Judging History (branch off from election thread)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

1. Traitor: This a no brainer, he was a British subject and a former Colonial Officer

---

This of course is a matter of perspective and opinion. Except that people who win are generally not dubbed as "traitors". They are called "revolutionaries".

Quote:

---

2. Megalomaniac: Irrc he was convinced he was the only one who could beat the British, and even before War was declared he presented himself to the Continental Congress in uniform as their obvious (if not only) choice for Commanding General.

---

What's wrong with that?

Quote:

---

There's also no evidence he wouldn't have remained President were it not for extreme ill health. The idea that he deliberately served only two terms probably has more to do with later custom and chancer words of Geroge III. Either way, he had cemented his prestige and failing health in officer would not have enhanced it further.

---

Considering that they pretty much begged him to run for the second term, he did even that very reluctantly. Furthermore, during the war there was a sentiment in the Continental Army to install Washington as king. They informed him of that and his reply was something along the lines of "considering it unthinkable that after spending so much time, effort and blood to fight one tyranny, we would replace it with another." So much for being a megalomaniac.

Quote:

---

3. Political a Social Opertunist: Another easy one, as a British subject in the Colonies Washington craved the validation of the Regular Commission, which would have placed him on equal standing to English and Scots Officers in the Colonies. With a regular Commission he would have been able to advance within the British Army on merit. He never recieved one, instead he was made Colonel of the Virginia Regiment.

---

That was actually the whole reason for the revolution:the British Crown refused to treat us as equals, so we ditched it. Defending one's dignity is not political opportunism.

Quote:

---

4. Mediocre General and Statesman: Another no brainer, Washington won the war, but lost most of his battles. Given the home-logistical advantage his soldiers has he had only to hold the British off, and they had infrequent French support. Winning the war was no mean feat, but the Crown had to put more into it than the Continentals just to level the field.

---

He led an army of ragtag civilians-turned-soldiers to confront a well trained, well supplied fighting force that had also enjoyed complete domination of the seas. Washington did extremely well in his situation.

Quote:

---

As a Statesman Washington was far less active than Jefferson or Adams.

---

Que?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

This of course is a matter of perspective and opinion. Except that people who win are generally not dubbed as "traitors". They are called "revolutionaries".

---

Not really, this where American bias comes in that I have talked about. Strictly by the facts, he was a traitor to the British crown, end of story. Not passing judgement on that point, but to argue that "winners are revolutionaries" is prime example of how skewed our ideas of history are when we can't even accept simple facts because certain words have negative connotation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Not really, this where American bias comes in that I have talked about. Strictly by the facts, he was a traitor to the British crown, end of story. Not passing judgement on that point, but to argue that "winners are revolutionaries" is prime example of how skewed our ideas of history are when we can't even accept simple facts because certain words have negative connotation.

---

Was Toussaint Louverture a traitor to France? The guy just didn't want to be a slave, it's kinda hard to fault anyone for that. Loyalty is one thing, but it should not be mistaken for blind obedience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Was Toussaint Louverture a traitor to France? The guy just didn't want to be a slave, it's kinda hard to fault anyone for that. Loyalty is one thing, but it should not be mistaken for blind obedience.

---

The colonies were not exactly slaves. Parliament just wanted us to pay for the expenses of protecting us but without letting us have a voice. As I said before, many "revolutionaries" were pushed into the war because they could not get an agreement with the king.

So your example is weak imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Not really, this where American bias comes in that I have talked about. Strictly by the facts, he was a traitor to the British crown, end of story. Not passing judgement on that point, but to argue that "winners are revolutionaries" is prime example of how skewed our ideas of history are when we can't even accept simple facts because certain words have negative connotation.

---

So strictly by the facts, Martin Luther King was a N-----? Not passing judgement on him of course, but would it be foolish of us to reject the word just because it has a negative connotation?


As for PVC. History is not something you learn because you feel happy inside when you imagine you are deflating other peoples delusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

So strictly by the facts, Martin Luther King was a N-----? Not passing judgement on him of course, but would it be foolish of us to reject the word just because it has a negative connotation?

---

Great way to misinterpret what I am saying Sasaki. Love it when people put terrible racial slurs in my mouth.

Where's Vuk? I think I finally have something we can bond over.

Now, do I really need to explain the difference here for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The colonies were not exactly slaves. Parliament just wanted us to pay for the expenses of protecting us but without letting us have a voice. As I said before, many "revolutionaries" were pushed into the war because they could not get an agreement with the king.

---

Oh yeah, the were merely Untermenschen. How dare they yearn for equality...

Well, it's gratifying knowing I'm not the only one who has a habit of reading things that are not there.

@rvg: rose tinted glassses?

Re: George Washington look at his track record when he still lead British troops against the American Indians. Not particularly awe inspiring that one.
Re: equality: places such as Manchester paid more in taxes and had if possible even less representation for the ordinary folk. Parliament in those days didn't mean that because you paid taxes you were somehow able to influence an MP. The representatives of then would make the current crop of Congress critters blush.

American Independence was ostensibly about "no taxation without representation" but in the same manner the Dutch ostensibly fought for "religious freedom" in the 16th century. The difference being that American Independence was fought over in a time of newspapers and public sympathy rooting for the Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

This of course is a matter of perspective and opinion. Except that people who win are generally not dubbed as "traitors". They are called "revolutionaries".

---

He held a commission from his King and he rebelled, that makes him a traitor. This was a war over tax policy, not abject Tyranny.

Quote:

---

What's wrong with that?

---

Who said "wrong"?

Quote:

---

Considering that they pretty much begged him to run for the second term, he did even that very reluctantly. Furthermore, during the war there was a sentiment in the Continental Army to install Washington as king. They informed him of that and his reply was something along the lines of "considering it unthinkable that after spending so much time, effort and blood to fight one tyranny, we would replace it with another." So much for being a megalomaniac.

---

Except that Washington craved status, not raw power. That fact that he could remain President for life satisfied that need in spades.

Quote:

---

That was actually the whole reason for the revolution:the British Crown refused to treat us as equals, so we ditched it. Defending one's dignity is not political opportunism.

---

That's factually wrong. A British Colonist was a British subject, just like in the UK. A new arrival in the Colonies could run for the Colony's Assembly and a Colonist in the UK could run for Parliament. By and large the Colonies were self governing, albeit that the executive was a Governor from London.

There was no inequality of individuals, the issue was over how the Colonies should pay for the quartering of British soldiers. It's worth pointing out that many of those "intollerable" Acts went down fine elsewhere in the Empire

Quote:

---

He led an army of ragtag civilians-turned-soldiers to confront a well trained, well supplied fighting force that had also enjoyed complete domination of the seas. Washington did extremely well in his situation.

---

You're reading forward and making the mistake of believing that the Army that fought Napoleon was the same one that fought Washington, it wasn't. Nor was the British Navy at this time the one Nelson would command decades later. America's French allies gave the Royal Navy a drubbing and Washington's Army were regular soldiers just like the British, and just like the British they were a mix of veterans of the Indian wars and newly raised recruits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

@rvg: rose tinted glassses?
Re: George Washington look at his track record when he still lead British troops against the American Indians. Not particularly awe inspiring that one.

---

What's wrong with it?

Quote:

---

Re: equality: places such as Manchester paid more in taxes and had if possible even less representation for the ordinary folk. Parliament in those days didn't mean that because you paid taxes you were somehow able to influence an MP. The representatives of then would make the current crop of Congress critters blush.

---

Doesn't matter. The point is that the colonists were treated like second class citizens and they didn't like it one bit.

Quote:

---

American Independence was ostensibly about "no taxation without representation" but in the same manner the Dutch ostensibly fought for "religious freedom" in the 16th century. The difference being that American Independence was fought over in a time of newspapers and public sympathy rooting for the Americans.

---

We didn't fight for publicity. Publicity was the result of our struggle, not the cause of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

He held a commission from his King and he rebelled, that makes him a traitor. This was a war over tax policy, not abject Tyranny.

---

The tax policy was the manifestation of British tyranny.

Quote:

---

Who said "wrong"?

---

You certainly implied it. You're obviously viewing it with a negative connotation.

Quote:

---

Except that Washington craved status, not raw power. That fact that he could remain President for life satisfied that need in spades.

---

That's pure speculation on your part backed up by absolutely nothing.

Quote:

---

That's factually wrong. A British Colonist was a British subject, just like in the UK. A new arrival in the Colonies could run for the Colony's Assembly and a Colonist in the UK could run for Parliament. By and large the Colonies were self governing, albeit that the executive was a Governor from London.

There was no inequality of individuals, the issue was over how the Colonies should pay for the quartering of British soldiers. It's worth pointing out that many of those "intollerable" Acts went down fine elsewhere in the Empire

---

We were so equal that a senior colonial officer ranked on the same level as the regular British NCO. Equality my ass.

Quote:

---

You're reading forward and making the mistake of believing that the Army that fought Napoleon was the same one that fought Washington, it wasn't. Nor was the British Navy at this time the one Nelson would command decades later.

---

You are equating the professional troops of what then was the largest colonial empire on the planet with a bunch of colonists? Really?

Quote:

---

America's French allies gave the Royal Navy a drubbing

---

Yes, the French were instrumental. Enlisting their help was smart politics.

Quote:

---

...and Washington's Army were regular soldiers just like the British, and just like the British they were a mix of veterans of the Indian wars and newly raised recruits...

---

They were mostly farmers some of whom had served in the military at one point in their lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Not really, this where American bias comes in that I have talked about. Strictly by the facts, he was a traitor to the British crown, end of story. Not passing judgement on that point, but to argue that "winners are revolutionaries" is prime example of how skewed our ideas of history are when we can't even accept simple facts because certain words have negative connotation.

---

If the crown wasn't fulfilling its duties to its subjects, then it seems that the term traitor seems overly negative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You're reading forward and making the mistake of believing that the Army that fought Napoleon was the same one that fought Washington, it wasn't. Nor was the British Navy at this time the one Nelson would command decades later. America's French allies gave the Royal Navy a drubbing and Washington's Army were regular soldiers just like the British, and just like the British they were a mix of veterans of the Indian wars and newly raised recruits.

---

Given that the French lost a ton of good admirals and captains during the French Revolution, the British Navy of 1777 was probably about the same as the British Navy of 1805. It's just that their enemies decreased in skill due to internal issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

If the crown wasn't fulfilling its duties to its subjects, then it seems that the term traitor seems overly negative.

---

What duties was it not fulfiling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

What duties was it not fulfiling?

---

Wasn't giving them adequate representation in parliament as was mentioned before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Now, do I really need to explain the difference here for you?

---

No, you need to look at the similarity, and then ask yourself whether the difference is relevant to the point being made. It's an analogy.

Attachment 5208

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

The tax policy was the manifestation of British tyranny.

---

OK, that deserves a WTF LOL.

Seriously?

The only "Tyranny" was not letting the rich living in the Colonies vote like the rich in England. Before the Revolution most the of the population couldn't vote, and they still couldn't after the revolution. In fact, I think you'll find the UK was ahead of the US there as well as in matters of slavery.

Quote:

---

You certainly implied it. You're obviously viewing it with a negative connotation.

---

Meh, I just don't think he should be lorded as a secular saint.

Quote:

---

That's pure speculation on your part backed up by absolutely nothing.

---

His military record speaks volumes.

Quote:

---

We were so equal that a senior colonial officer ranked on the same level as the regular British NCO. Equality my ass.

---

Are you willfully misinterpreting me? A British Colonist with a regular commission was equal to an Englishman with a regular commission.

Quote:

---

You are equating the professional troops of what then was the largest colonial empire on the planet with a bunch of colonists? Really?

---

Again, you are reading forward. The Greatest Colonial Power at this time was France, not Britain, and the "professional" British Army was forged later in the Iberian Wars. During the Revolutionary War British units were still regularly raised and disbanded. Howe's army would have been built around a core of experienced units and newly raised battalions.

Quote:

---

They were mostly farmers some of whom had served in the military at one point in their lives.

---

During this period Battalions raised in omerset had the same make up. Battalions raised in Liverpool were dock workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...olutionary_War

Note the number of "Volunteer" units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

If the crown wasn't fulfilling its duties to its subjects, then it seems that the term traitor seems overly negative.

---

The Crown fulfilled all its duties to the Colonists, including defending them from Indians and the French. Then they asked the Colonists to pay, the rich ones that is. The Colonial Aristocracy didn't like that, so they rebelled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

Wasn't giving them adequate representation in parliament as was mentioned before.

---

That's not really a duty, more a concession earned by force through several rebellions and treaties between the kings of england and the noblility over multiple centuries, and even then it was only given to those who either were in position of power and influence enough to force the issue, from my understanding parliment was pretty elitist.
I would like to add that I do not think the american colonies shouldnt have been represented, personally I do find myself confused at parliment's reluctance to accept american MP's considering the amount of the british economy they controled.
Though going from "we want american MP's" to "we want independance" was a bit much of an unneccissary leap on congress' part in my opinion considering thier victory in the war could have easily forced parliment into giving them representation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

...Before the Revolution most the of the population couldn't vote, and they still couldn't after the revolution...

---

After the Revolution every free man was entitled to vote.

Quote:

---

In fact, I think you'll find the UK was ahead of the US there as well as in matters of slavery.

---

True, but not relevant.

Quote:

---

Meh, I just don't think he should be lorded as a secular saint.

---

Of course not, but no reason to badmouth him either.

Quote:

---

His military record speaks volumes.

---

Care to elaborate?

Quote:

---

Are you willfully misinterpreting me? A British Colonist with a regular commission was equal to an Englishman with a regular commission.

---

No, I am willfully contradicting you. One reason why Washington limited his participation in the French and Indian campaigns: he didn't want to do it as a colonial officer, since even the most junior regular officer would outrank him. He found it humiliating and rightfully so.

Quote:

---

Again, you are reading forward. The Greatest Colonial Power at this time was France, not Britain

---

This is arguable, since by 1770 France was completely kicked off the North American continent. Furthermore, be it first colonial superpower or the next one, Britain had a lot more in terms of resources, manpower and deployment ability than the colonists.

Quote:

---

and the "professional" British Army was forged later in the Iberian Wars. During the Revolutionary War British units were still regularly raised and disbanded. Howe's army would have been built around a core of experienced units and newly raised battalions.

---

They have plenty of manpower. They refused to properly engage the manpower because they underestimated the rebellion, but that's another story. Sending mercenaries to crush the rebellion was their prerogative but hardly their only option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

After the Revolution every free man was entitled to vote.

---

Factually incorrect, only those with property of sufficient value held in their own name could vote, exactly the same as England.

Quote:

---

Of course not, but no reason to badmouth him either.

---

You should hear me on Wellington, a man who shared many of Washington's charactaristics - good and bad.

Quote:

---

Care to elaborate?

---

Injins.

Quote:

---

No, I am willfully contradicting you. One reason why Washington limited his participation in the French and Indian campaigns: he didn't want to do it as a colonial officer, since even the most junior regular officer would outrank him. He found it humiliating and rightfully so.

---

Failure to secure a regular commission on Washington's part appears to have been due to a lack of funds or connections, not being a Colonist. Other Colonists served as regular officers - Consider 105th American Volunteers - a Loyalist unit during the Revolution.

Quote:

---

This is arguable, since by 1770 France was completely kicked off the North American continent. Furthermore, be it first colonial superpower or the next one, Britain had a lot more in terms of resources, manpower and deployment ability than the colonists.

They have plenty of manpower. They refused to properly engage the manpower because they underestimated the rebellion, but that's another story. Sending mercenaries to crush the rebellion was their prerogative but hardly their only option.

---

The French situation is arguable, the manpower and resources one is not. Washington held his army together long enough to bleed the British, not beat them. New York and it's environs remained in British hands until after the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Factually incorrect, only those with property of sufficient value held in their own name could vote, exactly the same as England.

---

It started almost immediately. In New Hampshire for example, all white men could vote as early as 1792.

Quote:

---

You should hear me on Wellington, a man who shared many of Washington's charactaristics - good and bad.

---

I'm not debating your right to badmouth Washington, only the logic behind it.

Quote:

---

Injins.

---

We fought a war. They fought on the side of the enemy. We killed them. I do not see a problem here.

Quote:

---

Failure to secure a regular commission on Washington's part appears to have been due to a lack of funds or connections, not being a Colonist. Other Colonists served as regular officers - Consider 105th American Volunteers - a Loyalist unit during the Revolution.

---

Couldn't be picky once the Revolution began, though it was too late by then.

Quote:

---

The French situation is arguable, the manpower and resources one is not. Washington held his army together long enough to bleed the British, not beat them. New York and it's environs remained in British hands until after the war.

---

As long as the goal was achieved, it's all good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

It started almost immediately. In New Hampshire for example, all white men could vote as early as 1792.

---

But wasn't finished until 1860, and then there's still blacks and women. By contrast, Blacks were never denied the vote in England.

Quote:

---

I'm not debating your right to badmouth Washington, only the logic behind it.

---

The logic is, these men were not exactly nice people.

Quote:

---

We fought a war. They fought on the side of the enemy. We killed them. I do not see a problem here.

---

You took their land, gave them diseases, then burned their remaining villages, man woman and child.

Quote:

---

Couldn't be picky once the Revolution began, though it was too late by then.

---

Not at all, the point is that Washington failed to secure a regular commission but other American Colonists did succeed before and during the revolution. We were talking about megalomania before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

By contrast, Blacks were never denied the vote in England.

---

Right. You know where else they were never denied the vote? Imperial Russia. It's easy not to deny something to Blacks when you have none or very few of them around.

Quote:

---

The logic is, these men were not exactly nice people.

---

Doesn't make them bad people though.

Quote:

---

You took their land, gave them diseases, then burned their remaining villages, man woman and child.

---

They killed a bunch of us as well. Either way, most of that was done after Washington's death.

Quote:

---

Not at all, the point is that Washington failed to secure a regular commission but other American Colonists did succeed before and during the revolution. We were talking about megalomania before.

---

My point is that a colonial Officer of one rank was not equal to the Regular officer of the same rank.

Someone forgot his lesson on Jacksonion democracy. That fact a limey is whipping a Yankee at his own history is sad

Well it's kinda both our histories, as much as our education system may ignore it. bunch of jerks making me study the canal and road expansions grumble, grumble...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Right. You know where else they were never denied the vote? Imperial Russia. It's easy not to deny something to Blacks when you have none or very few of them around.

---

No, we were just a lot less racist. The only time we have ever had any form of racial segregation in the UK was during WWII to prevent fights between White American servicemen and everyone else. Let me spell that out for you:

Black G.I. orders pint in pub, white G.I. tells him to get out, barman throws White G.I. into street.

Not to say we had no racist here, but with very few exceptions all his majesty's common subjects were equal before the law.

Also, listen to Strike if you don't believe me.

Quote:

---

Doesn't make them bad people though.

---

Did I say that? I said Washington was a traitor to his King, I didn't pass judgement on that fact.

As it is, I feel the reaction of the Continental Congress was.... excessive, but King George was having one of his funny turns and his ministers lacked His Majesty's common touch. If George III had been in better health perhaps he would have made a trip to the Colonies to see for himself, and the war would have been avoided.

Quote:

---

They killed a bunch of us as well. Either way, most of that was done after Washington's death.

---

Washington did those things in Virginia before the war, and later during. If he was a model American soldier and statesman he has a lot to answer for. Compare the treatment ofNative Americans in Canada and the US - at least the Candaian authorities had the courtesy to sign intollerable treaties the Natives had to break, rather than break the treaties themselves.

Quote:

---

My point is that a colonial Officer of one rank was not equal to the Regular officer of the same rank.

---

So what? A Yeoman Officer in England wasn't either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

No, we were just a lot less racist. The only time we have ever had any form of racial segregation in the UK was during WWII to prevent fights between White American servicemen and everyone else. Let me spell that out for you:

Black G.I. orders pint in pub, white G.I. tells him to get out, barman throws White G.I. into street.

Not to say we had no racist here, but with very few exceptions all his majesty's common subjects were equal before the law.

---

Washington. George Washington. 18th century, not 20th.

Quote:

---

Also, listen to Strike if you don't believe me.

---

No can't do. He's on my ignore list.

Quote:

---

Did I say that? I said Washington was a traitor to his King, I didn't pass judgement on that fact.

---

You're certainly portraying it as Washington's character flaw.

Quote:

---

As it is, I feel the reaction of the Continental Congress was.... excessive, but King George was having one of his funny turns and his ministers lacked His Majesty's common touch. If George III had been in better health perhaps he would have made a trip to the Colonies to see for himself, and the war would have been avoided.

---

Either way, what's done is done.

Quote:

---

Washington did those things in Virginia before the war, and later during. If he was a model American soldier and statesman he has a lot to answer for.

---

What he did wasn't anything out of the ordinary. It is kinda ridiculous to hold him up to today's moral standards. Besides, Indians were far from peaceful towards Whites. Mostly because there was about zero level of understanding of one another's culture and viewpoints, but in the end it was a mutual war of extermination. Colonists were simply better at it.

Quote:

---

Compare the treatment ofNative Americans in Canada and the US - at least the Candaian authorities had the courtesy to sign intollerable treaties the Natives had to break, rather than break the treaties themselves.

---

i.e. they weren't any better.

Quote:

---

So what? A Yeoman Officer in England wasn't either.

---

And I salute him for his resolve and loyalty that compel him to bend his back and properly serve his betters. Meanwhile, those New World rascals had other ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

No, we were just a lot less racist.

---

:laugh4:

Not taking sides in the Washington debate, but that is patently absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

:laugh4:

Not taking sides in the Washington debate, but that is patently absurd.

---

My family never had slaves - we used them in the colonies but not in the UK. That might be swivel-eyed on the part of the higher-ups, but the result is that the only Africans most British people ever saw were free men, and English and Scottish law reflect the resulting (relative) colour blindness. If you've been following me and Gaelic in another thread you might appreciate that the white Irish Catholic had as many if not more cultural and legal prejudices against him as the black Carribean or American Protestant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Washington. George Washington. 18th century, not 20th.

---

And 200 years later things hadn't changed much. There have always been Africans mixing with Englishmen in the UK, ever since the 16th Century - in the Navy, in Bristol and London. Why do you think there are such African populations there?

Quote:

---

No can't do. He's on my ignore list.

---

Your loss.

Quote:

---

You're certainly portraying it as Washington's character flaw.

---

That depends on your perspective, on whether you think the regime in the Colonies was actually intollerable, but more importantly it depends what Washington thought.

Quote:

---

Either way, what's done is done.

---

Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it, those who read it and misunderstand it are simply doomed.

The American Colonists fought a brutal and bloody Civil War (Loyalist forces roughly equalled Patriot forces in the beginning) over the tax regime imposed by London. Now you can't balance the books because of the inability of Washington to agree a serious tax regime over 200 years later.

What happened during the Revolutionary War and it's aftermath is important. I submit that America is still run by the elite who started the rebellion because they refused to pay their taxes, and they still refuse to pay their taxes.

Quote:

---

What he did wasn't anything out of the ordinary. It is kinda ridiculous to hold him up to today's moral standards. Besides, Indians were far from peaceful towards Whites. Mostly because there was about zero level of understanding of one another's culture and viewpoints, but in the end it was a mutual war of extermination. Colonists were simply better at it.

---

Again, reading back - find my a massacre against Native Americans carried out by a British Officer.

Quote:

---

i.e. they weren't any better.

---

A matter of Opinion, you would have to ask Megas - but at least British Canadian officals dealt by legal treaty.

Quote:

---

And I salute him for his resolve and loyalty that compel him to bend his back and properly serve his betters. Meanwhile, those New World rascals had other ideas.

---

The Yeomanry were the English militia, not some sort of slave army. A Yeomanry officer would likely be of the same social class as a regular one, the same social class as Washington himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

And 200 years later things hadn't changed much. There have always been Africans mixing with Englishmen in the UK, ever since the 16th Century - in the Navy, in Bristol and London. Why do you think there are such African populations there?

---

This has nothing to do with Washington. We can argue all day about racist Amurcans but that would be straying from our original topic.

Quote:

---

That depends on your perspective, on whether you think the regime in the Colonies was actually intollerable, but more importantly it depends what Washington thought.

---

Which means that there's no accurate way to judge him.

Quote:

---

Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it, those who read it and misunderstand it are simply doomed.

The American Colonists fought a brutal and bloody Civil War (Loyalist forces roughly equalled Patriot forces in the beginning) over the tax regime imposed by London. Now you can't balance the books because of the inability of Washington to agree a serious tax regime over 200 years later.

What happened during the Revolutionary War and it's aftermath is important. I submit that America is still run by the elite who started the rebellion because they refused to pay their taxes, and they still refuse to pay their taxes.

---

We have no regrets. Thank you for your concern though, but really, no regrets whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Again, reading back - find my a massacre against Native Americans carried out by a British Officer.

---

How about the other Indians? The Amritsar Massacre of 1919 comes to mind.

Quote:

---

A matter of Opinion, you would have to ask Megas - but at least British Canadian officals dealt by legal treaty.

---

Exactly, a matter of opinion.

Quote:

---

The Yeomanry were the English militia, not some sort of slave army. A Yeomanry officer would likely be of the same social class as a regular one, the same social class as Washington himself.

---

Like I said, their subservience is exemplary. That doesn't mean that the colonists across the ocean would be enthusiastic about replicating it.

My interest has been piqued by PVC's assertion that Washington missed out on a regular commission, that is I think a very significant factor in his later outlook.

It has been said but I wouldn't have any proof apart from the first line on his wiki entry that Wolfe Tone missed out on a regular commission in Hawaii.

Effectively he wanted to found a military colony on the island but it was rejected by Pitt, his father was very much against a commission anyway so he became a barrister instead.

Later of course he threw his lot in with the late 18th century revolutionary thought that swept France, USA and Ireland.

I guessing that there was a lot more going on here than just a few minor aristocracy and merchant classes bumping up against a glass ceiling. Basically the English fell into an enlarged empire without any thought about effective administration of the masses, the Union of Great Britain and Ireland was the first proper attempt to solve this. (it failed utterly to do its job)

Quote:

---

No can't do. He's on my ignore list.

---

Apparently me and the historiography

Phillips assertions are not wild. The only thing his critiuqe is missing is the schathing Marxist rhetoric that usually comes part and parcel with these.

I do take issue with a fair few of his points but due to the duration of the conversation I have lost my earlier inclinations

The idea that the Brits were "less racist" is absurd. The idea that the Brits were at the cutting edge of enfranchisement is also absurd. The British were able to reconcile granting base liberties to others becuase their world veiw was colored by class. The idea that liberty should be extended to all civilzed men fits nicely within the zeitiglest.

Americans could not frame it in such a way and were forced into other avenues.

The founders did not truly beleive in the common man like they are portrayed. I certainly wouldn't be so overly critical of them like PVC is. If nothing else they should be rewarded for not turning an enlightenment revolution into an orgy of blood and immorality (I'm looking at you Robisperre)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

This has nothing to do with Washington. We can argue all day about racist Amurcans but that would be straying from our original topic.

---

No, this is about your "freedom vs Tyranny" narrative. You're right, if you're a white male property holder - otherwise not so much.

Quote:

---

Which means that there's no accurate way to judge him.

---

That depends on what you are judging, and your sources - Washington's personal papers offer you a way to judge his character, but his actions can be judged simply. He had held a Colonial Commission, he would therefore have been required to Swear. He broke his Oath to King and Country and Rebelled against his regally established ruler and Parliament, not to mention his Colony's Governor, though I'll grant you that said Governor had an unfortunate habit of disolving the Assembly.

Quote:

---

We have no regrets. Thank you for your concern though, but really, no regrets whatsoever.

---

but you do have a constant hang up about taxation and government, an argument led by the rich for the rich. Appreciating your history puts that into perspective.

Quote:

---

How about the other Indians? The Amritsar Massacre of 1919 comes to mind.

---

You found one Officer in the twitchy post-War era who was subsequently removed from post and forced to retire. Obviously, 20 years later he would have been court marshalled, but he was at least punished.

Quote:

---

Like I said, their subservience is exemplary. That doesn't mean that the colonists across the ocean would be enthusiastic about replicating it.

---

Failure to obey the orders of your superiors is insubordination - during this period militia were subordinate to Regular army, they were not "subserviant". You're just being silly to try and get a rise out of me.

I suppose you imagine there was some great class divide. Hardly - Washington could have gone to school in England and thence into the Army, or directly into the Navy. The latter was more-or-less a meritocracy at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

My interest has been piqued by PVC's assertion that Washington missed out on a regular commission, that is I think a very significant factor in his later outlook.

It has been said but I wouldn't have any proof apart from the first line on his wiki entry that Wolfe Tone missed out on a regular commission in Hawaii.

Effectively he wanted to found a military colony on the island but it was rejected by Pitt, his father was very much against a commission anyway so he became a barrister instead.

Later of course he threw his lot in with the late 18th century revolutionary thought that swept France, USA and Ireland.

I guessing that there was a lot more going on here than just a few minor aristocracy and merchant classes bumping up against a glass ceiling. Basically the English fell into an enlarged empire without any thought about effective administration of the masses, the Union of Great Britain and Ireland was the first proper attempt to solve this. (it failed utterly to do its job)

---

Failed in Malta too. I think Britain learned to treat colonists properly only after the Falklands War, prior to which Thatcher's government planned to screw them over too. You're absolutely right about the failure to properly integrate the Colonies into British rule, the final Solution was, and is, Commonwealth and self-rule. Although, I expect the original plan was for london to retain some form of overaching control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Apparently me and the historiography

Phillips assertions are not wild. The only thing his critiuqe is missing is the schathing Marxist rhetoric that usually comes part and parcel with these.

I do take issue with a fair few of his points but due to the duration of the conversation I have lost my earlier inclinations

The idea that the Brits were "less racist" is absurd. The idea that the Brits were at the cutting edge of enfranchisement is also absurd. The British were able to reconcile granting base liberties to others becuase their world veiw was colored by class. The idea that liberty should be extended to all civilzed men fits nicely within the zeitiglest.

Americans could not frame it in such a way and were forced into other avenues.

The founders did not truly beleive in the common man like they are portrayed. I certainly wouldn't be so overly critical of them like PVC is. If nothing else they should be rewarded for not turning an enlightenment revolution into an orgy of blood and immorality (I'm looking at you Robisperre)

---

Yes, I'll give you that. The cynical prediction that the Americans would establish their own Dukes within twenty years never came to pass and I'm sure the character of the original Founding Fathers is in large part responsible for that.

However, I should like to see evidence that there was a more comprehensive franchise after the Reform Act 1867

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1867

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

No, this is about your "freedom vs Tyranny" narrative. You're right, if you're a white male property holder - otherwise not so much.

---

Had to start somewhere.

Quote:

---

but you do have a constant hang up about taxation and government, an argument led by the rich for the rich. Appreciating your history puts that into perspective.

---

It's not about money, it was never about money, it was about principles. The last incarnation of British taxes on imported goods (with tea being amongst those) was purely symbolic. Knowing how unpopular import taxes were, the crown made them so low that anyone who could afford to buy imported goods would have barely noticed the tax. The people still did not accept that. It wasn't because the tax was outrageously high, it was because of principles. Principles matter. They did back then and they do now.

Quote:

---

You found one Officer in the twitchy post-War era who was subsequently removed from post and forced to retire. Obviously, 20 years later he would have been court marshalled, but he was at least punished.

---

You wanted an example and I gave you one.

Quote:

---

Failure to obey the orders of your superiors is insubordination - during this period militia were subordinate to Regular army, they were not "subserviant". You're just being silly to try and get a rise out of me.

I suppose you imagine there was some great class divide. Hardly - Washington could have gone to school in England and thence into the Army, or directly into the Navy. The latter was more-or-less a meritocracy at this point.

---

Look, just because that was the way things were doesn't mean that it was just. All I'm pointing out is the injustice of the status quo and Washington's utter refusal to accept that injustice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Had to start somewhere.

---

Yes, but the point is you didn't get anywhere fast. In 1832 King William IV forced the House of Lords to pass the Great Reform Act and in 1867 the Reform act effectively gave the franchise to all adult males. Meanwhile, even in the 1770's setiment was moving towards increasing autonomy for the the Colonial Dominions, so if the 13 Colonies had not rebelled by 1870ish you'd probably have a situation where they were mostly self governing (remember the Colonies already had democratic assemblies) with a broad franchise. As it was, you didn't achieve anything like universal sufferage until after WWII.

Quote:

---

It's not about money, it was never about money, it was about principles. The last incarnation of British taxes on imported goods (with tea being amongst those) was purely symbolic. Knowing how unpopular import taxes were, the crown made them so low that anyone who could afford to buy imported goods would have barely noticed the tax. The people still did not accept that. It wasn't because the tax was outrageously high, it was because of principles. Principles matter. They did back then and they do now.

---

The Revolution was not a majority cause, 30% supported it, 30% opposed it and 40% were apathetic. Despite what has been said, the regime was not Tyranical and an accomodation could have been reached. That is not to say the Revolutionary War was bad for America, and certainly America has done very well in the subsequent centuries but that in no war means the war was necessary are particularly justified.

I would submit to you that:

A: The Founding Fathers were explicitely anti-democratic and were concerned not with principles but with economic autonomy. The US Constitution, and particularly the Electoral College, were explicitely designed to prevent the masses from gaining control of the government. Given the current havoc the Tea-Party is reeking on your finances I must say I am sympathetic to the sentiment and objective.

and

B: The Continental Congress was highjacked by Merchant princes who feared future taxes cutting into their profits and by political radicals who wanted to create a new Enlightenment State.

Quote:

---

You wanted an example and I gave you one.

---

It is not the same as a planned massacre of women and Children such as were carried out in the Americas. It was essentially a botched Police Action enacted by a single officer without higher authorisation.

Quote:

---

Look, just because that was the way things were doesn't mean that it was just. All I'm pointing out is the injustice of the status quo and Washington's utter refusal to accept that injustice.

---

There were injustices in the Americas, particularly in the power of the Colonial Governors which exceeded the analogous powers of the King, but Washington not recieving a Regular Commission, nore his lack of seniority as a Colonial Officer were not among them. Let me state this again, it was the nature of Washington's Commission, not Washington's birth, which dictated his station.

Quote:

---

You're just being silly to try and get a rise out of me.

---

Seriously, this guy just doesnt get pissed no matter how stupid or inflamatory the argument.

Quote:

---

The Revolution was not a majority cause, 30% supported it, 30% opposed it and 40% were apathetic. Despite what has been said, the regime was not Tyranical and an accomodation could have been reached. That is not to say the Revolutionary War was bad for America, and certainly America has done very well in the subsequent centuries but that in no war means the war was necessary are particularly justified.

---

An interesting point is that if the americans stayed with britain it wouldnt have become the superpower it is today, by becoming a seperate nation without loyalties to a preexisting power it became the go to place for the entire world's worth of people wanting a new life. If it had stayed it wouldnt have had the huge influx of manpower, culture and radical thinkers and might just be another unimportant american colony in the vein of mexico and brazil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Yes, but the point is you didn't get anywhere fast. In 1832 King William IV forced the House of Lords to pass the Great Reform Act and in 1867 the Reform act effectively gave the franchise to all adult males.

---

We were a year behind when the 14th Amendment extended citizenship (and thus voting rights) to all men born in the U.S. regardless of race.

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, even in the 1770's setiment was moving towards increasing autonomy for the the Colonial Dominions, so if the 13 Colonies had not rebelled by 1870ish you'd probably have a situation where they were mostly self governing (remember the Colonies already had democratic assemblies) with a broad franchise. As it was, you didn't achieve anything like universal sufferage until after WWII.

---

Why wait for freedom to be granted to you when you can take it yourself?

Quote:

---

The Revolution was not a majority cause, 30% supported it, 30% opposed it and 40% were apathetic. Despite what has been said, the regime was not Tyranical and an accomodation could have been reached. That is not to say the Revolutionary War was bad for America, and certainly America has done very well in the subsequent centuries but that in no war means the war was necessary are particularly justified.

---

Coudln't wait for respect forever. There was no indication of any sort of understanding coming from London.

Quote:

---

I would submit to you that:

A: The Founding Fathers were explicitely anti-democratic and were concerned not with principles but with economic autonomy. The US Constitution, and particularly the Electoral College, were explicitely designed to prevent the masses from gaining control of the government. Given the current havoc the Tea-Party is reeking on your finances I must say I am sympathetic to the sentiment and objective.

and

B: The Continental Congress was highjacked by Merchant princes who feared future taxes cutting into their profits and by political radicals who wanted to create a new Enlightenment State.

---

You look at who they were and I look at what they did. For starters, they managed to forge and implement the best Constitution the world had ever seen.

Quote:

---

It is not the same as a planned massacre of women and Children such as were carried out in the Americas. It was essentially a botched Police Action enacted by a single officer without higher authorisation.

---

Planned or not, death is death.

Quote:

---

There were injustices in the Americas, particularly in the power of the Colonial Governors which exceeded the analogous powers of the King, but Washington not recieving a Regular Commission, nore his lack of seniority as a Colonial Officer were not among them. Let me state this again, it was the nature of Washington's Commission, not Washington's birth, which dictated his station.

---

Colonial troops fought and bled the same way as the regulars. There was no reason to discriminate against them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

We were a year behind when the 14th Amendment extended citizenship (and thus voting rights) to all men born in the U.S. regardless of race.

---

So the Revolution didn't do much for political equality, especially since legal Apartied continued into the 1960's. In any case, citizenship did not necessarily equate to "voting rights" because the US had applied property qualifications to citizen sufferage in the past. In any case, as I have already said, there was never a racially discrimination between British Subjects in the UK, so that's not something to crow about.

Quote:

---

Why wait for freedom to be granted to you when you can take it yourself?

---

Why fight a brutal Civil War when you can live in peace and negotiate?

Quote:

---

Coudln't wait for respect forever. There was no indication of any sort of understanding coming from London.

---

That is patently not true, as you yourself have admitted the London had already compromised on the tax issue, and Howe was authorised to negotiate, it was the Patriots you declared "give me liberty or give me death."

I agree with the central thesis that Parliament could not tax a territory which did not return MP's, but it follows that Parliament should not really be spending British taxes on expensive wars in the Colonies. Ergo, the Colonies should pay for their own defence - something they were incapable of in the face of the French.

Quote:

---

You look at who they were and I look at what they did. For starters, they managed to forge and implement the best Constitution the world had ever seen.

---

Objectively, this is clearly not true. The original US Constitution is a seriously flawed document from the perspective establishing "Freedom" and you had to have another Civil War to sort it out.

Having said that, the current settlemet in the US, at least until 20 years ago, exemplery. Possibly time for another tune up though.

Quote:

---

Planned or not, death is death.

---

True, but not the point. Particularly if you were to ask Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse, who were murdered during Parlay.

Quote:

---

Colonial troops fought and bled the same way as the regulars. There was no reason to discriminate against them.

---

They were not Disciminated against.

I don't know how many different ways to explain this to you.

A British Colonist was a British Subject, the same as a man born in England. Washington could have gone to England, or entered the Navy as a Midshipman the same as a man from Kent or Devon. What he did instead was fought in the Colonial militia - as such he had a Commission from the Colonial Governor, not the King. A Royal Commission takes precidence over EVERYTHING, and that is the end of the argument. Later, Line Regiments with Regular Officers were raised in the Colonies, other American Regiments were added to the Order of Battle, like the 105th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Ame...ers_of_Ireland)

If Washington had brought the Virginia Regiment to the Loyalist side he would have recieved a Regular Commission.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

So the Revolution didn't do much for political equality, especially since legal Apartied continued into the 1960's. In any case, citizenship did not necessarily equate to "voting rights" because the US had applied property qualifications to citizen sufferage in the past. In any case, as I have already said, there was never a racially discrimination between British Subjects in the UK, so that's not something to crow about.

---

By the 1860s property requirements for voting purposes were ancient history. Citizenship was the universal factor that granted voting rights.

Quote:

---

Why fight a brutal Civil War when you can live in peace and negotiate?

---

Events like the Boston Massacre leave little room for negotiation.

Quote:

---

That is patently not true, as you yourself have admitted the London had already compromised on the tax issue, and Howe was authorised to negotiate, it was the Patriots you declared "give me liberty or give me death."

---

Too little, too late.

Quote:

---

Objectively, this is clearly not true. The original US Constitution is a seriously flawed document from the perspective establishing "Freedom" and you had to have another Civil War to sort it out.

---

The interpretation of freedom might have been flawed at the time, but the Constitution itself had it right from the beginning.

Quote:

---

True, but not the point. Particularly if you were to ask Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse, who were murdered during Parlay.

---

Crazy Horse had plenty of blood on his hands.

Quote:

---

If Washington had brought the Virginia Regiment to the Loyalist side he would have recieved a Regular Commission.

---

By then he didn't want it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

By the 1860s property requirements for voting purposes were ancient history. Citizenship was the universal factor that granted voting rights.

---

Yes, but you still had the Apartied.

Quote:

---

Events like the Boston Massacre leave little room for negotiation.

---

Yes, well people pelting soldiers with snowballs and rocks does put a pall on things.

Five men is not a massacre.

Quote:

---

Too little, too late.

---

Apparently so.

Quote:

---

The interpretation of freedom might have been flawed at the time, but the Constitution itself had it right from the beginning.

---

It was basically the same interpretation as the King of England had - but you elect your Kings.

[quote]Crazy Horse had plenty of blood on his hands.

OK, you can have another WTF LOL for that one - especially since you've spent the last few pages defending a man's right to bloody insurrection in the cause of Freedom. Crazy Horse's people were facing cultural annihalation at best.

Quote:

---

By then he didn't want it.

---

Since way of not backing down.

Not the point, is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Yes, but you still had the Apartied.

---

Doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Yes, well people pelting soldiers with snowballs and rocks does put a pall on things.

Five men is not a massacre.

---

Life's cheap when it's not your people that are getting killed.

Quote:

---

It was basically the same interpretation as the King of England had - but you elect your Kings.

---

And not for life. And we hold them accountable to the people.

Quote:

---

OK, you can have another WTF LOL for that one - especially since you've spent the last few pages defending a man's right to bloody insurrection in the cause of Freedom. Crazy Horse's people were facing cultural annihalation at best.

---

He lost though. We couldn't coexist in peace, someone had to go.

Quote:

---

Not the point, is it?

---

Then why bring up a hypothetical situation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Doesn't matter.

---

Yes it does. Your vaunted Republic was hideously flawed, and the scars of that remain to this day. You think it's a coincidence that the first Black President has no "African American" blood?

Quote:

---

Life's cheap when it's not your people that are getting killed.

---

They were the same people that's the bloody point! [infraction please]

British subject attacked British soldiers, read the entry on wiki. Hell, there was a deposition afterwards. It wasn't a small incident for the Army. It remains "not a massacre" however, Bloody Sunday was a massacre.

Quote:

---

And not for life. And we hold them accountable to the people.

---

From where I'm sitting you have two parties and they switch every eight years - unless one side REALLY screws up.

Quote:

---

He lost though. We couldn't coexist in peace, someone had to go.

---

That's because you killed all his Buffalo, stole his land, put his children into cultural re-education schools and broke the treaties you made with him; repeatedly.

To this day large swathes of America are technically illegally held by either the Federal Government or settles in violation of Treaties the Federal Government signed with the Native American Tribes.

Quote:

---

Then why bring up a hypothetical situation?

---

To help illustrate that this is not an issue of "Colonialism" or "subservience" - it is merely one of Order of Precidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Yes it does. Your vaunted Republic was hideously flawed, and the scars of that remain to this day. You think it's a coincidence that the first Black President has no "African American" blood?

---

Flawed? Perhaps. Better than any alternative? Absolutely.

Quote:

---

They were the same people that's the bloody point! [infraction please]
British subject attacked British soldiers, read the entry on wiki. Hell, there was a deposition afterwards. It wasn't a small incident for the Army. It remains "not a massacre" however, Bloody Sunday was a massacre.

---

Oh please. We were the pond scum: indentured servants, religious cultists, political dissidents, disgraced aristocrats and other misfits. America was a human trash pile, perhaps a notch above Australia, but that's about it. And it was treated accordingly.

Quote:

---

From where I'm sitting you have two parties and they switch every eight years - unless one side REALLY screws up.

---

A democracy nonetheless.

Quote:

---

That's because you killed all his Buffalo, stole his land, put his children into cultural re-education schools and broke the treaties you made with him; repeatedly.

To this day large swathes of America are technically illegally held by either the Federal Government or settles in violation of Treaties the Federal Government signed with the Native American Tribes.

---

I did no such thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Flawed? Perhaps. Better than any alternative? Absolutely.

---

The UK has achieved a smiliar settlement, but with fewer wars and less bloodshed. If the UK becomes a Republic then your point will be completely moot. Note it has only remain a monarchy because the people wish it so.

Quote:

---

Oh please. We were the pond scum: indentured servants, religious cultists, political dissidents, disgraced aristocrats and other misfits. America was a human trash pile, perhaps a notch above Australia, but that's about it. And it was treated accordingly.

---

Errrr

No. If you were we wouldn't have sent eminent Aristocrats out to govern you. America was the heart of the Old Empire, the land of opertunity, the engine of British Commerce. Even the currency used in the UK to this day, pounds sterling, bears witness to this.

Quote:

---

A democracy nonetheless.

---

So are Canada, the UK, and Australia.

Quote:

---

I did no such thing.

---

You said "we", you want to laud your Republic? Take the bitter pills with the sugar then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The UK has achieved a smiliar settlement, but with fewer wars and less bloodshed. If the UK becomes a Republic then your point will be completely moot. Note it has only remain a monarchy because the people wish it so.

---

Similar <> the same. And making Britain a republic will not turn it into mini-USA.

Quote:

---

No. If you were we wouldn't have sent eminent Aristocrats out to govern you. America was the heart of the Old Empire, the land of opertunity, the engine of British Commerce. Even the currency used in the UK to this day, pounds sterling, bears witness to this.

---

I believe that "eminent aristocrats" were also sent to govern India. The subcontinent is still rejoicing from the experience.

Quote:

---

So are Canada, the UK, and Australia.

---

Today. Not back then.

Quote:

---

You said "we", you want to laud your Republic? Take the bitter pills with the sugar then.

---

It's not a bitter pill at all. I feel absolutely no guilt about it. I was just stressing that *I* did not do it. Like I said earlier, it was a war of the worlds. Our world happened to prevail. It happened before, back when the Vikings settled in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. At that time *they* became the victims.

Still thinking about what to reply to Sasaki, just wanted to chime in and say that I am really, really enjoying this back and forth between RVG and PVC. A lot that has come up so far has only reinforced my notions, but other things are making me skeptical of my overall position.

Thanks to both of you for not wanting to give up the last word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Similar <> the same. And making Britain a republic will not turn it into mini-USA.

---

That's true, Britain is better governed, 100% of the country is covered by professional Police and Fire Service.

There are many things about the US which are laudable but the failure to address the defecit and the current farcical election cycle are symptoms of design flaws. The model is not perfect.

Quote:

---

I believe that "eminent aristocrats" were also sent to govern India. The subcontinent is still rejoicing from the experience.

---

See, that's funny, because in India the Middle Class speak English as a first language, they have English habits, fashions and manners. They also play cricket. Then there are the Indian railways...

Before you get the Sepoy Rebellion, it was a farce because the cartridges issued to Sepoys were waxed, not greased, the rumour that cow or pig grease was used was spread by malcontents.

India also follows British Parliamentary practice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_India

Don't try to tell me India would have been better off without the Raj - India would not exist without the Raj.

quote]Today. Not back then.[/quote]

If the UK was not a democracy in 1780 then neither was the US.

As I said, there's much or muchness is the timeline of "democratisation".

Quote:

---

It's not a bitter pill at all. I feel absolutely no guilt about it. I was just stressing that *I* did not do it. Like I said earlier, it was a war of the worlds. Our world happened to prevail. It happened before, back when the Vikings settled in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. At that time *they* became the victims.

---

OK, so now you're really stretching it. The Vikings in Vinland starved to death, they weren't systematically wiped out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

That's true, Britain is better governed, 100% of the country is covered by professional Police and Fire Service.
There are many things about the US which are laudable but the failure to address the defecit and the current farcical election cycle are symptoms of design flaws. The model is not perfect.

---

I didn't say it was perfect, I only said it was the best.

Quote:

---

See, that's funny, because in India the Middle Class speak English as a first language, they have English habits, fashions and manners. They also play cricket. Then there are the Indian railways...

---

And despite all that they still chose freedom.

Quote:

---

Before you get the Sepoy Rebellion, it was a farce because the cartridges issued to Sepoys were waxed, not greased, the rumour that cow or pig grease was used was spread by malcontents.

---

I actually wasn't going to bring that up at all.

Quote:

---

Don't try to tell me India would have been better off without the Raj - India would not exist without the Raj.

---

Oh, it most certainly would have been there. Would it have been better off? Now that is a difficult question.

Quote:

---

If the UK was not a democracy in 1780 then neither was the US.

---

Sure we were. At least once the Constitution was adopted, I think that was in 1787.

Quote:

---

OK, so now you're really stretching it. The Vikings in Vinland starved to death, they weren't systematically wiped out.

---

Perhaps "wiped out" is the wrong term. "Booted out" would be more accurate. Vinland was too remote and thus too difficult to protect from ever increasing Indian raids. So the Vikings packed up and left.

So much wrong.

American treatmeant of the Indians was bad by even the contemporary standards of the day. The fact one general can win one battle and then remove all the Indians east of the Mississippi based on that one success is shocking.

Granted the British had the luxury of not setteling their colonies in large numbers (which, for the purpose of this arguement, was what the newly acquried American lands were).

It's not a cyclical thing either. Unless you count 1492-present cyclical. Europeans wiped out an entire hemisphere worth of culture and the few that do survive today are drunken slobs living on government aid. I mean we won, but it certainly wasn't a fair fight.

True, alls fair in love and war but to say they would've done the same to us is patently false. All indications show the five civilized tribes more than willing to hold up their end of the bargin. The idea that they would've done the same to us is insane and has no basis in fact. Only to assuage modern guilt

I also take issue with being called pond scum. Unlike the majority of you swarthy, east of vienna, Johnny Come Latelys, my family owned land in England and came to the colonies under their own volition. In fact Great Gran Pappy was a doctor who served under General Washington. I'm extremely proud that my fore fathers were men whom belivied in the vaules of the enlightenment (even if for less than prestine reasons) Lumping me in with the rest of the huddled masses like I'm some common Irishman

HARUMPH.

I would like to add some nuance to the whole aparthied republic arguement. Jim crow did not start right after the war. From 1865-1879 federal troops ensured voting rights to blacks at bayonet point. This is when you see the first black congressmen and republican parties in the south. When troops left the voting rights were slowly stripped until a voting black man in the south became a recent memory. So yes, while the 14th amendment beat the reform act to the punch, I humbely submit that when you have to use force to ensure voting rights, it might not count.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

I didn't say it was perfect, I only said it was the best.

---

Something I take issue with on the basis that "best" is a very subjectively weighted. As I said, the UK is arguably still better governed at the County Level and we have one form of electing representatives for every English County, the same for every Welsh and Scottish district and in Northern Ireland. The rule of law extends without interuption from Lands End to John O Groats.

Quote:

---

And despite all that they still chose freedom.

---

No, they chose political independance, they were already getting "freedom". Before you go off on one about that, Consider that it was the opinion of the Foriegn and Commonwealth Office that India was not yet ready for full autonomy. Given that the country broke into two, and then broke into two again, has suffred several wars between the various states and continues to have issues with military coups, corruption and now Islamic extremism I would say the Civil Servants might have been right.

Wouldn't you?

Quote:

---

Oh, it most certainly would have been there. Would it have been better off? Now that is a difficult question.

---

The sub-continet would be there, the modern countries of India, Pakistan and Bangledesh would not - most likely is would still be a Balkan-like collection of Principalities where Muslim rulers held sway over the majority Hindu population with no Prince able to unify the whole or forge a confederation that lasted beyond his own life time.

Britain undertook not only the political and legal reforms that created the modern states, it also built the essential infastructure for them to function, including the massive land-reclamation project that created Bombay and the modern Indian Parliament building to name but two.

Quote:

---

Sure we were. At least once the Constitution was adopted, I think that was in 1787.

---

It was still minority franchise just like the UK and Senatores were still chosen not elected, not totally dissimilar to the way one got into the House of Lords.

Quote:

---

Perhaps "wiped out" is the wrong term. "Booted out" would be more accurate. Vinland was too remote and thus too difficult to protect from ever increasing Indian raids. So the Vikings packed up and left.

---

Vinland was never seriously settled. The suggestion that Norsemen could not hold their own against Native Americans, if they chose to, is laughable. The Norse technology was centuries ahead of the Native equivilent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

So much wrong.

American treatmeant of the Indians was bad by even the contemporary standards of the day. The fact one general can win one battle and then remove all the Indians east of the Mississippi based on that one success is shocking.

Granted the British had the luxury of not setteling their colonies in large numbers (which, for the purpose of this arguement, was what the newly acquried American lands were).

It's not a cyclical thing either. Unless you count 1492-present cyclical. Europeans wiped out an entire hemisphere worth of culture and the few that do survive today are drunken slobs living on government aid. I mean we won, but it certainly wasn't a fair fight.

True, alls fair in love and war but to say they would've done the same to us is patently false. All indications show the five civilized tribes more than willing to hold up their end of the bargin. The idea that they would've done the same to us is insane and has no basis in fact. Only to assuage modern guilt

I also take issue with being called pond scum. Unlike the majority of you swarthy, east of vienna, Johnny Come Latelys, my family owned land in England and came to the colonies under their own volition. In fact Great Gran Pappy was a doctor who served under General Washington. I'm extremely proud that my fore fathers were men whom belivied in the vaules of the enlightenment (even if for less than prestine reasons) Lumping me in with the rest of the huddled masses like I'm some common Irishman

HARUMPH.

I would like to add some nuance to the whole aparthied republic arguement. Jim crow did not start right after the war. From 1865-1879 federal troops ensured voting rights to blacks at bayonet point. This is when you see the first black congressmen and republican parties in the south. When troops left the voting rights were slowly stripped until a voting black man in the south became a recent memory. So yes, while the 14th amendment beat the reform act to the punch, I humbely submit that when you have to use force to ensure voting rights, it might not count.

---

When I was in school is was suggested that part of the issue affecting the relationship between settlers and Natives was the lack of central control or law enforcement. Even today the population density in the Mid West in particular is very low. That implies that is wasn't lack of space which caused the problem, but more the tendancy of settlers to get into conflict with Natives.

In Canada a similar thing did happen but in a markedly less violent way, and legally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

As I said, the UK is arguably still better governed at the County Level and we have one form of electing representatives for every English County, the same for every Welsh and Scottish district and in Northern Ireland. The rule of law extends without interuption from Lands End to John O Groats.

---

Better? Better how?

Quote:

---

No, they chose political independance, they were already getting "freedom".

---

So, they were "free" but didn't know it, so they chose to be free instead.

Quote:

---

Before you go off on one about that, Consider that it was the opinion of the Foriegn and Commonwealth Office that India was not yet ready for full autonomy.

---

And that's the problem. When some "Foreign and Commonwealth Office" is telling me whether or not my people are ready to run their own affairs I can conclusively say that they aren't free.

Quote:

---

Given that the country broke into two, and then broke into two again, has suffered several wars between the various states and continues to have issues with military coups, corruption and now Islamic extremism I would say the Civil Servants might have been right.
Wouldn't you?

---

Hell no. Seriously, the whole idea of the Wise and Benevolent "Foreign and Commonwealth Office" deciding on whether or not I'm mature enough to be free is infuriating.

Quote:

---

The sub-continet would be there, the modern countries of India, Pakistan and Bangledesh would not - most likely is would still be a Balkan-like collection of Principalities where Muslim rulers held sway over the majority Hindu population with no Prince able to unify the whole or forge a confederation that lasted beyond his own life time.

---

By the time of the British conquest much of India was already under Hindu Marathan rule.

Quote:

---

Britain undertook not only the political and legal reforms that created the modern states, it also built the essential infastructure for them to function, including the massive land-reclamation project that created Bombay and the modern Indian Parliament building to name but two.

---

I do not seek to diminish Britain's contribution to India's industry, but I doubt it was done for the sake of the people of India.

Quote:

---

It was still minority franchise just like the UK and Senatores were still chosen not elected, not totally dissimilar to the way one got into the House of Lords.

---

Senators were chosen by State legislatures, i.e. it was still a democratic process.

Quote:

---

The Norse technology was centuries ahead of the Native equivilent.

---

Centuries? You mean sharper arrow points and such? So, a Viking felled by the Indian arrow would be dead, but the Indian felled by the Viking arrow would be deader? Metalworking would have given the Vikings some edge, but it would still be a melee. Considering the Natives' larger numbers, Viking prospects weren't looking too good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Better? Better how?

---

How? I told you, 100% coverage by professional law enforcement and Fire Service for starters. Our legislature is also not currently paralysed.

Quote:

---

So, they were "free" but didn't know it, so they chose to be free instead.

---

You can mince words as much as you like, but the preamble to the 1911 act indicates that the goal was Indian self-governance developed over time.

Quote:

---

And that's the problem. When some "Foreign and Commonwealth Office" is telling me whether or not my people are ready to run their own affairs I can conclusively say that they aren't free.

Hell no. Seriously, the whole idea of the Wise and Benevolent "Foreign and Commonwealth Office" deciding on whether or not I'm mature enough to be free is infuriating.

---

You are ban of bloody insurrection, then?

I find that difficult to understand. I can appreciate the desire to "seize" freedom, but if the result is that you bequeeth a corrupt state or future Civil War to your children it isn't worth it, especially if your children will be granted peaceful freedom anyway. Self-rule is only one form of freedom, and it has no value if the only rule you can exercise is where your feet rest before some warlord runs you through.

Take the average Afgan, you think he enjoys his "freedom", or might he have prefered his King and a modicum of peace?

Quote:

---

By the time of the British conquest much of India was already under Hindu Marathan rule.

---

The British Raj included almost 600 petty states. Parts of India might have been unified, but the history suggests it was unlikely to last.

Quote:

---

I do not seek to diminish Britain's contribution to India's industry, but I doubt it was done for the sake of the people of India.

---

Then you don't know much about British Colonial policy - which was to trade, not to extract. The British philosophy was "Paternalism", British supremacy in art, governance, technology and science was considered self evident. One of the prime objectives of the Empire was to spread those virtues.

Quote:

---

Senators were chosen by State legislatures, i.e. it was still a democratic process.

---

But not directly elected, and nor is the president even today. Those who could stand for election were the wealthy with the money to campaign and then travel between Washington D.C. and their home States. As I said, little different from England at the time.

quote]Centuries? You mean sharper arrow points and such? So, a Viking felled by the Indian arrow would be dead, but the Indian felled by the Viking arrow would be deader? Metalworking would have given the Vikings some edge, but it would still be a melee. Considering the Natives' larger numbers, Viking prospects weren't looking too good.[/QUOTE]

I mean Dragon Boats, maile armour, iron helms, swords, battle axes, limewood shields, longbows.

It is a common misconception that metel weapons are sharper than flint or obsidion ones when in fact the reverse is true. The sharpest blades are obsidion, the edge being 1 micron wide as opposed to the 20 microns of the sharpest steel blade
.
However, the Norsemen would have had every other advantage. In particular, the Norse were conditioned to fight pitched battles and to defend fortified strongholds. By contrast, the Natives would have had stone axes and spear heads and probably shortbows with flint arrowheads. Flint can't cut iron maile, but iron can shatter flint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

How? I told you, 100% coverage by professional law enforcement and Fire Service for starters. Our legislature is also not currently paralysed.

---

Law Enforcement and Fire Services are the prerogative of the states, not of the federal government. I do not see a problem with coverage, as the damn cops are on every corner.

Quote:

---

You can mince words as much as you like, but the preamble to the 1911 act indicates that the goal was Indian self-governance developed over time.

---

Preambles are great. Great because they allow one to declare lofty goals and at the same time hold zero legal weight.

Quote:

---

You are ban of bloody insurrection, then?

I find that difficult to understand. I can appreciate the desire to "seize" freedom, but if the result is that you bequeeth a corrupt state or future Civil War to your children it isn't worth it, especially if your children will be granted peaceful freedom anyway. Self-rule is only one form of freedom, and it has no value if the only rule you can exercise is where your feet rest before some warlord runs you through.

---

transitions and negotiations are great when they don't require centuries to actually bear fruit.

Quote:

---

Take the average Afgan, you think he enjoys his "freedom", or might he have prefered his King and a modicum of peace?

---

Oh, I'm sure he'd pick the king. His king though, not the British one.

Quote:

---

The British Raj included almost 600 petty states. Parts of India might have been unified, but the history suggests it was unlikely to last.

---

How does it suggest that? It took Britain three wars to subdue the unified Marathan resistance. If anything, the history suggests otherwise.

Quote:

---

Then you don't know much about British Colonial policy - which was to trade, not to extract. The British philosophy was "Paternalism", British supremacy in art, governance, technology and science was considered self evident. One of the prime objectives of the Empire was to spread those virtues.

---

Paternalism, eh? No wonder they couldn't wait any longer.

Quote:

---

But not directly elected, and nor is the president even today. Those who could stand for election were the wealthy with the money to campaign and then travel between Washington D.C. and their home States. As I said, little different from England at the time.

---

Lincoln was a small time lawyer from Illinois, a one term Congressman and a virtual unknown as far as the nation was concerned. Yet, he became president.

Quote:

---

I mean Dragon Boats, maile armour, iron helms, swords, battle axes, limewood shields, longbows.

---

Dragon boats would be useless as Vikings were the ones being raided, not the ones doing the raiding. Iron would have been an advantage, but not enough of an advantage.

Quote:

---

However, the Norsemen would have had every other advantage. In particular, the Norse were conditioned to fight pitched battles and to defend fortified strongholds. By contrast, the Natives would have had stone axes and spear heads and probably shortbows with flint arrowheads. Flint can't cut iron maile, but iron can shatter flint.

---

That's all good and such, except that Vikings weren't engaged in a war, they were being raided. Repeatedly. Now, I'm not a tribal chief, but if I were to raid someone, I wouldn't raid a fort, I'd raid a farming community. Kill all men, take the women and the rest of the livestock and call it a day. In a way Vikings got the taste of their own medicine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Law Enforcement and Fire Services are the prerogative of the states, not of the federal government. I do not see a problem with coverage, as the damn cops are on every corner.

---

We have County (or cross-county) Constabularies and regional Fire Services. In the US most law enforcement if still provided by sheriffs outside the major metropolitan areas, and there was a story last year about a guy in a rural area who had his house burn down because he hadn't paid some surcharge for the city Fire Service to cover his house.

Like I said, we have 100% coverage by professionals.

Meh to the rest, because I'm suddenly more interested in this:

Quote:

---

Dragon boats would be useless as Vikings were the ones being raided, not the ones doing the raiding. Iron would have been an advantage, but not enough of an advantage.

That's all good and such, except that Vikings weren't engaged in a war, they were being raided. Repeatedly. Now, I'm not a tribal chief, but if I were to raid someone, I wouldn't raid a fort, I'd raid a farming community. Kill all men, take the women and the rest of the livestock and call it a day. In a way Vikings got the taste of their own medicine.

---

I'd like to hear the evidence of sustained raiding against the Norse settlers (they aren't "Vikings" because "Vikings" are pirates). From what I know the Sagas provide no evidence to back up your narrative, there were never large Norse communities to be raided, for one, and no one ever bothered to stay long-term. If the Norse king had wanted to settle Vinland he was perfectly capable of outfitting a fleet and sending Thanes and Huscarls.

He didn't bother.

So, evidence of sustained raiding and carrying off of women and livestock please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

We have County (or cross-county) Constabularies and regional Fire Services. In the US most law enforcement if still provided by sheriffs outside the major metropolitan areas, and there was a story last year about a guy in a rural area who had his house burn down because he hadn't paid some surcharge for the city Fire Service to cover his house.

Like I said, we have 100% coverage by professionals.

---

You also have to pay a lot more on taxes. I'll take the U.S. system any day.

Quote:

---

I'd like to hear the evidence of sustained raiding against the Norse settlers (they aren't "Vikings" because "Vikings" are pirates). From what I know the Sagas provide no evidence to back up your narrative, there were never large Norse communities to be raided, for one, and no one ever bothered to stay long-term. If the Norse king had wanted to settle Vinland he was perfectly capable of outfitting a fleet and sending Thanes and Huscarls.

He didn't bother.

So, evidence of sustained raiding and carrying off of women and livestock please.

---

I have one word for you: Skraelings...

[QUOTE=rvg;2053441942]You also have to pay a lot more on taxes. I'll take the U.S. system any day.

The average marginal tax rate in the UK is about 20%, and you pay no tax on the first £8,000. Only the rich pay more tax here.

Quote:

---

I have one word for you: Skraelings...

---

Nice word, now show me evidence of sustained and effective raiding in Vinland.

[QUOTE=Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla;2053441965]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

You also have to pay a lot more on taxes. I'll take the U.S. system any day.

The average marginal tax rate in the UK is about 20%, and you pay no tax on the first £8,000. Only the rich pay more tax here.

---

You're forgetting the 17% abomination known as VAT

Quote:

---

Nice word, now show me evidence of sustained and effective raiding in Vinland.

---

Greenland Saga speaks directly of conflict between Vikings and Skraelings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

You're forgetting the 17% abomination known as VAT

---

What, sales tax?

THe US has multiple levels of tax, the UK has only one - plus Council rates

Quote:

---

Greenland Saga speaks directly of conflict between Vikings and Skraelings.

---

It says a large number of the natives attacked and were repulsed with minimal casualties. That in no way amounts to "raiding", in fact it seems to have been a single event triggered by a native stealing something and being killed as a result.

The Norse went back at least one more time, and probably again later.

That sort of attack is very common at the time, it hardly amounts to a Hall burning and in fac the site discovered in Newfoundland bears to marks of attack that I have heard of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

What, sales tax?

---

Yeah, and my bad, it's 20%, not 17.

Quote:

---

The US has multiple levels of tax, the UK has only one - plus Council rates

---

Let's put the tax issue to rest, shall we? This is a bit dated (from 2008), but things aren't looking in Britain's favor. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad....-us-taxes.html

Quote:

---

George Bush is a stronger believer in income equality than Gordon Brown.
These figures (pdf) from the CBO (via Greg Mankiw and the Kruse Kronicle) show that the poorest fifth of Americans paid an average of 4.3% of their income in federal taxes whilst the richest fifth paid 25.5%.
How do these figures compare to the UK? Table 16A here gives the answer. The poorest quintile in the UK paid 36.5% of their income in tax, whilst the richest fifth actually paid less - 35.5%.

---

Quote:

---

It says a large number of the natives attacked and were repulsed with minimal casualties. That in no way amounts to "raiding", in fact it seems to have been a single event triggered by a native stealing something and being killed as a result.

The Norse went back at least one more time, and probably again later.

That sort of attack is very common at the time, it hardly amounts to a Hall burning and in fac the site discovered in Newfoundland bears to marks of attack that I have heard of.

---

Let's keep things in perspective here: it's a Norse Saga. Sagas oftentimes exaggerate enemy casualties while minimizing friendly losses. More importantly though, it shows a pattern: Vikings try to settle, they trade with the natives, natives want something that Vikings wouldn't sell (weapons), conflict ensues, skirmish happens, Vikings leave before a serious retaliation by the natives occurs (Thorvald's Expedition specifically). Vikings were farmers while the natives were hunters: vikings were tied to the land (unless they chose to completely evacuate) while the natives were mobile. The pattern of harassment by the natives occurs throughout the saga with varying level of success, but in at least one case (Thorvald) harassment is a direct cause of the Vikings abandoning a settlement and heading back to Iceland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I find that difficult to understand. I can appreciate the desire to "seize" freedom, but if the result is that you bequeeth a corrupt state or future Civil War to your children it isn't worth it, especially if your children will be granted peaceful freedom anyway. Self-rule is only one form of freedom, and it has no value if the only rule you can exercise is where your feet rest before some warlord runs you through.

---

Except that India did not experience it. Sure, there have been a few wars and issues but India has had uninterrupted democracy since independence which is pretty impressive for new countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The British Raj included almost 600 petty states. Parts of India might have been unified, but the history suggests it was unlikely to last.

---

Germany and Italy at the time had been a few dozen states. However, they were able to consolidate and turn into fairly effective countries. Presumably, some of the same technology would have been available to any of the larger states which would allow them to take advantage of their size and take over a more solid chunk of the sub-continent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Yeah, and my bad, it's 20%, not 17.


Let's put the tax issue to rest, shall we? This is a bit dated (from 2008), but things aren't looking in Britain's favor. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad....-us-taxes.html

---

Is fuzzing the figures - it counts all UK tazes but only Federal Income Tax in the US. Bear in mind that the poorest fifth in the UK get essentially free healthcare as well, by far the largest expediture Per Capita in the US.

Quote:

---

Let's keep things in perspective here: it's a Norse Saga. Sagas oftentimes exaggerate enemy casualties while minimizing friendly losses. More importantly though, it shows a pattern: Vikings try to settle, they trade with the natives, natives want something that Vikings wouldn't sell (weapons), conflict ensues, skirmish happens, Vikings leave before a serious retaliation by the natives occurs (Thorvald's Expedition specifically). Vikings were farmers while the natives were hunters: vikings were tied to the land (unless they chose to completely evacuate) while the natives were mobile. The pattern of harassment by the natives occurs throughout the saga with varying level of success, but in at least one case (Thorvald) harassment is a direct cause of the Vikings abandoning a settlement and heading back to Iceland.

---

The Greenlanders were only there a few years, five at the outside, there is no "pattern" of harrasment because they weren't there long enough to form one. Also, you'll note that the attack apparently happened in the winter and they returned the following Ssummer with lumber and grapes. The latter means they could travel unimpeded down the Eastern Seaboard of America and go far enough inland to harvest wild fruit.

What the Sagas make clear is that it wasn't exactly worth the trouble.

As to the Norse being "tied to the land" this is not an accurate charactarisation. The fact that a small expedition crossing the Atlantic took its own women and livestock should tell you that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

Except that India did not experience it. Sure, there have been a few wars and issues but India has had uninterrupted democracy since independence which is pretty impressive for new countries.



Germany and Italy at the time had been a few dozen states. However, they were able to consolidate and turn into fairly effective countries. Presumably, some of the same technology would have been available to any of the larger states which would allow them to take advantage of their size and take over a more solid chunk of the sub-continent.

---

For this argument you have to look at the Sub Continent as a whole. The Settlement didn't work, India and Pakistan broke apart and fought several wars, East and West Pakistan broke apart in a bloody Civil War, 1948 saw mass displacements of people, progroms and purges.

Not what Mountbatten and the Raj government wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Is fuzzing the figures - it counts all UK tazes but only Federal Income Tax in the US. Bear in mind that the poorest fifth in the UK get essentially free healthcare as well, by far the largest expediture Per Capita in the US.

---

The income taxes vary by state. Some states have 3% income tax, some have 5%, some don't have any income tax whatsoever. Same with sales taxes: People's Republic of California charges a staggering 11% sales tax, while the neighboring Oregon doesn't have a sales tax at all. Most states have a sales tax between 4% and 7%. So, once it's all tallied up we definitely have lower tax rates when it comes to individuals.

Quote:

---

What the Sagas make clear is that it wasn't exactly worth the trouble.

---

Isn't that the point of harassment? To make life so uncomfortable for the adversary that they pack up an leave. Vikings were badasses, but not even a Viking would cherish the idea of plowing the fields in full battle gear.

Quote:

---

As to the Norse being "tied to the land" this is not an accurate charactarisation. The fact that a small expedition crossing the Atlantic took its own women and livestock should tell you that.

---

Actually, that fact is telling me that they were looking for a place to settle, but didn't find one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

The income taxes vary by state. Some states have 3% income tax, some have 5%, some don't have any income tax whatsoever. Same with sales taxes: People's Republic of California charges a staggering 11% sales tax, while the neighboring Oregon doesn't have a sales tax at all. Most states have a sales tax between 4% and 7%. So, once it's all tallied up we definitely have lower tax rates when it comes to individuals.

---

I don't deny that taxes are lower in the US, but the treasury is also emptier.

My point was that the source you linked was obscuring the figures. A better comparison would be to add Federal and State income taxes together, and then compare to the 20% base rate here, adjusting for the fact that noboday pays tax on the first £8000.

Quote:

---

Isn't that the point of harassment? To make life so uncomfortable for the adversary that they pack up an leave. Vikings were badasses, but not even a Viking would cherish the idea of plowing the fields in full battle gear.

Actually, that fact is telling me that they were looking for a place to settle, but didn't find one.

---

Your thesis has variously been that:

A) the Norse were massacred.

B) the Norse were repeatedly raided.

Neither of those are born up by the evidence. I'll freely admit that the Norse don't seem to have felt it worthwhile to stay, but if you contrast that with the stiff opposition the Saxons put up to Cnut's successful Norse invasion a few decades later you have to conclude it was a lack of motivation more than anything. For one thing, you had to cross the Atlantic.

Oh, and re: bringin animals, that's a necessity if you plan on wintering in somewhere, you need milk and cheese to sustain you if you weren't able to plant any crops the previous spring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I don't deny that taxes are lower in the US, but the treasury is also emptier.
My point was that the source you linked was obscuring the figures. A better comparison would be to add Federal and State income taxes together, and then compare to the 20% base rate here, adjusting for the fact that noboday pays tax on the first £8000.

---

After all adjustments an average American still pays less than an average Englishman. That's all that matters.

Quote:

---

Your thesis has variously been that:

A) the Norse were massacred.

B) the Norse were repeatedly raided.

Neither of those are born up by the evidence. I'll freely admit that the Norse don't seem to have felt it worthwhile to stay, but if you contrast that with the stiff opposition the Saxons put up to Cnut's successful Norse invasion a few decades later you have to conclude it was a lack of motivation more than anything. For one thing, you had to cross the Atlantic.

Oh, and re: bringin animals, that's a necessity if you plan on wintering in somewhere, you need milk and cheese to sustain you if you weren't able to plant any crops the previous spring.

---

Oh fine, be that way, here's your evidence:
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

I will emphasize this part:
"Inuit-Norse relations seem to have been fairly friendly at times, hostile at others. Few Inuit objects have been unearthed at the farms. Various Norse items, including bits of chain mail and a hinged bronze bar from a folding scale, have been found at Inuit camps in Greenland, mainland Canada, and on Baffin, Ellesmere, and Devon Islands. These are suggestive of commerce between the two peoples, but they may also have been seized by Inuit during raids on hunting parties in the Nordseta or plundered from farms."

From the Sagas we know that Norse would never trade away their weapons or armor. They were raided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

I will emphasize this part:
"Inuit-Norse relations seem to have been fairly friendly at times, hostile at others. Few Inuit objects have been unearthed at the farms. Various Norse items, including bits of chain mail and a hinged bronze bar from a folding scale, have been found at Inuit camps in Greenland, mainland Canada, and on Baffin, Ellesmere, and Devon Islands. These are suggestive of commerce between the two peoples, but they may also have been seized by Inuit during raids on hunting parties in the Nordseta or plundered from farms."

From the Sagas we know that Norse would never trade away their weapons or armor. They were raided.

---

They might have also being left behind an picked up by the Inuit after the Norse left or died out or whatever happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

They might have also being left behind an picked up by the Inuit after the Norse left or died out or whatever happened.

---

Possible, except that the Inuits would have no use for armor except for raiding, unless they were also fond of wrestling with polar bears. Furthermore, the Beothuk people of Newfoundland were far more hostile than the Inuit. A conflict in Vinland is a more likely scenario, especially considering that Vinland didn't turn into an icebox like Greenland did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

For this argument you have to look at the Sub Continent as a whole. The Settlement didn't work, India and Pakistan broke apart and fought several wars, East and West Pakistan broke apart in a bloody Civil War, 1948 saw mass displacements of people, progroms and purges.

Not what Mountbatten and the Raj government wanted.

---

Sure, it wasn't the best and the muslim portions of the subcontinent didn't do so hot but the majority of people do live in a solid democracy and a few live in shakier democracies but it still seems better than a government which was extremely negligent of the populous and is from far away with different cultural values.

Also, Britain has gone to war a number of times since the independence of India.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

After all adjustments an average American still pays less than an average Englishman. That's all that matters.



Oh fine, be that way, here's your evidence:
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

I will emphasize this part:
"Inuit-Norse relations seem to have been fairly friendly at times, hostile at others. Few Inuit objects have been unearthed at the farms. Various Norse items, including bits of chain mail and a hinged bronze bar from a folding scale, have been found at Inuit camps in Greenland, mainland Canada, and on Baffin, Ellesmere, and Devon Islands. These are suggestive of commerce between the two peoples, but they may also have been seized by Inuit during raids on hunting parties in the Nordseta or plundered from farms."

From the Sagas we know that Norse would never trade away their weapons or armor. They were raided.

---

The Norse in Vinland, not the Norse in Greenland. Also, the Vinland episode is several hundred years before the Norse died out in Greenland. We can also be quite sure of why they died out: They starved, excavations in Greenland have shown that the Norse resorted to eating their dogs, the final stage of starvation before death.

There's one story related in that article which indicates 3 Norwegian ships and a number of Inuits came to blows, but it also says that two of the ships left after the Norse won the battle and only then could Innuit master the third.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The Norse in Vinland, not the Norse in Greenland. Also, the Vinland episode is several hundred years before the Norse died out in Greenland. We can also be quite sure of why they died out: They starved, excavations in Greenland have shown that the Norse resorted to eating their dogs, the final stage of starvation before death.

There's one story related in that article which indicates 3 Norwegian ships and a number of Inuits came to blows, but it also says that two of the ships left after the Norse won the battle and only then could Innuit master the third.

---

If the Inuits could raid the Norse, what would prevent the Beothuks from doing the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

So the people that preached, lead, and fought in the Crusades were OK then?

---

The Turks and Caliph Hakim before them had horribly mistreated the Christians and Jews in Palestine. Hakim ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of the Resurrection in 1009 and was only allowed to be rebuilt in 1042 with Byzantine money, no compensation was given.

Anatolia, Christian since 200-300AD and Byzantine core territory since ages, was conquered by the zealous Seljuqs after the civil war following the battle of Manzikert. This was preceded by centuries of raiding of Byzantine lands and two sieges of Constantinople by the arabs and even Rome was sacked by the arabs once and later raided. Syria and Egypt, the centre of Christianity, was subjugated by the Jihad following the death of Muhammed. The crusade was an answer to the call for help from their Byzantine allies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Speech from Urban II

Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends

---

When the first crusade was called, the majority of the population in Syria and Palestine were (non-Chalcedonian) Christians like the Syriacs and the Maronites, suffering under arab joke for centuries.

But of course, the crusades were evil and muslims are innocent victims.

And now for the serious historical interpretation, with preferable less quoting from Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

The Turks and Caliph Hakim before them had horribly mistreated the Christians and Jews in Palestine. Hakim ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of the Resurrection in 1009 and was only allowed to be rebuilt in 1042 with Byzantine money, no compensation was given.

---

It's funny that you should mention both the Turks (I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you mean the Seljuq Turks, who were relative newcomers at this stage in history) and the Caliph al-Hakim, who were not only political opponents, but followed completely different lines of ideology. Let's get going, on to a short history of Islam.

Islam isn't really that monolithic y'all know, right. The Fatimid Caliphate was of a distinct brand of Shi‘a Islam known as Isma'ilism or Sevener Shi‘ism. The Seljuk Sultans adhered to Sunni Islam, and their qadis were mostly of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence.

Now, the Caliph al-Hakim gets a bad rep in history. It's not exactly clear why, but most of the sources that appear to be so horrible about him are post-Fatimid (who, sadly, wrote very little about him). In any case, while it's true that he showed some erratic behaviour, such as starting this bizarre cult (which eventually led to the Druze, but that's a different story), but non-Muslim sources tend not to describe him as some sort of horrible tyrant. He did come down especially hard on Sunni Muslims, removing them from office and replacing them with others. Particularly Jews and Christians. Yes, the same Jewish and Christians that had "suffered horribly" during his rule. Come on, Skullsie, I'd expected you to use better sources than those written by Sunni Muslims.

Quote:

---

Anatolia, Christian since 200-300AD and Byzantine core territory since ages, was conquered by the zealous Seljuqs after the civil war following the battle of Manzikert. This was preceded by centuries of raiding of Byzantine lands and two sieges of Constantinople by the arabs and evenRome was sacked by the arabs once and later raided. Syria and Egypt, the centre of Christianity, was subjugated by the Jihad following the death of Muhammed. The crusade was an answer to the call for help from their Byzantine allies.

---

Yes, indeed quite horrible. I also think you're totally overplaying the role of religion in the conquest of Syria and Egypt. It should be stressed here that the primary cause for expansion was economical and political rather than religious. It'd be a bit like saying that the Japanese conquest of China, Manchuria and Korea was a religious cause in which they felt they had to spread Zen to this area. Seriously, there were a lot of Buddhist monks that actively supported the conquest of these regions for religious reasons.

As for Arab historiography, have you got any sources to back up the claims that treatment of Jews and (Monophysite) Christians was so bad after the coming of Islam? For example, I don't think anybody is willing to contest the fact that the Christians of Egypt were treated much worse under Byzantine rule than under Arab rule. To the Byzantines, they were heretics. To the Arabs, they were all Christians. Who cares, as long as they pay the taxes. Let's get a bit serious here.

Quote:

---

suffering under arab joke for centuries.

---

Citation required. Also the term is yoke​.

All more of less true - but even so, you can't look at the Crusades as "yarrr! attack".

Except for the much later expeditions by the Teutonic Knights the Crusader/Jihad Wars were really a long drawn out battle between Eastern Islamic powers and (more) Western Christian ones which ran from about 700 AD when the Muslim armies came roaring out of Arabia up to Ataturk's Turkish reconquests in the 1920's.

People today who decry the Crusades do so either out of ignorance or for ideaological reasons.

Within the larger frame the bit people don't like to talk about is the part where the Greco-Latin West almost completely lost, able to push the frontiers back only to the Western Balkans in the East and Gibralta in the West. That's pretty pathetic militarily speaking, about 2/3rds of Christendom as it was circa 400 AD fell to the various Muslim invasions and basically only Iberia and (much later) Greece were ever recovered.

Of course, we went off to the New World where the heathans were a lot less scary and didn't have massed cavalry and guns.

Quote:

---

All more of less true - but even so, you can't look at the Crusades as "yarrr! attack".

---

Indeed! My apologies if that didn't come across clearly.

This is emphasised even further by Arab historiography, who didn't regard the Crusaders as that much as an alien force, but rather as a continuation of a long series of Byzantine attacks against the Syrian domain. To that effect, various Arab Caliphs, Sultans, and Emirs regarded the Byzantine Emperor as the spokesman for the Crusaders and would rather go to them.

The Crusades didn't really make that much of an impact on the Muslim world as a whole: they were regarded as yet another player in an already troubled field. The Seljuq Empire was falling apart, various kingdoms had declared independence throughout the region and when Muhammad Shah sent an army to relieve or reconquer Jerusalem, it was destroyed. Not by Christian armies, but rather by the Muslim Emirate of Mosul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Indeed! My apologies if that didn't come across clearly.

This is emphasised even further by Arab historiography, who didn't regard the Crusaders as that much as an alien force, but rather as a continuation of a long series of Byzantine attacks against the Syrian domain. To that effect, various Arab Caliphs, Sultans, and Emirs regarded the Byzantine Emperor as the spokesman for the Crusaders and would rather go to them.

The Crusades didn't really make that much of an impact on the Muslim world as a whole: they were regarded as yet another player in an already troubled field. The Seljuq Empire was falling apart, various kingdoms had declared independence throughout the region and when Muhammad Shah sent an army to relieve or reconquer Jerusalem, it was destroyed. Not by Christian armies, but rather by the Muslim Emirate of Mosul.

---

It's not you - it's all the mighty Socialist-atheists I'm pre-empting. Not that they care as they consider everything I say LIES anyway.

:stare: