Brit academics in american history rate their favourite US presidents

[Furunculus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12195111


In total, 47 British academics specialising in American history and politics took part. They were asked to rate the performance of every president from 1789 to 2009 (excluding William Henry Harrison and James Garfield, who both died shortly after taking office) in five categories:

* vision/agenda-setting
* domestic leadership
* foreign policy leadership
* moral authority
* positive historical significance of their legacy

Top and Bottom Presidents

* 1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-45)
* 2. Abraham Lincoln (1861-65)
* 3. George Washington (1789-97)
* 4. Thomas Jefferson (1801-09)
* 5. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09)

....................................................

* 36. Andrew Johnson (1865-69)
* 37. John Tyler (1841-45)
* 38. Warren Harding (1921-23)
* 39. Franklin Pierce (1853-57)
* 40. James Buchanan (1857-61)

Recent Presidents

* 8. Ronald Reagan (1981-89)
* 18. Jimmy Carter (1977-81)
* 19. Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
* 22. George H W Bush (1989-93)
* 23. Richard Nixon (1969-74)
* 24. Gerald Ford (1974-77)
* 31. George W Bush (2001-09)


don't know enough about US history to comment on relative positions of all presidents, but i appreciate the fact that Reagan is the highest rated recent President.

[Greyblades]

FDR? Why the heck woud he be at the top? He was trying to dismantle our empire at the time.

[gaelic cowboy]

Reagan was not a great president he was a functional president there was as much crookery and failure on his watch as any before.

One thing he was however a good man at was connecting with the public zeitgiest like any good actor should be, although it's debatable if he was a better actor than a politician.

Politicians tend to get remembered for one big thing generally and if there lucky they don't serve too long in the public sphere so the glory doesn't fade. Reagan therefore gets the benefit of the fall of the wall without the economic failure of Bush senior after even though he stored it up for Bush senior which helped Clinton into the Whitehouse.

FDR like any politician can have points against him but in the contest of the ages Reagan does not cut the mustard in my view like FDR

[Subotan]

Truman should have been higher than Wilson. He was like Wilson, in that he was progressive and an anti-isolationist, but without the racism.

Also, although FDR was probably one of the sneakiest Presidents, certainly politically, there's no doubt IMHO that his Presidency was the greatest. FDR also didn't force us to give up our Empire; we gave it up ourselves. We saw what happened to the French (Hello there Dien Bien Phu ) in Indochina and Algeria and decided that the sooner we left, the better.

[HoreTore]

I notice they weren't rated in the category "got things done"....

So, in other words, this list is a theoretical list of who could've been great, isn't it?

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't get the love affair with FDR. The man did more to damage the long term viability of this country than any other president.

[Strike For The South]

I would probably agree with 2-5.

I don't like FDR for a number of reasons (tyrant comes to mind) but that is another thread

[gaelic cowboy]

I would probably agree with 2-5.

I don't like FDR for a number of reasons (tyrant comes to mind) but that is another thread

I would say he was an extreme cynic TBH

Anyway the list is about there relevance and impact on the world so FDR wins hands down, he basically ushered in the begining of American domination of the world during his presidency which shaped our world long after he was dead.

[Greyblades]

Which is kinda why its odd that british students prefer him.

[Strike For The South]

I would say he was an extreme cynic TBH.

He was an arrogant demigouge who skirted democratic institutions to save us from teh NAZIs.

I would rather Lindbergh and Ford had there way than see Americas institutions perverted

[gaelic cowboy]

Which is kinda why its odd that british students prefer him.

Not really Britain was finished without the US so FDR saved ye

[Greyblades]

Uh, no. If the americans hadent shown up stalin would have crused hitler before he could get to britain.

[rory_20_uk]

Or we would have signed a truce with Hitler and not been utterly screwed.

~:smoking:

[Subotan]

I wouldn't say FDR was anti-democratic; that's taking it a bit far. But yes, he was very cynical and not at all bothered about reaching around to pat you on the back only to stab you.

But as a Presidency (I.e. ignoring character), it was definitely top-notch.

[Strike For The South]

Or we would have signed a truce with Hitler and not been utterly screwed.

~:smoking:

That's Edward VIII talk!

Sign a peace treaty with those huns and sully the reputation of good Englishmen?

Harumph sir, harumph I say


I wouldn't say FDR was anti-democratic; that's taking it a bit far. But yes, he was very cynical and not at all bothered about reaching around to pat you on the back only to stab you.

Coming from a man who doens't have a constitution :rollseyes:

[gaelic cowboy]

Uh, no. If the americans hadent shown up stalin would have crused hitler before he could get to britain.

I see and how many troops would have been stationed in the West if there was no US involvement how many convoys sent supplies to Russia??

[rory_20_uk]

That's Edward VIII talk!

Sign a peace treaty with those huns and sully the reputation of good Englishmen?

Harumph sir, harumph I say



Coming from a man who doens't have a constitution :rollseyes:

Yes, history is written by the victors. No one wants to think about how much was given so a different dictator could own half of Europe.

How does the presence or absence of a piece of paper / parchment impact on an individuals behaviour?

~:smoking:

[ajaxfetish]

Which is kinda why its odd that british students prefer him.

Note that neither personal preference nor benefit to Britain were among the criteria for evaluation.

Ajax

[Greyblades]

True, but no evaluation made by humans is completely void of bias due to personal preferance.

[jabarto]

I don't get the love affair with FDR. The man did more to damage the long term viability of this country than any other president.

Can you substantiate this with, I don't know, anything at all?

[HoreTore]

Can you substantiate this with, I don't know, anything at all?

He's one of those who dorsn't think Keynesian economics work, and instead want Friedmans ideas implemented(not that he had come up with his ideas at FDR's time but whatever).

[a completely inoffensive name]

He was an arrogant demigouge who skirted democratic institutions to save us from teh NAZIs.

I would rather Lindbergh and Ford had there way than see Americas institutions perverted

I know you probably know this Strike, but

Lindbergh: "The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt Administration.Instead of agitating for war, Jews in this country should be opposing it in every way, for they will be the first to feel its consequences. Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government."

and

Ford: “If fans wish to know the trouble with American baseball they have it in three words—too much Jew.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm

Were not the best buys to have their way considering their affiliations.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Uh, no. If the americans hadent shown up stalin would have crused hitler before he could get to britain.
Uh, no. You are missing the bit about American aid to the USSR (yes the USA basically supplied the red army, well before the Hitler declared war on the USA) and of the unofficial support for the UK against Germany. Where exactly do you think you got your ships from during the War, your original fleet getting torpedoed out of existence at an alarming pace? The USA built them faster, cheaper using welding instead of rivetting and Churchill and Roosevelt were quite keen on getting the Americans involved in the war so Churchill bought them at a discount.

And in fact, where did you get your loans to buy your supplies at a discount from their businesses? Well, that'd be the USA too. If Roosevelt had liked Hitler and approved of his geopolitical ambitions that war would easily have ended differently. Of course Hitler didn't do the smart thing by partnering with Japan when he ought to have realised that there was a big 4-way movement going on to contain Japan. Not smart for his chances of keeping the USA on friendly terms, but Hitler wasn't much of a person for conceding that he couldn't have everything.


Or we would have signed a truce with Hitler and not been utterly screwed.

~:smoking: At that point it would have been politically unpalatable. It'd be a tough sell: Coventry in exchange for a paper in which Germany says, now do you see you should have kept your trap shut in '39. Plus, Churchill wasn't a man either to give up his ambitions.

[Greyblades]

Uh, no. You are missing the bit about American aid to the USSR (yes the USA basically supplied the red army, well before the Hitler declared war on the USA) and of the unofficial support for the UK against Germany. Where exactly do you think you got your ships from during the War, your original fleet getting torpedoed out of existence at an alarming pace? The USA built them faster, cheaper using welding instead of rivetting and Churchill and Roosevelt were quite keen on getting the Americans involved in the war so Churchill bought them at a discount.

And in fact, where did you get your loans to buy your supplies at a discount from their businesses? Well, that'd be the USA too. If Roosevelt had liked Hitler and approved of his geopolitical ambitions that war would easily have ended differently. Of course Hitler didn't do the smart thing by partnering with Japan when he ought to have realised that there was a big 4-way movement going on to contain Japan. Not smart for his chances of keeping the USA on friendly terms, but Hitler wasn't much of a person for conceding that he couldn't have everything.

At that point it would have been politically unpalatable. It'd be a tough sell: Coventry in exchange for a paper in which Germany says, now do you see you should have kept your trap shut in '39. Plus, Churchill wasn't a man either to give up his ambitions.

You know I've had my fill of pointless arguments for today. If anyone wants to dispute this, please, dont let me stop you.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I was under the impression that American supply shipments to the USSR helped them stave off the Germans at the critical battles of 1942 but by 1944, the Red Army was able and were steamrolling over the German defenses into the heartland with or without US supply shipments.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yeah, but Stalin wouldn't be there in 44 if he didn't survive 42, would he? Rather more pertinent to the thread: the UK was in no shape or form to crush Germany in 1940 and the USSR was in much worse shape in 1941/42 (the red army was under-supplied to such an extent that soldiers had to share guns, and ammunition was heavily rationed).

To a very large extent, what made the difference between the USSR being a powerhouse in 1944 and being defeated in 1942 was that it was unofficially backed by supplies from the USA. So it is much, much too simple to imply that if the USA hadn't done anything eventually Stalin would've sorted it out.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

RANKING PRESIDENTS - Utter Nonsense Or Useful Analysis?

By JOHN DEAN
Friday, May. 11, 2001
Americans love ranking everything, it seems part of our genome. Competition is the America way. We have top ten everything. You name it, we rank it. But for the most part our endless classifying, grouping, and arranging is nothing but high-grade hokum, mixed with a lot of bunkum.

When recently looking at a number of rankings of our presidents, I found myself asking whether this was utter nonsense or useful analysis. A closer look at polls and studies on the topics yielded some interesting insights.


Leading Presidential Ranking Polls

Polling knowledgeable scholars to rank past presidents began in 1948, when historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. solicited the views of 55 historians for Life magazine. Dr. Schlesinger repeated this drill in 1962 for the New York Times Magazine. And his son, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., followed in his father's footsteps in 1996, for the New York Times Magazine.

each President (omitting W. H. Harrison and Garfield because they died so soon after taking office) in one of five categories: Great, Near Great, Average, Below Average and Failure."
Employing a Justice Potter Stewart type standard (you know pornography when you see it), each of the fifty-five selected scholars decided for themselves how to judge greatness.

The first Schlesinger poll (1948) produced six greats: Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Wilson, Jefferson and Jackson. There were two failures: Grant and Harding.

The last Schlesinger poll (1996) found only three greats: Lincoln, Washington and FDR. There were five more failures, though, for a total of seven: Pierce, Grant, Hoover, Nixon, Andrew Johnson, Buchanan and Harding.

Other Presidential Ranking Polls

Given the media attention generated by the early Schlesinger polls, others soon followed. In 1970, there was a poll of 571 historians. Based on accomplishments of the administration, the top and bottom rankings were vitally identical with the first and last Schlesinger polls.

In 1979, Robert E. DiClerico polled 93 historians to find the ten greatest presidents. He reported them in his The American President: Lincoln (greatest) Washington, FDR, Jefferson, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, Jackson, Truman, Polk and J. Adams.

The flip side of DiClerico's ten greatest was offered by Nathan Miller in his 1998 work Star-Spangled Men: American's Ten Worst Presidents: Nixon, Harding, Buchanan, Pierce, A. Johnson, Grant, Coolidge, B. Harrison, Taft and Carter.

The most recent ranking I've found was undertaken by the ubiquitous Federalist Society, joining forces with the Wall Street Journal in November 2000. This study involved 78 presidential scholars - 30 historians, 25 political scientists and 23 law professors. The scholars were selected in such a way as to assure that the jury was politically balanced.

Remarkably, the findings of this study are almost identical to those of the 1996 Schlesinger poll (which was perceived to be a jury of the left). Greats: Washington outranked Lincoln, with FDR holding the third slot. Failures: A. Johnson, Pierce, Harding and Buchanan. No other ranking (so far) has put Buchanan at the bottom.

Ranking presidential greatness is a parlor game for presidential scholars. Who else can distinguish the relative greatness of any outside their memory?

Look, for example, at Time magazine's longtime presidential pundit Hugh Sidey, who narrated the ten hour PBS series on all 41 former presidents. "Who the heck knew about Tyler or Fillmore or Hayes," he admitted.

Not only is ranking the presidents a game, it is one without any real rules. Each scholar uses his own criteria to rank. While a few ranking efforts have sought to establish criteria, the measurements have nevertheless remained vague and totally subjective. Moreover, the fact that few — if any — scholars have true expertise outside a few presidencies means that even scholars individual assessments may be suspect.

In short, viewed objectively, these rankings tell us almost nothing.

Can We Learn Anything Worth Knowing From Ranking Presidents?

These rankings do make one interesting point, however. One man has been consistently found to be "great" for each century in our nation's history: George Washington for the 18th, Abraham Lincoln for the 19th, and Franklin Roosevelt for the 20th.

The constancy of this judgment over almost a half century is very striking, given the diversity of criteria, and the uniqueness of each judging panel. It unquestionably shows that these three figures have established our norms for presidential greatness: They set the standard to which the wise and honest can repair.

The other end of the spectrum is less definite, and far more subjective and variable. Those ranked as failures are constantly changing their positions, both up and down.

For example, in the 1948 Schlesinger poll, Andrew Johnson was ranked 19th, but he fell to 22nd in the 1962 Schlesinger poll, to 37th in the 1996 Schlesinger poll, and to 36th in the 2000 Federalist Society-Wall Street Journal ranking poll. One can almost hear him protesting: "What did I do?"

While Andrew Johnson has been heading downwards, Ulysses Grant has been steadily rising. He moved from being tied with Harding as one of two failures in 1948 to being rated as simply below average in 2000. Given the new interest in him, he may go higher in the next poll.

Warren G. Harding Is Not A Role Model for a Failed Presidency

Meanwhile, everyone's long-time worst president, Warren G. Harding is anything but a role model for failure.

Indeed, at the time of his death in office, he was widely respected and greatly loved. He was a president who actually cut taxes while helping the nation accomplish the transition from a wartime (WWI) economy. And he created new agencies of government that remain with us to this day: Veterans Affairs and the Bureau of the Budget.

Harding, a highly articulate president, spoke out against the plight of blacks and against racism when it was highly unpopular to do so. He hired for his cabinet men who were among the best and brightest, such as Herbert Hoover, his Secretary of Commerce, and Charles Evans Hughes, his Secretary of State.

The criminal scandals that engulfed Harding's presidency — after his death — were not of his making nor was he complicit in them. His alleged extramarital activities surfaced after his death, too. That meant, of course, that he thus had no opportunity to explain or apologize, to take or deny responsibility. Moreover, if infidelity determines the rank of a president, many who followed should have their ranking adjusted.

The polls' unfortunate tendency to confine Harding to history's dustbin has long made me highly suspicious of this parlor game's significance. A presidency well worth studying is ignored and disparaged.

Good Entertainment Value

I would be the first to admit that these presidential rankings are great fun, and good entertainment. That is about it, however.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. has spent a life-time studying the presidency. Few, if any, know more. When he agreed to another round in the "game of ranking" it seemed to me he did so with reluctance. He noted that "making judgments about some of the Presidents since Eisenhower stumped" him. And if he had difficulty, who would not? Only he is candid enough to admit it.

Still, the game of ranking is, it must be said, a good game. But remember the words of H. Allen Smith: "The human animal differs from the lesser primates in his passion for lists of Ten Best" -- including the ranking of presidents.

Don't know who this writer is but I generally agree.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Don't know who this writer is but I generally agree.

Says by John Dean in your quote. Wiki search ends up with a White House counsel who was involved in Watergate, turned for the prosecution and has spent his time after it lecturing and writing articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dean

[lars573]

Also, although FDR was probably one of the sneakiest Presidents, certainly politically, there's no doubt IMHO that his Presidency was the greatest. FDR also didn't force us to give up our Empire; we gave it up ourselves. We saw what happened to the French (Hello there Dien Bien Phu ) in Indochina and Algeria and decided that the sooner we left, the better.
Actually FDR did force Britain to give up the Empire, France too. Britain and the Free French both had to sign a treaty of intent to grant independence to their colonial empires when the war was over. I believe lend/lease was the carrot.

[Brenus]

I see and how many troops would have been stationed in the West if there was no US involvement how many convoys sent supplies to Russia??

In 1941? Do you think that the German wre expecting a landing from the US in 1941?
So answer to your questions:
First Point: Not one less.
Second point: In 1941. 0.

Note: How many tanks the US delivered in 1941 to USSR? And as the US tanks were inferior to the Russian ones, it wouldn't have made a difference any way.

[Subotan]

Actually FDR did force Britain to give up the Empire, France too. Britain and the Free French both had to sign a treaty of intent to grant independence to their colonial empires when the war was over. I believe lend/lease was the carrot.
Practically it would have been impossible to hold onto them. FDR might liked to have claimed credit for dismantling the Empires but I think is influence was pretty minimal.

[Greyblades]

Practically it would have been impossible to hold onto them. FDR might liked to have claimed credit for dismantling the Empires but I think is influence was pretty minimal.

I'd like to think we could have held onto india if we had handled the indian protests better on the onset and avoided the massacres.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'd like to think we could have held onto india if we had handled the indian protests better on the onset and avoided the massacres.

Shouldn't have taxed that salt.

[Greyblades]

Eh thats abit debateable I just think that seeing as it they were peaceful demonstration we should have sent negociators, not soldiers.

[rory_20_uk]

I'd like to think we could have held onto india if we had handled the indian protests better on the onset and avoided the massacres.

Troops were deployed in the UK against demonstrators, so why should Indians be treated differently? Different times, different methods.

The Empire was going to break up but without WW2 it could have been done in a more controlled manner - as was the case with Canada, NZ, and Australia. Untangling Africa would have been a headache, but giving independence to areas as they were ready and relatively cohesive (and of course with good feelings towards the Alma Mater) might have stopped the non-stop wars which often arise when religions and ethnic groups bisect borders.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Daniel Hannan's opinion on which were the greatest US presidents:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100072306/frankin-roosevelt-pah-here-are-ten-far-greater-us-presidents/

[a completely inoffensive name]

Daniel Hannan's opinion on which were the greatest US presidents:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100072306/frankin-roosevelt-pah-here-are-ten-far-greater-us-presidents/

How is that guy even British? He talks about Ronald Reagan being a patriot and reminisces on all of His glory fondly as if he was in America during his presidency.

[Subotan]

I'd like to think we could have held onto india if we had handled the indian protests better on the onset and avoided the massacres.
So when did it become inevitable? Personally, I think it became inevitable by the time of the Bengal Famine, when we basically screwed India over through our own sheer stupidity.


Shouldn't have taxed that salt.
Maybe onions instead.


Daniel Hannan's opinion on which were the greatest US presidents:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100072306/frankin-roosevelt-pah-here-are-ten-far-greater-us-presidents/
That's a pretty bizzare list. Ronald Reagan ahead of Abraham Lincoln? Calvin Coolidge ahead of George Washington? Grover Cleveland ahead of FDR? Was he drunk when he wrote this?

[Greyblades]

Maybe he supported thatcher's partnership with regan?

[Furunculus]

probably he did, as do i.

[gaelic cowboy]

I'd like to think we could have held onto india if we had handled the indian protests better on the onset and avoided the massacres.

Unlikely once a critical mass was achieved in the Indian home rule movement.


Eh thats abit debateable I just think that seeing as it they were peaceful demonstration we should have sent negociators, not soldiers.

The negotiators on the British side would have rejected Indian home rule thus leading to an increase in tension, this would have lead to soldiers being deployed and still end in the Union Jack being lowered in Delhi.

[Greyblades]

The negotiators on the British side would have rejected Indian home rule thus leading to an increase in tension, this would have lead to soldiers being deployed and still end in the Union Jack being lowered in Delhi.

True, but with negociators there was a chance, slim though it might have been at this point, of compromise. Maybe we could have persuaded india to become a vassal of the realm or some other self governing satelite instead of full seperation, alas we shall never know, with the use of the millitary and lethal force all good will was gone and all that was left was seperating into portions according to religion before handing india back to the natives

I find it kinda funny that there was alot of parrelels with the american revolution what with both being sparked off over a tax, you'd think we would have learned our lesson last time.

[Strike For The South]

True, but with negociators there was a chance, slim though it might have been at this point, of compromise. Maybe we could have persuaded india to become a vassal of the realm or some other self governing satelite instead of full seperation, alas we shall never know, with the use of the millitary and lethal force all good will was gone and all that was left was seperating into portions according to religion before handing india back to the natives

I find it kinda funny that there was alot of parrelels with the american revolution what with both being sparked off over a tax, you'd think we would have learned our lesson last time.

This train of thought is abhorent

Much like the thread in the monastery I am utterly shocked and amazed at the quite cavalier attitude many Europeans express when about talking human rights and self determantion.

An empire is a black stain on any nation, Power derived from the back of assorted brown people should not be a source of pride

Granted, don't get all white guilt on me but don't sit here and tell me any part of the empire was helped by the UK, and the white dominoins don't get because of that whole genocide of the natives thing

[Subotan]

The British Empire is something awkward that we like to reminisce about, but not actually talk too much about because we did kill tens of thousands directly and millions indirectly, all whilst impoverishing India for our own gain. Whether the Empire itself was morally abhorrent and whether the legacy of the Empire is abhorrent though are two different things. I personally am inclined to think that the former is probably malevolent, but the second is less so. Would we rather live in a world where India was divided up into lots of tiny little autocratic kingdoms, rather than a unified, democratic republic? Where Imperial Germany had conquered huge swathes of Africa?* Where Western North America had been left to the Russians? I wouldn't, and the Empire's legacy is certainly one which, if not entirely benign, is at least better than the Mongol, Russian, Japanese Empire, and even the French Empires etc.

*This is arguable, since the Germans were renowned for being exceptionally good colonial administrators, apart from the Herero genocide.

[rory_20_uk]

This train of thought is abhorent

Much like the thread in the monastery I am utterly shocked and amazed at the quite cavalier attitude many Europeans express when about talking human rights and self determantion.

An empire is a black stain on any nation, Power derived from the back of assorted brown people should not be a source of pride

Granted, don't get all white guilt on me but don't sit here and tell me any part of the empire was helped by the UK, and the white dominoins don't get because of that whole genocide of the natives thing

Then why has America persued its own empire so rigorously? Annexing parts of other countries which ist has subsumed and mainly complaining about others empires as it was late on the game. It still holds strategic bases in several places with scant regard to what the locals think.

Genocide of the locals? Well, we bow to your unparalleled expertise on that one.

It has propped up dictators, experimented on inmates, enslaved its own people and then appears to have suffered some retrograde amnesia about matters before the 1970's and now preaches to everyone else.

I am amazed how Empire seems to be these Nasty Europeans coming over and destroying these utopias and empoverishing the locals In 1850 the average life expectancy in Liverpool was 28 - it was pretty bad over here too; being posted to the Carribean was a death sentence to most of the troops.

India was annexed from a group of autocratic dictators and combined under one autocratic dictator. Better or worse? I think hard to say, especially as many of the previous leaders were already part of the Paris set. One lost his country after pouring gasoline over his horse after loosing a polo match (we might be cavalier about human lives, but we don't with animals).

~:smoking:

[gaelic cowboy]

Empire is a morally repugnant idea, there is just so much wrong with it psychologically, intellectually blah blah that it would take all day and we still only scratch the surface.

When we hold up many individual achievements of good things from empire we usually forget the fact much of the reform came because Empires like easy administration to maximise wealth for the imperial elite. Land reform in Ireland in the 19th century was a good thing lifting many Irish people out of the kind of poverty one sees in Africa today, but half the problem was down to previous maladministration and downright theft.

The individuals involved in land reform are deserving of honorable mentions in history but only just, we dont usually go around praising former dictators for stepping down do we.

[rory_20_uk]

'Twas always thus. Not just Empires. Some of the greatest social upheavals in the UK were when laws were passed to alter field boundaries, removing common land. A lot of people lost out, and yes I am sure that the well connected did the best. But there was a massive increase in the productivity in the land afterwards. Who knows how many lives that saved?

If you're being generous the phrase is enlightened self interest - helping others to help yourself.

We gave Jerry Adams the Peace Prize...

~:smoking:

[gaelic cowboy]

We gave Jerry Adams the Peace Prize...

~:smoking:

Really I thought it was those commie Norwegianites :beam:

[rory_20_uk]

Apologies. He was given the peace prize.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

Granted, don't get all white guilt on me but don't sit here and tell me any part of the empire was helped by the UK
Well I'm going to do it anyway.
WARNING highly inaccurate predictions ahead!
Ahem, the USA wouldnt exist, nada, nothing, it would be a cluster or ex spanish, french, dutch, portugese and russian colonies, not the unified superpower it is today. Have fun trying to act as the world police when you are divided yourselves.
India, Fun though it may be to claim that india would have been fine if not interfiered and there is truth in it. But it sure as heck wouldnt be the up and coming econimic powerhouse it is today if the british hadn't been around to make them a unified country before letting them go in one piece.
Australia & New Zealand: Wouldn't even exist as countries in thier own right.
Europe: funny thing, without britain having an empire the second world war would have ended with the germans rolling over france and annexing it long before the russians, or even the now none existant USA, got involved. Europe would become nazi land.
Take a guess how I feel when I just sit here and have all the good stuff my country did utterly dismissed due to the things that we did getting to where we are now which, by the way, everyone else was doing at the time, even you.

Right, rant over. I need some tea.

[Subotan]

If we hadn't done it somebody else would have. Most likely the French. :shrug:

[Greyblades]

Most likely, in which case it would be the french empire in the "exploited the natives" spotlight.

[Strike For The South]

Then why has America persued its own empire so rigorously? Annexing parts of other countries which ist has subsumed and mainly complaining about others empires as it was late on the game. It still holds strategic bases in several places with scant regard to what the locals think.

I never said I agreed with what my countries is/was doing


Genocide of the locals? Well, we bow to your unparalleled expertise on that one.

Thank you


It has propped up dictators, experimented on inmates, enslaved its own people and then appears to have suffered some retrograde amnesia about matters before the 1970's and now preaches to everyone else.

I am amazed how Empire seems to be these Nasty Europeans coming over and destroying these utopias and empoverishing the locals In 1850 the average life expectancy in Liverpool was 28 - it was pretty bad over here too; being posted to the Carribean was a death sentence to most of the troops.

India was annexed from a group of autocratic dictators and combined under one autocratic dictator. Better or worse? I think hard to say, especially as many of the previous leaders were already part of the Paris set. One lost his country after pouring gasoline over his horse after loosing a polo match (we might be cavalier about human lives, but we don't with animals).

~:smoking:

I'm well aware that it was not all rainbows and puppies before the English but to subjugate a man in a suit is still worse than a free man in rags


Well I'm going to do it anyway.
WARNING highly inaccurate predictions ahead!
Ahem, the USA wouldnt exist, nada, nothing, it would be a cluster or ex spanish, french, dutch, portugese and russian colonies, not the unified superpower it is today. Have fun trying to act as the world police when you are divided yourselves.
India, Fun though it may be to claim that india would have been fine if not interfiered and there is truth in it. But it sure as heck wouldnt be the up and coming econimic powerhouse it is today if the british hadn't been around to make them a unified country before letting them go in one piece.
Australia & New Zealand: Wouldn't even exist as countries in thier own right.
Europe: funny thing, without britain having an empire the second world war would have ended with the germans rolling over france and annexing it long before the russians, or even the now none existant USA, got involved. Europe would become nazi land.
Take a guess how I feel when I just sit here and have all the good stuff my country did utterly dismissed due to the things that we did getting to where we are now which, by the way, everyone else was doing at the time, even you.

Right, rant over. I need some tea.

You miss the point

[gaelic cowboy]

Ahem, the USA wouldnt exist, nada, nothing, it would be a cluster or ex spanish, french, dutch, portugese and russian colonies, not the unified superpower it is today. Have fun trying to act as the world police when you are divided yourselves.

Strike never said the USA had a freepass in that regard.


India, Fun though it may be to claim that india would have been fine if not interfiered and there is truth in it. But it sure as heck wouldnt be the up and coming econimic powerhouse it is today if the british hadn't been around to make them a unified country before letting them go in one piece.
Australia & New Zealand: Wouldn't even exist as countries in thier own right.

Says who? how can we argue the relative merits of what sort of society aboriginal people in OZ would have today it's impossible to know what sort of society would develop.


Europe: funny thing, without britain having an empire the second world war would have ended with the germans rolling over france and annexing it long before the russians, or even the now none existant USA, got involved. Europe would become nazi land.

Lol how does that absolve Britain of imperial ambition cos she stopped someone else taking her empire.


Take a guess how I feel when I just sit here and have all the good stuff my country did utterly dismissed due to the things that we did getting to where we are now which, by the way, everyone else was doing at the time, even you.

Thats cos your the only person on this thread defending Empire and getting offended by us dissing imperial pretension.

[Furunculus]

India, Fun though it may be to claim that india would have been fine if not interfiered and there is truth in it. But it sure as heck wouldnt be the up and coming econimic powerhouse it is today if the british hadn't been around to make them a unified country before letting them go in one piece.


nor too would India have been the recipient of 60,000km of railways in a timespan of just over 50 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_India

[Greyblades]

You miss the point
Actually I don't think I have, from what you posted it seems as though you consider empires evil so much as to even consider them having any benefit is outrageous and unthinkable. How did you put it? "a black stain on any nation". Well there you have a list of things you wouldn't have had if not for empires. Whether or not they are good things depends on the person but personally I do.

[Strike For The South]

Actually I don't think I have, from what you posted it seems as though you consider empires evil so much as to even consider them having any benefit is outrageous and unthinkable. How did you put it? "a black stain on any nation". Well there you have a list of things you wouldn't have had if not for empires. Whether or not they are good things depends on the person but personally I do.

Simply because these nations now adhere to an arbitrary western metric of affluence and sophistication does not mean stripping them of their rights and subjugating them is a good thing.

[Greyblades]

I agree Subjugation was not a plus of any empire, but I still think that for all the faults there was some good to come out of it, America for one thing, I just dont like how the bad allways seems to overpower the good. Especially over here when our schools teach us about the roman empire and how it was a bastion of civilization, but dont inform us about our own history and empire even though the romans were arguably worse to the people subjugated. Its abit depressing realy that we are ashamed of the time when we were at the top of the world.

Edit well that was a pretty bad way to make my 3000th post.

[gaelic cowboy]

We shall know them by there works as they say just a few quotes of empire from 19th century when all that good stuff you seem to think happened.


"The judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated. …The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people" Sir Charles Trevelyan, 1st Baronet


The Herero nation must now leave the country. If it refuses, I shall compel it to do so with the 'long tube' (cannon). Any Herero found inside the German frontier, with or without a gun or cattle, will be executed. I shall spare neither women nor children. I shall give the order to drive them away and fire on them. Such are my words to the Herero people Adrian Dietrich Lothar von Trotha


"Beat Poles until they lose faith in a sense of living. Personally, I pity the situation they're in. However, if we want to survive - we've got only one option - to exterminate them. Otto Von Bismark


To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity.Cecil Rhodes

By the way the Furunculus the trains were built to enable the admistration and dominance of India not to economically lift India out of poverty.

Greyblades we may marvel at medieval Cathedrals and such but we dont want medieval style religons back now do we.

[Greyblades]

Greyblades we may marvel at medieval Cathedrals and such but we dont want medieval style religons back now do we.
We already do, its called the catholic chruch. Only difference is that noone takes it seriously when it comes to politics.


To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity.Cecil Rhodes
I dont see how this is supposed to show how bad attitudes were, a world where noone wants to fight in case of attracting the attention of a superpower sounds pretty peaceful.

[gaelic cowboy]

I dont see how this is supposed to show how bad attitudes were, a world where noone wants to fight in case of attracting the attention of a superpower sounds pretty peaceful.

It plainly says we must take over the whole world to blah blah yes how wonderful to live in a world like that.

[Furunculus]

By the way the Furunculus the trains were built to enable the admistration and dominance of India not to economically lift India out of poverty.



sure, call it a fringe benefit.

[Greyblades]

It plainly says we must take over the whole world to blah blah yes how wonderful to live in a world like that.

A world under one banner where war doesn't plague mankind and resources are easy to distribute to places in the world that needs them? It seems less that that idea is bad but that you object to who does it.

[gaelic cowboy]

sure, call it a fringe benefit.

Lets think of it another way I for one can separate my appreciation of a massive technical achievement without having to somehow pretend I have to weigh pros and cons of said Indian railroads.

No amount of infrastructure can hide the awfulness of imperial ambition and none of us not one of us owe any cultural or historical debt to these dead men cos we enjoy certain benefits today.

As I said about land reform earlier I can see the things that were good like women getting the vote but don't expect me to somehow think this washes away the fact that the right to have a vote had to come from London and not Dublin. Why should we be grateful for something that should have been required by simple human dignity.


A world under one banner where war doesn't plague mankind and resources are easy to distribute to places in the world that needs them? It seems less that that idea is bad but that you object to who does it.

Unbelievable

[Greyblades]

Because at the time it wasnt required by simple human dignity.

[gaelic cowboy]

Because at the time it wasnt required by simple human dignity.

Does that mean any empire that eventually gave people the vote is somehow good, no it does not obviously,

It does not absolve any fella who went around planting flags in places and later gave people the vote.

[Greyblades]

Does that mean any empire that eventually gave people the vote is somehow good, no it does not obviously,
No ofcourse not but it does give afew points.

It does not absolve any fella who went around planting flags in places and later gave people the vote.
Absolve him of planting flags? Doesnt sound like a particularly heinious crime.

[Sarmatian]

Absolve him of planting flags? Doesnt sound like a particularly heinious crime.

You obviously don't know how important flags are when creating empire


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8

[rory_20_uk]

Lets think of it another way I for one can separate my appreciation of a massive technical achievement without having to somehow pretend I have to weigh pros and cons of said Indian railroads.

No amount of infrastructure can hide the awfulness of imperial ambition and none of us not one of us owe any cultural or historical debt to these dead men cos we enjoy certain benefits today.

As I said about land reform earlier I can see the things that were good like women getting the vote but don't expect me to somehow think this washes away the fact that the right to have a vote had to come from London and not Dublin. Why should we be grateful for something that should have been required by simple human dignity.

Aaaah. Just the ubiquitous Irish chip on the shoulder eh? Everything else pales into nothing compared to taking orders from... London - the horror!

~:smoking:

[gaelic cowboy]

Aaaah. Just the ubiquitous Irish chip on the shoulder eh? Everything else pales into nothing compared to taking orders from... London - the horror!

~:smoking:

I was and have been talking more from a generic viewpoint in this thread and you know that Rory, that was a cheap shot.

I have not engaged in blah blah this and that people killed etc etc I have stated how I understand what benefits we have today that came from imperial administration, but I have tried to show this is not a good enough tick in the plus column for imperial ambition.

However you just decided to basically Godwin several pages of discussion.

[Greyblades]

Um wasn't Ireland conquered before the British empire was fully established? From what I read ireland was more of one kingdom (the kingdom of England) annexing another(kingdom of Ireland) than British Imperialist conquest.

[gaelic cowboy]

Um wasn't Ireland conquered before the British empire was fully established? From what I read ireland was more of one kingdom (the kingdom of England) annexing another(kingdom of Ireland) than British Imperialist conquest.

The process started in the year 1169 and pretty much continued for a few hundred years after that. English control would have waxed and waned over the years until a real process of control was started by Cromwell and finally put beyond doubt by William of Orange. At that time Ireland would have been a kingdom legally speaking (as declared by england there was no such concept in Ireland) and would have it's own parliment as understood by medieval and up to 18th century monarchies. (this parliment was the same as the english parliment of the time and should not be confused with ideas of democracy)

later with the ideals of revolution sweeping France, USA we had Ireland attempting a simillar style move against english control which was fairly non sectarian due to heavy anglo irish involvement at the top of the movement. The defeat of that movement in 1798 led to act of union and dissolution of the old irish parliment and you pretty much know the rest.


edit: It is incorrect to apply the English idea of "Kingdom" to the Ireland of the time, without going into loads of history the Irish had a different concept of Kingship which would have seemed very strange to the English. Of course the reverse is also true the idea of following someone due to being the first born son of the last king would have been laughable to the Irish of the day. This difference in the idea of kingship and different concepts of nation was at the heart of early conflict between the two islands.

later conflict was born from religious differences and is of a pretty much different colour really.

[Fisherking]

So it is FDR’s fault! I knew it, I knew it!

[Greyblades]

The process started in the year 1169 and pretty much continued for a few hundred years after that. English control would have waxed and waned over the years until a real process of control was started by Cromwell and finally put beyond doubt by William of Orange. At that time Ireland would have been a kingdom legally speaking (as declared by england there was no such concept in Ireland) and would have it's own parliment as understood by medieval and up to 18th century monarchies. (this parliment was the same as the english parliment of the time and should not be confused with ideas of democracy)

later with the ideals of revolution sweeping France, USA we had Ireland attempting a simillar style move against english control which was fairly non sectarian due to heavy anglo irish involvement at the top of the movement. The defeat of that movement in 1798 led to act of union and dissolution of the old irish parliment and you pretty much know the rest.

Thank you for the history lesson I didn't know that. (I'm not being sarcastic)

I'd like to point out that democracy means a government of individuals who are elected to represent a group of inhabitants or "the people" technically the English parliment have always been a democracy, its methods and ideals on the other hand (who was allowed to vote and who was allowed to even stand for election) were not always what is expected in a modern democracy.

Also its interesting to note that without the english the irish kings most likely would not have joined together to oppose us. In a warped way I guess we were responsible for irish unity.

[Subotan]

Um wasn't Ireland conquered before the British empire was fully established? From what I read ireland was more of one kingdom (the kingdom of England) annexing another(kingdom of Ireland) than British Imperialist conquest.
The idea of a "Kingdom of Ireland" was something created by the English to give themselves an air of legitimacy in conquering Ireland. The English and later British conquest of Ireland was most certainly imperialist conquest though, combined with colonisation. Think of it as a practice round for what we did later on :beam:


I'd like to point out that democracy means a government of individuals who are elected to represent a group of inhabitants or "the people" technically the English parliment have always been a democracy, its methods and ideals on the other hand (who was allowed to vote and who was allowed to even stand for election) were not always what is expected in a modern democracy.
The UK doesn't really fit the bill of what we would call a democracy until halfway through the 19th Century, as the franchise was so limited to people who owned loads of land.



Also its interesting to note that without the english the irish kings most likely would not have joined together to oppose us. In a warped way I guess we were responsible for irish unity.
Oh definitely yes, Irish nationalism has exclusively fed off anti-British fervour.

[gaelic cowboy]

I'd like to point out that democracy means a government of individuals who are elected to represent a group of inhabitants or "the people" technically the English parliment have always been a democracy, its methods and ideals on the other hand (who was allowed to vote and who was allowed to even stand for election) were not always what is expected in a modern democracy.

True but the implementation of an idea like Parliament was English in nature and would be seen as an imposition by the Gaelic nobility. To the Irish of the day there would be no concept of the idea "were" aristocracy and they are the subjects, instead the Irish nobles were more like a CEO of a large company.

The Gaelic noble only had to be one of the members of the family with the right to be elected to the post of Chieftain of the family, upon the death of the last Chief the family would elect a new head of the family. While it is true that only certain members of a family had the right to election it was not as restricted as the idea of primogenture which was unknown in Ireland.



Also its interesting to note that without the english the irish kings most likely would not have joined together to oppose us. In a warped way I guess we were responsible for irish unity.

Also true but not to the extent that people think it generally, the Irish already had a concept of nation and a different legal system and a different language. The problem was that Ireland had a different concept of inheritance and this was always going to lead to problems with England as they increased there control.

Later concepts of nationalism as understood by 19th century people were driven obviously by anti-British feeling which is entirely understandable for the people of the late 19th century and early 20th century just before independence.

[Greyblades]

Sounds rather like a somewhat modernised version of what the gauls and germanic tribes used just before the romans invaded.

[gaelic cowboy]

Sounds rather like a somewhat modernised version of what the gauls and germanic tribes used just before the romans invaded.

Yes but they had writing and the had not only a concept of a legal system but it was written down for everyone to see (if they could read) and it applied to everyone so they had become more advanced shall we say than the Gauls.

[Greyblades]

Thats what I meant by modernised, technically from what you are saying the chief system is rather remenicent of monarchy though not as overblown, good luck getting kings to refer to themselves as chiefs though

[Fisherking]

Yes but they had writing and the had not only a concept of a legal system but it was written down for everyone to see (if they could read) and it applied to everyone so they had become more advanced shall we say than the Gauls.

Now I wouldn’t be so quick to judge that point.

Why was it that slaves from Gaul were so sought after?

Not as warriors, but as tutors!

We know they had an advanced and complex calendar system and there is evidence they were more skilled (read technology) in some crafts.

As to law, not quite sure but Brehon law and Welsh law have much in common and it could have come from there.

[gaelic cowboy]

Now I wouldn’t be so quick to judge that point.

Why was it that slaves from Gaul were so sought after?

Not as warriors, but as tutors!

We know they had an advanced and complex calendar system and there is evidence they were more skilled (read technology) in some crafts.

As to law, not quite sure but Brehon law and Welsh law have much in common and it could have come from there.

Of course I wasn't saying the Gauls were savages, just that the Irish had picked a few more strings to the bow along the road. It is hard to judge relative merits/demerits of different people or nations especially when they did not exist at the same time.

[Fisherking]

Well, actually they are the French, but we can let that slide....should let it slide...

Anyway, The English felt Ireland belonged to them because the Pope gave it to them...

So, why didn’t Cromwell give it back?

Was it a protestant thing?

[Greyblades]

Actually we were so intent on keeping it because Ireland was a realy well placed staging point for invading britain, add that to the Irish being buddy-buddy with anyone opposing britain it would have been a realy bad move to let it go.

[Fisherking]

Actually we were so intent on keeping it because Ireland was a realy well placed staging point for invading britain, add that to the Irish being buddy-buddy with anyone opposing britain it would have been a realy bad move to let it go.

Any excuse will do in a pinch, I suppose.

But would you agree or disagree that it was the start of English Empire and that the wars fought set the stage for what fallowed?

[gaelic cowboy]

So, why didnt Cromwell give it back?

Was it a protestant thing?

Eh I'm not sure what you mean here by hand it back, Cromwell saw Ireland as part of his own realm cos the Kings of England styled themselves Kings of Ireland too.

His attack was pretty much a mix of a couple of things he wanted to fully finish off the Civil War as there were Royalists in Ireland, he wanted to divert some attention away from home due to political rows and he was a puritan so obviously Catholics were a bad crowd anyway in his view. The bonus was that there was a load of land available for the taking by the victor and take it he did Catholic landownership had been around 60% and now dropped to around less than 10% under Cromwell.

Cromwell is far more hated than other people because he basically finished finally the ancient Gaelic system.

Was it a Protestant thing the answer is no, not until much later on when Catholics were excluded almost completely from the levers of power.

[gaelic cowboy]

Any excuse will do in a pinch, I suppose.

Often when there is some doubt to the legitimacy of the ruling class at home like under the Tudors, Cromwell or William the Irish tended to get it pretty bad. There is a number of reasons for it but the main one is the lack of firm English control in Ireland.

There is almost an element on the same sort of lines of the tribal areas of Pakistan today, the map says Pakistan but government rule is often patchy effectively confined to the odd town or strategic road. This lack of control allowed for and was a threat to English control of not just Ireland but the whole of Briton itself if a claimant was to arise in Ireland he not only had wealth behind him he now had a people who could be promised there old land back if they chuck in with him. hence the Battle of the Boyne etc etc


But would you agree or disagree that it was the start of English Empire and that the wars fought set the stage for what fallowed?

England had all the attributes of empire but it did not style itself empire until much later probably due to the importance of tradition in Britain as a basis for law.

[Fisherking]

Right, After the Stuarts, I know.
I just wanted to get the English perspective on that issue, such that it is.
I guess you might be interested in the other question too, no?

[Greyblades]

Any excuse will do in a pinch, I suppose.
Uh no at many points in the middle ages the only thing keeping england from being thrashed by france and spain's superior armies was our fleet in the channel and during the middle ages it wasnt as reliable as during the high point of the empire.

If France or Spain got an army into Ireland it would gain alot of support from the locals and be realy hard to stop. In the worst case scenario; if they took all of ireland, they would be in a position to cross the small gap between northern ireland and scotland in a short enough time to get across before the royal navy would be able to react. Once in scotland they would gain even more supporters and sooner or later a horde of ticked off irish scottish and french soldiers would march into england. What makes it worse is that if England slackened its presense in the channel to try and prevent the crossing or try to cut off the french troops the french would undoubtably punch through and drop off an army or two right on south east england.

Yeah, Ireland was pretty darn important.

Don't quote me on this though.

But would you agree or disagree that it was the start of English Empire and that the wars fought set the stage for what fallowed?

Start of the empire? In hindsight maybe, but realy an empire generally needs more than that, I dont think rome was considered an empire when it took sicily but when it started taking lands in carthage and greece

[gaelic cowboy]

I guess you might be interested in the other question too, no?

Naturally the reality is that decisions made a long time ago have still not fully played out here in Ireland even after 300yrs. The year 1169 is a long time ago and there is still a British presence on the island today so these questions will continue to prop up every so often.

Most people get on with there lives in the South however the North and the border regions are a different kettle of fish altogether, there still rowing with each other up there.

[Fisherking]

On the Irish side of issues, nationalism was later coming than in England and France.

After trying so hard to be English but still hounded by the administration Tyrone finally joined the other side and became the O’Neil. But he still didn’t get the support he needed but I guess you could say it was the spark even if it had to smolder for so long.
Cromwell sparked more embers then but it was still the 18th century before anything serious developed.

Of course it never stopped the English from being paranoid.

Ireland is amazing for holding on to so much of its culture despite the persecution.

Most of the reasons for conflict are dead with the perpetrators though the flames are still fanned by those who can’t let go or have an agenda. Only time and clear heads will heal the North.

[gaelic cowboy]

Ireland is amazing for holding on to so much of its culture despite the persecution.

Two reasons the Irish sea and a perception under the English ruling class that a posting to Ireland was just not as cool as say India. Catholicism is the big reason though cos it created a definite division between them and us for both sides.

This separatness meant that even a total destruction of Irish culture would still arrive at a situation where the Irish were still just not English enough to be let in the house.

[Fisherking]

In part, the English have always been so assured of their own superiority that they couldn’t see any other point of view. To a certain extent that has also been the views of many Americans.

Genetics?

[gaelic cowboy]

In part, the English have always been so assured of their own superiority that they couldnt see any other point of view. To a certain extent that has also been the views of many Americans.

Genetics?

There is a certain element of truth to this view in a broad view obviously.

[Greyblades]

In part, the English have always been so assured of their own superiority that they couldn't see any other point of view.

To a certain extent that has also been the views of many Americans.

Genetics?

Yeah the feeling of superiority is not a english only thing, every country that considered itself top dog at one point or another has this trait.

[Fisherking]

Yeah the feeling of superiority is not a english only thing, every country that considered itself top dog at one point or another has this trait.

Ah! humm, does that mean the British feel inferior to the Americans at present?

[Greyblades]

Ah! humm, does that mean the British feel inferior to the Americans at present?

I prefer to think of it as the feeling an aged father gets when he is proud of his son's achievments but is also mildly jealous of the son for being younger and stronger than him.
We're still waiting for him to get out of his "I'm a hero and above taking other peoples lands" phase though.

[Fisherking]

:laugh4:

Excellent reply! :2thumbsup:

Besides, you don’t have to be on top to feel you are superior. I have it on good authority, my wife says so, that the Bavarians do everything better.

I on the other hand, am not Bavarian, I just live here.:sweatdrop:

[gaelic cowboy]

I prefer to think of it as the feeling an aged father gets when he is proud of his son's achievments but is also mildly jealous of him for being younger and stronger than him.
We're still waiting for him to get out of his "I'm a hero and above taking other peoples lands" phase though.

But it does give us some wonderful rewrites of history :laugh4:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwhxxxUT8Qk

Europeans are colonial but Uncle Sam really is a kindly uncle.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sjk5rq97Tyc&feature=related

[Greyblades]

Yeah we dont expect this phase to last long though. His rebelious phase (revolution) only lasted afew decades and his self harming emo phase (American civil war) barely one. He's just bummed out after his little friend(USSR) got ill It'll pass and he'll be back to normal, beating other countries over the head like the rest of us.

[Louis VI the Fat]

My quick top seven, subject to change depending on my mood:

1 ) Thomas Jefferson
2 ) James Madison
3 ) John Adams
4 ) FDR
5 ) Wilson
6 ) Clinton
7 ) Washington

[Fisherking]

Okay, I’ll play straight man for you.

Just tell me what Clinton did for you to rank him so high?

[Beskar]

Okay, I’ll play straight man for you.

Just tell me what Clinton did for you to rank him so high?

He bought a Big Mac at my local Mc Donalds, which is around the corner from my parents house when he was still President.

Seriously.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Just tell me what Clinton did for you to rank him so high? Clinton used America's brief status as the world's sole superpower to spread liberty around the world, bolster the American middle class, bring down the deficit, and be an inclusive president. They said America was old and tired in the 1980s. The Clinton era proved but it wasn't. The 1990s saw a renaissance. America build the intertubes, the information age, nothing could match its vibrancy. The Japanase, the reunited Germany, Europe - they were poised to take over, or so they said. All were left breathless in America's wake.


Then the vandals moved in. They thought American power was a gift from God, eternal. This made them think. Why should they cherish and maintain US predominance? What a waste! They needed to harvest it! They thought the source was infinite. And so they squandered it, plundered it for private little gains. America has been plundered. The environment, the tax payer, the middle class, technology.

The 1990s were a golden age, the world could dream of the end of history. America had won, nothing challenged it.

The 2000s was the decade in which America's hegemony turned out to have been very short lived indeed. If relative decline was inevitable, the fall of the perch was not. From the neuroticly disproportionate reaction to 9-11 to the soaring deficit, to the full on crash of 2008 - all of this was the work of choice, not of underlying structure.
China is buying America. American high tech jobs are moved to India. Foreign corporations use America as some sort of Nigeria: you befriend the right people and then you are at liberty to use it as a dumpin ground, to pollute at will. The greatest force of the 20th century - the American middle class - has been reduced to an ATM, an infinite cash machine. Meanwhile taxes for the rich have been all but abolished. They gave the people little flagpins to wear, told them those were what really mattered and that every patriot had to suspend critical thinking because they were at war, against terror. America's morality has been compromised with torture camps, with deceit, with blackmail. Social mobility increased under Clinton, and decreased under Bush again. Social mobility in America is now standing at such a low point that it makes Europe in the 19th century look like a meritocracy, a sad and complete reversal across the Atlantic in this respect.

[Devastatin Dave]

I put Madison as #1 ....

[Crazed Rabbit]

The greatest force of the 20th century - the American middle class - has been reduced to an ATM, an infinite cash machine. Meanwhile taxes for the rich have been all but abolished.

Sometimes it seems like you just speak in talking points. :sad:

You know that after Bush lowered taxes, the percentage of total income tax paid by the top 5% increased?

I'm not a fan of FDR. A whole slew of useless federal programs, plus the ponzi scheme social security, plus the first big anti-gun legislation.

Reagan was good, but I don't think he'd be in my top five. Clinton managed to get elected at an opportune time and coast. I don't see how he spread liberty around the world.

Woodrow Wilson was a racist who increased segregation in the federal government and led America into a world war.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sometimes it seems like you just speak in talking points. :sad:

You know that after Bush lowered taxes, the percentage of total income tax paid by the top 5% increased?

I'm not a fan of FDR. A whole slew of useless federal programs, plus the ponzi scheme social security, plus the first big anti-gun legislation.

Reagan was good, but I don't think he'd be in my top five. Clinton managed to get elected at an opportune time and coast. I don't see how he spread liberty around the world.

Woodrow Wilson was a racist who increased segregation in the federal government and led America into a world war.

CR

All that bold statement means is that the tax breaks lowered taxes for middle class more than it did for the rich. But this doesn't really mean anything, because the fact is that everyone had their taxes cut period, so everyone is paying less. All you did was just even it out in terms of who is paying the least. Not to mention that the big deal for the rich in the Bush tax cuts was not the reduction is income tax. It was the reduction of capital gains tax. Capital gains according to the statistics from the Federal government are mostly enjoyed by upper middle to rich households. So the rich did have their taxes cut more than anyone else because one of their main sources of income was reduced to just 15%, while the poor and middle class who for the most part only get additional wealth through salaries still pay a higher percentage than that.

[Fisherking]

Clinton used America's brief status as the world's sole superpower to spread liberty around the world, bolster the American middle class, bring down the deficit, and be an inclusive president. They said America was old and tired in the 1980s. The Clinton era proved but it wasn't. The 1990s saw a renaissance. America build the intertubes, the information age, nothing could match its vibrancy. The Japanase, the reunited Germany, Europe - they were poised to take over, or so they said. All were left breathless in America's wake.


Then the vandals moved in. They thought American power was a gift from God, eternal. This made them think. Why should they cherish and maintain US predominance? What a waste! They needed to harvest it! They thought the source was infinite. And so they squandered it, plundered it for private little gains. America has been plundered. The environment, the tax payer, the middle class, technology.

The 1990s were a golden age, the world could dream of the end of history. America had won, nothing challenged it.

The 2000s was the decade in which America's hegemony turned out to have been very short lived indeed. If relative decline was inevitable, the fall of the perch was not. From the neuroticly disproportionate reaction to 9-11 to the soaring deficit, to the full on crash of 2008 - all of this was the work of choice, not of underlying structure.
China is buying America. American high tech jobs are moved to India. Foreign corporations use America as some sort of Nigeria: you befriend the right people and then you are at liberty to use it as a dumpin ground, to pollute at will. The greatest force of the 20th century - the American middle class - has been reduced to an ATM, an infinite cash machine. Meanwhile taxes for the rich have been all but abolished. They gave the people little flagpins to wear, told them those were what really mattered and that every patriot had to suspend critical thinking because they were at war, against terror. America's morality has been compromised with torture camps, with deceit, with blackmail. Social mobility increased under Clinton, and decreased under Bush again. Social mobility in America is now standing at such a low point that it makes Europe in the 19th century look like a meritocracy, a sad and complete reversal across the Atlantic in this respect.

Overlooking the divisiveness of Clinton’s presidency that he was dragged along screaming and kicking the whole way.
Yes, he was breathing. That has always been your point on him receiving credit for what happened, and Congress be damned.

His military adventures were all unmitigated disasters. His best show was Kosovo where we spent billions, lost stealth fighters, bombed the Chinese Embassy, and managed to destroy about a company’s worth of Serbian men and equipment. To make it worse, we backed the wrong side, when it all shakes out.

Baskar’s reasoning is better than yours! He bought a Big Mac!

I knew you had a joke in mind.

I would also disagree with the scholars on where they placed Reagan. I really don’t know where to place him. He always came across as a nice man that could convince people to pressure Congress into doing what he wanted but surrounded himself with a bunch of crooks who did some terrible things.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Both Reagan and Clinton are over hyped.

Reagan's policies and advisers and cabinet were all terrible and he simply banked off having the USSR noticeably collapse by the end of his presidency.

Clinton just rode the success of America being the only superpower as well as the economic boom from the large scale integration of computers in every day life that was occurring in the 1990s.

[Subotan]

Woodrow Wilson ... led America into a world war.

CR
Why is this that bad? His attempts to found a lasting peace were frustrated only by Congress.

EDIT: Remember CR, British academics are more likely to have a positive view of him due to his role in WWI, the national tragedy of the United Kingdom. We still obsess about the First World War even today. I personally think his expansion of racism in the Federal Government and racism is a dark, dark stain on someone who would otherwise be a great president, in the same way that the Trail of Tears tainted Jackson's legacy.

[Major Robert Dump]

I LOL at this thread as presidents are blamed for everything from losing stealth bombers to economic failure of the country decades later as if every chief since then could not have made changes. Historical context is created by historians and grandfathers at storytime, most of whom have an agenda, especially grandpa.

But in the spirit of discussion here is my list:

ABE LINCOLN -- His Geico commercial is hilarious
Teddy Roosevelt -- He had some good immigration reform with the mexicans
Richard Nixon -- white Tupac, thug life baby, later handed the car keys to the Chinese so the US could be guided by a real superpower, albeit a short one
Eisenhower -- Mickey mouse endorsed him
Taft -- a visionary for obese people who would cheer if he were alive today upon seeing his country is so prosperous that even the poor people are fat

[Fisherking]

... in the same way that Jackson's expulsion of the Cherokee tainted his legacy.


not to pick on you, americans are no better, but...

What a huge understatement!

And why are only the Cherokee remembered? They were not even the largest tribe, nor did they first call the event “Trail of Tears” or go first.


A Choctaw chief (thought to be Thomas Harkins or Nitikechi) quoted to the Arkansas Gazette that the 1831 Choctaw removal was a "trail of tears and death."


It was to be the removal of all Indians from the United States and only the Iroquois managed to avoid it.

The US had treaties signed by each of the tribes, however, all of those treaties are questionable.

The Choctaws in particular were swindled. A provision in their treaty allowed them US citizenship provided the head of family signed a document witnessed by a US Indian Agent within 6 months. Agents seemed to be quite scarce prior to the time limit and only 1300 were eligible to stay. (individuals, not families)


a letter written by Chief of the departing savages (http://anpa.ualr.edu/trailOfTears/letters/1831DecemberGeorgeWHarkinstotheAmericanPeople.htm)

[Subotan]

I was unaware that tribes other than the Cherokee were removed from the United States thanks to Jackson. Thanks for correcting me.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think it is safe to say that every single native american tribe got completely and thoroughly screwed.

[Vladimir]

I think it is safe to say that every single native american tribe got completely and thoroughly screwed.

Except the ones that got killed. Kinda like the Celts, Gauls, Germanic tribes, Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoth's...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Except the ones that got killed. Kinda like the Celts, Gauls, Germanic tribes, Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoth's...

I think getting killed constitutes as a subsection in the "getting screwed" category.

[Fisherking]

Except the ones that got killed. Kinda like the Celts, Gauls, Germanic tribes, Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoth's...

No, a bit more like Armenians, Jews and other ethnic cleansings.

[Louis VI the Fat]

No, a bit more like Armenians, Jews and other ethnic cleansings.And what, exactly, do you think it was that the Romans were doing in Gaul?

A quarter killed, another quarter enslaved and send abroad. The remaining ones saw their language, culture, religion dissappear forever. Cities destroyed, trade routes lost, and - for this was one of the main reasons for the conquest - the gold and the riches plundered.

What happened to Gaul in the first few centuries AD was not very different from what happened to Mexico in the centuries after 1500, even down to the imposition of Catholicism and a Latin language, and large genetic replacement.


It is not all bad. One civilisation gone, another in its place. We are the mongrel offspring.

[Devastatin Dave]

Same thing China will do to the US in a few years....

[jabarto]

Same thing China will do to the US in a few years....

If that ever happens, I'd be more worried about dealing with all of the damned souls migrating to Earth from a newly frozen Hell.

[Greyblades]

Same thing China will do to the US in a few years....

Strong though China may want us to believe, they are no match for the USA. They might have tanks and soldiers in the millions, but China doesnt have a blue water navy, as it stands china has no way of invading anwhere that isn't within marching distance save for airborne infantry and I dont think that will go very well without a navy to ensure any paratroops arn't cut off from supplies. Realy outside of nuclear warfare right now Canada is more of a threat to the USA than China.

[gaelic cowboy]

I am sure people said the same about the US with regard to Britain in the 1890s.

[Greyblades]

Is this a referense to how they managed to get thier troops from the USA to europe in WW1? I believe they managed to pull that off becuase the german navy was stuck in the baltic by the Royal navy. The germans didn't have the oppotunity to attack all the troop ships and the civillian ships commandeered to carry troops across the atlantic. I don't think the US Navy would be unable to stop a chinese floatilla.
This is all speculartive though and if my understanding of chinese capabilities are correct they most likely will have constructed a fleet by 2020, then we can panic about china taking over the world.

[gaelic cowboy]

No it is a reference to the fact that the USA was seen as the up an comer maybe not in 1890 but plenty people thought the 20th century would be dominated by Russia an the USA.

In 1924 Britain was in theory at her strongest even Ireland was still only a dominion but it was all bluff.

I'm sure people were writing how Britain had strategic ports even in North America like Newfoundland etc to contain any rise of USA and no doubt they said USA was more a threat to Mexico blah blah.

[Fisherking]

And what, exactly, do you think it was that the Romans were doing in Gaul?

A quarter killed, another quarter enslaved and send abroad. The remaining ones saw their language, culture, religion dissappear forever. Cities destroyed, trade routes lost, and - for this was one of the main reasons for the conquest - the gold and the riches plundered.

What happened to Gaul in the first few centuries AD was not very different from what happened to Mexico in the centuries after 1500, even down to the imposition of Catholicism and a Latin language, and large genetic replacement.


It is not all bad. One civilisation gone, another in its place. We are the mongrel offspring.


Yes, but how does it relate to the US Presidency?

Jackson started the removals in the 1830 and it ended in the 1930s. Only around a hundred years but still at the limits of living memory.

Also, shouldn’t the continued enforcement have some bearing on later presidencies?

Or is it just okay because the Romans did it too?
Does that excuse the Turks, Germans, events in Africa and Southeast Asia?

Too, coloring the event, you should know that the first removed were the Choctaw, who had been staunch allies of the US Government from its inception.
They had served with all the major commanders of the American Revolution, sent scouts with Wayne in his campaign in Ohio, served Jackson through out his campaigns in the war of 1812, to include the Battle of New Orleans.
They had petitioned for US citizenship and adopted the White European manor of living. In 1820 or 21 they founded the Choctaw School System.

Many of their homes, farms, and plantations were well above the quality and standard of those of the whites and of course they were farming the best land. This and out and out bigotry were the real reasons they had to be gotten rid of.

Those rude unproductive Indians living better than whites set a bad example. Which was a bit like what happened in Gaul wasn’t it?

Look how far we have come from 40something BC.

[Greyblades]

No it is a reference to the fact that the USA was seen as the up an comer maybe not in 1890 but plenty people thought the 20th century would be dominated by Russia an the USA.

In 1924 Britain was in theory at her strongest even Ireland was still only a dominion but it was all bluff.

I'm sure people were writing how Britain had strategic ports even in North America like Newfoundland etc to contain any rise of USA and no doubt they said USA was more a threat to Mexico blah blah.

Oh, I see. Well I dont realy expect that china will stay where it is, I think it's pretty inevitable China will get stronger but right now, and at least for the few years it takes to construct an aircraft carrier, I dont think the USA is going to be invaded by china.

[gaelic cowboy]

Oh, I see. Well I dont realy expect that china will stay where it is, I think it's pretty inevitable China will get stronger but right now, and at least for the few years it takes to construct an aircraft carrier, I dont think the USA is going to be invaded by china.

Aircraft carriers are heading the way of the dodo I will not be surprised if there next to useless by 2050.

Hypersionic missiles and jets are the future of naval defense with nuke subs drones etc and as always the ordinary grunt.

We may end this century looking at ships like cavalry in WW1

[Greyblades]

What about naval offense? I'd think a mobile launch pad would still be pretty usefull.

[gaelic cowboy]

What about naval offense? I'd think a mobile launch pad would still be pretty usefull.

Naval facilities are large and easy to target thereby at a stroke naval offense is cut back due to supply problems. Huge resources are required to protect aircraft carriers naturally but potentially hypersonic tech renders it useless.

[gaelic cowboy]

I suppose I better give my take on my favorite prez.

I like Dubya his vast wealth of comedic talent will poured over by academics for years, I mean come on who doesnt like Harold and Kumar (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-6UE610I5k) (some cursing an getting high aw yea)

[Furunculus]

Aircraft carriers are heading the way of the dodo I will not be surprised if there next to useless by 2050.

Hypersionic missiles and jets are the future of naval defense with nuke subs drones etc and as always the ordinary grunt.

We may end this century looking at ships like cavalry in WW1

oddly enough the creation of megawatt solid-state lasers in addition to rail-guns may recreate the battleship as the king of the seas.

[gaelic cowboy]

Not if you put one on a jumbo jet it wont, take out that bad boy at the speed of light and the captain never even now he was hit.

As always it will be the high ground where victory is assured on the battlefield and these days the highground is space

[rory_20_uk]

I disagree. The high ground of space can be so easily destroyed by advanced countries to prevent the other side from gaining it.

Large aircraft would have to be stealthed, lest they fall to the same fate. Not an easy task.

Lasers are only any good if the target absorbs the energy. I feel that the need for systems that can very quickly reflect the incoming energy will be created. Then be prepared to dodge something travelling at Mach 12 aimed at the laser source...

rail gun ship launchers will also allow aircraft to be launched from much smaller runways. Combined with much smaller unmanned aircraft this might allow something like a battleship to effectively launch planes too without too great a compromise.

~:smoking:

[gaelic cowboy]

I disagree. The high ground of space can be so easily destroyed by advanced countries to prevent the other side from gaining it.

Large aircraft would have to be stealthed, lest they fall to the same fate. Not an easy task.

Lasers are only any good if the target absorbs the energy. I feel that the need for systems that can very quickly reflect the incoming energy will be created. Then be prepared to dodge something travelling at Mach 12 aimed at the laser source...

rail gun ship launchers will also allow aircraft to be launched from much smaller runways. Combined with much smaller unmanned aircraft this might allow something like a battleship to effectively launch planes too without too great a compromise.

~:smoking:

A ship would be easy four and five times the size of any plane try and stealth that, one bog standard spy sat could find it and bang it's gone.

Lasers can be used for targetting thats one of the potential uses for the new FEL system, allied with hypersonic missiles gameover man.

[Furunculus]

Not if you put one on a jumbo jet it wont, take out that bad boy at the speed of light and the captain never even now he was hit.

As always it will be the high ground where victory is assured on the battlefield and these days the highground is space

lasers are not going to have any useful power in the near future, they will be able to burn the guidance electronics of missiles, and possibly ignite their fuel, but they will not be carving through the armoured hulls of military vehicles. they are principally a defensive system.

the introduction of rail-guns will make the battle-ship the king of the sea again, for lasers will have knackered missiles but be unable to deal with rail-gun projectiles.

crucially, the only platform with the space to house such power-hungry systems is going to be warships.

[gaelic cowboy]

You don't think it cant be used as a targeting system for advanced missile tech?? plus the wavelengths can be changed to suit the operational requirements blah blah and it could blind a ships sensors to respond and defend itself. I see the use of a laser on a boat as a secondary line the primary line will be and has to be Space and the Air Force.

Rail guns sound cool and all that but a boat is so huge and such an expense that defending it may really be counterproductive. Prob be better to make cheap stuff to move equipment and defend it with you air force and Army.

This situation is like when in the days of capitalships you had the largest guns and had planes etc etc and yet it could all be sank by land based bombers dropping cheaper torpedos. You will likely see people trying to develop popup missiles and the like that could submerge for a while and you get on the underside, spaceplanes that can target carriers hypersonicly.

I cannot see ships lasting beyond the middle to later part of this century as a major plank of offensive doctrine.


Were now rightly off the reason for this thread time for some quantum torpedos I think.