14 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerBut you are a simple liar to claim I build my "entire case" on one quote. And it is hilarious that you act like you have such a superior knowledge of history when you were not even aware that many members of the Indian armed forces had mutinied in 1946-47!🙄
When it is typical of you to build your entire case around one quote or piece of evidence, it's quite natural that it would be typical of me to call it out. After all, you don't see me using that argument with other posters on this site, do you?
No one is disputing your facts (in as much as they are facts) here -- just your weighting of them and th ...[text shortened]... far too much contradictory evidence and your hermeneutic of history is simplistic and naive.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not saying that the Attlee quotes are neither consistent with each other and your view -- just that your view is wrong and Attlee is playing the politician's game to minimise his downside.
Both Atlee quotes are perfectly consistent with each other and with my point of view. Your idea that what Atlee meant was that now they couldn't rely on the armed forces doing the work for Indian civil servants in time of crisis (when did they ever do that?) is absurd. I think you know that it is absurd.
You seem to think that an army's only role is to fight a violent opponent. Perhaps you've never heard of army relief activities in natural disasters. Or perhaps you've never heard of armies taking over civil government.
In any case, without an army on the ground, Attlee has no way to stop India from declaring itself independent and forming its own government. That doesn't need violence.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderBut the Mission's job was to negotiate the timelines for granting independence. So, whatever reasons the British had for granting independence had to precede the sending of the mission.
And don't be nitpickingly stupid. I said that the mission itself was an irrelevancy; that what was important was why the British eventually granted India independence. Perhaps I could have better worded the one sentence; why do you insist on this type of BS? My meaning was clear.
I cannot understand how you fail to grasp this simple piece of logic.
14 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderAs I said, the Mutiny was a relatively minor affair in the larger scheme of things (and if you're going to retort with the Attlee quote again then you cannot deny that your entire case does rest on that quote). As the releasing of Congress prisoners right after the war and the sending of the Cabinet Mission illustrates, British minds had already been pretty much made up. Even if the Mutiny played a role as Attlee claims, it would only have been the last straw on the camel's back.
But you are a simple liar to claim I build my "entire case" on one quote. And it is hilarious that you act like you have such a superior knowledge of history when you were not even aware that many members of the Indian armed forces had mutinied in 1946-47!🙄
EDIT1: That would be analogous to arguing that WWI had more to do with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand than the system of alliances and imperial competition that had sprung up between European states.
EDIT2: Not even that, actually, given the timelines.
14 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou can say I'm wrong all you want, but you should actually present some evidence that I'm wrong. Where is it? You make bland assertions about Attlee's statements and are ignorant of the actual history.
I'm not saying that the Attlee quotes are neither consistent with each other and your view -- just that your view is wrong and Attlee is playing the politician's game to minimise his downside.
You seem to think that an army's only role is to fight a violent opponent. Perhaps you've never heard of army relief activities in natural disasters. Or perh m declaring itself independent and forming its own government. That doesn't need violence.
I leave it to others to decide whether what the British were concerned about was the British Indian armed forces ability to conduct relief activities in the case of natural disasters or to take over civil government and keep the railroads running on time. Or that the British had no concern at all about armed uprising in India because the Congress' party official stance was one of nonviolence. Or that the mutiny of armed forces had no effect on British policy. Or that the continuing acts of violence and sabotage had no effect on British policy. Or that violent uprisings in other colonial possessions didn't effect British Indian policy. Or ......... need I go on? Nonviolence is fine in principle, but the overwhelming evidence shows that the British withdrawal from India was based on armed resistance and fear of an even greater armed rebellion.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI fail to see how presenting a certain piece of evidence, along with many others, means your "entire case" rests on that one piece. Your continued insistence on that point shows your basic dishonesty.
As I said, the Mutiny was a relatively minor affair in the larger scheme of things (and if you're going to retort with the Attlee quote again then you cannot deny that your entire case does rest on that quote). As the releasing of Congress prisoners right after the war and the sending of the Cabinet Mission illustrates, British minds had already been ...[text shortened]... had sprung up between European states.
EDIT2: Not even that, actually, given the timelines.
The Mutiny was symptomatic of the fact that Britain faced the possibility of large scale armed rebellion IF they attempted to hold onto India. And this was the determining factor in the British leaving India, not Gandhi's nonviolent movement which had failed to acheive its goals for 30 years.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderthe British were concerned about was the British Indian armed forces ability to ... take over civil government and keep the railroads running on time.
You can say I'm wrong all you want, but you should actually present some evidence that I'm wrong. Where is it? You make bland assertions about Attlee's statements and are ignorant of the actual history.
I leave it to others to decide whether what the British were concerned about was the British Indian armed forces ability to conduct relief a ...[text shortened]... rawal from India was based on armed resistance and fear of an even greater armed rebellion.
Without an active, loyal civil government on the ground, a colony is a colony in name only.
Without the railroads, the British have no economic control over India either.
Do you really need me to spell out everything for you?
the British had no concern at all about armed uprising in India
Assuming Attlee was right about losing the army, an armed uprising would be superfluous. Who are they going to fight? The Army?
Besides, armed uprisings were not a new event in the Indian fight for independence; they'd been going on for close to nine decades.
Or that the mutiny of armed forces had no effect on British policy.
If the policy was already decided, it's hard to see how the mutiny could have had more than a minimal effect.
Or that the continuing acts of violence and sabotage
See second point in "armed uprisings" above.
Or that violent uprisings in other colonial possessions didn't effect British Indian policy
They may have. But you said your position "was and still is" something else.
but the overwhelming evidence shows that the British withdrawal from India was based on armed resistance and fear of an even greater armed rebellion.
Sorry to burst your bubble - but it doesn't. You're simply ignoring evidence that does not support your conclusion.
14 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIf your "certain piece of evidence" is key to pulling all the other pieces together to obtain your desired conclusion, then your entire case does rest on it. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
I fail to see how presenting a certain piece of evidence, along with many others, means your "entire case" rests on that one piece. Your continued insistence on that point shows your basic dishonesty.
The Mutiny was symptomatic of the fact that Britain faced the possibility of large scale armed rebellion IF they attempted to hold onto India. ...[text shortened]... g India, not Gandhi's nonviolent movement which had failed to acheive its goals for 30 years.
The Mutiny was symptomatic of the fact that Britain faced the possibility of large scale armed rebellion IF they attempted to hold onto India. And this was the determining factor in the British leaving India, not Gandhi's nonviolent movement which had failed to acheive its goals for 30 years.
You know, for a guy who accuses others of "intellectual dishonesty", you still haven't explained why the British decided to grant India independence before the Mutiny had even occurred!
EDIT: I see you've tried to subtly change your case here. Now the Mutiny is just "symptomatic" of the possibility of large scale rebellion. But, if the Mutiny itself was quashed by the nonviolent movement then why would the British think a large scale rebellion was a possibility (shouldn't that be probability)?
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThere were regular British troops in India BTW, not just the British Indian armed forces. Guess you forgot that. Again, you try to break out the points individually and idiotically fail to see how they all, in toto, are interconnecting. This is typical of you.
[b]the British were concerned about was the British Indian armed forces ability to ... take over civil government and keep the railroads running on time.
Without an active, loyal civil government on the ground, a colony is a colony in name only.
Without the railroads, the British have no economic control over India either.
Do you really n ...[text shortened]... but it doesn't. You're simply ignoring evidence that does not support your conclusion.[/b]
Please actually present SOME evidence that doesn't support the conclusion that fear of armed rebellion was the primary reason the British left India.
14 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI've changed nothing; my position was stated pages ago -
[b/]If your "certain piece of evidence" is key to pulling all the other pieces together to obtain your desired conclusion, then your entire case does rest on it. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
The Mutiny was symptomatic of the fact that Britain faced the possibility of large scale armed rebellion IF they attempted to hold onto India itish think a large scale rebellion was a possibility (shouldn't that be probability)?
but the mutiny of large parts of the Indian armed forces in 1946-47 and the threat of open armed rebellion probably had a lot more to do with the English leaving India than Gandhi's actions.
Your first paragraph while a nice cliche, is simply not true when dealing with discussions of the real world. It is ridiculous to suppose that every single piece of evidence submitted must be true or the whole argument falls apart. Again, you've conceded that the Atlee quote is consistent anyway, so you have to show that he is wrong even to invalidate that particular piece of evidence. And you've failed dismally to do so.
Is it now your claim that the British weren't concerned at all about the probability of large scale armed rebellion IF they didn't grant independence? Do you have any evidence to support this extraordinary conclusion?
14 Sep 06
Here's another source:
On the 21st of February 1946, mutiny broke out on board the Royal Indian Navy. Mutiny in Royal Indian Navy was quickly controlled. Mutiny in Royal Indian Navy only highlighted the amount of discontent amongst the Indian troops who were serving British Raj. As a result of the Indian National Army’s exploits in World War II, British had already started doubting the loyalty of the British Indian soldiers who formed the bulk of troops in India. Afraid of further revolts in armed forces British planned to quickly hand over power to Indian political establishment. Events like INA’s capture of Kohima in World War II and Indian Navy mutiny were probably not significant militarily but were a psychological blow to the confidence of British government, which hastened Indian Independence.
http://www.gatewayforindia.com/history/british_history4.htm
14 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammer[/b][/i]The point on fascist parties (before you digressed to slavery) was to show that even democracies have "dogma" that are not up for debate.
[b]The point is that, if you allow slavery, people could be (legally) coereced into selling themselves into slavery because of, say, adverse financial burdens, and then woulkd have a difficult time getting out of it. Under what conditions do you think allowing slavery would lead to a freer society generally?
...
That was only the case [i]because[/i ess he agrees to commit actions that are against the tenets of his religion/conscience?
Yep: that democracy itself (in various forms) as a better form of government generally than the known alternatives.* (Note the word “generally” there, please—there may be a despotic government that has a better record on some one issue than a given democracy; e.g. Mussolini’s trains probably ran more on time than the ones in the US at the time. There may also have been, say, pure monarchies that served the populace better generally than a given democracy at a given time. Note also that I did not say “perfect.” )
If that is a “dogma” that you dispute, please either insert another form of government than “democracy,” or take a position of a priori “governance relativism.”
* Because of your next comment, I want to add the qualifier “for human beings.” BTW, I also assume we’re using “dogma” in a sense similar to dogmas of the church—that is, not as something that has no basis at all for its assertion, but has been tested, at least to the satisfaction of those accepting it, by reason and history (and “revelation” in terms of the church).
The universal suffrage point was brought up to show that merely the fact that something crosses "more" lines is insufficient to make it better (presumably off-ing the Jews crossed "more" lines in pre-WWII Europe than letting them remain, for instance. Also, "opening up" lines is hardly a factor -- you could always open more lines by giving children and chimpanzees votes.)
You are once again lifting my arguments totally out of their context and trying to force them into some pure “syllogistic” form, in order to refute that “syllogistic” construct...
“Hardly a factor”?! So, opening up the lines by allowing women to vote is logically equivalent to allowing children and chimpanzee to vote? I say, “Free the chimps!” Do I really need to explain why suffrage for women is different from suffrage for armadillos?
If you really are saying there is no logical difference, then you’d also have to accept the inverse argument, which would be something like: “Since it makes no more sense* to open up the lines for women than for children and chimpanzees, there is no reason why we should open up the lines for women—at least not before we may do so for the kids and the chimps.”
Or, perhaps: “Since opening up lines of participation in the political process is not, of itself, necessarily a good thing, there is no reason for us to open up the lines anywhere.”
Enough of that. I believe you knew full-well what I meant, without my having to add a string of qualifiers such as “human beings beyond a certain age of competency, which age to be determined by Congress subject to rulings by the judicial branch on its constitutionality, which human beings must also be citizens, in order that a broader group of such human beings may participate in the political process...” and so on. If I were writing an academic paper (e.g., my master’s thesis), I would well take care to note all such qualifiers—but if that is your requirement for discourse here, I will simply refrain.
If “crossing the lines” or “opening the lines” are euphemisms that you do not understand, ask, and I’ll pick a better and less clumsy one. I assume from the nature of your responses that there is no confusion on that score however.
* Or, “society is no more enhanced by.”
AFAICS, even if they were to explicitly condone violence, current US law would not prevent them from participation in the democratic process. Is that something you would like to change, if you could?
I haven’t thought about it, and need to. My guess it, No, I would not—that does not mean that, say, police action to prevent actual violence from taking place is precluded (depending on how it’s done: constitutionality, etc.). I’ll reflect on it some more.
Does it matter which sector? Should a Catholic, or a Jew be told by the Government that it will not employ him unless he agrees to commit actions that are against the tenets of his religion/conscience?
Yes, it matters. The public sector has a larger obligation here (in the US) on this matter. For example, the C church may have an employment policy to employ only members of C for certain positions. The government cannot refuse to hire someone simply because they are or are not a member of any religion R.
But I don’t think a blanket statement can be made, which is why I mentioned specific cases as well. For example, suppose that there is a government agency that provides a particular good or service that a person P of religion R objects to on religious (or other moral) grounds.* Why would that agency employ P (indeed how could they, practically), if P says at the outset that she will refuse to provide that good or service? Why should that agency be obligated to employ P? And why would P apply for such a job? I don’t know how this goes to religious freedom.
That is logically equivalent to my saying that I refuse to divide numbers, but I want to be employed as an accountant, and the employer has some obligation to hire me as such.
* An example might be those states in which liquor is sold strictly through “state stores.”
14 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerHow about "grasping this" according to this site, the mission wasn't sent until March 15, 1946; three weeks AFTER the outbreak of the Bombay Mutiny!
But the Mission's job was to negotiate the timelines for granting independence. So, whatever reasons the British had for granting independence had to precede the sending of the mission.
I cannot understand how you fail to grasp this simple piece of logic.
On the 15th March last, just before the despatch of the Cabinet Mission to India, Mr. Attlee, the British Prune Minister, used these words:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1946-india-ukpolicy.html
Game. Set. Match.