Argue pointlessly with Al about history and so on (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 07:11:00 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Argue pointlessly with Al about history and so on (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Argue pointlessly with Al about history and so on  (Read 15863 times)
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,173
Denmark


« on: July 15, 2014, 09:05:30 PM »

Why did the ruling elite in Britain allow democracy to prevail?

Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,173
Denmark


« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2014, 09:23:54 PM »

Why did the ruling elite in Britain allow democracy to prevail?


You skipped this one. Its very broad and (delliberately) a bit naively phrased, but its good for internet bickering, so why not have a go at it?
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,173
Denmark


« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2014, 11:05:00 PM »

Why did the ruling elite in Britain allow democracy to prevail?


You skipped this one. Its very broad and (delliberately) a bit naively phrased, but its good for internet bickering, so why not have a go at it?

By the time what Al considers democracy prevailed, Britain had just exited a catastrophic World War and was facing a full-fledged rebellion in Ireland and the elites were in no position to "disallow" anything.


Its a long proces from 1832 onwards which could potentially be halted several times along the way and you also have the House of Lords reform in 1911 as an important element.


 

Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,173
Denmark


« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2014, 06:25:37 PM »

at what point did 1979 become historically inevitable?

When they created the calendar.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,173
Denmark


« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2014, 08:00:03 AM »

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?
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,173
Denmark


« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2014, 03:06:50 PM »
« Edited: October 02, 2014, 08:18:26 PM by 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.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,173
Denmark


« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2014, 12:53:03 PM »
« Edited: October 03, 2014, 12:54:44 PM by 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.




Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,173
Denmark


« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2015, 08:51:05 AM »

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?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 12 queries.