# Obamababble



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

In a visitor's book in a prison courtyard, Obama wrote that his family was "humbled to stand where men of such courage faced down injustice and refused to yield. The world is grateful for the heroes of Robben Island, who remind us that no shackles or cells can match the strength of the human spirit."

President Obama *is* aware of Guantanamo bay, isn't he?

Further is Obama aware that Mandella was convicted of nefarious terrorist activities, that Mandella's wife was implicated in torture and murder and famously stated _'with our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country_'?

Because a disinterested observer like myself would be perhaps forgiven for thinking that the President appears to be a trifle confused.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Never let the truth get in the way of a good soundbite/claptrap I guess...

Although I have to ask - was Mandella actually a real nefarious terrorist or were they trumped up charges ? (not that a real terrorist cannot change their ways). I recall Mrs Thatcher remained of the view that Mandella was a terrorist, but have often wondered if there was any truth at all to these accusations

P.S. Obama may well be suffering from confusion. After all he seems convinced that our current Chancellor of the Exchequer is a 70s-80s soul singing pop star


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> Never let the truth get in the way of a good soundbite/claptrap I guess...
> 
> Although I have to ask - *was Mandella actually a real nefarious terrorist or were they trumped up charges* ? (not that a real terrorist cannot change their ways). I recall Mrs Thatcher remained of the view that Mandella was a terrorist, but have often wondered if there was any truth at all to these accusations
> 
> P.S. Obama may well be suffering from confusion. After all he seems convinced that our current Chancellor of the Exchequer is a 70s-80s soul singing pop star


One thing is for certain Mandella had been involved in a great deal more proven anti-government activity than 100% of Guantanamo Bay's unfortunate inmates.

During Mandella's third trial he admitted anti government 'sabotage' but insisted that this was not terrorism - try making that distinction in the USA and see how far it gets you.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

As written by Gerald Seymour in Harry's Game "_One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter_".... For those of you from a hegemonic(?) nation - past or present - it's not necessarily a sentiment you'll ever truly understand.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

VictorRomeo said:


> As written by Gerald Seymour in Harry's Game "_One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter_".... For those of you from a hegemonic(?) nation - past or present - it's not necessarily a sentiment you'll ever truly understand.


I take your point but the thing to remember about hegemonic nations is that even among their own citizens there are often huge numbers of disempowered, dominated and oppressed. So the maxim you cite is probably more readily understood in these quarters than you think.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

VictorRomeo said:


> As written by Gerald Seymour in Harry's Game "_One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter_".... For those of you from a hegemonic(?) nation - past or present - it's not necessarily a sentiment you'll ever truly understand.


It is a sentiment I both understand and applaud. Certain governments will call anyone they don't like a terrorist, these days.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I can't quote chapter and verse but I can remember that Mandela was offered freedom on the condition that he renounced violence; he refused to do so. That doesn't deny the good he did in reconciling black and white in S.Africa.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

I enjoy watching the world come to realize what many of us in America have long known.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

In the course of studying Latin in secondary school half a century ago, the Roman Empire was brought prominently to my attention and I soon grasped parallels between Roman history and US history. I am still mystified by the failure of my fellow citizens to connect the dots of world dominatination. 

As to Mr. Obama, he is a smart cookie. He gets the ironies. 

Most Americans understand colonialism. That of the English in Ireland and Scotland, as well as in Africa, Asia, and the Western Hemisphere, is particularly familiar to most of us. I suspect that while Mr Obama's prison visit was calculated, he may actually have been expressing personally held sentiments. For my part I felt moved by his visit and at the same time pained by the obvious parallels with Guantanamo, to say nothing of the US having assumed the role of world hegemon.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> It is a sentiment I both understand and applaud. Certain governments will call anyone they don't like a terrorist, these days.


I read an article earlier where a Belgian diplomat and his wife were removed from a Country Club in New York by police after the mother began breast feeding her baby during lunch. An act of terrorism was implied when the Officer said "In Sri Lanka, babies are used by terrorists"... All the while one hand on his holstered revolver the other on his Taser.

We see it all over the planet - governments using "the thin blue line" as effectively as they can... Police by intimidation and if that fails excessive violence - shock and awe.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Gurdon said:


> Most Americans understand colonialism.


Most Americans are, I would suggest, in complete denial as to their own colonialism, or rather of US colonialism. After all, the US currently has the most extensive overseas empire in the world.



Gurdon said:


> That of the English in Ireland and Scotland, as well as in Africa, Asia, and the Western Hemisphere, is particularly familiar to most of us.
> Gurdon


On the other hand, I'm inclined to think that most Americans don't in fact understand colonialism very well at all. What is this colonialism of the English in Ireland and Scotland, and the Western Hemisphere? That "England" was a colonial power in Ireland is debatable. The idea that the English were or are a colonial power in Scotland is risible.


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

Chouan said:


> Most Americans are, I would suggest, in complete denial as to their own colonialism, or rather of US colonialism. After all, the US currently has the most extensive overseas empire in the world.


I would say that most in the US are not really aware of how the US tentacles are stretched around the world. Or how we are perceived elsewhere.

This Thursday, the flags will fly and everyone will talk about how we're the greatest country in the world. And I'll be reminded again of the 50 million without health insurance. If you don't like the way we treat others, look at how we treat ourselves.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver, many interesting points, as usual. But I cannot get on board with the equivalence between an individual fighting to end apartheid and an individual whose object is to either expand a theocratic medieval "empire" throughout the world or to eject foreigners so that he can get back to opressing the hell out of his womenfolk. The Taliban were horrible, horrible, horrible people long before the post-9/11 Afghanistan invasion. In hindsight, we should have started offing them when they blew up the Budhas of Babiyan.

I say all of this as someone who is sympathetic to the subjective nature of history, and well aware that people on both sides of a conflict can be fighting for something that they believe to be right and honorable. After all, my ancestors fought for the confederacy in the American Civil War. But I am able to say that, objectively, it was good that the South lost that war. And it is good when we get rid of Taliban. It may not be good enough to be worth the trouble and expense and other consequences. And I certainly worry about the wrongly-detained problem. But I cannot equate the Taliban with "freedom" in any sense.

Go check out the Afghan Women's Writing Project. https://awwproject.org/ See if you can muster any sympathy for the religious forces in Afghanistan after reading some of that stuff.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Shaver, many interesting points, as usual. But I cannot get on board with the equivalence between an individual fighting to end apartheid and an individual whose object is to either expand a theocratic medieval "empire" throughout the world or to eject foreigners so that he can get back to opressing the hell out of his womenfolk. The Taliban were horrible, horrible, horrible people long before the post-9/11 Afghanistan invasion. In hindsight, we should have started offing them when they blew up the Budhas of Babiyan.
> 
> I say all of this as someone who is sympathetic to the subjective nature of history, and well aware that people on both sides of a conflict can be fighting for something that they believe to be right and honorable. After all, my ancestors fought for the confederacy in the American Civil War. But I am able to say that, objectively, it was good that the South lost that war. And it is good when we get rid of Taliban. It may not be good enough to be worth the trouble and expense and other consequences. And I certainly worry about the wrongly-detained problem. But I cannot equate the Taliban with "freedom" in any sense.
> 
> Go check out the Afghan Women's Writing Project. https://awwproject.org/ See if you can muster any sympathy for the religious forces in Afghanistan after reading some of that stuff.


I suppose CD that I am minded of the ferocious zero tolerance approach to terrorism that the Patriot Act describes, nay demands. A U.S president getting all weepy and gushing over a convicted terrorist strikes me as bizarre, anti-American even. That words spouted to decry unfair detention do not choke Obama, given that he presides over the worst example of unfair detention in the free world, puzzles me deeply.

I assuredly do not support the Taliban, nor any regime which systematically undermines women. No religious freedom should allow for discrimination and the way in which certain ethnic groups, allowed to flourish within the UK, treat females has been displayed in most ugly manner recently: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-23079649 Disgraceful.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

My problem with Gitmo is that I don't KNOW whether any, some, all, none of the detainers there are detained "unfairly." It's possible that it's populated entirely by supervillains and their henchman, in which case I really don't give a f***; or I do care, but it's purely on an academic level and I just cannot muster a single damn's worth of actual energy to think of a better solution. Or it may be rife with goatherds who happened to be a on a mountainside when the Taliban and a SEAL team got into a firefight nearby and simply got rounded up with the rest of them. It's the uncertainty that bothers me.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> ... the way in which certain ethnic groups, allowed to flourish within the UK, treat females has been displayed in most ugly manner recently: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-23079649 Disgraceful.


That was an unpleasant case, and a (literally and in every possible sense) most ugly set of villains for whom our system of punishment seems sadly wanting.

Unfortunately the way in which they and others like them have been able to flourish, and in which their poor, uncared-for innocent victims have been delivered up to them, speaks of certain desperate failings in our society which go well beyond the wickedness of the men that were involved.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

VictorRomeo said:


> As written by Gerald Seymour in Harry's Game "_One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter_".... For those of you from a hegemonic(?) nation - past or present - it's not necessarily a sentiment you'll ever truly understand.


Well said Victor.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Yesterday's terrorist/freedom fighter is tomorrow's president or prime minister: Eamon de Valera (IRB), Menachem Begin (Irgun), Mandela (ANC), George Washington and so on.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Victor and Earl, that's all true enough. But you have to look at what's actually being fought for. Is it freedom? Or is it just freedom to oppress? They aren't equivalent. It is possible to make a reasonably objective evaluation of the question.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Chouan said:


> Most Americans are, I would suggest, in complete denial as to their own colonialism, or rather of US colonialism. After all, the US currently has the most extensive overseas empire in the world.
> 
> On the other hand, I'm inclined to think that most Americans don't in fact understand colonialism very well at all. What is this colonialism of the English in Ireland and Scotland, and the Western Hemisphere? That "England" was a colonial power in Ireland is debatable. The idea that the English were or are a colonial power in Scotland is risible.


Perhaps I am being superficial, but I have understood the history of Ireland as having been occupied by the English and exploited for economic gain. An aspect of the potato famine was that grain was being exported as poor people died. That sounds to me like colonialism. I mention Ireland as many Americans have or wish they had, Irish ancestory. There is here a romantic view of the IRA, the "old" IRA, and the fight for Irish independence.

I am acquainted with Anglo-Irish individuals whose families left following the formation of the Irish republic. Was English imposition of a Protestant aristocracy on Ireland not colonialism?

If it was not colonialism, at least broadly considered, what was the subjugation of Scotland by England? And, cannot the current push for Scottish independence be seen in the context of the decolonization of the post WW II era?

My understanding of US experience is that we started out as a colony and after breaking away from Britian proceeded to colonize and then settle North America. After this we established effective control over Mexico and the rest of the hemisphere to the south. I won't go on, but most even modestly educated Americans understand this history.

Were not Canada and the Caribbean possessions of Great Britian colonies?

I remind you that I referred to my distress at my country's status as global hegemon. We are, I think, actually somewhat like a global private securtiy firm employed by the now global, extra-national financial oligarchy.

Gurdon


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Gurdon said:


> Perhaps I am being superficial, but I have understood the history of Ireland as having been occupied by the English and exploited for economic gain. An aspect of the potato famine was that grain was being exported as poor people died. That sounds to me like colonialism. I mention Ireland as many Americans have or wish they had, Irish ancestory. There is here a romantic view of the IRA, the "old" IRA, and the fight for Irish independence.
> 
> I am acquainted with Anglo-Irish individuals whose families left following the formation of the Irish republic. Was English imposition of a Protestant aristocracy on Ireland not colonialism?
> 
> ...


I don't think the union between England and Scotland can be thought of as cases of colonialism without greatly over-stretching the usual meaning of that term.

In the case of Ireland there was certainly dispossession of land, and anti-catholic discrimination, together with a long history of rule from London and the creation of a land-owning class who by sentiments and loyalty perhaps tended to think of themselves as more British than Irish, so that could be seen as a form of colonialism.

The export of grain (and cattle too, you might have mentioned) during the potato famine was not an action of the British government, as it has sometimes been portrayed, but merely the profit-seeking actions of farmers, land-owners and merchants, able to get better prices elsewhere. The government may have been rather lethargic in taking action to relieve the famine, but governments at that time tended to have a largely laissez-faire approach to such situations. There were similar famines in Europe, for example, which generally were allowed to run their course.

The Act of Union between Scotland and England was a political solution to Scotland's financial insolvency. The two countries had to an extent been united already under the Stuart monarchs. There was no occupation of Scotland by English settlers and Scotland retained (and still does) its own legal system and religious beliefs. Scottish merchants, industrialists and academics on the whole welcomed union with England as opening up economic opportunities for then (which it did), as well as philosophical enlightenment.

It is a grotesque mischaracterisation to see the campaign for Scottish independence as part of the decolonisation process.

Canada and various Caribbean islands were (some still may be) indeed British dominions or colonies, but clearly in the case of Canada that no longer accurately describes the relationship since the country is entirely self-governing.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Gurdon said:


> Perhaps I am being superficial, but I have understood the history of Ireland as having been occupied by the English and exploited for economic gain. An aspect of the potato famine was that grain was being exported as poor people died. *That sounds to me like colonialism. I mention Ireland as many Americans have or wish they had, Irish ancestory. There is here a romantic view of the IRA, the "old" IRA, and the fight for Irish independence.
> *


Ireland/Eire is part of the British isles. Whether the expansion into Ireland by the ruling elites of England (I object to the term 'the English' as it misses the fact that the majority of Englishman were similarly subjugated by these elites) should be seen as colonialism or as territorial expansion of the type you describe in the USA's early history (including of course the attempted invasion of Canada in 1812) is a matter of opinion. England itself once comprised smaller kingdoms and peoples that over time conquered and unified with each other. If the USA had been successful in conquering Canada in 1812 would it refer to this nation as a state or a colony ? I suspect a state. Were the Native American territories colonised ? (Leaving aside the tiny enclosures they are permitted today). Hawaii ?

The Irish, Welsh and Scots have long histories as peoples and hundreds of years of cultural tradition but the romantic view of nationhood is a product of historical factors long after Cromwell's time.

However, I would really like to know if you feel that the "romantic" view of the IRA is still held in America, now that the USA has its own sad experience of innocent civilians being blown to bits over tribal quarrels in faraway places ? I had rather hoped that was no longer the case ?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Can you really describe the settling of an Anglo-Norman aristocracy with a few followers, alongside the native aristocracy (and the Ostmen, descendants of vikings, and the descendants of the Scots Gallowglasses) in the Middle Ages as colonialism? If so, then England is a colony of Normandy, and Normandy a colony of Norway. The English didn't impose a protestant aristocracy, but there was a tendency for the Irish aristocracy, whatever their origin, Norse, Anglo-Norman, Scots or Irish to assimilate to the pan-European cultural model by Tudor times, which also involved a tendency to become protestant, rather like the English aristocracy in England. There was English settlement in Ireland, whilst urban centres, like Dublin, or Wexford, or Galway became increasingly western European in outlook and culture, like most European cities, and often increasingly English in ethnicity. Was this colonialism though? The King of England was also the King of Ireland, and after the rebellions in Henry VII's time, Ireland's parliament was made subordinate to that of England. Colonialism or centralisation of control?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^^Colonising has the implication of alien settlers dispossessing native inhabitants, commercial exploitation etc. I would say both England (in the 11th C), and Ireland later, experienced these things.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Haffman said:


> Ireland/Eire is part of the British isles.


Not here it isn't.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

VictorRomeo said:


> Not here it isn't.


Perhaps because rather than a geographical term it has become a politically loaded term amidst the petty tribal squabbles of which I speak. Kind of like the idea some people have that 'Great Britain' is called such because the inhabitants of the larger British isle think it is great.

For the record, when I look out to the Irish sea I feel no sense of rage that the Irish have unfairly claimed what should be neutral international waters.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

We've had this discussion before. Geographically it is a valid expression, but only geographically.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> We've had this discussion before. Geographically it is a valid expression, but only geographically.


Yes quite. My point about Ireland being part of the British isles is the proximity therefore to England. It seems very strange to me to describe territorial or state expansions of this nature as 'colonialism'. If colonialism it is, then we had better understand most of European history - from the mid-20th century through medieval times to the Dark Ages and beyond, as 'the colonial era' - to say nothing of the history of the rest of the world.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> ^^Colonising has the implication of alien settlers dispossessing native inhabitants, commercial exploitation etc. I would say both England (in the 11th C), and Ireland later, experienced these things.


I'm not sure that either of these things took place to any significant level. 
A Norman aristocracy displaced most of the English aristocracy, but the people remained the same. A few "Normans" of whatever origin came to England, but very few, certainly not enough to change the overall ethnicity of the population to any degree, some cultural and linguistic changes occurred, rather like when the Romans conquered Britain, but the people by 1100 were still mostly an Anglo-Saxon-Norse-Celtic mixture.
Similarly in Ireland, a few Anglo-Norman knights with a few followers became a new part of the existing ruling elite, and largely assimilated to the dominant Irish culture. So, even though Ireland became an adjunct to the English crown I can't see much evidence for dispossession and exploitation. The ruling elite, both Irish and Anglo-Irish became increasingly part of the developing European cultural sphere, like the nobility of Spain, Scandinavia, Central and Eastern Europe, and England. Henry VII and VIII didn't distinguish between the Anglo-Irish and the Irish nobility, for example, they were all nobility to them, a nobility from whom they demanded loyalty, and to whom they were merciless if they rebelled. There were waves of settlement under Elizabeth I, but again, these were largely settlement of a ruling elite, not the replacement of a native rural population with a new English one. Many of the nobility dispossessed by Elizabeth were Anglo-Irish families, so it wasn't an anti native Irish policy, but one of pacifying a region thought to be disloyal. One of the biggest rebellions was that of Desmond, an Anglo-Irish family. 
I would suggest that Ireland was no more a colony of England than Northumberland was, or Cornwall.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^^Another aspect of colonialism of course is the imposition of political control by the colonising country - certainly something that occurred in both cases. The legal and linguistic effects of the Norman Conquest were far-reaching.

Under Cromwell there was considerable transfer of land in Ireland from Catholic to Protestant ownership, and some settlement of the land by his unpaid soldiers. There was also the plantation of Ulster by Scottish settlers.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Ireland was never considered a colony - even here today - as it was deemed one of the four member countries of the UK and colloquially one of the "Home Nations or Countries". I know you know this but just restating it unequivocally.

And yes, this was debated ad-nauseum. Regardless of whatever, you or I or even the rest of the world think, the Government of Ireland do not formally recognise that term politically or geographically and protest its use. That's all I meant.

But let us be clear.... Scotland, nor Ireland for that matter were never truly equal in the Union.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> Ireland was never considered a colony - even here today - as it was deemed one of the four member countries of the UK and colloquially one of the "Home Nations or Countries". I know you know this but just restating it unequivocally.


Yet Americans, and others, seem to want to view Ireland as a colony even though it clearly wasn't.



VictorRomeo said:


> And yes, this was debated ad-nauseum. Regardless of whatever, you or I or even the rest of the world think, the Government of Ireland do not formally recognise that term politically or geographically and protest its use. That's all I meant.


Of course, that's fully understood; I think that there's an assumption that "British Isles" implies British dominance.



VictorRomeo said:


> But let us be clear.... Scotland, nor Ireland for that matter were never truly equal in the Union.


Of course they weren't, even when Scotland had provided two Kings for the throne, the Kingdom of Scotland was viewed by them as a backwater, or as a stepping stone to something bigger.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> ^^Another aspect of colonialism of course is the imposition of political control by the colonising country - certainly something that occurred in both cases. The legal and linguistic effects of the Norman Conquest were far-reaching.
> 
> Under Cromwell there was considerable transfer of land in Ireland from Catholic to Protestant ownership, and some settlement of the land by his unpaid soldiers. There was also the plantation of Ulster by Scottish settlers.


But I would argue that the form of imposition of control, like the US with Hawaii, for example, that forms colonial domination isn't what happened in Ireland. Political entities weren't well enough developed to allow the colonisation of other lands, in that imperialist/colonial sense. English control of Aquitaine during the 100 Years WAr, for example wasn't a colonial conquest, even though English people settled in Aquitaine. English domination of Ireland wasn't colonial domination, in that the ruling elites in Ireland, whether Irish or Anglo-Irish were as much part of the government of Ireland as England, more so in fact. As long as Ireland paid it's taxes the ruling elite ruled, in the same way that as long as Northumberland paid it's taxes the ruling elite of Northumberland ruled. The colonial principle by which one country rules another country didn't become possible until political structures and communications had developed sufficiently for that kind of political control to exist. By the time that those mechanisms had developed Ireland was already established as being part of the British polity.
There was indeed much transfer of land from catholic to protestant ownership under Cromwell and under William, but in most cases the ownership of the land was retained by the same family, only the branch that had converted became the elite. Most of the "Irish catholic" families that were dispossessed by Cromwell, or sent to "Hell or Connaught" were old English and Anglo-Irish families, and the land settled by Cromwell's soldiers tended to be the land formerly farmed by the Anglo-Irish retainers of the dispossessed Anglo-Irish catholics. By the time of the Treaty of Limerick most of Cromwell's soldiers' descendants were again Anglo-Irish, and were bilingual Gaelic and English speakers, with Irish mothers and often catholic.
The Plantation of Ulster is a different case, but even then the new Scots didn't entirely displace the native "Irish" of Ulster, many of whom were of Scots ethnicity anyway. If they had entirely displaced the Irish then the confessional divide in Ulster wouldn't exist.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ I think you're imposing a rather pedantic definition of colonialism here. The Greeks and Romans, for instance, were certainly colonists, in that they invaded countries and imposed their own systems of government, laws, agriculture, technology, architecture etc on those countries, so I don't see quite what developments in political structures and communication were necessary that hadn't happened by the time Cromwell, for instance, invaded Ireland. The fact that the early colonists intermarried with local women doesn't change what happened beforehand, and was not uncommon in a great many colonial settings.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

A wonderfully informed and informative discussion, I am learning a lot. Part of the problem was my employing a term which has a specific meaning, colonialism, to stand for the many variants of conquest and exploitation of one people or political entity by another. I should have been more particular in my choice of terms at the outset. But then the wonderfully erudite clarifications might not have followed. 

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> ^ I think you're imposing a rather pedantic definition of colonialism here. The Greeks and Romans, for instance, were certainly colonists, in that they invaded countries and imposed their own systems of government, laws, agriculture, technology, architecture etc on those countries, so I don't see quite what developments in political structures and communication were necessary that hadn't happened by the time Cromwell, for instance, invaded Ireland. The fact that the early colonists intermarried with local women doesn't change what happened beforehand, and was not uncommon in a great many colonial settings.


I would argue that the Romans weren't, but that the Greeks were. 
The Greeks set up new cities that were independent of the mother city, expanding Hellas, or at least Hellenic culture, but not as an Empire. 
The Romans and the Macedonians set up a imperial state where each new province became part of the Empire, ruled by Romans of whatever origin and which the locals were directly encouraged to assimilate to. Hence a Roman like Constantine III who was entirely of British Celtic blood was regarded as being as Roman as any other Roman Emperor. 
Britain's Empire however was a mixture of colonies and imperial domains. Colonies, like South Africa or Rhodesia, or the antipodes, were where Brits were encouraged to settle on a permanent basis to make the soil British, usually where the land was perceived to be empty, even if it wasn't. Imperial domains, like India, were places where Britain eventually controlled the territory, often indirectly, but without establishing British settlement. Loads of Brits went there, many died there, about 3-4,000,000 according to some writers, but very few went there with an intention of making India their home.
Ireland wasn't like either of those, but was nearer to the Roman model, in that Ireland became part of Britain; not a colony, not an imperial domain, but part of the home country. Most 19th Century Irishmen saw themselves as being part of the ruling class of the Empire, not as the subjects, which is why there were so many Irishmen in positions of authority in the Empire. The men of the Connaught Rangers, for example, saw themselves as British sahibs when in India and identified firmly with the rulers.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ Yes, the Irish were quite prominent in building the empire. My own family is part Irish/Anglo-Indian plus some Lancashire Scots, so I know all about that - a lot of them are buried near the Irrawady.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> Victor and Earl, that's all true enough. But you have to look at what's actually being fought for. Is it freedom? Or is it just freedom to oppress? They aren't equivalent. It is possible to make a reasonably objective evaluation of the question.


No it isn't possible at all to be objective about this, as there are always going to be AT LEAST two sides in such situations.

By asking the questions "Is it freedom? Or is it just freedom to oppress?" You raise more questions but no answers i.e. different sides will have differing views of oppression. 
In Russia in 1917, did the revolution release the people from the Tsar's oppression and give them a sort of freedom? Yes. But did it also replace one sort of oppression with another? Yes.

In Iran in 1979 did the Islamic Revolution release the people from the Shah's oppression and give them a sort of freedom? Yes. But did it also replace one sort of oppression with another? Yes.

It is all subjective depending on your position in society and your political allegiance.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Earl, I understand what you're saying. But I disagree that it's utterly impossible to make a reasonable determination, within the limits of human understanding, as to whether a society is (or would likely be) more or less free under one regime/system/authority or another. 

There's just no question, for instance, that the American south was free-er after the Civil War than before. Those who fought for the Confederacy (including several of my ancestors) thought of themselves as freedom fighters. And while there was some truth to that, any reasonable outside observer would have to conclude that they were not on the side of freedom.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> Earl, I understand what you're saying. But I disagree that it's utterly impossible to make a reasonable determination, within the limits of human understanding, as to whether a society is (or would likely be) more or less free under one regime/system/authority or another.
> 
> There's just no question, for instance, that the American south was free-er after the Civil War than before. Those who fought for the Confederacy (including several of my ancestors) thought of themselves as freedom fighters. And while there was some truth to that, any reasonable outside observer would have to conclude that they were not on the side of freedom.


Except that they saw themselves as being increasingly oppressed by the industrial North, even though what they perceived as oppression was a diminuition of the political dominance of the United States by the South. However, was the South more free post-bellum? Some people were, the manumitted slaves, briefly, before Jim Crow kicked in, but did the ordinary white people of the South, the majority, gain more freedom?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Perhaps the most hopeful conclusion was that they would be eventually freed from the restrictive limits of their own minds, as the fabric of their prejudice(s) against those of color slowly unraveled in 'lo, these many' post civil war years! :icon_scratch: Just call me an eternal optimist, eh?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

There is a revisionist school of thought that suggests that the attitude of the poor whites towards the people of colour was made worse by emancipation. Ante-bellum, the hierarchy was relatively stable and secure. A poor white was superior to the black people because they were free whilst the black people were slaves. Once emancipation has occurred, the only thing that separated the poor white from the poor black was their colour, so the colour differential became far more important.


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

And sadly we still have the color issue today... witness the Zimmerman trial in Florida. The coverage is nearly all polarized by race and the typical right/left divide that swirls around race. 

With a black POTUS in place I think a lot of latent hostility has been brought to the surface.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

wdrazek said:


> And sadly we still have the color issue today... witness the Zimmerman trial in Florida. The coverage is nearly all polarized by race and the typical right/left divide that swirls around race.
> 
> With a black POTUS in place I think a lot of latent hostility has been brought to the surface.


Is Obama black? I know Mediterraneans who consider themselves white men yet who are darker complexioned than he.


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

In these parts he is considered to be so. Many believe that he was born in Africa and that his forged birth documents make his Presidency illegal and illegitimate.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

wdrazek said:


> In these parts he is considered to be so. Many believe that he was born in Africa and that his forged birth documents make his Presidency illegal and illegitimate.


It is intriguing that Obama's birth certificate is 'authenticated' in the crappiest most administratively unreliable state of the union. How convenient. Still he's not exactly what I would call black. A mulatto perhaps?

I note that Obama's father was a drunk who sired children with three different women. Classy.


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

Shaver said:


> It is intriguing that Obama's birth certificate is 'authenticated' in the crappiest most administratively unreliable state of the union. How convenient. Still he's not exactly what I would call black. A mulatto perhaps?
> 
> I note that Obama's father was a drunk who sired children with three different women. Classy.


There are several other states that are a lot 'crappier' than Hawaii, IMO. :biggrin: Mulatto is not a word used in these parts. It passed out of the common vernacular a few decades ago. "African American" is code for black, or African ancestry. So everyone over here considers him "African American", not in the sense of his biracial heritage, but because that is the term used for "black."

He didn't get to pick his father, and it appears that his father had very little to do with him, other than sperm donation.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

wdrazek said:


> There are several other states that are a lot 'crappier' than Hawaii, IMO. :biggrin: Mulatto is not a word used in these parts. It passed out of the common vernacular a few decades ago. "African American" is code for black, or African ancestry. So everyone over here considers him "African American", not in the sense of his biracial heritage, but because that is the term used for "black."
> 
> He didn't get to pick his father, and it appears that his father had very little to do with him, other than sperm donation.


Ah, my common vernacular *is* rather dated. I prefer plain speaking to some type of 'code' though.

I'm intrigued - which states are crappier than Hawaii?

Re parentage - fruit not falling far from the tree, etc etc.


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

Shaver said:


> Ah, my common vernacular *is* rather dated. I prefer plain speaking to some type of 'code' though.
> 
> I'm intrigued - which states are crappier than Hawaii?
> 
> Re parentage - fruit not falling far from the tree, etc etc.


Note that I am out to offend anyone, but in terms of poverty, education, quality of life, obesity and the like... maybe Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisianna. And others.

Fruit falling far from the tree, I got that part. He does seem to be a bit more responsible though and believe me if there were any hint of infidelity it would be covered non-stop. The guys with white outfits and torches would ride him out of town before you could say the word 'sex.'


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

wdrazek said:


> Note that I am out to offend anyone, but in terms of poverty, education, quality of life, obesity and the like... maybe Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisianna. And others.
> 
> Fruit falling far from the tree, I got that part. He does seem to be a bit more responsible though and believe me if there were any hint of infidelity it would be covered non-stop. The guys with white outfits and torches would ride him out of town before you could say the word 'sex.'


hmm..... that's a fairly region specific bias! One of my dearest associates on this forum is from Alabama. I wouldn't like to be in your shoes when he gets wind of this! :tongue2:

There is no Klan anymore, after the failed coup in Grenada was unable to create an Aryan homeland the whole movement fizzled out. Geburt Einer Nation, Kaputt!


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

Shaver said:


> hmm..... that's a fairly region specific bias!
> 
> There is no Klan anymore, after the failed coup in Grenada was unable to create an Aryan homeland the whole movement fizzled out. Geburt Einer Nation, Kaputt!


You could call it a bias, or you could just look at the categories I outlined and do the research. I think you will find it as I say.

The Klan may be nearly wiped out (it isn't completely gone), but that doesn't mean that its spirit does not live on! And it does.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hey you hillbillies and klansmen - let's get going - there's a party on Eerie canal. Last one on the Colonial Belle is a sissy! :icon_smile:


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

Hey you - cease and desist!! We kicked your butts outta here long ago. ic12337:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

wdrazek said:


> Hey you - cease and desist!! We kicked your butts outta here long ago. ic12337:


Whose butt? Outta where?

When you cease speaking our language then (and only then) can you consider yourself to be independent. :icon_smile:


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

Sorry if I came across in a way I did not intend to. It's hard to convey tone.

All in all, I'd say, our national DNA's are very much alike.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

wdrazek said:


> Sorry if I came across in a way I did not intend to. It's hard to convey tone.
> 
> All in all, I'd say, our national DNA's are very much alike.


It's quite all right my dear fellow, I presumed that we were jousting in good spirits. I like America and I like Americans.


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

Shaver said:


> It's quite all right my dear fellow, I presumed that we were jousting in good spirits. I like America and I like Americans.


I like Britain and I like Brits, too. Yourself included. And it was, I think they say, jolly good fun.

Just wasn't sure about your last post with the *huge *flag which I initially mistook as Swiss. Now I know better. Good day, and have an even better weekend.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

wdrazek said:


> I like Britain and I like Brits, too. Yourself included. And it was, I think they say, jolly good fun.
> 
> Just wasn't sure about your last post with the *huge *flag which I initially mistook as Swiss. Now I know better. Good day, and have an even better weekend.


Now, now.. no name calling. Some of us Englishmen strongly object to the term 'Brit'. :icon_smile_wink:

Have a good weekend.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

wdrazek said:


> I like Britain and I like Brits, too. Yourself included. And it was, I think they say, jolly good fun.
> 
> Just wasn't sure about your last post with the *huge *flag which I initially mistook as Swiss. Now I know better. Good day, and have an even better weekend.


The last time that I was in Norfolk, on a ship, I was talking to some Americans on deck. As we talked an RN destroyer passed us flying an enormous White Ensign. One of the Americans turned to anther and said "Say, what country does that ship come from?". I was unable to respond, I was so shocked.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Chouan said:


> The last time that I was in Norfolk, on a ship, I was talking to some Americans on deck. As we talked an RN destroyer passed us flying an enormous White Ensign. One of the Americans turned to anther and said "Say, what country does that ship come from?". I was unable to respond, I was so shocked.


We need another crusade to really bring home brand recognition.


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

Chouan said:


> The last time that I was in Norfolk, on a ship, I was talking to some Americans on deck. As we talked an RN destroyer passed us flying an enormous White Ensign. One of the Americans turned to anther and said "Say, what country does that ship come from?". I was unable to respond, I was so shocked.


I would have guessed one of the current or former colonies but thanks to AAAC now I know better! :biggrin:


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Not to rehash this bit, but Shaver was not referring to any of the items you mentioned, just how dodgy Hawaii's record keeping is. It seems unlikely to me that it would have been as large of an issue if his BC came from Arkansas and Mississippi's obesity rate has no relation to the state's record-keeping capacity.



wdrazek said:


> Note that I am out to offend anyone, but in terms of poverty, education, quality of life, obesity and the like... maybe Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisianna. And others.
> 
> Fruit falling far from the tree, I got that part. He does seem to be a bit more responsible though and believe me if there were any hint of infidelity it would be covered non-stop. The guys with white outfits and torches would ride him out of town before you could say the word 'sex.'


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

Tilton said:


> Not to rehash this bit, but Shaver was not referring to any of the items you mentioned, just how dodgy Hawaii's record keeping is. It seems unlikely to me that it would have been as large of an issue if his BC came from Arkansas and Mississippi's obesity rate has no relation to the state's record-keeping capacity.


Actually, Shaver said "It is intriguing that Obama's birth certificate is 'authenticated' in the crappiest most administratively unreliable state of the union." Had he said "most administratively crappiest" I would have agreed with your take on it. However, I took it to mean both crappiest and most administratively unreliable state of the union. 

Not sure how Hawaii was ranked as the nation's worst record-keepers. That's not anything I have ever seen reported on.

However, if one is looking at the crappiest states, Hawaii is certainly not among them. Hence, my statement about other states with serious societal issues that Hawaii does not suffer from.

If I was wrong in my interpretation of Shaver's comment, I stand corrected.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Okay, I see your view. But really, DC is worse than AL, LA, or MS, in my opinion. Ranked 51/51 in obesity rate, highest percentage of residents on food stamps in the US, tied for 46th in unemployment rate, highest income disparity in the US, ranked 50th out of 51 for public primary and secondary education, and so on.


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

Tilton said:


> Okay, I see your view. But really, DC is worse than AL, LA, or MS, in my opinion. Ranked 51/51 in obesity rate, highest percentage of residents on food stamps in the US, tied for 46th in unemployment rate, highest income disparity in the US, ranked 50th out of 51 for public primary and secondary education, and so on.


DC also has the distinction of having reelected a mayor after he was convicted of smoking crack cocaine. And, it's where our National politics are conducted...

Funny how it started out a swamp and has evolved into a cesspool.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Ah, yes. Marion Barry. Those prostitutes set him up! Didn't you know?

Frankly, the trial was a complete joke with jurors disputing evidence that even Barry's attorney didn't dispute. Amazing, really.


----------



## Pale_Male (May 20, 2013)

wdrazek said:


> DC also has the distinction of having reelected a mayor after he was convicted of smoking crack cocaine. And, it's where our National politics are conducted...
> 
> Funny how it started out a swamp and has evolved into a cesspool.


"... a trip through a sewer in a glass-bottom boat." Said of Hollywood, but both places seem so alike these days.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yesterday's terrorist/freedom fighter is tomorrow's president or prime minister: Eamon de Valera (IRB), Menachem Begin (Irgun), Mandela (ANC), George Washington and so on.


The world could certainly have done without De Valera (the ruination of Ireland), and Begin (psychopath). Mandela debatable, and I'll pass on Washington for the moment.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Odradek said:


> The world could certainly have done without De Valera (the ruination of Ireland), and Begin (psychopath). Mandela debatable, and I'll pass on Washington for the moment.


George Washington as in Adam Weishaupt? _That_ George Washington?


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Shaver said:


> George Washington as in Adam Weishaupt? _That_ George Washington?


Wearing my tinfoil hat with pride.


----------



## Hyacinth (Feb 4, 2007)

Haffman said:


> However, I would really like to know if you feel that the "romantic" view of the IRA is still held in America, now that the USA has its own sad experience of innocent civilians being blown to bits over tribal quarrels in faraway places ? I had rather hoped that was no longer the case ?


Unfortunately, yes - there are a few supporters you'll see at Celtic festivals.


----------

