phlogistician said:
Us 'self righteous twats' from the UK prefer to discuss the FACTS of the case, especially when it come to terrorism and the Irish problem.
More to the point, I have difficulty with R/D's self-righteous overstatement. Even a drunken Irishman isn't that loose with his words.
I mean, he doesn't even know what the hell he's throwing a fit about:
• "
My symapthies to the occupied counties; as an American I understand the need to expel the British. But times changed, and much seemed to hinge on Omagh."
Well, you self-righteous twats from the UK ought to stop and
think for a moment that, in the face of British movement on Irish issues and a general weariness with the idea of white people killing white people, and with globalism breaking the enchantment Irish culture had in America in favor of other charming, quaint prejudices about other people, what changed and hinged on Omagh was the coffin-lid for pop-culture support for the IRA in the US.
That is what changed.
That is what hinged on Omagh.
Another fact: We Americans are dubious of plantation politics. It's why people look oddly at a libertarian idea of
homesteading.
So I find declarations like R/D's, "It's ours!" or your own "Now here's another fact ... democracy," just a little deceptive compared to the history which leads us from there to here.
I mean, please realize how the age of cable news (post-Gulf War) and the internet (1995-ff) have changed the way people around the world get their information. There was a coverage overdose that set in before the Good Friday Accord that really did confuse a lot of Americans despite the heavy presence of Irish heritage in this country:
Wait, wait, wait ... we knew there were some odd things going on, but the UK is actually shepherding riots?
We may have received many of your Irish castoffs, but aside from them, not many in the US ever really believed the UK behaved as poorly as it did. Hell, all the way back in 1848, as the Irish were pouring into the US, American newspapers wrote editorials decrying Irish ingrates for protesting the bureaucratic starvation of Irish people.
So give me a break. The British have had a free ride from the world in Ireland.
As the situation winds down, yes, it looks like Britain will get to keep the counties, and yes, it looks like Britain will never have to apologize because we all know that Britain never made any mistakes as a colonial power and that's why everyone from the Americans to the Irish to the Indians needs to just fuck off.
Benji said:
Not that we do occupy NI but even if you are of the opinion we did, does occupation validate terrorism?
The fact of occupation alone does not validate any given response. It's the way the occupying power behaves. See above. Namely from "Another fact" on down through the list of people who need to fuck off.
General considerations on the discussion
A general question: Do the British really believe they were well-behaved in their colonial endeavors?
Another general question: I would not accept the things that I protest; would y'all accept the conditions of the British experience in Ireland if you were on the oppressed, starved, and beaten end of that equation?
Would have violated your religion to fulfill the duties of your conscription into armed service? (India.) Would you accept taxation without representation, presumption of guilt, obligation to testify against yourself, and no avenue of recourse? (American colonies.) Would you accept a government prohibiting you from obtaining food? (Ireland.)
Because if you would, then you'd be the perfect country for Americans or anyone else to take over, colonize, and plantation in order to call the end result a democracy.
I mean, in other debates, there are a couple of British fellows around Sciforums who fear Arabs and Islam. So I'll borrow their worst-case scenario, that enough Muslims come to any one European area--in this case, Britain--as to start pushing Islamic values into the laws much as the Judeo-Christian experience inherently defines a number of legalistic ideas in Western culture.
Suddenly, Catholics won't be free to be Catholics in the worst-case scenario; Protestants won't be free to be Protestants. Sharia law would, in the worst-case scenario, apply to all the people. (Remember, I'm drawing someone
else's worst-case scenario.)
Now then, presuming that this all comes about at the ballot box and not by a rifle, would you accept it?
A democracy has its obligations to the will of the majority, but also its obligations to the protection of the minority. Otherwise, the 3/5 Rule might still apply. Part of the problem with R/D's outburst at "sanctimonious Americans" is that he's throwing a temper-tantrum in response someone who certainly would like to see the end of military occupations, regardless of whose nation it is.
So of course I'm puzzled that his response to me is to "puke" because of other Americans, namely those who prefer military solutions.
I mean, look at his tale of standing in Donegal Place:
As long as the present is sunshine and roses, we need not consider history.
Huxley was right on that count--the British have no need for history. Perhaps some do, as the suddenly find themselves at odds with their government over some issues pertaining to Iraq, but one thing I've never liked about the British presentation of the Irish situation is that we're supposed to pretend throughout that the British never fucked up and the Irish never had cause for complaint. It's about as distasteful to me as when Americans say the same thing about the tribes. It would be one thing if we had been
nice about it, but Americans attempted genocide, employed biological warfare, murdered women and children, kidnapped and brainwashed children, and, in one of the truly dramatic tales of our history, pursued the tribe
across the territories. It wasn't enough to have the land but we also had to corral this last band that didn't like the deal onto the reservation. The end result? Joseph
did the right thing for his people, but we can hardly call it a victory for the US or justice for anyone. And after all these years, our government has reneged on nearly every treaty signed with any tribe, sought to interfere with tribal economic development, and
stolen billions of dollars ....
I could have said the same thing about Tacoma, Washington, that one might say about Donegal Place. Of course, even into my high school years of the 80s and 90s, there was still a law on the books that made it illegal to serve liquor to an American Indian. Somebody finally found it and I believe the law was killed just to be official--nobody had paid attention to it for decades, but I don't see how the present of Tacoma changes the facts of its history.
What to do about old wounds is its own question. The world hasn't come to a conclusion about that. What we do know, however, is that empires make mistakes, except for the British, and people who resist the injustices of those mistakes are just plain evil. Hang on for a few more years and the case will be set. It's a precedent much appreciated by Israel and the US.
