Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[rvg]

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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?

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

Your loss.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[rvg]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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)

[Strike For The South]

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)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[rvg]

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.

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.

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.

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.