Author	Topic:   Thoughts on Democray etc.
Ernie Spencer	posted 5/21/04 10:24 AM       Gabriel /NoeliaJust a few thoughts on the extensive postings below re democracy, Ireland etc.Well perhaps western democracy does not suit everybody but we need to think about what the alternatives are. Military Dictatorship, Civilian dictatorship which is supported by the military. Self determined populist leaders who control the outcome of voting, e.g Saddam Hussein. Absolute Monarchies etc., etc., Liders, Fuhrers, Duce’s, Caudillos, Protectors etc., etc., all come into the non-democratic categoryIf you do not allow voting that periodically, legally, constitutionally and fairly tests the support of the people for any Government or Regime how then do you determine that the people are content with the present system and actions of Government?I agree that democracy can have any number of versions and is almost always a compromise of one sort or another, for instance in the UK our Upper House of Parliament is still appointed, this is an agreed way of doing things, though challenged and disputed by many as undemocratic, which I agree is the case. The compromise here is that in the end the House of Commons, which is fully elected, and must submit to the people every four years, has the final say in legislation and the Lords are only there in an advisory capacity though it has the power to amend all legislation subject to the House of Commons finally accepting or rejecting their amendments. From my point of view democracy is less than perfect but I cannot think of a better alternative.In the 1650’s His Highness, The Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, who incidentally, in spite of his many failings, established the supremacy of Parliament over the Monarchy and was the founder of our modern army, actually abolished the House of Lords but unfortunately after his demise it was brought back.This brings me to Ireland, mentioning the Lord Protector, though he was then merely a General. Modern research, even among Irish authors, tends to disprove the wildest tales of Cromwell’s alleged excesses. But I will leave you to do your own honest research and to make that assessment yourselves. It is true that he did subdue the Irish ‘Rebels’ and indeed awarded land in Ireland to his own soldiers as a reward for their loyalty. History informs us that within a generation the families of the soldier/settlers had been completely absorbed into the language, culture and religion of Ireland. So I guess you will approve of that Gabriel.My purpose in telling of the lack of animosity between the British and the Irish living together was merely to emphasise that your view of the relationship between the Irish and the British is undoubtedly a mistaken one and at best only represents a minority and extremist view. I also do not agree that holding past history and the deeds of forbears against their present day descendants is a legitimate way of addressing modern or residual problems. The way to solve problems is to look forward on basis of equality, mutual discussion and agreement, which is why I disapprove of the stone age tactics of Kirchner against the Falklands (and he seems intent on upsetting his other neighbours also) and the present actions of Spain against Gibraltar. They ignore the local populations and create bad feelings where none need exist.By the way, one of the basic tenets of the Argentine claim for the Falklands, its geographical proximity, of which you seem to approve, would apply equally well to Ireland’s proximity to England, or would it be the other way round? I mention this only to emphasise how ridiculous it is to make a claim on such a flawed principle.With regard to the right of people of differing persuasion or outlook being able to make their own arrangements to govern themselves or break away, this really depends on their ability to be able to persuade the whole of the population of the country that their ambition is legitmate and finally get the overall approval to do this. In Europe we have seen quite a few examples of this happening successfully for example the Czechs and the Slovaks, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia etc. Within the United Kingdom we have also had this sort of movement. The Scots now have their own Government and the Welsh their own assembly where this will go in the long run, maybe to full independence remains to be seen.The Irish also have recently changed their Constitution and dropped their claim to Northern Ireland though not their ambition for a Government for the whole of Ireland. These matters are constantly under constructive discussion between the UK and Irish Governments in a spirit of genuine cooperation.So it seems to me Gabriel that it is you who is presently in the dark ages of political reform and genuine discussion and compromise. Here in Europe we are much more advanced and flexible in solving our problems of peoples democratic ambitions. Yes we make mistakes but we try to solve our problems in a modern way and with the notable exception of Spain (but they will come round eventually) we try to do it by being informed by the mistakes of the past and not being controlled by the.Time you woke up to reality and the modern and inclusive way of doing things I think, don’t you?Regards,Ernie http://www.history.horizon.co.fk/articles/murders.html Thomas Helsby's Account of the Murders at Port Louis.
Gabriel Marchevsky	posted 5/21/04 7:47 PM     Thanks for your posting. I enjoy debating with you and hope we will continue to do so. I believe that our need to communicate with written words limit us greatly. I also believe that name-calling is unnecessary regardless of how heated the debate may become. I am not innocent here, but I try to control the urge as best as I can, without going too far, that is, if I do not lose my temper from time to time, I risk losing my Latino passport :).The phrase "it is you who is presently in the dark ages of political reform and genuine discussion and compromise." is a gratuitous insult. If I were in the dark ages I would not participate in a forum altogether.I tried to explain this before, and I will try again. Your arguments make a lot of sense only when viewed by people who share your beliefs. When I make a point, I try to use the same measuring instrument starting from the beginning. Not many people will disagree if you state that an elephant is big. The reason this is true is because the elephant is bigger than you or me. We are the center of this comparison.Is an elephant big compared to a mountain? Certainly not. Look at this phrase: “Anyone harming a native american (or a black slave) during times of british rule in America would recieve as severe punishment for harming any other colonist.”Ok, am I wrong to think that to say the least, the expressions “black slave” and “british rule” have negative connotations? And this phrase was used to demonstrate that “I think you have an uncanny ability to talk rubbish...are you preserving your amateur status to talk cr*p in the olympics?” Can you understand where I am coming from? Now, let’s go to your phrase “Modern research, even among Irish authors, tends to disprove the wildest tales of Cromwell’s alleged excesses.”Modern research still asks the same question: WHAT ON EARTH WAS CROMWELL DOING IN IRELAND? Was he selling AVON products?“Yes we make mistakes but we try to solve our problems in a modern way and with the notable exception of Spain (but they will come round eventually) we try to do it by being informed by the mistakes of the past and not being controlled by the.Time you woke up to reality and the modern and inclusive way of doing things I think, don’t you?”No Ernie, you still use the old way of solving problems. Or is it Costa Rica who is developing stealth fighters and “smart” bombs?I am very much in touch with reality, unfortunately. I am not controlled by the past. It is how much the present looks like the past what worries me. How many millions will die in the 21st century as a result of your “modern and inclusive way of doing things”?Gabriel
Ernie Spencer	posted 5/24/04 2:08 PM       Gabriel,Please be assured that no gratuitous insult was ever intended. Perhaps I have inherited by proxy a Latino temperament and also get a little excited at times. I apologise if offence was incurred and agree it is difficult to have a normal conversation or debate solely with the written word.What was Cromwell doing in Ireland? Well he was then (1649) the most successful General in the Parliamentarian forces and was in the middle of fighting a Civil War between the Kings forces and Parliament. Ireland was in turmoil but was basically in rebellion against Parliamentary authority in favour of the King. Parliament sent him there to curb the power of the King in Ireland and establish the supremacy of Parliament. Therefore the Irish were Royalists supporting the King (when not actually fighting each other on other pretexts) who believed himself to be appointed by God and not subject to the authority of the common people (really the middle classes as the people actually still had no vote!) through the medium of Parliament.I have linked to a site below which gives an account of the circumstances and a debate on the role of Cromwell. (I have only seen this myself recently but it seems a reasonably unbiased view).But to really understand the whole of the circumstances surrounding the English relationship with Ireland you need to understand all of our history, including the Roman occupation of Britain (Lasting 400 years), the warring between the British (i.e the Romano/Celtic/Brit population) Kingdoms (Britain was divided after the Romans into many Kingdoms and did not become England until after the Angles and Saxons invaded and took over) the coming of the Angle, Saxon and Jute invaders and then the Viking invasions and the Norman conquest of England and the subsequent animosities between the sucession of invaders and the 'locals'. The Saxons pushed the Celts to the margins e.g to Wales (Saxon for foreigner!!!) and Cornwall and Britanny (Little Britain in France) though many threw their lot in with the Saxons eventually. So the rivalry in Cromwell's time (in my opinion) was still the distiction between Anglo Saxons and people of Celtic/Brit origin. The Scots having escaped most of the rigours of invasion and conquest were of course firmly in the Celtic camp (Having also from time to time been invaded by the Irish to whom they have close blood ties). The Scottish King James VI was invited by the English Parliament to take the English throne in 1603 on the death of Elizabeth I, he accepted and was crowned James I of England. But he and his immediate descendants did not much like the power of the English Parliament and tried to use it simply to raise money by asking them to impose taxes as and when it suited him and his son Charles I. Parliament did not like this too much and felt the King was assuming powers they never intended he should have. So a Civil War ensued to re-establish the authority of Parliament...... Parliament, by the way offered the title of King to Cromwell but he refused it but accepted the title of Lord Protector. On his sudden death he was succeeded (very reluctantly on the insistence of Parliament who were at a loss what else to do) by his son Richard who was Lord Protector for one year until he pursuaded Parliament to release him from this obligation. Parliament at a further loss what to do to restore what passed for normality in those days eventually invited Charles II to become King which he did on 29 May 1660. His brother James II later became King but Parliament did not much like his catholic ways and kicked him out through the Glorious Revolution establishing James' sister Mary as Joint Monarch with William of Orange. Back again to Ireland where James raised his standard and was beaten by William at the Battle of the Boyne. James Stuart's supporters also raised his standard in Scotland much later and then later still his son Charles (the bonny Prince) tried his luck to gain the throne through a further rebellion, being declared King of Scotland and marching south to try and take London. His forces were routed and he escaped to France from Scotland and eventually died in Rome where I understand his descendants still live and claim the English throne.Just a potted history of the Celtic/Brit versus Anglo/Saxon/Normanrivalry.I guess the solution in Argentine/Falklands terms would be for the Angles/Saxon/Jutes/Vikings/Norman invaders descendants to go back to where they came i.e. Germany, Denmark, Norway, Normandy, Holland, Jutland etc. but I guess that is not a very practical suggestion is it?Best wishes,Ernie http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/prm/blirishrebellion1.htm Cromwell in Ireland
Gabriel Marchevsky	posted 5/26/04 2:18 AM     Hi Ernie,Thanks for the history lesson. The Italians came to Argentina in the 20th century and we already speak Castillian with an Italian accent. 400 years of Roman influence and you still can't cook! And you call us close minded?On the other hand, if pasta and bread came from China and tomatoes from America, what did they eat before Marco Polo and Columbus? Did Italian restaurants have empty menus? Actually, the solution for the Malvinas dispute could be copied from modern Britain. The Romans no longer exercise sovereignty there. If they did, you would be more understanding of our point of view.Best regards,Gabriel

Back To Malvinas-Falklands  | Post New Topic