|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

Reflections on FOSDEM

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 14, 2017 14:02 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
In reply to: Reflections on FOSDEM by paulj
Parent article: Reflections on FOSDEM

> The landownders who were in that position by virtue of having been "Scottish" clan leaders were - by that time - not normalish, local Scots, but part of the Anglo-Caledonian, land-owning elite establishment. They lived in large castles or very large country houses. Their kids went (go) to the elite private schools of the English establishment ("public schools" as they're perversely called there). Often - due to that schooling and the circles they move in after - they often speak with upper-class _english_ accents.

So, to put it bluntly, you don't believe in personal responsibility. At the end of the day, it was the SCOTS ruling class who "sold Scotland down the river" as you would no doubt like to put it. But you're determined to blame anyone else rather than the people who actually did it. (And the irony, of course, is that true Scots have been a minority in their own country from the day it was created! They were the ruling class in a country that consisted mostly of non-Scots! :-)

> Same thing in Ireland. The Anglo-Irish land-owning class often had Irish roots. Some even were descended from the Chieftains who fought Elizabeth I dominisation of Ireland, and who later acquiesced. Again though, they had been fully integrated into the English establishment by the 1800s. This was part of how the English empire ruled its colonies. That was a lesson learned by Elizabeth in fighting said Irish chieftains; and later again in the mid 1700s, when the Irish protestant upper-middle classes were disquieted at English rule: to rule, you must rule _with_ the existing power structures, so you must integrate their nobles and their upper-middle classes into yours - so they become part of you. Look up, e.g., "The Ascendency" in Ireland.

And that is just people being people. And it is the mark of a successful empire. The Romans did it, the British did it, you keep the little people quiet by not up-ending their lives. Empires that grow by military conquest are usually short-lived, or they have to wipe out the original inhabitants to replace them (which is what they did in North America, isn't it?).

At the end of the day, I haven't got a clue what nationality you are. And is that the one on your passport or the one you give yourself? The diffference is very important. And I get the impression you're very jealous that my forbears ran an Empire that subjects were PROUD to be a part of. Too jealous to see beyond the propaganda that blames the British for the fact that all those countries WANTED to be part of the Empire (and don't say that was because the rulers were British - a lot of them were, a lot of them WEREN'T).

And you seem to have completely lost sight of my original moan - which was that while I *want* European Union, you can't do it by trampling over "the little people" - once again the political leadership are selling the little guy down the river, which is why there is such a rise of nationalism in Europe - they're saying "trust me, we know what's good for you" and aren't listening to the pain on the ground. But when was that ever news?

You can't blame "everybody else" for the ills of today. You have to look at the realities of the moment. I think a superstate of Europe is inevitable, and to be welcomed. But DON'T drive it through trampling over anyone who gets in the way. Let people see the advantages and want to be part of it. Which is why, over the referendum, my head said "It's going to self-destruct. Get out before it takes us with it!".

Cheers,
Wol


to post comments


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds