Merkel Is Getting Me All Hot And Bothered

[Strike For The South]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/19/us-germany-islam-idUSBRE83I0DN20120419


"Islam is not part of our tradition and identity in Germany and so does not belong in Germany

At the risk of Goodwininng this thread (And beleive me it is physically painfull not to)

Is this ok with everyone?

The people whom make up a country make up the identity. Identity is ever changing. So if more Mohammeds than Johns get born in Germany it will not doubt become part of the identity.

Does Germany have a right to protect it's heritage?

To a certain point I suppose. The line between protecting hertiage and xenophobia is a thin one though.

[drone]

...a campaign by an ultra-conservative Salafist Muslim group to hand out millions of free German translations of the Koran to non-Muslims.
Such irony.

[rory_20_uk]

I am happy to welcome other cultures as soon as ours is welcomed in their heartlands. I think we are a long way off that position. Multi-ethnic? Fine. Multicultural? Tolerated at best. In areas of difference, the home teem wins.

~:smoking:

[Hax]

I'm interested in hearing the rhetoric about what Islam is and what it isn't. Doesn't it get confusing when non-Muslims continuously define what Islam is?

[rvg]

I'm interested in hearing the rhetoric about what Islam is and what it isn't. Doesn't it get confusing when non-Muslims continuously define what Islam is?

Why, do you have to be a muslim to understand it?

[Hax]

Well, I'm not a Muslim. I'm just against rigidly defining Islam and telling Muslims how their own religion functions. I think it's up to them.

[rvg]

Doesn't mean that we can't form opinions about it and discuss it. If muslims have a problem with that, then, well, screw them.

[Ja'chyra]

Well, it's a fine line/slippery slope/add your cliché of choice.

But, you are quite right Strike, if everyone in Germany woke up a muslim then it would be a muslim country, but by the same measure, if everyone (or the vast majority) there now wants to resist it then surely this is just as fair, after all it's their country?

My view is that people should resist religion as much as they can, I don't care which one it is, a crutch is a crutch is a crutch.

[PanzerJaeger]

Immigrants should assimilate to the host culture. In that process, there will be some blending of the immigrant culture with that of the host which is natural (Germany has great falafel stands); however, the process should be very lopsided. Germany should stand up to those who have no interest in assimilating.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, I'm not a Muslim. I'm just against rigidly defining Islam and telling Muslims how their own religion functions. I think it's up to them.

Well, people are always telling me about my religion, and how I hate all non Christians and I think you're all evil, but I'm not.

So at least it's not just Islam.

[Rhyfelwyr]

"Islam is not part of our tradition and identity in Germany and so does not belong in Germany"

This statement is of course 100% correct. So long as there has been any concept of a German people or a German nation, Christianity is the only religion to have been a part of that.

Although this is most likely one of those xenophobic (nothing wrong with that) comments that European leaders throw about every once in a whlie to boost their popularity. Actions rarely follow from their words.

[lars573]

"Islam is not part of our tradition and identity in Germany and so does not belong in Germany"

This statement is of course 100% correct. So long as there has been any concept of a German people or a German nation, Christianity is the only religion to have been a part of that.

Although this is most likely one of those xenophobic (nothing wrong with that) comments that European leaders throw about every once in a whlie to boost their popularity. Actions rarely follow from their words.
Except for Germanic Paganism.

[Centurion1]

Except for Germanic Paganism.



been any concept of a German people or a German nation


tsk

[Kralizec]

It wasn't Merkel who said that, but the leading CDU member in the Bondstag.

That said, I wonder what it's even supposed to mean:

"Islam is not part of our tradition and identity in Germany and so does not belong in Germany," Volker Kauder, head of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives in parliament, told the Passauer Neue Presse.

"But Muslims do belong in Germany. As state citizens, of course, they enjoy their full rights," he added.

I can only interpret this as meaning that it's okay for the traditional religion (which happens to be christianity) to promote itself in society and politics, and not for uppity newcomers. But that's guesswork; it might just be one of those things that politicians say only to attract fringe votes without elaborating on the statement, or even contradicting it in other speeches.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It wasn't Merkel who said that, but the leading CDU member in the Bondstag.

That said, I wonder what it's even supposed to mean:


I can only interpret this as meaning that it's okay for the traditional religion (which happens to be christianity) to promote itself in society and politics, and not for uppity newcomers. But that's guesswork; it might just be one of those things that politicians say only to attract fringe votes without elaborating on the statement, or even contradicting it in other speeches.


To me that suggests, "you are welcome to come here, but once here don't complain about it."

That's a fair point, as far as it goes, if you don't like Saudi Arabia and want to live in Britain or France, don't then try to bring Saudi Arabia with you.

[Strike For The South]

Immigrants should assimilate to the host culture. In that process, there will be some blending of the immigrant culture with that of the host which is natural (Germany has great falafel stands); however, the process should be very lopsided. Germany should stand up to those who have no interest in assimilating.

ooooo falafels.

What about islam?

[lars573]

tsk
Both of those concepts predate Christianity, being as broad as they are.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Both of those concepts predate Christianity, being as broad as they are.

Hardly.

[Kagemusha]

ooooo falafels.

What about islam?

Bah! Falafels are nothing but a bastard son of the true greatness that is Kebab. By no doubt the greatest gift the middle Eastern many times muslim immigrants have given to Europe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bah! Falafels are nothing but a bastard son of the true greatness that is Kebab. By no doubt the greatest gift the middle Eastern many times muslim immigrants have given to Europe.

Only if you're drunk. Which begs the question how they could have arrisen in Muslim-held lands.

I'm sorry, but Kebabs are foul.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I'm sorry, but Kebabs are foul.

I don't know. It's a lot better than Mc Donalds. :shrug:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't know. It's a lot better than Mc Donalds. :shrug:

You mean the stuff I wouldn't feed my dog?

[Vladimir]

You mean the stuff I wouldn't feed my dog?

You shouldn't feed your dog human food. It may make them sick.

[Tellos Athenaios]

You mean the stuff I wouldn't feed my dog?

If you mean you wouldn't feed Mc Donalds food to your dog, then I agree completely. Such a thing would be animal cruelty.

[Tellos Athenaios]

You shouldn't feed your dog human food. It may make them sick.
Dogs aren't compulsory carnivores, by and large humans and dogs can live off the same diet. With the exception of certain veg, fungi and fruit that is; for instance chocolate and almonds may not go down that well. Neither can live off Mc Donalds, that's just trash and not actual food.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't know. It's a lot better than Mc Donalds. :shrug:

idk I've seen some pretty dodgy kebab shops.

At least you know an occassional McDonalds is unlikely to make you sick.

[gaelic cowboy]

Why would ye be ateing anything anyway sure tis only time for more drink in the early house.

[Kralizec]

Bah! Falafels are nothing but a bastard son of the true greatness that is Kebab. By no doubt the greatest gift the middle Eastern many times muslim immigrants have given to Europe.

:thumbsup:
I'd almost say that this topic deserves its own thread, except that there'd be little to discuss - obviously all rational people are in agreement about this.

[PanzerJaeger]

ooooo falafels.

What about islam?

Well, I would hazard a guess that this politician is using 'Islam' as shorthand for Islamic culture, or the Islamic lifestyle; you know, the same topic that has been the subject of countless backroom threads over burkas, Sharia, radicalization, multiculturalism, et cetera.

We are lucky in the US that the vast majority of our Muslim population is assimilated and well adjusted. Dearborn Michigan is a great example of what I highlighted in the above post - a community that reflects the cultural flavor of its immigrant population and an immigrant population that reflects the social norms of the greater community.

There are plenty of well assimilated Muslims in Europe, but there are also vast ghettos where Muslims come to enjoy the economic benefits of the European economy and social welfare systems but live essentially as if they were still in the Middle East. They have very little, if any, interaction with the greater host country, and show little interest in assimilation. They are just kind of... there.

This is the result of the strange mix of liberal immigration policies and multiculturalism that reflected the need for manual labor after the Second World War and European passive aggressive racism. That was fine for decades, but these days, declining host populations and rapidly increasing immigrant ones (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html) have a lot of traditionalists worried.

In my opinion, German culture and the larger white European culture in which it is a subset is unique and worth preserving. In the future, it does not need to be white, but it should still be European. Politicians over there should work to dismantle multiculturalism and modify immigration policies until the ghetto situation is rectified.

[ajaxfetish]

idk I've seen some pretty dodgy kebab shops.

At least you know an occassional McDonalds is unlikely to make you sick.

Except, a McDonald's has made me sick (food poisoning FTL), which no kebab shop has yet done. On the other hand, I've only had kebabs a handful of times (though I can't stand Mickey D's, so I haven't had their stuff all too frequently, either). Anyhow, the kebab I had from one hole-in-the-wall place in Spain was about the best food I've ever tasted.

Ajax

[Kralizec]

In my opinion, German culture and the larger white European culture in which it is a subset is unique and worth preserving. In the future, it does not need to be white, but it should still be European. Politicians over there should work to dismantle multiculturalism and modify immigration policies until the ghetto situation is rectified.

I largely agree with most your post, but I quoted this part because it's something that's been bothering me for a while now.

People usually frame the issue as a cultural issue, and speak of "western culture". But the unspoken assumption is that stuff like democracy and political rights are cultural things. If we were to stop counting those as cultural things, the cultural overlap between Europeans would be a lot smaller. Japan is sometimes referred to as a western, or at least westernised country - largely because it has adopted free market policies and constitutional democracy. Genuine cultural differences are casually dismissed as idiosyncracies.

In a sense you could consider the political rights western people nowadays enjoy a cultural development of the past 3 centuries or so. But the point I'm trying to make is that it should be considered a class apart. It's the only part of our cultural heritage that is seriously worth fighting for - I would not, for example, partake in a protest to protect traditional Dutch cuisine (probably a bad example).

In my opinion a lot of these debates about issues surrounding Islam and foreign cultures in general are made more complicated than they should be; truth suffers to much from analysis. People ought to respect the law and be accorded the same rights as everyone else, period. Cultural practices that conflict should not be sanctioned or accommodated in anyway, and any other cultural practices and customs are utterly irrelevant. On the face of it this might seem like an extremely obvious position to take, yet sadly, most discussions get so bogged down in particularites of cultures that such basic tenets are completely out of sight.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

When something comes up within our own culture we talk about it openly. "Nipple slip" during superbowl halftime leads to extensive for and against. Madonna does halftime and we say she's trashy, or not. A player does a touchdown dance and we talk about sportsmanship and football culture. We are perfectly capable of talking about culture, and harshly criticizing culture.

The problem comes when people make out that certain debates are a special class. Like that ass holder that MRD mentioned in the other thread, giving a speech before congress about hate crimes, how the law only applies "where there has been historically like a history of oppression". It forces the entire debate into accept or dismiss. Instead of talking about it the whole thing becomes cluttered up with "relativism", "racism", "xenophobia", "multiculturalism".

I don't see a fix other than massively reshaping our education system so that people actually learn about western civilization again, and then waiting until the current academic culture changes. Although I have high hopes for the internet and online education as a positive force.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you mean you wouldn't feed Mc Donalds food to your dog, then I agree completely. Such a thing would be animal cruelty.

If I had a dog it would by an Irish Wolfhound called Raider, I would teach him to Hold and Return on command and he would go everywhere with me, except at night when he would sleep outside my door.e
He would eat what I eat, within reason, and I do not eat carboard chips cow intestines.


Why would ye be ateing anything anyway sure tis only time for more drink in the early house.

Some of us don't have your unique digestion, I require BEEF or LAMB with my ALE.


I largely agree with most your post, but I quoted this part because it's something that's been bothering me for a while now.

People usually frame the issue as a cultural issue, and speak of "western culture". But the unspoken assumption is that stuff like democracy and political rights are cultural things. If we were to stop counting those as cultural things, the cultural overlap between Europeans would be a lot smaller. Japan is sometimes referred to as a western, or at least westernised country - largely because it has adopted free market policies and constitutional democracy. Genuine cultural differences are casually dismissed as idiosyncracies.

In a sense you could consider the political rights western people nowadays enjoy a cultural development of the past 3 centuries or so. But the point I'm trying to make is that it should be considered a class apart. It's the only part of our cultural heritage that is seriously worth fighting for - I would not, for example, partake in a protest to protect traditional Dutch cuisine (probably a bad example).

In my opinion a lot of these debates about issues surrounding Islam and foreign cultures in general are made more complicated than they should be; truth suffers to much from analysis. People ought to respect the law and be accorded the same rights as everyone else, period. Cultural practices that conflict should not be sanctioned or accommodated in anyway, and any other cultural practices and customs are utterly irrelevant. On the face of it this might seem like an extremely obvious position to take, yet sadly, most discussions get so bogged down in particularites of cultures that such basic tenets are completely out of sight.

I suppose the idea is that our culture produced these freedoms, and not over the last 3 centuries so much as the last 10 or 20. Remember, there's a huge dose of Roman in our culture, and that brings me to point.

I think Europeans are conditioned to fear Islam, and with good reason. Take a look at a map circa 400 AD, that big red bit is under the Pax Romanum. It's getting a bit ropy, but this is where you have genuinely free and autonomous men, law courts, not only criminal but civil cases, women can hold property and Christianity holds even the Emperor to account.

Fast forward to 700 AD and a big swathe of that has gone Green - sure the Barbarians have taken over Western Europe but they're already learning Latin, Rome still elects magistrates and the Christian bishops are starting to argue over law again. Meanwhile, in the East the Emperor is fighting a losing war against an Alien culture that sweeps all before it. They aren't like the Germans, instead of learning Latin they translate in Arabic, and they destroy whatever doesn't agree with their God with no regard to the past.

Fast Forward again, 1000 AD, and there are now princes who speak adn read in Latin again, Lawyers and law Courts have reestablished themselves not only in Italy but also in France, even the peasants are starting to learn to read their Vulgar Latin. Meanwhile, the March of Islam has continued unabated, roughly 2/3 of the former Roman Empire is either under their sway or threatened. In North Africa Roman Civilisation is just GONE and both the place of Christ's Birth and Death are under sway of an Alien culture.

After this of course came the Crusades, which really should seen less as a war of Conquest and more as an attempt to regain lost ground.

Here's the point: What we think of as "Europe" is the rump of the Roman Empire after North Africa and the Near East are shown off. 2,000 years ago, even 1,500 years ago Morocco was culturally closer to Rome than London, and much wealthier. What changed that is not conquest or Roman collapse, but Islam and Islamic cultural policies.

Fear of Islam is built into our history, Muslims are the ultimate boggy men, worse even that Attila the Hun because Atilla left something Roman in his wake, the Caliphs didn't. So today the unspoken fear is that what happened in Anatolia, Egypt and North Africa can happen in Italy or France and this fear is in no way diminished by the stated belief of a significant number of Muslims that they want to make Europe more sympathetic to Islamic law and customs.

[Kralizec]

I suppose the idea is that our culture produced these freedoms, and not over the last 3 centuries so much as the last 10 or 20. Remember, there's a huge dose of Roman in our culture, and that brings me to point.

I think Europeans are conditioned to fear Islam, and with good reason. Take a look at a map circa 400 AD, that big red bit is under the Pax Romanum. It's getting a bit ropy, but this is where you have genuinely free and autonomous men, law courts, not only criminal but civil cases, women can hold property and Christianity holds even the Emperor to account.

Fast forward to 700 AD and a big swathe of that has gone Green - sure the Barbarians have taken over Western Europe but they're already learning Latin, Rome still elects magistrates and the Christian bishops are starting to argue over law again. Meanwhile, in the East the Emperor is fighting a losing war against an Alien culture that sweeps all before it. They aren't like the Germans, instead of learning Latin they translate in Arabic, and they destroy whatever doesn't agree with their God with no regard to the past.

Fast Forward again, 1000 AD, and there are now princes who speak adn read in Latin again, Lawyers and law Courts have reestablished themselves not only in Italy but also in France, even the peasants are starting to learn to read their Vulgar Latin. Meanwhile, the March of Islam has continued unabated, roughly 2/3 of the former Roman Empire is either under their sway or threatened. In North Africa Roman Civilisation is just GONE and both the place of Christ's Birth and Death are under sway of an Alien culture.

After this of course came the Crusades, which really should seen less as a war of Conquest and more as an attempt to regain lost ground.

Here's the point: What we think of as "Europe" is the rump of the Roman Empire after North Africa and the Near East are shown off. 2,000 years ago, even 1,500 years ago Morocco was culturally closer to Rome than London, and much wealthier. What changed that is not conquest or Roman collapse, but Islam and Islamic cultural policies.

Fear of Islam is built into our history, Muslims are the ultimate boggy men, worse even that Attila the Hun because Atilla left something Roman in his wake, the Caliphs didn't. So today the unspoken fear is that what happened in Anatolia, Egypt and North Africa can happen in Italy or France and this fear is in no way diminished by the stated belief of a significant number of Muslims that they want to make Europe more sympathetic to Islamic law and customs.

While you make a convincing case, I'm not sure about the validity of this line of thought. It's true that our legal systems draw directly from Roman traditions (not yours, or at least not directly- ironically, Germany is more Roman in this respect) I'm equally sure (though I don't "know" this) that many cultural traits Europeans have nowadays are as alien to the old Romans as those in the middle east. I think that religious reasons have more of a hand in this thananything else.

Your argument that our modern democracy and whatnot are a result of millenia rather than centuries of development is a bit dubious. Republican Rome did have a functiong system of popular participation in government, but it was entirely obsolete long before it became an empire. Whatever "representative institutions" European countries had in pre-modern times were essentially oligarchic, and only became democratic when suffrage was extended. Montesqiueu once compared the instutions of the Ottoman Empire and some Italian city state (I think Venice, but coudl be wrong) and concluded that the latter was prefrable, because by accident (meaning, rather than design) the powers of government were divided and generally frustrated eachother which got in the way of oppressing the populace whereas in the former power was far more centralized.

I'm also sceptical of the idea that Islam was hostile to Roman traditions, allthought that's just my intuition. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to bed- I generally make these long posts when I'm either drunk or half-drunk, and checking my own writing for mistakes in grammar or spelling gets exhausting.

[Centurion1]

Both of those concepts predate Christianity, being as broad as they are.

may want to do some reading on the matter first

[Hax]

I think it's not really wise to identify the immigrants from Muslim countries firstly as Muslims. I don't think it's the defining factor.

Furthermore, the idea of that Islamic institutions are opposed to Roman traditions is probably a wrong assumption. The organisation of the Abbasid Caliphate was largely based upon Sassanian ideas of Kingship and administration. Additionally, there are strong hints that the language spoken at the court was initally Greek rather than Persian or Arabic (which both were in usage at a later point).


Fast forward to 700 AD and a big swathe of that has gone Green - sure the Barbarians have taken over Western Europe but they're already learning Latin, Rome still elects magistrates and the Christian bishops are starting to argue over law again. Meanwhile, in the East the Emperor is fighting a losing war against an Alien culture that sweeps all before it. They aren't like the Germans, instead of learning Latin they translate in Arabic, and they destroy whatever doesn't agree with their God with no regard to the past.

Nonsense. Especially this last part. What did they destroy with no regard to the past? I literally have no idea what the Arabs destroyed. And please, please don't say the Library of Alexandria, because it weren't the Arabs who did that. You should also probably realise that the early Islamic forces constituted largely of non-Muslims as well. Saying that it was an Islamic invasion aimed at spreading Islam is historically incorrect.

Although there were some on and off wars between the Ummayad and Abbasid Caliphates and the Eastern Roman Empire, with the Arabs even going as far as reaching Constantinople and sieging it several times, relations had more or less stabilised by the 9th century. Roman ambassadors visited Jerusalem and other cities and were regarded as the spokesmen of the Christians living under Muslim rule. The other way around, there were also Arab ambassadors stationed in Constantinople who generally had relatively good relationships with the Roman Emperor.

Several administrative concepts were directly borrowed from earlier traditions: the collecting of the land-tax, the kharaj was directly taken over from earlier Sassanian and Roman taxes.

Now the perception of the Crusades in Islamic historiography is quite interesting. Initially, the Crusades were regarded as a temporary loss of territory to Byzantine (or Roman) armies and met with hardly any response. Outrage at the court in Baghdad led to the Seljuk ruler Malikshah to send an army over to Syria, but it was regarded with suspicion by the autonomous rulers of Mosul and Aleppo and the army was largely destroyed by another Muslim army.

What I find really interesting is that you're strongly supporting the idea of Islam as being inherently alien to (ill-defined) European culture; in this, you're actually following the rejectionist Islamic traditionalist line of thought that Islam in its core is hostile to the West and is in this sense unique. Seeing how you're an historian, I think you're widely off the mark here. Islamic theology was heavily influenced by Judaism and Nestoric Christianity while still retaining some traits typical of pre-Islamic Arabian religions.

However, and I'm risking getting too interpretative of the historical situation around 650 now, the influence of these Arabian folk religions can be seen not so much in the theological fundaments, but rather to its practicalities and its rituals such as the pilgrimage to Mecca and the payment of Zakat. The theological concepts in Islam are borrowed mostly from Eastern Christian Monophysite sects. At this point, we're relatively sure that Muhammad was able to read and write to some degree and was quite aware of Christian and Jewish metaphysical concepts. You wouldn't say that Eastern Christianity is an Alien culture (the word "alien" unexplicably with a capital A)?


So today the unspoken fear is that what happened in Anatolia, Egypt and North Africa can happen in Italy or France and this fear is in no way diminished by the stated belief of a significant number of Muslims that they want to make Europe more sympathetic to Islamic law and customs.

The "Gates of Vienna" rhetoric: they tried from the West, at Tours (note: not a war of conquest) in 732 and failed, they tried from the East at Vienna (1583; in which the Polish army was assisted by Tatar Muslims in their service, a fact conveniently left out of the histories) and now they're trying from the backdoor.

Where do you get this idea that "a significant amount" (how much) of Muslims want to make Europe more sympathetic to Islamic law? What does that even mean?

[rvg]

Nonsense. Especially this last part. What did they destroy with no regard to the past? I literally have no idea what the Arabs destroyed. And please, please don't say the Library of Alexandria, because it weren't the Arabs who did that. You should also probably realise that the early Islamic forces constituted largely of non-Muslims as well. Saying that it was an Islamic invasion aimed at spreading Islam is historically incorrect.
True. The initial purpose of their invasion was to rape, loot and pillage.



Although there were some on and off wars between the Ummayad and Abbasid Caliphates and the Eastern Roman Empire, with the Arabs even going as far as reaching Constantinople and sieging it several times, relations had more or less stabilised by the 9th century. Roman ambassadors visited Jerusalem and other cities and were regarded as the spokesmen of the Christians living under Muslim rule. The other way around, there were also Arab ambassadors stationed in Constantinople who generally had relatively good relationships with the Roman Emperor.
I wouldn't go as far as calling it "good relations", it was more like a prolonged ceasefire.


What I find really interesting is that you're strongly supporting the idea of Islam as being inherently alien to (ill-defined) European culture; in this, you're actually following the rejectionist Islamic traditionalist line of thought that Islam in its core is hostile to the West and is in this sense unique. Seeing how you're an historian, I think you're widely off the mark here. Islamic theology was heavily influenced by Judaism and Nestoric Christianity while still retaining some traits typical of pre-Islamic Arabian religions.
All it takes is to pick up the Koran.... Sura 5:51 states: "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust." There's plenty more, but I think this is enough.



The theological concepts in Islam are borrowed mostly from Eastern Christian Monophysite sects. At this point, we're relatively sure that Muhammad was able to read and write to some degree and was quite aware of Christian and Jewish metaphysical concepts. You wouldn't say that Eastern Christianity is an Alien culture (the word "alien" unexplicably with a capital A)?

can you provide an example of this?

[Rhyfelwyr]

All it takes is to pick up the Koran.... Sura 5:51 states: "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust." There's plenty more, but I think this is enough.

To be fair there are also verses where they call Jews and Christians "people of the book". Muhammad after all was just the final prophet and Judaism and Christianity were seen as part of that chain of revelation.

I could also quite easily pick verses out of the New Testament where they would appear to be badmouthing Jews.

[rvg]

To be fair there are also verses where they call Jews and Christians "people of the book". Muhammad after all was just the final prophet and Judaism and Christianity were seen as part of that chain of revelation. I could also quite easily pick verses out of the New Testament where they would appear to be badmouthing Jews.
There's a big difference though: New Testament is not the direct word of God. Koran is supposed to be. Furthermore, this is a very blunt statement, it leaves little room for interpretation. It's not mere badmouthing, but a direct call to keep them at arm's length.

[Hax]

You've gone out of the field of historical research and into Qur'anic exegesis. This is not my field of specialty nor interest, but in essence, you've started interpreting the Qur'an according to your own perception rather than basing it on previous exegesis provided by Muslim specialists on the subject.

What I find particularly problematic is that you're applying the same logic as radical Islamists by cherry-picking what verses support your particular interpretation of the religion rather than taking the entire Qur'an at face value. Of course there are Qur'anic verses that say horrible things about Jews and Christians, there's no denying that, suggesting that they play a large role in the day-to-day lives of Muslims is factually incorrect. The general Islamic explanation is that these verses refer to very specific historical moments and have little to no value in their lives today.


it leaves little room for interpretation.

There's an entire field within Islamic jurisprudence aimed at interpretation that we call Kalam.


What you're doing right now is telling Muslims how their religion should be interpreted, even if they themselves don't agree with it. Whenever it comes to Islam, the No True Scotsman fallacy is constantly applied. It's really unfair.


I wouldn't go as far as calling it "good relations", it was more like a prolonged ceasefire

Whatever. Call it whatever you want to, but historical investigations point out that politics between the Byzantines and Arab caliphates (particularly the Fatimids) was generally quite good.


All it takes is to pick up the Koran....

Up until 1962 the Roman Catholic Church held the point of view that every Jew in existence was personally responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. This was amended during the Second Vatican Council, but you can't possibly say that merely the fact that Islam was formed from an alien culture (which is really dependent on how you define it) immediately makes it hostile to say Jews and Christians, especially when Roman Catholic dogma contained serious anti-Jewish sentiments up until the 20th century.

[rvg]

The general Islamic explanation is that these verses refer to very specific historical moments and have little to no value in their lives today.
How can one say that about the Word of God? If one takes Islam seriously, then every word in the Koran is divine. Not divinely inspired, not divinely suggested, divine. Christians can take liberties with the Bible because the only proven Word of God is in the Ten Commandments. That's it. ...Bush to Moses...Bush to Moses. Incoming divine transmission in 3, 2, 1...
Koran lacks that kind of flexibility, which is imho responsible for a lot of problems with modern Islam.

[Viking]

Any text, any form of communication must be interpreted, it does not matter whether it is "divine" or not. Otherwise you have contact with the author, it is nigh on impossible to prove that your interpretation is the correct one. It's a paradox of any religious text, particularly as society and technology changes.

[Hax]

How can one say that about the Word of God? If one takes Islam seriously, then every word in the Koran is divine.

By focus on the intention rather than the literal meaning?


Koran lacks that kind of flexibility, which is imho responsible for a lot of problems with modern Islam.

You're still applying your own interpretation on what the Qur'an is and what it says, rather than to look at different interpretations. In other words, you're telling us what the Qur'an is rather than saying it's what you think it is.

By the way, this is part of the old discussion of the Mu‘tazilites who believed in a created Qur'an in the tenth century. There's also contemporary discussion about this issue. You're kind of taking the position of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Hanbal here by denying any kind of flexibility in Qur'anic interpretation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

While you make a convincing case, I'm not sure about the validity of this line of thought. It's true that our legal systems draw directly from Roman traditions (not yours, or at least not directly- ironically, Germany is more Roman in this respect) I'm equally sure (though I don't "know" this) that many cultural traits Europeans have nowadays are as alien to the old Romans as those in the middle east. I think that religious reasons have more of a hand in this thananything else.

Your argument that our modern democracy and whatnot are a result of millenia rather than centuries of development is a bit dubious. Republican Rome did have a functiong system of popular participation in government, but it was entirely obsolete long before it became an empire. Whatever "representative institutions" European countries had in pre-modern times were essentially oligarchic, and only became democratic when suffrage was extended. Montesqiueu once compared the instutions of the Ottoman Empire and some Italian city state (I think Venice, but coudl be wrong) and concluded that the latter was prefrable, because by accident (meaning, rather than design) the powers of government were divided and generally frustrated eachother which got in the way of oppressing the populace whereas in the former power was far more centralized.

I'm also sceptical of the idea that Islam was hostile to Roman traditions, allthought that's just my intuition. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to bed- I generally make these long posts when I'm either drunk or half-drunk, and checking my own writing for mistakes in grammar or spelling gets exhausting.

Islam took on some Roman administrative practices and devoured Roman and Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotle.

The point is that unlike Byzantium or Rome this was not seen as continuity, but appropriation. Those parts of the Roman Empire that were invaded by Muslims rather than Germans suffred a traumatic break with the past, compare Algeria with France. In the former they speak Arabic and write in Arabic script, in the latter they speak Vulgar Latin and write in Latin script but the great "Western" theologian Augustine was born in Algeria, not France. North Africa became "other" only after the muslim conquests.

I'm not talking about direct continuity of institutions, except within the Church, but the fact remains that only in the West is there a continuity of narrative, the people living in France, Italy or Spain today are more or less the people living there 2,000 years ago and much of the difference is natural cultural drift and interaction. The only place in the old North Weat of the Empire that suffred anything like the break that the Muslims invasions brought to the East is England and that is also the only place where we do not have Roman Law or Roman institutions, and where we speak a Germanic language.


I think it's not really wise to identify the immigrants from Muslim countries firstly as Muslims. I don't think it's the defining factor.

Furthermore, the idea of that Islamic institutions are opposed to Roman traditions is probably a wrong assumption. The organisation of the Abbasid Caliphate was largely based upon Sassanian ideas of Kingship and administration. Additionally, there are strong hints that the language spoken at the court was initally Greek rather than Persian or Arabic (which both were in usage at a later point).

I think the problem is self identification of Muslim immigrants, particularly in the UK, France anf Germany. It makes sense to identify yourself by the thing you share with other immigrant groups when you don't feel you share anything with the host country, but there it is none the less. As far as Islamic institions being "opposed" to Roman traditions, no they weren't, but they still effectively destroyed them because they took them in, broke them down into constituant parts and put them together again. Regardless of what the Abbasids initially spoke in Court, later they spoke Persian or Arabic.


Nonsense. Especially this last part. What did they destroy with no regard to the past? I literally have no idea what the Arabs destroyed. And please, please don't say the Library of Alexandria, because it weren't the Arabs who did that. You should also probably realise that the early Islamic forces constituted largely of non-Muslims as well. Saying that it was an Islamic invasion aimed at spreading Islam is historically incorrect.

If the Islamic invasions did not aim at spreading Islamic control, then what was the aim? Rome invaded to Romanise for its own good and the good of conquered peoples. I'm not making a judgement here, beyond the simple point that Rome is basucally us and the Caliphs aren't. As to destruction... Hagia Sophia is the prime example, desecrated and defaced to become a Mosque - that happened, and the same happened to the Christian Church that was where the Dome of the Rock now sits. Again, I'm not making a judgement but replaces the great Cathedrals with mosques was a deliberate political, religious and cultural statement.

Oh, and they may have destroyed the Second Library at Alexandria, the first was destroyed in the 1st Century BC but the Christian riots in the 5th Century don't account for the complete destruction of the second, and it was Edward Gibbon who first blamed the Christians as part of his project to excuse the Muslims for the collapse Western Civilisation generally.


Although there were some on and off wars between the Ummayad and Abbasid Caliphates and the Eastern Roman Empire, with the Arabs even going as far as reaching Constantinople and sieging it several times, relations had more or less stabilised by the 9th century. Roman ambassadors visited Jerusalem and other cities and were regarded as the spokesmen of the Christians living under Muslim rule. The other way around, there were also Arab ambassadors stationed in Constantinople who generally had relatively good relationships with the Roman Emperor.

You are quite right, but the "on and off" wars could just as easily be charactarised as "on and off peace" and this in no way diminishes the fact that the majority of the important Christian centres were at this point under Muslim rule, Constantinople and Rome being the only remaining free Patriarchal Sees still in Christian hands.

Traumatic.

Several administrative concepts were directly borrowed from earlier traditions: the collecting of the land-tax, the kharaj was directly taken over from earlier Sassanian and Roman taxes.


Now the perception of the Crusades in Islamic historiography is quite interesting. Initially, the Crusades were regarded as a temporary loss of territory to Byzantine (or Roman) armies and met with hardly any response. Outrage at the court in Baghdad led to the Seljuk ruler Malikshah to send an army over to Syria, but it was regarded with suspicion by the autonomous rulers of Mosul and Aleppo and the army was largely destroyed by another Muslim army.

What I find really interesting is that you're strongly supporting the idea of Islam as being inherently alien to (ill-defined) European culture; in this, you're actually following the rejectionist Islamic traditionalist line of thought that Islam in its core is hostile to the West and is in this sense unique. Seeing how you're an historian, I think you're widely off the mark here. Islamic theology was heavily influenced by Judaism and Nestoric Christianity while still retaining some traits typical of pre-Islamic Arabian religions.

However, and I'm risking getting too interpretative of the historical situation around 650 now, the influence of these Arabian folk religions can be seen not so much in the theological fundaments, but rather to its practicalities and its rituals such as the pilgrimage to Mecca and the payment of Zakat. The theological concepts in Islam are borrowed mostly from Eastern Christian Monophysite sects. At this point, we're relatively sure that Muhammad was able to read and write to some degree and was quite aware of Christian and Jewish metaphysical concepts. You wouldn't say that Eastern Christianity is an Alien culture (the word "alien" unexplicably with a capital A)?

Modern Western, including Christian, Metaphysics is indebted to eithe Plato or Aristotle, currently I believe Aristotle has the upper hand. Islamic thought doesn't run quite the same way, does it, it seeks absolute synthesis within it's religious space, where Western culture divides and compartmentalises. As to Eastern Monophysite sects, I am completely ignorant of the metaphysical system and how the theology constructs and single Divine Person.

Which, I think, answers your question.

The point is that Islam comes from outside where Christianity arose in a Roman context, even if it was on the Eastern edge of the Empire the Empire was able to frame it in a way the European centre could process and assimilate to.

Islam is also a political system, and one which is designed for rulers where Christianity is a religion of the poor and destitute. You have made the point severl times in the past that Muslim rulers did not actively work to convert their subjects, but the implication was that if you wanted to get on in a Muslim country you had to embrace Islam. Christianity is completely the opposite, the priests went to the ruler to ask permission to preach to the populace.

At the end of the day, Islam is a religion which is most comfortable when it has political dominion, which explains the rise and rise of Islamic parties (and they aren't just the same as Christian Democrats) and the angst a lot of Muslims seem to suffer in non-Muslim countires.


The "Gates of Vienna" rhetoric: they tried from the West, at Tours (note: not a war of conquest) in 732 and failed, they tried from the East at Vienna (1583; in which the Polish army was assisted by Tatar Muslims in their service, a fact conveniently left out of the histories) and now they're trying from the backdoor.

Where do you get this idea that "a significant amount" (how much) of Muslims want to make Europe more sympathetic to Islamic law? What does that even mean?

I didn't say I supported it, I said it was a fear built into the European Psyche, as you just indicated. Fankly, I'm not personally that worried about a Muslim takeover - I'm worried about a Pogrom against Muslims when they get control of a particular region of France or Italy and try to run the government there. We're already seeing the beginnings of those issues here with the increasing level of racism and the backlash against (for example) headscarves when Christian women are diciplined for wearing crosses.

Loius said it once, as a French Atheist he was still much more comfortable with a devout Christian than a moderate-ish Muslim. For starters, as none of us really knows anything about Muslim theology we can't tell an actual devout but moderate Muslim from a vague "cultural" one who doesn't really care.

Then there are the Burkas, which I personally find offensive on at least two seperate levels, but I just can't be bothered with those.

[rvg]

By focus on the intention rather than the literal meaning?
And what would the intention of that verse be, in your opinion?




You're still applying your own interpretation on what the Qur'an is and what it says, rather than to look at different interpretations. In other words, you're telling us what the Qur'an is rather than saying it's what you think it is.
Fair enough, it's my personal opinion. What's yours?


By the way, this is part of the old discussion of the Mu‘tazilites who believed in a created Qur'an in the tenth century. There's also contemporary discussion about this issue. You're kind of taking the position of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Hanbal here by denying any kind of flexibility in Qur'anic interpretation.
I just go from how Koran came to be: Archangel Gabriel telling it to Mohammed verse by verse. Isn't that correct?

[Brenus]

As I am preparing myself to go to vote tomorrow and due to the French legislation, I have no program to read, no speech to listen so I read the Org.

“I think the problem is self identification of Muslim immigrants, particularly in the UK, France and Germany”: There is no self- identification by the French Muslims that was not imposed to them by the Le Pen (Family) and Sarkozy & Co. When you stigmatise a population, when you say they are not part of the country, do not be surprise they will gather and built a defensive identity.
When you don’t discriminate, the vast majority of a so-called ethnic or religious minority will feel united with their host country that becomes theirs.
In the victims of the lunatic criminal referring himself to Islam (like the Christian lunatic psychotic Norwegian criminal referred to Christianity to kill teenagers) 2 of the paratroopers were culturally Muslim.
When you go in a Republican Laic lefty meeting you would see only French Citizens. If you could read French, I would advise you to read what happens on the Front de Gauche web-site. Algerians who wrote to thank the Laic Lefties for their fight for separation between State and Church. It gave them a boost, give them hope that they as well will be able to escape to Religious Dictatorship.

The ironic reality is the extreme Right is responsible for the “muslimisation” of the Muslims in France.

“The point is that Islam comes from outside where Christianity arose in a Roman context”: Err, your point? Christianity was impose by Iron and Fire to South America, and even in the Roman Empire.

“Loius said it once, as a French Atheist he was still much more comfortable with a devout Christian than a moderate-ish Muslim.” As a French Atheist, I am more comfortable with a Atheist Muslim than with a extreme right catholic from Notre Dame du Chardonnay, Church illegally occupied with the complicity of the French Right Wing. All these fanatic women kneeling in praying IN THE STREET in front of Clinics practising Abortion, frightening the young and vulnerable, who are wanting to impose their view freak me out. Freedom of choice is not their main concern.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As I am preparing myself to go to vote tomorrow and due to the French legislation, I have no program to read, no speech to listen so I read the Org.

“I think the problem is self identification of Muslim immigrants, particularly in the UK, France and Germany”: There is no self- identification by the French Muslims that was not imposed to them by the Le Pen (Family) and Sarkozy & Co. When you stigmatise a population, when you say they are not part of the country, do not be surprise they will gather and built a defensive identity.
When you don’t discriminate, the vast majority of a so-called ethnic or religious minority will feel united with their host country that becomes theirs.
In the victims of the lunatic criminal referring himself to Islam (like the Christian lunatic psychotic Norwegian criminal referred to Christianity to kill teenagers) 2 of the paratroopers were culturally Muslim.
When you go in a Republican Laic lefty meeting you would see only French Citizens. If you could read French, I would advise you to read what happens on the Front de Gauche web-site. Algerians who wrote to thank the Laic Lefties for their fight for separation between State and Church. It gave them a boost, give them hope that they as well will be able to escape to Religious Dictatorship.

The ironic reality is the extreme Right is responsible for the “muslimisation” of the Muslims in France.

France tried the "everybody be French or else" method and you still have large swathes of Paris which are dislocated from France as a whole.

I'll freely admit that stigmatising a group will cause them to draw inwards, but they have to be a visable group to be stigmatised.

Muslims were inward looking in France when the Hard Right were still carping on about Jewish bankers.

Besides, not the point. The situation we now have is one where large urban Muslim communities are more-or-less disconected from the general polity. They are outside the group, why is less important now than the fact that they are not interested in integrating, and this is especially true of some young Muslims who are born here, whose parents do participate in society at large.

And besides that, I wasn't talking about the current Muslim population, but the historical context of why Europeans have particular reactions to Muslims as a groups


“The point is that Islam comes from outside where Christianity arose in a Roman context”: Err, your point? Christianity was impose by Iron and Fire to South America, and even in the Roman Empire.

Broadly speaking, the Roman Empire was mugged by Christianity. By the time Rome became interested in sponsering, let alone enforcing, Christian religion the game was already up. As to South America - I could write a long post about how Christianity in South America had the same result as Islam in Algeria, but I'm not interested in South America as it is beyond the pale of this discussion.


“Loius said it once, as a French Atheist he was still much more comfortable with a devout Christian than a moderate-ish Muslim.” As a French Atheist, I am more comfortable with a Atheist Muslim than with a extreme right catholic from Notre Dame du Chardonnay, Church illegally occupied with the complicity of the French Right Wing. All these fanatic women kneeling in praying IN THE STREET in front of Clinics practising Abortion, frightening the young and vulnerable, who are wanting to impose their view freak me out. Freedom of choice is not their main concern.

No such thing as an "Atheist Muslim", and you're twisting my words, I said "devout" not "extreme right".

You can get devout Communist Christians, you know, including Catholics.

[Fragony]

Immigrants should assimilate to the host culture. In that process, there will be some blending of the immigrant culture with that of the host which is natural (Germany has great falafel stands); however, the process should be very lopsided. Germany should stand up to those who have no interest in assimilating.

No need really, they can be what they want to be as long as they don't impose themselves. The worst integrated group are the Chinese, I don't mind

[Major Robert Dump]

Islam won Europe without firing a shot. GG.

[Husar]

The what?

Just a few days ago I read about how turks are often still not accepted and have to listen to germans using slurs against them, don't feel accepted etc. and when I come to this little island called Backroom it's somehow so that the germans have lost out to the immigrants....

Someone has a misconception of reality it seems.

Please explain, I want to know how the turks/islam have me in their hands.

[Fragony]

The what?

Just a few days ago I read about how turks are often still not accepted and have to listen to germans using slurs against them, don't feel accepted etc. and when I come to this little island called Backroom it's somehow so that the germans have lost out to the immigrants....

Someone has a misconception of reality it seems.

Please explain, I want to know how the turks/islam have me in their hands.

Not that, but the Turkish PM openly asks Turkish Germans to reject German values, rather odd no. Even odder is that Germany sucks that thing and swallows whatever comes out of it, with a hunger. Or should I say craving.

[Husar]

What should we do? Declare war on Turkey?

He's said quite a few things that are crazy like that but not even all the Turks agree with him.
The hunger and craving you pulled out of your nose, it's nowhere to be seen.

More likely most Germans still find turkish people more suspect than these turkish people often deserve.

I know enough immigrants of turkish or middle eastern descent who have more decency than a lot of germans and I also know some who don't.
Immigrants are not the borg and I never defended the criminal ones, just like I don't defend a Priklopil because he's "one of us".

Integration goes both ways and they weren't always welcomed with open arms as you often portray it.
Maybe politically, but not by the common people.

And therein lies the problem, we invited these people over and didn't want them to feel at home, then we let them stay anyway and now we wonder why they don't feel at home as much as we wish(or secretly don't wish in some cases) they would...

[rvg]

More likely most Germans still find turkish people more suspect than these turkish people often deserve.

And those suspicions should continue until the day when you walk into a bar and see two Germans: Konrad Alioglu and Franz Qutuzbey drinking beer, watching a soccer game between Germany and Turkey and rooting for Germany.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And those suspicions should continue until the day when you walk into a bad and see two Germans: Konrad Alioglu and Franz Qutuzbey drinking beer, watching a soccer game between Germany and Turkey and rooting for Germany.

Ah hyes, the "cricket test" - it never works because most people root for the winning team, I'll happily do that if Sweden is beating England, despite being English.

[Centurion1]

Ah hyes, the "cricket test" - it never works because most people root for the winning team, I'll happily do that if Sweden is beating England, despite being English.

um no. that is not how it usually works among people who actually like sports. especially when nationalism is thrown onto the fire.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

um no. that is not how it usually works among people who actually like sports. especially when nationalism is thrown onto the fire.

Um, yeah it kinda is among well adjusted people when their national team sucks. Excessive modern tribalism over sports teams is a disfunction leading to all sorts of mental issues.

[rvg]

Um, yeah it kinda is among well adjusted people when their national team sucks.

This won't apply to the German soccer team then.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This won't apply to the German soccer team then.

Which is the problem with your test - Germany are a better team to support than Turkey most years, and Turks drink like fish anyway.

[Rhyfelwyr]

In my experience you support the national team of whatever nation you identify with even if they are rubbish. I should know, I'm Scottish.

[rvg]

Which is the problem with your test - Germany are a better team to support than Turkey most years, and Turks drink like fish anyway.

Even better then. The question becomes: can we find Konrad and Franz?

[gaelic cowboy]

In my experience you support the national team of whatever nation you identify with even if they are rubbish. I should know, I'm Scottish.

Exactly Rhy

The original question was faulty anyway because you dont pick your team you inherit it :yes:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In my experience you support the national team of whatever nation you identify with even if they are rubbish. I should know, I'm Scottish.

Yes, but yours are a beligerant people, and not everyone has only one identity


Even better then. The question becomes: can we find Konrad and Franz?

Counter question: If he's called Johan, does that make him Yiddish?

[Hax]

It's a fershlugginer question. What are you, meshuggina​?

[rvg]

Counter question: If he's called Johan, does that make him Yiddish?
No, it'll make him German.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Excessive modern tribalism over sports teams is a disfunction leading to all sorts of mental issues.Omg, thank you. I just tell people I am an Oakland Raiders fan because every sports argument with my friends turns into a "ur just a **** bandwagoner." No one can accuse me of hopping on any bandwagon now.

[gaelic cowboy]

Omg, thank you. I just tell people I am an Oakland Raiders fan because every sports argument with my friends turns into a "ur just a **** bandwagoner." No one can accuse me of hopping on any bandwagon now.


but but being on the wagon is where all the cool people are at yes/no and there is a band on it too hey look it's going somewhere.

[Kagemusha]

First the Englishman insults the Kebab, which is heretic beyond pardon as it is. Next he starts talking about switching teams! Are there any limits for this madness?!

[Husar]

I guess I'm not a real German then because I often root for the dutch team when they play against Germany.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I guess I'm not a real German then because I often root for the dutch team when they play against Germany.

Well, but think of all the dysfunctional mental issues you've avoided by doing so!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

First the Englishman insults the Kebab, which is heretic beyond pardon as it is. Next he starts talking about switching teams! Are there any limits for this madness?!

Oh calm down, it's only football, not cricket or Rugger.

You're thinking of the other Englishman.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes, but yours are a beligerant people, and not everyone has only one identity

Most Scottish people say they feel at least "partly British", yet just support the Scottish team. Of course the thing is there isn't a British team. But there will be at the Olympics. Not that anybody cares about them though. I'm being serious, I've never known anybody to follow the Olympics at all.

But I think you'll find that the Scottish example in this case is more the norm. Outside the little bubble of polite middle-class England people in general tend to be beligerant and intolerant.

And although horribly off-topic, do you identify with Cornwall nationalism? I was amazed to hear you have the "Cornwall National Liberation Army" and previously the An Gof. I read one of their statements somewhere and presumed it was a spoof on the INLA, but apparently they really exist.

[Sarmatian]

I guess I'm not a real German then because I often root for the dutch team when they play against Germany.

Blasphemy!!!

After a... well, forever, we have a German team that's actually likeable in addition to being good and you say THAT?

You sir, are an insult, to the German nation and the sport of football and Mario Goetze.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And although horribly off-topic, do you identify with Cornwall nationalism? I was amazed to hear you have the "Cornwall National Liberation Army" and previously the An Gof. I read one of their statements somewhere and presumed it was a spoof on the INLA, but apparently they really exist.

I'm not Cornish, I'm part Welsh. What I know is that the Cornish language died out and there have been recent efforts to rivive it, with mixed results, that Cornish nationalism is inherrently racist (membership of certain Cornish pressure groups requires x number of Cornish ancestors) and that most of the calls for independence are based on a misunderstanding of what the "Stannery" Parliament was for.

I also note that the Cornish word for Cornwall is "Kernow" rather than "Cernou" which somewhat diminishes tha argument for continuity (the Welsh is "Cernu", compare with "Cymru" for "Wales".

As far as Scottish football goes, just consider that when England play the opposing shirt is automatically stocked and often sells out, if Scotland have already been eliminated from the Tournament.

Which proves both that Scots will support of teams when it suits them, and that not supporting England has more to do with Anglo-Scottish relations than football.

[rvg]

I'm not Cornish, I'm part Welsh. What I know is that the Cornish language died out and there have been recent efforts to rivive it, with mixed results, that Cornish nationalism is inherrently racist (membership of certain Cornish pressure groups requires x number of Cornish ancestors).

Interesting. I wonder how does Cornish culture stand apart from English culture. With their language not being used and all, what does make one Cornish, is it last names or something? On a related note WTF is going on with this independence epidemic in Britain? Is it a new phenomenon?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm not Cornish, I'm part Welsh. What I know is that the Cornish language died out and there have been recent efforts to rivive it, with mixed results, that Cornish nationalism is inherrently racist (membership of certain Cornish pressure groups requires x number of Cornish ancestors) and that most of the calls for independence are based on a misunderstanding of what the "Stannery" Parliament was for.

I also note that the Cornish word for Cornwall is "Kernow" rather than "Cernou" which somewhat diminishes tha argument for continuity (the Welsh is "Cernu", compare with "Cymru" for "Wales".

Well that is surprising, usually the nationalisms of the smaller Celtic fringe places tends to be more civic-orientated and left-leaning, and certainly not racist. You do live in Cornwall, right?


As far as Scottish football goes, just consider that when England play the opposing shirt is automatically stocked and often sells out, if Scotland have already been eliminated from the Tournament.

Which proves both that Scots will support of teams when it suits them, and that not supporting England has more to do with Anglo-Scottish relations than football.

On the other hand, they sell England tops at Ibrox and a lot of Rangers fans like to wear them, to the dismay of everyone else.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Interesting. I wonder how does Cornish culture stand apart from English culture. With their language not being used and all, what does make one Cornish, is it last names or something? On a related note WTF is going on with this independence epidemic in Britain? Is it a new phenomenon?

Look at the Troubles in Ireland, very few Catholics could speak any degree of Irish Gaelic.

This trend towards separatism and devolution to the regions is a trend across all of Europe.

[rvg]

This trend towards separatism and devolution to the regions is a trend across all of Europe.

Oh, I can see that. What I fail to see is logic behind that, at least when it comes to Western Europe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interesting. I wonder how does Cornish culture stand apart from English culture. With their language not being used and all, what does make one Cornish, is it last names or something? On a related note WTF is going on with this independence epidemic in Britain? Is it a new phenomenon?

Is it a new phenomonen? No.

Partly, it has to do with the expansion of the franchise, accross Europe the old Elite had more in common with each other than the people they rules - and those people often had nothing in commen at all. Boradly, the Celts HATE, and I mean that, the English. It's pure and naked racism, a Welshman/Scotsman/Irishman, which actually say to your face, "I hate the English, but you're alright" just the same as "I hate balcks, but you're alright." The reality is that the "English" don't really exist, IA and I have less in commen probably than I have with the Welsh and he with the Scots, but there are 50 million "English" and the "Celtic Fringe" together make only 10 million, so "Englishness" tends to dominate through sheer numbers.

As to how English culture and Cornish culture differ, that depends, between Devon, Cornwall and Somerset there's much of muchness at first glance, but the Cornish dialect a varient on the West Saxon spoken on the other side of the border which contains more Cornish remnants, but the major difference is that the Cornish are primarily miners and sheep herders, with some milk cows, whilst in Devon we primarily produce beef, lamb, corn, oats, and apples.

That may not sound like a difference to you, but it affects our civil institutions, such as the "Stannery" Parliament in Cornwall created to air the views of Cornish Tin Miners.


Well that is surprising, usually the nationalisms of the smaller Celtic fringe places tends to be more civic-orientated and left-leaning, and certainly not racist. You do live in Cornwall, right?


They're still left-wingish but there is a far more overtyl geneticist view of "Cornishness" because of the blurry of the line between Devon and Cornwall, and I actually live on the English side of the border.



On the other hand, they sell England tops at Ibrox and a lot of Rangers fans like to wear them, to the dismay of everyone else.

Exception that proves the rule?


Oh, I can see that. What I fail to see is logic behind that, at least when it comes to Western Europe.

Pan-Europeanism seeks to dismantle the Nation-State so we can all live together in Peace and Harmony, wht we are beggining to see though is that the Nation State held together lots of belligerant regional or ethnic fiefdoms. Rhy mentioned the IRA, but what is almost never mention are the analogous Welsh and Cornish terrorists, mostly because they only destroyed property and not people.

Also, grudges are nursed over centuries here, the Scottish National Party's referendum on independance will be held on the 700th Anniversary of Bannockburn (the bit at the end of Braveheart).

[rvg]

Partly, it has to do with the expansion of the franchise, accross Europe the old Elite had more in common with each other than the people they rules - and those people often had nothing in commen at all. Boradly, the Celts HATE, and I mean that, the English. It's pure and naked racism, a Welshman/Scotsman/Irishman, which actually say to your face, "I hate the English, but you're alright" just the same as "I hate balcks, but you're alright."
Oy carramba, this is childish. Do they even know why they hate the English?


As to how English culture and Cornish culture differ, that depends, between Devon, Cornwall and Somerset there's much of muchness at first glance, but the Cornish dialect a varient on the West Saxon spoken on the other side of the border which contains more Cornish remnants, but the major difference is that the Cornish are primarily miners and sheep herders, with some milk cows, whilst in Devon we primarily produce beef, lamb, corn, oats, and apples.
Okay, but how does being part of England impede their daily lives?


That may not sound like a difference to you, but it affects our civil institutions, such as the "Stannery" Parliament in Cornwall created to air the views of Cornish Tin Miners.
You're right, it doesn't.


Pan-Europeanism seeks to dismantle the Nation-State so we can all live together in Peace and Harmony, wht we are beggining to see though is that the Nation State held together lots of belligerant regional or ethnic fiefdoms. Rhy mentioned the IRA, but what is almost never mention are the analogous Welsh and Cornish terrorists, mostly because they only destroyed property and not people.
This is one thing that has always puzzled me about the Old World: they nurture these centuries old hatreds as if those hatreds were backed by practical reasons, while in reality of course these are just tantrums that have absolutely no place in the 3rd millenium.


Also, grudges are nursed over centuries here, the Scottish National Party's referendum on independance will be held on the 700th Anniversary of Bannockburn (the bit at the end of Braveheart).
Yes, I remember, it went something like this: "and so, in the year 1314 the Scottish army, starving and outnumbered faced off against the English crown in a final battle, but we do not have the budget to show it. The End."

[Husar]

Blasphemy!!!

After a... well, forever, we have a German team that's actually likeable in addition to being good and you say THAT?

You sir, are an insult, to the German nation and the sport of football and Mario Goetze.

That's why I was rooting for both during the last world cup.
I'm still an insult to the sport of football though because I hardly care about it.

Which probably makes me even less of a proper german.

But then what am I? I was born in german, hold a german passport, german is my native language etc.
Yet I do not qualify for holding the most precious of german cultural traits!
Except for being overly correct perhaps.

[gaelic cowboy]

@PVC Well seeing as we are a seperate nation were dam well allowed to root for the other guy did Arsenal fans cheer Man U in the champions league.:yes:
I always root for the other team when England are playing it's what we do I suppose it's because of who my family were and what they believed.







However England have a poor history of preperation for finals and there record is not stellar, naturally when having to watch a lot of British tellevision this fact is overlooked and if your not part of the english tribe then it becomes a point of ridicule. So people feel there supporting the little guy even if it's Brazil but then most everyone likes Brazil.

Essentially it is a way to innoculate the populace from violence at least in Ireland ye know tiny bit of disease to immunise you:clown:.

[gaelic cowboy]

Look at the Troubles in Ireland, very few Catholics could speak any degree of Irish Gaelic.

This trend towards separatism and devolution to the regions is a trend across all of Europe.

The separitism trend is to an extent aping the separtism and secularising trend of earlier times in Europe in places like France, Hungary and the Czech Republic. These places had movements of Protestants joining forces with more moderate elements in Catholism the outcome and driving forces were different in each of the cases.

Essentially in Scotland I detect a simmilar dynamic though the need for secularisation is not the driving force here obviously. If I had to guess I would say the Protesstant/Unionist/Loyalist community is arguing amongst itself about the future(not neccessarily indpendence) and people outside that dynamic be they Catholics, immigrants or otherwise are allying with non-unionists.

[Greyblades]

Bah! Football stopped being fun to watch back when there was still around 80 a side, weapons were commonplace, and fatalities were merely a way of keeping score.

[gaelic cowboy]

Bah! Football stopped being fun to watch back when there was still around 80 a side, weapons were commonplace, and fatalities were merely a way of keeping score.

Problem solved.

Weapons included and 15 a side team game Jackie Tyrrell Big Hits Collection (for some reason it's overly bright for about ten seconds) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__L1NiWbruI&feature=relmfu)



THE BIGGEST HITS IN GAA 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kOMPCgHQ68&feature=relmfu)

an it goes all the way up to 16

THE BIGGEST HITS IN GAA 16 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty7mn9N_LRU&feature=relmfu)

[Greyblades]

Ach its not the same, no sport is fun to watch without the liberal application of mob violence! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_football)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oy carramba, this is childish. Do they even know why they hate the English?

Mostly because we created England, and then we made the remaining Celts speak English instead of their native language, see the demise of the Cornish language. In the case of the Cornish though, to a certain extent they are aping the Welsh. However, see below as well.


Okay, but how does being part of England impede their daily lives?

For the Cornish? Not much at all, not practically. To an extent though their lives are impeded by Westminster Centralism, the Cornish lobby sees this as "English vs Cornish" when in fact people in Devon have all the same problems.


You're right, it doesn't.

Except that the price of lamb remained static as £10 a head for 20 years and all the mines closed. Cornwall's economy relied on tin, but the mines are no longer profitable, so the county relies on Tourism but is still basically held up by central government funding, much like Alaska in the US it is incapable of self sufficiency.

At the same time, cultural regions in Europe are much smaller than the US, if you live in a particular place you can tell the difference between someone who lives 20 miles away and someone who lives 40, certainly you should be able to tell the next county over. As the child of parents who moved in from three counties over I am sometimes considered "foriegn" here in Devon, though that has to do with the difficulty of assimilating as much as actual prejudice.


This is one thing that has always puzzled me about the Old World: they nurture these centuries old hatreds as if those hatreds were backed by practical reasons, while in reality of course these are just tantrums that have absolutely no place in the 3rd millenium.

Is it really so puzzling though? It isn't everyone, and the US has similar cultural ticks focused on Europe. You also have the Southern attitude to "Yankies" and Lincoln, I don't expect that will change any time soon.


Yes, I remember, it went something like this: "and so, in the year 1314 the Scottish army, starving and outnumbered faced off against the English crown in a final battle, but we do not have the budget to show it. The End."

You'll note Mel hates the English too, he also made "The Patriot".


@PVC Well seeing as we are a seperate nation were dam well allowed to root for the other guy did Arsenal fans cheer Man U in the champions league.:yes:
I always root for the other team when England are playing it's what we do I suppose it's because of who my family were and what they believed.

However England have a poor history of preperation for finals and there record is not stellar, naturally when having to watch a lot of British tellevision this fact is overlooked and if your not part of the english tribe then it becomes a point of ridicule. So people feel there supporting the little guy even if it's Brazil but then most everyone likes Brazil.
Essentially it is a way to innoculate the populace from violence at least in Ireland ye know tiny bit of disease to immunise you:clown:.

Right....

but this can still lead to absurdities like the Irish supporting SA against England or a team from a country I have never heard of, rather than the people just over the way who are some of your closest kin.

[gaelic cowboy]

Right....

but this can still lead to absurdities like the Irish supporting SA against England or a team from a country I have never heard of, rather than the people just over the way who are some of your closest kin.


Absurdities??? eh I dont understand the question PVC I like the english people to be honest ..............................................................................but obviously I want to see the defeated in things like war and sport :clown:


I see it as just part of the natural order of things, you will get the odd Irish person who might keep an eye out for England but to be honest it's not the dominant view. Really it's about how we view ourselves in relation to England and how each region defines itself simply put supporting the other team is an easy way to announce to the world "Not English"

Also of all the regions I think were due a few sneaky shouts 1169-1921 is a long time, of course some people argue it should read 1169-present but I think were going beyond that now.

But sure never know England could meet France in Poland/Ukraine I promise to NOT cheer for France :yes:

[rvg]

Is it really so puzzling though? It isn't everyone, and the US has similar cultural ticks focused on Europe. You also have the Southern attitude to "Yankies" and Lincoln, I don't expect that will change any time soon.

No, not even close. Civil War was fought over ideology, not ethnic strife. While the South does have its distinct cuisine, culture and manner of speech, they still consider themselves American, moreso in fact than some liberals in Massachusetts or California. The ones I've met at least, and I've met many. As for ethnicity in general, it means nothing here. Race still matters, but ethnicity does not.

[Husar]

Oh hey, there's a new, relevant Amnesty International report (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/muslims-discriminated-against-demonstrating-their-faith-2012-04-23).

Turns out that freedom of religion, often touted as one of the pillars of our cultural superiority, only applies to Catholics and Protestants or so.
In our strife to stay better than the Muslims who don't allow Christians any freedoms in their countries, we are becoming more and more like them.

Is that the way forward or a step backwards?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Absurdities??? eh I dont understand the question PVC I like the english people to be honest ..............................................................................but obviously I want to see the defeated in things like war and sport :clown:


I see it as just part of the natural order of things, you will get the odd Irish person who might keep an eye out for England but to be honest it's not the dominant view. Really it's about how we view ourselves in relation to England and how each region defines itself simply put supporting the other team is an easy way to announce to the world "Not English"

Also of all the regions I think were due a few sneaky shouts 1169-1921 is a long time, of course some people argue it should read 1169-present but I think were going beyond that now.

But sure never know England could meet France in Poland/Ukraine I promise to NOT cheer for France :yes:

Right, so it's about anti-Englishness, friendly or otherwise it amounts to the same thing. The idea that the most important thing is to not be seen as English, to differentiage oneself.

Meanwhile, the average poor bloody Englishman is wondering what he or his ancestors ever did to the Irish or the Welsh that the Irish or Welsh didn't do to him at the behest of the same Norman magnates - if he thinks about it at all.


No, not even close. Civil War was fought over ideology, not ethnic strife. While the South does have its distinct cuisine, culture and manner of speech, they still consider themselves American, moreso in fact than some liberals in Massachusetts or California. The ones I've met at least, and I've met many. As for ethnicity in general, it means nothing here. Race still matters, but ethnicity does not.

Are you sure?

The Civil War was fought primarily over the issue of centre vs regionalism. The Southerners were regionalists more than slave-owners, what they resented was Washington's diktats. You'll note that Rhy has said that most Scots view themselves as "partly British" despite the prevelence of anti-English feeling North of the border.

We need a Southerner here to answer this question.

Also, I think you are somewhat confused about how "ethnicity" and "race" work in Europe - very differently to in the Americas. For starters, we don't subscribe to the "one drop" mentality.

[rvg]

Are you sure?
The Civil War was fought primarily over the issue of centre vs regionalism. The Southerners were regionalists more than slave-owners, what they resented was Washington's diktats.
Not quite. When it came to the issue of slavery they of course claimed that it was their own business and the feds should stay out of it. On the other hand, when confronted with the issue of fugitive slaves (whom most Northern states refused to apprehend), the Dixiecrats were shouting atop their lungs about the duty of the Federal Government to intervene. Pure hypocrisy, you see.


Also, I think you are somewhat confused about how "ethnicity" and "race" work in Europe - very differently to in the Americas. For starters, we don't subscribe to the "one drop" mentality.
Most people here don't subscribe to it either. What I can tell you for sure though is that whether you're English, Scottish, Irish, Swedish, German, Italian or Romanian isn't gonna make a lick of a difference here. Ethnicity is meaningless here, unless you happen to be French.

[Vladimir]

Not quite. When it came to the issue of slavery they of course claimed that it was their own business and the feds should stay out of it. On the other hand, when confronted with the issue of fugitive slaves (whom most Northern states refused to apprehend), the Dixiecrats were shouting atop their lungs about the duty of the Federal Government to intervene. Pure hypocrisy, you see.


Most people here don't subscribe to it either. What I can tell you for sure though is that whether you're English, Scottish, Irish, Swedish, German, Italian or Romanian isn't gonna make a lick of a difference here. Ethnicity is meaningless here, unless you happen to be French.

So, are we talking about another European civil war here? :inquisitive: Because I'm tired of the critics that say we only go to war with brown people. Let's do this soon. In a few decades Europe will be full of brown people and I don't want to hear the same criticism.

[gaelic cowboy]

Right, so it's about anti-Englishness, friendly or otherwise it amounts to the same thing. The idea that the most important thing is to not be seen as English, to differentiage oneself.

Meanwhile, the average poor bloody Englishman is wondering what he or his ancestors ever did to the Irish or the Welsh that the Irish or Welsh didn't do to him at the behest of the same Norman magnates - if he thinks about it at all.

nobody said it was fair PVC we are talking about sport after all.

This is just like the rain or the wind tis the way of things.

[gaelic cowboy]

So, are we talking about another European civil war here? :inquisitive: Because I'm tired of the critics that say we only go to war with brown people. Let's do this soon. In a few decades Europe will be full of brown people and I don't want to hear the same criticism.

I suspect by the time Europe is "Brown" so will the USA thats what moves all the debate in the Southern states is it not.

For the record this Eurabia thing is overdone not a hope in hell in happen Europe will turn muslim, by the time Islam might be capable of doing so there home countries will also have entered population decline (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1872/muslim-population-projections-worldwide-fast-growth).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

nobody said it was fair PVC we are talking about sport after all.

This is just like the rain or the wind tis the way of things.

Oh I know, but you said it yourself - sport is a substitute for war.

It would be nice if everyone could find someone other than the English to go to war with, rather than us being the majority opponent. It is at best tiresome and a little frustrating - and at worst it does spill over into naked and vile racism.

[drone]

The current "Southern" attitude to the North is definitely rooted in the war and Reconstruction. It's not as heated as what you would see in Europe, mainly because of migrations and the homogenization of US culture through mass media, but the latent bitterness is still there. I think the lesson is: if you conquer and occupy a region, the people are going to hate you.

[rvg]

I think the lesson is: if you conquer and occupy a region, the people are going to hate you.

It wasn't conquest though. Conquest involves subjugation of a sovereign nation, and that was not the case in the Civil War.

[gaelic cowboy]

Oh I know, but you said it yourself - sport is a substitute for war.

It would be nice if everyone could find someone other than the English to go to war with, rather than us being the majority opponent. It is at best tiresome and a little frustrating - and at worst it does spill over into naked and vile racism.

The closer one is on the political spectrum to Sinn Fein or the closer they live to the actual border the more likely your statement would be true.

But for most Irish it is merely a habit a sort of national passtime, there are clowns who are in it cos there eejits but then they would have been eejits without the match to begin with.

Irish people are rural conservative by nature but if they here really hated the english they wouldnt use words like "WE" when describing a match between Arsenal an Man U.

[gaelic cowboy]

It wasn't conquest though. Conquest involves subjugation of a sovereign nation, and that was not the case in the Civil War.

Conquest involves the use of force on a people this can involve etnicity, race and have a distinct nationality or even a lack of nationality.

The common thread is the use of force to impose political will against others will, sometimes the people make an accommadtion later but more often they dont.

[Vladimir]

The current "Southern" attitude to the North is definitely rooted in the war and Reconstruction. It's not as heated as what you would see in Europe, mainly because of migrations and the homogenization of US culture through mass media, but the latent bitterness is still there. I think the lesson is: if you conquer and occupy a region, the people are going to hate you.


It wasn't conquest though. Conquest involves subjugation of a sovereign nation, and that was not the case in the Civil War.

Sherman

[rvg]

Conquest involves the use of force on a people this can involve etnicity, race and have a distinct nationality or even a lack of nationality.

The common thread is the use of force to impose political will against others will, sometimes the people make an accommadtion later but more often they dont.
That would qualify the use of riot police as conquest.


Sherman
I'm sure they hate Uncle Billy's guts, I highly doubt they hate the USA though.

[gaelic cowboy]

That would qualify the use of riot police as conquest.

Indeed sure republicans on the Falls Road (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falls_Road,_Belfast) Belfast or the Bogside (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogside) in Derry would agree with that statement totally.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Indeed sure republicans on the Falls Road (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falls_Road,_Belfast) Belfast or the Bogside (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogside) in Derry would agree with that statement totally.

They are professional miscreants though - don't they take state handouts as a way of sticking it to the Crown, or was that just the Muslim terrorists.

[gaelic cowboy]

They are professional miscreants though - don't they take state handouts as a way of sticking it to the Crown, or was that just the Muslim terrorists.

The point would still have to be conceded though they would see it as conquest, although I would agree that lately it has gotten a lot more youthful and hence looks more like the UK riots.

I suppose thats the problem with the terms here, I meant republican in it's wider term but specifically the riots in the North lately are being co-opted by young fellas who want to raise hell still there is a slight RIRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Irish_Republican_Army) influence so we can argue they see it as as conquest.


by a happy coincidence RiRa would roughly be something like excitement in Gaelic there is no actual word but in conjunction with ruaile buaile ie rira agus rualie buaile it would mean to raise hell or a commotion or a tumult. I believe it would be an apt term for these seekers of excitement and confusion.








They are also so far away from the thinking of my grandfathers it's a joke, hardline republican socialists bah most them never did a days labour in there lives. In fact they wouldnt be able to do an honest job there really an underclass that is a mirror of the opposing camp in the North.

[rvg]

Indeed sure republicans on the Falls Road (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falls_Road,_Belfast) Belfast or the Bogside (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogside) in Derry would agree with that statement totally.

This is absurd though. If the government's ability to enforce law and order equals conquest, then the whole idea of government is incompatible with freedom, since government without power is nothing.

[drone]

It wasn't conquest though. Conquest involves subjugation of a sovereign nation, and that was not the case in the Civil War.
Says who? You aren't thinking like a Southerner.

I'm sure they hate Uncle Billy's guts, I highly doubt they hate the USA though.
Sherman gets his fair share of hate, but it's not so much the war as the Reconstruction that fed the ill will.

[rvg]

Says who? You aren't thinking like a Southerner.
Says logic. A nation can't subjugate and conquer itself.


Sherman gets his fair share of hate, but it's not so much the war as the Reconstruction that fed the ill will.
How's is that Sherman's fault though?

[gaelic cowboy]

This is absurd though. If the government's ability to enforce law and order equals conquest, then the whole idea of government is incompatible with freedom, since government without power is nothing.


Is not government enforecment of it's own standards by definition a conquest if one half of the community is opposed to being under it's continued rule.

Specifically how you define conquest matters not a jot to Gerry Adams thats for sure naturally Sinn Fein see enforcement of British law as an attempt to continue partition hence the conquest idea.

It's not that government cannot use force to imose it's will, it is that peoples idea of what is and isnt conquest have different meanings depending on place, history etc etc.

To purely frame it in terms of sovereign states implies that people who historically have never had a soverign state can not be conquered.

Abroiginal people the world over would naturally raise there eyebrows at such a narrow definition.

[rvg]

Is not government enforecment of it's own standards by definition a conquest if one half of the community is opposed to being under it's rule.What about the other half that supports it? Aren't their wishes just as valid?


Specifically how you define conquest matters not a jot to Gerry Adams thats for sure, specifically Sinn Fein see enforcement of British law as an attempt to continue partition hence the conquest idea.I'm not in a position to tell Gerry Adams or Sinn Fein how they should view things. It doesn't mean they are correct though.

[drone]

Says logic. A nation can't subjugate and conquer itself.


How's is that Sherman's fault though?
You aren't from the South, are you? :laugh4:

In 1860, it may have all been one country, but the cultural differences were vast. The Southern states seceded from the Union and formed a new country. This country was then conquered and occupied.

Sherman gets hate from the South for what he did during the war. After the War, he transitioned over to earning hate from the Native Americans. Reconstruction wasn't his thing (deconstruction was).

[gaelic cowboy]

I added more to the earlier post



Is not government enforecment of it's own standards by definition a conquest if one half of the community is opposed to being under it's continued rule.

Specifically how you define conquest matters not a jot to Gerry Adams thats for sure naturally Sinn Fein see enforcement of British law as an attempt to continue partition hence the conquest idea.

It's not that government cannot use force to imose it's will, it is that peoples idea of what is and isnt conquest have different meanings depending on place, history etc etc.

To purely frame it in terms of sovereign states implies that people who historically have never had a soverign state can not be conquered.

Abroiginal people the world over would naturally raise there eyebrows at such a narrow definition.




What about the other half that supports it? Aren't their wishes just as valid?

I'm not in a position to tell Gerry Adams or Sinn Fein how they should view things. It doesn't mean they are correct though.

your mistaking the idea that government support is about x percentage and therefore becomes the will of the people and therefore inviolate the situation is waaaay more complex than that.

Simply put since the other side wishes to remain British obviously this is also framed in terms of conquest of the Irish in conjunction with the British Government.

As I said earlier if I come from the deepest jungle of Brazil and end up thrown off my land for a new dam does this mean that my movement from pillar to post is not conquest of my people.

[Whacker]

Says logic. A nation can't subjugate and conquer itself.

Agree.


How's is that Sherman's fault though?

It's not really, he simply did what thousands of other commanders throughout history have done; made war hell for everyone.

@ drone

You're probably right about Reconstruction being the biggest itch. The problem with the southerners is that they're... well. southerners. My parents recently moved to Savannah and over the two odd years they've lived there now, I've come to learn more and more about southern history and the Civil War era, which I've always found pretty boring. Even with trying to learn from various sources (with their own inherent biases), pretty much everything I've read has given me an increasingly dim view of the South and southern culture. They resisted due processes of government. When they couldn't get their way, they tore up the constitution and broke away. They howled and yelled and pointed the finger at the north for starting a 'war of aggression', which they still call to this day and ignore the fact that they started it. After they'd been defeated, they resented northern occupation and military rule, which I guess I can see to an extent. The worst in my view was what drone highlighted, reconstruction. They opposed all of the progressive laws and movements made over the following decade, which saw such things as more civil rights and liberties for minorities, but integration efforts, and even some black leadership at the government level. Not only did they resent it, when they (the southern government reps in the senate) regained some measure of power and autonomy, they categorically and systematically undid most all of what the north accomplished.

So in short, they were not only embittered in defeat, they resented being pushed down a more civilized path and resisted strongly any and all changes to their precious heritage and culture.

[rvg]

You aren't from the South, are you? :laugh4:
Easy to tell, isn't it?


In 1860, it may have all been one country, but the cultural differences were vast.
True, but that was not the main cause, otherwise *all* Southern states would have seceded.


The Southern states seceded from the Union and formed a new country. This country was then conquered and occupied.
Yes, perspective does make a difference. Still, I doubt there is any strong sense of Confederate identity left in the South.


Sherman gets hate from the South for what he did during the war. After the War, he transitioned over to earning hate from the Native Americans. Reconstruction wasn't his thing (deconstruction was).
Exactly. Can't fault Sherman for reconstruction.

[gaelic cowboy]

Says logic. A nation can't subjugate and conquer itself.

Kurds were conqured and subjucated by Saddam so logic is off here.

There are loads of peoples out there in the world who historically have never had a nation state, they will many of them continue to feel conquered and subjucated even as there told they are a part of the nation subjucating them.

Whats wrong here is the use of the word Nation it's basically far to fuzzy a word.

[rvg]

As I said earlier if I come from the deepest jungle of Brazil and end up thrown off my land for a new dam does this mean that my movement from pillar to post is not conquest of my people.
If the government compensates you, then no, it doesn't amount to conquest. If that were conquest, then any action involving change could qualify as conquest, because pretty much no matter what is being done there will be someone opposed to it being done.


Kurds were conqured and subjucated by Saddam so logic is off here.
They weren't conquered, they were persecuted. Totally different.

[gaelic cowboy]

They weren't conquered, they were persecuted. Totally different.

Somehow I think the Kurds might dissagree with you supposedly they were a part of the Iraqi nation yet they got gassed and the like.

To my mind that is conquest and subjugation even if they never had even a proto-nation state.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Agree.



It's not really, he simply did what thousands of other commanders throughout history have done; made war hell for everyone.

@ drone

You're probably right about Reconstruction being the biggest itch. The problem with the southerners is that they're... well. southerners. My parents recently moved to Savannah and over the two odd years they've lived there now, I've come to learn more and more about southern history and the Civil War era, which I've always found pretty boring. Even with trying to learn from various sources (with their own inherent biases), pretty much everything I've read has given me an increasingly dim view of the South and southern culture. They resisted due processes of government. When they couldn't get their way, they tore up the constitution and broke away. They howled and yelled and pointed the finger at the north for starting a 'war of aggression', which they still call to this day and ignore the fact that they started it. After they'd been defeated, they resented northern occupation and military rule, which I guess I can see to an extent. The worst in my view was what drone highlighted, reconstruction. They opposed all of the progressive laws and movements made over the following decade, which saw such things as more civil rights and liberties for minorities, but integration efforts, and even some black leadership at the government level. Not only did they resent it, when they (the southern government reps in the senate) regained some measure of power and autonomy, they categorically and systematically undid most all of what the north accomplished.

So in short, they were not only embittered in defeat, they resented being pushed down a more civilized path and resisted strongly any and all changes to their precious heritage and culture.

You are looking at it from a Northern perspective. The majority of Southerners were not slave owners, but when the slaves were freed the Southern economy collapsed and their living standards suffered.

You are also wrong about the South starting the war, it was not illegal for the Southern States to secede - it was simply not provided for in the Constitution. The North refused to let them go, which was a political decision, not an ideaological one based on whether or not they should own slaves.

[rvg]

You are also wrong about the South starting the war, it was not illegal for the Southern States to secede - it was simply not provided for in the Constitution. The North refused to let them go, which was a political decision, not an ideaological one based on whether or not they should own slaves.

I believe Whacker is referring to the attack on Fort Sumter.



Somehow I think the Kurds might dissagree with you supposedly they were a part of the Iraqi nation yet they got gassed and the like.

To my mind that is conquest and subjugation even if they never had even a proto-nation state.
Iraqi Kurdistan was and is a part of Iraq. I will repeat that it is logically impossible for a nation to conquer itself.

[gaelic cowboy]

Iraqi Kurdistan was and is a part of Iraq. I will repeat that it is logically impossible for a nation to conquer itself.

Says who the Saddam era Sunni elite what the hell would the Kurds care what they think of as the Iraqi nation.


Lack of a nation state historical or otherwise does not imply you are not conquered or subjugated people. Simply put you believe that because the Sunni's were able to enforece there idea of what the Iraqi nation was therefore the Kurds are not conquered.

To me that just does not sit right with what I know to be how people define themselves in there everyday lives, explain then how Irish people who had no nation state were not conquered.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Says who the Saddam era Sunni elite what the hell would the Kurds care what they think of as the Iraqi nation.


Lack of a nation state historical or otherwise does not imply you are not conquered or subjugated people. Simply put you believe that because the Sunni's were able to enforece there idea of what the Iraqi nation was therefore the Kurds are not conquered.

To me that just does not sit right with what I know to be how people define themselves in there everyday lives, explain then how Irish people who had no nation state were not conquered.

To be fair, the Irish had their own Kings, and they had their own Lords and later their own Parliament - they also had their own brand of Catholicism and their own distinct identity goin back into the Dark Ages.

With reference to Iraq, it was the British who decided that the Kurds should be split between three countries to prevent them becoming a power Bloc.

[Whacker]

You are looking at it from a Northern perspective. The majority of Southerners were not slave owners, but when the slaves were freed the Southern economy collapsed and their living standards suffered.

And you are overlooking the fact that abolition was a long time coming at that point, almost half a century in the making. The fact that the south ignored or discounted a clear and obvious trend is noone's fault but their own.


You are also wrong about the South starting the war, it was not illegal for the Southern States to secede - it was simply not provided for in the Constitution. The North refused to let them go, which was a political decision, not an ideaological one based on whether or not they should own slaves.

Yes, it was illegal. There was no provision for it in the Constitution because it would undermine it's entire purpose and the reason for the US government's existence. When the early states banded together to form the US, they did so knowing that their continued existence and freedom lay in collective security. Their joining was done with the understanding that it would never be undone. The reason the north refused to let the south go was for those I stated above, it was as much political as ideological, not based on slavery but on the United States was just that, united, and one simply couldn't just pick up and leave because they disagreed with something. It would be no different at all if Wales attempted to secede from England, or Normandy from France. In anticipation of your response, yes it is the same premise, the premise being a fraction of a sovereign nation attempted to detach itself for whatever reason. You'll be extremely hard pressed to find any kind of specific wording in any government documentation that makes allowances for such an occurrence, because it's simply against the entire basis and foundation for the nation and government itself. If you do know of something, I'd certainly like to hear and see it.

[rvg]

To me that just does not sit right with what I know to be how people define themselves in there everyday lives, explain then how Irish people who had no nation state were not conquered.

You cannot conquer something that is already under your jurisdiction. You can oppress and mistreat your people, yes, but that is not the same as conquest.

[gaelic cowboy]

To be fair, the Irish had their own Kings, and they had their own Lords and later their own Parliament - they also had their own brand of Catholicism and their own distinct identity goin back into the Dark Ages.

Indeed and framed in those terms I would agree, but this entire thing is framed in terms of the Nation or Nation State. How then do we define people who technically are members of nation X but dont want to be. The very idea of "The Nation" is a massively loaded word and the "Nation State" is probably late 19th early 20th century.



With reference to Iraq, it was the British who decided that the Kurds should be split between three countries to prevent them becoming a power Bloc.

Indeed now they were declared Iraqi's but they didnt want to be however the Sunni elite were capable of stopping this. Specifically if your conquered before your declared a member of a new nation is your conquered status now invalidated I cant see how it would be.

[Whacker]

You cannot conquer something that is already under your jurisdiction. You can oppress and mistreat your people, yes, but that is not the same as conquest.

If we really, really, really wanted to stretch things, we could call it a "re-conquest". Technically, the US and early states came in and "conquered" the land from the natives that already inhabited it and claimed as their own. They in turn had been giving and taking it from each other for millennia before the Europeans showed up.

... but we didn't, because I still agree one can't conquer their own people.

[gaelic cowboy]

You cannot conquer something that is already under your jurisdiction. You can oppress and mistreat your people, yes, but that is not the same as conquest.

I have to dissagree conquest merely means that you gain compliance from someone through force of personality or force of arms.

There is no need for nationhood for this too occur which is why we can use the term sexual conquest.

[rvg]

I have to dissagree conquest merely means that you gain compliance from someone through force of personality or force of arms.So, if a salesman charms you into buying something this is "conquest"? And this is somehow related to the Kurds getting gassed?

[gaelic cowboy]

So, if a salesman charms you into buying something this is "conquest"? And this is somehow related to the Kurds getting gassed?

yes why not



In my view a conquest does not require nationhood but thats neither here not there as we will just have to leave it there to be honest.

[rvg]

yes why not

Because it's irrelevant. You are using such a broad definition for a term "conquest" that just about anything can fall under it. That makes the term useless.

[gaelic cowboy]

Because it's irrelevant. You are using such a broad definition for a term "conquest" that just about anything can fall under it. That makes the term useless.

And your definition is too narrow hence my total disagreement with it.

We will just have to leave it alone we wont change each others viewpoint.

[Whacker]

And your definition is too narrow hence my total disagreement with it.

We will just have to leave it alone we wont change each others viewpoint.

I think the crux of the issue is implication. Are you American? I'm guessing no, based on your handle and sig? In America, the term "conquest" as it pertains to international and national relations almost always carries the notion of going out and seeking new territory. The south wasn't "new" territory, in terms of it's relation to the US. I won't speak for him, but I believe that this is why rvg is and I definitely am taking the position we are. The definition of "conquer" simply refers to victory over another entity, so in this regard yes the north did "conquer" the south after the war. The implication that it was one sovereign nation seeking out another new, separate entity to overcome is where the disagreement is. The Confederacy wasn't a "new" or separate entity, it was an illegally created splinter faction of an existing sovereign nation, and was treated as such now and then.

[rvg]

I think the crux of the issue is implication. Are you American? I'm guessing no, based on your handle and sig? In America, the term "conquest" as it pertains to international and national relations almost always carries the notion of going out and seeking new territory. The south wasn't "new" territory, in terms of it's relation to the US. I won't speak for him, but I believe that this is why rvg is and I definitely am taking the position we are. The definition of "conquer" simply refers to victory over another entity, so in this regard yes the north did "conquer" the south after the war. The implication that it was one sovereign nation seeking out another new, separate entity to overcome is where the disagreement is. The Confederacy wasn't a "new" or separate entity, it was an illegally created splinter faction of an existing sovereign nation, and was treated as such now and then.
Precisely.

[drone]

Y'all can argue semantics all day long, but that will not answer your initial question of why some smaller groups of people hate those that govern them. Someone requested a Southerner's point of view, so I threw it in there. I'm not going to argue the rights and wrongs of the Civil War, but I've lived most of my life in southern states and have direct family ties to the Confederacy so I'd like to think I know something about hating Yankees. Verbal history, grievous wrongs (real, imagined, or embellished), and collective embarrassment for losing go a long way in keeping an adversarial attitude towards the victors. This can be maintained over centuries, especially with periodic revivals and myths that allow people to identify back to the culture, even if they are really just fringe. Facts don't play into it, it's a state of mind.

[rvg]

Y'all can argue semantics all day long, but that will not answer your initial question of why some smaller groups of people hate those that govern them. Someone requested a Southerner's point of view, so I threw it in there. I'm not going to argue the rights and wrongs of the Civil War, but I've lived most of my life in southern states and have direct family ties to the Confederacy so I'd like to think I know something about hating Yankees. Verbal history, grievous wrongs (real, imagined, or embellished), and collective embarrassment for losing go a long way in keeping an adversarial attitude towards the victors. This can be maintained over centuries, especially with periodic revivals and myths that allow people to identify back to the culture, even if they are really just fringe. Facts don't play into it, it's a state of mind.
But do you hate Yankees?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think the crux of the issue is implication. Are you American? I'm guessing no, based on your handle and sig? In America, the term "conquest" as it pertains to international and national relations almost always carries the notion of going out and seeking new territory. The south wasn't "new" territory, in terms of it's relation to the US. I won't speak for him, but I believe that this is why rvg is and I definitely am taking the position we are. The definition of "conquer" simply refers to victory over another entity, so in this regard yes the north did "conquer" the south after the war. The implication that it was one sovereign nation seeking out another new, separate entity to overcome is where the disagreement is. The Confederacy wasn't a "new" or separate entity, it was an illegally created splinter faction of an existing sovereign nation, and was treated as such now and then.

Then you Conquered the American Indians, didn't you. Took their land, took their bison, took their children even and tried to "civilise" them.


Y'all can argue semantics all day long, but that will not answer your initial question of why some smaller groups of people hate those that govern them. Someone requested a Southerner's point of view, so I threw it in there. I'm not going to argue the rights and wrongs of the Civil War, but I've lived most of my life in southern states and have direct family ties to the Confederacy so I'd like to think I know something about hating Yankees. Verbal history, grievous wrongs (real, imagined, or embellished), and collective embarrassment for losing go a long way in keeping an adversarial attitude towards the victors. This can be maintained over centuries, especially with periodic revivals and myths that allow people to identify back to the culture, even if they are really just fringe. Facts don't play into it, it's a state of mind.

I doubt it makes you feel any better, but the Europeans get it even if those damn Yankees don't.

As far as I am concerned drone's stated feelings are exactly the sort of thing you would expect from a Welshman, Scotsman, Catalan, Slovakian, Sami.... Take your pick.

I remember seeing a documentary about Southern writers a few years ago, one of them said, "Americans have no history, except in the South" and after the Revolution that seems to be true. You guys lionise Washington, but after that your history seems to go blank until Pearl Harbour.

[Whacker]

Y'all can argue semantics all day long, but that will not answer your initial question of why some smaller groups of people hate those that govern them. Someone requested a Southerner's point of view, so I threw it in there. I'm not going to argue the rights and wrongs of the Civil War, but I've lived most of my life in southern states and have direct family ties to the Confederacy so I'd like to think I know something about hating Yankees. Verbal history, grievous wrongs (real, imagined, or embellished), and collective embarrassment for losing go a long way in keeping an adversarial attitude towards the victors. This can be maintained over centuries, especially with periodic revivals and myths that allow people to identify back to the culture, even if they are really just fringe. Facts don't play into it, it's a state of mind.

Most of my ancestors were broke-*** and starving potato farmers, but along one branch, I'm descended from Confederates from Tennessee who fought against the Union. Suffice to say, that fact is a bit embarrassing to me. I was born and raised in a Union state, but have lived most of my life in a Southern state. My opinion hasn't changed, if anything as I mentioned it's become even more dim of the South and what they did leading up to and even more so after the war.

The whole Southern Victimhood thing is one of those myths that needs to die with the past. The reason that much of the US still thinks of the southeastern chunk as a backwater, racist haven is because ... well, in many ways it is. The South started the war, this is a fact. The South seceded, then forcibly occupied and evicted US troops viewed as "Union" from locations all throughout the region. They fired the first shots. Wars were fought on both sides of the thin red line. Both sides pillaged and looted. Whom did what to whom is a separate matter, but the South brought all this upon themselves. Again, not only did they start it, but after it was all said and done, they doggedly continued to fight against the legislation that lead them to decide to break away to begin with. Second worst to me after the actual secession, is the fact that they undid most all the progressive legal steps that were done in the following decade, and set up all the Jim Crow bullcrap and segregation so they could keep their precious white protestant superior heritage pure and unsoiled. It takes two to make a fight, but in most cases it's pretty clear who the most responsible party is.

Until the South gets over themselves and this self-perpetuated nonsense, it's unlikely those century and a half old wounds will truly heal up and close.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Most of my ancestors were broke-*** and starving potato farmers, but along one branch, I'm descended from Confederates from Tennessee who fought against the Union. Suffice to say, that fact is a bit embarrassing to me. I was born and raised in a Union state, but have lived most of my life in a Southern state. My opinion hasn't changed, if anything as I mentioned it's become even more dim of the South and what they did leading up to and even more so after the war.

The whole Southern Victimhood thing is one of those myths that needs to die with the past. The reason that much of the US still thinks of the southeastern chunk as a backwater, racist haven is because ... well, in many ways it is. The South started the war, this is a fact. The South seceded, then forcibly occupied and evicted US troops viewed as "Union" from locations all throughout the region. They fired the first shots. Wars were fought on both sides of the thin red line. Both sides pillaged and looted. Whom did what to whom is a separate matter, but the South brought all this upon themselves. Again, not only did they start it, but after it was all said and done, they doggedly continued to fight against the legislation that lead them to decide to break away to begin with. It takes two to make a fight, but in most cases it's pretty clear who the most responsible party is.

Until the South gets over themselves and this self-perpetuated nonsense, it's unlikely those century and a half old wounds will truly heal up and close.

You suffer from the confusion of the Victor, that the loser was in the wrong and that if only he is given enough time and told often enough, he will come to realise that fact.

It. Will. Never. Happen.

The South lost the War, Southerners see the actions of Union forces, particularly the massacres as war Crimes, they consider Lincoln pursuit of the War - rather than anquiencing to sessecion as a war Crime. Those beliefs are backed by blood and suffering, and they will never change. If the Welsh and Irish can still fume about things that happened 1,000-2,000 years ago then you bet the South will hate the Yankees for the reamainder of your life and your children's lives.

[Whacker]

You suffer from the confusion of the Victor, that the loser was in the wrong and that if only he is given enough time and told often enough, he will come to realise that fact.

It. Will. Never. Happen.

The South lost the War, Southerners see the actions of Union forces, particularly the massacres as war Crimes, they consider Lincoln pursuit of the War - rather than anquiencing to sessecion as a war Crime. Those beliefs are backed by blood and suffering, and they will never change. If the Welsh and Irish can still fume about things that happened 1,000-2,000 years ago then you bet the South will hate the Yankees for the reamainder of your life and your children's lives.

I suffer from no confusion. History has been thoroughly documented, there is very, very little ambiguity. The world knows who did what, who said what, who seceded from what when, who fired what shots when. Very little of this is still ambiguous or contested.

Until the South gets over themselves, there will continue to be this old festering wound and divide. As long as the South continues to hold on to this thinly concealed notion of white protestant culture and heritage, there will be the need for things such as Affirmative Action.

You are both right and wrong on that middle point. History is full of situations where the party in the wrong refuses to admit so even to this day. There are several examples to the contrary though, such as post-WWII Germany and Japan. Perhaps one of the factors in those two cases was the sheer scope of their crimes against humanity.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I suffer from no confusion. History has been thoroughly documented, there is very, very little ambiguity. The world knows who did what, who said what, who seceded from what when, who fired what shots when. Very little of this is still ambiguous or contested.

Until the South gets over themselves, there will continue to be this old festering wound and divide. As long as the South continues to hold on to this thinly concealed notion of white protestant culture and heritage, there will be the need for things such as Affirmative Action.

You are both right and wrong on that middle point. History is full of situations where the party in the wrong refuses to admit so even to this day. There are several examples to the contrary though, such as post-WWII Germany and Japan. Perhaps one of the factors in those two cases was the sheer scope of their crimes against humanity.

As I said, you are suffering from a confusion - that the "facts" matter in the slightest.

As a non-Southerner your opinion is irrelevent and your protestations merely reinforce the divide.

[Whacker]

As I said, you are suffering from a confusion - that the "facts" matter in the slightest.

As a non-Southerner your opinion is irrelevent and your protestations merely reinforce the divide.

My apologies, I will be more direct in explaining.

I am not confused in the slightest. I am protesting nothing. I understand what you are saying.

Let's try this another way. Most of the US has long, long, long since moved on since that era. It's well in the past, and aside from a few points here and there in history classes and some Civil War re-enactors, we generally do not care. The southerners who cling to that sense of victimhood and foster the grudge are the ones who create this divide you mention. You are certainly correct, my opinion is irrelevant. Whether or not southerners continue to hold this course is entirely up to them, the ball is in their court. It does become an issue when the old traditions of racism come into play, and legislation has to be enacted to force them to be civilized towards fellow man. To be fair (to an extent), this also holds true for the rest of the US. It sometimes becomes an issue when southern revisionists attempt to re-word history to depict the north as the aggressors and demonize them, which the rest of us will not stand for. Nursing a grudge is one thing, that would be their own prerogative. Actively attempting to reinstate in any shape or form the old southern segregationist and racist institutions, or re-write or gloss over history is not something the rest of us will tolerate.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My apologies, I will be more direct in explaining.

I am not confused in the slightest. I am protesting nothing. I understand what you are saying.

Let's try this another way. Most of the US has long, long, long since moved on since that era. It's well in the past, and aside from a few points here and there in history classes and some Civil War re-enactors, we generally do not care. The southerners who cling to that sense of victimhood and foster the grudge are the ones who create this divide you mention. You are certainly correct, my opinion is irrelevant. Whether or not southerners continue to hold this course is entirely up to them, the ball is in their court. It does become an issue when the old traditions of racism come into play, and legislation has to be enacted to force them to be civilized towards fellow man. To be fair (to an extent), this also holds true for the rest of the US. It sometimes becomes an issue when southern revisionists attempt to re-word history to depict the north as the aggressors and demonize them, which the rest of us will not stand for. Nursing a grudge is one thing, that would be their own prerogative. Actively attempting to reinstate in any shape or form the old southern segregationist and racist institutions, or re-write or gloss over history is not something the rest of us will tolerate.

This is where the Northern (in the broadest sense) US is atypical though - in most of the rest of the world we hold on to our history, but much of yours is ignored - I can't remember the last time an American mentioned the British scak of Washington DC in 1812, but it's an essential part of US history, not least because it is why the White House was painted in thick white paint, to hide the burn marks.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is where the Northern (in the broadest sense) US is atypical though - in most of the rest of the world we hold on to our history, but much of yours is ignored - I can't remember the last time an American mentioned the British scak of Washington DC in 1812, but it's an essential part of US history, not least because it is why the White House was painted in thick white paint, to hide the burn marks.

EVAR FORGET!

[rvg]

This is where the Northern (in the broadest sense) US is atypical though - in most of the rest of the world we hold on to our history, but much of yours is ignored - I can't remember the last time an American mentioned the British scak of Washington DC in 1812, but it's an essential part of US history, not least because it is why the White House was painted in thick white paint, to hide the burn marks.
It is a very typical mistake I see the Europeans repeat ad nauseum: they think that Americans are ignorant. We're not, we just have different values that emphasize different things. Yes, we know that DC got burned to the ground, but so what? The war still ended in our favor, which is what matters.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We remember the white house burning fine. We also remember that we used to be british, that we'd be nothing without britain, and that we've been close allies for ages. You can remember history without holding on to a grudge.

People for whom history is about grudges and moralized stories have a very distorted view of history anyway.

[Greyblades]

The war still ended in our favor, which is what matters.

What? It was a draw. Status quo ante bellum. Unless you mean that huge cash settlement we gave you not to demand back the freed slaves we gave asylum to.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is a very typical mistake I see the Europeans repeat ad nauseum: they think that Americans are ignorant. We're not, we just have different values that emphasize different things. Yes, we know that DC got burned to the ground, but so what? The war still ended in our favor, which is what matters.

Actually, we are conditioned to think you are stupid, not ignorant.

I don't believe that personally, but on the other hand the Backroom probably has a higher gneral level of education and awareness than your average Joe.

[Whacker]

Huge irony. Anyone get this month's NatGeo yet? Cover story is about the Civil War.

[rvg]

What? It was a draw. Status quo ante bellum.
We got Britain to stop impressment of our sailors, which was one of the big reasons for the war. Wars aren't just about territorial gains.

[Greyblades]

Ah, point taken.

[rvg]

Actually, we are conditioned to think you are stupid, not ignorant. I don't believe that personally, but on the other hand the Backroom probably has a higher gneral level of education and awareness than your average Joe.
But education is not a direct reflection of intelligence. If you are conditioned to think that we're stupid, what difference will the education make?

[Whacker]

Actually, we are conditioned to think you are stupid, not ignorant.

I don't believe that personally, but on the other hand the Backroom probably has a higher gneral level of education and awareness than your average Joe.

How dare you? I'll have you know I'm a quite handsome, highly edumakayted and inlltijint man. Saelf pic attahced.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uuCqsyqQObY/THhM6o_jRUI/AAAAAAAABTs/2unDVubuamw/s400/derp300.jpg

[drone]

As I said, you are suffering from a confusion - that the "facts" matter in the slightest.

As a non-Southerner your opinion is irrelevent and your protestations merely reinforce the divide.
:bow: It's funny how the discussion hasn't been on how to change the mindsets of the conquered, only on stating over and over again that they were in the wrong. I don't think anyone has defended the Southern cause in this thread, but that's where all the focus has been.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

:bow: It's funny how the discussion hasn't been on how to change the mindsets of the conquered, only on stating over and over again that they were in the wrong. I don't think anyone has defended the Southern cause in this thread, but that's where all the focus has been.

I'm not sure you can defend the Southern Cause, because it is so died up with slavery, but I can appreciate the motivations of the ordinary Southern soldiers and the bravery of their generals - and I can appreciate the resounding rage at the Union's mercilous tactics.

as the the Yankees have never lost a war (and don't talk about 1814) they have no point of reference. A big part of a nation's history is it's shared suffering, the North and South haven't shared any suffering since the Revolution.

Going back to the UK, the Welsh have survived as a distinct people by making opposition to the English part of their national culture, it's in their National Anthen (no, not "God Save the Queen").

This last point especially to rvg and Whacker:

The Welsh hatred of the English is a way of ostracising any Welsh who Anglicise (the Welsh speakers just call these "English").

Likewise, Southern hatred of Yankees is a way of maintaining Southern identity in the face of the denial of self determination. You said it youself Whacker, you're ashamed on your Southern ancestors, but why? Did those ancestors own slaves? Do you have any Northern ancestors who did, or any who went West?

Are you not ashamed of them, also?

[Vladimir]

I can't remember the last time an American mentioned the British scak of Washington DC in 1812, but it's an essential part of US history, not least because it is why the White House was painted in thick white paint, to hide the burn marks.

Yesterday, on local radio, as I was driving to work.

You people think America has no history because you either choose to ignore it or focus on specific parts. Being an old country isn't a sign of accomplishment, it is a disadvantage.

Late edit:


A big part of a nation's history is it's shared suffering, the North and South haven't shared any suffering since the Revolution.

Again, more willful ignorance; in less it's due to your own preconceived notion of national suffering.

[Whacker]

I'm not sure you can defend the Southern Cause, because it is so tied up with slavery, but I can appreciate the motivations of the ordinary Southern soldiers and the bravery of their generals - and I can appreciate the resounding rage at the Union's mercilous tactics.

I'm assuming you meant tied, yes? A bit of a cross-over from the judging history thread, but yes, the whole "Southern Cause" was about slavery. Revisionists will try to put spin on it that it was about freedom of choice and self-determination, or a slew of other things, but it's all glossing over or dismissing the reality of it. It was about a way of life based on slavery, racism, and segregation. To be certain, the Union and rest of the world for that matter weren't saints, but it was a sight better than basing an entire existence and way of life on slavery. As for the Union's "merciless" tactics, both sides were equally guilty of "unrestricted warfare". In fact, if you go back throughout modern history, most every war falls into that category, and one sees examples of "total war" as prosecuted by all belligerents.


as the the Yankees have never lost a war (and don't talk about 1814) they have no point of reference.

Vietnam. Korea. Afghanistan.


A big part of a nation's history is it's shared suffering, the North and South haven't shared any suffering since the Revolution.

Going back to the UK, the Welsh have survived as a distinct people by making opposition to the English part of their national culture, it's in their National Anthen (no, not "God Save the Queen").

This last point especially to rvg and Whacker:

The Welsh hatred of the English is a way of ostracising any Welsh who Anglicise (the Welsh speakers just call these "English").

Sasaki put it beautifully. Making suffering and grudges a pillar and fixture of a national identity will breed nothing but insularism, closed-mindedness, and negative attitudes towards not only the object of the anger but towards others in general. "Southern culture" is the poster child for this, they are extremely resistant to any non-southern types who move into those regions, and while they have outstanding manners the ostracism is plain for all to see and experience. Southerners will be very quick to tell you (and often repeat it), always as a joke of course, that "A yankee is a northerner who comes to visit. A damn yankee is one who comes to visit and stays."


Likewise, Southern hatred of Yankees is a way of maintaining Southern identity in the face of the denial of self determination. You said it youself Whacker, you're ashamed on your Southern ancestors, but why? Did those ancestors own slaves? Do you have any Northern ancestors who did, or any who went West?

Are you not ashamed of them, also?

I didn't say I'm ashamed of them in general. I'm ashamed they fought for the Confederacy, because I despise everything the Confederacy stood for. On the other hand, I have to admit a certain amount of pride that they were willing to stand up and fight for what they believed in, even if I detest what that cause was. And no, none of my ancestors owned slaves, I come from a long history of poor working class families. My father was the first to break that barrier and graduate from college on his entire side of the family, as far as we have ascertained. I was the second. As for any ancestors moving west... not to my knowledge, not that it would matter at all to me where they settled.

[gaelic cowboy]

You people think America has no history because you either choose to ignore it or focus on specific parts. Being an old country isn't a sign of accomplishment, it is a disadvantage.

Well seeing as China is scaring the bejebus out of the Americans these days it doesnt seem to have harmed them at all being an ancient and not just an old country.

There are plenty pro's and cons for the idea of a country being either old or new.

[Whacker]

only on stating over and over again that they were in the wrong.

This is a fact. Secessionism was/is wrong. Slavery was/is wrong. Glossing this over, revising history or history books, deflecting blame against the Union for "starting a war of aggression", or in any way denying or dismissing in whole or part the south's culpability is flatly not acceptable nor will it ever be.


It's funny how the discussion hasn't been on how to change the mindsets of the conquered,

What would you suggest then?

[Vladimir]

Well seeing as China is scaring the bejebus out of the Americans these days it doesnt seem to have harmed them at all being an ancient and not just an old country.

There are plenty pro's and cons for the idea of a country being either old or new.

Fear? The Red Scare dealt with the Soviets, not the Chinese. What you're seeing is similar to Russia's industrialization. It is Chinese history and cultural insulation that led to them being so far behind in the first place. Even now they thrive on theft and cheap products.

Old ideas and culture are a disadvantage. When you take pride in the past you focus less on the future.

[gaelic cowboy]

Sasaki put it beautifully. Making suffering and grudges a pillar and fixture of a national identity will breed nothing but insularism, closed-mindedness, and negative attitudes towards not only the object of the anger but towards others in general. "Southern culture" is the poster child for this, they are extremely resistant to any non-southern types who move into those regions, and while they have outstanding manners the ostracism is plain for all to see and experience. Southerners will be very quick to tell you (and often repeat it), always as a joke of course, that "A yankee is a northerner who comes to visit. A damn yankee is one who comes to visit and stays."

What your actually describing is called Post-Colonialism and to remove it from a nation or a peoples character takes ages and ages. If you have had to conform to a certain trait for a long time it naturally takes a long time for people to grow out of it. An example is to watch any film about the Ireland before the say the 70's/80s the directors always get one thing wrong no woman or man would ever hold there head up like the young people of today.

Another example when asked how his day went on any particular day most Irish people will say "Ah not too bad now it could be worse" if pushed he might say it was "A fine day" or that it was "A grand day". No Irish person ever really wants to use words like superb, excellant, super, great or fantastic not that they couldnt but they generally wont.

Some people would say it comes from people needing a coping mechanism for the abject poverty and second class status they had in the past.

Patrick: "Oh jeez Sean you hurt your foot in an accident"
Sean: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda have broke me leg so I could"


Patrick: "Oh jeez Sean you broke your leg in an accident"
Sean: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda have lost me leg so I could"

Patrick: "Oh jeez Sean you lost your leg in an accident"
Sean: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda died so I could"

Patrick: "Oh jeez me an Sean was in an accident and poor Seaneen was killed so he was"
Patrick: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda being killed an all so I could"

Even the bailout gets treated the same "Ah sure it could be worse we could be Greece" or "Ah sure it could be worse we could owe more so we could" I even heard someone say after a skinfull how "Could be worse the Germans could set the Tans on us"

There is always something worse that could happen thats is the Irishmans coping mechanism.

[gaelic cowboy]

Old ideas and culture are a disadvantage. When you take pride in the past you focus less on the future.

Now Vladamir a man could spend a whole day retorting between pros and cons of old and new, there is nothing inherently advantageous about being new or old. Incidently the Irish are old but Ireland itself is new, also Ireland while new is also among the oldest continously democratic countries in Europe. Where do we fit in your scale.

[rvg]

An example is to watch any film about the Ireland before the say the 70's/80s the directors always get one thing wrong no woman or man would ever hold there head up like the young people of today.

So, what has changed in the past 30 years?

[Whacker]

What your actually describing is called Post-Colonialism and to remove it from a nation or a peoples character takes ages and ages. If you have had to conform to a certain trait for a long time it naturally takes a long time for people to grow out of it. An example is to watch any film about the Ireland before the say the 70's/80s the directors always get one thing wrong no woman or man would ever hold there head up like the young people of today.

Another example when asked how his day went on any particular day most Irish people will say "Ah not too bad now it could be worse" if pushed he might say it was "A fine day" or that it was "A grand day". No Irish person ever really wants to use words like superb, excellant, super, great or fantastic not that they couldnt but they generally wont.

Some people would say it comes from people needing a coping mechanism for the abject poverty and second class status they had in the past.

Patrick: "Oh jeez Sean you hurt your foot in an accident"
Sean: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda have broke me leg so I could"


Patrick: "Oh jeez Sean you broke your leg in an accident"
Sean: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda have lost me leg so I could"

Patrick: "Oh jeez Sean you lost your leg in an accident"
Sean: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda died so I could"

Patrick: "Oh jeez me an Sean was in an accident and poor Seaneen was killed so he was"
Patrick: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda being killed an all so I could"

Even the bailout gets treated the same "Ah sure it could be worse we could be Greece" or "Ah sure it could be worse we could owe more so we could" I even heard someone say rather after a skinfull how "Could be worse the Germans could set the Tans on us"

There is always something worse that could happen thats is the Irishmans coping mechanism.

So keep me honest here. The situation with Ireland strikes me as fundamentally different than the Civil War in America. I know that Cromwell was a ripe, giant bastard and what he did to the Irish is a sore spot that will probably be as much a part of the Irish self-identity for centuries and millennia to come. The other major aspect is the situation with Northern Ireland. As I understand it, NI is occupied mostly by the descendants of English settlers who came over during efforts by the English to systematically oust the Irish and redistribute land. In essense, Ireland is a partially "occupied" nation. That wouldn't sit well with me either. I know the discussions about potentially returning NI to Ireland is a long, drawn out, very complex and intricate discussion, but my understanding is that it's an ongoing process of talks to with no definite decisions at all in sight.

[gaelic cowboy]

So, what has changed in the past 30 years?

Any young girl today is generally far more confident in her body, her opinions etc etc you name them out they act different and lads are pretty much the same. Now most people would say oh thats just becaue your having a belated 60's or that the Church is losing it's grip but it really is more than that.

My grandfather was born into a country that was under imperial rule that has an effect on you all your life. Grandad then raised children in a free country but he probably never lost the fear of sense of freedom being fragile, only his great granchildren were raised by people who only ever knew freedom as a fact of life.

[rvg]

Any young girl today is generally far more confident in her body, her opinions etc etc you name them out they act different and lads are pretty much the same. Now most people would say oh thats just becaue your having a belated 60's or that the Church is losing it's grip but it really is more than that.
This is happening across Europe though, it isn't unique to former client states.


My grandfather was born into a country that was under imperial rule that has an effect on you all your life. Grandad then raised children in a free country but he probably never lost the fear of sense of freedom being fragile, only his great granchildren were raised by people who only ever knew freedom as a fact of life.I presume your father was born in free Ireland. Does he have any fear of the Empire?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yesterday, on local radio, as I was driving to work.

You people think America has no history because you either choose to ignore it or focus on specific parts. Being an old country isn't a sign of accomplishment, it is a disadvantage.

Late edit:

Again, more willful ignorance; in less it's due to your own preconceived notion of national suffering.

Try several centuries of oppression and being ground-at-heel. Every country in Europe has had that, the English had the Vikings, then the Normans - the Irish had the Normans then the English, the Catalonians had the Muslims, then the Castilians...

America had the English/French - but then you had the Civil War and nothing since. The "Great Depression" bearly registers as a blip in European history, a pivotal moment to be sure, but hardly an Epoch.


I'm assuming you meant tied, yes? A bit of a cross-over from the judging history thread, but yes, the whole "Southern Cause" was about slavery. Revisionists will try to put spin on it that it was about freedom of choice and self-determination, or a slew of other things, but it's all glossing over or dismissing the reality of it. It was about a way of life based on slavery, racism, and segregation. To be certain, the Union and rest of the world for that matter weren't saints, but it was a sight better than basing an entire existence and way of life on slavery. As for the Union's "merciless" tactics, both sides were equally guilty of "unrestricted warfare". In fact, if you go back throughout modern history, most every war falls into that category, and one sees examples of "total war" as prosecuted by all belligerents.

I do mean tied, but you are wrong it is not just about Slavery, it is about the Southern States choosing how they progress socially. Arguably, a lot of the current problems with racial strife in the South have to do with the North imposing abolition on the Southern States rather than allowing the movement to spread naturally - as it spread from England to the US.


Vietnam. Korea. Afghanistan.

Vietnam certainly left it's mark, but the other two are draws at worst and they aren't exclusively American conflicts either. None of them compare to dates like 1066 or 1314 in the National Psyche. None of those wars actually involved America losing anything, other than men, material, and prestige, and in fact America became more powerful after both Korea and Vietnam.


Sasaki put it beautifully. Making suffering and grudges a pillar and fixture of a national identity will breed nothing but insularism, closed-mindedness, and negative attitudes towards not only the object of the anger but towards others in general. "Southern culture" is the poster child for this, they are extremely resistant to any non-southern types who move into those regions, and while they have outstanding manners the ostracism is plain for all to see and experience. Southerners will be very quick to tell you (and often repeat it), always as a joke of course, that "A yankee is a northerner who comes to visit. A damn yankee is one who comes to visit and stays."

Southern Culutrue is hardly the "poster child", believe you me. While I don't dissagree with your sentiment, it really doesn't matter - and the fact remains that an adversarial mindset has preserved cultures that would otherwise have died out.

You know who have lots of history in the US? The American Indians, if they didn't loathe whites and especially "the Federal Government" their communities would have died and and they would have been completely absorbed into the general population, just like the Southern Indians in Mexico and further South.


I didn't say I'm ashamed of them in general. I'm ashamed they fought for the Confederacy, because I despise everything the Confederacy stood for. On the other hand, I have to admit a certain amount of pride that they were willing to stand up and fight for what they believed in, even if I detest what that cause was. And no, none of my ancestors owned slaves, I come from a long history of poor working class families. My father was the first to break that barrier and graduate from college on his entire side of the family, as far as we have ascertained. I was the second. As for any ancestors moving west... not to my knowledge, not that it would matter at all to me where they settled.

That's a partial vew of US history, the families that went West backed by "manifest destiny" were displacing the native population, that genocide is arguably worse than fighting for the South - but nobody seems to care. As to Southern soldiers, primarily I expect they fought because the Union was fi8ghting them.

[gaelic cowboy]

So keep me honest here. The situation with Ireland strikes me as fundamentally different than the Civil War in America. I know that Cromwell was a ripe, giant bastard and what he did to the Irish is a sore spot that will probably be as much a part of the Irish self-identity for centuries and millennia to come. The other major aspect is the situation with Northern Ireland. As I understand it, NI is occupied mostly by the descendants of English settlers who came over during efforts by the English to systematically oust the Irish and redistribute land. In essense, Ireland is a partially "occupied" nation. That wouldn't sit well with me either. I know the discussions about potentially returning NI to Ireland is a long, drawn out, very complex and intricate discussion, but my understanding is that it's an ongoing process of talks to with no definite decisions at all in sight.

I have heard unification described as an "eternally delayable aspiration" generally aspirations for a nation can be a good thing.(if there used correctly) nowadays Ireland is moving more to the idea that if the North votes for unification than were happy to have them, there will alwys be louts and terrorists that will just be have to be a fact of life sadly.

Partition is without a doubt the biggest scar and the greatest wrong ever done on this island, really the parties involved should have spent more time and not less deciding on the future of the island. Many catholics were standed in a state that was in some cases actively hostile to them while the South probably didnt appreciate just how apocalyptic a worldview Ulster protesstants actually had. Southern protestants had in reality less in common with Ulster protestants than there Catholic neighbours this probably skewed our idea of Protestant thinking with regards to the North.

Seeing as people might like to know what my thoughts are on the subject I would be pretty confident that Ireland will unify later on this century. It seems to me the train has started because of Sinn Fein's rise in the North and the continual rolling back eastward of Protestant electoral success lately.

[rvg]

Vietnam certainly left it's mark, but the other two are draws at worst and they aren't exclusively American conflicts either. None of them compare to dates like 1066 or 1314 in the National Psyche.

I am having a really tough time imagining the impact of 1066 on the psyche of modern England.

[gaelic cowboy]

This is happening across Europe though, it isn't unique to former client states.

Each case is different but obviously I am of talking about former or current colonies/client states. And you couldnt compare say people in England in the 1910s to a person in Ireland in even the 1960's. Yes people had it tough in England but people in ireland grew up with no hope thats a big difference.

Learned helplessness was a significant factor in the Irish mindset and it is only really really changing now.




I presume your father was born in free Ireland. Does he have any fear of the Empire?

Yes but he was raised in a culture of resistance and of the fear of freedom being snatched away, however any children born to say myself will have no need of either resistance or continually having to stand on there hind legs watching out for eagles like a prarie dog. Also the last of the Resistance Generation has passed away now and since they formed our state there institutions shaped there children.

But now there grandchildren run the state and they have differing atitudes and institutions.

[drone]

Vietnam. Korea. Afghanistan.
Pffft. Did Ho Chi Minh appoint a military governor to keep New York in line? Are Afghan troops doing the rape/pillage thing throughout Pennsylvania? The North has no reference.


What would you suggest then?
It's already been mentioned in the thread. Why have Japan and Germany turned out so well? Their occupations were focused on positive goals, not punitive measures.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am having a really tough time imagining the impact of 1066 on the psyche of modern England.


The English became second-class citizens in their own country, even todat 1/4 of England is owned by the descendants of William's 100 favoured retainers.

That is to say nothing of the mark left on our laws and our language, and just the general change it enacted in out culture.

[gaelic cowboy]

It's already been mentioned in the thread. Why have Japan and Germany turned out so well? Their occupations were focused on positive goals, not punitive measures.

There was also a civil society and potentialy unifying elite ready to take over afterwards, this would not be the case in Afghanistan in any stretch of the imagination.(plus it helps if the fighting doesnt go on too long)

[rvg]

The English became second-class citizens in their own country, even todat 1/4 of England is owned by the descendants of William's 100 favoured retainers.
Wealth begets wealth. Would things really be much different if 1/4 of England were owned by the descendants of Harold Godwinson's retainers?


That is to say nothing of the mark left on our laws and our language, and just the general change it enacted in out culture.
That didn't turn out so bad, did it?

[Whacker]

America had the English/French - but then you had the Civil War and nothing since. The "Great Depression" bearly registers as a blip in European history, a pivotal moment to be sure, but hardly an Epoch.

You must have missed the part where it caused America to withdraw most of it's financial support to Weimar Germany, which was near totally dependent on that money to continue it's growth and war reparations. Yanking that out from under them directly lead to the re-emergence of the NSDAP as a significant power source, and ... you know where it went from there. I'd hardly call it a blip.


I do mean tied, but you are wrong it is not just about Slavery, it is about the Southern States choosing how they progress socially. Arguably, a lot of the current problems with racial strife in the South have to do with the North imposing abolition on the Southern States rather than allowing the movement to spread naturally - as it spread from England to the US.

I think you're confused now mate. It's about how the United States of America progresses socially. The problems with slavery and abolition were handled at the proper level, which was the national, federal level. This was in no shape or form an individual state to state issue. It also had and was spreading naturally from England to the US.


Vietnam certainly left it's mark, but the other two are draws at worst and they aren't exclusively American conflicts either. None of them compare to dates like 1066 or 1314 in the National Psyche. None of those wars actually involved America losing anything, other than men, material, and prestige, and in fact America became more powerful after both Korea and Vietnam.

Korea was certainly an American conflict. The vast majority of combatants on the side of South Korea were US soldiers, followed by native South Koreans. It was the first of the major cold war proxy conflicts between the "forces of democracy and communism", ie. US and the Soviet Union, and at the time China. The end result when the armstice was drawn up was highly unfavorable to the US/SK lead alliance, and I wouldn't call it any more of a draw than Vietnam was.


Southern Culutrue is hardly the "poster child", believe you me.

You really don't know much about the South, do you?


While I don't dissagree with your sentiment, it really doesn't matter - and the fact remains that an adversarial mindset has preserved cultures that would otherwise have died out.

Agree, the gist of what I'm getting at though is that it's not the "rest of the US's fault" that the southern folk have decided to retain this ridiculous sense of victimhood. After the war, the south was occupied by the military and martial law was universally declared. Lots of other things happened, but it generally was milder than one would see as the result of a traditional occupation post-bellum. Look at what the allies and Soviets did to post WW2 Germany, they stripped it bare. The US did just the opposite, it tried to rebuild and reintegrate in the following years, hence the Reconstruction period in US history. The thing that is most telling is not only did the southerners hold and nurse that grudge, they passive-aggressively waited for the right time (about a decade) after the war was over and had regained some measure of autonomy and authority in the federal government, and proceeded to near completely undo every socially progressive measure made in that time, and in many cases reverse and revert back to near pre-war slavery. The fact that a good amount of southerners never owned up, and further attempted to direct blame and responsibility for their morally, ethically, and legally reprehensible actions to other parties is the core of the problem. The olive branch was extended a long time ago, and they chose to burn it. The ball for moving past this is in their court.


You know who have lots of history in the US? The American Indians, if they didn't loathe whites and especially "the Federal Government" their communities would have died and and they would have been completely absorbed into the general population, just like the Southern Indians in Mexico and further South.

That's a partial vew of US history, the families that went West backed by "manifest destiny" were displacing the native population, that genocide is arguably worse than fighting for the South - but nobody seems to care. As to Southern soldiers, primarily I expect they fought because the Union was fi8ghting them.

Completely different situations and circumstances.

[Strike For The South]

To understand the souths reasons for war one must understand John Randolph and the brakdown of the Jeffersonian Virginia dynasty. No one has mentioned that and I therefore assume you are all idiots.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wealth begets wealth. Would things really be much different if 1/4 of England were owned by the descendants of Harold Godwinson's retainers?

Yes, it probably would be different, because the changes in social structure insulated the Anglo-Normans from economic shocks and prevented most Englishmen from generating wealth, at all. This was the same for about 300 years, then you have a period of loosening during the Renaissance, but the final change only came when Peers were made equal before the law by forcing them to stand before a Criminal Court rather than the House of Lords. Mid 20th Century.


That didn't turn out so bad, did it?

The jury is still out - we did used to elect our Kings, for one thing.

[Whacker]

Pffft. Did Ho Chi Minh appoint a military governor to keep New York in line?

No, because New York didn't try to pick up it's ball and leave when it didn't get it's way in the due course of legitimate government process.


Are Afghan troops doing the rape/pillage thing throughout Pennsylvania? The North has no reference.

No different than Lee and crew living off the land in Pennsylvania. Here's another part. If the South didn't want Sherman rampaging through Georgia and taking the fight to the people who started it, then maybe they shouldn't have started it.


It's already been mentioned in the thread. Why have Japan and Germany turned out so well? Their occupations were focused on positive goals, not punitive measures.

Seriously? Really? See my post to PVC. The South was held accountable for what it did. In many ways they got off far easier than a separate belligerent nation, because the goal at the end was reintegration and reconstruction, which were aggressively pursued.

[drone]

No, because New York didn't try to pick up it's ball and leave when it didn't get it's way in the due course of legitimate government process.

No different than Lee and crew living off the land in Pennsylvania. Here's another part. If the South didn't want Sherman rampaging through Georgia and taking the fight to the people who started it, then maybe they shouldn't have started it.

Seriously? Really? See my post to PVC. The South was held accountable for what it did. In many ways they got off far easier than a separate belligerent nation, because the goal at the end was reintegration and reconstruction, which were aggressively pursued.

Way to completely miss the point.

[Whacker]

Way to completely miss the point.

OK, let's try this another way.

What, in your opinion, does the average southerner want or expect from non-southerners in regards to moving toward true and complete reconciliation? This can be words or actions. Please be very specific, these need to be concrete, actionable things, not vague or ephemeral.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OK, let's try this another way.

What, in your opinion, does the average southerner want or expect from non-southerners in regards to moving toward true and complete reconciliation? This can be words or actions. Please be very specific, these need to be concrete, actionable things, not vague or ephemeral.

Still missing the point.

[Whacker]

Still missing the point.

Then we're talking past each other.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Then we're talking past each other.

I told you that you were confused.

This isn't a question for rational debate, as I indicated at least a page back.

The fact that you don't "get" it strongly suggests I am right and you have no history as we in Europe understand it. If you did, I wouldn't have to try to explain it to you.

Let me try something else, you said the war was about the Social development of the "United States", but you ttok for granted that everyone would read "United States" and not "United States".

To you it is self evident that the Union should decide whether slavery was legal, to the Southern States this was obviously a reserved Right. It isn't about the Right to own slaves, it's about who has the Right to grant you the Right.

[drone]

OK, let's try this another way.

What, in your opinion, does the average southerner want or expect from non-southerners in regards to moving toward true and complete reconciliation? This can be words or actions. Please be very specific, these need to be concrete, actionable things, not vague or ephemeral.
Since when has the discussion been about Southern reconciliation? That ship has sailed. The point is that Northerners don't understand what being occupied is like, and can't comprehend why Southerners would feel the way they do, or how the Welsh feel about the English, etc.. Who was right, who was wrong, it doesn't matter, you pounding home the "South was evil" point is condescending in the same way an Englishman telling a Scot that he's better off now. It may be true, but do you think it makes the Scot feel peachy?

[rvg]

To you it is self evident that the Union should decide whether slavery was legal, to the Southern States this was obviously a reserved Right. It isn't about the Right to own slaves, it's about who has the Right to grant you the Right.
Antebellum U.S. government did not in any way infringe upon the right of the southern states to maintain the institution of slavery. By the time the Emancipation Proclamation was signed time for talk had passed.

[gaelic cowboy]

Then we're talking past each other.

Take Ireland it is not that the English will have to do anything to help us move from a post colonial to a truly free mindset, it is the Irish that have to come to terms with what happened to them. Our nation was formed by continual tragedy and by a sucessful resistance in order to achieve freedom, hence PVC is naturally incapable of understanding why I wouldnt shout for England if Ireland went out early this summer in Poland/Ukraine.

To the Englishman this question is settled and he has moved on (it wasnt really a big part of his mindset anyway) but for us it is merely the start of the journey of who and what we will become due to freedom we have achieved.

Therefore it's not the Northern Unitied States that has to do anything it is the South that will have to work through it's own culture, beliefs etc etc to eventually come to terms with what happened and what they did.

[Strike For The South]

Antebellum U.S. government did not in any way infringe upon the right of the southern states to maintain the institution of slavery. By the time the Emancipation Proclamation was signed time for talk had passed.

Incorrect, would you like to spin the wheel again?


To you it is self evident that the Union should decide whether slavery was legal, to the Southern States this was obviously a reserved Right. It isn't about the Right to own slaves, it's about who has the Right to grant you the Right.

I tend to agree with this bit

[rvg]

Our nation was formed by continual tragedy and by a sucessful resistance in order to achieve freedom, hence PVC is naturally incapable of understanding why I wouldnt shout for England if Ireland went out early this summer in Poland/Ukraine.
How about Scotland? Would your root for Scotland?

[gaelic cowboy]

How about Scotland? Would your root for Scotland?

Indeed I would but that has as much to do with supporting the little guy or the underdog as it does sticking it to the English.

Plus there is a kinship with Scotland that even though they had a religious reformation and occupied parts of Ulster we would still have more in common with them than we do England.

[Whacker]

I told you that you were confused.

This isn't a question for rational debate, as I indicated at least a page back.

The fact that you don't "get" it strongly suggests I am right and you have no history as we in Europe understand it. If you did, I wouldn't have to try to explain it to you.

Let me try something else, you said the war was about the Social development of the "United States", but you ttok for granted that everyone would read "United States" and not "United States".

To you it is self evident that the Union should decide whether slavery was legal, to the Southern States this was obviously a reserved Right. It isn't about the Right to own slaves, it's about who has the Right to grant you the Right.

My response is the same, I think you're the one who's confused.

For the record the statement about "understanding history like we do in Europe" is that "we r old skool" mentality that Americans are so sick and tired of, and why you've been getting the responses from others like you have. We have our own collective history from the founding of our nation to before, up to now. Just because it doesn't stretch back thousands of years doesn't make it any less meaningful or comprehensive, or give us less perspective. In that regard, Europeans do need to get over themselves.

To the rest of it, I've been getting what you've said. I don't think you get it. The notion of southern "independence", or anything whatsoever that directly states or implies that the south is a separate entity from the rest of the US is flat out rejected. Any discussions along those lines or with that as a basis are pointless and will go nowhere. For the record, in the discussions I have had with deep southerners have never gone along these lines. I think you understand the whole North/South Civil War situation as well as I understand the England/Wales/Scotland situation. In that regard, "I guess you Europeans will never understand the concept and history behind the Civil War like we Americans do."

[rvg]

Indeed I would but that has as much to do with supporting the little guy or the underdog as it does sticking it to the English.
Plus there is a kinship with Scotland that even though they had a religious reformation and occupied parts of Ulster we would still have more in common with them than we do England.
So, would it be fair to say that you have a problem with England, but not with Britain as a whole?

[Strike For The South]

I think he's being intentionally obtuse

Few, if any southeners would call for an actual secession and creation of a Neo-Confederacy

The (small) push is for a massive devolution towards states rights

The large portion of Southeners whom still stoke the lost cause embers are contraians. Happy to be the foil of the mainstream "yankee" culture. In this day and age nearly apolitical. There is no true and serious movement. Unlike Scotland we wont be voting on independence anytime soon.

A distiniction that needs to be made here. The UK started seperate and came to. The US started together and came apart

[Whacker]

The point is that Northerners don't understand what being occupied is like, and can't comprehend why Southerners would feel the way they do, or how the Welsh feel about the English, etc..

Welsh vs English was a totally different situation. I wouldn't know what it feels like to be in jail, because I've never done anything that would merit me going to jail. Sorry if that's harsh, the truth can be.


Who was right, who was wrong, it doesn't matter, you pounding home the "South was evil" point is condescending in the same way an Englishman telling a Scot that he's better off now. It may be true, but do you think it makes the Scot feel peachy?

England vs Scotland is likewise completely different. As for the whole "South was evil" point being "pounded home", that's not how the history books in school read. Pounding it home would be near propaganda-ish levels of reciting every single one of the South's wrongs and associated demonizing. That's not how it is, it's more of a factual retelling of the factors that lead up to it, what occurred at a really, really high level, and the outcome. No demonizing of either side. For the record, this is generally the same response I've had in the past when discussing this aspect of history with other southerners, so the message is consistent.

If the average southerner is still bitter about history being a reminder of their our ancestor's faults, then ... tough. History is taught that we should not repeat the mistakes of the past, and some of it is embarrassing. Don't know what else to say, except that I don't agree whatsoever that the "South is evil" is the overriding message and portrayal taught in the school rooms. Most of my opinions on this were formed much later in life after more reading and research.

[gaelic cowboy]

It isn't about the Right to own slaves, it's about who has the Right to grant you the Right.

Indeed and guess who helped form Southern culture along with other immigrant groupings why Scots and Ulster Scots people these would be a people who had a long history of defiance on various questions of "Rights"

Of course plenty of them fought on the Northern side too probably more in fact but then they were on the winning side, in war there is no substitute for victory. It's no wonder that today the South still feels even today some slight resentment, as I said it takes a long time to remove such ideas from any culture.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Take Ireland it is not that the English will have to do anything to help us move from a post colonial to a truly free mindset, it is the Irish that have to come to terms with what happened to them. Our nation was formed by continual tragedy and by a sucessful resistance in order to achieve freedom, hence PVC is naturally incapable of understanding why I wouldnt shout for England if Ireland went out early this summer in Poland/Ukraine.

To the Englishman this question is settled and he has moved on (it wasnt really a big part of his mindset anyway) but for us it is merely the start of the journey of who and what we will become due to freedom we have achieved.

Therefore it's not the Northern Unitied States that has to do anything it is the South that will have to work through it's own culture, beliefs etc etc to eventually come to terms with what happened and what they did.

To clarify, I do get it, it just makes me sad.

Sad, though, that our ancestors couldn't find a better way to work out how Ireland and the rest of the British Isles fit together.

I also find it difficult to accept on an emotional level even though I understand it intellectually, and appreciate the Irish viewpoint.

Actually, thinking about it, I probably find it somewhat upsetting because I'm aware Irish independence is more to do with failings in London that anything else - that probably explains the general English unwillingness to examine the issue too.

[gaelic cowboy]

So, would it be fair to say that you have a problem with England, but not with Britain as a whole?


Eh I dont have a problem with England at all I just wouldnt feel right cheering for them thats all, it would basically be too much and really would be too soon.

[Whacker]

I think he's being intentionally obtuse

Moi?

[Whacker]

Therefore it's not the Northern Unitied States that has to do anything it is the South that will have to work through it's own culture, beliefs etc etc to eventually come to terms with what happened and what they did.

Aye, that's the conclusion I came to ages ago.

[rvg]

Sad, though, that our ancestors couldn't find a better way to work out how Ireland and the rest of the British Isles fit together.
But that was then. What's the on it of focusing on it today?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Welsh vs English was a totally different situation. I wouldn't know what it feels like to be in jail, because I've never done anything that would merit me going to jail. Sorry if that's harsh, the truth can be.



England vs Scotland is likewise completely different. As for the whole "South was evil" point being "pounded home", that's not how the history books in school read. Pounding it home would be near propaganda-ish levels of reciting every single one of the South's wrongs and associated demonizing. That's not how it is, it's more of a factual retelling of the factors that lead up to it, what occurred at a really, really high level, and the outcome. No demonizing of either side. For the record, this is generally the same response I've had in the past when discussing this aspect of history with other southerners, so the message is consistent.

If the average southerner is still bitter about history being a reminder of their our ancestor's faults, then ... tough. History is taught that we should not repeat the mistakes of the past, and some of it is embarrassing. Don't know what else to say, except that I don't agree whatsoever that the "South is evil" is the overriding message and portrayal taught in the school rooms. Most of my opinions on this were formed much later in life after more reading and research.

That bold bit, that's the problem - what you wrote, despite there being Southerners here.

As to the rest, the Welsh/Irish/Scots/Cornish/Manx situation are all different, but despite that they all feel pretty much the same, a feeling they share with the Bretons, Basques, Catalans, and others.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But that was then. What's the on it of focusing on it today?

It's part of our history, which makes it part of our national (English) psyche - and that's why we keep repeating the same mistakes.

[rvg]

It's part of our history, which makes it part of our national (English) psyche - and that's why we keep repeating the same mistakes.
It just seems irrational, sorta like holding modern Germany accountable for what Hitler once did. Makes no sense.

[Whacker]

That bold bit, that's the problem - what you wrote, despite there being Southerners here.

As to the rest, the Welsh/Irish/Scots/Cornish/Manx situation are all different, but despite that they all feel pretty much the same, a feeling they share with the Bretons, Basques, Catalans, and others.

Hence why I was trying to coax drone's perspective out of him. Each southerner's feelings are similar but unique in some regards.

As to the first bit, it is what it is. We aren't going to sugarcoat things. I can own up to the fact that my ancestors fought on the wrong side. That doesn't make me, drone, or anyone else here responsible for the actions of our fathers or forefathers.

[Whacker]

It just seems irrational, sorta like holding modern Germany accountable for what Hitler once did. Makes no sense.

This. It's pretty much time for the world to move past what happened during WWII, the generation that was generally responsible for it has since died, and the generation that fought it is dying out rapidly and mostly gone.

[gaelic cowboy]

To clarify, I do get it, it just makes me sad.

Sad, though, that our ancestors couldn't find a better way to work out how Ireland and the rest of the British Isles fit together.

I also find it difficult to accept on an emotional level even though I understand it intellectually, and appreciate the Irish viewpoint.

Actually, thinking about it, I probably find it somewhat upsetting because I'm aware Irish independence is more to do with failings in London that anything else - that probably explains the general English unwillingness to examine the issue too.


One day possibly I do get the feeling that things are begingin to change but it is still to soon for me at least:clown:(mad as that sounds) When you come to a match an international match in Ireland we only need too separate people because it's the rules of the various international bodies, not because we will kill the opposing fans over percieved slights(excepting the North everything is different there)

Bother has only ever being caused (yet) by hooligans coming into Ireland and I expect that will continue.

I have been at World Cup matches where English people cheered us on and they loved every minute of the match, technically it was cos we were playing Germany though. I'm telling you I never seen a happier racist football hooligan as I did that night in Ibaraki, he nearly fell of the upper tier so he did. Also I have actually sang rebels songs at family gathereings in england in front of English people and they loved every minute of it, they knew that the atmosphere was one of celebration and rememberance not one of anger.

Irish people will one day root for England if were not playing ourselves, I know this to be ultimately a truth but we will always savour the odd victory we get over yous lot :wink:

[gaelic cowboy]

It just seems irrational, sorta like holding modern Germany accountable for what Hitler once did. Makes no sense.

But what Hitler did still does affect Germans today essentially the World does have not to forgive them anything instead it is they themselves who must work through it.

Germany has basically gone from expansionism to a trend of pacifism that borders almost on the neurotic.

[rvg]

But what Hitler did still does affect Germans today essentially the World does have not to forgive them anything instead it is they themselves who must work through it.
There's hardly anyone left to forgive. The direct participants are frail old men who will be dead within the next couple of decades, and the new generation has nothing to apologize for, just like the new generation in, say, France has nothing to forgive for. It's not our war, not our conflict, not our place to assign guilt or to forgive.

[gaelic cowboy]

There's hardly anyone left to forgive. The direct participants are frail old men who will be dead within the next couple of decades, and the new generation has nothing to apologize for, just like the new generation in, say, France has nothing to forgive for. It's not our war, not our conflict, not our place to assign guilt or to forgive.

I thnk were missing each other ina dark tunnel here in reality.

Germanys mindset is influenced by WW1 the Recession and WW2 there is no need in the wide earthly world for anyone to be even alive who remembers this for them to be shaped by it.

Americans are shaped by ideas of freedom from freedom of expansion, movement, conscience or choice etc etc blah blah this is purely because America is still a big place with plenty room left in it even today. Various terrorists groups and whatnot will be easily forgotten in America because they were not the foundation of the American worldview to begin with.

[rvg]

I thnk were missing each other ina dark tunnel here in reality.

Germanys mindset is influenced by WW1 the Recession and WW2 there is no need in the wide earthly world for anyone to be even alive who remembers this for them to be shaped by it.

Americans are shaped by ideas of freedom from freedom of expansion, movement, conscience or choice etc etc blah blah this is purely because America is still a big place with plenty room left in it even today. Various terrorists groups and whatnot will be easily forgotten in America because they were not the foundation of the American worldview to begin with.
I'm not convinced that size has anything to do with this. I mean, look at Russia, they have plenty of land, far fewer people than we do, yet suffer from the same issues as the rest of Europe.

[gaelic cowboy]

I'm not convinced that size has anything to do with this. I mean, look at Russia, they have plenty of land, far fewer people than we do, yet suffer from the same issues as the rest of Europe.

Russia never has had any of the advantages that the USA ever did.

Russian rivers flow the wrong way for trade, her agricultural areas while good are far from it's markets.
Much of the expanse has no one in it so effectively Russians live in a big field with the front and back gate open for anyone to walk in.

You could say Russia is obssesed with getting buffers to protect itself or at least why the elite are obssesed with that idea.

To be honest I dont know enough about Russian character to argue this, but we all see American character on telly everyday. Since your telly is how you as Americans see yourselves it's easy pick up on a few traits that you all might have.

An yes I am aware thats a fictional version of American character but it is still influenced by actual American traits.

[drone]

Hence why I was trying to coax drone's perspective out of him. Each southerner's feelings are similar but unique in some regards.

As to the first bit, it is what it is. We aren't going to sugarcoat things. I can own up to the fact that my ancestors fought on the wrong side. That doesn't make me, drone, or anyone else here responsible for the actions of our fathers or forefathers.
My perspective is atypical, I'm probably a bit more rational about it than most Southerners. I know the history, and my family's role in it, and have pretty much come to the conclusion that the South got what it deserved. The North probably could have handled things better both before and after, but what's done is done. To paraphrase a famous Jedi master, "I don't hate the Yankees, they're just :daisy:" I dislike the North, but for reasons completely unrelated to the war.

I do understand the mindset however, which is apparently something that I'm not getting across.

[rvg]

Russia never has had any of the advantages that the USA ever did.
Russian rivers flow the wrong way for trade, her agricultural areas while good are far from it's markets.
But we have to cross an ocean to do any kind of serious trading.


Much of the expanse has no one in it so effectively Russians live in a big field with the front and back gate open for anyone to walk in. You could say that is why Russin is obssesed with obtaining buffers to protect itself or at the very least why the elite are obssesed with that.
Canada has similar disadvantages, but not the same issues.

[gaelic cowboy]

But we have to cross an ocean to do any kind of serious trading.

All maritime powers are richer than land powers, to trade across land is expensive.

Thats why Ireland has potential for a large GDP per person despite her size.



Canada has similar disadvantages, but not the same issues.

But crucially Canada real security defense wise due to the Empire and had shared cultural mores with America. Later Canada orientated it's trade to integration with the USA to overcome the disadvantage of effectively being two islands and of course she shares the Atlantic and Pacfic with you making trade from either coastline easier.

Russia does not even come close to having the lesser advantages of Canada never mind America.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, I understand the mindset of rabid nationalists. I "get it". But when people criticize rabid nationalists I don't say "you don't understand the mindset".

The resentment occupied people feel isn't some deterministic inevitability that we can just shrug our shoulders and say "that's the way it is". If it's probable it's because too many people are weak and petty.

[Whacker]

My perspective is atypical, I'm probably a bit more rational about it than most Southerners. I know the history, and my family's role in it, and have pretty much come to the conclusion that the South got what it deserved. The North probably could have handled things better both before and after, but what's done is done. To paraphrase a famous Jedi master, "I don't hate the Yankees, they're just :daisy:" I dislike the North, but for reasons completely unrelated to the war.

I do understand the mindset however, which is apparently something that I'm not getting across.

Meh. I (think that I) understand it pretty well. Agree it can be hard to elucidate to others.

Guess for me it boils down to my perception that the South can't let go of an uglier part of it's/our nation's past. The insularism, exclusionism, and revisionism are what're most annoying. For the most part it's never an issue, unless one moves there or has regular contact with that region. One can pick and move just about anywhere in the US outside of the Southeast and fit right into whatever community they move into. New Englanders, Midwesterners, Great Plainers, they all have their own somewhat unique cultural backgrounds, but don't actively attempt to socially ostracize new folks like I've seen and experienced in the South. Be nice if that changes some day.

[gaelic cowboy]

Well, I understand the mindset of rabid nationalists. I "get it". But when people criticize rabid nationalists I don't say "you don't understand the mindset".

The resentment occupied people feel isn't some deterministic inevitability that we can just shrug our shoulders and say "that's the way it is". If it's probable it's because too many people are weak and petty.

Indeed which is exactly the reason why rabid nationalism is no longer popular in the South of Ireland.

[rvg]

All maritime powers are richer than land powers, to trade across land is expensive.
I'm not sure I can agree with this. Pre-colonial India was hardly a maritime power, but fabulously rich nonetheless. China was also wealthy even though most of its trade up until the 19th century was conducted via the Silk Road. Colonialism was the primary advantage of maritime powers, but the neither U.S. nor Canada had any colonies worth mentioning.



But crucially Canada real security defense wise due to the Empire and had shared cultural mores with America. Later Canada orientated it's trade to integration with the USA to overcome the disadvantage of effectively being two islands and of course she shares the Atlantic and Pacfic with you making trade from either coastline easier.
But that's just one trade partner. Not enough.

[gaelic cowboy]

I'm not sure I can agree with this. Pre-colonial India was hardly a maritime power, but fabulously rich nonetheless. China was also wealthy even though most of its trade up until the 19th century was conducted via the Silk Road. Colonialism was the primary advantage of maritime powers, but the neither U.S. nor Canada had no colonies worth mentioning.

Pre-Colonial India has a massive all year round ice free coastline and Indian rivers flow through it's agricultural areas to bring goods to port. It actually doesnt matter whose boats they were the key is the wonga the Indains got for things like tea or spices.

China is a special case her problem is the interior is waay waay poorer than her coastline, this has historically fed instability kinda like a stone on a seesaw.
Isolationism is a way to equalise the disparity and balance the seesaw, I'm not saying it's rational just what they did/do to an extent.




But that's just one trade partner. Not enough.

Obviously it is to a certain extent.

[rvg]

Pre-Colonial India has a massive all year round ice free coastline and Indian rivers flow through it's agricultural areas to bring goods to port.
And Russia has the mighty Volga flowing through its heartland and into the Caspian Sea for the lucrative trade with Iran.


China is a special case her problem is the interior is waay waay poorer than her coastline, this has historically fed instability kinda like a stone on a seesaw. Isolationism is a way to equalise the disparity and balance the seesaw, I'm not saying it's rational just what they did/do to an extent.
But the point is that you can get rich even as a dedicated landlubber.


Obviously it is to a certain extent.
Not really, especially since we had little to offer to one another: we didn't need their furs, and they didn't need our furs. Timber? No, plenty of that on both sides. Some agricultural produce from the Deep South, yes, but that's it really.

[Greyblades]

To clarify, I do get it, it just makes me sad.

Sad, though, that our ancestors couldn't find a better way to work out how Ireland and the rest of the British Isles fit together.

I also find it difficult to accept on an emotional level even though I understand it intellectually, and appreciate the Irish viewpoint.

I'm too awkward to say this myself but that is the viewpoint I would like to think I hold.

One day possibly I do get the feeling that things are begingin to change but it is still to soon for me at least:clown:(mad as that sounds) When you come to a match an international match in Ireland we only need too separate people because it's the rules of the various international bodies, not because we will kill the opposing fans over percieved slights(excepting the North everything is different there)

Bother has only ever being caused (yet) by hooligans coming into Ireland and I expect that will continue.

I have been at World Cup matches where English people cheered us on and they loved every minute of the match, technically it was cos we were playing Germany though. I'm telling you I never seen a happier racist football hooligan as I did that night in Ibaraki, he nearly fell of the upper tier so he did. Also I have actually sang rebels songs at family gathereings in england in front of English people and they loved every minute of it, they knew that the atmosphere was one of celebration and rememberance not one of anger.

Irish people will one day root for England if were not playing ourselves, I know this to be ultimately a truth but we will always savour the odd victory we get over yous lot :wink:

...Wanna play CK2?

[gaelic cowboy]

And Russia has the mighty Volga flowing through its heartland and into the Caspian Sea for the lucrative trade with Iran.

But Russian habitation is further west and north and and it's really productive agricultural areas are further south and southwest effectively there was no one there to trade with Iran and they faced west and east as a landpower both of them.

Also Russia has always felt and acted like a landpower trading with Iran while possible was not there priority. There priority was ensuring the regime didnt collapse trying to compete with richer western europe or get eaten by the eastern hordes.


But the point is that you can get rich even as a dedicated landlubber.

I never said you couldnt it's just generally easier to be rich if you have a maritime coast you can actually use, it doesnt take a genius to figure out a ship load of fur is worth more to a nation than a cartload.



Not really, especially since we had little to offer to one another: we didn't need their furs, and they didn't need our furs. Timber? No, plenty of that on both sides. Some agricultural produce from the Deep South, yes, but that's it really.

I said later Canada integrated with the USA as in 19th century early 20th before that all trade went back to the imperial core from her expansive coastlinies and the Hudson river.

[gaelic cowboy]

...Wanna play CK2?

I dont have it but will get it soon enough funds need minding for the summer in Poland.

[rvg]

But Russian habitation is further west and north and and it's really productive agricultural areas are further south and southwest effectively there was no one there to trade with Iran and they faced west and east as a landpower both of them.
That is definitely not the case. Volga passes through major industrial and agricultural regions of Russia. It is quite easily the most important Russian river.


I never said you couldnt it's just generally easier to be rich if you have a maritime coast you can actually use, it doesnt take a genius to figure out a ship load of fur is worth more to a nation than a cartload.
Let's not forget that one can get lots of carts for the price of one ship.


I said later Canada integrated with the USA as in 19th century early 20th before that all trade went back to the imperial core from her expansive coastlinies and the Hudson river.But my points stands: Canada was not a suitable trading partner for the U.S.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is definitely not the case. Volga passes through major industrial and agricultural regions of Russia. It is quite easily the most important Russian river.


Let's not forget that one can get lots of carts for the price of one ship.

But my points stands: Canada was not a suitable trading partner for the U.S.

Until the early 20th century the US was almost completely self sufficient in every respect. You had both the industiral base and high technology, coal, oil, other materials were not far away, and you had Mexico to trade with for them.

[rvg]

Until the early 20th century the US was almost completely self sufficient in every respect. You had both the industiral base and high tehcnology, coal, oil, other materials were not far away, and you had Mexico to trade with for them.
Russia is also blessed with resources though. Yet, their outlook on history differs from ours.

[Centurion1]

Meh. I (think that I) understand it pretty well. Agree it can be hard to elucidate to others.

Guess for me it boils down to my perception that the South can't let go of an uglier part of it's/our nation's past. The insularism, exclusionism, and revisionism are what're most annoying. For the most part it's never an issue, unless one moves there or has regular contact with that region. One can pick and move just about anywhere in the US outside of the Southeast and fit right into whatever community they move into. New Englanders, Midwesterners, Great Plainers, they all have their own somewhat unique cultural backgrounds, but don't actively attempt to socially ostracize new folks like I've seen and experienced in the South. Be nice if that changes some day.

You obviously have never to the north. Northerners and the damn yankees in new england are the most close minded rude, uninviting, cold and classless people in north america...

[gaelic cowboy]

That is definitely not the case. Volga passes through major industrial and agricultural regions of Russia. It is quite easily the most important Russian river.

Indeed but the Missippi Missouri Ohio river system is practically an integrated highway system and it flows to the correct population centers or to the Gulf to allow transport by sea to New York

The Volga however does not have the same advantage.


Let's not forget that one can get lots of carts for the price of one ship.

Ah come on now your just being silly here during the time people used carts for moving trade goods the roads were also either non-existent or few and far between. It wasnt until the 19th early 20th that we had the technology with trains to overcome these disadvantages, but I cant think of a country that didnt already have most of it's cultural tics by then.

And thats what we were talkin about initially anyway.




But my points stands: Canada was not a suitable trading partner for the U.S.

Thats interesting but that wasnt the point I was making to begin with Canada could trade from her martitime cores on either side early on. Then later she had the ability to trade with Detroit an Chicago cities that developed industry due to there proximity to the great lakes and rivers of the American heartland.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Russia is also blessed with resources though. Yet, their outlook on history differs from ours.

Their history is also more bloody, and there's more of it.

[rvg]

Indeed but the Missippi Missouri Ohio river system is practically an integrated highway system and it flows to the correct population centers or to the Gulf to allow transport by sea to New York

The Volga however does not have the same advantage.
Sure it does. Most of European Russia's important industrial centers are situated on the banks of Volga or its tributaries.




Ah come on now your just being silly here during the time people used carts for moving trade goods the roads were also either non-existent or few and far between. It wasnt until the 19th early 20th that we had the technology with trains to overcome these disadvantages, but I cant think of a country that didnt already have most of it's cultural tics by then.

And thats what we were talkin about initially anyway.
Except that you're not taking into account that an overland journey would be much shorter than a transoceanic one. A couple of hundred miles on bad roads vs a few thousand miles across the ocean.



Thats interesting but that wasnt the point I was making to begin with Canada could trade from her martitime cores on either side early on. Then later she had the ability to trade with Detroit an Chicago cities that developed industry due to there proximity to the great lakes and rivers of the American heartland.All of that is good and such, but the U.S. commodities still have to cross an ocean to be traded.

[gaelic cowboy]

Sure it does. Most of European Russia's important industrial centers are situated on the banks of Volga or its tributaries.

You said it yourself who would they trade with Iran?? You need access to the sea an Russia never had proper access to secure blue water ports with which to trade from.


Except that you're not taking into account that an overland journey would be much shorter than a transoceanic one. A couple of hundred miles on bad roads vs a few thousand miles across the ocean.


All of that is good and such, but the U.S. commodities still have to cross an ocean to be traded.

I think you will find sending a barrel or whatever from America by boat to England will beat a barrel sent by cart from Russia plus they can carry more stuff reducing price and thereby reducing the cost of the voyage.


Russia is and always has been a landpower geography and security considerations have always made it so and it's lack of development has also hampered it.
But this does not mean Russia cannot be powerful chiefly again due to pure size.

[rvg]

You said it yourself who would they trade with Iran?? You need access to the sea an Russia never had proper access to secure blue water ports with which to trade from.
Why wouldn't they trade with Iran. They'd trade with whoever would be willing to pay.


I think you will find sending a barrel or whatever from America by boat to England will beat a barrel sent by cart from Russia plus they can carry more stuff reducing price and thereby reducing the cost of the voyage.
What holds true for England wouldn't hold true for, say, Poland.



Russia is and always has been a landpower geography and security considerations have always made it so and it's lack of development has also hampered it. But this does not mean Russia cannot be powerful chiefly again due to pure size.
If size was all that mattered, Russia should have been more powerful than anybody else simply because it's significantly larger than the competition.

[gaelic cowboy]

Why wouldn't they trade with Iran. They'd trade with whoever would be willing to pay.

Could they afford it Iran I mean by the time Russia could trade in 19th early 20th there industrila development was primitive at best. Later there products were not required because until the Shah was toppled as Iran was outside there orbit. Afterwards what did they have to give them only weapons a typical obsession of a land based power.



What holds true for England wouldn't hold true for, say, Poland.

Interesting and this proves what exactly that you can send a cartload of barrels to Poland it will still be more exspensive and awkard to trade this way. A horse needs feeding and it can only travel in daylight, while a ship can move all day an night and can carry it's crew supplies and trade goods together.

Land based trade required the train and the further east you went the less developed and integrated a rail network you had. By the time the Soviets arrived to get rail moving they were behind in the goods we might buy from them and crucially they isolated themselves from potential buyers though communism.




If size was all that mattered, Russia should have been more powerful than anybody else simply because it's significantly larger than the competition.

I said Russia can be powerful due to it's size I did not say they would or even can be all powerful.

[rvg]

Could they afford it Iran I mean by the time Russia could trade in 19th early 20th there industrila development was primitive at best.
Russia has traded with Persia for a lot longer than that.


Later there products were not required because until the Shah was toppled as Iran was outside there orbit. Afterwards what did they have to give them only weapons a typical obsession of a land based power.
It wasn't an issue of orbit. Shah's dollars were just as green, and Russia traded extensively.


Interesting and this proves what exactly that you can send a cartload of barrels to Poland it will still be more exspensive and awkard to trade this way. A horse needs feeding and it can only travel in daylight, while a ship can move all day an night and can carry it's crew supplies and trade goods together.
Don't sailors need to eat and sleep?


Land based trade required the train and the further east you went the less developed and integrated a rail network you had.
If the land based trade required the train, then how was it possible to conduct land based trade before railroads came to be?



I said Russia can be powerful due to it's size I did not say they would or even can be all powerful.
And I didn't accuse you of saying that. My point all along has been that neither size nor population nor coastline can account for the success of the US as a nation: Russia has far more land, China has far more people, and Britain historically had a far better maritime trade network.

[gaelic cowboy]

Now RVG I have really had enough of this continual back and forth were way off what the original statement I was trying to make.

This is that America was influenced in it's national character by it's size, because there was room to develop and crucially the means to do so both from a geographic and technical point of view.

[rvg]

Now RVG I have really had enough of this continual back and forth were way off what the original statement I was trying to make.

This is that America was influenced in it's national character by it's size, because there was room to develop and crucially the means to do so both from a geographic and technical point of view.
So...here we go again: if size is so important, why isn't Russia or China further ahead? You keep mentioning the size, and I keep thinking about how the small nation of Japan, with barely any land or natural resources managed to first whip Russia in 1905 and later on make a mess out of China.

[gaelic cowboy]

Russia has traded with Persia for a lot longer than that.


It wasn't an issue of orbit. Shah's dollars were just as green, and Russia traded extensively.


Don't sailors need to eat and sleep?


If the land based trade required the train, then how was it possible to conduct land based trade before railroads came to be?



And I didn't accuse you of saying that. My point all along has been that neither size nor population nor coastline can account for the success of the US as a nation: Russia has far more land, China has far more people, and Britain historically had a far better maritime trade network.

Because before real sea trade got going everyone was landbased which removed any cmopetitive adavantage they might potentially have.
A cart driver needs to stop at night and change horses to contiue the journey safely, while a boat has a crew that can eat and sleep in shifts.

As already discussed once colonialism got really going the ship massively boosted trade and the train while good back then was not nearly good enough to go from China to France.


Crucially Russia and China also have problems with both restive populations and with greater actual security threats to the core. This has encouraged expansion to give strategic depth to secure there cores. There economies are landbased and while that was fine in the 14th century it was not fine in the 16th century and as discussed already China shut itself off which negatied it's own maritime advantage.

This has all combined to give them the typical landbased mindset always looking west and east in Russias case or inwards in Chinas case.

[rvg]

Because before real sea trade got going everyone was landbased which removed any cmopetitive adavantage they might potentially have.
A cart driver needs to stop at night and change horses to contiue the journey safely, while a boat has a crew that can eat and sleep in shifts.

As already discussed once colonialism got really going the ship massively boosted trade and the train while good back then was not nearly good enough to go from China to France.


Crucially Russia and China also have problems with both restive populations and with greater actual security threats to the core. This has encouraged expansion to give strategic depth to secure there cores. There economies are landbased and while that was fine in the 14th century it was not fine in the 16th century and as discussed already China shut itself off which negatied it's own maritime advantage.

This has all combined to give them the typical landbased mindset always looking west and east in Russias case or inwards in Chinas case.

Okay, so if size and rivers and trade are so important, then how do you explain the success of Meiji Era Japan? No land to speak of, no resources to speak of, no colonies, almost completely isolated until the 1850s, and yet by 1900 Japan was a world class imperial power.

[gaelic cowboy]

So...here we go again: if size is so important, why isn't Russia or China further ahead? You keep mentioning the size, and I keep thinking about how the small nation of Japan, with barely any land or natural resources managed to first whip Russia in 1905 and later on make a mess out of China.

They whipped them in maritime Russia at a time when they were probably one of the weakest large European powers and crucially they beat them in Asia not Europe.

As discussed already China was behind in development and shut itself off leaving itself ripe for an aggressive power like Japan.

[rvg]

They whipped them in maritime Russia at a time when they were probably one of the weakest large European powers and crucially they beat them in Asia not Europe.

As discussed already China was behind in development and shut itself off leaving itself ripe for an aggressive power like Japan.
They beat Russia on land just as well. And while the battles took place in Asia, those were the same Russian soldiers as the ones that were stationed in European Russia.

[gaelic cowboy]

Okay, so if size and rivers and trade are so important, then how do you explain the success of Meiji Era Japan? No land to speak of, no resources to speak of, no colonies, almost completely isolated until the 1850s, and yet by 1900 Japan was a world class imperial power.

Indeed and what did they do as a result they opened up of course and then traded what little they had from there ports. There small size meant the new rail networks could cover them more easily to transport goods such as they were to port.

China is really only doing that now and hey presto look at that China is gettin massively rich harvesting a competitive advantage in numbers allied with global sea trade.

[rvg]

Indeed and what did they do as a result they opened up of course and then traded what little they had from there ports. There small size meant the new rail networks could cover them more easily to transport goods such as they were to port.

Which means that the importance of size and resources has been highly overstated. Q.E.D.

[gaelic cowboy]

They beat Russia on land just as well. And while the battles took place in Asia, those were the same Russian soldiers as the ones that were stationed in European Russia.

Still in Asia and also far away from the european core the logistical nightmare of supplying from Europe as opposed to a short hop in a boat back to Japan does not compare.

[rvg]

Still in Asia and also far away from the european core the logistical nightmare of supplying from Europe as opposed to a short hop in a boat back to Japan does not compare.
Difficult logistics can hardly account for tactical defeats though. The Battle of Mukden comes to mind.

[gaelic cowboy]

Which means that the importance of size and resources has been highly overstated. Q.E.D.

I did not say that size in and of itself was the key I said maritime trade was the key have you been reading the posts at all. Technically one could say that indeed it is not trade but logistics that is the key, Russia had bad logistics America did not for the reasons outlined repeatedly

On the point about size it merely gifted America with plenty resources and as continually stated they had the ability to use them effectively from early on.



Germany is also a land power but crucially it's goods can reach the sea also German logistics are better as it's river and later it's rail system was more integrated.

[rvg]

I did not say that size in and of itself was the key I said maritime trade was the key have you been reading the posts at all.
I have, and if maritime trade was the key, then Britain, not the U.S. would have been in the most advantageous position. Heck, we didn't even connect our two coasts via railroads until 1869 or so. What good is an extensive Pacific coastline when the bulk of the industry, population and wealth is on the other side of the continent?

[gaelic cowboy]

I have, and if maritime trade was the key, then Britain, not the U.S. would have been in the most advantageous position. Heck, we didn't even connect our two coasts via railroads until 1869 or so. What good is an extensive Pacific coastline when the bulk of the industry, population and wealth is on the other side of the continent?

Because while the railroads hadnt connect the heartland from east to west it was still conneted to the rest of the world by it's massive rivers which allowed trade from Southern ports over the sea. At first trade was mostly transatlantic in America but it's transpacific now and happily most the goods on the pacific coast are new economy ones too. Usually when global trade patterns change like that this it would cripple a nation that has bet it's long term future on one set of particular routes but this did not happen here.

Indeed Britain was in the more advantageous position initially but then Americas advantages were more longterm.
You had lots of resources and plenty with room of to expand with a connected heartland and a Pacific and Atlantic coastline to allow room for economic flexibility.

Allied with Britains need to defend disparate colonies for resources and the later crippling of Britain in war it is easy see why America is now the boss of Britain.
They say one of the reasons they unleashed the Tans in Ireland was because large numbers of British troops were tied down in the new colonies it had seized from the Turks after WW1.

This diastrous policy in essence shows how weak Britain really was even at the imperial core, they lost a part of there core terroritry because they tried to hold some desert abroad.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Our national character influenced our size.

[rvg]

Because while the railroads hadnt connect the heartland from east to west it was still conneted to the rest of the world by it's massive rivers which allowed trade from Southern ports over the sea. At first trade was mostly transatlantic in America but it's transpacific now and happily most the goods on the pacific coast are new economy ones too. Usually when global trade patterns change like that this it would cripple a nation that has bet it's long term future on one set of particular routes but this did not happen here.
But if we're comparing the contemporary situation, Russia has the same: both Atlantic and Pacific ports and a very good network of railroads.


Indeed Britain was in the more advantageous position initially but then Americas advantages were more longterm.
You had lots of resources and plenty with room of to expand with a connected heartland and a Pacific and Atlantic coastline to allow room for economic flexibility.

Lack of a Pacific port isn't that big of a deal really, especially in this day and age.


Allied with Britains need to defend disparate colonies for resources and the later crippling of Britain in war it is easy see why America is now the boss of Britain. They say one of the reasons they unleashed the Tans in Ireland was because large numbers of British troops were tied down in the new colonies it had seized from the Turks after WW1.
What's wrong with prioritization?


This diastrous policy in essence shows how weak Britain really was even at the imperial core, they lost a part of there core terroritry because they tried to hold some desert abroad.
IMHO conduct of the Tans, rather than the fact that they were irregulars, that is to blame for the loss of Ireland.


Our national character influenced our size.
Good point.

[gaelic cowboy]

But if we're comparing the contemporary situation, Russia has the same: both Atlantic and Pacific ports and a very good network of railroads.

For gods sake man were not comparing the contempory situation in the slightest this is long term trade global patterns etc etc. And Russia does not have an atlantic port and it's pacific ones are far fom the industrial heartland. The port of Murmansk in the Arctic is also not suitable as it is also far from the industrial core. The Black Sea is choked by the Turks a Nato power both today and historically an enemy. It's Baltic port is restricted in it's use by it's European enemies and to be honest it's not my fault they were too stupid not to make peace with them and pursue trade.

It's also not my fault they attempted effectively to isolate themselves through communism which on an already backward country merely meant for all there prowess they were and still are bunched in the end.



Lack of a Pacific port isn't that big of a deal really, especially in this day and age.

Again you miss the point that a pacific port gave you flexibility for "Today" ie a longterm advantage and you still need a port on the pacific for the new economy for export of actual products even today.



What's wrong with prioritization?

Nothing but they had too many priorities thats the point.



IMHO conduct of the Tans, rather than the fact that they were irregulars, that is to blame for the loss of Ireland.

None of this is mutually exclusive

[gaelic cowboy]

Our national character influenced our size.

Not mutually exclusive though is it character influences size and size influences character.

America had room to grow so people develop ideas of growth prosperity and freedom, these allow/help people to aggressively conquer the old west.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Not mutually exclusive though is it character influences size and size influences character.

America had room to grow so people develop ideas of growth prosperity and freedom, these allow/help people to aggressively conquer the old west.

I think geographical history is a bit too popular right now, I think it's easy to be misleading because the explanations are easy to grasp.

[gaelic cowboy]

I think geographical history is a bit too popular right now, I think it's easy to be misleading because the explanations are easy to grasp.

I never once used that term of geographical history it is a discredited theory and for good reason it was used to justify all manner of evil.

I am talking about trade and the various advantages from geography that the USA had historically and currently.

I place no moral judgement on Americas size today or historically and I do not place a moral judgement on why they made it big.

Merely I understand how it was possible to profit from it and to maintain it.

[rvg]

For gods sake man were not comparing the contempory situation in the slightest this is long term trade global patterns etc etc.You seem to have no problem jumping between centuries.


And Russia does not have an atlantic port and it's pacific ones are far fom the industrial heartland.
Both Baltic and Black Sea belong to the Atlantic basin.

The port of Murmansk in the Arctic is also not suitable as it is also far from the industrial core.
That's where railroads come in handy.

The Black Sea is choked by the Turks a Nato power both today and historically an enemy. It's Baltic port is restricted in it's use by it's European enemies and to be honest it's not my fault they were too stupid not to make peace with them and pursue trade.Once Russia actually obtained its Baltic ports after crushing the Swedes, they had no problem with trade, nor did they have to fear blockades.


It's also not my fault they attempted effectively to isolate themselves through communism which on an already backward country merely meant for all there prowess they were and still are bunched in the end.They did have a damn good space program... So much for backwardness.


Again you miss the point that a pacific port gave you flexibility for "Today" ie a longterm advantage and you still need a port on the pacific for the new economy for export of actual products even today.
The Pacific is not a lake, you know. You don't have to have a port there to trade in the region.



None of this is mutually exclusiveOf course. I'm just pointing out a possible alternative explanation.