Thursday, 28 May 2009

Here we go again: yet another Yank who knows no history - not even his own...

 The Yankee myth of "manifest destiny" led to oceans of Native American and Spanish blood

It is becoming a familiar theme: the American wide-eyed innocent who does not know the history of his own country and cannot understand it when he hears it for the first time.

I said, in relation to Stonewall Jackson's pre-battle address in the film "Gods and Generals" in the previous post, that "I don't agree with the example of the "second war of independence" since the first one was not a just war".

Mr Dumb-ass, Innocent Yankee replied to me (see combox) with all the usual completely ill-instructed, woefully ignorant nonsense and propaganda that the world has become accustomed to from a certain type of chauvinistic Yank.

Mr Innocent Yankee asks:

"Why was the first one not a just war? The states broke away from the British crown because the British crown was obstinate in its refusal to recognise their ancient rights as freeborn Englishmen. It was plenty just."

"Plenty just" is not, of course, English but it is is an indication of this guy's understanding of history and morality.

I need only repeat the story of the gentleman who met Lincoln and was chaffed by him for not supporting the war against the South.

"Well, Mr President", he said, "If secession be a valid principle then I say 'long live the South' but if it be a false principle then I say 'God save King George' ".

Lincoln could not, of course, answer since the gentleman had an unassailable point.

How could the Union refuse the right to secede from the Union if they themselves believed it was right to secede from Britain? If it was not, as a matter of principle, right, then they certainly could argue no ground for secession from the British Crown.

Mr Dumb-bunny Yank thinks Britain refused Americans their rights as "free-born Englishmen".

That is pure poppycock.




King George and the English government did no such thing. On the contrary, they gave the Colonists too much leeway. The Boston Tea Party was organised by those rebels who stood to lose fat profits if foreign competition was allowed to bring tea into America. So they staged the Boston tea party and pretended it was all about civil rights.

The Founding Fathers of the USA were largely Unitarians and Deists, not Christians, and they believed in slavery, racism and their own arrogantly racist so-called "manifest destiny".

They were also virulent anti-Catholic bigots.

Jefferson even had children by his black slaves and then enslaved his own half-caste children!

Yet, Mr Dumb-bunny Yankee thinks that slavery was only an issue in the South.

More Poppycock.

Lincoln himself believed the black race to be intrinsically inferior, was not opposed to slavery and, at one point, considered "solving" the issue by forcibly expelling all blacks to Liberia.

Our ill-instructed Yank didn't know any of that, did he?

He just believes the propaganda he got fed at school.

Our dummy Yank also thinks that the War was about the "equality of man".

How equal does he think the industrial poor of America were with the immensely rich fats cats of America who lived off their labour? This came about AFTER the War far more than before.

If revolution is right then why should not any group of people who feel hard done by simply overthrow the legal and constitutional government?

Well, Mr Dumb-bunny?

What's the answer?

If the Muslims of America feel hard done by does that mean they can overthrow the US government?

According to your view of revolution - apparently yes.

The fact is that your position is completely selfish, illogical and chauvinistic and all too typical of quite a lot of Americanist Yankees who do not bother to think or question propaganda but simply swallow it whole and undiluted.

You are so ill-instructed in your own history that you think that blacks in the South fought for the South simply for the right to own other black slaves. Wrong again! The vast majority of blacks who fought for the South were slaves themselves.

The industrial slaves of Capitalism which came after the Union victory do not earn Mr Dumb bunny's sympathy. Why not? Well, because he, himself, has profited from that Capitalist exploitation of the poor so... that makes it OK, then!

See how that works, folks?

Yep - there really are few things quite as dumb, blind and selfish as an Americanist Yankee bigot. It tends to reflect poorly upon an otherwise great nation.

Sad, really.


...

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think it is you who have repeatedly shown yourself to be a bigot with a seething lothing for all Americans and all things American.

Mark said...

"I need only repeat the story of the gentleman who met Lincoln and was chaffed by him for not supporting the war against the South..."

I find this analogy inappropriate. Regardless of your opinion on the justice of secession, the colonists had no such claim, whereas the individual states did. You may recall the individual states pre-existed the union, and came into confederation via the Constitution by free will, and the Constitution in now way prevented them from dissolving that union.

Thus, the claim the Revolutionary War was unjust is more credible than to imply similarly of the War Between the States.

P.S. While this is a topic which may enjoy liberty of conscience, I doubt the characterization of the 'Yank' as a dumb-ass would be considered charitable in many quarters.

Oliver said...

You are so ill-instructed in your own history that you think that blacks in the South fought for the South simply for the right to own other black slaves. Wrong again, Mr Dumb-ass Yank. The vast majority of blacks who fought for the South were slaves themselves.

The industrial slaves of Capitalism which came after the Union victory do not earn Mr Dumb bunny's sympathy. Why not? Well, because he, himself, has profited from that Capitalist exploitation of the poor so... that makes it OK, then!
Oh, Mr. T.! You were doing sooo well up 'til then!

umblepie said...

I'm sorry to say this, but this post must have been written on a bad day. Why else would it reflect such sarcasm, bitterness, and insulting comments? I presume it relates to the comment of 'anonymous'on your previous post - if it doesn't then you should really have made this clear,although this really makes no difference to my criticism. If it does, then your post is completely over the top and does you no credit. Others are entitled to have different opinions, even if they are fallacious, without being totally ridiculed. Criticise with courtesy. 'If you have every possible virtue but have not charity, it avails you nothing.' Sorry, but your bitterness shocks me and does no credit to you or your Church, of which by the way through the grace of God, I am also a member. I do not expect you to publish this comment and do not want you to, but it does allow me to express my view. Finally I would like to say that with the exception of this post, I have always enjoyed your posts and found them interesting, informative, and very well presented. I hope to continue to enjoy them.

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir,

Whilst I enjoy this blog as a frequent reader, I consider you have been less than gracious in your response to this particular issue. In particular, by what just authority did George III have to ratify any legislation? Since Henry Cardinal Stuart did not die until 1807 how could any laws of England have any moral authority?

How can you defend the rebellious Hanoverians against the rebellious Yankees?

Jeff said...

I tend to think you are right about the American Revolution being an unjust war, but I am far from being as certain as you are about it.

I think the British tended to be careless, arrogant and cruel when fighting the rebels--as at the initial battles in Massachusetts--and that sparked hatred and a feeling that they simply couldn't bear British rule any longer.

Tribunus said...

I shall respond to these comments in a separate post but for the present let me simply say:

(1) Mr Anonymous, it is spelt "loathing". If I were anti-American, as you claim, why would I have posted the Jackson piece? Or so many other pieces praising things and people American?

(2) Mark, you are not in a position to say "I find" unless you are (a) empowered to judge and (b)assessing evidence. The quote is justified and apt. If, as you aver, "the colonists had no such claim" then you entirely prove my point for me. The Anonymous Yank who abused me for telling the truth is thus justly lampooned as "dumb ass". What's your real objection?

(3) Ollie - you are not arguing. Merely sniping. And I doubt that many people would agree with your view that Capitalists ought to be allowed to grind the face of the poor.

(4) Umblepie - I have published your comment. I disagree with much of it. It is not always "umble" to eat "umblepie". In defence of the truth and the Faith, it is sometimes necessary to engage in invective. I am sorry if you don't like it but I consider it justified in the case of Mr Anonymous. We shall have to agree to differ. Thank you for your complimentary comments.

(5) Mr Anonymous - one rebellion does not legitimate another because two wrongs do not make a right and one may not do evil that good may come of it. The American Colonists were certainly not seeking to restore the Stuarts. On the contrary, they were even more anti-Stuart than the English Whigs. In answer to your questions:

(i) In particular, by what just authority did George III have to ratify any legislation?

He had a lot more right than did the American rebels. The de facto government has all the authority of a real government unless it is open to realistic challenge. The alternative would simply be anarchy which is always wrong. By the reign of George III no-one was really challenging his right to rule in place of the Stuarts.

(ii) Since Henry Cardinal Stuart did not die until 1807 how could any laws of England have any moral authority?

Henry recognised George III. You seem to overlook this rather important fact.

(iii) How can you defend the rebellious Hanoverians against the rebellious Yankees?

I'm not. By the time of George III their rule had become legitimate, recognised by pope, emperor and pretender alike.

What I would ask you is this: how can you defend the rebellious Yankees, if you reject as rebellious the Hanoverians?

(6) Jeff - The American War of Independence was not made just by British injustice. In any case, it was the American rebels who behaved unjustly, at least as much as the Brits. A mere "feeling" that one can "no longer bear British rule" does not even begin to satisfy the traditional tenets for a just war.

Tribunus

Mark said...

Tribunus,

You wrote, "Mark, you are not in a position to say "I find" unless you are (a) empowered to judge and (b)assessing evidence."

I respond that Our creator has given us a different rule by which to discern, viz., "The mouth of the just speaketh wisdom and his tongue talketh of judgment". This notion that we are forbidden from using our God-given intellect to judge right from wrong is a modernist heresy, which I reject.

You wrote, "...The quote is justified and apt."

Perhaps from a secularist's point of view, anything can be 'justified', but believing your opinion to be accurate is no excuse for vice.

You wrote, "if, as you aver, "the colonists had no such claim" then you entirely prove my point for me."

The fact that we might agree on the first point (the colonists, unlike the secessionists in 1860, had no claim to the origin of federal powers via the states) does not mean that your conclusion is necessarily correct.

You wrote, "The Anonymous Yank who abused me for telling the truth is thus justly lampooned as "dumb ass". What's your real objection?"

I find no justice in ridicule; it merely reveals intemperance of character. If his argument is so weak then surely you will have no difficulty dismantling its construction rather than employing the ad hominem.

Thus, I have objected to the logic you employed to reach your conclusion and to the uncharitable manner in which you conducted yourself.

Regards,

Mark

Oliver said...

I doubt that many people would agree with your view that Capitalists ought to be allowed to grind the face of the poor.


Golly, Mr T! I didn't even realise that I agreed with that.

On the other hand if you could produce any evidence that Capitalists actually were "grinding the faces of the poor" then I would certainly consider giving said Capitalists my full support.

'Thou shalt not steal.' I seem to remember reading somewhere about tablets of stone.

Tribunus said...

Dear Mark,

You flatter yourself if you think that you represent the "mouth of the just" - almost as much as you make an ass of yourself by your inability to distinguish between being an authorised judge and a Modernist heretic.

I am frankly uninterested in what you reject so long as you continue to reject both knowledge and logic.

Opinions are not vice. If you think they are you do not understand either.

The fact is that not only was my quote apt but you did not disagree with it. More still, you admitted the force of it by agreeing that the colonists had no justification for rebellion and certainly less than the South - exactly the point I was making.

Nevertheless, you go on to say - fatuously - that this "does not mean that [my] conclusion is necessarily correct".

You agree with my conclusion but do not consider it necessarily correct. For pure poppycock, that is hard to beat.

You then object to ridiculing the ridiculous. You might as well object to praising the praiseworthy.

There are, however, few things as ridiculous as a man who attacks the very statement he agrees with.

Tribunus said...

Ollie, old thing, for an object lesson in self-contradiction your post is in a class of its own.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tribunus said...

Mark wrote a reply of the did-didn’t, nyah, nyah, nyah, variety, interspersed with mock-pious and sanctimonious homilies and I decided not to bore readers with what has become a sterile exchange of brick-bats.

He made only one real attempt at a point and that was this:

“I did not agree with your conclusion. I did state the obvious, viz., the colonists had no claim to state sovereignty as the states did 70 years later.

That is not to say they had no reasons for rebellion, or that the war is not just, or any other reason that might be offered.”

Note that he now rather fatuously considers "obvious" the very point that was at issue when Mr Anonymous decided to launch his attack.

Originally he said:

“Regardless of your opinion on the justice of secession, the colonists had no such claim, whereas the individual states did. You may recall the individual states pre-existed the union, and came into confederation via the Constitution by free will, and the Constitution in no way prevented them from dissolving that union.

Thus, the claim the Revolutionary War was unjust is more credible than to imply similarly of the War Between the States.”

And this:

“[We] agree on the first point (the colonists, unlike the secessionists in 1860, had no claim to the origin of federal powers via the states)...”

Now, he says they “had no claim to state sovereignty”.

His argument, insofar as it is at all coherent, shifts from post to post.

First, he agrees that the colonists had no rightful claim to secession, then no claim to the “origin of federal powers” (whatever that means) and now “no claim to state sovereignty”.

It does not take a genius to see that these are not exactly the same.

At first he seems to agree that the colonists had no right to secede by force of arms (contrasting their case with that of the Confederate states) but now he seems to suggest that their cause was just, after all, and they had good reasons to rebel.

If they had no right to secede by force of arms then how could their war to secede be just? He does not say.

If they had no right to claim “state sovereignty” or to the “origin of federal powers” then how did their rebellion or war become just when they sought to do exactly that? He does not say.

He seems to prefer snipes to real debate and simply wishes to record that he disagrees with my conclusion. No reasons are given. He simply wishes to contradict.

In short, he is all over the place and seems to wish to engage in debate only so as to snipe at others.

I am willing to publish genuine debate but not mere snipes that bore others – still less sanctimonious snipes.

Over to you, Mark.

Mark said...

Tribunus, it's your blog, so you can publish what you want and edit it how you wish, but to do so in a manner to misrepresent what I've written is merely dishonest. (Oops, is that 'sanctimony'?) Why would I make any effort to respond knowing you will selectively edit?

Regards,

Mark

Tribunus said...

Well, you have responded so I guess you don't think I'm that unfair.

But you're right: it's my blog and I'll publish what I want. However, I don't think I've misrepresented you. Actually, my policy is to publish arguments, however hostile, but not mere snipes or general, unsupported assertions.

Anonymous said...

For someone who rebukes others about people not knowing history, you sure know very little yourself. The English were breaking their own constitution and going against the Catholic teaching of subsidiarity. I won't even get into how they were oppressing the Catholics. The English wanted a monopoly in America and kept them from buying and selling to anyone but them. That is unjust. The massive amounts of gang rapes and pillaging by English soldiers is well documented(Lord Rawdon even bragged about it). The burning of the civilian town of Falmouth-leaving an entire town homeless for the brutal NE winter is sickening. The Colonists BEGGED to mend the troubles(the Olive Branch Petition is just one of many attempts). but after the burning of Falmouth, they knew that independence was the only way. You can not treat your subjects as mere consumers to fill your coffers. These English policies in Ireland left 95% of the land in the hands of absentee English landlords and the Irish people in abject poverty(Franklin said the Irsih were worse off than Black slaves) and in India England's policies starved 10s of millions.
Since a disproportionate amount of slave owners were Blacks, perhaps that is why so many fought for the south. Or perhaps, like the Whites, they made a mistake. There were Blacks that fought for the north as well. Chattel slavery is condemned by the Church. The whole thing was sick. Selling little kids like common animals(and don't deny because Mark Twains family bought a little boy as a slave). The south had full representation. The colonists didn't have any. The Union wasn't forbidding the practice of the Faith, England was. And don't bother bringing up the Quebec Act because that did very little(gave them the freedom to tithe) and it is too little too late since many Catholics were deported from their homes anyway. not to mention the Canadians were very sympathetic to the American cause.

Tribunus said...

Mark, if that' that's the best you can do then I'm afraid you will persuade no-one.

Tribunus said...

Replying to the fatuous nonsense of Mr Anony-mouse.

“The English were breaking their own constitution and going against the Catholic teaching of subsidiarity”.

Nope. Neither. The British Constitution did not prevent the lowering of taxes on tea and, since it is, in any case, unwritten, you will nowhere find it saying otherwise.

You simply do not your history.

“I won't even get into how they were oppressing the Catholics.”

No, don’t, or you will find that the American colonists were even more anti-Catholic. And by the time of King George III, anti-Catholicism in Britain was beginning to abate.

“The English wanted a monopoly in America and kept them from buying and selling to anyone but them. That is unjust”.

Poppycock. The reverse is true. It was the colonists who wanted a monopoly and the British government who were in favour of freer trade.

“The massive amounts of gang rapes and pillaging by English soldiers is well documented (Lord Rawdon even bragged about it).”

I hold no brief for indisciplined soldiers but the documents are conspicuous by their paucity. Rawdon, if it meant what he wrote, was disobeying his orders and the rules of war and there is no doubt that courts martial punished soldiers who were indisciplined. But the misconduct of a few soldiers did not make the American rebellion just. It was unnatural, unjust and immoral.

Tribunus said...

As to the burning of Falmouth, that was another propagandist coup. At the time the British, after Lexington and Concord, were besieged in Boston and relief supplies were being blocked by rebels at Falmouth. Thus Graves ordered Mowat to reduce such ports so as to relieve the besieged at Boston. Mowat gave the town ample warning and offered them the opportunity to swear oaths of loyalty and give up arms or leave the town. No oaths were taken or arms delivered up but enough time was allowed for the people to leave the town.

“The Colonists BEGGED to mend the troubles(the Olive Branch Petition is just one of many attempts) but after the burning of Falmouth, they knew that independence was the only way.

More poppycock.

This petition was completely undermined by the truculent, rebellious letter of John Adams. Adams wrote a letter to a friend disparaging the Olive Branch Petition. He wrote that war was inevitable, that the Colonies should have already raised a navy and captured British officials. The letter was confiscated and arrived in Great Britain at about the same time as the Olive Branch petition and, not surprisingly, wholly undermined the Olive Branch Petition.

There is no doubt that the incendiary rebels were intent upon revolution whatever the British did and their popularising of Paine’s revolutionary propaganda made matters even worse.

“You cannot treat your subjects as mere consumers to fill your coffers.”

Agreed but that is PRECISELY what the Yankee rebels were intending to do and later did. They rebelled against King George III because he objected to their selfish and greedy aims.

Ireland, although persecuted by the British, was not left in abject poverty until the famine of the 1840s, much later, and in India the British were very successful governors who reduced starvation very considerably.

Tribunus said...

“Since a disproportionate amount of slave owners were Blacks, perhaps that is why so many fought for the south.”

Ha ha. Black slave-owners? Who are you kidding? But the fact is that many blacks fought – voluntarily – for the South.

“Chattel slavery is condemned by the Church. The whole thing was sick.”

I fully agree but tell that to your great American rebel heroes, like Thomas Jefferson who not only owned slaves but had children by them and then enslaved his own children. How SICK is that?

“The Union wasn't forbidding the practice of the Faith, England was.”

Rubbish. England did not forbid the practice of the faith at that time any more than did the Yankee rebels who were deeply anti-Catholic.

“And don't bother bringing up the Quebec Act”

I certainly shall since the Yankee rebels called it an “inolerable act” of King George, because it allowed a Catholic government in Quebec, and cited it as a reason for the Revolution.

“the Canadians were very sympathetic to the American cause”

More poppycock – that is why they opposed the Yankee rebels in the war of 1812. Or did you forget about that, eh?

Face it. It is your understanding of history that is faulty. You are looking at history through stars and stripes coloured lenses.

Which is precisely what I was addressing in my article.