Argue pointlessly with Al about history and so on

[Filuwaúrdjan]

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Or to be slightly less glib but still risking serious oversimplification:

Irish Protestants were overwhelmingly-to-exclusively opposed to the movement for Irish Home Rule right from the very beginning. Most lived in Ulster (of course), the then-prosperous eastern half of which was the only genuinely industrial part of the island. It was widely believed that Home Rule would equate to Rome Rule; i.e. political domination by the despised Catholic majority who would pursue policies unfavourable to interests of the industrious Protestants. The situation grew increasingly toxic as Gladstone and the majority of the Liberal Party endorsed Home Rule and attempted to introduce it. The fears of Ulster Protestants were brilliantly exploited by enemies of Home Rule at Westminster (i.e. the Conservatives and their allies in the newly formed (1886) Liberal Unionist Party)* and the result was the birth of a broadly coherent Unionist political movement and (in 1905) the Ulster Unionist Council. So far so clear-ish?

What turned a potentially dangerous situation into an outright crisis was a sudden change to the British Constitution. The passage of the Parliament Act in 1911 established the absolute supremacy of the House of Commons over the House of Lords. Home Rule had always been impossible because the Lords could kill it. Now all they could do was delay it. And guess what? The Liberal government lacked a majority and was dependent on the support of the Irish Parliamentary Party.² The Asquith government introduced the Third Home Rule Bill to the Commons in 1912, and several months later hundreds of thousands of Ulster Protestants signed the Ulster Covenant which pledged them to resist Home Rule by any means necessary (a not terribly subtle threat of civil war). A paramilitary organisation - the Ulster Volunteer Force - was formed by the same people who had organised the Covenant³. Ireland was all set for civil war - and it was not certain, not certain at all, quite how loyal British military forces stationed on the island would be - when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was shot in Sarajevo.

Fast forward to 1918 and the political situation in Ireland is rather different to what it had been before the War (there's no need to go into any detail about this, presumably). Technically a compromise had been reached over Home Rule; the Government of Ireland Act (1920) partitioned Ireland into two autonomous regions (i.e. Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland) each of which would have their own parliaments. Events had, however, moved on rather, and by 1922 the Irish Free State had been established, leaving Northern Ireland as the only part of the island in the United Kingdom. It would be ruled as a quasi-independent Unionist state until the collapse of the Stormont regime half a century later.

<sub>1. Randolph Churchill described this as 'playing the Orange card'.
2. The gradualist and highly conservative Nationalist party led by John Redmond that was fated to be annihilated by Sinn Fein in 1918.
3. The leading figures were Edward Carson (Unionist MP for the University of Dublin and well known as the lawyer who destroyed Oscar Wilde), and James Craig (a veteran of the Boer War and Unionist MP for East Down; he would later become the first Prime Minister of Northern Ireland).</sub>

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

What is your assesment of James Callaghan's Prime Ministership?

[politicus]

a) What is your  evaluation of the importance of the Treachery of the Blue Books for the rise of Welsh nationalism?

b) How was the relationship between Welsh nationalism and the labour movement in the 1880-1960 period?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What is your assesment of James Callaghan's Prime Ministership?

The record of his government wasn't that bad considering the economic climate and its dire parliamentary situation. It got stuff done (nearly all reversed by the Thatcher government, but that's not the point) and this was partly down to Callaghan's skills at day-to-day political management. He was less good at dealing with the strategic aspect of policy (on which - no matter the issue - he defaulted towards small 'c' conservatism... and he tended to promote people with the same tendency)*which had unfortunate consequences from a leftie point of view regarding economic policy. All the same (and I do not intend this to be read as 'damning with faint praise'), I don't think any of the other candidates to succeed Wilson would have done any better.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

a) What is your  evaluation of the importance of the Treachery of the Blue Books for the rise of Welsh nationalism?

The temptation to wonder whether 'rise' is an accurate word to use in the context of Welsh Nationalism is overwhelming, but I shall resist. Anyway, I think the answer to this has to be split into two parts; the contemporary importance of the Blue Books farrago to nationalism in Wales and its importance to nationalists in the 20th century.

What backlash there was against the Blue Books was largely directed at the fact that they defamed Welsh Nonconformity rather than (as was claimed later) that they defamed the Welsh Nation.¹ Probably this had the effect of encouraging greater political activity amongst Nonconformists and this in turn had major political consequences (though I would point out that this would surely have happened anyway; the inferior legal and social status of Nonconformity was always a bit of a proverbial red rag to a clichéd bull), the most importance of which was the absolute electoral domination of Welsh Liberalism after 1868. Not that you can seriously give more than a minor role to the Blue Books backlash to that, though people have tried.

Ah, but you asked about Welsh Nationalism not Welsh Liberalism didn't you. Essentially Welsh Nationalism did not exist in the mid 19th century, not even really in a proto form.² Did the Blue Books controversy alter this? Well considering that the first genuinely nationalist political movement in Wales, Cymru Fydd,³ was not founded until 1886...

As to the second part of my answer, well, modern Welsh Nationalism is effectively the child of that sour-faced pedantic bigot Saunders Lewis⁴ and his associates (Rev. Lewis Valentine and so on), and not just because these were the people who founded Plaid Cymru. They placed the Welsh Language above all things and believed that Welsh history had been dominated by English attempts to destroy Welsh culture. To these people the Blue Books were concrete proof of what they already believed and thus had a central role in their understanding of the 19th century. These days almost the only people in Wales who care about (or even know about? Quite probably) the Blue Books are nationalists, and for some, particularly at the more extreme 'cultural nationalist' end, the matter rankles.

<sub>1. Admittedly most Nonconformists saw themselves as 'more Welsh' than members of the Church of Wales, but this was a fundamentally sectarian grievance and one that relied on a degree of circular logic (i.e. they regarded themselves as being 'more Welsh' entirely because they were Nonconformists). Welsh Anglicans certainly did not see themselves as non-Welsh and there were substantial Anglican minorities even in supposedly monolithically Nonconformist regions such as Arfon. Reading nationalism into 19th century Welsh sectarianism is an error, though quite a common one. Another error - though thankfully less frequent than it once was - is to act as though religion was a proxy for class in Wales.

2. Christ, even the National Eisteddford didn't exist until 1860 and that great Juggernaut of the Taffia, the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, wasn't re-founded until 1873!

3. Hilariously (and inevitably) enough it was actually founded in London. Its nationalism was extraordinarily mild and it was never anything more than a faction of the Liberal Party in Wales (David Lloyd George was a member) and was only ever dominant in the North and not for all that long. Its importance to the political history of Wales is greatly exaggerated.

4. It would be remiss of me not to note at this point that Lewis - an antisemite and a fan of Hitler - was born on the Wirral (i.e. England) and educated at the University of Liverpool (i.e. England). Not all early Welsh Nationalists were like this, in fairness.</sub>

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, 1880-1960 isn't a single period is it? But this is simple enough. Before 1914 both the Labour Movement in Wales (even those parts of it that had converted to Socialism and had affiliated to the Labour Party) and what passed for Welsh Nationalism were comfortably ensconced under the great cultural umbrella that was Welsh Liberalism. Tension was limited and some Labour figures in Wales were even sympathetically disposed towards Welsh Home Rule (though it's important not to exaggerate that tendency).

The political landscape of Wales was rather different after 1918. The Labour Movement radicalised - parts of the Valleys made Clydeside look like Nottinghamshire - and rose to political domination in South Wales, while Welsh Nationalism changed from being a tepid tendency with modest demands and a low profile to an independent and notably immoderate cultural and political movement, albeit one with vanishingly low levels of electoral support. To the extent the Labour Movement and Nationalism had a relationship it was one marked by mutual hostility; Labour figures and Trade Unionists¹ tended to regard Welsh Nationalism as the snobbish obsession of a reactionary cultural elite, while most Welsh Nationalists regarded the Labour Movement (entirely English speaking outside parts of the North West and Carmarthenshire) as a bunch of cultural collaborators who lacked good manners. There were exceptions on both sides² but the key word there is 'exceptions'.

After the War, and with Plaid starting to attract a significant in some Welsh speaking areas, this rather frosty relationship developed a new and rather toxic character. Welsh Nationalists started to see themselves as radicals and began to portray the Labour Movement as essentially sclerotic in character³, while within the Labour Movement opinion shifted from regarding Welsh Nationalism as bourgeois to regarding it as being essentially bigoted.⁴ Many - and this was not a fringe view at all - went further and tended to see Welsh Nationalism as being a form of fascism or even Nazism.⁵ Again, there were exceptions but again their exceptional nature needs stressing.⁶ Of particular importance is the fact that even those Labour figures who favoured some form of self government for Wales (a minority view that was regarded as ideologically suspect in NUM dominated South Wales) mostly regarded Welsh Nationalism as beneath contempt.

<sub>1. Like there was (or is) much of a difference in Wales, lol.
2. And even a weird semi-nationalist movement of Labour-ish studnts; not that these people had much time for actual Nationalists.
3. A line of attack that has not been modified in roughly sixty years.
4. Again...
5. By the 1960s comparisons to the Nazis were sometimes even made at electoral declarations, often in response to abusive behavior from Plaid activists (mostly young and male at this point, note). At least one Labour MP directed a sarcastic Hitler salute at Plaid supporters in response to being shouted down at a declaration.
6. Huw T. Edwards (a trade unionist and Labour figure with nationalist views and temporary Plaid membership in the early 60s) has probably had more attention from historians than maybe he deserves for this reason.</sub>

[Storebought]

This is less of a question than more of a "tell me everything you know" about colonial Burma. What was it about colonial rule that alienated Burma against joining the Commonwealth?

[politicus]

This is less of a question than more of a "tell me everything you know" about colonial Burma. What was it about colonial rule that alienated Burma against joining the Commonwealth?

Burma was an old regional military power with a strong sense of cultural superiority and the British colonization was felt as a severe humiliation reinforced by British insensitivity towards Buddhism (such as British civil servants and officers not taking of their shoes in temples) and, more importantly, some basic decisions by the colonizers that favoured "inferior" people over the Burmans:

a) The British relied on the non-Burmese (ie non-Burman) hill tribes and other ethnic minorities as soldiers, those were people the Burmans had treated as serfs (and in some cases as actual slaves) add to this  that the Burmans had a great warrior tradition and considered themselves a martial people and you get a lot of resentment over this.

b) Colonial Burma also saw massive Indian immigration in the interwar period - the well educated among them got civil service jobs ahead of Burmans and they dominated trade (in competion with the Chinese), and since the Burmans traditionally looked down on Indians this was also felt as a great humiliation.

Burma was the major land theatre of WW2 in Asia with 60% of all Japanese casualties and the Burmese nationalists under Aung San (father of famous Suu Kyi) supported the Japanese until January 1945, while the hill tribes and other minorities (notably Kachins and Karens) fought for the allies. The British commanders of the guerilla forces in Northern Burma made promises to, among others, the Kachins of autonomy, but the Attlee government chose to accept Burmese independence without any real guarantees for the rights of ethnic minorities who had fought bravely for the allies (after giving up on India the British lost all interest in Burma).

Burma then descended into civil war between the ethnic minorities, who almost overran Rangoon, and the Burman government, this civil war - with the addition of Chinese backed communists and exiled KMT soldiers - continued well into the 90s (and legacies of it in some forms even today). Basically Burmese nationalism was anti-British to a much greater extent than other Asian nationalisms - even long before the xenophobic Ne Win coup in 1962.

[politicus]

Thanks for the clarification regarding Welsh nationalism. It seems the animosity and estrangement between the labour movement and the Nat's were really as stark  as my impression, but I wondered if there were more nuances.

Blue Books story fitting perfectly into Nat's mythology is also a good point.

[Sol]

How responsible are European colonizers for the current problems of modern-day Africa (i.e., the Congo Wars, the instability of the CAR, etc.)?

[patrick1]

     How did the arrangement of the Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland split come to be? Or to be a little less vague, whence did the relevant political divergence between Dublin and Belfast spring from?

Al, gave a very good and thoughtful response but in order to understand the divergence more fully I would go much further back. The end of the Gaelic order in the North signaled by this event:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_of_the_Earls
opened the door for the Plantations of Ulsters. The Private plantations in Antrim and Down were quite successful and began the demographic shift in the North, an area which had always been rebellious. Massacres and rebellions during the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Confederate_Wars
only heightened fears of the settlers and closer to their co-religionists in Britain.
The Irish Parliament was still in Dublin and the seat of ascendancy power until the Act of Union in 1801, when the power shifted to London. The Union in large part was as a result of United Irishmen Rebellion of 1798. The old Anglo Irish class had long seen themselves as Irish, but a more British identity developed. Further, Belfast  only fully developed well after the Union.

[stepney]

Not that the Liberals were ever really that good at elections, mind. The campaign against the Corn Laws in the mid 19th century gave them such a great winning issue that sixty years later it was still at the core of Liberal electioneering:

Unsympathetic people might suggest that this was perhaps a little complacent.

Hard bitten Tory as I am, I have to say this is monstrously unfair. After all, 1906 was the greatest of the landslides; not bad for those useless at elections. Also, the Liberals would not have propagandised for free trade in the post-1903 period if someone else had not propagandised for protection first.



OUR JOE: Did somebody call?

And on that note - given the majority of the working class weren’t given the vote with the 1884 Reform Act, why Al do you think it was that almost all political literature at the turn of the century was pitched straight at what I’d call the (disfranchised) ‘music hall vote’? Hilarious examples here.





WORKING MAN: Gor blimey! Them bleeding barmy Radicals! Hoi’d vote them houta hoffice, so Hoi would, only Hoi hain’t gots a bleeding vote! Chim-chiminy-chim-chim-cheroo! Hup the apples 'n' pears, and no mistake!

[Lincoln Republican]

Was Tsar Ferdinand I of Bulgaria a successful monarch?

[Frodo]

Had it not been for the First World War (which was preventable), could the British Empire have survived to this day? 

[politicus]

Had it not been for the First World War (which was preventable), could the British Empire have survived to this day? 

You do realize he hates contrafactual history?

[Mopsus]

Is it your understanding that the use of metal currency was uncommon in the day-to-day life of Medieval English peasants?