Edward Snowden, Hero or Traitor?

[Beskar]

I am sure many British living in the Isles thought the same about all the Founding Fathers.

and the United States about the Confederates.

Unfortunately, that is the cycle of life and all that. You are rebel traitor scum unless you are successful and have strong popular appeal. See Nelson Mandala, for example.

[a completely inoffensive name]

and the United States about the Confederates.

Unfortunately, that is the cycle of life and all that. You are rebel traitor scum unless you are successful and have strong popular appeal. See Nelson Mandala, for example.

Nope. Nice try though. Original colonies were completely justified in rebelling since they were not represented in any fashion within the British government. All the Confederate states willingly joined the Union and had representatives and senators representing their interests. They broke the law that they had consented to. The colonials broke laws that they never voted on directly or indirectly.

[Montmorency]

To be honest, I'm having trouble seeing the fine line between which your words are neither truisms nor almost certainly false.

I'll be a bit more elaborate, then. Let's break down what we've said so far.

Europe was less insular as a whole, and was universally bent towards colonization of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Same principle as the Cold War, pretty much.

European states were all similar to each other in structure and organization. So what? All states throughout the world back then were either empires or city-states.

European states shared a religion, broadly speaking. In that case, aren't Hinduism and Buddhism pretty much the same religion, broadly speaking?

European states were closely intertwined economically and politically. This is a matter of national scope and national proximity. European states were relatively small and relatively close to each other. In North Africa, there were large stretches of uninhabited space. That is, the space was not permanently inhabited - see the urbanization of Western Europe. The situation was similar in Central Asia and the rest of the Middle East. India would have been most similar to Europe with respect to proximity and scope, at least, but even then not so much. China was and is an island. Southeast Asia - islands and peninsulas, but nevertheless in fierce competition and commerce with each other. Note how the distinction between Eastern and Western Europe fits into this picture.

European states had a common Roman legacy. To greater or lesser extents.

The big point: With respect to the rest of the world, Europe can be taken as having acted as a unified whole rather than as a collection of sovereigns with diverse interests.

I'll reiterate: what you're saying is either incorrect or just a truism, and at any rate isn't really relevant. And you're building a case on this? Ultimately, you can only take this interpretation based on the result of European colonial empires.

It's also possible that you are confusing all of this with the development of the national state. That would, again, be the same logic as the Cold War...

Out of interest, would you say that the Greek city-states should be interpreted in a similar fashion?

God damn it, I want to rout the statists in this backroom

L'etat c'est l'etat. Now kneel, peasant!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wonder if GC has been reading Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - a magisterial work which I comment to call Classicists as a manual on how *not* to do it.

The core assumption here is that Europe has a culture that is fundamentally unified, that differences are a matter of degree and not of fundamental nature.

I don't buy it - there are certain things that Europe shares, Roman heritage mainly, and there has been a constant transmission of ideas around the Continent which has allowed us to progress rapidly. HOWEVER, progress has been spurred primarily by internal conflict, not just outright war but other manners of cultural and mercantile competition.

Even so - this has not been purely internal strife within a larger whole. If you look at England and France you can see that, despite only a narrow strip of sea between us, we have taken radically different paths to the present, and we still haven't arrived at a common point. Political systems have, until the last 100 years, varied wildly in both principle and application. England has had a parliament for roughly 800 years which the monarch has always had to consult. By comparison the Nordic countries emerged from warrior-chieftaincies into absolute monarchies and, with the odd blip, remained that way into the 19th Century.

As to Horetore's sly barb about the English being different - we're what you get when you stick an Island between France and Scandinavia, put some Nords in the Southern part and surround then with angry Celts.

I'm not aware of something like that anywhere else in Europe.

[Montmorency]

It's all about the national state, guys. That's the core of the confusion, I'm sure of it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The only hate I have is for narrow-mindedness. I don't believe anyone alive today can be held responsible for the actions of their deranged ancestors--so don't worry about that.

Still, you keep missing my point. What separates European colonial adventures from other nations' "colonial" adventures is the sheer scale--and more importantly, that it formed the modern world we see today. Europeans act like its all incidental, but I believe the mass psychology behind the European ascension to ultimate power in the world deserves to be studied from a more critical perspective.

Well I think I could be forgiven for missing your point, since I don't think you've been consistent with how you have expressed yourself. Here you say your point is that Europeans' colonization efforts were unique in their scale, and yet previously, you seemed to indicate that what made them unique and particularly damnable in your eyes was their motivation. As you said in your first response to me:

God, European civilization, the Roman Legacy, and a total disdain for lesser peoples' is what made the Europeans unique.

So, which point were you driving at? Scale or motivation?

If you had said at first that the main issue was their scale, I would never have contested it and gave those examples of other nations/peoples colonizing various places.

But, regardless of whether or not it is your main point, I still take issue with these ideas you have on what drove European colonization. Of course, what motivated settlement of Massachusetts was entirely different from what motivated the Scramble for Africa. But I think they both share one thing in common - that they were not motivated by a belief that, as you put it, all other peoples "had to be crushed underfoot".

[Strike For The South]

Point of order. Luther did not split the church. Luther split the Western Trinitarian church. It's myopic to assume Catholicism=the church and it ignores Eastern European/near east relations.

Also, the assumption that Spain, France, and the UK colonized more or less the same is patently false. All you're showing here is you flipped through a post 1492 history book and saw the map was painted a few colors.

I have a bigger reply for this but am willing to let you bend the knee and move on.

Off to the pub

[Rhyfelwyr]

Point of order. Luther did not split the church. Luther split the Western Trinitarian church. It's myopic to assume Catholicism=the church and it ignores Eastern European/near east relations.

You say "Western Trinitarian Church" as if there was a Western non-Trinitarian alternative.

Anyway, I think the reasons for the Western-centric mindset are actually better justified than just being down to ignorance or narrow-mindedness. The Orthodox/Coptic churches were far smaller than the Western Church in terms of their political power and their following. But the point of real significance is that they failed to make any contribution at all to either Christian theology or political thought. They let themselves become irrelevant on the wider Christian scene.

[Montmorency]

as if there was a Western non-Trinitarian alternative.

Well, surely there were alternatives, even I've heard of a few of them - they just weren't viable alternatives in the context.

[Greyblades]

Remember that you're discussing mostly with brits here, GC. The british fool themselves into thinking that they are somehow different from the rest of Europe, and worship their own imagined uniqueness. I'd say that actually goes beyond what you yanks put into the concept of american exceptionalism.

There is little delusion, merely the acknowledgment that the anglo saxon culture has ruled the world for a quarter millenium and, assuming the americans dont become suicidal, (Though, considering the recent news, suicidal america might not be far off.) it will continue forever now the world has entered nuclear stasis. Our ancestors left us 1st place and, while the current generation is yet to live up to it, the pride is enough to propel us above you savages.

Tounge planted firmly in cheek, BTW.

[Montmorency]

They were just tribes. How we love them so much is more due to the way they've been idolized by European historians than due to any innate virtues.

You didn't really answer the question...

but in the end they all did it with the same mindset and with the same convictions about what the world owed them. You can't possibly dispute that.

The question, rather, is how you could possibly support that?!

[Greyblades]

Who else, in the history of the world, has sent ships across the ocean to plant a flag and claim new continents as their own? Only Europeans. Damn dude, I covered this two pages ago.

Japan with China 1930's

[Montmorency]

Who else, in the history of the world, has sent ships across the ocean to plant a flag and claim new continents as their own? Only Europeans. Damn dude, I covered this two pages ago.

Again, you're introducing utterly irrelevant notions.

That's like saying, without Albert Einstein no one would have invented the A-bomb.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You say "Western Trinitarian Church" as if there was a Western non-Trinitarian alternative.

Anyway, I think the reasons for the Western-centric mindset are actually better justified than just being down to ignorance or narrow-mindedness. The Orthodox/Coptic churches were far smaller than the Western Church in terms of their political power and their following. But the point of real significance is that they failed to make any contribution at all to either Christian theology or political thought. They let themselves become irrelevant on the wider Christian scene.

The Greek Orthodox Church made important and lasting contributions to liturgy and political theology.

They were just tribes. How we love them so much is more due to the way they've been idolized by European historians than due to any innate virtues.

they were the prototype for the modern-nation states, including the US. They pioneered concepts like federalisation with the Athenian League and the Theban federation.

Okay then. Whatever you say, Boss. There were lots of niggling administrative differences in the way European nations went about colonizing, but in the end they all did it with the same mindset and with the same convictions about what the world owed them. You can't possibly dispute that.

That's all fine, though. Keep looking at history through that romantic lens.

It is the nature of all peoples, when presented with others so far below them technologically to label them "barbarians" and to try to civilise them.

Britain enacted colonisation in order to sell things, mainly, and to export undesirables. French Colonisation was about spreading French civilisation, so that the indigenous people become French Citizens. Others were simply concerned with strip mining their colonies.

[Montmorency]

Its not my fault you don't get it

So, you think the statement of the fact that Europeans colonized is in itself not only relevant, but somehow proof towards the contention that "they all did it with the same mindset and with the same convictions about what the world owed them"?

Seriously?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Didn't succeed. It also was also inspired by and executed with European equipment and ideologies. Try again?

Mongolia

The Huns

The Arabs

The Chin

The Zulus in Africa.

[Montmorency]

No, I'm saying that the fact that they all did it means that they all did it.

So, tautologies on top of truisms?

This is the common European bond--the patronizing imperialism

Wow. You've just substantially weakened your case.

[Montmorency]

None of those people sailed across the sea and genocided continents.

We'll say it again: that doesn't matter! Not a whit!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

None of those people sailed across the sea and genocided continents. Is it so hard to see why Europe shouldn't be held to the same critical standard? It should be looked at harder.

But in the context of the bigger discussion--what makes a distinct political entity in a global world--I would say that the middle-east has the same problem Europe does.

errrr

The Arabs?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, surely there were alternatives, even I've heard of a few of them - they just weren't viable alternatives in the context.

Of course, I am talking about significant, institutionalised churches here. The sort that were making real contributions to theology, politics, society etc.

There were lots of niggling administrative differences in the way European nations went about colonizing, but in the end they all did it with the same mindset and with the same convictions about what the world owed them. You can't possibly dispute that.

Pretty much any historian I know of would dispute that. Colonization has been driven by religious and political persecution, individual entrepreneurial enterprise, political punishment (penal colonies), demographic crisis (Highland Clearances, Irish Famine), jingoism and a whole host of things. But most of all commerce. You need only glance at a map of the great colonial empires to see what drove their expansion - Singapore, Macau, Hong Kong, Zanzibar, Goa - outside the settlement of the Americas, colonial interests reflect mercantile interests. It is no coincidence that trading centres should be the gateways to European empires.

I highly doubt that the Renaissance Europeans simply decided, "you know what, all the black and brown world really owes whitey, so we are going to do everything we can to kick them down and taken their land and wealth".

Racism as an ideology, as a driving force in politics, only really became significant well after colonization and even the slave trade was in decline. You are reading your experiences with American racism into the Europe of centuries ago. See for example the 'blackamoors' of Elizabethan England.

[Greyblades]

Your question: Who else, in the history of the world, has sent ships across the ocean to plant a flag and claim new continents as their own?
My answer: Japan with china 1930's.
Valid and sound answer, no?

Didn't succeed. It also was also inspired by and executed with European equipment and ideologies. Try again?

Ignoring that you are blatantly moving the goal posts. It doesnt matter if it succeeded, nigh all colonial ventures ultimately failed, they are no longer posessed by the colonizer. Also, that the europeans thought it up first makes no difference, other nations are willing to do so when the opportunity presented itself, as exhibited by Japan.

I have to ask, what makes an invasion a colonisation? Technological difference? Distance? The fact that it is overseas?

That europeans did it? That seems to be the only common factor for your rejection of other incidents.

[Montmorency]

I would say that the middle-east

I can assure you that Turkey's stance toward Europe or China is very different to Morocco's stance to Europe or China.

[Montmorency]

All of the nations of South America were built on the European model (after they had been bled dry, of course).

Not the European model but the Anglo-French model. Your vague awareness of the rise of the national state has bled into everything else, to the detriment of your overall position.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Greek Orthodox Church made important and lasting contributions to liturgy and political theology.

I'll hold my hands up if I'm being ignorant here, but what would those be?

[Montmorency]

You don't even know what a national state is, do you?

It is, quite simply, a centralized, autonomous and differentiated sovereign organization with coercive power and influence and priority over all other organizations within a bounded territory. The distinction between these, and empires and city-states, is that national states have eliminated autonomous bases of power in opposition to the central authority, have developed an autonomous and self-perpetuating administrative structure, strong institutions beyond the military and rulership, and generally have much stronger grip on their internal territories.

Before England and France, these did not exist anywhere, so far as I know.

[Montmorency]

That would be a typically European way of trying to make something simple into something very obtuse.

Ignorance tends to defend itself, yes.

Because it kind of kills your point. China in general kills your point.

Not at all, as it is irrelevant.

Do you even know what your central position is, any longer?

[HoreTore]

You don't even know what a national state is, do you?

It is, quite simply, a centralized, autonomous and differentiated sovereign organization with coercive power and influence and priority over all other organizations within a bounded territory. The distinction between these, and empires and city-states, is that national states have eliminated autonomous bases of power in opposition to the central authority, have developed an autonomous and self-perpetuating administrative structure, strong institutions beyond the military and rulership, and generally have much stronger grip on their internal territories.

Before England and France, these did not exist anywhere, so far as I know.

If that is your definition, then China fits that bill perfectly. I'd say Pax Romana fits as well.


And I'm not so sure how well England or France fits it, until recently.

[Husar]

Or maybe because Germany does the same thing and they don't want that spotlight.

Der Strudel has been pumping out puff pieces all week, nary a peep about Germany's own intelligence (armed and funded by the NSA). Oh well, you get caught, you get your nose rubbed in it.

I already mentioned that myself about a week ago or so. Apparently the BND does not have it but wants it ASAP. You're really late to the party.

As for the whole colonies and Europe thing, of course GC is right that Europe is better off united and should have united long ago.
Europe has always united when there was an outside thread because united we're strong. I don't really care whether Britain gets to be a part of it, noone really wants a rotten tomato in a nice lasagne.

[Greyblades]

Europe's individual nation states have always been completely superfluous entities. Europe has always acted as a whole against the world in national affairs, despite itself.

Yes Europe has allways acted as a whole against the world in national affairs despite itself. You can say the same thing about any collection of nations in the world, as long as we are considering any conflict between them as little more than "civil wars".
Everyone works against everyone else and europeans have worked against eachother more than they have ever done against the rest of the word. To say that Europe's individual states are completely superfluous entities is kinda wierd considering that the only reason europe took so long to steamroll everyone else is exactly because of those entities fighting eachother. To dismiss those entities as seperate and everything they did against eachother would be to ignore damn near everything that happened between 1700 and 1950.
In fact, the one, count it, one time a majority of the power of europe has been unified against an outside nation without any of them helping the other side was the boxer rebellion in 1901.

[Greyblades]

The "Despite Itself" bit can't really be overstated. Ever since the fall of Rome, Europeans have craved tangible conquests that resemble Empire. All the infighting is what made Europeans so capable when it came time to conquer the world.

Sure whatever.
I'll just say that if anyone was to take that "each nation is superfluous" thing to heart when dealing with actual europeans they would quickly find themselves buying bridges and swampland.