means.

Do you really think that the global distribution of resources and financial capital has nothing at all to do with imperial history?

Certainly not. But what you were arguing was that over-consumption derives exclusively from imperialism, which is silly.

Now can we talk about something more interesting, like post-colonial guilt & reconciliation?

405

ZM 03.29.15 at 12:14 pm

“”So this is another example of how the English are such nationalists they don’t follow the rules of monarchy properly”

“The English”? The English in 1066 equals the English in 1603 equals the English in 1788 equals the English in 1845? This isn’t even worth correcting, it’s just nonsense.”

Well hopefully you’re right on this matter and the English people of today are so different to their forebears in the 11th and the 17th Cs that when Prince Charles becomes King they will support the monarchy and his commitment to sustainable consumption.

406

Ronan(rf) 03.29.15 at 12:48 pm

Phil, would you not just apologise to all of us, perhaps pay a bit in compensation, and we’ll all draw a line under it ; )

More seriously, from the latest book by Diarmaid Ferriter, on the complicated nature of a persons identity and alliegances particularly during a revoutionary moment: (I think this generalises a good bit, for example see Adria Lawrence’s ‘Imperial Rule and the Politics of Nationalism ‘ on the contingency and context dependant nature of nationalism/anti imperialism in French North Africa)

“In tandem, some of the old men of the revolutionary era began to cast cold eyes on the years of militancy. Seán O’Faoláin, for example, when asked to pen a self-portrait in 1976 noted that he was born in 1900 in a place that did not exist.

‘That is to say I was born in Ireland, which then was , politically, culturally and psychologically just not there. All that was there was a bastard piece of the British Empire … not that this bothered me in the least. On the contrary I was tremendously proud of belonging to the Empire, as were at that time most Irishmen … and then, in the April of 1916, the date of the last Irish rebellion, I suffered the greatest trauma of my entire life. I had the upsetting experience of being suddenly presented with a country whose birth was supposed to wipe out all those social values that I had so contentedly lived by for my first sixteen years.’

In the IRA from 1918– 24–‘ one of the most ecstatic periods of my life’ – he found

‘all moral problems vanished in the fire of patriotism and death and destruction … during those heavenly years I dreamed of liberty, equality, fraternity. I adored without reservation the risen people. Every month I discovered a new Napoleon in yet another political or military leader. ‘

At the age of twenty-four, however, O’Faoláin was ‘awakened from my feelings of rapture’ with the problem of

‘practical politics intruding on political theory … In Ireland I had thought in my innocence that a republic meant equality as well as liberty and fraternity. Thereafter I knew that a republic always means not a state of government but a state of mind and that it is for that reason as indefinable as such forces as love or truth.’

By 1976, he had ‘no last speck of patriotism left in me’. “

407

Stephen 03.29.15 at 1:28 pm

ZM@395;

1. Yes, I am well aware that no women could vote pre-WW1. That was true no matter what class they were. But simple arithmetic shows that if about 60% of adult males could vote, then your claim that the common people could not vote only makes sense if you define the common people as being the poorer 40%. Nobody pre-WW1 would have agreed, I think.

2. So by ‘gentrification of the common people” you mean an increase in the living standards of the working class. I always supposed that was a good thing: are you really against it?

Sons & Lovers is a work of fiction. In real life Lawrence’s father wasn’t a miner. He was a mining contractor. That is, if the owners of a coal mine wanted to recruit a gang of workers, they wouldn’t necessarily do that themselves. They could go to people like the useful Mr Lawrence, who would provide the workers they wanted, and issue them with any gear they needed.

I quite agree that in the 1430s the equivalent of Mrs Lawrence would not have had a piano to play. Neither would the Queen of England.

Incidentally, re the Tolkien thread: do you realize that the school Lawrence went to is now classed as a public school?

3. Thank you for the reference to the City Limits article, which I read with interest. It states, among other things, that 41% of London’s ecological footprint is devoted to providing food, and that for London to be ecologically sustainable an 80% reduction in overall consumption by 2050 is needed.

Simple arithmetic shows that to achieve this, the population of London will have to be halved by 2050 if current food consumption is to be maintained, assuming that they then spend nothing on transport, energy, water and materials. If one is prepared to allow them some of those luxuries, either the population must be reduced by well over half, or food consumption will have to be seriously modified, or both. Would you disagree?

I didn’t conclude that Londoners would have to move to new colonies. I just concluded that many of them would have to go somewhere: possibly of course to the cemeteries.

You don’t seem to have taken on board my comment that the ecological footprint of any city, town or non-autarkic village is by definition greater than its geographical area. Think about it.

408

Stephen 03.29.15 at 1:55 pm

ZM@400: I think there may be some serious problems with the notions of collective historical responsibility that you hold.

Where does responsibility become guilt?

Should guilt, or responsibility, or both or neither imply reparations?

Who are the collective that is responsible? In Australia, is it only those whose ancestors were there when the indigenous peoples were mistreated, or all those who are there now and benefitting, to some extent, from that mistreatment? Including recent migrants? Similarly, when you maintain that “the English” bear collective responsibility for colonial activities, does that include, for instance, immigrants form the West Indies and their descendants? (Warning: if you try arguing that blacks in England, born and raised there, are “not really English” then you will not be popular with English left-wingers.)

How far back does historical responsibility go? As Igor points out, your ideas can lead to some very right-wing conclusions. That the Jews are collectively and historically responsible for deicide, for instance: I’m sure you don’t want to go there.

I fear that some people’s answer to the last question would be: the responsibility for those whose ancestors oppressed my ancestors goes back indefinitely. But I deny any responsibility for anything done by my own ancestors.

I’m not suggesting that’s your answer. But I would be interested to know what your answers are.

409

Ronan(rf) 03.29.15 at 2:19 pm

I don’t object to what I assume is ZM’s more general point about acknowledging , and somehow making amends for, the crimes of European Imperialism. I just dont know what this would mean as a practical matter. Certainly the acknowledgment of British crimes in Kenya , brought on by the Mau Mau court case, seems a good start. But such a process will always be political (ie the Famine apology) or reactive. I think, what I know very superficially as, the German response to the Holocaust (an ongoing process of historical truth telling) seems to have a lot of merit to it. I dont know a huge amount about that though, or even if it can be generalised beyond the specific case of the holocaust. Personally, I think this should be true of most countries though (and of course non western empires) History as morality tale has pretty much nothing going for it. The concentration on the ‘English’ is just parochialism.
I do think, as Ive said above, that those most responnsible for making amends to the indigenous population of Australia (and who have benefited most) are Australians. Perhaps the British state should apologise to them (as I said above), im open to argument on that (as I dont know enough about it) But the concentration primarily on the ‘English’ or framing it alongside the ‘colonisation’ of Wales and Cornwall does strike me as bizzare. (Ill stop there as Ive been accused of misunderstanding ZM’s point in the past, although in my defence it seems a few others have aswell. Defensiveness from the cheerleaders of Empire, I guess.)

410

bianca steele 03.29.15 at 2:34 pm

Maybe it’s time to turn the thread to a discussion of David Mitchell?

411

ZM 03.29.15 at 2:38 pm

1. “But simple arithmetic shows that if about 60% of adult males could vote, then your claim that the common people could not vote only makes sense if you define the common people as being the poorer 40%.”

If unenfranchised men are about 20% of the population plus unenfranchised women are about 50% of the population that gives us 70% of the population being unenfranchised.

70% of the population is a big enough group to be the common people.

If you want to quibble that there are more women in this common people than men — this is because this population of common people is adjusted to incorporate gender discrimination as well as discrimination on the grounds of wealth and income.

2. “In real life Lawrence’s father wasn’t a miner. He was a mining contractor. ”

He was a contractor — called a butty informally (I am unsure if this is reference to sandwiches?) — but Arthur Lawrence made it seem to his wife like he was a contractor who did not do underground mining himself — but this was not true — in truth he worked underground in the mines for 50 years with the additional responsibilities of being a butty. His wife was very disappointed and cross about this once she found out since she wanted a more genteel life.

“So by ‘gentrification of the common people” you mean an increase in the living standards of the working class. I always supposed that was a good thing: are you really against it?”

The common people only became the working class once landlords and the parliament enclosed their land. Then they lost many of their customs and had to work in mining and factories and be working class people. I do not think gentrification only relates to material consumption/”living standards” — it is also about dialect, customs, clothing etc.

The problem with raising material consumption/”living standards” is that England is only a small land — so if the 70% common people population want “living standards” to always be rising higher then as we see England does not have enough land to provide for this and then this occasions the taking of resources from other countries.

3. “Simple arithmetic shows that to achieve this, the population of London will have to be halved by 2050 if current food consumption is to be maintained… either the population must be reduced by well over half, or food consumption will have to be seriously modified, or both.”

Londoners can eat more sustainably and work more allotment gardens. Cutting out animal products would considerably lower the ecological footprint of food, as would growing food in the aforementioned allotments and avoiding importing food from far away.

England can convert land used for grazing to land for growing crops and as this will take more work then some Londoners can move to the countryside to work on the new croplands.

“You don’t seem to have taken on board my comment that the ecological footprint of any city, town or non-autarkic village is by definition greater than its geographical area. Think about it.”

Well it is true historically of cities that they take resources from elsewhere. But that is why there has been a move away from looking at cities only as buildings to looking at them as processes. But that does not mean that London should;t decrease its consumption — even if it’s ecological footprint stayed larger than the city itself it could maybe decrease to be half the size of the U.K. instead of double.

412

Sasha Clarkson 03.29.15 at 3:19 pm

ZM @403 amongst several other inaccuracies: “…. the Kingdom of Wessex already had control of Yorkshire and it was part of Northumberland ….”

No part of Yorkshire has ever been part of Northumberland, which did not even exist before the Norman Conquest, nor indeed for some considerable time after it. Northumbria existed of course, but no-one with even an elementary understanding of English history or geography would confuse the two. The county of Northumberland emerged in the 12th century and comprised but a small part of the ancient Northumbrian territory.

413

Bruce Wilder 03.29.15 at 6:40 pm

Rich Puchalsky: . . . this latter part of the thread has to do with Irish people rejecting the idea that they are in any way indigenous rather than a European ethnicity like any other.

I don’t think I understood this comment.

Ronan(rf) @ 406, where he quoted the reflections of the wonderful short story author, Seán Ó Faoláin (née John Francis Whelan), seems to capture some sense of the push-pull effect of the British state on Irish politics and political identity.

I think many flavors of Left have a discomfited relationship to nationalism in any form, and more broadly with any of the (hierarchical? authoritarian?) structures of political and economic development. There’s a desire for innocence and simplicity in everyone, I suppose, that can overwhelm common sense and self-awareness. Ideology is often founded on massive and obstinate sins of omission.

You know that I am interested in the generational rhythms of political, constitutional change, and I see in Ireland and Irish politics a cycle that started in the 1960s, with a reorganization of northern Ireland’s nationalist politics around civil rights and social welfare economics. That generation accomplished a transformative, constitutional change, without much touching the sectarian social divisions. Walls across the “interface areas” were a means to an end as was trading away the homicidal manias of the IRA and its Unionist counterparts.

I suppose it is true that the Irish are not interested in adopting the role of Hibernian aborigines to satisfy an anachronistic leftist analysis of colonial imperialism. It seems to me, though, that the various overlays of good cop / bad cop routines in Northern Ireland’s political struggles were predicated both on the overwhelming power of the British state and on the disinterest of the British state in continuing “colonial” domination in the British Isles. It isn’t just that the Irish particularly want to be a “normal” European ethnicity — whatever that means (!?) — but that the British state (to the extent that we can sensibly attribute manifest desire to that amorphous abstraction) wants them to be that as well, and could be persuaded, step-by-step, to constitutional arrangements that make it so.

414

Stephen 03.29.15 at 6:48 pm

ZM@331: I admit, you have constructed an absolutely impregnable position for yourself. If you define “the common people” as the set of people who had no vote pre-WW1 – all the women and a minority of the men – then bingo, hey presto, you’ve proved that none of the common people had a vote.

Logicians may quibble, but who cares for logic in ZMland?

I wish it were possible to summon up the ghost of Queen Victoria, or come to that of Mrs Lawrence, so you could explain to them that they were common people.

415

djr 03.29.15 at 6:50 pm

ZM: Yes, I have been intending to respond to your request @ 166 but it’s taken a bit longer than I had hoped. I’m not the best person to give you a comprehensive overview of the modern UK view on anything at all, my first suggestion would be to read something like the Guardian (for a left perspective) regularly. However, let’s try…

“There are numerous awful things [that were done] and they are discussed with a reasonable frequency but also with discomfort” would be a good description of the discourse here as well. There is a lot of awkwardness about the whole colonialism thing. It involved killing a lot of people and taking over their countries, and there is clearly a general feeling that while this was seen as perfectly OK at the time, it really wasn’t and we shouldn’t do it again. But it’s easy to say that a bunch of people who are all long dead were bad people and we aren’t like them; to me (and, I think, a lot of the left) the more important thing is that reflecting on our past influences how we behave in the future, our relationships with other parts of the world today, particularly places which we messed up in the past.

Sometimes that’s about artefacts that we acquired in colonial times (e.g. the Elgin marbles – the left is generally in favour of giving them back, this hasn’t happened yet) or foreign aid or debt cancellation (again – left generally in favour – progress incomplete). You could say something similar about our few remaining overseas territories – particularly the Chagos archipelago – the left perspective is that there is an (ongoing) wrong being done, and that the islands should be given back (though Labour in government worked to prevent this). One of the drivers of opposition to the Iraq war a decade ago was an objection to neo-colonialist behaviour.

History also influences our openness or otherwise to immigration, particularly from the former empire (i.e. most of our non-European immigrants). It also creates a reluctance to “interfere” in immigrant communities, now with some pushback on matters such as FGM and sexual abuse of children. Fairly or unfairly, this sensitivity is also often considered to be a failing of the left.

What aspects are of most relevance here in the UK are clearly going to be different than in a country which is located on land taken from other people, where those other people are still around. That’s why we’re not really talking about “indigeneity” here, we are the indigenous people of the UK, almost all of us having heritage from a mixture of all of the northern European tribes who turned up here over the centuries.

As Phil said @ 401, the left doesn’t see itself as heirs to the colonialist tradition, more to the working classes who were being exploited in the UK by the same people who were exploiting lands overseas at the same time. There are issues with this viewpoint, of course, as clearly the empire enriched the UK as a whole, not just our ruling classes. Relatedly, Phil’s comment @ 96 discusses the left perspective on the original topic: “a melange of opposition to the broadcasting ban, support for British withdrawal & ultimate reunification, and who else are you going to support anyway”.

416

Stephen 03.29.15 at 7:15 pm

ZN@411: apologies for getting the comment number wrong, and for breaking off. Minor domestic emergency, now subsided.

“Butty” in common English English usage has two different meanings; a sort of sandwich, or a liked and respected workmate. I hadn’t come across the meaning you suggest. However, I checked in the OED, which does give a third meaning: in mining, a middleman who contracts to bring up coal or ore from the mine at so much a ton. Maybe that’s what Mr Lawrence was. Not at all the same as being a miner.

England does not indeed, as you say, produce enough food to feed its population. Therefore, the English buy food from other countries. I do not understand why you think that is a bad thing. People from counties that sell such food whom I have spoken to (from Ireland, Canada, Spain, New Zealand) seem to think it is a good thing, and only wish the English would buy more.

On ecological footprints, we do seem to be making some progress. You accept, I think, that all cities have to have an ecological footprint much bigger than their own area, so that if (say) the city of Warsaw has an ecological footprint bigger than the area of Warsaw, that is not because the Poles have been evil colonialists, but simply because Warsaw is a city.

Your comments about the size of the population of London under your proposed ecological scheme are entirely incoherent. Do you accept that the population and/or their living standards would have to fall drastically, or do you not?

417

Ronan(rf) 03.29.15 at 7:53 pm

“were predicated both on the overwhelming power of the British state and on the disinterest of the British state in continuing “colonial” domination in the British Isles.”

I think that’s right. I was going to say something similar in response to Stephen @371 (about how Irish political possibilities were always conditioned by British might), but the reply became too confused and would have just muddied the waters.
To copy and paste again, I think this gets to a better way of analysing certain aspects of Irish history.

” By August 1914, in response to the home rule act (1912), British constitutional democracy had conjured into existence two private armies in Ireland. Irish unionists with Tory support created the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), and imported German rifles to arm it. A rival body similarly equipped, the Irish Volunteers, was soon controlled by the Irish parliamentary nationalist party.
These events grimly pointed toward the post-1801 United Kingdom’s first civil war, which the Great War’s outbreak postponed, but did not avert indefinitely as the events of 1920–2 later demonstrated. What Richard English juxtaposes are Irish revolutionism and a determined, Whiggish, interpretation of British constitutional advancement. And this starkly demonstrates an elemental problem to be found elsewhere in this study. It is fully impossible to understand Irish separatist nationalism under the Union, without comprehending the failures of British unionist nationalism for ultimately, it is contended here, they are of a piece when studying nationalism in Ireland.

Critical to this argument is an understanding of the British constitution’s development from the 17th century, its travails and successes, and its slow collapse in Ireland after 1912. The British constitution’s advances in 19th-century Ireland recorded Catholic emancipation, educational, land, and local government reforms, and an expanding franchise. But British nationalism produced no viable answer and the British constitution no adequate mechanism to deal with separatist aspirations buoyed by burgeoning democracy and the flowering of the national idea. The frustrations and delays associated with devolved home rule after 1885, followed by partition and government sanctioned repression (provided by the ‘Black and Tans’ and other special police forces in 1920–2), and a coerced settlement in 1922, identify the failures of the British constitution to defend the rights of Irish subjects against the interests of the state.
Both before and after 1914, militarist loyalism and militarist republicanism were responses to the power vacuum the crumbling constitution had created. Studied in isolation, with the assumption of British constitutional stability somewhere in the background, separatist nationalism’s violence appears deviant and perhaps the unnecessary indulgence Richard English suggests. Studied within the wider constitutional context of the United Kingdom a richer, more plausible, view equally may emerge. ”

http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/704

418

ZM 03.29.15 at 11:53 pm

Stephen,

“I wish it were possible to summon up the ghost of Queen Victoria, or come to that of Mrs Lawrence, so you could explain to them that they were common people.”

Queen Victoria was the Queen so she can’t have been a common person — titled women do not count so maybe it is a bit less than 70%.

I would prefer you don’t summon up Mrs Lawrence to haunt me as she would be quite cross no doubt given her preference in life not to consider herself a common person, which was 1. why Mr Lawrence pretended he didn’t work down the mines to her; and, 2. why Mr Lawrence drank so much once she found out and gave him grief about it

Anyhow, I gave the Lawrence family as an example of the gentrification of the common people — so the family’s more genteel aspects — like living in the better sort of company house — are consistent with this brief analysis

“[a butty is] in mining, a middleman who contracts to bring up coal or ore from the mine at so much a ton. Maybe that’s what Mr Lawrence was. Not at all the same as being a miner.”

You will have to provide sources for your assertion that Mr Lawrence never worked down the mines when he was a butty — I have found two biographies that say Mr Lawrence did work down in the mines as a butty and furthermore that he fibbed to his wife about it causing much marital strife once she found out the truth:

D H Lawrence: A Reference Companion p. 10

D H Lawrence : The Early Years 1885-1912 p. 21

“England does not indeed, as you say, produce enough food to feed its population. Therefore, the English buy food from other countries. I do not understand why you think that is a bad thing. ”

It is a bad because global resource flows are unfair, England as a rich country [richness which relates to its imperial past] is the destination for more flows of resources than poor countries [the poverty of which often relates also to their colonised pasts].

It is also bad because overall globally we have exceeded the sustainable amount of resource consumption — so countries that over-consume are the priorities for cutting down consumption, rather than poor countries with already low consumption, and this should lead to a more fair distribution of the global flows of resources.

“You accept, I think, that all cities have to have an ecological footprint much bigger than their own area… not because Poland have been evil colonialists, but simply because Warsaw is a city.”

I think European Cities were generally impacted by the flows of resources into Europe during the imperial era, plus the continuing Western domination in the post-war era. The city of Warsaw in 1200 was a city unaffected by colonialism, the city of Warsaw in 2015 cannot say the same — it is surely a city that was affected by the economy of European colonialism and a post-war political economy dominated by the West.

While many or all cities may not ever get to an ecological footprint the same size as their geological size — there remains ample room for over-consuming cities such as London to cut down on their consumption.

“Your comments about the size of the population of London under your proposed ecological scheme are entirely incoherent. Do you accept that the population and/or their living standards would have to fall drastically, or do you not?”

Material consumption should fall, but you asked specifically about food. Food choices can be made more sustainable through e.g. cutting out animal products and growing or purchasing more food locally.

Human waste from cities can also be fed back as fertiliser to agriculture as use of artificial nitrate fertilisers needs to end due to causing GHG (maybe London already does this? I don’t know much about their sewerage systems)

However, cuts and changes in consumption are not necessarily a decline in “living standards” as many of the changes would be commensurate with increased wellbeing so in fact living standards may improve while consumption declines.

419

ZM 03.29.15 at 11:54 pm

Sascha Clarkson,

you’re quite right I accidentally mixed up Northumbria and Northumberland, and Yorkshire was part of the first rather than the latter. But I was correcting someone who thought Yorkshire wasn’t English until the Norman arrival.

What were my “several other inaccuracies?”

420

engels 03.30.15 at 1:15 am

‘we’ll all draw a line under it’

Not until Norwegian Guy (#279) apologises for the sacking of Lindisfarne…

421

Bruce Wilder 03.30.15 at 2:41 am

ZM @ 419: What were my “several other inaccuracies?”

William the Bastard actually did conquer — your fanciful contradiction to the cornerstone of 1066 and all that could be termed inaccurate. Your history is fractured and your economics — you talk of resource consumption as if no organized process of production mediates!

422

ZM 03.30.15 at 3:03 am

Bruce Wilder,

“William the Bastard actually did conquer”

Well the Earl the English installed as King had no blood relation. — King William from Normandy had, despite your cruel prejudice against him due to his parents being in a de facto rather than formal marriage, a much better claim to the Crown as a blood relation.

How can assert say a mere In-Law should be King? At the most he might have been regent to a King with a proper blood relation.

Next thing you’ll be claiming Pippa Middleton is next in line for the Crown.

My history is no more fractured than yours — I can hardly be blamed that the English fabricate so much of their history and utilise prejudice (such as your own against unmarried couples having children) rather than facts to do so.

“you talk of resource consumption as if no organized process of production mediates!”

I did not ever state there was no process of production. I am hardly a cargo cult believer who thinks factory goods just arrive out of nowhere. I just can’t write every single thing into every comment can I?

423

Bruce Wilder 03.30.15 at 4:34 am

Ronan(rf) @ 417

Thanks for the reference to Dr John Regan’s review of the book, Irish Freedom: the History of Nationalism in Ireland by Richard English. The author’s reply, frustrated perhaps by Regan’s careful prose, opted to attack Brendan O’Leary for his review of the book. O’Leary was far less restrained in taking down English. Sort of a Three Kingdoms perspective and fun.

424

Bruce Wilder 03.30.15 at 4:39 am

ZM @ 422

Franz von Bayern (aka Francis II) ? ;-)

425

Phil 03.30.15 at 9:57 am

I was correcting someone who thought Yorkshire wasn’t English until the Norman arrival.

No, you were misreading someone who pointed out that that it was historically illiterate to talk about ‘England’ conquering ‘Wales’, given that the Normans’ attempted conquest of the Welsh kingdoms began shortly after the Norman conquest of the North of what is now England.

I think European Cities were generally impacted by the flows of resources into Europe during the imperial era, plus the continuing Western domination in the post-war era.

So do I, so do (at a guess) most people on this thread. But that’s not the claim you made. You attributed London’s overconsumption to the British Empire and no other cause. To retreat to a more nuanced and accurate position when challenged, with the implication that it’s the position you held all along… there’s a name for that.

426

Peter T 03.30.15 at 10:13 am

Empire is a complicated business. My great-great-grandparents fled the Famine to Australia, where they took up farms on land taken from Aborigines. Perhaps they are owed an apology, and also owe one? In reading into Indian history, it becomes evident how much the Raj was a creation of British and many sorts of Indians working together. British as senior partners, but not masters – something often glossed over in Britain but never far from British minds in Calcutta or Delhi, a partnership that dissolved when Indians withdrew their support, but that jointly added Burma, East Africa, Malaya and much else to the Empire. If Britain apologises to India, to whom does India apologise?

427

Val 03.30.15 at 11:07 am

@425
It’s the northern hemisphere boys ganging up on ZM. Hardly fair. I have to jump in.

You quoted ZM: “I think European Cities were generally impacted by the flows of resources into Europe during the imperial era, plus the continuing Western domination in the post-war era.”

And responded “So do I, so do (at a guess) most people on this thread. But that’s not the claim you made. You attributed London’s overconsumption to the British Empire and no other cause. To retreat to a more nuanced and accurate position when challenged, with the implication that it’s the position you held all along… there’s a name for that.”

But just because ZM attributed London’s overconsumption to the British Empire (which may be an over simplification, but that’s not what you’re arguing about), doesn’t suggest she is saying that no other European countries had empires. We all know they did and it’s been discussed on this thread. ZM has, I think, suggested strongly that England was the worst (aka most successful) imperialist, but not that it was the only one.

So, as far as I can see, like others before you, in your rush to tell ZM how silly and wrong she is, you have said something that seems to lack logic. It’s poetic justice, but is it mansplaining?

428

Ronan(rf) 03.30.15 at 11:14 am

“Is it mansplaining”

No

429

ZM 03.30.15 at 11:31 am

Bruce Wilder,

I have already detailed before with a family tree that the current royal family are direct descendants of the Stuarts.

Queen Elizabeth II is descended from James I&VI’s daughter Elizabeth who was to become the Winter Queen of Bohemia after she recovered from the alarm caused by being the target of the gunpowder plotters. Whereas Franz of Bavaria is descended from Charles I’s daughter Henrietta.

I do not see the point of insisting that Charles I’s daughter’s descendants have a greater claim to the throne than James I&VI’s daughter’s descendants. Jacobites should modernise and shift their focus to supporting heir apparent Prince Charles in his writing letters to the Ministers in parliament and his efforts at sustainability and town and city planning reforms.

430

Val 03.30.15 at 11:37 am

Next thing you’ll be telling me that mansplaining is no longer a useful word! http://www.salon.com/2014/10/20/rip_mansplaining_how_the_internet_killed_one_of_our_most_useful_words/

Whether or not it’s mansplaining, there seem to have been rather a lot of men wading in to tell ZM she is wrong, without necessarily being totally right themselves.

431

ZM 03.30.15 at 11:47 am

Phil,

“No, you were misreading someone who pointed out that that it was historically illiterate to talk about ‘England’ conquering ‘Wales’, given that the Normans’ attempted conquest of the Welsh kingdoms began shortly after the Norman conquest of the North of what is now England.”

I have not read any history which speaks of this Great Norman Empire you are referring to when you’re not telling me that Yorkshire wasn’t English until 1066 — which is about 400 years out.

Nor have I heard of England being referred to as (New?) Normandy — and the actions of its polity attributed to Normans.

And not once have I read of the Norman invasions of Wales, Ireland, Scotland, the Americas, India, Australia, etc etc. (Well, to be absolutely accurate that bit of a chapter I have already mentioned that said the Norman’s brought greed/”acquisitiveness” to England did mention they had stretched south of Normandy around about the time of their arrival in England as well — but I did not read the whole chapter or the rest of the book so I don’t know about what the author attributed to the Normans after that bit).

“You attributed London’s overconsumption to the British Empire and no other cause”

At no point did I say London’s over consumption was attributed to one — and only one — singular isolated cause :/
In fact in this very thread I have pointed out two other causes: (a) the habit of acquisitiveness brought to England by the Normans; and (b) the gentrification of the common people.

So I mentioned at least three causes — not one — and I am quite sure I could list even more.

But I think that despite acquisitiveness and gentrification without colonising other countries it is quite unlikely that England could have got so many resources to consume so over-much.

432

Ronan(rf) 03.30.15 at 11:49 am

I think the splaining could plausibly be said to be coming from the other direction .(1) I also don’t think writing off any disagreement as “mansplaining” or “defensiveness over imperialism” is helpful, or fair, personally. ZM is obviously capable of making her argument and arguing against divergent opinions, afaict

(1) ‘plausibly’. I’m not saying that’s the case as I find the concept tiresome.

433

ZM 03.30.15 at 11:53 am

Peter T,

“Empire is a complicated business. My great-great-grandparents fled the Famine to Australia, where they took up farms on land taken from Aborigines. Perhaps they are owed an apology, and also owe one?”

That is true. There is a book called Caledonia Australis about the Highland Scots being dispossessed of their land and then dispossessing Indigenous Australians in Gippsland in Victoria near where one side of my family had settled. I have not been able to finish it the times I have started as it makes me too sad and troubled.

434

Ronan(rf) 03.30.15 at 11:54 am

The concept of splaining I find tiresome, personally. ZMs comments on the internal colonisation of the UK and dh Lawrence’s life are more interesting, to my eyes. Though also largely irrelevant to contemporary politics, afaict

435

ZM 03.30.15 at 12:30 pm

djr,

“my first suggestion would be to read something like the Guardian (for a left perspective) regularly.”

I already do this. It is from my reading of UK media and comments here that I have come to the conclusion that UK and Australian dialogue about colonialism and empire are different.

“But it’s easy to say that a bunch of people who are all long dead were bad people and we aren’t like them…the more important thing is that reflecting on our past influences how we behave in the future, our relationships with other parts of the world today, particularly places which we messed up in the past. Sometimes that’s about artefacts that we acquired in colonial times… or foreign aid or debt cancellation ”

I think this is different — as there is as much an emphasis on recognising what happened in the past in Australia — for instance there was the 1992 Redfern Speech I embedded earlier by Prime Minister Keating:

“And, as I say, the starting point might be to recognise that the problem starts with us non-Aboriginal Australians.
It begins, I think, with that act of recognition.
Recognition that it was we who did the dispossessing.
We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life.
We brought the diseases. The alcohol.
We committed the murders.
We took the children from their mothers.
We practised discrimination and exclusion.
It was our ignorance and our prejudice.
And our failure to imagine these things being done to us.”

And in the Howard Government of the late 1990s and early 2000s there was a lot of controversy that Prime Minister Howard refused to make an Apology to the stolen generation (which Prime Minister Rudd subsequently did).

So recognition of the past is a living issue here. But also where you say the “reflecting on the past influences how we behave in the future” this is a bit different. I think because England has largely retreated from government of her former colonies which in a sense is a withdrawal from present day responsibility — whereas in Australia I think in someways it can be easier reflecting on the wrongs of the past than knowing how to do much better in the present and future — so present issues are much more fraught and high stakes but also more about practice here.

“As Phil said @ 401, the left doesn’t see itself as heirs to the colonialist tradition, more to the working classes who were being exploited in the UK by the same people who were exploiting lands overseas at the same time. There are issues with this viewpoint, of course, as clearly the empire enriched the UK as a whole, not just our ruling classes.”

I think this is different as well — its a bit hard to explain. While people on the left might take some heart in identifying as or being part of national or international) leftist traditions or following in the paths of particular individuals that opposed colonisation and dispossession (I am not sure how common this anti-colonialism was on the left before the second half of the 20th C if we equate the left with the labour movement to be honest — although I looked at a paper and that seems the same in England — there were some working class radicals against colonialism but others who were jingoistic) — I think there is also a sense of having an identity as or being part of an Australian community.

So I would say that the general view is that we as Australians bear the historical legacy of colonialism and dispossession. And that doesn’t seem to be the same in the UK.

436

Rich Puchalsky 03.30.15 at 12:39 pm

Bruce Wilder: “I don’t think I understood this comment.”

(e.g. when I wrote “this latter part of the thread has to do with Irish people rejecting the idea that they are in any way indigenous rather than a European ethnicity like any other.”)

Not sure how to explain, but at the cost of great oversimplification, I think that 99% of what’s being said could be summarized as “Irish people were indigenous, colonized by the (English | British ), and you have to look at the resulting resistance as anti-colonialism” vs “Irish people were European actors like any other European protostate and you have to look at the resulting resistance as inter-ethnic European conflict across arbitrary state borders.”

437

Phil 03.30.15 at 12:48 pm

ZM:
I have not read any history which speaks of this Great Norman Empire you are referring to

Very amusing. But all I was saying (one last time) was that it’s historically illiterate to claim – as you did – that ‘England’ conquered ‘Wales’. That’s it.

At no point did I say London’s over consumption was attributed to one — and only one — singular isolated cause

What you actually wrote was:

“this over-consumption continues today as you can see from my figures about just the residents of London consuming as much as could be extracted from land twice the size of the whole United Kingdom. So I can blame this on the bad habits got during colonialism too.”

Which is what I and others objected to – not only wildly simplistic but moralising.

Val:
just because ZM attributed London’s overconsumption to the British Empire (which may be an over simplification, but that’s not what you’re arguing about), doesn’t suggest she is saying that no other European countries had empires

On the contrary, the over-simplification is precisely what I’m arguing about; I certainly didn’t suggest that ZM was saying no other European countries had empires. All I did (or tried to do) was correct an erroneous claim made upthread. Since ZM has quietly abandoned that claim I’ll consider my work done.

there seem to have been rather a lot of men wading in to tell ZM she is wrong, without necessarily being totally right themselves.

You don’t need to be ‘totally right’ to correct basic errors. If you tell me the moon’s made of green cheese, & I say that we’ve known it’s made of rock ever since Apollo 11 landed in April 1972, you don’t then get to claim that my error about the date disqualifies me as an authority on what the moon’s made of.

As for ‘mansplaining’, it’s news to me that ZM is female – whoever ZM is, the use of initials suggests that (s)he doesn’t want to broadcast his/her gender, a choice I respect. Do you know my gender, come to that? Do I know yours? (Plenty of Philippas and Valentines out there.) Do we care?

438

Sasha Clarkson 03.30.15 at 1:21 pm

Rich @436 Well summarised!

In the 5th-century CE, a Romano-Briton, Patricius, was kidnapped into slavery by Irish pirates, later becoming becoming the cleric canonised as St Patrick. It is pointless to apply modern value judgements, or a nationalistic perspective, to this event, as people lived and thought differently then. It’s better just to observe that s**t happened, and was followed by more s**t of a different kind; but it was interesting as the consequences echoed through history.

Of course, in the modern era we fondly imagine ourselves to be superior beings and therefore hold ourselves up to judgement by values we claim to hold. I’m all in favour of it: I hope it works out for the human race, but you can’t analyse human history in such terms. Should the early modern humans be “blamed” for coming out of Africa and exterminating the Neanderthals? Oy vey! (I can’t stand the guilt!!)

439

Phil 03.30.15 at 1:57 pm

I think because England has largely retreated from government of her former colonies which in a sense is a withdrawal from present day responsibility

I don’t believe that Britain (please don’t call it England) has any present-day responsibility. Historical responsibility, yes – although for obvious practical reasons the colony ran without much day-to-day direction from Britain pretty much from the outset. For as long as Australia was a colony the responsibility for what was done lay ultimately with the British state (although not with the British people) – but that doesn’t mean that individual Australians weren’t responsible for what they did.

That’s a very powerful speech from Paul Keating – We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life and so on. I think an identity story has grown up over the last couple of decades, which claims that history – a history of having been the conqueror and dispossessor – as part of the present-day white Australian identity. There isn’t anything comparable for the British, and I’m not sure if there could be. I’m descended from wheelwrights and blacksmiths, and more recently from miners and domestic servants; my ancestors had no responsibility for British imperialism, however far you go back.

440

Stephen 03.30.15 at 2:17 pm

ZM@148: You don’t seem to have understood what I wrote, and you are disagreeing with things I did not write.

Your argument about people who did not have the vote being the common people, and therefore no common people had the vote, is perfectly circular, and depends on classifying as common some people (like Mrs Lawrence) who would have disagreed forcefully, and classifying others (like working men who had the vote) as non-common. That’s not valid.

I did not say that Lawrence’s father never went down a mine. I said he was not a miner, but a mining contractor. Terminology may be different in Australia, but in Britain pre-nationalisation a miner was a man who went down a mine to contribute only his own labour: a mining contractor was a man who recruited, equipped, organised and instructed a group of miners. Socially, there was a considerable difference, even if the contractor as part of his job went down the mine himself.

Re the ecological footprint of London: I did not deal only with food supply. I explained that to achieve the footprint your source though was desirable, the commitment to feeding Londoners would have to be half its present level even if (as is clearly impossible) nothing was devoted to transport, energy, water or materials. From that, I concluded that you were proposing an extensive depopulation of London. Are you still disputing that?

Well, maybe you are: you seem to rely on London supporting itself through allotments. Try applying a little simple arithmetic (I realise this may not be a familiar concept) to the problem. Modern London has about 8.6 million people, in an area of 676 square miles. If all the buildings in London were taken down, and the roads and streets torn up, and the whole area devoted to allotments, the average Londoner would have a plot a little under sixteen yards square. Since Londoners have to live somewhere, and move about, the actual plots would be a good deal smaller. That gives an area which is totally unrealistic as a source of a year’s food, even with high-yielding vegetables.

Realism, of course, may not be the strong point of someone who believes that William the Conqueror did not actually conquer England, because he believed he was the rightful king. I wonder if you understand that, by that logic, Oliver Cromwell did not actually conquer Ireland for Parliament, because Parliament believed they were the rightful rulers.

All these matters are of minor importance compared to your belief in historical collective responsibility. That is a very problematic matter, and can lead to highly undesirable outcomes. For instance, much of the current disaster in the Muslim world seems to be due to the belief, held by many influential Shi’a, that the Sunni bear historical collective responsibility for the killing of Ali the fourth Caliph and his descendants; and to the reciprocal belief, held by many influential Sunni, that the Shi’a bear historical collective responsibility for perverting the course of Islam. I asked you some questions about the details of your belief in historical collective responsibility, to which I would appreciate an answer.

441

Ronan(rf) 03.30.15 at 3:17 pm

Bruce, thanks for pointing me towards that, it is good( and a handy corrective to the argument I might have overstated a bit in this thread)

442

Sasha Clarkson 03.30.15 at 3:21 pm

Phil: “I’m descended from wheelwrights and blacksmiths, and more recently from miners and domestic servants; my ancestors had no responsibility for British imperialism, however far you go back.”

Are you sure Phil? Where there were domestic servants, there was likely to be some version of droit du seigneur, at least informally. The fact is, that we are all the descendants of survivors, and therefore our ancestors are likely to have been those who did, as well as those to whom it was done.

Of course, according to the Church, we are all guilty, born with the stain of Original Sin, resulting from Adam’s yielding to temptation in eating of Eden’s forbidden fruit. As we approach Good Friday, it makes me very glad not be a Christian!

443

Stephen 03.30.15 at 3:42 pm

Ronan@378: you agree that the liberal theories of government to which Redmond & Co appealed did mean, for practical reasons, that Dublin should not be governed from London because the Irish people didn’t want it, and conversely that Belfast should not be governed from Dublin. But you said that morally or theoretically, you found this questionable.

You also said you’d get back to explain this statement, which I find intriguing but not easily interpretable. Would it be too much trouble for you to do so?

444

Ronan(rf) 03.30.15 at 3:50 pm

I’ll reply to it when I get near a computer. Not sure it’ll necessarily be supportable by logic or the historical record (ie it’ll be my own meandering speculation) but we’ll see how far it goes

445

Stephen 03.30.15 at 4:09 pm

Look forward to it with interest.

446

Phil 03.30.15 at 4:17 pm

Where there were domestic servants, there was likely to be some version of droit du seigneur

Er, that’s my grandmother you’re talking about…

447

engels 03.30.15 at 4:35 pm

is it mansplaining?

Read more like Ozsplaining Irish and British history to me. Ymmv.

448

Bruce Wilder 03.30.15 at 5:28 pm

Ozsplaining — yes!

449

Bruce Wilder 03.30.15 at 6:27 pm

Rich Puchalsky @ 436

I guess that helps some. Though I feel confident that I have the basic outlines underlining the colonialism rubric, I’m not sure what the “inter-ethnic European conflict across arbitrary state borders” references.

I do think it’s hard to understand some of the back-and-forth without an acquaintance with the rhetorical narrative framework of British Commonwealth concepts of evolving legitimate and constitutional self-governance, over and against the older, darker and more organic political instabilities of the Three Kingdoms. The Irish Republican hostility to the Commonwealth is taken personally by a lot of Tories and seems inexplicable to them, a form of nationalist madness, and all reference to the bloody catastrophes of British rule offered in explanation are misunderstood.

The European project introduced some new welcome new possibilities into the political games of Irish politics. Europe provided leverage for secularizing the politics of the Republic and disestablishing the Catholic Church, which was a huge thing. And, Europe provided an economic basis that at least seemed more independent of Britain. I have a hard time connecting those developments to your “inter-ethnic European conflict across arbitrary state borders”, but if that’s what you meant, OK.

450

Ronan(rf) 03.30.15 at 6:53 pm

Stephen – as an initial response, more as questions and vague statements than anything else.
What I mean by my 378 was that whether or not Home Rule should have encorporated the entire country, or a partioned one, is a personal/ideological preference. I’m not sure to what extent it could be said to fit comfortably within any ideas of ‘liberal theory.’ As a practical matter, a group of people armed themselves and worked politically to make it a reality, so that’s what happened. But I dont know if there was any need for Irish Nationalists to accept :

“It seems to me a pity that Redmond & Co did not see that, just as the liberal theories of government ”

Bear in mind aswell, afaik,that before the third home rule crisis forced their hand, the opposition was commited to *preventing* Home Rule, not offering an alternative vision. (although I’m open to correction on that)

A lot here aswell, I think, depends on what you mean by ‘libeal theories of government’ and whether you think British rule in Ireland was liberal and whether it was seen as legitimate. Liberal theories of governance depend on legitimacy (I’d assume, though am also open to elaboration) and British legitimacy in Ireland was always contested.

To the initial point of disagreement. Irish politics was always conditioned by British guns. The range of possibilites was always dependant on the fact (as became clear during the revolutionary period) that they British state would use force when it deemed neccesary to prevent Irish aspirations it didn’t accept as legitimate. Irish consititutional nationalism had to work (and frame their demands) under that context. That’s why I think John Regan’s perspective, that I linked above, of seeing the Irish crisis as a breakdown in the British constitutional order and a failure of British nationalism (as much as the triumph of Irish nationalism) makes sense. It reframes the question away from (primarily) Irish obstructionism (which the ‘revisionist’ perspective tends to overstate, IMO) and gives a broader context to why Irish nationalism developed as it did, why British politics was unable to cope with irish political demands (and it wasn’t able to) and why the situation ended in conflict.

Anyway,take those as just semi random thoughts. I’m undecided on what I think of large parts of the history, and only have a laymans knowledge of it, so I’m genuinely open to disagreement on any points (even to the point where my point might be illogical/ahistorical)

451

Ronan(rf) 03.30.15 at 7:00 pm

I think what Rich was getting at (and he can correct me of I’m wrong) was the question over whether Northern Ireland was a domestic ethnic conflict, or an ‘anti colonial’ one. I think it was both (though more the first)

452

Suzanne 03.30.15 at 7:23 pm

@366: Suzanne: if you believe that Irish nationalists pre-Carson had never advocated or contemplated violence, well, God bless your ignorance.

God’s blessings aside, Stephen, I was referring to the timeline specified in the post of yours to which I was responding:

“Lastly, I think you might agree that the net effect of the IRA campaigns, 1920s – 1990s (and after, for the residual IRAs) has in fact been to delay by many decades a united Ireland by mutual consent.”

453

Ronan(rf) 03.30.15 at 7:26 pm

..or even the conflict more generally. To copy and paste again (apologies) from Tom Garvin’s counterfactual:

“There is a common argument to the effect that the violent birth of modern Independent Ireland was in some way foolish and unnecessary, because the democratic politics of consensus , reasoning and bargaining would have achieved independence more easily and without bloodshed. Let me speculate briefly on what might have happened had the Rising not taken place. With the arrival home of the [First World War] veterans in 1919, and with the discredited Redmondites still holding on in Westminster, armed nationalism (which would have returned from the trenches with rather pronounced opinions about the British establishment and its right to rule anybody) would have been alienated fatally from constitutional nationalism. An incoherent but vicious sectarian war between North and South, with no new generation of political leaders in place, could easily have occurred . The Rising redefined the quarrel as one between two vaguely defined entities, England and Ireland rather than one between Catholics and Protestants.”

I don’t know what I think about the last sentence, but I guess my intial problem with the framing as ‘indigenous’ is I dont really know, specifically what people mean by that.

I do think the article Bruce mentioned above ‘Cuttlefish, Cholesterol and Saoirse: Review Article on Richard English, Irish Freedom: The History of Irish Nationalism’ by Brendan O’Leary is worth reading on these topics. (and availabl online)

454

Val 03.30.15 at 7:30 pm

@437
You did what you accused ZM of doing – changed your position rather than acknowledged your mistake.

@ 440 (to ZM)
“Try applying a little simple arithmetic (I realise this may not be a familiar concept) to the problem”

Call it what you like, this is patronising bullsh-t, and I’m sick of it. I think there are interesting historical connections between Australia and Ireland, and I think there are interesting comparisons to be made between the way different countries (including Australia) respond to the history of imperialism. However I don’t think I will try to have those discussions here any more, because I’m over the tone of this thread, especially to ZM. I’ve objected straight-forwardedly to this, and I’ve objected jokingly, and it just doesn’t make any difference, eg Stephen says stuff like that and I’m the only one who picks it up – again.

455

Rich Puchalsky 03.30.15 at 7:36 pm

Val: “eg Stephen says stuff like that and I’m the only one who picks it up – again.”

Well, I told him that he had to append “And my axe” to all of his comments after he tried to bring this dispute over to the JRRT thread and approvingly quoted Gimli’s opinion. I would call that picking up on his patronizing BS, though maybe I phrased it too obliquely.

456

lurker 03.30.15 at 7:51 pm

‘And not once have I read of the Norman invasions of Wales, Ireland, Scotland, the Americas, India, Australia, etc etc.’ (ZM, 431)
This is an Irish thread, so here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_invasion_of_Ireland
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-Normans

457

engels 03.30.15 at 8:10 pm

Fwiw I did tell Stephen he came across like a right-wing spambot

458

Phil 03.30.15 at 8:21 pm

@437
You did what you accused ZM of doing – changed your position rather than acknowledged your mistake.

I don’t think I did, but I’m willing to be persuaded if you think it’s worth it.

But I wasn’t putting forward an alternative position to ZM’s – I wasn’t even challenging ZM’s position, except in the sense of challenging ZM to state it in a way that stood a chance of persuading me (i.e. more coherently & without historical errors). All I was doing was responding to comments which I thought were incoherent or mistaken, by pointing out the specific ways in which those comments seemed to be incoherent or mistaken.

As it goes, I thought that comment of Stephen’s was condescending as hell, but having had one argument with Stephen upthread – and an argument which was partly about his tone – I didn’t want to start another.

459

Ronan(rf) 03.30.15 at 8:33 pm

“and I think there are interesting comparisons to be made between the way different countries (including Australia) respond to the history of imperialism.”

I agree. The article Bruce mentioned references Ian Lusticks book, which makes a specific comparison (with Ireland) to Algeria and France (and Israel and the West Bank) The comparison to French North Africa might be more applicable to Ireland than Australia. (unfortunately I know little about French North Africa) A lot of postcolonial comparative analysis has (afaik) generally ignored Ireland (as did the stuff on Central /Eastern European revolutions during and after WW1)
I think there are comparisons to be made, I’m just not sure what they are, and if going back centuries is the way to do it.

460

Stephen 03.30.15 at 8:35 pm

Val: OK, you don’t like the tone. I withdraw that comment, which you found condescending, and will try not to make another such.

Now, would you or ZM like to deal with the substance of the post: which is that to rely on allotments for feeding the population of London is arithmetically impossible, and that ZM’s preferred policy can only result in a great depopulation of the city?

461

Stephen 03.30.15 at 9:03 pm

Ronan@450: what I mean is that the liberal theories, as held by the UK government in the years before 1914, led to the conclusion that Irish Home Rule could not be in conscience resisted, since that was what the Irish people as a whole wanted. Hence the Third Home Rule Bill. But the difficulty, as it seems to me, is that the Redmondites did not perceive that the same theories, as applied to Ireland as a whole, led to the conclusion that exemption from home rule for some part of Ulster (not necessarily the six counties as in fact exempted) could also not in conscience be resisted.

BY 1914, I would say, the UK government had in effect taken the gun out of Irish politics, in that there was no intention of using armed force to subdue Redmond & Co. This was part of a long process of taking the gun out of politics generally, which can be traced back a long way; in the Irish context, to O’Connell’s non-violent campaign and the governmental perception that armed force should not be used to subdue that. Whether the UK opposition, had they succeeded in winning an election, would have put it back in again, I don’t know. The people who did in fact put it back were, in my opinion, the UVF, but I don’t think they would have done so if the Redmondites had accepted that home rule for the south implies exemption from home rule for (parts of) the north.

Tom Garvin’s speculation as to what would have happened if the Rising had never taken place is interesting. But is not an equally plausible speculation that, at the end of the war, Protestant Unionists might have perceived the Nationalists not as their treacherous enemies, but as their reliable friends who had stood by them in many battles, and whose wishes should be accommodated? I admit that’s only speculation, but I’ve tried it out on Ulster Protestants, and a fair few agreed.

462

Stephen 03.30.15 at 9:07 pm

Suzanne@452: what I meant is that, if you want a united Ireland by mutual consent (which is a possible outcome, and not one that I would object to) then bombing and shooting those who, for whatever reasons, do not presently consent is not likely to be a successful way of changing their minds. Unless you terrorise and kill a rather large proportion of them.

463

Stephen 03.30.15 at 9:33 pm

Engels@457: if you think that enthusiasm for depopulating London is a left-wing attitude, and opposing it right-wing, well, you’re entitled to your opinion. But it would mean that, in your opinion, a rather large number of people in Britain who think they are more or less left wingers are mistaken. One might regard that as slightly patronising.

464

Sasha Clarkson 03.30.15 at 10:07 pm

Re the “tone” of posts. Although I’m not a believer, the Bible is a great collection of literature and poetry, which can sometimes help illustrate one’s dilemmas.

One might be tempted by the following:

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
(Proverbs 26:5 KJV)
but of course, the caution comes first:
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
(Proverbs 26:4 KJV)

In the heat of a moment, or after a glass of wine too many, the patronising put-down is sometimes so very tempting. But this is an almost anonymous forum, and we don’t know about any personal issues which may drive contributors, nor the damage we could inadvertently do. So, if in doubt, don’t bait an easy target: blogging should not be a blood-sport!

465

engels 03.30.15 at 10:15 pm

Stephen, I don’t think that: I was refering to our earlier exchange (I mentioned it because Val implied she was the only person objecting to your comments).

466

Phil 03.30.15 at 10:33 pm

“If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise.” – William Blake, Proverbs of Hell

+1 to Sasha, also.

467

trackhorse 03.30.15 at 10:41 pm

@Sasha. I agree. Plus the repeated mention of the Good Folk may catch their attention— a thing to be avoided, especially in a medium so crass as the internet. It is mistaken to assume that all have retreated Under the Hill, and the next fiach fiáin may be closer at hand than one would assume.

468

Val 03.30.15 at 11:05 pm

Ok I accept the apologies and disclaimers, and in turn acknowledge that having someone from 15000 kms away talk about your history, getting details wrong, is annoying. But as I’m sure everyone here actually knows, jumping on the details doesn’t disprove the whole argument.

Stephen and Phil re the London point, my memory’s not great but I’m sure ZM originally said London would require more than the area of England to maintain itself – which is clearly relevant to the point about imperial empire/s. In a general sense you would probably agree that there is a relationship between imperialism, the wealth of nations and carbon emissions, even though it’s quite a complex one by now. (To use a ZMism, the sensible European countries have used their wealth to start cutting emissions, the silly Anglosphere ones not so much).

Anyway I would like to say something more on the sectarianism vs imperialism question, but will do it later (and humbly as someone far away).

469

Ronan(rf) 03.30.15 at 11:10 pm

“led to the conclusion that Irish Home Rule could not be in conscience resisted, since that was what the Irish people as a whole wanted.”

No, I don’t think conscience had anything to do with it. The Liberal commitment to the third home rule bill was clearly political , the bill was a fudge with little chance of implementation as it stood(which they knew), and the Unionists and Tories used this moment of crisis to bargain for their own position through mobilising and arming in Ulster. Partition was all but inevitable by 1914 (Ronan Fanning has written a new, pretty convincing book on this ‘Fatal Path’)
Concentrating on a weakened and weakening Redmond is really beside the point.

470

ZM 03.30.15 at 11:11 pm

Sascha Clarkson,

“Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.”
(Proverbs 26:5 KJV)

“It is pointless to apply modern value judgements, or a nationalistic perspective, to this event, as people lived and thought differently then. It’s better just to observe that s**t happened, and was followed by more s**t of a different kind; but it was interesting as the consequences echoed through history.

Of course, in the modern era we fondly imagine ourselves to be superior beings and therefore hold ourselves up to judgement by values we claim to hold. I’m all in favour of it: I hope it works out for the human race, but you can’t analyse human history in such terms. Should the early modern humans be “blamed” for coming out of Africa and exterminating the Neanderthals? Oy vey! (I can’t stand the guilt!!)”

Your nihilist reading of history is unsatisfactory. If morality does not apply to the past — how can it logically apply to the present? The only difference is that in the present it is possible to act, whereas past actions are foregone.

You also forget that — with the exceptions of nihilists such as yourself — most past actors understood themselves as moral actors in various way, and any archival work would have to engage with this self-understanding.

Furthermore I doubt anyone who reads the news can find it in them to imagine present generations are, as you put it, “superior beings”. Indeed — what other generations have acted so rashly and so far without hinderance to squander so much their natural inheritances, such as a relatively stable climate and healthy biodiversity, and potentially to leave a vastly diminished world to the generations to come?

471

ZM 03.31.15 at 12:12 am

Phil,

“But all I was saying (one last time) was that it’s historically illiterate to claim – as you did – that ‘England’ conquered ‘Wales’. That’s it.”

Well you might say that it was not precise or detailed, but (1) I cannot write very detailed comments every time because then people complain of their lengthiness and a lengthy comment takes longer for me to write also; and (2) if you have a look you will see that many articles talk about the English invasion of Wales e.g. in general sites such as the BBC website or Historic UK, or in academic articles such as Aylmer (1990) : “a large part of medieval and modern “British” history can be seen as a process of conquest and forcible anglicisation, extending of course to Ireland as well as to Wales and Scotland”

In contrast to your take on the Norman Conquest and the Invasions of Wales meaning that English Imperialism was not in play here — the historian John Gillingham (1992) argues that it was in fact during this period that English Imperialism had its birth:

“Here I shall first argue that an imperialist English culture emerged in the twelfth century… four hundred years earlier than is commonly supposed.

At first sight there is something of a paradox here since for most people the hundred years or so after the Norman conquest was a time when Frenchmen ruled the roost, when the English were an oppressed people… hardly the most plausible soil for an imperialising English culture.
….
Since [the] perception [of a Norman invasion of Wales, Ireland, and Scotland] is both widespread and seriously misleading, it is perhaps best to begin with a few observations on the subject…. by the 1130s and 1140s the French connexion was no longer a source of national or ethnic tension.” After the Norman Conquest “The King and a tiny handful of the very greatest magnates , holding vast estates in Normandy as well as in England and Wales, may have thought of themselves primarily as Frenchmen, but the overwhelming majority of the landowners of England knew they were English… French speaking, of mixed ancestry… but English even so.

Among the [12 C] clerical elite a prevailing perception of the otherness and inferiority of Celtic peoples is easy to document…. the Welsh ‘are rude and untamed; they live like beasts and though they nominally profess Christ, they deny him in their life and ways’. ‘Who would deny that the Scots are barbarians?’…. [The Irish] ‘are so barbarous that they cannot be said to have any culture… they are a wild people, living like beasts, who have not progressed at all from the primitive habits of pastoral farming’ … by the mid and late 12th century such views were commonplace.

The perception of Celtic societies as barbarous obviously functioned in part as an ideology of conquest. … if I am right about the attitudes of authors in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, then it is equally clear that the English had been invading Welsh — and Cornish — lands for centuries without needing an imperialist ideology.

For many centuries England and the Celtic world had been very similar societies. But in the course of the 10th, 11th and early 12th Centuries profound European economic, social, military, and cultural developments affected the South East of England…

…revivial of Greco-Roman modes of perception resulted in the Christian view of the world, one which divided men and women into two basic groups — Christian and Non-Christian — being decisively supplemented by a non-religious system of classification, one which divided men and women into the civilised and the barbarians. In the course of British history this was to be the great divide, the creation of an imperialist English culture”

Source: John Gillingham “The Beginnings of English Imperialism”

“For as long as Australia was a colony the responsibility for what was done lay ultimately with the British state (although not with the British people) – but that doesn’t mean that individual Australians weren’t responsible for what they did….I’m descended from wheelwrights and blacksmiths, and more recently from miners and domestic servants; my ancestors had no responsibility for British imperialism, however far you go back.”

Well your ancestors possibly bought and used things from the colonies (sugar? tea?) and lived in a period when cities and towns were built on profits from colonies — so while they did not individually have a lot of power to exert on the matter they were still involved as part of a nation. But I don’t have time to write anything else on this right now.

472

Val 03.31.15 at 5:21 am

btw just in case of any confusion, when I @ 468 said this:

“(To use a ZMism, the sensible European countries have used their wealth to start cutting emissions, the silly Anglosphere ones not so much).”

I wasn’t trying to make fun of ZM’s style. In fact I find it quite refreshing – I get so sick of having to put things in formal academic language (in my studies), when sometimes you can say much the same thing in everyday language.

473

Stephen 03.31.15 at 8:13 am

Phil@466: the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom. Blake, somewhere r other.

474

Crytandra 03.31.15 at 8:39 am

Mostly I find left wing discourses on imperialism rather boring as they are nearly always lacking in nuance, melodramatic, ideologically charged, Eurocentric and ahistorical. Right wingers tend to be just as boring. Ultimately, a centrist viewpoint is nearly always more enlightening.

I’ve witnessed far left types go purple and blue in the face when I’ve told them my Vietnamese wife and I have attended Vietnamese festivals in Oz where ex-diggers from the Vietnam War are lionized as heroes and young and old Vietnamese people line up to have their photos taken with them. The veins start to pop out on their necks when I then point out that every single one of my wife’s relatives, AFAICT, including the ones who collaborated with the North, wish the Americans had won the war because of the extreme poverty and sense of hopelessness that overcame the South immediately after the North took over.

Of course “communist” Vietnam itself is now spooning Uncle Sam because it quite rightly fears Chinese imperialism.

Oh the irony and nuance of history!

475

Phil 03.31.15 at 8:40 am

ZM: that’s a much more subtle, nuanced and complex version of the conquest and anglicisation of the Welsh kingdoms, which can’t be boiled down to saying that ‘England’ conquered ‘Wales’. Again, you’ve replaced a sketchy and tendentious claim with one that’s much more sustainable. I’d rather you acknowledged you were doing it, but apart from that I can’t complain.

your ancestors possibly bought and used things from the colonies (sugar? tea?) and lived in a period when cities and towns were built on profits from colonies — so while they did not individually have a lot of power to exert on the matter they were still involved as part of a nation. But I don’t have time to write anything else on this right now.

Shame, because it’s a lot more interesting. I think my reply would be that if you go back through my family tree all you’ll find is accidents of birth – at no time did anyone decide to be part of British Imperialism, they all just happened to be born somewhere where they would go on to benefit from it. The white Australian relationship to imperialism is, necessarily, very different. (Even the transports didn’t have to stay there – several people made it back to Britain*. One bloke did seven years, made his way back home, got caught thieving, did another seven years and came home again – he died in the same place he was born. He must really not have liked it out there.)

*NB this isn’t entirely a serious point – the returners were only a very small fraction of the transports.

476

Val 03.31.15 at 9:02 am

The thing I wanted to say about sectarianism and imperialism is that in Australia, historically the Irish are catholic, working class and oppressed. As I mentioned, they tended to come as convicts and assisted passage immigrants. We didn’t really have much Anglo Irish, unionist, representation here I think. So the sectarianism – which was very strong till at least mid twentieth century – was between the English and Scottish Presbyterian types who were more mainstream and middle or ruling class and the Irish Catholics (proddies and dogs, I think). Therefore the same kind of people who represent imperialism represent anti-Irish sectarianism here. Hopefully that might explain why we may see things a bit differently.

As far as I remember, Gerry Adans came to Australia when I was still working for the Victorian parliamentary Labor party in the late 1990s – if that sounds right. I don’t remember him being exactly feted, but certainly made welcome and listened to with respect.

Now we have an English born Catholic leader of the Liberal-National Coalition (ie conservative) party as our Prime Minister – so things are different now.

477

ZM 03.31.15 at 10:01 am

Phil,

“ZM: that’s a much more subtle, nuanced and complex version of the conquest and anglicisation of the Welsh kingdoms, which can’t be boiled down to saying that ‘England’ conquered ‘Wales’.”

Heavens above — what would you boil it down to then? The article is specifically arguing that English imperialism begins with the English — rather than Norman — conquest of Wales.

“Again, you’ve replaced a sketchy and tendentious claim with one that’s much more sustainable. I’d rather you acknowledged you were doing it, but apart from that I can’t complain.”

Brief argumentative claims that are then supported over the course of the thread with more and more evidence and detail is how internet comment thread arguments go.

“Shame, because it’s a lot more interesting. I think my reply would be that if you go back through my family tree all you’ll find is accidents of birth – at no time did anyone decide to be part of British Imperialism, they all just happened to be born somewhere where they would go on to benefit from it. ”

I quite disagree with you about this. It is like saying Australians and English people don’t bear responsibility for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq so long as they are not the actual soldiers or parliamentarians. It is very individualistic and just seems a way to absolve anyone of ever having any collective responsibility for anything.

478

ZM 03.31.15 at 10:22 am

Stephen,

“Your argument about people who did not have the vote being the common people, and therefore no common people had the vote, is perfectly circular…”

I was aware of the circularity when I wrote it. I don’t think we share a sense of humour.

“I did not say that Lawrence’s father never went down a mine. I said he was not a miner, but a mining contractor…. Socially, there was a considerable difference, even if the contractor as part of his job went down the mine himself.”

I thought you were arguing he did not do any mining when you said he was not a miner. I think Mr Lawrence was happy to socially belong with the other miners and have a pint or two after work, but Mrs Lawrence did not like to belong to this social group and that was where the problems started when she found out he actually did mining underground even though he was a mining contractor. Anyway I already pointed out I was using the Lawrence family as an example of the gentrification of the common people — I do not really see what your quarrel with that is?

“I explained that to achieve the [ecological] footprint your source though was desirable, the commitment to feeding Londoners would have to be half its present level…From that, I concluded that you were proposing an extensive depopulation of London. Are you still disputing that?”

Yes, I am. I already explained that Londoners can eat more sustainably. As well as allotment and rooftop kitchen gardens in London land in England that is presently devoted to grazing animals or otherwise unused and suitable can be used to grow crops. Further things to assist could be Londoner’s giving up or reducing intakes of non-necessary foodstuffs like coffee and tea and chocolate. I am sure with appropriate measures the ecological footprint of Londoner’s foods could be halved without a depopulation (except for the people who move to grow the new crops)

“Realism, of course, may not be the strong point of someone who believes that William the Conqueror did not actually conquer England, because he believed he was the rightful king.”

It was not a mere matter of belief — he was a Blood Relative whereas the King the English chose as successor to the dead King was just an In-Law. If a Blood Relative obtains the Crown from an In-Law — I don’t think that counts as conquering in Monarchy, does it?

“I wonder if you understand that, by that logic, Oliver Cromwell did not actually conquer Ireland for Parliament, because Parliament believed they were the rightful rulers.”

This is completely different — there is no blood relation. If Oliver Cromwell was a blood successor to the King of Ireland but the Irish chose an In-Law instead — then that would be different.

But that is hardly the case is it?

” I asked you some questions about the details of your belief in historical collective responsibility, to which I would appreciate an answer.”

I will have to think about it further. The problems you point to are somewhat ameliorated because the historical collective responsibility goes hand-in-hand with the process of reconciliation, although of course in practice this is messy and difficult. I hope it is clear I am not saying that due to historical responsibility blood feuds are a good idea.

479

Phil 03.31.15 at 10:40 am

Heavens above — what would you boil it down to then?

I wouldn’t boil it down to anything – that’s my entire point. It’s complex. If pushed I’d say that the absorption of what is now Wales into the realms of the Kings of England began in earnest after 1066 but was not completed until several hundred years later – which is not to say that the nation of Wales was conquered, because no such nation existed.

It is like saying Australians and English people don’t bear responsibility for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq so long as they are not the actual soldiers or parliamentarians.

If I voted against war, signed petitions against war, joined marches against war, am I still partly responsible for the wars by virtue of where I happened to be born? That seems harsh.

480

Sasha Clarkson 03.31.15 at 10:43 am

No-one chooses to be born. Guilt for one’s ancestors’ deeds is pointless unless one is benefiting from their crimes. Thus one might ask why a wealthy German family which benefited from the Holocaust was allowed to keep their property, when so many others lost everything; one might equally question land ownership in Australia.

But we do not blame the child of a rapist for existing. Nor do we blame African Americans or West Indians for slavery, even though they mostly carry some European genes derived from their captors.

Many historical struggles were struggles for survival: in the modern world, at least for a while, humanity might have the choice to cooperate for mutual self-interest – if we are, as a species, mature enough. If the world becomes over-populated, then individuals and groups will have no choice but to fight for land, resources and their own survival – or, perhaps even worse, leaders will have to get together to decide who should live or die.

It is not nihilism to observe that morality is a luxury afforded to those who already have enough. Morality evolves, according to circumstance, painfully and with lots of casuistry and self-deceit.

“Erst kommt das Fressen: Dann kommt die Moral.” (Brecht)

481

ZM 03.31.15 at 10:47 am

Phil,
” the absorption of what is now Wales into the realms of the Kings of England… which is not to say that the nation of Wales was conquered”

Wales was not absorbed — a sponge absorbs water but the English conquered the Welsh. I think you rather than myself are an outlier on this matter.

“If I voted against war, signed petitions against war, joined marches against war, am I still partly responsible for the wars by virtue of where I happened to be born? That seems harsh.”

Yes you are because you failed to succeed in stopping the war and are a member of a country not just an individual. Polling says the majority of Australians (I don’t know about numbers in the UK) did not support these wars — did we do enough to stop the wars? No.

482

Phil 03.31.15 at 11:01 am

I’ve got a Tudor-era map of Ireland somewhere. Part of the Welsh coast is included; it’s labelled “Angliae Pars”. I’ll stick with ‘absorbed’.

On the question of collective responsibility, where (if ever) do you draw the line? Are present-day Aboriginal Australians partly responsible for racist policies implemented by national and state governments?

483

Sasha Clarkson 03.31.15 at 11:08 am

Phil – you have failed – how can you live with the shame? Go and commit seppuku at once!

(Please don’t!!! :-) )

PS William Blake rocks!

484

engels 03.31.15 at 11:39 am

If I voted against war, signed petitions against war, joined marches against war, am I still partly responsible for the wars by virtue of where I happened to be born? That seems harsh.

One problem is that your (my) taxes are still paying for these wars.

485

Crytandra 03.31.15 at 12:00 pm

Given the out-marriage rate among indigenous Australian women is approx 70%, after a certain number of iterations I guess we’ll all end up being indigenous.

486

engels 03.31.15 at 12:17 pm

Does it help to observe that responsibility has different kinds and degrees? Someone who benefited financially from a crime might be liable for paying back her unjust rewards but not for criminal punishment.

487

Sasha Clarkson 03.31.15 at 12:51 pm

Engels @486 – Absolutely right!

488

novakant 03.31.15 at 1:25 pm

ZM: I was with you mostly until you suggested “Londoner’s giving up or reducing intakes of non-necessary foodstuffs like coffee and tea and chocolate” – it sounds a bit Stalinist …

489

novakant 03.31.15 at 1:27 pm

… and most Londoners would consider these things essential to their mental health

490

Bruce Wilder 03.31.15 at 5:40 pm

Val @ 476

John Redmond, leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party, who obtained passage of the Third Home Rule bill, was mentioned above.

John and his brother Willie, members of the Catholic gentry of Wexford and descended from the Normans who according to ZM didn’t conquer, married the daughters of James Dalton, patriarch of a wealthy NSW family and an Irishman, who had followed his transported father to Australia. Travelling the world, seeking funds from the Irish diaspora, was a pretty typical part of Irish politics in the 19th century. And, a small part of that diaspora had achieved a measure of political and business success in the latter half of the 19th century everywhere but in Ireland itself, where the landlordism of the Protestant Ascendancy met progress with extortion.

John Redmond was something of a Liberal Imperialist, who thrilled to his participation in Empire. And, self-government in Australia was a model and moral example in Redmond’s advocacy for the politics of constitutionalism. The service and sacrifice of Australian and New Zealand in the First World War would be held as a parallel to the service and sacrifice of Irish troops. (Ill-use by the incompetent British military leadership, notable for its roots in and sympathy with the relict Protestant Ascendancy, would leave its political marks all-round.)
.
Willie Redmond, 53 when he entered service in the Great War, would lose his life going over the parapet. Éamon de Valera would win his seat in Parliament.

491

mattski 03.31.15 at 6:19 pm

The veins start to pop out on their necks when I then point out that every single one of my wife’s relatives, AFAICT, including the ones who collaborated with the North, wish the Americans had won the war because of the extreme poverty and sense of hopelessness that overcame the South immediately after the North took over.

BTW, I agree with you on the deficits of left-wing “imperialism” talk. It over-simplifies what should not be over-simplified and Phil has spoken to this quite well. I haven’t been reading this thread closely, but my prejudices confirm that ZM is a transgressor in this department. [sorry ZM!]

OK, but now I want to put 2 cents in on Vietnam because it’s a pet issue of mine. What you say above might well be valid but it shouldn’t be said without a hefty caveat: 1) We don’t know what the situation would have looked like in the absence of US aggression in Southeast Asia. 2) US aggression in Vietnam and the surrounding area amounted to an unprovoked holocaust. It had no rational basis in US national security and it directly contravened the Vietnamese consensus for unification and a nationalist gov’t under HCM.

492

Bruce Wilder 03.31.15 at 8:01 pm

mattski @ 491

Much of politics is played out like a Rugby scrum formed with not two but many teams on the field, heads down and pushing hard against the opposing team(s) while intermittently sending out coaches and captains to conjure new goals. From time to time, players are called from the field, exhausted or dead, and new players enter the fray. The political and economic architectures, change and social and personal outcomes produced, almost as epiphenomena, defy many (but not all?) easy narrative summations.

The moral narrative archetypes we have available to us really don’t do a good job of encompassing “collective” social behavior or achievement. The hero, whose struggles and good intentions, vindicate his cause, and whose hubris and shortcomings provoke inevitable tragedy, must get nearly lost in the crowd, if we are at all realistic about history.

Whether it’s the tragedy of American involvement in Vietnam or the many tragedies of Norman/English/Scots/British involvement in Ireland, I don’t think its so complicated and anarchic that we should despair that it is all simply one damn thing after another. I think the struggle for informed and informative historical narrative is worthwhile — not just interesting, but stimulating and among the most valuable of the few mirrors of human nature available.

The lessons of history are hard to distill — and that’s itself one of the primary lessons of history. Something happens, emerges out of the great political Scrum, for good or ill, and people think they’ve learned from the experience of its emergence, but they don’t agree on what they’ve learned and they try to pass down the lesson to the next generation, but its emotional weight and significance changes in descent and transmission. They can keep trying the same stupid thing slightly modified, expecting a different result for centuries, and getting a slightly different and arguably better or arguably worse result. Evolution. And as in biological evolution, no one really intended anything that actually happened, as it happened.

The general problem with left-wing historical narratives is that they rely so much on substituting the choice of a moralistic pose for knowledge. There’s nothing wrong with grounding a moral viewpoint in historical knowledge — such grounding would be the point of studying human nature thru the study of history. But, the substitution of a moralistic pose is the exact opposite of such grounding. That moral pose, however philosophical its decorative elements, has no base, no foundation.

The OP, thru the referenced New Yorker article, offered a chance to reflect on one apparently and recently completed arc of Irish political, constitutional history, one or two generation’s play on the field over forty years or so. And, looking back, people are examining the murder of one obscure mother of ten (!) and wondering wtf were they thinking? It seems to me that you have not really gotten down to the ground with history until you are wondering, wtf were they thinking?, about quite a lot of people.

493

Stephen 03.31.15 at 8:02 pm

ZM@487: I fear we do not have the same sense of humor.

May I make a serious and friendly request? It may happen again that you say “X”, and someone comes up with a good reason why “not-X”. If you feel you have to reply with a humorous “ah, but if I make X true by definition, no matter how distant from reality that definition, then I’ve proved X, so there” could you please, for your own sake, put in something to the effect of “I realize this is a circular argument and not worth taking seriously, but I did want to have the last word”?

You see, if you don’t, there is a real danger that readers will conclude you are someone who wouldn’t recognise a logical argument if it danced up and down in front of you, wearing a T-shirt saying I AM A LOGICAL ARGUMENT and with flashing lights in its hair reading THIS IS A LOGICAL ARGUMENT and waving a banner saying I SUPPORT LOGICAL ARGUMENTS.

Which would, as I’m sure you would agree, be a great pity.

Re gentrification: I still think you’re confusing it with an increase in the living standards of the working class, which I think to be a good thing. After WW1, my grandfather’s family were able to afford a piano. I don’t think he would have regarded himself as being gentrified: in his will he insisted that there should be plenty of beer at his funeral, and that nobody who didn’t want to should have to wear a collar and tie. It was just that they liked music.

Re the population of London: I have already pointed out that the whole area of London would provide allotment and kitchen gardens to the extent of less than 16 yards square per person. Good luck with that for feeding them. If you’ve ever seen London from the air, you will appreciate that converting pitched roofs to gardens might be difficult.

Getting the Londoners to give up tea, coffee and chocolate is likely to be difficult without a dictatorship. And are you sure you’ve thought through the consequences of their doing so? You see, it’s not just London that has an ecological footprint far bigger than its area: as I have tried to point out, no city ever has been, or ever will be, able to provide most of the food, fuel, materials it needs from within its own boundaries. So it’s not just Londoners who will have to give up these luxuries: it’s Mancunians, Glaswegians, Parisians, Berliners, Milanese, New Yorkers … and have you considered the effect of this on, say cocoa farmers in West Africa. Bang goes their export trade. Bang goes their ability to get foreign exchange for things they would rather like to have. Is that really what you want?

As for Cromwell the Conqueror: are you really disputing the authority of the English Republic? If so, how do you justify the Republic of Ireland breaking away from the legitimate monarch, George VI? Or the possible creation of an Australian Republic?

NB that is meant to be at least partly humorous.

Seriously, though, about historical collective responsibility, it raises some dreadful problems. If you agree that your policies require substantial depopulation of London, you have to bear in mind that a very large number of Londoners are recent immigrants. Do these have the hereditary responsibility that you attribute to the English? Are they to be moved out into the countryside to become subsistence farmers? If not, are only the English to be exiled from London?

I never supposed that you did advocate blood feuds arising from historical collective responsibility. Trouble is, many of the recent problems in Northern Ireland, which is what this thread was originally about, do I think depend on exactly that.

I look forward to your fuller response to my questions on this last matter.

494

Crytandra 04.01.15 at 2:05 am

Mattski: “It had no rational basis in US national security and it directly contravened the Vietnamese consensus for unification and a nationalist gov’t under HCM.”

From memory, it is true that there was a “Vietnamese consensus for unification and a nationalist gov’t under HCM” prior to the war. I don’t believe that was the case when the South collapsed but I have no evidence one way or the other, so this is just conjecture. The South of course had a hopeless and corrupt government and its army was no match for the ideologically charged warriors of the North.

Part of what I mean with my critique of the left wing version of history, or what we in Australia sometimes call the black armband version of history, is that airbrushes out everything apart from western imperialism. Vietnam itself is the product of imperial adventures, the destruction of Champa and the progressive annexation of Cambodian land that occurred concurrent with the era of western imperialism. In turn, of course, Vietnam has been subject to a long history of Chinese imperialism.

Even today, Vietnam’s ethnic minorities, while officially protected, are having parts of their land excised by the Kinh (the ethnic majority in Vietnam). Also the Kinh typically view the minorities as inferiors.

History is much messier than the black armband narrative that dominates left wing discourse.

495

Val 04.01.15 at 2:11 am

@ 490
Thanks Bruce that’s very interesting and illustrates how broad generalisations, such as I was making, can always be nuanced. I wonder if there is any connection between that Redmond family and Redmond Barry, the judge who sentenced Ned Kelly to hang, and who was also of Irish origin? Ned Kelly himself railed against Irish ‘traitors’, such as Irishmen who joined the Australian police force. So, definitely there were Irish supporters of imperialism and/or the largely Protestant ruling class, whichever way you want to put it, I just don’t think we had many who were both of Irish heritage and also Protestant.

My knowledge about Irish Catholics in Australia comes mainly from reading Patrick O’Farrell, and that was a fair while ago. Good writer though.

Mattski @ 491
Are you (perhaps inadvertently) suggesting or agreeing that imperialism is a left wing theory? Because I don’t think you can support that. The left/right thing is more about whether you think it’s a good/justifiable thing or not, and pace Bruce W, historians, like anyone else, are allowed to have values and political positions. If you want to suggest that left wing theories about imperialism are worse than right wing theories, I think you’d have to provide some evidence. Also if you’re going to criticise other commenters, maybe you should read what they write?

496

Val 04.01.15 at 2:22 am

And while I was writing, lo and behold, Crytandra kindly provided a right wing over-simplification – the bloody old “black armband”. Now that really is an over-simplification, as well as a foolish insult. If I may make a generalisation, why do the right wing, at least in Australia, think that substituting insults for analysis is a good idea?

ZM said somewhere that Blainey had recanted on this stuff, I think? So why would anyone else, even a commenter on an obscure CT thread about a different topic, be trying to keep it going?

497

ZM 04.01.15 at 2:38 am

I don’t have time to respond to these criticisms today so a proper response will have to wait until tomorrow. But I will point out that:
1. comment threads and the comments therein work differently from essays;
2. people seem to be trying to hold me to a standard of detail and complexity and articulation rather higher than the standard they would apply to their own comments judging by the contents thereof;
3. people who largely make snide remarks or insults without engaging with or adding to content are annoying (sorry Mattski)
4. yes William Blake rocks — have you read Visions of the Daughters of Albion?

498

Crytandra 04.01.15 at 3:08 am

Val @495: “Crytandra kindly provided a right wing over-simplification”

Centrist and mildly left wing, not right wing. My view of history is somewhat Marxian. Marx most certainly didn’t have a sentimental view of history.

Val @ 495 “So why would anyone else, even a commenter on an obscure CT thread about a different topic, be trying to keep it going?”

I think you’re the one who broached the subject of imperialism.

How about refraining from bad manners. If you aren’t interested in what I say, or are unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue, surely silence would be a wiser course of action than a temper tantrum, which rather confirms my analysis.

I think Bruce Wilder summed it up very well:

“There’s nothing wrong with grounding a moral viewpoint in historical knowledge — such grounding would be the point of studying human nature thru the study of history. But, the substitution of a moralistic pose is the exact opposite of such grounding. That moral pose, however philosophical its decorative elements, has no base, no foundation.”

On the thread where we discussed indigenous matters, you made one moralising statement after another, usually laced with abuse and intimidation, yet it soon became apparent that your anthropological and scholarly knowledge of indigenous history could’ve been documented on the back of an envelope.

499

mattski 04.01.15 at 3:25 am

Val,

Are you (perhaps inadvertently) suggesting or agreeing that imperialism is a left wing theory? Because I don’t think you can support that.

No, I’m not suggesting that imperialism is a left wing theory. I’m suggesting that there’s a tendency to rely on generalizations on the left. Probably, this tendency is WORSE on the right. But prefer to hang with lefty-liberals, so it’s lefty-liberals who I’m often responding to.

I chimed in here mostly in response to Crytandra’s remarks re Vietnam. As you can see from what I wrote–I hope–my sympathies are unambiguously left-liberal. I have a SERIOUS problem with anyone justifying or appearing to justify what the US did in Southeast Asia.

I haven’t read everything ZM has written in this thread. Far from it. But I have read quite a bit of (her) remarks over a period of months & years. And I’ve followed some of the back and forth on this thread between ZM and Phil. Phil has made a cogent argument that ZM over-simplifies. I agree. Others, like novakant, who is certainly much further left than myself, noted a whiff of Stalinism in ZM’s approach. You know what? I think that is a valid point. What comes through loud and clear is that ZM has a pretty specific agenda and her concern for personal freedom isn’t particularly developed. Or so it seems to me.

And ZM is right to accuse me of quick, snarky hits. I’m a big fan of brevity. But I don’t agree that my comments usually don’t add to the discussion. I try to keep it short, but short doesn’t equal nonsensical.

Bruce,

Appreciate your remarks. Not always sure I follow you but that’s OK. I know where your heart is, and it’s in a good place.

:^)

500

mattski 04.01.15 at 3:45 am

Haste makes waste, and I should have written:

I’m suggesting that there’s a tendency to rely on generalizations on the left to a point that detracts from understanding.

And,

Phil has made a cogent argument that ZM over-simplifies in places where such over-simplification is damaging to a balanced understanding.

IOW, generalizing is necessary for the purposes of communication. No one is disputing that. But there are plenty of occasions where use of a generalization becomes a prop for reaching preconceived conclusions and in the process serves to cover up important details and nuances that would weaken our cherished prejudices. When I see this happening on the left it bothers me. I think it damages left credibility.

501

Crytandra 04.01.15 at 3:47 am

mattski:

“I chimed in here mostly in response to Crytandra’s remarks re Vietnam. As you can see from what I wrote–I hope–my sympathies are unambiguously left-liberal. I have a SERIOUS problem with anyone justifying or appearing to justify what the US did in Southeast Asia.”

I strongly agree America should NOT have went to war in Southeast Asia.

My point is that the left too often try to hammer the rather messy facts of historic events into a one-dimensional narrative that reads like a morality tale.

502

mattski 04.01.15 at 4:15 am

My point is that the left too often try to hammer the rather messy facts of historic events into a one-dimensional narrative that reads like a morality tale.

I think you’re right.

503

ZM 04.01.15 at 5:57 am

“Others, like novakant, who is certainly much further left than myself, noted a whiff of Stalinism in ZM’s approach”

Of course. It is well known that from her small town in Australia ZM exiles all annoying internet commenters plus Londoners who don’t give up tea, coffee, and chocolate to a gulag in the form of being trapped together as a collective inside Bill Murray’s body in the Wes Anderson’ horror movie which plays on a loop like Groundhog Day but without conclusion…

504

Val 04.01.15 at 9:59 am

@ 498
oh for crying out loud. You know perfectly well I’m talking about the “black armband” nonsense, so why pretend otherwise? If you want people to be polite to you, a good place to start is not using silly insults yourself, I’d suggest.

@499
The Stalinist thing from Novakant was a joke. I think you’re in better faith than Crytandra but you look to be going out on a very thin limb here.

Your @ 500 doesn’t exactly clarify anything in regard to imperialism. Why do you think that left discussion of imperialism is worse than right discussion of imperialism? In my experience, the reason right wingers would make fewer ‘mistakes’ in this area is because they just don’t want to talk about it, but that isn’t a sign of being more sensible.

505

Val 04.01.15 at 10:12 am

@ 501, 502
“My point is that the left too often try to hammer the rather messy facts of historic events into a one-dimensional narrative that reads like a morality tale.”

I’ve been trying to suppress my inner essay marker (recognising that, as ZM says, Internet commenting is not the same as writing essays) but sometimes I don’t think I should have to.

If you’re going to generalise about what “the left” do, provide some evidence. And by “provide some evidence” I don’t mean ‘ZM said something that I haven’t read properly’, I mean evidence that shows how the left do this and the right don’t (because that’s the underlying assumption in your statement).

As I’ve mentioned before, I spent quite a large chunk of my life studying history, and I’m still doing it. I’m on the left, but strangely I also know that history is complicated and that interpretations vary.

506

bob mcmanus 04.01.15 at 10:42 am

This thread gone all meta?

From De Ste Croix, Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World

“I must not take time to discuss the further consequences of Roman imperialism for the class struggle in the ancient Greek World. As we saw in V.ii. above, these local Greek upper classes who remained faithful to Rome could normally rely on Rome’s assistance in maintaining their position vis-a-vis the working population, with the result that oppression and exploitation of the lower classes must have increased. Greek democracy was gradually extinguished utterly, the Romans ensuring a continuance of the process which had already begun under Macedonian rule; and of course this made it increasingly difficult, and ultimately impossible, for the humble to offer effective resistance to the powerful save by extra-legal means such as rioting and the lynching of unpopular officials…If a Greek city which came under Roman rule was already exploiting its working population as far as it was safe to do so, the tribute…will have to had to come out of the pockets of the propertied class, at least in part; but no doubt the burdens on the peasantry were as a rule simply increased.”

507

Crytandra 04.01.15 at 11:11 am

Val,

A good example of my point is your own saccharin moralising about indigenous Australians on the property thread:

” …the friends and acquaintances I have who are of Aboriginal descent are really nice people … ”

” … the people I know of Aboriginal descent are lovely people.”

” … my … “best friend” was of Indigenous descent.”

” … read them and weep.”

“Aboriginal people survived for 60,00 years or so on this continent. In 150 years after white invasion, they nearly perished. They are not the problem”

For an academic version of same, try Lyndall Ryan, much of whose work was apparently fabricated and who admitted inventing facts during a channel nine interview when questioned about Windschuttle’s allegations, back in 2003.

I suppose Chomsky and Herman’s hagiography of Pol Pot’s Cambodia is a good and well known non-Australian example.

508

ZM 04.01.15 at 11:14 am

So in your Marxian interpretation of history how does imperialism figure Crytandra? Is it a necessary stage to communism?

509

Crytandra 04.01.15 at 11:28 am

ZM,

Good question, however I wrote Marxian not Marxist for a reason. I have a deterministic and materialist view of history, so consequently everything that has happened was inevitable.

I have no idea where we’ll end up but I’m hoping it will be some type of high tech welfare state where every human need is catered for, androids do nearly all the work and we don’t have an oppressive elite, as we do now.

Now it’s The Walking Dead binge time. Cheerio ;)

510

Val 04.01.15 at 12:22 pm

Crytandra @ 507

A. Do you know what “saccharin moralising” even means? Personal statements aren’t “saccharin moralising”.

B. What does this have to do with imperialism and left wing morality tales? I know some people of Indigenous descent, whom I like a lot, and my best friend at primary school when I was about six was of Indigenous descent. What does that have to do with your point?

C. I presented some figures about the population growth/decline of white population and Indigenous population following the English invasion of Australia. Are you contesting them? If not, what is your point?

I’ve learnt something from quite a few people on this thread Crytandra, but I’m not learning anything from you. Can you see that? It’s what I mean about evidence. The fact that you don’t like my way of writing, or don’t like some of the things I’ve said, does not in itself prove anything. Where am I wrong? Are my friends really nasty? Did I not have a best friend in primary school? Are the population figures I cited wrong? What is your evidence?

511

Stephen 04.01.15 at 1:44 pm

ZM@503: for what my opinion’s worth, I don’t think you’re a Stalinist at all. I would be perfectly happy to suppose that you are a dear, kind, gentle person who would never willingly harm anybody.

But, alas, it does seem to me that the argument you have been putting forward about historical collective responsibility, and environmental footprints, leads to some rather awkward conclusions. See if I’ve got it right: you argue that

a) in former times, British imperialism involved some dreadful things that would never be tolerated now by enlightened western liberal opinion. Very true.

b) the current international trading system has been heavily influenced by past history, including historical British imperialism. Also true.

c) in the current international trading system, England in general and London in particular import very large amounts of food, fuel and useful materials, giving them an ecological footprint far larger than their own area. Likewise true.

d) the people responsible for British imperialism were the English, not the Scots, Welsh or Irish. Hmmm.

e) that responsibility was shared by the whole English population, even by those who had nothing to do with imperialism and were not able to do anything about it (including Phil’s English working class ancestors, and my more complicated set (Irish and Welsh peasants who went to live in England, English workers and craftsmen). I can’t see that.

f) this responsibility has been inherited by their present-day descendants, even though they were powerless to do anything about their ancestors’ actions. Nor that.

g) therefore, to make amends for their historical collective responsibility, the trading patterns of modern England should be altered so as to shrink the ecological footprint to a fair and sustainable level, which for London your source gives as about 20% of its present size.

Have I got that right?

If I have, I foresee seriously bad consequences, even if this shrinkage is restricted to England, even if (I can’t see why it should be) restricted to London.

A lesser but irritating matter: your proposal involves banning, or very seriously restricting, imports of tea, coffee, cocoa, and a wide range of fruits that cannot be grown in England. OK, they managed without them in mediaeval times, which are not now regarded as ideal.

Much more seriously, there is no way Londoners can support themselves from allotment plots smaller than 16 yards square per head. At the least, you are proposing a mass expulsion of Londoners (probably joined by people from all the other cities) into the countryside.

Where most of the good land that can best be used for arable farming is already so used. You could increase the area under crops somewhat, but not very much: and much of what you call “waste land” is seriously unsuitable for any sort of agriculture.

Furthermore, having restricted the imports of fuel, metals, ores, timber and so (which make up a good deal of the ecological footprint) on you will have seriously damaged industries, which will in turn reduce the productivity of agriculture. In particular, all phosphate fertiliser is imported: cut that back and crop yields fall. The UK already uses sewage sludge as fertiliser, so you can’t fall back on that. Fuel should be OK if we go back to coal, but there are objections there.

So I seriously fear that the result of your proposals would be, not just the movement of very large numbers of people out of the cities, but their exile from the UK (I don’t know to where) or their death from starvation.

Also, there is the problem of how you get the population to go along with your proposal. It seems to me there are two possibilities: the English people are persuaded that they must do as you ask, or they are forced (but by whom?) to obey. One is I think unlikely, the other deplorable.

I would far rather believe that you have simply not perceived the drawbacks of your proposal, than that you are deliberately aiming at forcible exile and starvation.

512

Stephen 04.01.15 at 1:55 pm

ZM@470: thanks for putting me onto Gillingham, I’ll look out for his books.

I would suggest a little caution though. Gillingham very honestly admits that his view is not the usual one: I take that as meaning that most other historians disagree. If that is so, then Gillingham’s view, though interesting, cannot be taken as gospel.

513

ZM 04.01.15 at 2:05 pm

I am about to go to sleep, but if you don’t support my proposal for present day Londoner’s having a globally fair and ecologically sustainable footprint — what is your proposal for to remedy the problems of global poverty and unsustainable consumption and climate change.

Your idea seems to be Londoners are entitled to unfairly consume more than most people in the world do now — and not only that ruin the world for their own future descendants by destroying Earth’s life support systems because of their profligacy.

So you are arguing that Londoners have:
1. no responsibility for ancestral English/Brittish imperialism
2. no responsibility for present day global unfairness that grossly favours them over other people in the world
3. no responsibility for bequeathing an inhabitable planet to their children and grandchildren and descendants to come

And yet you also think — despite Londoners not having to bear any moral responsibility for past present or future deeds — that it is very immoral for me to suggest perhaps Londoners could limit their consumption to fair and sustainable levels

514

Sasha Clarkson 04.01.15 at 2:10 pm

Stephen @493
I really enjoyed the tale of your grandfather’s funeral: it has echoes with some of the folkore of my own family! :)

In general, I find your points logical and persuasive, but as for your challenge to ZM: “I look forward to your fuller response to my questions on this last matter.” I suggest you are being disingenuous to the point of mendacity – don’t be cruel – and remember Matthew 7:6!

It’s interesting that this thread now has well over 70000 words: almost novel-length. I wonder how many novel’s worth of words per annum some of the more regular and voluble bloggers contribute to these columns?

On that happy thought, I think I’d better go and dig a trench to plant some early potatoes: luckily I live in Pembrokeshire and not London, so I have enough land – no doubt stolen from the Welsh by the Vikings and Normans!

515

Stephen 04.01.15 at 2:11 pm

Ronan@469: I entirely agree that there was no real chance that the 1914 Home Rule Act could be carried through as it stood. But why was that? In my opinion, because the HRA, in accordance with the views of the Redmondites, vastly underestimated the opposition of Ulster Protestants to their being included in a Home Rule Ireland; and if the principle of self-determination, which was accepted by the UK Government and was the basis for the HRA, had from the start been intended to be applied to (parts of) Ulster as per the eventual abortive Exclusion Bill, then there would in all probability been no arming of the UVF, and no counter-arming of the Nationalists. I regard the first as the critical step that brought guns back into Irish politics.

I agree there was no way, by 1914, of avoiding some sort of partition of Ireland. Actually, I would say that once Home Rule with a Dublin parliament ha been decided on, there was never any way of avoiding it; short of German victory in WW1 and a German-assisted conquest of Ulster, which seems improbable.

I’m signing off for now. For personal reasons, I have to go to a place where internet connections are not likely to be available. Back early next week, I hope: I wonder if this thread will still be running?

516

Phil 04.01.15 at 2:17 pm

(including Phil’s English working class ancestors, and my more complicated set (Irish and Welsh peasants who went to live in England, English workers and craftsmen).

For what it’s worth, my ancestors were Welsh as well as English, and one of them – on the English side – was adopted. His adoptive parents lived in Bristol, which was a major seaport at the time, so who knows where he came from; when we first made this discovery there was some speculation that he might have been a Lascar, although I was never really sure what a Lascar is. We got complications all over.

I think the big cities of the world (all the big cities of the world, give or take a few) are ecologically unsustainable & something big is eventually going to have to change; I don’t think it’s at all useful to connect that discussion with imperialism, though. I’m much more interested in what you label points e) and f): collective responsibility for imperialism and collective inherited responsibility, respectively. Clearly, I don’t buy them either.

517

Crytandra 04.01.15 at 2:23 pm

Val @510:

“I presented some figures about the population growth/decline of white population and Indigenous population following the English invasion of Australia …”

I’ll address this one point and let the rest go thru to the keeper. Left-liberal historian Henry Reynolds, who as far as I can tell is the guru on these matters, puts the death toll from the fronteir conflict at something like 20,000 for both sides over 140 years. In other words, the death toll was in world historical terms, barely significant. The major killers of of the indigenous population were diseases, small pox, chicken pox, the flu etc…

Given the violent nature of pre-colonial Australian aboriginal cultures, as evidenced by the skeleton record and early settler/explorer accounts, their subjugation and inevitable extinguishment is a blessing for humankind.

That is my unsentimental take on the matter.

518

Crytandra 04.01.15 at 2:26 pm

ouch, frontier not fronteir. fumble fingers.

519

Rich Puchalsky 04.01.15 at 2:46 pm

Phil: “I think the big cities of the world (all the big cities of the world, give or take a few) are ecologically unsustainable”

I don’t think this is true at all. On the contrary, rich rural Westeners generally live more unsustainable lives than rich urban Westerners do. Their sewerage isn’t treated and used as fertilizer, they have to drive long distances without using public transport, they sprawl out and use up wildlife habitat, their food generally gets transported over the same distances, they live in individual houses rather than apartment blocks with heating efficiencies, etc. The real problems are total population and resource usage per person in the West, not urbanization.

520

Ronan(rf) 04.01.15 at 2:52 pm

Stephen – okay, but my initial problem with your take (and I assume Suzanne’s objections, though I won’t speak for her) is that you’re selling the mirror image of the nationalist narrative, just with Redmond and Irish nationalists in the place of ‘the English’, and by extension ripping it from historical context and the political realities of the time.
Firstly, Redmond was a man of his time (not post peace process Ireland) reliant on constituents who were also products of their time (not post nationalist Ireland) engaged in a process of political bargaining with other interests who weren’t comparable to those in the late 90s. Judging him by contemporary standards of mutual consent (which would also mean judging northern Unionists by present day concepts giving northern Catholics a relationship with the Southern state) doesn’t really say anything.
Unionist mobilisation and arming began *before* the Home Rule bill was even introduced, and Unionist demands for Ulster exclusion was initially (and at least up to 1913) a wrecking tactic. Unionists and Tories didnt want Home Rule. They didnt want to accept Irish nationalist self determination, and the concept of Ulster exclusion as a legitimate policy preference (one of many alternatives) evolved over time. This is the context, as well as that of numerous political and ideological constraints, that would prevent Redmond from accepting what we could now imagine as the perfect resolution to the Ulster crisis. (And, without knowing the history in depth, I am pretty sure that even before war broke out, ie at the Buckingham palace conference, he did say – wishing away political realities in Ireland- that he could accept an exclusion for Ulster)

On the question of Ulster self determination. No, I dont have to accept that the moral force of Ulster nationalism (as is true also of Scottish nationalism) is comparable to that of Irish nationalism. As I said above, this is primarily a normative preference. I dont think every nationalist movement should have a country or every people should have a right to belong to whatever polity they choose. What Ulster Unionists did was make it a reality through political action and offering a threat of conflict. And that’s fine. There are practical reasons Ireland probably had to be partioned, at least by 1912. But the deep, sustained political work that Irish nationalists did, the widespread sentiment it had on the island and the recent history of (real or perceived) dispossesion, subjugation and starvation, is not comparable to what drove Unionist wrecking tactics.
Where we are now with ‘two nations in Ireland’, accepting those traditions, recognising an Ulster Unionist ‘nation’ and a peace process that requires taking these things seriously is a positive. I buy into that fully, from my present vantage point. But you shouldnt read Irish history backwards from the Troubles.

521

Sasha Clarkson 04.01.15 at 3:02 pm

Phil @ 515 “I think the big cities of the world (all the big cities of the world, give or take a few) are ecologically unsustainable”

I’m not so sure. I live in the country in a house not a flat. Public transport is poor. I rather suspect that my carbon footprint for daily living is larger than if I lived in the centre of a town or city. However, a city does need rural land to support it, and there must be an optimum size. Given how much of South-East England has been swallowed by London, and how many hours a significant number of people commute from dormitory towns, I would expect that it outgrew and optimum size years ago.

But cities are necessary: take Singapore, an island city state which lives by being a hub for trade and manufacturing. Obviously it couldn’t feed itself without such. Singapore is just one of the latest of a kind of human settlement which has thrived for millennia. If its trading partners could do things more efficiently without the middleman, it would simply not be there!

522

Ronan(rf) 04.01.15 at 3:18 pm

…. and the obvious point is it was a pretty limited form of Home Rule, not independence. There was a lot of space to get concessions (from a pretty sympathetic British political class) on whatever ailed them.

523

engels 04.01.15 at 4:13 pm

I’m not completely sure if you think this, Stephen, but just for as a point of information, the idea that Phil or I can have had no choice but to support the Iraq war etc financially isn’t true. We could have renounced our citizenship and moved to a country which didn’t take part in it, or withheld our taxes and accepted the legal consequences. Or, I suppose, taken up an economic role here that didn’t contribute to the British economy eg. begging or (attempting to) claim benefits. While I’m not advancing the opinion that any of these were advisable or politically meaningful courses of action it seems clear to me that the choice was available.

524

Phil 04.01.15 at 4:16 pm

What happened to Cory’s Israel thread, btw? I was reading it this morning, but now it seems to have closed a week ago.

525

engels 04.01.15 at 4:24 pm

Odd: I just submitted a comment which vanished without a trace (no error, no message about ‘moderation’)

526

Phil 04.01.15 at 4:26 pm

Never mind, I’m an idiot – I was looking at the wrong thread. Don’t know about engels’s comment, tho.

527

js. 04.01.15 at 4:29 pm

engels @523,

This seems to be happening. It’s happened to me once or twice recently. One of those CT strangeways, I guess.

528

engels 04.01.15 at 4:42 pm

As long as it’s happening to everyone I don’t mind.

529

bob mcmanus 04.01.15 at 4:45 pm

526: Comrade!

Socialist utopia is everyone suffering equally.

530

engels 04.01.15 at 4:53 pm

Anyway, the gist of it was to point out- pace Stephen (I think)- that I do have a choice about financially supporting Britain’s wars. I could emigrate and renounce my citizenship, or withhold my taxes and accept the legal consequences, or move to an economic role which the British state can’t extract value from eg. begging or (attempting to) claim some kinds of benefits.

I’m not asserting that any of these are advisable or politically meaningful forms of protest but they are clearly all choices which I would be free to make.

531

engels 04.01.15 at 5:01 pm

Pravda! Although it’s just done it a second time so am starting to feel a bit persecuted at this point (not going to type it yet again as I think I’ll give myself RSI)

532

Sasha Clarkson 04.01.15 at 5:07 pm

engels@529

If in doubt, copy your comment to the clipboard before pressing the “submit” button?

533

engels 04.01.15 at 5:15 pm

Good idea…

534

mattski 04.01.15 at 5:16 pm

Val 504

The Stalinist thing from Novakant was a joke.

OK. And jokes are often made funny by the truth they point to. You think it’s a stretch to put such a label (Stalinist) on suggestions that people ought to do without what some “person who knows” says they should do without?

Your @ 500 doesn’t exactly clarify anything in regard to imperialism. Why do you think that left discussion of imperialism is worse than right discussion of imperialism? In my experience, the reason right wingers would make fewer ‘mistakes’ in this area is because they just don’t want to talk about it, but that isn’t a sign of being more sensible.

I guess I’d just say, “good grief!” Did you read what I wrote?

More broadly, I see serious problems with the way ZM uses the word “fair.” As though this was an unambiguous, objective quality of the world. How do you see it, Val? I’ll tell you how I see it. Fairness is first and foremost an ESTHETIC and therefore subjective judgement. And secondly, there are in principle and in fact many different causes for inequality. For the most part, people are not going to dispute that SOME causes of inequality are FAIR and some causes of inequality are UNFAIR. But when considering real world situations it is often very difficult to tease out how much fairness or unfairness is involved, and even then, this is a subjective judgement.

Unfortunately, at it’s extreme end what leftism amounts to is the lazy telling the industrious that they are obliged to share! And, in that case, leftism has gone horribly wrong.

535

mattski 04.01.15 at 5:31 pm

***On the question of cities, I’m with Rich. Cities put a lot of people in a small place. This has big efficiencies associated with it. Reduced transport costs, reduced infrastructure costs and less waste of valuable agricultural resources. Not only that but culturally cities are where human creativity really flowers.

Let’s run down to the theater and watch Aristophanes make fun of Socrates. That’s entertainment!

536

ZM 04.01.15 at 6:49 pm

“You think it’s a stretch to put such a label (Stalinist) on suggestions that people ought to do without what some “person who knows” says they should do without?”

Ahhh so that is what Stalin did? — from a small town in the countryside write that perhaps Muscovites might consider — should allotment and rooftop gardens and more crop farming in the Russian countryside not keep their ecological footprint to sustainable levels — giving up tea and coffee and chocolate.

You certainly have an unusually gentle notion of the terrors of Stalinism Mattski, it is so quaint I almost hate to disabuse you of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

I can just imagine you red in the face telling Tsar Alexander that emancipation is just a silly subjective aesthetic notion — and really you’d quite like to keep your serfs please

537

Val 04.02.15 at 1:42 am

Crytandra @ 516
“Given the violent nature of pre-colonial Australian aboriginal cultures, as evidenced by the skeleton record and early settler/explorer accounts, their subjugation and inevitable extinguishment is a blessing for humankind.”

That is a vile and absolutely racist position. I don’t know why no-one else seems to have picked it up, maybe they’re not reading what you write. I don’t suppose any blog authors are reading this now, but you ought to banned for that.

538

Val 04.02.15 at 1:52 am

The CT comments policy says: “If your comments are blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic we will delete them and ban you from the site. ”

I hope Henry or one of the other CT authors sees the comment @ 516 at some point.

539

Crytandra 04.02.15 at 2:41 am

Val,

No it isn’t racist, it is fact. We’ve had this discussion before. The evidence is overwhelming that hunter-gather, horticultural and agricultural societies were nearly all extremely violent. It is this no bad thing that we’ve moved on from that.

Of course I acknowledge that my own pre-modern ancestors were extremely violent and I’m very glad their cultures were “subjugated and extinguished”.

You are a perfect example of the major point I am trying to make, which I”ll restate: the left too often try to hammer the rather messy facts of historic events into a one-dimensional narrative that reads like a morality tale.

It is a pity that the far left so often try to delegitimize viewpoints they dislike with disingenuous accusations of racism. Disgusting and immature, really.

540

Val 04.02.15 at 3:06 am

I took you to be saying that the culture should be forcibly extinguished, that’s why I said it was vile and racist. I gather that is not what you meant, and apologise for over-reacting, but I still think it’s racist. In the current context, where Indigenous people in remote communities in Australia are being deprived of services, you must be aware of the sensitivities around what you’re saying. I think your position is racist.

I also think it’s you that’s trying to reduce the past to a simple narrative, where all previous societies were worse and more violent than “we” (contemporary ‘western’ society) are. As I’ve said before, the evidence does not support that. I’m still reading on this issue, but I will be writing some of this up soon, so I’ll try to put a summary on my blog.

In the meantime, I’m not going to discuss these issues with you. You appear to have very fixed views, and you don’t listen to evidence, or you distort it to fit your views, so it’s a waste of time.

541

ragweed 04.02.15 at 4:52 am

I don’t know enough about indigenous Australian cultures to speak to that, but I do know about Native American cultures. To dismiss the incredibly diverse range of cultures found in pre-contact North, South and Central America with a statement like ” hunter-gatherer, horticultural and agricultural societies were nearly all extremely violent” is such an incredibly sloppy oversimplification and distortion of the evidence that it is hard to see it as motivated by anything but racism. The claim that there is overwhelming “primitive” violence is a narrow sectarian position in the field of anthropology. Yes, it is equally wrong, and racist, to posit a universally peaceful or “in harmony with nature” indigenous culture, as most scholars and Native American activists will argue. The nature fairy trope is as offensive as the primitive savage trope.

In fact, it is that dichotomy in crytandra’s argument that I find the most offensive and racist – that the choice is either perfect nature fairies, or primitive women-beating savages (which the matrilineal cultures in the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Cherokee, or Ojibwa would be really surprised to hear). That the imperfections of some Native cultures can be used to justify their cultural extermination and colonial domination – particularly by European cultures that have a tremendous legacy of bloodshed right up to the current century – is equally offensive. As is the notion that it is only through conquest and cultural extirpation, or the bizarre counterfactual that indigenous cultures would not modernize attitudes toward violence unless brought under the colonial heel. But perhaps that is true, because European cultures still have a major issue with inflicting bloody wars around the world, despite modern attitudes, and in the US we still have rampant issues of rape and violence against women, despite no longer having a primarily hunter-gatherer, horticultural, or agricultural society.

So please spare us the trolley. It really has no place here.

542

Crytandra 04.02.15 at 5:24 am

Ragweed,

No Australian indigenous culture advanced beyond the hunter-gatherer stage.

You label my *qualified* statement about pre-modern cultures racist then make an *unqualified* and pejorative comment about European cultures.

Do you see the double standard?

Again this style of argument vindicates my point: the left too often try to hammer the rather messy facts of historic events into a one-dimensional narrative that reads like a morality tale.

543

Val 04.02.15 at 8:42 am

Thanks so much Ragweed you expressed that really well – much better than I did. I was a bit shocked actually, and didn’t express myself well. There is an awful side to Australian culture, I’m afraid.

544

Robespierre 04.02.15 at 10:49 am

It’s funny how we’re always talking about problems with our society and our culture (see above), but it is taboo to say that a primitive society / culture might be objectionable in any way.

545

Igor Belanov 04.02.15 at 11:07 am

There’s a bit of a difference between saying that a society/culture might be ‘objectionable’ and stating it should be ‘extinguished’.

I think Ragweed gives the more nuanced point of view.

546

novakant 04.02.15 at 11:29 am

I agree that Cytandra should be banned: he/she is justifying genocide – what does it take to be banned here?

547

Crytandra 04.02.15 at 11:46 am

Igor @541:

I’m happy that feudal cultures that once existed in Europe have been extinguished.

Is it racist to not miss serfdom?

Is it racist not to lament the passing of slave in the confederacy?

Novakant @ 542:

I’m talking about malignant cultures, not individual human beings. Put away that black armband.

Much of the left want to employ a conflict theory analysis to their own society and any like society but a functionalist analysis to the Other. The right want to do the reverse. I just happen to think that both approaches are intellectually dishonest and a critical, conflict theory approach should be applied equally to all without fear or favour.

548

ragweed 04.02.15 at 1:56 pm

I don’t miss the feudal society of Europe either. But should we ban Morris Dancing because England has a history of being a backward, feudal culture? Should some other power come in, ban the use of the English language, ban the Anglican Church, prohibit the drinking of ale and mead and other foods associated with this barbaric culture, remove English children from their homes and place them with non-English families or force them into boarding schools where they will have English culture beaten out of them*, in order to “kill the Englishman, save the man?” Should the entire population of England (or at least the survivors after the Black Plague) be sent off to reservations in Northern Scotland?

Because these are all things that were done, some in living memory, to indigenous people in The US, Canada, and Australia. Languages banned, traditional drumming and dancing outlawed, people jailed for carving totem poles, land and resources taken in violation of sovereign treaties.

Nobody on the left thinks that, due the holocaust, we should ban German or the celebration of Octoberfest.

549

Ronan(rf) 04.02.15 at 2:16 pm

Reducing a people or time in history to caricature is obviously a little ridiculous, not only for matters of racism and what not but because it’s boring and most likely innacurate.
But now that there might be people here who know what theyre talking about (val, ragweed etc) what was indigenous society in Australia like before the European’s came? Was it as diverse as North America (linguistically, culturally, politically) ? Or was it more homogenous ?
Back to the more general question of indigenous people and colonialism, would anyone like to elaborate a more fully rounded, long historical view of what colonialism meant for indigenous people? Was the clash of ‘traditional cultures’ and what we’ll call modernity always inevitable and going to lead to such dispossesion and violence ?

550

Ronan(rf) 04.02.15 at 2:32 pm

Also going back to the folklore and fairies and stuff, can someone say more on that ? ie what role it plays in ‘pre modern’ (I dont know if this is the terminology, so will correct it if not) societies ?Does it generally carry over into more established religions once they develop ? Do indigenous populations in North America and Australia still carry on folklore traditions, and if so in what way ? Have centralised religions taken hold, or is spirituality still decentralised and based on more traditional concepts (if you get me. I think it’s interesting though know nothing about it)

551

ZM 04.02.15 at 10:56 pm

I already mentioned this on another thread but Crytandra’s assertions about violence are based on a small study of a few thousand bones from throughout the whole country, and the dominant fractures were broken arms. That is a small amount of bones from a very large area to draw conclusions from, plus people can break their arms by falling down like I did as a child.

In terms of culture/folklore Ronan, there are differing degrees of practice throughout the continent and also depending on individuals. In the North I think cultures are a bit stronger generally.

In my town the family was affected by the stolen generations — one elder remembers as a child the women would talk culture and in their language but tell the children to go away so they wouldn’t know anything that could get them taken away. He experiences this as a loss because he only began to learn his culture when he was older and a lot had passed away with the dead. It is important to share what he knows with the younger generations, and the year before last they published one ‘teaching’ the two smaller mountains near here Tarrengower and Lalgambook.

When Mattski writes “Let’s run down to the theater and watch Aristophanes make fun of Socrates. That’s entertainment!” I think of the two larger mountains near here. Socrates taught Plato who taught Aristotle who taught Alexander who took a great empire and how twenty-one centuries afterwards Thomas Livingstone Mitchell from Stirlingshire in Scotland walked through this country commissioned to survey it for Great Britain and give new names to things — but the names were both new and very old — the greater mountain to the south of here he named Macedon and the greater mountain to the north — Alexander.

Then I think again of that little boy who was told go scurry away because his mother and aunties feared he might hear and learn his own tongue and words in dja dja warrung might pass his lips and he would be stolen way like other children.

There is ‘folklore’ that is prevalent throughout the country, and others that is local. For instance there are images of the creator spirit the rainbow serpent in Kakadu in the north of the country and here in the south where I live. Where I live there are three totemic animals the eagle, the crow and the bat. The eagle generally in southern Victoria I think is associated with Bunjil the eagle who is the higher moiety, and at least locally the crow is associated with Raa who is the lower of the two moieties (I understand they had moieties in Rome as Caesar was associated with one and Antony with another but I don’t know if it is the same sort of thing?). Tales of Raa often have him trying to usurp Bunjil’s higher authority in some way, like giving people fire, while seeing an eagle is held to be a good omen.

There is also ceremonial lore — for instance there is the welcome to country ceremony which is now updated for contemporary times and indigenous people may conduct welcome ceremonies on occasions when people come together, or migrants can make an acknowledgement of country and of the traditional owners past and present. This can occur for instance at events with Shire council representatives or Members of parliament — or to precede a lecture at university. Another ceremony that is in current use is the smoking ceremony which is a cleansing ceremony. This is not as commonly practiced as the welcome/acknowledgment ceremony but is also sometimes open for non-indigenous people.

That is a very basic introduction off the top of my head about ‘folklore’ but it is not called folklore it is called culture.

552

mattski 04.03.15 at 12:15 am

Val,

In my world if I misread someone else egregiously I acknowledge it and apologize.

What do you do?

553

Crytandra 04.03.15 at 12:31 am

ZM: “I already mentioned this on another thread but Crytandra’s assertions about violence are based on a small study of a few thousand bones from throughout the whole country .. ”

Untrue, and it isn’t “my assertion”. It is the assessment of respected anthropologists, including Peter Sutton, who is probably our leading indigenous anthropologist, and who has been taken into the kin system in a Cape York indig community.

The cultural practices I’m happy to see extinguished include cruelling; forced marriage; sorcery; pay-back; MGM and FGM; ritualised rape (eg the Dieri gang rapes organised by fathers against their daughters); trading of indigenous women for chattels (eg dogs) ; pedophiliac practices like “boy wives”; and general brutality against women, including smashing their skulls with hatchets and clubs. All of things are well documented and not up for debate.

The extinguishment of these things is no more lamentable IMO than the extinguishment of serfdom.

554

ZM 04.03.15 at 1:34 am

Crytandra,

“Untrue, and it isn’t “my assertion”. It is the assessment of respected anthropologists, including Peter Sutton, who is probably our leading indigenous anthropologist, and who has been taken into the kin system in a Cape York indig community.”

On the other thread where you brought this up I quoted Peter Sutton’s work showing how you are quite misrepresenting his words for your own ends here.

Further the archaeological work on refer to on violence was another person’s work not Peter Sutton’s and exactly as I say it was based on digging up a few thousand bones from around Australia, which is a small sample given the size of the country and the length of indigenous inhabitance here, and mostly found broken arms.

555

Val 04.03.15 at 1:57 am

Mattski @ 531 and 548
I was going to write a more considered response to you earlier but I had just written two comments in a row. Since then, I have been busy, and another 50 odd comments have appeared. No deliberate slight intended.

You said this @499, in answer to a question from me:

“No, I’m not suggesting that imperialism is a left wing theory. I’m suggesting that there’s a tendency to rely on generalizations on the left. Probably, this tendency is WORSE on the right. But prefer to hang with lefty-liberals, so it’s lefty-liberals who I’m often responding to.”

Then Crytandra said this @501:
“My point is that the left too often try to hammer the rather messy facts of historic events into a one-dimensional narrative that reads like a morality tale.”

Then you @502, quoted that and said:
“I think you’re right.”

The point is you were, @499, talking about the right probably being worse, but caring more about the left. That is not what Crytandra is doing.

Although styling him/herself (I think it is actually him so will use the male pronouns) as centrist with some leftish views, Crytandra consistently attacks the left. In this thread particularly he attacks left wing historians as “black armband” theorists. That’s a very well known right wing trope in Australia. (He also enjoys attacking me, for some reason, and talking about how “ignorant” etc I am, while accusing me of insulting him).

So can I suggest that in agreeing with Crytandra, you might be agreeing to something a bit different from what you, yourself, actually think? Crytandra’s position on history appears to be a Whiggish narrative of “progress away from savagery and ignorance …” (http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/history/whig_interpretation_history.html) – surprisingly similar to a “one-dimensional narrative that reads like a morality tale” in fact.

You also @ 531 had a rather emphatic discussion of fairness and concluded with this:
“Unfortunately, at it’s extreme end what leftism amounts to is the lazy telling the industrious that they are obliged to share! And, in that case, leftism has gone horribly wrong.”

I think you are American? In general American politics are more individualistic and “liberal” than ours in Australia – in a broad sense we are a bit more communal and left than you. So you describe yourself as “left-liberal” but the statement above to me, as a left wing Australian, is a “centre-right” position. So this may be part of the misunderstandings we are having.

I wouldn’t mind talking more about fairness or equity but this is one of the main topics in my thesis and I’d find it difficult to have a brief discussion, so I think it’s a bit OT for this thread.

556

Val 04.03.15 at 2:03 am

Novakant @ 542
I also at first sight thought Crytandra was advocating genocide, which is why I called it vile. On second reading I don’t think he actually is, but he is certainly advocating destruction of a culture, and I think this is “blatantly” racist enough to justify banning.

557

Val 04.03.15 at 2:10 am

Just went and read this again:
“Given the violent nature of pre-colonial Australian aboriginal cultures, as evidenced by the skeleton record and early settler/explorer accounts, their subjugation and inevitable extinguishment is a blessing for humankind.”

And now I’m thinking again it actually does look like advocating genocide. I wish there was some CT author reading this thread.

558

ZM 04.03.15 at 2:15 am

Val,

I don’t think Henry has read since before yesterday as I have had a peeved comment directed to mattski in moderation since then. I agree that the comment appears to be advocating genocide , imagine if Crytandra wrote that about Jewish people instead of indigenoys Australians – I don’t think anyone would defend him/her in that case.

559

Val 04.03.15 at 2:24 am

Ronan @ 546
I think this article is a terrific starting point:
https://theconversation.com/dreamtime-and-the-dreaming-an-introduction-20833

560

Crytandra 04.03.15 at 2:47 am

I’m happy to see ZM and Val trot out the accusation of w-w-w-w-acism. This confirms my thesis. Peter Sutton himself has been denounced as a racist by many on the Left.

Public denunciations and banishment have always been tools of the Left. They are the modern equivalent of witch-burnings.

And Val, I’ve *never* instigated a discussion with you. You have always instigated our interactions and in each and every case you’ve been rude and threatening. I note you’ve even been banned from feminist sites like HoydenAboutTown because of your anti-social behaviour.

ZM- try reading Sutton’s The Politics of Suffering for a different perspective, or Joan Kimm’s work on dysfunctional pre-colonial social practices like ritual rape and pedophilia. It is stomach churning but worth the effort.

561

ZM 04.03.15 at 2:57 am

I read the relevant chapter in The Politics of Suffering in the last thread you brought up Peter Sutton to justify your views, this is what I wrote then:

“Crytanda, You seem to be simplifying Peter Sutton’s work to present a more negative picture of Indigenous society than he does. The evidence of violence he gives in chapter 4 is convincing in the sense that it shows violence occurred — but he does not source sufficiently broad archeological evidence as far as I can see to make as negative a case as you are making.

“To have overturned simplistic and racist colonial stereotypes of Aboriginal people as savages living in a constant state of the war of all against all, whose lives were fantasised by others to be nasty, brutish, and short, has been a major educational achievement. But to idealise and romanticise the classical Aboriginal past as nothing but a time of peace and harmony also does no justice to the evidence and no service of historical truthfulness towards the very people one may admire and respect. While there is no evidence of large-scale organised Aboriginal warfare of the kind found in other parts of the world, and there was no warrior class or military profession as such, there is abundant evidence from all major regions of colonial-era Australia that limited forms of warfare, blood feuding, aggressive wife raiding expeditions, and incidental homicides arising out of individual confrontations certainly occurred often enough to have played a significant role in classical Aboriginal life. ” – Peter Sutton, The Politics of Suffering (2009)

562

Crytandra 04.03.15 at 2:58 am

BTW, I reject the Whiggish interpretation of history as it is clear that there have been major setbacks rather than across the board progress. Who would call North Korea progress over what previously existed? Also the early transitions of hunter-gatherers to industrialised societies has usually been hideous. The early industrial era, with its dark satanic mills, was also hideous for those involved.

563

Crytandra 04.03.15 at 3:05 am

ZM,

I never said indigenous Australians were “savages living in a constant state of the war of all against all”. Sutton is correct that this wasn’t the case and to say so would be racist nonsense. But it is the case that violence and violent death figured larger in pre-colonial indig life than it does in modern industrial society by a wide margin and Sutton acknowledges this.

We live in an exceptional era, even when we factor the wars that do exist.

564

js. 04.03.15 at 3:31 am

The thing to do with Crytandra is to keep him talking, obviously.

Mostly tho, this thread is epic!

565

js. 04.03.15 at 3:34 am

I do love when racists pose as feminists. The rhetoric is so… special.

566

Val 04.03.15 at 4:18 am

For the record, I haven’t been banned from “feminist sites [pl] like Hoyden About Town”, I’ve been banned from Hoyden About Town. The particular occasion was when I’d suggested someone’s comment was possibly a bit (drumroll) racist! (Congrats to Crytandra on the homework though, I wonder what name it was done under!)

In Australia there are quite a few people who seem to think it’s worse to call out racism than to be racist, just like there are a lot of people who think it’s right to lock asylum seekers in prison camps. They aren’t all necessarily the same people, but I think there’s a certain amount of overlap. That’s what I meant earlier about the awful side of our culture.

However if you read the comments on the article link I sent Ronan above, you can also see a much nicer side, which is the “left” side that ZM and I were talking about earlier.

(*I really have had to work very hard to make myself not write Crybaby for Crytandra sometimes. However, while the Hoyden About Town banning really was a bit silly, it is true that in the past I have sometimes been a bit too confrontational, snarky or sarcastic. I’m really trying hard to tone all that down these days, but I do sometimes wonder if by self-censoring a silly, but mildly funny, insult like Crybaby, I’m going too far the other way?)

567

Phil 04.03.15 at 8:17 am

I do sometimes wonder if by self-censoring a silly, but mildly funny, insult like Crybaby, I’m going too far the other way

You wonder if not descending to actual name-calling is “going too far”?

No, Val, it’s not.

(Also, how big is that continent? I’ve known tigtog & lauredhel for years.)

568

Val 04.03.15 at 8:38 am

@563
More in the nature of a silly pun than a serious insult, Phil. But your answer clarifies for me that people might see it as a serious insult.

Tigtog and I have a history, I’m afraid. I think what happened was silly, but tigtog no doubt believes she was justified. Great name for a blog though.

569

Ronan(rf) 04.03.15 at 12:08 pm

Val – thanks for the link, I’m going read it this evening when I get the time.

ZM – thanks for the explanation, very interesting. I’m going to put in a long quote below about fairies (in Irish ‘folklore’) from a book (The Burning of Bridget Cleary) that I’ve been reading. You might know most of this but I thought it was pretty interesting)

” Fairies are normally invisible, but they are there. They live in the air, under the earth, and in water, and they may be just a little smaller than humans, or so tiny that a grazing cow blows hundreds of them away with every breath. They had their origin when the rebellious angel Lucifer and his followers were expelled from Heaven, and God the Son warned God the Father that Heaven would soon be empty. Like figures in a film that is suddenly stopped, the expelled angels falling towards Hell halted where they were: some in mid-air, others in the earth, and some in the ocean, and there they remain. They are jealous of Christians, and often do them harm, but are not totally malevolent since they still hope to get back to Heaven one day. To do so, however, they must have at least enough blood in their veins to write their names, and so far they have not even that much.
Fairies are not human, but they resemble humans and live lives parallel to theirs, with some significant differences: they keep cows, and sell them at fairs; they enjoy whiskey and music; they like gold, milk and tobacco, but hate iron, fire, salt and the Christian religion, and any combination of these mainstays of Irish rural culture serves to guard against them. Sometimes it is said that there are no women among the fairies. In any case, they steal children and young women, and occasionally young men, and leave withered, cantankerous changelings in their place. They can bring disease on crops, animals and humans, but by and large, if treated with neighbourly consideration, they mind their own business and even reward favours.
Questions about fairies, if asked in the Ireland of today, may be greeted with amusement or derision, but if not accompanied by too much earnestness, they will still often elicit answers. It is rare, and perhaps always has been, to meet people who unequivocally believe that a race of supernatural beings lives invisibly alongside humans and shares their landscape. It is much less rare, however, for stories to be told about such beings, or for features of the environment, both physical and social, to be explained by reference to them. Quite hard-headed people may sometimes be seen to observe precautions which seem tacitly to acknowledge the. existence, however marginally, of fairies.
Fairies belong to the margins, and so can serve as reference points and metaphors for all that is marginal in human life. Their underground existence allows them to stand for the unconscious, for the secret, or the unspeakable, and their constant eavesdropping explains the need sometimes to speak in riddles, or to avoid discussion of certain topics. Unconstrained by work and poverty, or by the demands of landlords, police, or clergy, the fairies of Irish legend inhabit a world that is sensuously colourful, musical and carefree, and as writers from Yeats to Irish-language poet Nuala Ní Dhomhnaill have observed, legends about them richly reflect the imaginative, emotional and erotic dimensions of human life.
Legends of the fairies, told by skilled storytellers like James Delargy’s friend Seán Ó Conaill, are complex works of art, often taking up several pages of manuscript or print when written down. Not everybody who tells them is such an artist, however, and most fairy-legends are short. As Danish folklorist Bengt Holbek remarks: ‘What matters is not their artistic impact, but their function as arguments about reality … Legends debate the relation between our daily reality and some kind of possibly real “otherworld”.’ One feature which makes fairy-legends so tenacious in a changing cultural environment is the concision and vivid memorability of their central themes. Another is their connection to real, named, people, and to real places in a known landscape. Yet another reason why they survive is that their narratives interact so intimately with the practicalities and the emotional realities of daily life.
Viewed as a system of interlocking units of narrative, practice and belief, fairy-legend can be compared to a database: a pre-modern culture’s way of storing and retrieving information and knowledge of every kind, from hygiene and childcare to history and geography. Highly charged and memorable images like that of a woman emerging on a white horse from a fairy dwelling are the retrieval codes for a whole complex of stored information about land and landscape, community relations, gender roles, medicine, and work in all its aspects: tools, materials and techniques.
Stories gain verisimilitude, and storytellers keep their listeners’ attention, by the density of circumstance they depict, including social relations and the technical details of work. Most stories, however, are constructed around the unexpected, and therefore memorable, happenings in people’s lives. Encounters with or interference by the fairies in these stories remind listeners (and readers) of everything in life that is outside human control. It is not surprising, then, that death and illness are among the preoccupations of fairy legends.”

570

mattski 04.03.15 at 12:31 pm

Val,

You can’t bring yourself to acknowledge attributing to me quite the opposite of what I wrote? What does that tell us about you?

I can agree with Crytandra’s characterization, general as it is, about lefty rhetorical excesses without signing up for his/her other opinions. But imo you don’t cover yourself in glory with the way you choose to debate.

I’d write more but I’m on a phone not a laptop at this time.

571

Ronan(rf) 04.03.15 at 12:35 pm

Val – I read that link (it was shorter than I thought) That was very informative.Thanks

572

ZM 04.03.15 at 12:58 pm

Mattski you are hardly one to talk about not covering oneself in glory – you are quiet often a mean commenter who is just mean without adding anything informative. Plus as I have mentioned liking me to Stalin for pointing out Londoner’s overconsumption and some helpful remedies is both obtuse, mean, and quite in contradiction to your avowed Buddhist influence since he was always going on about not being attached to material possessions and you never liken him to Stalin at all :/

573

Crytandra 04.03.15 at 2:37 pm

When push comes to shove, the benefits of Imperialism usually outweigh the disbenefits by numerous orders of magnitude, other than for the first 3 or 4 generations of the colonized peoples subsequent to colonization. Monty Python said it best- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE

Moreover, it is practically an Iron Law of history that, until very recent times, the strong colonized the weak. Accordingly, when Europe was weak it was (partly) conquered by Mongols and Muslims. Shit happens.

It is nothing more than petite bourgeois sentimentalism to constantly demand folk “acknowledge” and say “sorry” for the material and inevitable facts of history. The opposite, triumphalism and an attitude of superiority on the colonising side, are equally nauseous.

That’s CryBaby Crytandra’s Easter message. Amen ;)

574

Lynne 04.03.15 at 2:53 pm

Val and others who are wondering about whether some of the posts run counter to CT rules: I don’t know how to directly contact the bloggers here but if you posted something in a recent thread that would get at least one of the CT folks’ attention. Just an idea.

575

bianca steele 04.03.15 at 3:00 pm

I haven’t been following this thread, but I saw Ronan’s latest. Hilary Mantel’s The Giant O’Brien has a bit about fairies and old stories and the loss of older cultures. (The Alan Jacobs bio of C.S. Lewis I mentioned in the other thread does, also.) I suppose, on writing this, the novel could be taken as twee (and not in a good way, or rather not in a way that would be considered good by people who mostly like twee, which I don’t, usually). I’d say, fwiw, that to me it seems to have resonance far from just Ireland, so it’s not just romanticizing what one’s grandparents knew.

576

William Berry 04.03.15 at 6:13 pm

I think we should all feel sorry for Crytandra.

It is clear, from the sick s**t he writes, that he is a miserable human being.

577

William Berry 04.03.15 at 6:18 pm

And, speaking of covering oneself in glory: several of the boys on this thread, with their imperialism apologetics, have not done well by themselves.

I am always fascinated by how, whenever there is a CT thread on imperialism or the military, so many “liberals’ are so quick to show their true colors.

578

Ronan(rf) 04.03.15 at 6:21 pm

Aside from Crytandra , could you name one person on this thread who has engaged in ‘imperialism apologetics’ ?

579

William Berry 04.03.15 at 6:29 pm

@Ronan:

Yes, I could, according to my own definition of “imperialism apologetics”.

But I am sure we would each have our own definition, one that would leave us, individually, innocent of the crime, so I’ll just leave it there.

580

Ronan(rf) 04.03.15 at 6:33 pm

Well sure, by my own definition I could point out a number of people who are in favour of cancer.

581

William Berry 04.03.15 at 6:46 pm

No, seriously, you couldn’t, unless you were being deliberately dishonest with yourself.

But, whatever yanks your crank.

Carry on.

582

engels 04.03.15 at 8:14 pm

William, so according to your indisclosed definition, unspecified individuals have been guilty of doing something whose nature is not entirely clear. Thanks for putting us in the picture…

583

bob mcmanus 04.03.15 at 8:16 pm

Berry, having just glanced at a couple of Cytandra’s comments, well, I could make comments on imperialism, channeling or abusing Hobson, Luxemburg, Lenin, Harvey that could make imperialism look inevitable and somewhat amoral. Economics is not a morality tale.

Part of the reason the identity crowd hates us Marxians is that the feminist racist LGBTQ etc contingents lose in class analysis a lot of their glorious ecstatic opportunities for self-righteous liberal moralizing, the division of the world into good and bad guys.

I usually try to avoid such commentary as Cytandra indulges himself with, not because it is wrong, but because it can appear cruel and callous, like “There is no Santy Claus”

584

bob mcmanus 04.03.15 at 8:21 pm

579 correction “…feminist anti-racist LGBTQ…” of course

585

Val 04.03.15 at 8:30 pm

@ 580
“Part of the reason the identity crowd hates us Marxians is that the feminist [anti-]racist LGBTQ etc contingents lose in class analysis a lot of their glorious ecstatic opportunities for self-righteous liberal moralizing, the division of the world into good and bad guys.”

Not judgemental at all! Just dividing the world into people who are rational and correct, and people who are emotional and silly (but not a gendered insult of course).

586

Val 04.03.15 at 8:38 pm

Btw I accept Marxian analysis, for the things that it can explain. It just can’t explain everything.

Mattski @ 566
I’ve already explained that the key difference between us appears to be that some positions you describe as “left-liberal”, in my political reference terms would be “centre-right”. I don’t see why you want me to apologise for that.

587

Asteele 04.03.15 at 8:39 pm

I do always enjoy “the few remaining Jews in Germany are better off than they were 80 years ago, so why is anyone complaining” stance.

588

William Berry 04.03.15 at 8:42 pm

@bob mcm:

I’m going to assume that there must be a pony in there somewhere.

589

William Berry 04.03.15 at 8:45 pm

Also, good to know that you just think Crytandra is being brutally honest. At least that much of what you said is clear, and clarifying.

590

Val 04.03.15 at 9:02 pm

Lynne @ 570
It’s hard to believe that all this fracas is going on down here and no-one from CT has even noticed. But I guess maybe Henry might be away or busy or something, and no-one else might be looking.

Although I think crytandra’s comment breached the CT rules, I am actually a bit chary of calling for someone to be banned. I do think that comment was out of line though and some response is needed, so will do something.

591

Bruce Wilder 04.03.15 at 9:41 pm

crytandra: It is nothing more than petite bourgeois sentimentalism to constantly demand folk “acknowledge” and say “sorry” for the material and inevitable facts of history. The opposite, triumphalism and an attitude of superiority on the colonising side, are equally nauseous.

bob mcmanus: I usually try to avoid such commentary as Crytandra indulges himself with, not because it is wrong, but because it can appear cruel and callous, like “There is no Santy Claus”

When I have more time, I hope to be a mean commenter who is just mean without adding anything informative (at least nothing ZM recognizes as informative) and to be assigned to Val’s pits of Manichean hell as rational and correct emotional and silly (whatever*).

Not that my “whatever” should be read as gendered, mind you.

592

bob mcmanus 04.03.15 at 9:50 pm

584: Certainly do not stand behind everything Cytandra may have said, having not read much of his commentary or followed the thread.

However, I can’t say I am unsympathetic to some variation of 569

It is nothing more than petite bourgeois sentimentalism to constantly demand folk “acknowledge” and say “sorry” for the material and inevitable facts of history. The opposite, triumphalism and an attitude of superiority on the colonising side, are equally nauseous.

I am infamous for my tentative position that we do not rid the world of its horrors by wagging our finger at it. Ok, neither do I necessarily think the course of history is necessarily inevitable either toward Utopia or Pandaemonium, though not much deterred by the finger-waggers who are too comfortable and comforting. However, the facts are indeed material, not moral, and what moral progress has been made has come via changes in material and technological conditions rather than ethical enlightenment. Capitalism ended slavery not Tubman or Lincoln. This does tempt me toward accelerationism or revolution.

593

Val 04.03.15 at 10:12 pm

@586
I think you will find it is bob McManus’ pits of Manichean hell you are being assigned to, not mine.

If I understood you correctly, which seems unlikely. The meaning of the comment was obscure, let’s say.

594

Val 04.03.15 at 10:20 pm

@586
Do I need to explain that I was making a joke at bob McManus expense @ 581? i really, really hope not.

595

Crytandra 04.03.15 at 10:43 pm

Bob McManus is of course correct. If Marx were alive today, and if he was to see how the left has been rendered flaccid by the malignancy that is identity politics and so-called cultural studies, the sick would rise in his throat.

An unsentimental Marxian analysis of history is preferable to the morbid and ahistorical moralising of the black armband crowd.

596

ZM 04.03.15 at 11:41 pm

I wish to draw your attention to the fact that now we have commenters such as Crytandra and Bob McManus (and possibly soon Bruce Wilder too?) making comments that really are going along Stalin’s lines of thinking – no one is calling them Stalinist.

It is a grossly unfair that I remain the only commenter likened to Stalin – especially since I have consistently pointed out the harms and wrongs of overwhelming force , rather than like the aforementioned commenters saying such things are inevitable and we must not moralise about them like weepy bleeding heart girl, black, or gay folk

597

Ronan(rf) 04.03.15 at 11:50 pm

Well, I guess I’m not a Marxian, as the notion that

“everything that has happened was inevitable. ”

strikes me as either completly wrong, or just meaninglessly vague.
I think a person can adopt a moral position on a historical event. Perhaps not as much if you were writing a book on it. But on a comment thread ? Sure, why not.
In fact I think there’s something juvenile about closing your eyes to all choice and moral action in a historical moment. Every bit as much as dividing the world into simple categories of good and bad.
( I’ve also never seen anyone who claims clear headed amorality actually apply that perpective across the board. They just have different hobby horses)

598

Ronan(rf) 04.03.15 at 11:51 pm

that crossposted with ZM. I agree Crytandra is (clearly) closer to the Stalinist.

599

Ronan(rf) 04.04.15 at 12:02 am

Crytandra – how are your comments on ‘indigenous culture’ not morally loaded. ie

“The cultural practices I’m happy to see extinguished include cruelling; forced marriage; sorcery; pay-back; MGM and FGM; ritualised rape (eg the Dieri gang rapes organised by fathers against their daughters); trading of indigenous women for chattels (eg dogs) ; pedophiliac practices like “boy wives”; and general brutality against women, including smashing their skulls with hatchets and clubs. All of things are well documented and not up for debate. “

600

Crytandra 04.04.15 at 12:04 am

Ronan:

“In fact I think there’s something juvenile about closing your eyes to all choice and moral action in a historical moment.”

IMO, there is no such thing as choice as there is no such thing as free will.

The “free will” view of history is something that Marx killed stone dead, although it is a zombie idea that keeps rising from its grave.

Morality should guide us going forward (this is like saying water is wet, as all action has a moral component) but we needn’t let it distort our assessment of the past. The past is what it is, period.

601

Crytandra 04.04.15 at 12:10 am

“Crytandra – how are your comments on ‘indigenous culture’ not morally loaded. ie …”

I assess history in consequentialist terms, that is, what maximises happiness and welfare. An ethical assessment is not the same as “moralising”. There is no blame involved.

602

engels 04.04.15 at 12:10 am

Fwiw

“everything that has happened was inevitable. “

is a metaphysical claim which has nothing to do with Marxism, imho (ie. it might be true, it might not be, but if you think you’ll find the answer in something Marx wrote, you’re gonna be looking for a looooong time…)

603

engels 04.04.15 at 12:13 am

The “free will” view of history is something that Marx killed stone dead Crytandra

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living… Marx

604

Crytandra 04.04.15 at 12:28 am

Engels, I’m well aware of that famous quote.

Men do indeed make their own history, just as volcanoes make mountains. But both are caused phenomena, and that famous quote by Marx encapsulates the concrete and material cicumstances that are causal in the history of men (and women of course).

605

bob mcmanus 04.04.15 at 12:37 am

598: Pretty good stuff, you might study it a little.

For instance, it is “Men” not “a man,” “their” not “his/her” and “they” not “he/she.”

Do social groups have “free will?” Is there an aggregate “will?” An aggregate morality?

And I am glad you included the last sentence, because apparently those “circumstances already existing” are the “traditions” in “the brains of the living,” ideology and consciousness. Like individualism and free will.

Socialism and communism are social events, not individual achievements or choices.

Anyway, this is complicated and contested (bitterly by EP Thompson vs the Althusserian French, for instance), probably even more in the last 75 years than before.

606

Crytandra 04.04.15 at 12:49 am

Bob, Der 18te Brumaire des Louis Napoleon was of course written in German.

I don’t see why you are quibbling about the translation.

607

Peter T 04.04.15 at 12:50 am

“An unsentimental Marxian analysis of history”. Why, one can read Engels’ Condition of the English Working Class with a sense that here is a true scientific mind, as unmoved by the daily deaths of orphans as a biologist would be by the fall of moths after their brief mating flight. And the Communist Manifesto is a piece of dispassionate analysis, with never an emotional phrase. (since this is the internet, sarcasm indicator on).

Some years back The Economist showcased some research that showed that islands which had come under imperial rule late (owing to their position off the trade winds) were much poorer than those colonised earlier. It remarked as an aside that this wealth did not, of course, accrue to the original inhabitants, who had mostly not survived the experience. Still, for The Economist, more wealth was clearly a good thing, even at this cost. And I am sure they (and crytandra) will stick to their values even though it costs them their culture and their lives.

Bob seems have grasped Marx’ dictum that “men make history, but they do not make it in circumstances of their own choosing”, and put all the weight on the second clause. But the first weighs equally. There is no capitalism or communism or feudalism or anything else separate from people. “Capitalism” did not end slavery – people did. Sometimes in bloody war or revolt, sometimes in long service on unhealthy climates, sometimes driven by indignation to write novels or newspaper editorials or make speeches or commit themselves to politics. Often confused? Sure. Usually some mix of motives? Almost always. But not unsentimental in any way, shape or form.

Does crytandra want numbers? Roughly 500,000 aborigines inhabited Australia for around 30,000 years. That’s 7.5 bn life-years. They certainly had an impact on the land, but there is nothing to suggest that their way of life – in all its mess – could not have continued another 30,000 or longer. The current 25 million of us would have to be here undiminished another 600 years just to equal that record, and the current state of science says that we will have to change course very rapidly and radically to have much chance of doing that. And if we fail, there will be more than broken arms.

608

Crytandra 04.04.15 at 1:06 am

Peter T:

“They certainly had an impact on the land, but there is nothing to suggest that their way of life – in all its mess – could not have continued another 30,000 or longer. ”

This is an ahistorical statement.

There is “nothing to suggest” that some type of Australian exceptionalism applied that would have prevented colonisation of Australia by a technologically superior neighbour, had Britain not done so. No such exceptionalism has ever existed anywhere, to the best of our knowledge.

And for all we know, the territories into which different Australian indigenous peoples were allotted may have changed hands dozens or hundreds of times for the Brits arrived. For this, we have no good evidence one way or another.

609

Val 04.04.15 at 1:07 am

So – trying to bring this back to discussions about imperialism and morality in this thread – you might argue that “capitalism” was responsible for the particular horrors of the Irish famine, since it was the decision by land holders to continue selling produce as cash crops rather than distribute some of it to the starving that apparently made it so particularly bad. Yet this ‘decision’ of capitalism was enacted by land holders established and supported by the British/English imperial state, and the B/E government supported it, at least for a crucial time.

Without trying to make broadcast criticisms of all Marxists or Marxians, one of the problems I do see in discussions like this – not just on this thread – is trying to make materialist analysis cover a lot of other things that it doesn’t cover. Of course materialist analysis is important, I agree with that, but that doesn’t mean all the cultural and ideological stuff that goes along with it is unimportant. (Nor does it exempt Marxisn analysis, like mainstream economics, from the criticism that it only tends to recognise one part of the economy, but that’s another issue).

As regards moral questions, I’m not sure how far Marx discussed the morality of capitalists (rather than ism), but Engels (the original, TM) certainly did, and he was scathing in his moral judgements of them.

Trying to say that you don’t make moral judgements, unlike your (foolish) opponents, generally isn’t a very defensible position, I think.

610

Val 04.04.15 at 1:20 am

Peter T @602, our posts crossed, thank you for the point about Marx and the Communist Manifesto.

611

geo 04.04.15 at 1:32 am

Crytandra @569: the benefits of Imperialism usually outweigh the disbenefits by numerous orders of magnitude, other than for the first 3 or 4 generations

I know there are plausible arguments both for and against this position, and also that it’s been debated at length on CT, but I wonder if anyone has a reference handy, on either side? I think I once read that when Europeans arrived in India and China, both of them had a higher standard of living than anywhere in Europe. This, if true, seems to cast doubt on Crytandra’s statement.

612

Val 04.04.15 at 1:41 am

Geo@ 606
Can’t give you anything on the bigger question, but even the conservative Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey suggests that Indigenous Australians had a higher standard of living, in the sense of more leisure time, than European peasants at the time of white invasion.

Basically though, the problem of discounting “the first 3 or 4 generations” makes this a line of argument that it’s better not to go down.

613

Crytandra 04.04.15 at 1:43 am

geo,

try Stephen Pinker’s “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined” for the affirmative case. I assume Val or someone else here can recommend a good resource for the negative case.

Of course I agree with Pinker, but his book is a prodigious work, and as with all such works, it is not error free.

614

Val 04.04.15 at 1:51 am

Ronan, ZM
Can’t remember if I’ve told this story before, but can’t resist telling it here anyway: when my five year old (nonIndigenous) grandson was told that Christians believe God made the world, he thought about it for a moment and then pronounced decisively: “Well they’re wrong. God didn’t make it, Bunjil did”.

615

ZM 04.04.15 at 1:58 am

I will just point out that the deaths caused by anglophone militaries in the last 14 years alone would have taken a very long time for indigenous Australians to accumulate , plus England and the USA have had nuclear weapons always at the ready to obliterate lives since 1945. I think indigenous Australians were less violent than present anglophone countries.

Also we present generations are currently irreparably damaging Earth’s life support systems to an extent likely to cause large amounts of deaths should we not change present paths through helpful remedies like my sensible suggestions for Londoners.

Climate change due to misuse of fossil fuels and too many farmed animals and artificial fertilizers is already responsibly for the civil wars in the Middle East which have caused refugee numbers to get to world war 2 levels. As well as all the people displaced in the pacific from the increased natural disasters due to climate change.

It took til 1968 to resettle all the world war 2 refugees after some period of reasonable peace (with notable exceptions) – except for present refugees we are looking at refugee numbers to keep growing as climate change is expected by experts to cause refugee and displaced person numbers to rise to 200-250 million by 2050.

I doubt any 100 years in history has been more violent and callous than the last century.

616

Val 04.04.15 at 2:19 am

ZM – on the question of Indigenous violence, there is a very interesting discussion by Libby Connors here http://press.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/Past+Law,+Present+Histories/9961/ch07.html

It suggests there was quite a lot of violence (with the general proviso that this is post-contact, post-invasion, therefore isn’t necessarily a good picture of pre-contact life), but that it was often ritualised and controlled in the form of contests. Certainly fights between women with digging sticks could explain a lot of broken arms, I should think.

Of course I take violence against women at any time seriously, but use of evidence from the past to suggest that those “savages” back then were so much worse than us now is problematic in lots of ways (including because it may obscure the fact that almost one woman a week dies from family violence in Australia at present).

617

Peter T 04.04.15 at 2:56 am

crytandra

Pinker’s record in these and related matters is not good (I’m going on reviews of Better Nature, since I can’t be bothered with the whole book, but his generalisations on neuroscience are pretty much panned by the experts). But he does have a point – larger, more complex, social systems are better at controlling small-scale violence (it is, after all, one part of what they are built to do). Unfortunately, they are also better at projecting violence, both against other humans and against the natural world. My point on population-years was that, over the long run, the numbers may well not favour the more complex, peaceful in everyday life, societies. One catastrophic collapse equals a lot of local violence.

An ethics without emotion? Take a moment to think about that.

618

Harold 04.04.15 at 3:16 am

Belief in fairies, or elves, brownies, tomtens, trolls, or whatever you call them are pan European, especially among mountain and herding people, and also stretch eastward as far the Hindu Kush among the Kalashsa, a people of Indo-Iranian origin (Iran, Ireland, and Ariana, a former name for Afghanistan, being variations of each other). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash_people

You can hear Kalasha “fairy” music, so called, on Youtube. In the 1930s German Nazi women used to go there to be impregnated by the locals in the belief that they would thus help perpetuate the so-called aryan “race” at its source.

619

Donald Johnson 04.04.15 at 5:04 am

“I suppose Chomsky and Herman’s hagiography of Pol Pot’s Cambodia is a good and well known non-Australian example.”

False. Chomsky clearly underestimated the scale of killing in Pol Pot’s Cambodia for several years–from what he wrote in 1977 and 1979 he evidently thought it was comparable to the death toll in East Timor during the same time period. He referred to the Pol Pot record as “gruesome”. He was wrong to be skeptical of the genocidal scale, but calling his views a “hagiography” suggests that you either don’t know what you are talking about, or you are making things up.

There was a similar debate regarding the scale of death during the Iraq War–personally, I think the correct figure is probably in-between the low Iraq Body Count figure and the high (1 million) figure that some lefties cite (based on extrapolating the second Lancet paper’s figure and also based on a poll done the next year), but if the high one were correct, no, it would not mean that Iraq Body Count had been painting a happy picture of Iraq under US occupation.

I agree that some on the far left often does turn things into simplistic morality plays with bad Westerners vs. the noble oppressed, but your repulsive generalizations about Australian aborigines shows that you aren’t really interested in sensible discussion. You are someone who casually makes statements that sound like advocacy for genocide.

620

Donald Johnson 04.04.15 at 5:05 am

“I agree that some on the far left often does turn things”

“Often do” not “often does”. I need an editor.

621

Abbe Faria 04.04.15 at 6:32 am

“I wonder if anyone has a reference handy, on either side? I think I once read that when Europeans arrived in India and China, both of them had a higher standard of living than anywhere in Europe. This, if true, seems to cast doubt on Crytandra’s statement.”

Why don’t the Mughals and Qings count as Imperialists?

622

Peter T 04.04.15 at 7:02 am

On both violence and living standards, those who make large general statements (such as Pinker) are glossing over our enormous ignorance. Detailed archeological surveys have only been done in a few places, do not yield conclusive evidence even there, and are simply not available for most of history and most of the world. Likewise, living standards have to be inferred from patchy records compiled for different reasons, covering only small fractions of the population, and often indifferently preserved. Most historians treat the record with great caution. As with any map with large blanks, lots of people like to fill the white spaces with some mix of fantasy and extrapolation, but it’s more honest, most of the time, to say “we don’t know”.

623

Asteele 04.04.15 at 7:30 am

616: because they were not part of the specific white supremacist imperial movement we’re talking about.

624

Crytandra 04.04.15 at 7:37 am

“Why don’t the Mughals and Qings count as Imperialists?”

Because the genuises here think that Imperialism is a western thing. To suggest otherwise is w-w-w-wacist.

Donald Johnson:

OK so you are an apologist. Chomsky and Herman wrote that the accounts of the Cambodian holocaust survivors were “extremely unreliable” and pounced on anyone who told the truth about what was going on with a frenzy of smears and falsehoods. I don’t see how these two chaps differ from David Irving, who similarly dismissed the accounts of Nazi holocaust survivors and just made shit up. If Cambodians had the same clout as Jews, Chomsky and his mate would be an international pariahs.

But if that’s you scene, cool.

Peter T:

Not sure why you raise the neuro stuff but yeah books like The Blank Slate were crap. Better Angels has produced thousands of considered responses for and against. While many on the left agree with him, many others don’t.

By way of interest, here’s Quiggin’s opinion:

“After The Blank Slate, I’m not going to read Pinker either.

But I am prepared to defend a moderately Whiggish view of history, at least as it describes the course of my lifetime. When I was young WWII was still fresh in people’s memory, and a WWIII that would wipe out the entire planet seemed more likely than not. The threat of nuclear annihilation has gradually faded (though the likelihood of some kind of nuclear disaster is still present), but the peace between great powers that it enforced has not. On almost any measure, and despite the efforts of successive US Presidents, the last 20 years have been among the most peaceful in the history of the world, continuing a gradual decline since 1945. I don’t agree that this is confined to Western Europe – the change has been equally marked in South America for example where (AFAIK) there has been no international war since 1945, and a big decline in coups, insurgencies and so on over recent decades.

To give this a Whiggish turn, I think that there has developed over the 20th century, for the first time of which I’m aware, a large global Peace party, not just opposed to particular wars, but opposed to the idea of war, and in particular the idea that nations can benefit themselves by going to war. Of course that’s due in substantial measure to the disasters caused by the War party in the first half of the century, but the lessons seem to have taken hold in most of the developed world and even (though not among the elite) in the US.”

625

Robespierre 04.04.15 at 8:15 am

In terms of mortality rates, perhaps Qing China was on a par with Western Europe in the 18th century, if population growth is any measure. (Peace + few major epidemics helps, though). However, in terms of technology, it was backwards and falling further behind, and had been so since the Ming.

626

bob mcmanus 04.04.15 at 9:28 am

606: Not sure what you want, but Arrighi, and Gunder Frank “World Accumulation 1492-1789” and “ReOrient” are two of my sources. There are others.

AGF: ReOrient, intro:

Thus, the import of Asian textiles with Ameri­-
can money* indirectly also permitted Europeans to produce more food
and timber in Western Europe itself. Thus, West Europeans were able
to use their position in the world economy both to supplement their
own supplies and resources by drawing directly on those from the
Americas to the west and from Eastern Europe and Asia to the east.
The supply of these additional resources to Europe from the outside
also freed European resources to use in its own development.

Nonetheless, however much European “investment” and the Atlan­-
tic “triangle” may have contributed to Europe’s participation in world
accumulation, from a world economic perspective the Asian contribu-
tion was greater still. That was so for at least two reasons: To begin
with, throughout this early modern period until at least 1800, productivity, production, and accumulation were greater in Asia than elsewhere
in the world. Indeed it was greater in the Chinese, Indian, and
other regional parts of Asia than in any other region of the world. Sec-
ond, this increase in European (participation in) accumulation was pos­-
sible only thanks to that Asian accumulation. Chapter 6 seeks to show
(with the help of Adam Smith) how Europe used its American money
to buy itself a ticket on the Asian economic train. Of course, in the
absence of that economy or its dynamic in Asia, Europe would not have
gone or gotten anywhere! That is, Europe would have remained where
it already was: in world economic terms, just about nowhere; or it
would have made its way only through the Atlantic “triangular” trade,
which was much smaller and poorer than the Asian economies.

*China had an insatiable, and eventually destructive, desire for silver as currency.

627

Val 04.04.15 at 10:10 am

@621
Man that is such a confusing argument! There is no way that imperialist Europe would have been marginal in terms of trade, but as I have had a few wines, I will have to wait until Peter T or someone sails in and sorts it out.

628

Val 04.04.15 at 10:37 am

@ 606
Rather than answering the question as asked, perhaps you could try the counter-factual? Ursula le Guin in ‘TheLeft Hand of Darkness’, (previously cited), imagined an intergalactic world where the most technologically advanced planet had decided against imperialism, but still wanted trade in ideas, resources and technology. They decided the best way to establish trading relationships was to send one person, well-briefed but unarmed, to establish relationships in the distant planets.

How would that have worked in the Americas or Australia, I wonder?

Could there have been some melding of the wealth seeking, technologically advanced societies with the sustainable societies? Really worth thinking about.

629

Crytandra 04.04.15 at 11:47 am

“Could there have been some melding of the wealth seeking, technologically advanced societies with the sustainable societies?”

This a false dichotomy. I’m surprised a supposedly educated adult would need to be told this.

630

Robespierre 04.04.15 at 12:46 pm

Sustainable societies?

631

ZM 04.04.15 at 1:13 pm

Crytandra,

How is it a false dichotomy? I hereby challenge you to name just one technologically advanced sustainable society in actual existence.

The UN put out a report saying we are now unsustainable and need to start moving towards being sustainable only last year. But it is completely up in the air if the world will achieve that transition or not.

“We are at a historic crossroads, and the direction we take will determine whether we will succeed or fail in fulfilling our promises. With our globalized economy and sophisticated technology, we can decide to end the age-old ills of extreme poverty and hunger. Or we can continue to degrade our planet and allow intolerable inequalities to sow bitterness and despair. Our ambition is to achieve sustainable development for all.

3. Young people will be the torchbearers of the next sustainable development agenda through 2030. We must ensure that this transition, while protecting the planet, leaves no one behind. We have a shared responsibility to embark on a path to inclusive and shared prosperity in a peaceful and resilient world, where human rights and the rule of law are upheld.

4. Transformation is our watchword. At this moment in time, we are called upon to lead and act with courage. We are called upon to embrace change. Change in our societies. Change in the management of our economies. Change in our relationship with our one and only planet”

632

Rich Puchalsky 04.04.15 at 1:45 pm

One of the bad things that happened to the left was the Marxian appropriation of “materialist” analysis. Sustainability is a concept of materialist analysis. But because it’s not Marxian, people who know nothing about it feel free to insist that their 19th century BS Marxian dogma has to be what people still use as their framework. A lot of the focus on cultural issues is because that people on the left could see that their elders were committed to a kind of scientism that didn’t work and that had less and less to do with anything that was actually going on.

633

novakant 04.04.15 at 1:45 pm

I am always fascinated by how, whenever there is a CT thread on imperialism or the military, so many “liberals’ are so quick to show their true colors.

That is because many so-called liberals deep down share the seemingly unshakeable conviction that “western culture” is inherently superior to anything else and think that sometimes it’s ok to break a few eggs if only the resulting omelet is sufficiently to their liking.

634

Crytandra 04.04.15 at 2:20 pm

ZM:

“How is it a false dichotomy? I hereby challenge you to name just one technologically advanced sustainable society in actual existence.”

I can’t see much point in answering in detail, ZM, as you’re bound to find something on a Greenpeace site or something similar that supports “the end is nigh” line of thinking. But I will point out that the Great Decoupling has already commenced, according to the IEA. This has happened in spite only very marginal incentives in respect of AGW. Capitalism isn’t within a bull’s roar of unleashing its full productive forces as yet.

Also look at the UN’s population projections.

see here: http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2015/march/global-energy-related-emissions-of-carbon-dioxide-stalled-in-2014.html

We would probably be much further along the track if the green hamsters weren’t putting tacks on the tarmac, for example stifling GM technology and banging on about organic agriculture and other such petite bourgeois nonsense. I think nanotechnology will be their next target. The green tendency and its cult of sustainability is a malignancy that will slow us down, but we’ll get there no probs.

The words of the Prophet himself:

“…it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world… by employing real means… slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and… in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is a historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse. “

635

Donald johnson 04.04.15 at 3:04 pm

Cryrptandra, past this post I won’ t waste any more time on you, because you are dishonest. I criticized Chomsky’s initial skepticism of genocide in Cambodia while pointing out that he acknowledged “gruesome” atrocities, but rather than refer to what I said you go straight for the “apologist” label. You claim to want a left that isn’t childish and looks at the complexities of the real world, and then you deliberately use inflammatory language that sounds like advocacy of genocide for the Australian aborigines.

636

Ronan(rf) 04.04.15 at 4:26 pm

“That is because many so-called liberals deep down share the seemingly unshakeable conviction that “western culture” is inherently superior to anything else and think that sometimes it’s ok to break a few eggs if only the resulting omelet is sufficiently to their liking.”

No, in fact quite the opposite. Firstly those most ‘supportive’ of Imperialism here have identified themselves as Marxists, not Liberals. Secondly, the mistake is to declare the advent of ‘modernity’ as solely a process driven by the ‘west’, or indeed the idea of ‘westernisation’ as anything more than rhetoric. In fact, if I was to be very ungenerous, I could quote the old saying about how the colonist viewed the ‘unspoiled Bedouin as more attractive than the literate, politicised Arabs of the towns.’ But I won’t.

This, IMO, is probably a better avenue for explanation:

“Tackling this challenge by focusing specifically on the transformations wrought by the nineteenth century is a key component of avoiding a Eurocentric narrative and is part of what makes The Global Transformation an excellent book. Analyzing the events and trends of the nineteenth century is a crucial way of underscoring the very contingency of European divergence, as opposed to spending too much time attempting to locate perceived antecedents of this dominance. When we search for earlier explanations of eventual European success we consciously or subconsciously inscribing a level of inevitability, which is entirely unsupported when one looks at the actual situation on the ground prior to the nineteenth century.[4] While Buzan and Lawson thus avoid most of the pitfalls of Eurocentric historical treatments of the rise of Western hegemony or near-hegemony, they do not completely manage to dodge the conceptual follies of earlier historiography. This leads us to a discussion of what is perhaps, or perhaps not, one of the core concepts of The Great Transformation – that of modernity….
….History presents us with a more messy and complicated picture than this core-periphery world of largely discrete units. I am not here advocating for a liberal view of a world made up of transnational networks and non-state actors. Rather, my point is that the relationship between these different units is so important for the conception and constitution of the units themselves that it seems hard to disentangle these two aspects – states and relations between states. Buzan and Lawson come close to arguing something similar on multiple occasions, but their return to rational state-building as one of the three fundamental aspects of the global transformation precludes them from making the leap into a fully relational approach. Perhaps one of the issues is that we lack a fully developed theoretical language to speak about these issues without reverting to notions of states and state-level units. The fact that Buzan and Lawson favors the term “polity” throughout much of the book is an important step in the right direction and is commendable for this reason alone, but it still seems insufficient.
It seems to me that the very phenomenon of states and empires was so in flux during the nineteenth century that we need a different way to talk about the processes surrounding them. Perhaps part of this stems from a continued lack of understanding of some of the core dynamics driving colonialism. Indeed, Buzan and Lawson can hardly be blamed for paying relatively little attention to areas of history that so few historians have been studying in much depth until very recently, especially when it comes to the nineteenth century…..
….The fundamental dichotomies associated with state-units, namely those of inside/outside, domestic/foreign, and public/private, at times preclude us from appreciating the degree of political experimentation taking place in the nineteenth century. Adaptive strategies abound throughout the period and many indigenous polities went through sometimes radical shifts in their practices and institutions well before any full-fledged colonial incursions had taken place, in part as a way to stave off potential colonization. This was true in the Pacific, as in the case of the Kingdom of Hawai’i, and in Africa, as with the Fante Confederation and the Asante Empire. The Japanese imperial project of “modernization” is in some sense remembered more for its success than for its uniqueness, since multiple other non-western empires went through their own processes of adaptation and innovation. These projects were also not examples of a one-sided process of “westernization,” but rather projects combining contemporary forms of statecraft with indigenous cultural components and wholly new inventions at the local level. “

637

Ronan(rf) 04.04.15 at 4:28 pm

(wont let me link but website is ‘The Disorder of things’, post is ‘Modernity Is Everything; Empires Are Everywhere’)

638

William Berry 04.04.15 at 4:28 pm

@Peter T: “An ethics without emotion? Take a moment to think about that.”

Aren’t you being a little hard on the poor lad? After all, anger, arrogance, and contempt have emotional content.

CIP for arrogance and contempt: “I’m surprised a supposedly educated adult would need to be told this.”

Random thought on the authority of Pinker: Pinker and Chomsky are both linguists and one of them is respected by thoughtful persons for his opinions outside his area of professional expertise.

“w-w-w-wacist”. Crytandra had been a bit of a puzzle before this. Now he is clearly recognizable as an adolescent punk.

@Abbe Faria: “Why don’t the Mughals and Qings count as Imperialists?”

Their conquests have always been referred to as “empires”, and you don’t get to “empire” without “imperialism”. I am not aware that this has ever been disputed. But what is the relevance to a discussion of that fact to the present discussion?

What Rich said @627, precisely.

And, on the general question of historical objectivity: Unless one is blessed by some kimd of revelation, whether from God or from Marx, history must bear some aspect of the noumenal. It cannot be known with certainty, there can be no essential history. We do the best we can with what we are able to discern. Any pretense of anything more is platonistic nonsense. There is, indeed, a materialist dialectic of history, but it is an intellectual construct of the human mind, not, so far as we able to determine, a description of any actual history. If we believe in this dialectic (and I do, at least to the extent I am able), it is simply an assumption we make, at great risk.

In re, the moralistic hand-wringing (or whatever the sneer was): There is present injustice in the world, and the past is prelude. We have to recognize it and acknowledge it; then move on from there.

Sneering at LBGTQ issues, multi-culturalism, feminism, etc., pretty much pegs you as a middle-class white guy. Check your F***ing privilege*

*Yes, I actually said that.

Now I have to go cut down a limb that collapsed on my roof. Y’all have fun.

639

engels 04.04.15 at 4:43 pm

As a Marxist, I’ve often thought that what Marxism really needed was its own Floyd Alvis Cooper, so I’m glad to see Crytandra step up to fill this important role.

640

novakant 04.04.15 at 5:02 pm

the mistake is to declare the advent of ‘modernity’ as solely a process driven by the ‘west’, or indeed the idea of ‘westernisation’ as anything more than rhetoric.

For some reason you seem to assume that I am making this mistake, but it is the very people I criticize who make this mistake.

641

Val 04.04.15 at 5:39 pm

@633
The person in question seems to enjoy criticising me in particular. Thinking about it, there was a guy banned from John Quiggin’s site a while ago who also seemed to enjoy criticising female commenters in particular, and if I remember rightly, he had a similar rhetorical style.

642

William Berry 04.04.15 at 5:59 pm

@Val: I hear you. But, I wouldn’t take it seriously. Just a minor stormfront (pardon the pun) that came roaring– squeaking?– in from right field, wearing a pretend marxian pose as so many of that ilk are prone to do.

643

William Berry 04.04.15 at 6:00 pm

And now, for that limb. Really!

644

Val 04.04.15 at 7:10 pm

Good luck with the limb, hope the roof is ok!

645

ragweed 04.04.15 at 7:16 pm

Engel @634 – well said my friend.

646

Val 04.04.15 at 7:26 pm

I think the best response – for everyone – to that commenter is not to engage.

647

ragweed 04.04.15 at 8:24 pm

The problem with the whole “the colonized benefit from colonization in the long run” is that it is based on the bizarre counterfactual that indigenous cultures would have remained unchanged had they not been conquered and colonized. In fact, indigenous cultures and other colonized people tended to be very quick to adopt and adapt new technologies they encountered on contact with European culture.

Japan is a classic example. Never fully colonized and largely free from an outside power extracting massive resources and wealth, it was able to rapidly become a modern industrial society and major power in Asia (and engaged in its own imperial expansion, but that is another story).

Again, I don’t know the particulars in Australia, but there are countless examples in the North American case. Heck, the iconic horse-cultures of the Great Plains tribes – the first image most people have when they hear “American Indian” – was only possible due to adoption of a European beast of burden and the technology that accompanied that. The Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muscogee and Seminole all adopted western agriculture, government and educational models, while maintaining distinct cultural ceremonies and traditions. Coast Salish fishermen supplied the saw-mills of Seattle with dogfish oil and formed logging crews to supply the wood. Today, the Sealaska Corporation, operated by the Tlinget, Haida and Tsimshian, is a half-billion dollar corporation involved in timber, construction, environmental consulting, information technology, and manufacturing, while grounding their practices within traditional tribal values.

I think the Cherokee experience is instructive here. By the early 19th century, the Cherokee had adopted thoroughly modern technologies for housing, agriculture, and governance (including a constitution complete with a 3-part government, separation of powers, and checks and balances), developed a written language, published dual Cherokee-English newspapers, and had a literacy rate higher than the whites in the surrounding Georgia farm communities. However, the white farmers wanted the land of the Cherokee and so the US government forcibly removed them, initially rounding up 16,000 men, women, children and elders into concentration camps and then marching them 1000 miles, on foot, in winter, to Oklahoma (1 in 4 died upon the route). Note that there was no “conflict of cultures” – the Cherokee were as or more economically and technologically advanced as any white farming community at the time – it was pure settler-colonial desire for land and resources.

So call me dubious when someone says colonization in the long run benefits the colonized. It is not just the dubious ethics of throwing 3-4 generations under the bus, which is bad enough, but the question of what would have happened had indigenous people been able to develop without their land, resources and labor being exploited.

And as for “if we didn’t exploit them someone else would.”
Really?

648

William Berry 04.04.15 at 8:40 pm

@Val: That limb is now firew00d, and my roof is fine!

@ragweed: As well as agreeing with you completely, I also salute your courage in daring to be so substantive at the end of what appears to be– and by rights, ought to be– a dead thread!

649

Val 04.04.15 at 9:09 pm

Robespierre @ 625
I am using “sustainable societies” to describe those that live in such a way that their environment is likely to sustain existing species (including humans) for the foreseeable future. As has already been pointed out, Indigenous Australians lived on the land for about 60,000 years. They changed it, but not in such a way as to make it unliveable for humans and many other species.

Humans are already responsible for a great loss of biodiversity and the extinction of many species. Climate change threatens to render the planet uninhabitable for us, as for other species. I expect that you know all that, so I am not quite sure what your question relates to.

650

Ronan(rf) 04.04.15 at 9:58 pm

Novakant – ok, fair enough. You’re right. My apologies. Although I’d just note that the mind set you identify appears to be a Marxist one, rather than a liberal. (As far as that goes when the sample is 1 or 2 people in a comment thread, ie probably not very far)

651

Abbe Faria 04.04.15 at 11:03 pm

“The problem with the whole “the colonized benefit from colonization in the long run” is that it is based on the bizarre counterfactual that indigenous cultures would have remained unchanged had they not been conquered and colonized. In fact, indigenous cultures and other colonized people tended to be very quick to adopt and adapt new technologies they encountered on contact with European culture.”

What I was trying to get at with the Mughals and Qings is that, with some exceptions (like as you say N America and Australia), European Imperialism was in many cases the replacement of pre-existing Empires. There’s no real counterfactual of indigenous cultures getting along on their own. China had the Qings, India the Mughuls, the Middle East the Ottomans, the Americas the Incas, and so on and so on.

So rather than an Indigenous vs Empire comparision, it’s often Empire vs Empire – and merely a choice of which one. And some of these Empires were absolutely bloody awful, I know European Imperialism was nasty – but can you imagine the Aztecs or Mughals with European technology? Can you imagine if the Middle East and N Africa were run by a slaveholding Ottoman Caliphate?

652

Rich Puchalsky 04.04.15 at 11:19 pm

Ronan(rf): “Although I’d just note that the mind set you identify appears to be a Marxist one, rather than a liberal. ”

novakant was referring to “the seemingly unshakeable conviction that “western culture” is inherently superior to anything else”. Let’s not flatter anyone: all political tendencies or outlooks based on western culture have many people who share this conviction.

653

LFC 04.04.15 at 11:25 pm

Ronan @631

I haven’t really been following the thread. However, re your quote from that post at The Disorder of Things — here’s a problem: what do you do when asked, as I was very recently in a conversation, about what explains the historical ec. divergence betw ‘global North’ and ‘South’. Of course one can answer: ‘well it’s v. complicated’ (which it is) and mention all sorts of things incl colonialism and its impacts, but then to start talking about “contingency” gets you where? Only to the statement that it wasn’t “inevitable,” which, imo, is less than helpful.

Of course ‘modernity’ was not solely driven by ‘the west’. But *something(s)* did happen to initiate a divergence over time, istm. China was ‘ahead’ of ‘the west’ until c. (very roughly) 1500 (or the preceding half-century). Portugal and China began overseas exploration at roughly the same time; after about 30 yrs the Chinese stopped, while Portugal continued. Why? (Wallerstein’s discussion of this in the first chapter of The Modern World-System v.1, which I was looking at earlier today, is I think helpful, though it’s about 40 yrs old and no discussions of these issues ever get universal agreement.)

In short, saying ‘everything is contingent’ raises (or avoids) the key question: contingent on what? If one waves that away, as that post seems to, with a dismissal of looking for “perceived antecedents,” I think that’s a problem. I thought historians were supposed to be interested in “antecedents” of trends and developments. But perhaps I’m being unfair to that post, which I still haven’t read v. carefully. Maybe I’ll do a post of my own on it. But I’m probably too busy or lazy or whatever.

654

LFC 04.04.15 at 11:42 pm

Of course if you take the Andre Gunder Frank position in ReOrient (quoted by mcmanus a little upthread), then you have a bit less of a problem, because there’s no divergence to explain until, I guess, about 1800; Asia was the real engine of world ec. growth and “Europe used its American money to buy itself a ticket on the Asian economic train.” (I’m not sure how Frank deals with the industrial revolution, which I always thought started in Britain and was fueled at least partly by indigenous resources (e.g. coal) as well as those gotten from abroad, but whatever…).

655

Crytandra 04.05.15 at 1:21 am

ragweed,

In Japan distinct peoples were united in an imperial project. Sometime after that, unified Japan engaged in a vast imperial project in East Asia. This actually conforms my thesis.

As others have noted, grand imperial projects were not unknown to the Americas prior to western colonisation, and presumably, with differential advances in technology, the scale of these projects would’ve increased as they everywhere else in the known world. One wonders what would have become of the mass human sacrifice cultures of the Americas if that made major technological breakthroughs before the others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture#Estimates_of_the_scope_of_the_sacrifices

656

Crytandra 04.05.15 at 1:23 am

confirms not conforms. sorry.

657

ZM 04.05.15 at 1:53 am

Crytandra,

you were just saying it was ahistorical to presume that indigenous peoples ways of living at the period just preceding colonisation would have continued forever – you must agree it also follows that it is ahistorical to presume like you do @654 that indigenous cultures in the Americas would always continue in their human sacrifice practices forever.

As it is Easter i don’t have time for a longer comment , but want to note that it is not very sound to attribute the positives of our present time to imperialism – since positives are often the result of anti-imperialism like things in Ireland now seem better than in the 19th C but this is not according to imperialist plans it is because Irish people (and supporters elsewhere maybe) did various things to be treated better and anti-imperialist people ended imperialism (at least in terms of formal politics) – and other seeming positives like high material consumption are problematic in terms of distribution and sustainability and consequences for the poor the young and future generations.

658

Crytandra 04.05.15 at 2:00 am

ZM

“… presume like you do @654 that indigenous cultures in the Americas would always continue in their human sacrifice practices forever.”

I never said that. Your reading comprehension is unusually poor.

659

ZM 04.05.15 at 2:13 am

I thought you were implying the continuity of human sacrifice practices mixed with advanced technology by this statement :

“One wonders what would have become of the mass human sacrifice cultures of the Americas if that made major technological breakthroughs before the others.”

I suppose you may have been genuinely wondering , but genuine wonderment at this counter factual would seem to go against your prior negative comments about indigenous Australians

660

Crytandra 04.05.15 at 2:48 am

zm- you realise don’t you, that if indigenous Australian and Sth American human sacrifice cultures actually did advance human welfare subsequent to technological advancement in the way you see to be implying, it would confirm the Whiggish interpretation of history.

It is breathtaking that I need to point this out. This is the fundamental point I have been at pains to make about the completely illogical philosophy of applying different theoretical apparatuses to different cultures, depending on whether or not you see them as the other.

The strange times Marxists talk about stuff like this. I disagree with much of what they say, but at they are intellectually consistent. see http://strangetimes.lastsuperpower.net/

661

Harold 04.05.15 at 3:30 am

The Greeks and Romans also practiced human sacrifice.

662

ZM 04.05.15 at 3:47 am

It is absurd to use counter factuals to conclude the whiggish interpretation of history is true :/

There are any number of possible counterfactuals – should communism have prevailed it would prove Marx’s interpretation of history etc etc

And anyway you said you had a Marxist interpretation of history before and indeed took offense when someone said it was Whiggish.

But it is too nice a day for anymore commenting from me.

663

DavidMoz 04.05.15 at 4:06 am

Crytanda “IMO, there is no such thing as choice as there is no such thing as free will.”

Seems like a waste of time then to engage in debate? What good could possibly come of it?

664

Ronan(rf) 04.05.15 at 1:05 pm

LFC – I agree, although I (obviously) have no answers to such questions; )
To my eyes the really interesting thing about what Jeppe was saying was about how other cultures, groups etc adapted, borrowed, rejected from the western coloniser, and the alternative political/culture/ideological systems they built, partly in response. That seems to me the more relevant point of interest in the world we now live in, where outright western imperialism is no longer really relevant, and all of these anachronistic terms and frames (indigenous vs ‘western’ culture, imperial villians and nationalist heroes, or vice versa) don’t explain as much.

665

Ronan(rf) 04.05.15 at 1:10 pm

I think Buzan attempts to answer that question in the book though.I read the first chapter on Kindle sample and it looks pretty interesting.

666

Crytandra 04.05.15 at 3:01 pm

DavidMoz: “Seems like a waste of time then to engage in debate? What good could possibly come of it?”

Schoolboy error- the difference between determinism and fatalism should be self-evident. But of course many a philosopher has also explained the difference ;)

667

geo 04.05.15 at 4:40 pm

Crytandra: the difference between determinism and fatalism should be self-evident

Would you mind spelling it out nonetheless?

668

mattski 04.05.15 at 4:47 pm

You claim to want a left that isn’t childish and looks at the complexities of the real world, and then you deliberately use inflammatory language that sounds like advocacy of genocide for the Australian aborigines.

Crytandra,

This is low-percentage, at the tail end of a turd-filled thread, but Donald Johnson is right. The fact that you feel the need to be as provocative as you do betrays an emotion-based motivation. Perhaps you’re just successful at hiding those emotions from yourself.

669

LFC 04.05.15 at 5:33 pm

@Ronan
To my eyes the really interesting thing about what Jeppe was saying was about how other cultures, groups etc adapted, borrowed, rejected from the western coloniser, and the alternative political/culture/ideological systems they built, partly in response.

ok, fair enough

I think Buzan attempts to answer that question in the book though.I read the first chapter on Kindle sample and it looks pretty interesting.

that means you’ve read one more chapter of that book than I have ;)

There are several prolific ‘mainstream’ ec. historians whose work is relevant to the question I mentioned. One is Jeffrey G. Williamson. (Haven’t read him. Or the others, for the most part.) I see from looking at a lib. catalog just now that his most recent appears to be a co-edited 2-vol. hist of capitalism (Cambridge UP, 2014).

670

Niall McAuley 04.05.15 at 5:48 pm

Are you fuckin eejits still talking about Paddy’s day? For fuck’s sake, it’s Easter! Yez should’ve been giving out about the fuckin pubs bein closed on Good Friday two days since!

Q. As a reflection of authentic Irish identity, how would you rate recent contributions to the comment section attached to this CT posting?

A. Shite

671

Igor Belanov 04.05.15 at 6:06 pm

The recent comments have nothing at all to with Irish identity, authentic or not. They moved on from St Patrick’s Day AGES ago.

672

bob mcmanus 04.05.15 at 6:55 pm

663: and the alternative political/culture/ideological systems they built, partly in response. That seems to me the more relevant point of interest in the world we now live in, where outright western imperialism is no longer really relevant,

Digital Labour and Marx>/i> by Christian Fuchs 2014, covers mineral miners in Africa, Foxconn workers in China, and Call-center and migrant coders in India, among many others, in order to materially understand the global ICT supply chain in detail as created by mobile capital which also directly influences if not controls local governance…in other words, to show that Imperialism, once we understand Imperialism as more a matter or money, power and ideology than of effing white male faces never stopped or even slowed down. Imperialism accelerated.

Whatever Marx and determinism vs pessimism vs fatalism, I read the Marxian writers because at the very least in principles of methodology they long ago abandoned whiggish reformist optimistic moralistic “progressive” analysis (“India will be so much better when Indians/women/colored faces rule India”) and recognize that Capital will of course be the early adapter and hegemon of all technological social and political changes, and it will get worse before it gets better without me wishing or willing it so.

Liberals think freedom is just a vote away.

673

bob mcmanus 04.05.15 at 7:00 pm

Oh . Let me fix the italics. Sorry. I had rage problems.

Digital Labour and Marx by Christian Fuchs 2014, covers mineral miners in Africa, Foxconn workers in China, and Call-center and migrant coders in India, among many others, in order to materially understand the global ICT supply chain in detail as created by mobile capital which also directly influences if not controls local governance…in other words, to show that Imperialism, once we understand Imperialism as more a matter or money, power and ideology than of effing white male faces never stopped or even slowed down. Imperialism has accelerated.

674

bob mcmanus 04.05.15 at 7:48 pm

Gens: A Feminist Manifesto for the Study of Capitalism …here’s some intersectionality fer ya, via Bady’s Sunday Reading at New Inquiry. I saved it to my desktop for the bibliography, although I have read some and am familiar with most names, if only from article collections.

Castells, Elizabeth Dunn, Elyacher, Susan MacKinnon, Dorinne Kondo, Timothy Mitchell, Aihwa Ong, Gayle Rubin, Joan Wallach Scott, Anna Tsing I have read some

Mostly I sneer at those who begin conversations by sneering at Marxians

675

Ronan(rf) 04.05.15 at 7:56 pm

Bob, I agree that a person’s perspective on whether ‘imperialism’ has declined or accelerated is largely an ideological/definitional one. My ideological preferences would just make me think declined. Fwiw, if the rest is aimed near me, I wasn’t sneering at Marxists. I haven’t read enough Marx or stuff written by marxists to form any strong opinion on Marxist perspectives.
Lfc, have you seen jurgen Osterhammel’s new booko the transformation of the world?

676

Igor Belanov 04.05.15 at 8:30 pm

If imperialism is defined in terms of socio-economic processes that create and accelerate uneven development, then it is clear that it is increasing in its effect.

Nevertheless, we must still acknowledge that one of the most prominent political features of imperialism in the period between say 1800 and 1950 was colour prejudice and an unwillingness to allow those of non-European descent more than the minimum of political responsibility. The difficulty is that many people still see imperialism in terms of a simple power disparity, in which case it would be everywhere at any time.

677

LFC 04.06.15 at 12:40 am

@Ronan
Lfc, have you seen jurgen Osterhammel’s new booko the transformation of the world?

I’m aware of its existence, think I might have bookmarked or saved a review, but that’s about it.

678

Crytandra 04.06.15 at 3:13 am

geo:”Would you mind spelling it out nonetheless?”

Far better minds than mine have tried and failed to explain that while a lack of free will means everything that happens is predetermined, it doesn’t mean we should be fatalistic. If you’re interested, there are a couple of naturalist websites such as this one that explain this philosophy: http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/

mattski:

“The fact that you feel the need to be as provocative as you do betrays an emotion-based motivation. Perhaps you’re just successful at hiding those emotions from yourself.”

I see it as switching between analytical mode and polemic mode. We all do this, I think. But yeah, some of my words here have been poorly chosen and unnecessarily provocative. I apologise for being a dick.

When I was last in Vietnam, my wife and I went on a guided tour in a national park with a man from a small minority group called the Chil. This man was able to point to land that had just in the last decade been appropriated (a forced sale) by Kinh businessmen with help of corrupt local officials. This is imperialism. If a western multi-national corporation did this, it may well be a prominent story in “The Guardian” because it would fit the particular morality tale version of history that comforts that audience. But because stories like this don’t fit the narrative, they are much less likely to be reported. I think this is wrong.

679

ragweed 04.06.15 at 5:18 am

Crytandra – I think that is the first sensible thing you have said the entire thread. Imperialism is more than Europe on the rest of the world.

That doesn’t get Europe, or its settler colonies, off the hook.

680

Crytandra 04.06.15 at 6:26 am

“That doesn’t get Europe, or its settler colonies, off the hook.”

Yeah but there needn’t be a hook. A Mongolian born today shouldn’t be on some hook because of something Genghis Khan once did in Europe, nor should an America Indian born tomorrow be on a hook because his ancestors amputated the feet of neighbouring tribespeople captured and held in bondage.

681

ragweed 04.06.15 at 6:37 am

Yes, and if the expropriation of land, exploitation, etc. were not still going on today, it would be a matter of history. But it is, which is why indigenous people in Canada are at the forefront of the movement against climate change. Yes, it is capital as much as race that is behind the exploitation, but as with police violence, capital wears a racist mask.

682

ragweed 04.06.15 at 7:13 am

I don’t have time to go into much more on this thread. I would have liked to have said more in response to the request for more about Native folklore and its role. I will share some thoughts briefly, prefacing it by stating that I am not Native American, and only speak from my observations from working with the urban native community in the Pacific Northwest, as well as from fairly broad reading of Native literature and Native American studies. Much of the “folklore” of Native Americans is really a broad form of oral literature, some which captures very detailed historical events and geographical information (some of which has actually been quite useful to ecologists trying to map historical shifts in wildlife populations), some allegorical, some spiritual, and some just great stories and humor. Often they encompassed all of these. The Coast Salish storytellers I know all call the stories “teachings”. The actual attitude of Native people to the stories and belief in spirits and the like varies greatly, and is complicated by the historical suppression of the religious and cultural practices, and by cultural appropriation, particularly by the new age. Like any culture there are atheists and there are believers. And at the same time their are many native people who are also members of mainstream religions. One of the activists I work with is a Mormon. There are devout Catholics who see no conflict between being Catholic and participating in a Sundance. I know an elder that ends every sweatlodge prayer with “In the name of Lord Jesus Christ amen.” So the answer to that question is long and complex and varies from place to place. But among some at least, the spirits are very real, and the animals, trees, mountains, and rivers are all people.

Val, I owe you some emails or a reading list.

Probably all from me on this thread.

683

Val 04.06.15 at 8:22 am

Thank you ragweed I would really appreciate that.

The question I am trying to look at is – can we suggest that historically there have been two broad types of societies: patriarchal hierarchies which have systematic inequalities of wealth and power and use organised violence such as raids and war; and egalitarian societies, which may have some degree of violence and some systematic inequalities of power, but don’t have systematic inequalities of wealth, and don’t conduct wars?

This is similar to Eisler’s concept of dominator and egalitarian societies. Although Eisler has maybe gone out of fashion a bit, I think it’s a good theoretical starting point.

However I’d be grateful for any info you want to send on Native American peoples, doesn’t have to be around that question. I just don’t know much about them and am interested.

As my sign off for this thread, I saw a reference to this New Scientist article while reading Brian Bahnisch’s ‘Climate Plus’ blog
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530134.300-ancient-invaders-transformed-britain-but-not-its-dna.html#.VRllcOGzFfA
It has a fascinating map of genetic tracing in England – interesting perspective on history. Seemed at least vaguely relevant to some of the ideas canvassed on this long thread, if anyone is still reading!

684

Val 04.06.15 at 8:27 am

Oops that should have been Britain and Ireland – or England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland – or something (not just England although the map seems to focus there). Sorry!

My mother always said that the reason we have more olive skin in our family than many Anglo types is that it comes from the Irish side – because there were sailors wrecked from the Spanish Armada who settled in Ireland and intermarried. I wonder if that’s a well known tale?

685

Crytandra 04.06.15 at 8:39 am

” … can we suggest that historically there have been two broad types of societies: patriarchal hierarchies … and egalitarian societies, which may have some degree of violence and some systematic inequalities of power, but don’t have systematic inequalities of wealth, and don’t conduct wars?”

The melancholy truth is that such a society would’ve been smashed by its war-like neighbours. I’m sure such societies have existed but they would’ve had a very short lifespan.

But I do think a more equitable and peaceful future awaits us, and a precondition for that future is complete gender equality and the decoupling of growth and energy/resource use. My guess is this will probably take another 200 to 500 years, but the trends are already evident.

686

Ronan(rf) 04.06.15 at 9:50 am

Val- I’ve always wondered that about the olive skin thing. Afaict it’s most noticeable on the west, particularly in more urban areas like cork and limerick so I assumed it was either the Spanish or pirates. It’s also true in wales. Afaict.
Also, eisler?

Ragweed- I think I asked that question above, so thanks . Very interesting (if you were thinking of putting the reading reccomendations on this thread I’d also be interested. If you weren’t planning on posting them here no problem)

687

Ronan(rf) 04.06.15 at 10:19 am

Just to clarify. I’m not saying people should take any action against the descendants of the Spanish/pirate invaders. Let bygones be bygones

688

Val 04.06.15 at 10:34 am

@685
(Riane) Eisler ‘The Chalice and the Blade’. Like Gerda Lerner, Carolyn Merchant (historians) and Marija Gimbutas (archaeologist, whom I haven’t yet read) one of the key early theorists in ecofeminism (as we now call it, I don’t know if they used that term).

Eisler’s work has I think been questioned or rejected because she was seen to put too much emphasis on matriarchy and goddess worship, but in fact she didn’t accept that there had been any real matriarchy in prehistory, afaic, if we take matriarchy to mean female dominated hierarchical systems like patriarchy, though there were (and are) matrilineal and matrilocal societies. The goddess issue seems a bit more contested – Eisler, drawing particularly on early evidence from archaeological evidence from Çatalhöyük, and from Gimbutas’ work, seems to suggest that there was widespread goddess worship, but later writers seem to downplay this a bit (while not contesting that it existed).

The other issue that has made ecofeminism controversial to some people is confusion over whether the ecofeminists said that patriarchy equated women with “nature” or whether they (the early ecofeminists) themselves did so. Certainly the serious theorists that I’m reading don’t make such a simple parallel, although there are materialist theories about embodiment that suggest why women might be less inclined than men towards mind-body dualist thinking. However there certainly seems to have been an associated ‘new age’ movement that did suggest that women were essentially closer to nature than men, so it all became a bit muddled.

The reason I’m trying to get a grasp of this (and why it’s related to my contemporary research) is that I think people are often drawing on (though not always articulating) ideas about what is ‘normal’ for human societies when they try to think about how we should live, or how we should treat each other, or forms of governance and how economies work, etc

Sorry for getting on the hobby horse and galloping off :). My reading is going a bit slowly but I am going to try to write this all up sometime soon.

689

Peter T 04.06.15 at 10:52 am

Re the olive skin – this is a persistent folk-tale. There were very few survivors of Spanish Armada wrecks in Ireland, and those were quickly rounded up. More likely reflects the old trade routes that followed the winds from Norway down through the Hebrides, Ireland to northern Spain and Morocco – a route at least 3000 years old.

Egalitarian societies (patriarchal or otherwise) don’t do conquest well, because much of their effort is devoted to keeping any but minimal hierarchy suppressed (this takes active and ongoing effort). On the other hand, really hierarchical societies don’t do conquest well, because most of the effort goes into maintaining hierarchy (Peter Heather makes the point that most barbarians could – from the same population – muster twice the warriors that late Rome could, because they had many fewer unfree. For a modern example, think of how German racial hierarchies made most of the population of conquered Europe unavailable to them). In between, a lot depends on ecology, technology, opportunity….

690

Val 04.06.15 at 11:17 am

Egalitarian patriarchies’ is one of those terms that contradicts itself – what is that word, I just can’t think of it? In my definition, and I think Eisler’s, patriarchal societies and egalitarian societies are the two main alternatives.

Could explain this further but would just end up getting long-winded.

Every time I think this thread is finished something new and interesting comes up.

691

Peter T 04.06.15 at 11:32 am

“Egalitarian patriarchies’ is one of those terms that contradicts itself”

Not quite. Lots of hunter-gatherer societies are patriarchal, but fiercely egalitarian (all the adult men are held as equals). And no society is completely egalitarian (not just male/female, but also junior/senior, expert/non-expert, insider/outsider, householders/non-householders…). A lot of societies do two separate hierarchies (male/female, with adults and leaders in both superior to juniors and followers).

Not saying egalitarianism is a bad dream, but it is a dream. One we need to hold to to make it a bit true.

692

Crytandra 04.06.15 at 11:47 am

I completely disagree, Peter T.

Men are physically stronger, have a higher sex drive and arguably a higher genetic propensity to violence than women. This makes male violence, including sexual violence, the default setting for society. The only way to switch off the default setting is complete gender equality.

693

ZM 04.06.15 at 11:56 am

ragweed,

I would also be interested in you recommended reading, but understand you might not have time to post it here. Maybe if you emailed Val she could post it on her blog later.

Ronan(rf),

I think that was quite an interesting quote from the book you’re reading. I read something about fairies (or elves, pucks etc as they were called before the French term became current) in Britain generally and it said that the integration of fairies into a Christian cosmological order didn’t begin to emerge until the end of the 13th C. Although St Augustine had mentioned them before it wasn’t as part of a set cosmology like that, and there tended to be quite a unorganised approach to them with an underlying shared belief that they belonged to a mostly unseen parallel realm. It was around the same time that they were also used to Brit-ify classical myths, like dis/pluto in the underworld would become a fairy etc.

In Scotland fairies ended up being more associated with witches (whereas in England animal familiars would be more associated with witches) and the kirk court records mention fairies quite frequently in this regard. Around the same time in England they moved into a high literary form that associated the parallel fairy realm with luxury and the court (e.g.. Spenser’s The Faerie Queen) — so James I and VI found himself in Scotland deploring the fairies as witchcrafty but in England watching his son play the king of the fairies in a court masque

Rich Puchalsky,

Re urban vs rural ecological footprints — you are probably already aware of this but national economics tend to be more determinative eg. the average ecological footprint of a city-dweller in the UK/USA/Australia is higher than the average ecological footprint of a city-dweller in China/India/Brazil.

There tends to be a focus on the contribution of urban form to ecological footprints because this is something governments/bureaucrats can influence through settlement planning. However urban form is only one contributor along with income, transportation options and choices including international travel, and good and service consumption options and choices.

Also due to the highly globalised character of resource flows and the interdependence and relatedness between city and country , I think there seems to be some move afoot in urban theory to step away from a simple urban/rural binary classification. This would fit with moves in anthropology away from culture/nature, and is probably driven by the same reasons — that previously dominant ways of understanding are not helping with analysing and solving our sustainability issues (which contra to Crytandra do need solving in a 25-35 year time frame, not a lengthy 200-500 years, sorry).

Phil,

Not sure if you are still reading, but if this thread is still open tomorrow I may write something further on why I think there is historical collective responsibility. To be honest since I think it has been an accepted idea for the left and centre in Australia since I was young and also as it felt right to me, I probably haven’t given due consideration to what the reasons are behind having this understanding and relationship to the past.

I have just read a review by Marshall Sahlins (The Sadness of Sweetness) of the book Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History by Sidney Mintz — but from this I think it would be a good book to read about at the influence of the imperial project both on the colonised country/ies and the colonising country/ies. The frontispiece is an engraving of personifications by William Blake — “Europe Supported by Africa and America”.

694

Val 04.06.15 at 12:10 pm

@691
I think it is Carol Patemen who coined the term ‘fraternal patriarchies’ where all men are considered as equals, but women as subordinate. That’s what you’re talking about, I guess, whether h-g or other, but it’s not egalitarian. In the way I am using the term, egalitarian cannot include societies where one group of people are systematically deemed subordinate because of bodily attributes. It could include societies where certain individuals, on the basis of individual characteristics, had more power than others, though not if there were significant and systematic differences in wealth also related to that power (Elders is a different issue, power is on the basis of their presumed accumulated wisdom or closeness to the ancestors rather than just age per se).

I think in a general sense you would be hard pressed to make the case that a society where men systematically have more power than women is egalitarian in any meaningful way.

Also as a general point, “society” and “men” are not equivalent terms.

I am interested in the practical details and nuances as well as the general theory, however, so which particular societies are you thinking of?

695

ZM 04.06.15 at 12:22 pm

Val,

I think it would be quite difficult to find a gender-neutral egalitarian society from what I have read. Usually there is some sort of gendered division of social organisation, maybe with some degree of flexibility in accommodating the needs of individuals or families — like girls could be adopted as “sons” in Japan.

Although I suppose you could move from gender equality to gender equity, which would allow some gender difference without discrimination …

696

Val 04.06.15 at 1:02 pm

@695
No I’m not talking about gender neutral societies – more as you say about gender equity, where men and women may do different work (or the same work) but both kinds of work are valued and resources are shared on the basis of need.

sharing resources on the basis of need was one of the things William Thomas noted as distinctive about the Bunurong people when he travelled with them:
“… none lacketh while others have it, nor is the gift considered as a favour, but a right brought to the needy …” (From the papers of William Thomas, the link I have on my blog now takes you to a different source so the Latrobe library must have done some rejigging – anyway they are available online somewhere in the Latrobe collection).

697

engels 04.06.15 at 1:09 pm

‘the difference between determinism and fatalism should be self-evident’
Would you mind spelling it out nonetheless?

I don’t agree this is ‘self-evident’, but here’s a classic argument (although one now widely considered to be faulty)

698

engels 04.06.15 at 1:13 pm

I think in a general sense you would be hard pressed to make the case that a society where men systematically have more power than women is egalitarian in any meaningful way.

What does this statement mean? What kind of evidence would count for or against it?

699

Henry 04.06.15 at 1:56 pm

Crytandra

I’ve been made aware of your comment applauding the genocide of Australian aborigines. This falls way below the acceptable standards for commenting on this site – see the rules for commenters. You are banned from making future comments – any that you seek to make will be deleted or otherwise treated as the management sees fit.

700

Val 04.06.15 at 2:23 pm

@698
Well given that this is more of a definitional and conceptual question, I’m not sure that evidence is the issue. I mean it depends how you are defining egalitarian, but I think it would be hard to come up with a definition of an “egalitarian society” that could include societies where men were systematically privileged over women.

If you or Peter T think that you reasonably could, perhaps it’s because you’re men?

Because I’m looking at this issue in a historical context where you will never get ‘perfect’ examples of any concept, I have to allow a little blurriness, but in general I’m thinking about societies that:
Don’t have some people who are rich and others who are poor, or some who eat while others starve
May have some power divisions but they are based on skills or capacities that the person is seen to have (visionary, good story teller, etc), not attributes that the person is born with (sex, skin colour, etc)
– in practice probably have communal rather than individual ownership, although I don’t know if that’s essential (haven’t really thought that through, but it wouldn’t apply to clothes etc)
(apart from the issue of elders that I discussed @694)

If by your question about evidence, you mean what would persuade me that egalitarian societies do or have ever existed in the sense I’m talking about, that’s the reading I’m doing now. It’s very contested, because it partly depends who’s looking at them. It’s late here and I’m not going to try to summarise all I’ve read so far as that would take me a long time, but the general suggestion is that some Neolithic societies in the fertile parts of Europe, possibly some Native American societies, the iKung, and some in southern or southeastern Asia have shown or do show some characteristics of egalitarianism – plus Indigenous Australians had some (eg sharing food equally or rather by need) although there’s obviously controversy over whether they were patriarchal. However women as a group (not just certain groups of women such as single women or widows) had women’s “places” in the same way men did. (Obviously this is complicated by the individual ownership vs communal ownership issue, but cf in England a married woman did not have ownership in house and land, and did not have guardianship of her children, until 19thc).

701

Val 04.06.15 at 2:25 pm

Neolithic societies in fertile parts of Central Asia and Europe – should be

702

mattski 04.06.15 at 3:28 pm

Henry,

Is it right for you to take such a precipitous action when you haven’t been following the thread? Crytandra, at 678, said this:

I see it as switching between analytical mode and polemic mode. We all do this, I think. But yeah, some of my words here have been poorly chosen and unnecessarily provocative. I apologise for being a dick.

Personally, I think a sincere apology shows character. Val, OTOH, couldn’t bring herself to cough up a simple, “whoops, I’m sorry, my mistake,” when it was brought to her attention that she hadn’t bothered to read accurately the comments she was responding to.

And, Crytandra, if you’re reading, you might appreciate this re free will:

703

Harold 04.06.15 at 4:00 pm

To say that colonialism happens is one thing. To say that it is inevitable is another. It is to make the philosophy of ‘might makes right’ into a system. Along side people’s natural tendencies to evil, there is also a strong natural hunger for justice and a desire to solve problems and admire good that is universally observable from earliest childhood, and this is what ought to be encouraged, not the destructiveness and greed that characterize imperialism and crime.

704

Ronan(rf) 04.06.15 at 6:10 pm

ZM 693 – tangentially, around where I grew up there was a headland of largely unworkable unihabitable land with (what became known colloquially as) ‘the forty steps’ which led from about halfway up the land, down to a water based cavern.
Afaict there were three main explanations for what purpose this cavern served; (1) the probably incorrrect, but most common (ie my own), opinion that it was used by pirates to smuggle goods and have their wicked way (2) the probably correct explanation, which I cant really remember at the minute, that it functioned as an inlet fot smaller boats to avoid larger ones and the (third) option put out by a local historian that it served some ritualistic death service in neolithic (?) times, where the locals would paint themselves blue and carry the body over the headland, then down the forty steps and do something (I cant remeber exactly) with the body. Relatedly the way the rock is cut is supposed to perform some sun based function that I also cant remember at the minute. I’ll try and find out and get back to this later
This isn’t meant to really add to any of your comment, it just occured to me.

705

Bruce Wilder 04.06.15 at 6:28 pm

Harold @ 703: To say that colonialism happens is one thing. To say that it is inevitable is another. It is to make the philosophy of ‘might makes right’ into a system. Along side people’s natural tendencies to evil, there is also a strong natural hunger for justice . . .

What happened, happened. In the observation and record of most human activity, I think mixed motives and mixed results ought to be acknowledged, if we are to be descriptively realistic. Some people think their moral judgments should dominate descriptive realism.

706

mattski 04.06.15 at 7:06 pm

Harold,

Along side people’s natural tendencies to evil, there is also a strong natural hunger for justice and a desire to solve problems and admire good that is universally observable from earliest childhood, and this is what ought to be encouraged

Strongly agree. But by using the ultra-generic word ‘evil’ instead of unpacking this natural human tendency I think our purpose is underserved. Better we frankly acknowledge the basic experiences of fear, hatred, greed, selfishness and ignorance that touch everyone’s lives.

707

Val 04.06.15 at 10:14 pm

Mattski @ 702
“Val, OTOH, couldn’t bring herself to cough up a simple, “whoops, I’m sorry, my mistake,” when it was brought to her attention that she hadn’t bothered to read accurately the comments she was responding to.”

In the first place, this a pretty offensive parallel. I didn’t at any stage make comments that were arguably supporting genocide. (Fwiw, on reflection I don’t think Crytandra fully thought about the implications of what he was saying, but it’s still clearly racist. I brought this comment to Henry’s attention, as I suggested I would, but I don’t support Crytandra being banned – that was my first reaction to the remark, but on later reflection, he could have been warned. However it’s not my blog, and it’s up to blog owners what they want to do)

Secondly, as you are still obviously feeling aggrieved, perhaps you can clarify what you specifically object to in what I said to you. Although this thread is already so long, I would like to resolve our differences, but a general ‘Val’s just as bad as Crytandra because although she didn’t make a comment apparently justifying genocide, she didn’t apologise properly to me for misreading something I said’ isn’t going to achieve resolution.

708

engels 04.06.15 at 10:28 pm

I think it would be hard to come up with a definition of an “egalitarian society” that could include societies where men were systematically privileged over women.

U agree, but this is weaker claim than the claim I flagged:

I think in a general sense you would be hard pressed to make the case that a society where men systematically have more power than women is egalitarian in any meaningful way.

To give one example, I think classical Athens wasn’t an egalitarian society tout court (because women and slaves were disenfranchised) but it was egalitarian in meaningful ways (democratic practices among male citizens were stronger than those in Britain today). Anyway, I wasn’t trying to argue this but just to clarify whether you were claiming it was true by definition or were challenging others to argue it (in which case you presumably couldn’t think this).

Fwiw I don’t regard a society where some members have significant power over others because of differences in their skills to be egalitarian.

709

Harold 04.06.15 at 10:44 pm

@706, Mattski — point taken! Wholeheartedly agree.

710

Harold 04.06.15 at 10:45 pm

Also agree with Bruce Wilder’s comment. But what happens in the past does not have to happen in the future.

711

Val 04.07.15 at 1:38 am

@708
“To give one example, I think classical Athens wasn’t an egalitarian society tout court (because women and slaves were disenfranchised) but it was egalitarian in meaningful ways (democratic practices among male citizens were stronger than those in Britain today). ”
It hangs on the word “meaningful”, doesn’t it? See, from my perspective it’s a bit sad that you think a society that excluded women from participation in public life, and depended on slaves, who were even more excluded, is egalitarian in any “meaningful” way.

(You could also ask people of African American descent about whether a society that had slaves could be called ‘egalitarian’ in a “meaningful'” sense too I should think, and get some interesting responses).

Again I think the blurring of ‘society’ and ‘ [free] men’ is a problem. The society itself just was not ‘egalitarian’ – it wasn’t ‘not egalitarian tout court, but a bit egalitarian’, it just wasn’t egalitarian. I don’t know how you’d say what you are trying to say – ‘Athens wasn’t an egalitarian society, but some of the democratic practices involving men had egalitarian elements, even though these were only available to free adult males and not to women and slaves’? It sounds really complicated and contradictory, but it is, because you’re saying that a society in which inequality permeated all aspects of life, nevertheless had some egalitarian elements, which is an essentially complex and contradictory thing to say. Doesn’t mean I necessarily disagree with that statement though.

712

engels 04.07.15 at 2:30 am

At the risk of being pedantic, I think there’s a difference, to my ears at least, betwern

X is Y in some meaningful ways (ie. in some respects)
[your original formulation]

X is Y in a meaningful sense
[formulation in your last comment]

I said Athens was egalitarian in some meaningful ways, not that it was egalitarian in a meaningful sense. Compare

Adolf Hitler’s conduct was exemplary in some meaningful ways (vegetarianism, kindness to animals)
AH’s conduct was exemplary, in a meanonful sense

713

ZM 04.07.15 at 2:43 am

I think that we can look at classical Athens and Nazi Germany with a critical view of their morality shows that moral evaluation applies also to the past.

Some people on this very thread are simultaneously holding that European imperialism must not be judged in terms of a moral worldview – but at the same time Stalinist Russia may and should be judged morally* – this is a great contradiction.

CT OPs and comments often judge past events morally eg. the holocaust, the Armenian genocide , and the same commenters do not jump in there saying we must not apply morality to past events – they seem only to have this stance in relation to European imperialism…

* and most unfairly lumping me in with Stalin despite me not ever doing anything remotely like Stalin :/ and furthermore they have not made a sincere apology for likening me to Stalin despite saying sincere apologies show character

714

Val 04.07.15 at 3:04 am

@ 712
but the point is we are talking about societies, not individuals, so you have to ask ‘is a society egalitarian if it structurally privileges some of its members on attributes [or affiliations etc in the example below]?’

The analogy would be: ‘Nazi Germany was not egalitarian tout court, because it excluded Jews, socialists, gypsies and homosexual people from participation (particularly by locking them up in concentration camps and deliberately killing many of them), but as a society it was meaningfully egalitarian in some ways because its treatment of people classified as being of the “Aryan race” was egalitarian in some ways’ – which you would never say in a million years, would you?

(Btw I’m not trying to equate Athens with Nazi Germany, it’s just because you introduced the discussion on Hitler).

715

Val 04.07.15 at 3:16 am

the point being that ‘society’ includes all the people in it, so for a society to be ‘meaningfully egalitarian’ in some way, it has to treat ALL the people in it in an egalitarian way in at least some aspects – eg not having marked distinctions of wealth being the simplest one, I guess, or not having some people owning homes while others can’t, for example.

Anyway I really must stop for a while. I find it useful (as well as interesting) to discuss these ideas, butit is also easy to use it as a way to procrastinate :) cheers

716

mattski 04.07.15 at 3:51 am

Val,

OK. Thank you for responding to me. At this point it’s mostly just our petty egos at work here and I think we’re better off letting it go. So I’ll try to respond without working myself into a lather… (that’s a joke btw.)

Why did I get such a hair up my ass over this? Because one of the first things you said to me was to question whether I’d actually read (ZM) the person I critiqued. You then promptly didn’t properly read my reply. That struck me as a teeny bit gob-smacking. And perhaps it is a weakness of mine, but I really like it when people own up to their mistakes. I don’t like it when people show a reluctance to acknowledge screwing up. So, that’s a pet peeve for me. (I’m still not-quite-over Rich P accusing me of approving torture and never apologizing for it… Yak.)

I try on this blog to listen to what’s happening behind the words people write. Because I want to make a connection with people at the emotional and spiritual level. And you know what? I think I did that with Crytandra here, and I think Crytandra apologized because we managed a deeper connection. But it’s really hard to make those kinds of connections when people are reluctant to own their weaknesses.

People often say outrageous things merely to get a rise out of a particular group of people they have some issues with, not because they are seriously callous, damaged people. I think that was clearly the case with Crytandra.

So, I hope you have a better sense of where I’m coming from now.

717

mattski 04.07.15 at 4:05 am

***Addendum to Val

[Acknowledging my weaknesses, and one of them is HASTE.]

You wrote,

but a general ‘Val’s just as bad as Crytandra because although she didn’t make a comment apparently justifying genocide, she didn’t apologise properly to me for misreading something I said’ isn’t going to achieve resolution.

I didn’t say you were ‘just as bad’ OR that your alleged misbehavior was ‘just as bad’ as what Crytandra did. And–more pet peeverie–mischaracterizing what people say is almost guaranteed to drive a debate in an undesirable direction. Do you disagree?

Rather, I was making a juxtaposition. You took your complaint to Henry. I didn’t think that was super-cool given Crytandra’s apology. I thought Henry should have some more information about the behavior of the principals in this contretemps and I provided it.

718

Val 04.07.15 at 5:33 am

mattski
I’ll have to be quick so apologies in advance if I stuff this up. Things you may or may not be interested in –

it’s funny but the thing I would criticise you for in a general sense for is that you take things out of context (read literally rather than reading subtexts) – whereas you seem to be saying about me that I analyse people’s comments but don’t try to understand the emotion behind them

I will take that point on board, because I think it’s true, and I can be confrontational and make people defensive, which doesn’t help conversations, even if I am right. I do try to tone this tendency down but looking through the thread I can see that I have done it on several occasions eg when I said people were hypocrites and so on. Stephen also got upset with me because he thought I was making light of the impact of IRA bombing at one point, which I wasn’t actually intending to do, but he obviously read my comment like that (although I also think that Stephen might enjoy a bit of manufactured outrage about lefties so …)

But if you are being sympathetic and agreeable to a guy (Crytandra) who is basically being an arsehole to me, that’s got ramifications, hasn’t it? I may not seem as screwed up as Crytandra, but I have my own problems, as no doubt we all do. And you know, he’s a guy being extremely rude to two women (me and ZM) and I guess there is a some expectation nowadays at least on the left that other guys might pull someone up on that

but apart from the personal stuff (which isn’t why I disagreed with you, I just think it’s worth noting), Cytrandra was obviously saying things that were well to the right of what you were saying (if you read what he was saying carefully as you suggest people should do) and yet you were there agreeing with him – so what’s that all about? If it is just, yes I agree that the left can do x (as probably most of us here do), but the person you are talking to is clearly saying the LEFT does x, then you need to qualify your response, don’t you? I linked you in on one comment where I was disagreeing with Crytandra specifically because you had just agreed with him

re reading in context – if you are going to say Crytandra may have said something that sounds like supporting genocide, but at least he apologised, while Val OTOH didn’t even apologise, it does sound as if you think I have said something comparably wrong with Cytandra

Also I don’t know if you’re denying this, or not, but you did actually criticise ZM while admitting you hadn’t read what she said. I do read what you say even if I don’t always remember it all.

And the final point, as I have said, I think your views probably are to the right of mine – which I’m not criticising you for (in fact I would be very interested to hear your views on equity sometime when we both have time) – but it’s natural that I might sometimes disagree with you, as I tried to explain earlier

And clearly ZM is still annoyed about being called a Stalinist – it was you who did that, wasn’t it? Novakant only said it as a joke – so maybe you should apologise to her

anyway this is probably not much of an apology at all, or possibly it’s an apology for the wrong things, but hopefully it’s a start towards resolving some differences

and finally as I’ve said, I think it would have been better if Henry had given Crytandra a chance, and I did point out to him (on his more recent thread) that Crytandra had made an apology for some of his comments. I’m not in favour of banning people on the whole (partly because I’ve had the experience of being banned), but I am in favour of blogs having standards, and it was Henry’s call.

719

mattski 04.07.15 at 2:40 pm

Thank you, Val.

Yes, I’d like to continue the conversation. I’m not sure how that gets done, but I appreciate your response.

:^)

720

Val 04.08.15 at 6:13 am

mattski – if you want to contact me you can do so through my blog (linked through my name) which also shows my Monash email.

I was also interested in something you said earlier about equity or fairness (below)

“More broadly, I see serious problems with the way ZM uses the word “fair.” As though this was an unambiguous, objective quality of the world. How do you see it, Val? I’ll tell you how I see it. Fairness is first and foremost an ESTHETIC and therefore subjective judgement. And secondly, there are in principle and in fact many different causes for inequality. For the most part, people are not going to dispute that SOME causes of inequality are FAIR and some causes of inequality are UNFAIR. But when considering real world situations it is often very difficult to tease out how much fairness or unfairness is involved, and even then, this is a subjective judgement.

Unfortunately, at it’s extreme end what leftism amounts to is the lazy telling the industrious that they are obliged to share! And, in that case, leftism has gone horribly wrong.”

I was interested in some of the things you’re saying here – equity and fairness are very significant concepts in my research and I know that the participants in my research project have trouble defining them or agreeing on what they mean, and even where they themselves feel they know, they suggest that they have to modify their language to communicate with people from different backgrounds or disciplines etc. At the beginning of my project, when I was trying to define my topic, I did a lot of reading on ‘fairness’, but that is quite a few years ago. Anyway I’m really interested in how people see this issue, so if you have time and see this, it would be great if you could explain a bit more about this. I have put a few questions below which I’m interested in, if you feel like saying more (here – although I guess this thread will close soon – or through my blog).

Why do you think fairness is an esthetic concept, and what do you mean by esthetic in that context? Can you give examples of the kinds of causes of inequality you find fair or unfair?

What makes you think that: “at it’s [the concept of fairness’s] extreme end what leftism amounts to is the lazy telling the industrious that they are obliged to share!”? Can you give examples of where the left is saying that? I don’t think that you simply mean that the extreme end of the ‘left’, as such, is lazy (although it could be read like that)? So I wonder what you are thinking about when you say that. Are you thinking of people you know personally who are lazy and would use left wing ideas to justify taking advantage of others’ hard work? Or are you thinking that the left is idealistic and doesn’t or won’t admit that there are people out there who will just take advantage of others? Or are you thinking in ideological or sociological terms – eg the theory that if you give people too much they will become lazy or dependant? Or maybe you mean something quite different?

I’m not trying to use you as a research subject or anything, but you raised the issue and I’m just interested in how you see it.

721

Stephen 04.08.15 at 3:12 pm

Val@718

Am back in contact with CT and oh dear, what do I find but you saying “Stephen might enjoy a bit of manufactured outrage about lefties “. And I thought we’d come to a mutually respectful conclusion …

To recap: I did indeed get upset with you because I thought you were making light of the impact of IRA bombing. That was, I think, a plausible reading of what you wrote, but you explained you hadn’t meant that at all, I accepted your word for it, and we agreed to let the matter drop.

But now you are suggesting that I was acting in bad faith, producing “manufactured outrage.” I don’t know why you think that. I have had more acquaintance with IRA bombing than I could have wished, and any outrage I express against those belittling their terror campaign is entirely genuine.

Also, I don’t share your apparent belief that political opinions can be arranged on a simple left-right axis, with me and Mattski to your right and you on the left. At some times, in some places, that was a useful first approximation: maybe in Australia it still is, I don’t know enough about your politics to judge. Now, I don’t find it useful here, or in many other places. Were PIRA and the UVF left or right-wing? Which is Tony Blair? Or ISIL? or the Kim dynasty?

722

mattski 04.08.15 at 3:49 pm

Val,

Thanks, I will be in touch via email.

Yeah, I agree with Stephen. Left-right is useful as an approximation but when we get into the details it’s a multi-dimensional space.

723

engels 04.08.15 at 3:54 pm

Left-right is useful as an approximation but when we get into the details it’s a multi-dimensional space

Oh rilly?

724

mattski 04.08.15 at 4:06 pm

Yes, really.

And thanks for citing to The Man.

725

engels 04.08.15 at 4:18 pm

From where I stand, Krugman’s obviously right. If you disagree, perhaps you can say what the dimensions are and where opinions cluster in terms of them?

726

ragweed 04.08.15 at 6:18 pm

OK, the Potlatch grant is in, the taxes almost done, the work deadline almost under control – and the thread still live! (Still don’t have a ton of time).

I think banning Crytandra was badly overdue. In light of Belle’s comments about moderation on the Sucky Hugos thread, I feel even more strongly that is true. The only reason we would find his apology remotely acceptable is because we are a bunch of intellectuals for whom this all only effects in the abstract. We are (presumably) not part of the indigenous cultures of either North America or Australia, so these are matters of justice, but not ultimately about us. But I know how the indigenous folks I work with would have responded. And the fact that Crytandra was, to his last post, replaying a trope that was basically “those savage Indians” makes it clear his apology was a half-assed “sorry-if-anyone-thought-my-racist-remarks-were-racist” thing.

As Belle said, if we want to convey that this is a place where people of color are welcome, we can’t tolerate racist trolls. That doesn’t mean that we can’t have a substantive conversation about indigenous cultures that acknowledges the complexity and potentially unsavory aspects of some indigenous cultures. Nor does it mean we can’t have the kind of conversation that Bob McManus is talking about in 673, regarding imperialism with different faces. But it does mean we should conduct ourselves as if someone from the referent group is actually in the room, and not tolerate the kind of crude racism that says a whole culture (people?) should be eliminated because of some unsavory aspects (which are almost always complex and historically bounded).

727

js. 04.08.15 at 6:26 pm

Were PIRA and the UVF left or right-wing? Which is Tony Blair? Or ISIL? or the Kim dynasty?

Nationalist-left; right-wing; asshole center-left moving steadily center-right; extreme motherfucking right-wing (wait, seriously, why is this even a question?); a lot of drift here but at this point, right-wing by most measures. Glad to have cleared that up for you.

728

Stephen 04.08.15 at 7:11 pm

js: some rational explanation for your definitive pronouncements would be welcome.

Especially, given the original topic, as to why the UVF were right-wing (apart from that you don’t like them, me neither).

TB as asshole, no argument. But why L or R?

729

js. 04.08.15 at 7:19 pm

Stephen,

You’re asking me why New Labour is well-described as center-left (with emphasis on center). Assuming good faith on your part, one would have to conclude that you know nothing about British Labour politcs of the last thirty years. Is this true?

730

engels 04.08.15 at 9:33 pm

Note that the original claim was that the space has one axis (left-right) whereas Stephen seems to be demanding a ‘rational explanation’ for the choice of scale or point of origin.

731

Val 04.08.15 at 10:19 pm

There’s of course some theories around double axes (not double headed axes! But 1+1 axis I mean) of social and economic positions. I always come out in the “left” corner. Haven’t got time to read the reference now but will look at it later.

Stephen I’m not trying to stir up old grievances and I took on board your point about my clumsy expression about the IRA bombings, for which I’m happy to apologise again. I’m sure your original feeling wasn’t ‘manufactured outrage’, but then you later used it in a context where you were trying to prove something else, didn’t you? I can’t exactly remember, but I think – I was clumsy, but you were also happy to use my clumsiness against me in a different context – probably sums it up. Anyway I hope we can let it go.

732

mattski 04.08.15 at 10:23 pm

engels,

Krugman is obviously right about what?

I count at least three potential political axis in the blog post you cite:

-traditional power structures v new power structures
-social insurance v no social insurance
-liberty v non-liberty (serfdom? a favorite libertarian boogie-man!)

So right there we’re looking at more of a potential 3D space. But Krugman was writing about Rand Paul’s libertarian ‘appeal’ and the de facto political space in the USA today. He certainly wasn’t making some abstract, universal claim about politics itself.

And even if we grant–which I don’t–that Left v Right is one dimensional, how do we place values on various specific issues? Because that would be necessary in order to place people who differ on specific issues on one continuous spectrum of left to right. Do you see that?

733

mattski 04.08.15 at 10:32 pm

***Further to engels

Krugman, in the cited post, likens liberalism to a ‘solvent’ which is strongly redolent of the ‘classical liberalism’ that comes under such heavy scorn on lefty sites like CT. Fair enough?

So, even the axis Krugman is talking about runs afoul of conceptions of what “Left” means to most lefties. So, that suggests 2D political space at a minimum:

-fluid hierarchy v traditional hierarchy
-group rights v individual rights

734

Donald johnson 04.08.15 at 11:01 pm

The two dimensions I’ve seen are left vs right ( economics and so forth, I think) and authoritarian vs libertarian. There is or was a website that mapped you on this 2d scale based on your answers to various questions. I came out very left and very libertarian.

I forgot what the site was called and don’t feel like googling for it.

735

engels 04.08.15 at 11:09 pm

I always thought the main putpose of those sites was to make libertarianismm seem more important than it is. Mattski, yoh’re right, he wasn’t making an ‘abstract, universal clam about politics itself’, just about current US politics (but ‘libertarianism’ is even less important in other countries).

736

Donald johnson 04.08.15 at 11:43 pm

Libertarianism was my word for it–I can’t recall the words they used. What would be the opposite of authoritarian?

Anyway, there are plenty of authoritarian types on the left, whether one is speaking of communists or self-described liberals. I’m thinking (in the latter case) of Obama supporters who defend Obama’s drone policy or take the position that Snowden is an awful person because he leaked classified info–one hears less of this now because Obama is currently being defended by almost everyone on the American left because of Iran and Netanyahu and so forth and the issues of government surveillance and assassination by drone are less on people’s minds for the moment.

737

novakant 04.09.15 at 12:08 am

This is the site:

http://politicalcompass.org/

My leanings are pretty similar to Donald’s and this does put me at odds with a lot of “liberals” and quite a few lefties as well. I could describe myself as “anti-authoritarian”, “individualistic” with moderate anarchistic tendencies (I’m an arts/media type, lol) – yet I have nothing whatsoever to do with “libertarians” in the sense used currently in the US.

738

js. 04.09.15 at 1:11 am

I just tried it out. (I have a bit of time today, if anyone’s wondering.) And I’m pretty certain whatever they mean by “libertarian” is not what “libertarian” means in American political discourse, esp. since the “Right” end of their x-axis is glossed as “Libertarianism” in one of the explanatory charts. Anyway, I ended up in the bottom left corner too, obviously. I don’t see how any leftie who’s not excessively statist would end up anywhere else.

739

Stephen 04.09.15 at 7:08 pm

js: no, I do know a fair bit about Labour politics in the last thirty years, and before that. But since you’ve started talking about being in good faith: I asked whether the L oR labels applied to Tony Blair, you’ve converted that into whether New Labour could be described as centre-left. Yes, of course it could in several ways, but that’s a different matter.

TB did not control everything about New Labour. One very important thing he failed to control was the UK’s entry into the predictably, and predicted, disaster of the Euro. Gordon Brown has not received enough credit for keeping the UK out of it. TB wanted us in. Now, whether advocating a scheme that left over half the people under 25 in the victim countries out of work is a left- or right-wing action, I don’t know for certain. I note that many opponents of EU integration, which the Euro was designed to promote, are denounced as swivel-eyed right-wing loons.

But the defining moment of TB’s career, in many people’sopinion, was his telling a series of breath-taking lies to bring the UK into an unnecessary Iraq war, from which he seems to have made a fortune from grateful Americans. Left or right wing orientation seems to me irrelevant here: I don’t think earlier PMs of any party, apart possibly from Lloyd George if he had the opportunity, would have acted like that.

740

engels 04.09.15 at 11:56 pm

Euro is a project of the technocratic centre: the far right and far left tend to be sceptical. Goinbg to war with America / Bush against Iraq was a right-wing, mperialist project, opposed by people genuinely on the Left.

Angway, I’m not disagreeing that poltics is more complicated than a single left-right spectrum, just that ‘multi-dimensional’ models like the Political Compass one are more apt.

Comments on this entry are closed.