RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


YN -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 7:14:18 AM)

Appartently there are typos web wide.

quote:

"The transportation of Irish people to slavery in the Americas predates Oliver Cromwells reign with the first Irish political prisoners being sent to Virginia in 1620 under the reign of James I."


As you were saying - http://www.historyjournal.ie/irish-slavery.html




YN -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 7:17:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

[:D] Can't you give me the date and time?


Perhaps we can "run a pool" on the spread from 2020-2030.




Zonie63 -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 9:10:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Why did the US get as powerful economically as it did?... Do you think we are any smarter, capable, or original, than the people in the UK or France for instance?

No we are just the largest group of people to put together education and resources under an enabling political climate and therefore the largest economy to this time. We are no better then the countries mentioned above... our only difference is our talent pool...and it is only larger because of the number of skilled and educated workers.

We have shown the way and countries like China and India have paid attention and or following in our footsteps...and should, baring political upheaval ,surpass us eventually. They will not be better... just as the US is not better than smaller population countries...just bigger.

Of course this all depends on their ability to educate and access to resources under the proper political climate.

Butch

Why did the US get as powerful as it did?

Protestant work ethic. Belief in science.
Relatively easy expansion across a continent (manifest destiny).
Solid political framework.
Capitalism.
Protection for individuals enumerated in state law and british common law.
The fact that our industry wasn't destroyed by invasion in WWI and WWII.


I think it was also a matter of arriving at the right place at the right time. The land was sparsely populated and teeming with resources, while being sufficiently geographically isolated from Europe as to be relatively safe from outside invasion. The Europeans were too busy fighting each other, which gave us time and breathing room to build up and expand on this continent. The expansion probably would have been easy regardless of whatever political framework we had. However, that framework wasn't all that solid, as there were some cracks in the system that had to be worked out through the Civil War.

After the Civil War, the nation was more unified, federal power was more solidified, our industries were booming, and resources were being exploited from coast to coast. There were still massive problems to work out, but it was no longer questioned that America was a powerful nation at that point. Not strong enough to reach superpower status yet, but it was only a matter of time. We were a bit late on the scene to get into the colonialism scramble, although we did manage to grab a few of Spain's colonies and escalated our activities in Latin America and the Pacific Rim.

At that point, we were clearly the most powerful nation in our own region, and with the buffer of two oceans and emerging modern navy, we were relatively safe from external threats. The major colonial powers in Europe were still more powerful overall, but their rivalries with each other while America remained neutral was also helpful to our security and relative safety. Even during the World Wars, America was in a fortunate position, both resource-wise and geographically. Our population was then large enough to field a big army and industrial workforce. The result was, as you mentioned, a virtually untouched industrial base while the other major powers of the world faced devastation and depletions in manpower.

Colonialism was pretty much dead by then, although the Europeans tried to hold on to their colonies a while longer. The U.S. was never a "colonial" power as such, and even the world "imperialism" seems a misnomer. It might come down to the same thing in practice, but Americanism seemed to evolve into more of a militant ideological position. Maybe it's just a propaganda ploy to whitewash their actions as something noble and honorable, but our leaders always tend to embrace the view that our policies are all about spreading freedom and democracy around the world. Technically, these countries are independent and sovereign, but if they're colonies or client states or whatever, nobody seems to want to admit it openly.

quote:


Now it certainly *could* be that china or india could surpass us - but it is by no means inevitable. As a simple, ridiculous argument to make the point- india and china could have a war (as has happened before). We could nuke them. etc.


I sure hope it doesn't come to that. We may have some differences with China, but I don't see any real cause for going to war with them. For our own sake, we might have to make some hard decisions about our current economic relationship with China, but there's no particular reason to grapple with them on any other level. North Korea may be a sticky point in our relationship, and there are lingering questions about Taiwan and Tibet. But China seems to be facing problems closer to their own doorstep. They don't seem to have very many close friends in their own region. There's no equivalent of a "Warsaw Pact" for China these days. The countries around China might be afraid of them, but they don't seem to like them very much.

quote:


More reasonably, just like japan was going to take us over in the 1980's - it didn't happen.
Why? Japan got stuck in a deflationary cycle due to debt. (Due to a realestate bubble) Will that happen to china.. probably not.

But I am reminded of a quote from the man that sold the Rockefeller center to the Japanese. "if they are so smart, why are they buying when I'm selling". And he was right. Real estate values tanked shortly thereafter.



I don't think they could have actually taken us over. There are lots of foreigners buying up America for quite some time. Whether or not this buys them influence within the political system is hard to say. I suppose it might buy some short-term influence, but whether it can stay over the long-term is another question.

China and India could surpass us, but I have trouble imagining exactly what that would look like. They've risen due to global corporatism, so I can't see them abandoning that structure anytime soon, even if they do rise to the top of it.






Politesub53 -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 9:17:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

Appartently there are typos web wide.

quote:

"The transportation of Irish people to slavery in the Americas predates Oliver Cromwells reign with the first Irish political prisoners being sent to Virginia in 1620 under the reign of James I."


As you were saying - http://www.historyjournal.ie/irish-slavery.html



Apparently you are backtracking.




PeonForHer -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 9:22:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
. . . The Poor House, were still in existance until the end of WW2 . . .


I know. My paternal grandmother was born in one.




YN -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 9:24:06 AM)

So you deny James I was the king of England or that he had anything to do with enslaving the Irish?
quote:




At the beginning of the 17th Century, in the reign of James I of England, England faced a problem: what to do with the Irish. They had been practicing genocide against the Irish since the reign of Elizabeth, but they couldn't kill them all. Some had been banished, and some had gone into voluntary exile, but there were still just too many of them.

So James I encouraged the sale of the Irish as slaves to the New World colonies, not only America but Barbados and South America. The first recorded sale of Irish slaves was to a settlement along the Amazon in South America in 1612. However, before that there were probably many unofficial arrangements, since the Irish were of no importance and details of how they were dealt with were not deemed necessary.

In 1625, the King issued a proclamation that all Irish political prisoners were to be transported to the West Indies and sold as slave labor to the planters there. In 1637, a census showed that 69% of the inhabitants of Monsarrat in the West Indies were Irish slaves. The Irish had a tendency to die in the heat, and were not as well suited to the work as African slaves, but African slaves had to be bought. Irish slaves could be kidnapped if there weren't enough prisoners, and of course, it was easy enough to make Irish prisoners by manufacturing some petty crime or other. This made the Irish the preferred "livestock" for English slave traders for 200 years.

In 1641, one of the periodic wars in which the Irish tried to overthrow the English misrule in their land took place. As always, this rebellion eventually failed. As a result, in the 12 years following the revolt, known as the Confederation War, the Irish population fell from 1,466,000 to 616,000. Over 550,000 Irishmen were killed, and 300,000 were sold as slaves. The women and children who were left homeless and destitute had to be dealt with , so they were rounded up and sold, too.

But even though it did not seem that things could get worse, with the advent of Oliver Cromwell, they did. In the 1650's, thousands more Irish were killed, and many more were sold into slavery. Over 100,000 Irish Catholic children were taken from their parents and sold as slaves, many to Virginia and New England. Unbelievably but truly, from 1651 to 1660 there were more Irish slaves in America than the entire non-slave population of the colonies!

In 1652, Cromwell instigated the Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland. He demanded that all Irish people were to resettle west of the Shannon, in arid, uninhabitable land, or be transported to the West Indies. The Irish refused to relocate peaceably, for the most part, since they couldn't survive if they did.

A law, published in 1657, read:

"Those who fail to transplant themselves into Connaught
(Ireland's Western Province) or (County) Clare within six
months... Shall be attained of high treason... Are to be sent
into America or some other parts beyond the seas..."(1)

Any who attempted to return would

"suffer the pains of death as
felons by virtue of this act, without benefit of Clergy."(2)

The soldiers were encouraged to kill the Irish who refused to move; it was certainly not considered a crime. But the slave trade was so profitable that it was much more lucrative to round them up and sell them. Gangs went out to fill quotas by capturing whoever came across their path; they were so industrious that they accidentally captured a number of French and English and several thousand Scots in the process. By Cromwell's death, at least 100,000 Irish men, women, and children had been sold in the West Indies, Virginia, and New England. While most were sold to the sugar planters in Barbados, Jamaica and throughout the West Indies, some writers assert that at least 20,000 were sold to the American colonies. (3) The earliest record of Irish slaves in America was in 1620, with the arrival of
200 slaves. Most of the documentation, however, comes from the West Indies.

In 1742, a document entitled Thurloe's State Papers, published in London, opined that:

"..It was a measure beneficial to Ireland, which was
thus relieved of a population that might trouble the planters; it
was a benefit to the people removed, which might thus be made
English and Christians ... a great benefit to the West India
sugar planters, who desired men and boys for their bondsmen, and
the women and Irish girls... To solace them."(4)

Note the chilling insouciance of the purpose stated for the women and Irish girls. . to "solace" the sugar planters. Also, to our way of thinking, the Irish were Christians, but to the Protestant English, Catholics were considered Papist, and Papists weren't Christians.

So for the entire 17th Century, from 1600 until 1699, there were many more Irish sold as slaves than Africans. There are records of Irish slaves well into the 18th Century.


Irish Slaves

I would think a Tory would rank this among England's greatest accomplishments.

But nice try with the lie.




YN -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 9:32:12 AM)

I would think the Tory would use deflection and discuss the French "corvee" system for rounding up their excess serfs and sending them abroad, or the various similar Spanish and Dutch schemes instead of calling attention to what the English did with their excess populations by his attempts at minimization.

But then from the discussions here in this thread, it appears Europeans are in denial about their colonial adventurism.




PeonForHer -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 9:33:53 AM)

quote:

But nice try with the lie.


What lie? All I could see PS saying was that the link was inaccurate. I *hope* that the link was of a review of the book by someone other than its author, because it was terrible. The author could do without that kind of review if he wants respect from lay readers, never mind historians.

That notwithstanding, it looks like an interesting book. And for what it's worth, it would come as no surprise to me that James 1 presided over some nasty slavery goings-on. Slavery has always been a subject that's been shoved under the carpet in embarrassment whenever and wherever it's existed.




YN -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 9:46:10 AM)

Was there a King James ruling England at the time or not?

(he is both James I and James IV so perhaps he has several other "numbers" as well.)

What the Tory is doing is called "denial," and "minimization." Which is usual for this reactionary, when he isn't misquoting other posters, trimming quotes, and engaged in other of what he himself styles as "Anglo-Saxon" behavior.




Politesub53 -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 10:13:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

So you deny James I was the king of England or that he had anything to do with enslaving the Irish?
quote:




At the beginning of the 17th Century, in the reign of James I of England, England faced a problem: what to do with the Irish. They had been practicing genocide against the Irish since the reign of Elizabeth, but they couldn't kill them all. Some had been banished, and some had gone into voluntary exile, but there were still just too many of them.

So James I encouraged the sale of the Irish as slaves to the New World colonies, not only America but Barbados and South America. The first recorded sale of Irish slaves was to a settlement along the Amazon in South America in 1612. However, before that there were probably many unofficial arrangements, since the Irish were of no importance and details of how they were dealt with were not deemed necessary.

In 1625, the King issued a proclamation that all Irish political prisoners were to be transported to the West Indies and sold as slave labor to the planters there. In 1637, a census showed that 69% of the inhabitants of Monsarrat in the West Indies were Irish slaves. The Irish had a tendency to die in the heat, and were not as well suited to the work as African slaves, but African slaves had to be bought. Irish slaves could be kidnapped if there weren't enough prisoners, and of course, it was easy enough to make Irish prisoners by manufacturing some petty crime or other. This made the Irish the preferred "livestock" for English slave traders for 200 years

Note the chilling insouciance of the purpose stated for the women and Irish girls. . to "solace" the sugar planters. Also, to our way of thinking, the Irish were Christians, but to the Protestant English, Catholics were considered Papist, and Papists weren't Christians.

So for the entire 17th Century, from 1600 until 1699, there were many more Irish sold as slaves than Africans. There are records of Irish slaves well into the 18th Century.


Irish Slaves

I would think a Tory would rank this among England's greatest accomplishments.

But nice try with the lie.


FFS dont you ever tire of this stupidity. JamesI was indeed King of England in 1625, he wasnt anti Catholic though, just the opposite. His mother was Mary Queen of Scots who burnt Protestants for fun. His son was CharlesI who lost not only his Crown but his head.

Now some blog you have found is suggesting a Catholic Scottish King was selling Catholics as slaves as proclaimed in 1625. A Proclamation you havent been able to find on the net.

So far you have invoked JamesI JamesII and Oliver Cromwell. You can continue to post bullshit all the time, meanwhile I will continue to refute it with actual facts.

You getting it yet, your so called blog is suggesting a Catholic King was exploiting Catholics in order to help Protestants, You are fucking mad if you think thats true. Anyhow, good look on your next venture into Google.




MissKittyDeVine -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 10:16:42 AM)

You mean James VI and I. James IV (king of Scotland) died in 1513 and was never king of England.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

Was there a King James ruling England at the time or not?

(he is both James I and James IV so perhaps he has several other "numbers" as well.)

What the Tory is doing is called "denial," and "minimization." Which is usual for this reactionary, when he isn't misquoting other posters, trimming quotes, and engaged in other of what he himself styles as "Anglo-Saxon" behavior.





SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 10:18:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN
(...) the only place the Spanish had problems assimilating them was as slaves on slave plantations. (...)

"The first large-scale slave revolt recorded in the Americas occurred in Santo Domingo in 1522 and was led by a group of enslaved Muslims from the Wolof nation."
LOL




Politesub53 -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 10:18:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

Was there a King James ruling England at the time or not?

(he is both James I and James IV so perhaps he has several other "numbers" as well.)

What the Tory is doing is called "denial," and "minimization." Which is usual for this reactionary, when he isn't misquoting other posters, trimming quotes, and engaged in other of what he himself styles as "Anglo-Saxon" behavior.


Fuck you.... I have never trimmed a quote and left out the relevant part. You though, are trolling yet again. You should aslo note the mods ask for lengty quotes to be trimmed, so if you feel I am breaking any rules you can fucking report me.

While I am at it bollock brains, James I was never called James IV, He was James I of England, there was only ever one, and James Vi of Scotland, there was only ever one of them too.




YN -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 10:19:25 AM)

Which ever James he was, the one ruling England during the first quarter of the 1600's is the one described.




YN -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 10:24:22 AM)

Typical Tory and according to you, "Anglo-Saxon" behavior.

And sorry to disparage the monarchs you worship as God's appointed rulers by not caring what numbers these inbred cousins of mine have attached to their accursed names.




YN -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 10:30:39 AM)

I suppose there will next be some question which Oliver Cromwell is being referenced in the texts.




Zonie63 -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 10:39:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: YN


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

[:D] Can't you give me the date and time?


Perhaps we can "run a pool" on the spread from 2020-2030.


It may happen eventually, but not that soon. America itself may implode at some point, but if/when that happens, I don't think China would want to come anywhere near America, at least not until the dust settles from the internal dissension and chaos that awaits us. I think China would actually prefer that the status quo be maintained in America, since they can benefit more from our current relationship than anything else.

I don't see that they're treating us the way the U.S. and Europe treated the rest of the world during the past few centuries, nor do I even see that they have any desire to treat us that way. A lot of the early motives for Western colonialism and imperialism were largely driven by superstition, misinformation, and delusions of grandeur. Now that much of that has been debunked, we're left in the aftermath trying to figure out what to do with ourselves.

The Chinese could eventually reach a similar plateau. They've been working at breakneck speed to try to catch up with and reach parity with the West and free themselves from foreign hegemony and protect themselves from invasion. Now they've reached the point where no one will ever think of trying to invade or dominate China. But could the Chinese dominate or hold hegemony over other nations? Would they even want to do that? I don't even think they're too happy about being stuck with North Korea, and they still have lingering internal problems, so I'm not sure they'd want to take on having an empire at this juncture.

I just don't see China as really being that aggressive, not as the European powers once were in terms of colonization and imperialism.




Politesub53 -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 10:50:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

Typical Tory and according to you, "Anglo-Saxon" behavior.

And sorry to disparage the monarchs you worship as God's appointed rulers by not caring what numbers these inbred cousins of mine have attached to their accursed names.


Laughable, you make claims of events in certain years and tne numeral of the then Monarch is irrelevant. You still dont get that if your alleged factual links can get this wrong, they can get everything else wrong.

Any luck finding James I 1625 Proclomation yet ?





YN -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 10:53:14 AM)

The Chinese had their attempts at such imperialism centuries ago, and the results were as dismal as they were for Europeans.

They will be far more likely to culturally and economically "assimilate" their immediate neighbors, then roam the world looking for places to conquer and loot. As this scheme has slowly but steadily expanded the borders of China for millennia, they will follow their proven methods. In a few centuries Tibet, Xinjiang, and the other autonomous regions will be assimilated to the degree Canton Province has been.





mnottertail -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/27/2013 10:54:00 AM)

Well since the blighter was busy dying then, I would expect we are talking about Jimmy 2. 'ere? Wannit Jimmy One too concerned with scribbling bibles to give much of a kick in the arse to the Irish, Oi?

And since Bill Shakespeare was scribblin plays about that time, don't you think we'ed a'had one bout Jimmy and the Micks?




Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875