Can the Fate of One Average Man change history?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Burke was wrong, Paine was right. The French Revolution was justified and necessary. It took the enlightened Brits 150+ more years and significant bloodshed before they were forced to abandon their Empire (except for their continued occupation of a part of Ireland where they created a pro-Brit population by ethnic cleansing) which was responsible for a v ...[text shortened]... seemed to trust their leaders just fine to exploit and dominate subject peoples the world over.

As I mentioned in my post, Burke not only had a huge influence in getting King George to accept American Independence, but also committed a huge part of his career and his credibility in politics to the impeachment of Warren Hastings, whose corrupt and violent treatment of the Indian people epitomised what was disgraceful about the British Empire. Since Hastings stood at the pinnacle of the Indian administration, he attacked him but of course that was an attack on the entire system, as was very well understood at the time. Burke was more restricted in his ability to influence Irish policies beause he lived in the time of the Penal Laws which disadvantaged Catholics and sustained (from the time of Cromwell) the treatment of the Irish as a subject and inferior people. Burke was apparently Protestant but came from strong Irish Catholic roots (his father "conformed" to be able to make a living) and had a Catholic wife. Even so, he worked on Irish questions a lot and sought civil liberties for the Catholics in Ireland, something as you correctly note still contested in Ulster until the 1980s.

So now that your tirade against the British Empire is set aside and Burke identified correctly as a progressive liberal, perhaps you will concede my point that Tom Paine was a wonderful man in his own right and had powerful things to say in his Rights of Man and elsewhere, but it is not necessary to be a reactionary and possible to be progressive while cautioning against his simplistic politics. Paine was historically important but not a saint or a guru to whom we must defer without question and without using our critical faculties.

As an Irishman, a socialist and a republican I am not about to extol the virtues of the British record of government, but I think you will find that British culture has always insisted on a huge element of disrespect for authority and a general avoidance of excessive idealism. George Orwell perhaps was a key figure in this area, who wanted to identify what it was that Britain offered in competition with the ideologies of German, Italian and Spanish Fascism, Russian Communism, and indeed American and Anglo Saxon Capitalism. It came down in the end to the freedom to go fishing without seeking authority. Though maybe Spike Milligan, an Irishman, captured best the anarchic lack of respect that is Britain's saving grace.

Sure the British get leaders from time to time - then they sack them and get something entirely different for a while. Look what became of Churchill after WWII. Of course, as a socialist I could expand greatly on the nastiness of Britian's establishment," its public school autocracy, its unhealthy secret world of wealth and power politics, its weird confusion about Thatcherism, its dreadful complicity with American foreign policies. But as a citizen in this country, I am free to do that and have many people around me with the same critical views, all free from gaol.

Originally posted by CliffLandin
I think you misunderstood what my post was in regards to. You should read back a bit farther, perhaps to the beginning of the thread. I was not comparing U.S. education to anything. Whodey tries to equate everything to the U.S. My post was simply in response to his statement that the soldiers in the revolution were a bunch of uneducated louts. Save your ...[text shortened]... out American condescension for someone else. I know all about the level of education in the U.S.

Yes you have a fair point - I was reacting to the tone set by Whodey and not distinguishing the authors of each post. Not sure what I'd want to change though.

Originally posted by finnegan
As I mentioned in my post, Burke not only had a huge influence in getting King George to accept American Independence, but also committed a huge part of his career and his credibility in politics to the impeachment of Warren Hastings, whose corrupt and violent treatment of the Indian people epitomised what was disgraceful about the British Empire. Since Ha ...[text shortened]... to do that and have many people around me with the same critical views, all free from gaol.

King George "accepted" American independence after 7 years of war and the defeat of his main army in the colonies. Burke deserves no credit for that in my view; I don't recall him shouldering a musket at Yorktown.

You have a different opinion of what constitutes a "progressive liberal" than I do obviously.

Originally posted by whodey
Do you prefer regimes such as Iran to take their place?

Not to belittle the sufferings of the person in question, but what exactly was accomplished by his suicide other than a spark for upheaval whose ending is still in doubt? I suppose only time will tell, however, most of these types of upheavals usually morph into yet another oppressive regime unless orchestrated by intellectuals such as the Founding Fathers.

You do realise that the regime in Iran ultimately came about by US meddling?

Originally posted by shavixmir
You do realise that the regime in Iran ultimately came about by US meddling?

And to add to this:
There's only one thing worse that other countries (illegally) meddling in other country's affairs, and that's countries (illegally) meddling in other country's affairs without even comprehending what the bloody consequences are going to be.

Originally posted by no1marauder
King George "accepted" American independence after 7 years of war and the defeat of his main army in the colonies. Burke deserves no credit for that in my view; I don't recall him shouldering a musket at Yorktown.

You have a different opinion of what constitutes a "progressive liberal" than I do obviously.

His "main army" largely constituted German mercenaries and he was perfectly capable of raising another such army if he could get the backing of his ministers. The British capacity for presisting in warfare if they were determined to do so should not be underestimated. I think it is fair to say that George was spitting in the wind by this stage but it remains important that throughout the War of Independence there was active opposition to the War in parliament and Burke was its driver. Tom Paine did not shoulder a musket at Yorktown either, you know.

Originally posted by finnegan
His "main army" largely constituted German mercenaries and he was perfectly capable of raising another such army if he could get the backing of his ministers. The British capacity for presisting in warfare if they were determined to do so should not be underestimated. I think it is fair to say that George was spitting in the wind by this stage but it remain ...[text shortened]... t and Burke was its driver. Tom Paine did not shoulder a musket at Yorktown either, you know.

Burke always opposed American Independence so giving him any credit for it is a bit far-fetched. The military reverses in North America and the fact that France, Spain and Holland had entered the war was a bit more important to King George's decision to end it than Burke's speeches.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Burke always opposed American Independence so giving him any credit for it is a bit far-fetched. The military reverses in North America and the fact that France, Spain and Holland had entered the war was a bit more important to King George's decision to end it than Burke's speeches.

Well there are various versions of history of course.

I recommend a classic biography of Edmund Burke by Conor Cruise O'Brien which debunks many myths about Burke.

Burke did not support independence initially and nor did the Americans. It was a novel idea which Tom Paine had a major part in setting into motion.

Burke did strongly oppose the way King George's government dealt with the Americans, predicted that their methods would be disastrous, and generally followed the course of events intelligently as the situation evolved and changed. He was far ahead of others in Parliament in recognizing the inevitability of independence, and the need to establish relationships with the new state.

American independence was no more inevitable than Canadian independence and could have followed a quite different trajectory with different policies in London. You forget that history is not inevitable at the time, only in retrospect as we tidy away the messy detail and substitute myth for reality.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm referring to Mohamed Bouazizi. His story is here: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/01/201111684242518839.html

In a country where officials have little concern for the rights of citizens, there was nothing extraordinary about humiliating a young man trying to sell fruit and vegetables to support his family.

Yet when Mohamed Bou ...[text shortened]... May you rest in peace, Mohamed Bouazizi.

Gavrilo Princip.