Register to Comment
Page 3 of 41 FirstFirst 12345 13 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 408
  1. #21
    Trefor Trefor is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,595

    Quote Originally Posted by Riadach
    That logic would actually support Tiernanator's hyperbolic comparison.
    Is the comparison hyperbolic though?

    If the video st333ve is correct in it's figures, then Cromwell's genocide isn't significantly different from Hitler's.

    Sure Hitler managed to kill more of the Jews available to him for killing than Cromwell did - but then he had the technology available.

    Killing 45% of a large population is some going.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #22
    THR THR is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,978

    Am I right by saying that a statue of Oliver Cromwell in Dublin would be like a statue of Adolf Hitler in Jerusalem?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #23
    st333ve st333ve is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    13,479

    Well i suppose thats ok then, he didnt have gas and large amounts of bombs to completely wipe out the irish so cromwell was really quite nice?
    He tried to wipe out the entire population, just because he didnt succeed doesnt mean he deserves a halo
    Hitler, Cromwell, british empire, nazi empire.
    All tried the same thing, all wanted the same thing.
    Cromwell was quite like hitler without the modern weapons.
    Even if his score board didnt get as much kills, doesnt make him respectable.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #24
    Jolly Red Giant Jolly Red Giant is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    822

    In terms of the evolution of society, the period of Cromwell's rule altered property relations in Britain from a feudal to a capitalist basis - thereby paving the way for the establishment of capitalism in Britain. This process was further developed following the replacement of James II by William of Orange during the 'Glorious Revolution'.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #25
    badinage badinage is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    8,774

    Quote Originally Posted by Riadach
    Well surely you must realise is there a difference between owning slaves, and making slaves of thousands of free individuals and selling them to the west indies Bandinage? Or are you of the opinion, that because human life is infinitely immeasurable, hence the death of 10 is the same as the death of 100, that depriving the freedom of 50 is equivalent to depriving the freedom of 60,000? That logic would actually support Tiernanator's hyperbolic comparison.
    Obviously my point is that if you go back far enough in time, almost all national heroes engaged in what we today would consider horrendously immoral actions. William Wallace's army probably raped women and children in villages they sacked. The Vikings engaged in all kinds of horrendous activities. Does this mean that Scots who revere Wallace are excusing sexual assault, or that Norwegians who wear those plastic horned helmets to international soccer games are declaring their belief that Scandanavians have a right to murder and rape people from other countries? No of course not.

    Did the English put a statue of Cromwell outside Westminster because they think slave trading is a good thing? No. They stuck a statue of him there because he represents the supremacy of parliament over monarch in their minds. Most of them probably have no idea he was a slave trader.

    Now that raises the question that should all statues of individuals who did some bad things be taken down? Well if it was found out that George Washington had raped once of his slaves once, should all statues of him across the USA be destroyed? I think that would be somewhat of an over-reaction, for as long as he's known for his role in asserting self-determination and the primacy of parliament. However, if he became primarily known as a rapist, then yes his statues should be removed.

    Likewise, if Cromwell became known in England primarily as a genocidal maniac and slave trader, rather than as a defender of parliament, then his statues should be removed.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #26
    THR THR is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,978

    Quote Originally Posted by Jozer
    Cromwell did not suceed. He failed in his aim of making Britain a Calvanist Republic. Upon his death, his changes were quietly discarded and Charles II was welcomed back from exile. Cromwell's corpse was dug up and his head was placed on a spike as a traitor. The Glorious Revolution followed within 40 years, settling Britain as, in effect, an Oligarchy of the main power groups under the guise of a Constitutional Monarchy, which enabled Britain to modernise faster than mainland Europe.
    I was myself going to post about how Cromwell was post-humously sentenced to death and his rotten corpse was beheaded in public. You got first, however. Isn´t it true that even today it is unclear where Cromwell is buried? The monarchists treated his corpse like sh1t and threw it away or buried it in a secret location?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #27
    st333ve st333ve is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    13,479

    How does systematically slaughtering people throughout time and oppressing them be considered "glorious", the british take on history is disturbing.
    How do people suck up this rubbish?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #28
    Jozer Jozer is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,290

    Cromwell's statue is not about him. He has become a symbol of Parliaments independance in the face of the Crown. This is ironic given that he was a military dictator who marched into Parliament at the head of troops and dismissed them, exactly as Charles I had done. At the time, Parliament couldn't wait to be rid of him. He was barely cold in his coffin when they were inviting Charles Stuart Jr back to sit as a reduced Monarch. Like Castro, his power was entirely down to the circumstances of his role in a period of turmoil. There was never any possibility of him being 'suceeded', although, just like Castro, and the North Korean 'Communists', this great 'Republican' attempted to create a succession for his family.

    In British folklore, he has come to represent the uncomprimising man of principle, which is all well and good until you look at what his principles actually were. Anyone who gets a tingle of satisfaction at the thought of going through Westminster with a chainsaw admires Cromwell for his intransigency, just as Chrstians love the account of Jesus losing his rag with the moneylenders in the Temple. But it's childish reductionism, and it's why he failed to establish a real English Commonwealth.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #29
    Riadach Riadach is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    23,594

    Quote Originally Posted by badinage
    Obviously my point is that if you go back far enough in time, almost all national heroes engaged in what we today would consider horrendously immoral actions. William Wallace's army probably raped women and children in villages they sacked. The Vikings engaged in all kinds of horrendous activities. Does this mean that Scots who revere Wallace are excusing sexual assault, or that Norwegians who wear those plastic horned helmets to international soccer games are declaring their belief that Scandanavians have a right to murder and rape people from other countries? No of course not.
    It certainly doesn't, but your assertion that Wallace's soldiers engaged in such accusations is supposition. In fact, the main reason you can get away with such an assertion, is because it was a standard occurence in armies at that stage. English soldiers committed such, Irish soldiers undoubtedly committed such, it was an accepted part of warfare in medieval campaigns. Thus, revering Wallace as a hero would be no more supporting acts of rape and pillage, than revering Edward I or Owain Glyndwr, or Constantine, or any of the great medieval generals. When judging historical personages, it is important to judge them by the morality of the time, we cannot judge the statues of kilkenny for example on the same basis of the apartheid regime in south africa

    However, Cromwell did not adhere to the morality of his time. Wholesale slaughter on such a scale would most certainly attract disgust and disapproval from most intellectuals and military men. For a start, to depopulate a nation, from which one derives revenue, makes no economic sense. Massacres of innocent civilians may have been commonplace, but dispossession displacement and enslavery of white individuals was anathema and had been since the twelfth century. He offended common morality, and was more vicious than most of his contemporaries. Putting this in the context of its time cannot excuse his actions, and for those times they were incomparably brutal.


    Did the English put a statue of Cromwell outside Westminster because they think slave trading is a good thing? No. They stuck a statue of him there because he represents the supremacy of parliament over monarch in their minds. Most of them probably have no idea he was a slave trader.
    Perhaps they didn't, but is there not an inherent flaw in that argument?The fact is if we assess both the impact on ordinary people of his constitutional shake up and the impact on ordinary Irish people and some English catholics of his military adventures, I think the balance leans in one direction. Would free speech, a constitional monarchy and parliamentary democracy be still a British institution today were it not for Cromwell? Indeed it would have been. Some sort of upheaval would have occured, and perhaps the glorious revolution under William would have produced the exact same results. But were it not for Cromwell, would most Catholics have been reduced to poverty, dispossessed, displaced, murdered and sold into slavery? Doubtful, it was his God-inspired vision and his alone, and more importantly his actions probably still impact the position of this country today.

    The fact his, he seems to have had a much greater historical impact, despite what many anglo-centred historians might suggest, on the future state of the people of Ireland, rather than the future state on the constitution of Britain. In fact considering he merely did what was done before as Jozer suggested, in dismissing parliament, most constitutional changes seem to have occured inspite of him rather than because of him. Thus, his major contribution to history should be his impact on Ireland, rather than on the unwritten British constitution, and it is a great oversight not to acknowledge this. Therefore, for that reason, his statue is an insult.

    Now that raises the question that should all statues of individuals who did some bad things be taken down? Well if it was found out that George Washington had raped once of his slaves once, should all statues of him across the USA be destroyed? I think that would be somewhat of an over-reaction, for as long as he's known for his role in asserting self-determination and the primacy of parliament. However, if he became primarily known as a rapist, then yes his statues should be removed.
    As said above, it's all about pluses and minuses column, if George Washington had raped millions women as part of his campaign, then his resulting success in America should be discounted and not take precedence as it would be very much outweighed. Cromwell's crimes outweigh his benefits., ergo he should not be revered.

    Likewise, if Cromwell became known in England primarily as a genocidal maniac and slave trader, rather than as a defender of parliament, then his statues should be removed.
    Well he was, and it is ignored, and that is the greatest insult. That a man's constitional reforms should take precedence over massacres, enslavements dispossessions and displacements that still affect us today is ludicrous.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #30
    pogo pogo is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,279

    Quote Originally Posted by Trefor

    If the video st333ve is correct in it's figures, then Cromwell's genocide isn't significantly different from Hitler's.
    A big if.

    A bit like, if the Protocols of the Elders of Zion can be taken to be a reliable account of The Zionist World Conspiracy.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 3 of 41 FirstFirst 12345 13 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment