Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[rvg]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[rvg]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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:

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.

[rvg]

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.

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...

[Noncommunist]

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.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Noncommunist]

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.