Defeat of the Ninth Legion an early antiimperialist victory?

[Red Future]

Watched "The Eagle" with a friend today and it got me thinking wether the (likely) destruction of the Ninth legion by the pict tribes was a victory that could be classified as anti-imperialist -defying the Roman empire? What do people think??

[Robespierre Richard]

I mean it was anti-imperial in the context of the Roman Empire and they fought because they didn't want to get enslaved so it's not really the same thing as imperialism as a stage of capitalism.

[El Chuncho]

Romans had an imperial and proto-Capitalist society. The greatest heroes against Rome were Spartacus and ''Arminius''.

[Queercommie Girl]

Rome was a slavery society. A better example of anti-imperialism during the Roman era would be the heroic struggles of the Celtic tribes in Britain and Gaul against the Roman legions.

[Red Future]

Rome was a slavery society. A better example of anti-imperialism during the Roman era would be the heroic struggles of the Celtic tribes in Britain and Gaul against the Roman legions.

Its worth looking at Caesars Gallic wars then

[Robespierre Richard]

Romans had an imperial and proto-Capitalist society. The greatest heroes against Rome were Spartacus and ''Arminius''.

Indeed, Marx actually considered Spartacus "the most splendid fellow in all of ancient history."


The Cologne people have made a nice mess of my library. The whole Fourier is stolen, ditto Goethe, ditto Herder, ditto Voltaire and, what is the most awful to me, the Économistes du I8me Siécle (quite new, cost me about 500 francs) as well as many volumes of the Greek classics, many single volumes of other works. If I come to Cologne I shall have a word to say about this with Mr. National Union Bürgers. Hegel's Phenomenology and Logic ditto....

As a relaxation in the evenings I have been reading Appian on the Roman Civil Wars, in the original Greek text. A very valuable book. The chap is an Egyptian by birth. Schlosser says he has "no soul," probably because he goes to the roots of the material basis for these civil wars. Spartacus is revealed as the most splendid fellow in the whole of ancient history. Great general (no Garibaldi), noble character, real representative of the ancient proletariat.

Pompeius, reiner Scheisskerl [an utter rotter]; got his undeserved fame by snatching the credit, first for the successes of Lucullus (against Mithridates), then for the successes of Sertorius (Spain), etc., and as Sulla's "young man," etc. As a general he was the Roman Odilon Barrot. As soon as he had to show what he was made of--against Caesar--a lousy good-for-nothing. Caesar made the greatest possible military mistakes --deliberately mad--in order to bewilder the philistine who was opposing him. An ordinary Roman general--say Crassus --would have wiped him out six times over during the struggle in Epirus. But with Pompeius everything was possible. Shakespeare, in his Love's Labour Lost, seems to have had an inkling of what Pompey really was.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/letters/61_02_27-abs.htm

[El Chuncho]

Rome was a slavery society. A better example of anti-imperialism during the Roman era would be the heroic struggles of the Celtic tribes in Britain and Gaul against the Roman legions.

Than Spartacus? He was a slave who led an armed rebellion, and Arminius brought together the Germanic people of the region and completely defeated Rome (and his victory is one of the reasons we speak English), unlike in Gaul and Britain who, sadly, feel under Roman rule for years. I think Spartacus might even be the greatest hero of the classical era.

And you are aware that the Celts in Britain and Gaul had slavery, right? Celts were not the liberal tree-huggers of the pop culture. ;) Actually, unfortunately, most cultures had slavery.

[Queercommie Girl]

I wouldn't call ancient Rome "proto-capitalist" though. The Roman system was actually inferior and less productive than both Asian feudalism and also the feudal system of the European Middle Ages which emerged from the 10th century CE onwards, just like feudalism is generally inferior to capitalism.

[Luís Henrique]

Watched "The Eagle" with a friend today and it got me thinking wether the (likely) destruction of the Ninth legion by the pict tribes was a victory that could be classified as anti-imperialist -defying the Roman empire? What do people think??

No.

Rome was not imperialist. "Imperialism" is the highest stage of capitalism. Rome was not a capitalist society, much less at the highest stage of capitalism. And if Rome was not imperialist, it follows that the struggle of other people against its expansion could be not anti-imperialist.

History. It cannot be ignored. Different situations, different societies, different issues, different struggles. Sticking the same labels into them doesn't make them similar, and doesn't come anywhere closer to a proper understandment of them. Rather it is complacent with the common sence idea that societies are a-historical and eternal.

Luís Henrique

[Queercommie Girl]

Than Spartacus? He was a slave who led and armed rebellion, and Arminius brought together the Germanic people of the region and completely defeated Rome (and his victory is one of the reasons we speak English), unlike in Gaul and Britain who, sadly, feel under Roman rule for years.



And you are aware that the Celts in Britain and Gaul had slavery, right? Celts were not the liberal tree-huggers of the pop culture. ;) Actually, unfortunately, most cultures had slavery.


The Celts had slavery, but it was relatively minor, certainly compared with the Romans. Their class society was not well-established. It was a semi-tribal culture, similar to the Tibetans before the Mongol period.

The Celts were not absolute pacifist by any means, but they were generally much more peaceful than the Romans, because war is a product mainly of class society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts

The ancient Celts had a relatively progressive position on women and queers:

According to Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle), most "belligerent nations" were strongly influenced by their women, but the Celts were unusual because of openly preferred male lovers (Politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_%28Aristotle%29) II 1269b).[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#cite_note-66) H. D. Rankin in Celts and the Classical World notes that "Athenaeus echoes this comment (603a) and so does Ammianus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammianus_Marcellinus) (30.9). It seems to be the general opinion of antiquity."[68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#cite_note-67) In book XIII of his Deipnosophists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deipnosophistae), the Roman Greek rhetorician and grammarian Athenaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenaeus), repeating assertions made by Diodorus Siculus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodorus_Siculus) in the 1st century BC (Bibliotheca historica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliotheca_historica) 5:32), wrote that Celtic women were beautiful but that the men preferred to sleep together. Diodorus went further, stating that "the young men will offer themselves to strangers and are insulted if the offer is refused". Rankin argues that the ultimate source of these assertions is likely to be Poseidonius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poseidonius) and speculates that these authors may be recording male "bonding rituals".[69] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#cite_note-68)
The sexual freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_norm) of women in Britain was noted by Cassius Dio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassius_Dio):[70] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#cite_note-Dio_Cassius-69)
...a very witty remark is reported to have been made by the wife of Argentocoxus, a Caledonian, to Julia Augusta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livia). When the empress was jesting with her, after the treaty, about the free intercourse of her sex with men in Britain, she replied: "We fulfill the demands of nature in a much better way than do you Roman women; for we consort openly with the best men, whereas you let yourselves be debauched in secret by the vilest." Such was the retort of the British woman.
—Cassius Dio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassius_Dio)
There are instances recorded where women participated both in warfare and in kingship, although they were in the minority in these areas. Plutarch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutarch)[71] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#cite_note-Ellis-70) reports that Celtic women acted as ambassadors to avoid a war among Celts chiefdoms in the Po valley during the 4th century BC.
Very few reliable sources exist regarding Celtic views towards gender divisions, though some archaeological evidence does suggest that their views towards gender roles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role) may have been different from those of their contemporary classical counterparts.[clarification needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarify)][72] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#cite_note-71) There are some general indications from Iron Age burial sites in the Champagne and Bourgogne regions of Northeastern France which suggest that women may have had roles in combat during the earlier portions of the La Tène period. However, the evidence is far from conclusive.[73] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#cite_note-72) Examples of individuals buried with both female jewellery and weaponry have been identified, such as the Vix Grave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vix_Grave), and there are questions about the sexing of some skeletons that were buried with warrior assemblages. However, it has been suggested that "the weapons may indicate rank instead of masculinity".[74] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#cite_note-73)
Among the insular Celts, there is a greater amount of historic documentation to suggest warrior roles for women. In addition to commentary by Tacitus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus) about Boudica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica), there are indications from later period histories that also suggest a more substantial role for "women as warriors" in symbolic if not actual roles. Posidonius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posidonius) and Strabo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strabo) described an island of women where men could not venture for fear of death, and where the women ripped each other apart.[75] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#cite_note-74) Other writers, such as Ammianus Marcellinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammianus_Marcellinus) and Tacitus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus), mentioned Celtic women inciting, participating in, and leading battles.[76] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#cite_note-75) Poseidonius' anthropological comments on the Celts had common themes, primarily primitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitivism), extreme ferocity, cruel sacrificial practices, and the strength and courage of their women.[77] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#cite_note-76)

But then the Germanic tribes had slavery too. So I don't see how the Germanics were any better or more "progressive" than the Celts at all, (probably they had more armed power) unless you are one of those Germanic ethno-centrists.

As for Spartacus, he had his limitations too, but I'm not directly making a comparison with Spartacus, because Spartacus was internal to Rome, and we are talking about resistance towards Roman geopolitical imperialism here.

As for why "we speak English" (well English isn't my first language), it is mainly due to the legacy of the British Empire in much more recent times. To project so far into the past to seek for an explanation is simply absurd, and even worse than what some "tree-hugging liberals" might believe in. It's like saying there is something inherently positive in "Germanic culture", as opposed to Western capitalism in more recent centuries. It's a ridiculous cultural essentialist position.

[Queercommie Girl]

No.

Rome was not imperialist. "Imperialism" is the highest stage of capitalism. Rome was not a capitalist society, much less at the highest stage of capitalism. And if Rome was not imperialist, it follows that the struggle of other people against its expansion could be not anti-imperialist.

History. It cannot be ignored. Different situations, different societies, different issues, different struggles. Sticking the same labels into them doesn't make them similar, and doesn't come anywhere closer to a proper understandment of them. Rather it is complacent with the common sence idea that societies are a-historical and eternal.

Luís Henrique

It was not capitalist-imperialist, but it was a form of slavery-imperialism, like the Mongol empire was a form of feudal-imperialism.

Imperialism existed before the capitalist era.

[El Chuncho]

Indeed, Marx actually considered Spartacus "the most splendid fellow in all of ancient history."

Indeed, he did. Spartacus achieved so much despite being a slave (after he was a soldier of course). Infact, the strength of his ideals and convictions led to him almost defeating Rome. He was one of the first socialist heroes.

[El Chuncho]

The Celts had slavery, but it was relatively minor, certainly compared with the Romans. Their class society was not well-established. It was a semi-tribal culture, similar to the Tibetans before the Mongol period.

The Celts were not absolute pacifist by any means, but they were generally much more peaceful than the Romans, because war is a product mainly of class society.

Yes, I know that, I was just pointed out the fallacy that Celts do not have slaved championed by ''Wiccans'' and the likes. Infact, in the ''Dark Ages'', the biggest slavers in northern Europe were the Irish.




The ancient Celts had a relatively progressive position on women and queers:

Indeed, the same with the very culturally related Germanic people.



But then the Germanic tribes had slavery too. So I don't see how the Germanics were any better or more "progressive" than the Celts at all, (probably they had more armed power) unless you are one of those Germanic ethno-centrists.

I am not saying that any are more progressive at all, and you are wrong that they had more armed power, being mostly poorer and using handed down Celtic equipment, Germanic people won their victorious because they successfully banded together.

My point is that Germanic people are often seen as lessers to Celts, and seen as barbaric, racist and evil when it was not the cast. Most cultures had their merits.


As for Spartacus, he had his limitations too, but I'm not directly making a comparison with Spartacus, because Spartacus was internal to Rome, and we are talking about resistance towards Roman geopolitical imperialism here.

Spartacus was a Greek slave, he was in Italy (not the same as Rome per se, as it was conquered just as the Celts were, Latins are not the same as Romans) but he was a slave with no real rights as a citizen. He fought in Rome for freedom for the ultra-poor and oppressed. Unlike the Celts and the Germanic people, he didn't have a real army under him, nor a whole culture. His fight was harder.


As for why "we speak English" (well English isn't my first language), it is mainly due to the legacy of the British Empire in much more recent times.

But English, as a Germanic language, would probably not be spoken today much as Gaulish isn't in France. Brythonic survived mostly due to it being at the very fringe of the empire.


To project so far into the past to seek for an explanation is simply absurd, and even worse than what some "tree-hugging liberals" might believe in. It's like saying there is something inherently positive in "Germanic culture", as opposed to Western capitalism in more recent centuries. It's a ridiculous cultural essentialist position.

Not really, I do not champion one culture as better than the other, I am just pointing a historical fact that English would most likely not exist without the Germanic leaders like Arminius who fought Roman imperialism. I only mention this because I live in England and speak English as a first language, Arminius is therefore important to me and I find it a bit naive to hail Celts has better resistance fighters when Arminius' warriors actually won their war, as Roman imperialism in Germania never picked up again, whereas Gaul was conquered. And there is a form of racism against ''Germanic'' people because they equate Ancient Germanic people with Nazi Germans which is out of line and unnecessary. Celts and Germans are one side of the same coin and had influenced eachother. Both also had very ''Earthy'' cultures that respected nature and the workers.

And Britain is a better example of Celtic resistance to Roman Imperialism if we are talking about the Picts, who were never conquered.

[Queercommie Girl]

In fact, in the ''Dark Ages'', the biggest slavers in northern Europe were the Irish.


Source?



My point is that Germanic people are often seen as lessers to Celts, and seen as barbaric, racist and evil when it was not the cast. Most cultures had their merits.
I think this probably has something to do with the fact that in more recent and modern times, Germanic-speaking nations became the biggest imperialist conquerors (e.g. the British Empire), while Celtic nations like Ireland were heavily oppressed by the British.

Of course, it doesn't mean we should just simplistically project this so far back into the distant past. The reactionary nature of the capitalist imperialism of Germanic-speaking nations in more recent centuries has no bearing on what the Germanic tribes circa 100 BCE were like as a people.

However, there are some accounts of Germanic tribes looting Roman cities after sacking them, even though they never destroyed cities like the Huns under Attila did. Perhaps the Germanics were somewhat more violent than the Celts.



Spartacus was a Greek slave, he was in Italy (not the same as Rome per se, as it was conquered just as the Celts were, Latins are not the same as Romans) but he was a slave with no real rights as a citizen. He fought in Rome for freedom for the ultra-poor and oppressed. Unlike the Celts and the Germanic people, he didn't have a real army under him, nor a whole culture. His fight was harder.
I didn't say his fight was easier, I'm saying it's different. Spartacus' fight was an internal rebellion in the Roman empire, while the Germanic and Celtic resistances were external resistances against Roman geopolitical imperialism.

It's like the difference between an armed uprising in the United States today led by an immigrant worker and the national liberation struggles in Iraq against US imperialism abroad.

[Rooster]

My sig contains a speech by a (probably fictitious) pictish war leader called Calgacus.

This is the full speech:

"Whenever I consider the origin of this war and the necessities of our position, I have a sure confidence that this day, and this union of yours, will be the beginning of freedom to the whole of Britain. To all of us slavery is a thing unknown; there are no lands beyond us, and even the sea is not safe, menaced as we are by a Roman fleet. And thus in war and battle, in which the brave find glory, even the coward will find safety. Former contests, in which, with varying fortune, the Romans were resisted, still left in us a last hope of succour, inasmuch as being the most renowned nation of Britain, dwelling in the very heart of the country, and out of sight of the shores of the conquered, we could keep even our eyes unpolluted by the contagion of slavery. To us who dwell on the uttermost confines of the earth and of freedom, this remote sanctuary of Britain's glory has up to this time been a defence. Now, however, the furthest limits of Britain are thrown open, and the unknown always passes for the marvellous. But there are no tribes beyond us, nothing indeed but waves and rocks, and the yet more terrible Romans, from whose oppression escape is vainly sought by obedience and submission. Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if he be poor, they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace."

This was said at the Battle of Mons Graupius which was about 20 years before the legend of the Ninth Legion though.

And a little on the Celtic languages. It was the Romans who destroyed the Celtic languages. Once spoken from Spain to Palestine, from Italy to Scotland. There is evidence of a great deal of words being borrowed from the Celtic languages and Latin. I think it's a shame that what's left isn't spoken much these days. Gaelic is such an interesting language.

[El Chuncho]

Read most of the Norse sagas, such as the Vinlandic saga in which they are in fear of sailing too close to Ireland due to the slavers. Infact, Gaels in general were big slavers in the early Middle-Ages. My family was Gaelic, from the Hebrides, so they were even mixed up in slavery. It is nothing to be ashamed on in the modern era.


I think this probably has something to do with the fact that in more recently and modern times, Germanic-speaking nations became the biggest imperialist conquerors (e.g. the British Empire), while Celtic nations like Ireland were heavily oppressed by the

Your words are sounding suspiciously anti-Germanic. The Germanic culture is not to blame for Empire, and you are neglecting that many Imperialist powers were Latin, such as France, Spain and Portugal, and the Slavic empires (Russian and Polish come to mind, and what about all the Turko-Mongol empires?. Saying that the biggest imperialistic powers were Germanic is actually nonsense.


The reactionary nature of the capitalist imperialism of Germanic-speaking nations in more recent centuries has no bearing on what the Germanic tribes circa 100 BCE were like as a people.

I agree with this. Though again I have to point out that Germanic-speaking nations are no less reactionary as many nations in the world. And the many Welsh and Scottish imperialists would reject the notion that the British empire is Germanic, though you are right in the lingua franca being the norm.

But other than your view that Germanic-speaking nations are especially Capitalist-Imperialist, I do agree that the nation of these people in recent centuries has no bearing on their character of the past. Which is my point. Divorce Arminius from what we know of Nazis and empire, and you are left with a successful leader of a successful campaign against Rome.


However, there are some accounts of Germanic tribes looting Roman cities after sacking them, even though they never destroyed cities like the Huns under Attila did. Perhaps the Germanics were somewhat more violent than the Celts.

No, not really. Looting was done by Celts and Romans too, it was a sad fact of life in those days. Irish Celts used to ferocious warriors and made brainballs by mixing brains with lime; see the story of King Conchobar (''Connor'') and the rest of the Ulster for evidence of violence. They were violent times and Celts and Germanic people were warrior cultures. It is naive to believe that Celts didn't sack or loot cities. Aren't you forgetting the Battle of the Allia, in which Rome was sacked by Gauls?

However, you have individual groups within cultural groups. Some Germanic tribes were more violent than others. The Goths, under Alaric that sacked Rome, for instance, didn't destroy important buildings or especially brutalize the populace.




I didn't say his fight was easier, I'm saying it's different. Spartacus' fight was an internal rebellion in the Roman empire, while the Germanic and Celtic resistances were external resistances against Roman geopolitical imperialism.

It doesn't matter, both are resistance to Roman tyranny. And Spartacus' fight was greater and even more worthy of respect and admiration.

[Queercommie Girl]

Your words are sounding suspiciously anti-Germanic. The Germanic culture is not to blame for Empire, and you are neglecting that many Imperialist powers were Latin, such as France, Spain and Portugal, and the Slavic empires (Russian and Polish come to mind, and what about all the Turko-Mongol empires?. Saying that the biggest imperialistic powers were Germanic is actually nonsense.


I'm not being "anti-Germanic" at all, you have missed my point.

Obviously I don't take the cultural essentialist position that Germanic cultures are intrinsically more imperialistic. So your accusation that I'm somehow blaming Germanic culture for imperialism is completely ridiculous and ungrounded. All I'm saying is that in the capitalist era, most powerful empires mainly speak Germanic languages, like the British Empire, the United States today, Nazi Germany etc. France is the only major Latin-speaking capitalist empire. But this has nothing to do with any "intrinsic characteristic" of Germanic culture. Marxism rejects cultural essentialism.

Latin-speaking Spain and Portugal, and Slavic-speaking Russia, were semi-feudal semi-capitalist empires, not fully capitalist empires like the US, Britain and France. The Altaic empires like the Mongols, the Qing, and the Ottoman, were feudal empires.

My point, essentially, is simply that due to the descriptive fact that most capitalist imperialist powers are Germanic-speaking, many people then easily make the mistake of associating Germanic cultures with imperialism and violence in a cultural essentialist and intrinsic way. I'm not saying I condone such a non-materialist historiographical approach.



And the many Welsh and Scottish imperialists would reject the notion that the British empire is Germanic, though you are right in the lingua franca being the norm.
The British Empire has always been dominated by the English though.



But other than your view that Germanic-speaking nations are especially Capitalist-Imperialist,
But this is just a descriptive fact of history. It has nothing to do with any intrinsic character of any Germanic nation. Every nation potentially can be imperialist, but in historical reality not every nation does. It's a matter of external socio-economic conditions, not some kind of idealistic "essential cultural or national character".



I do agree that the nation of these people in recent centuries has no bearing on their character of the past. Which is my point. Divorce Arminius from what we know of Nazis and empire, and you are left with a successful leader of a successful campaign against Rome.
Agree. One cannot project modern geopolitics back 2000 years.



However, you have individual groups within cultural groups. Some Germanic tribes were more violent than others. The Goths, under Alaric that sacked Rome, for instance, didn't destroy important buildings or especially brutalize the populace.
I think that generally speaking neither the Celts nor the Germanics were as brutal as the Huns under Attila, who literally razed entire Roman cities to the ground. The Huns were an Altaic (Turko-Mongol) people, known to the Han Chinese as the Xiongnu in the East.



It doesn't matter, both are resistance to Roman tyranny. And Spartacus' fight was greater and even more worthy of respect and admiration.Spartacus' fight was objectively closer to what we would understand as class struggle, so it was qualitatively different to the mainly national struggles made by Celtic and Germanic peoples.

[El Chuncho]

All I'm saying is that in the capitalist era, most powerful empires mainly speak Germanic languages, like the British Empire, the United States today, Nazi Germany etc. France is the only major Latin-speaking capitalist empire.

Define the capitalist era, as Spain and Portugal (first global empire) had empires until circa 1899-1900s, and circa 1999, respectively.



Latin-speaking Spain and Portugal, and Slavic-speaking Russia, were semi-feudal semi-capitalist empires, not fully capitalist empires like the US, Britain and France. The Altaic empires like the Mongols, the Qing, and the Ottoman, were feudal empires.

No, Portugal and Spain had fully capitalist empires. Also we are talking about imperialism not one type of empire.





The British Empire has always been dominated by the English though.

Only because it is the biggest and most populated countries, some of the major imperialists were Scottish. My point stands.






It's a matter of external socio-economic conditions, not some kind of idealistic "essential cultural or national character".

No, it is not a fact. You are claiming that Germanic people have been more imperialistic in recent history, which I have shown to be inaccurate. I do not believe you mean to be an essentialist, of course, but it seems to be that you have bought into the anti-Germanicist myth that Germanic speakers are more aggressive and have been the most imperialistic, which is not true. The Portuguese empire was worse than the British empire in terms of slavery and violence, and the longest lasting, BUT we cannot single out Latin speakers or Germanic speakers as more Imperialist-Capitalist because it has nothing to do with their cultures and both groups have equally bad empires, for slightly different reasons. And what about Fascist Italy is another example of a non-Germanic imperialist nation.

The fact is that imperialism was a plague that affected mankind as a whole in the 17th-20th centuries especially. It is very hard to pick one linguistic group as having the most Capitalist-Imperialists.






Agree. One cannot project modern geopolitics back 2000 years.

Indeed.






I think that generally speaking neither the Celts nor the Germanics were as brutal as the Huns under Attila, who literally razed entire Roman cities to the ground. The Huns were an Altaic (Turko-Mongol) people, known to the Han Chinese as the Xiongnu in the East.

Huns were no more warlike than the Celts and Germanic people, their culture just succeeded in doing more ''aggressive'' actions against Rome and other powers at the time of their power. But Celts, Germanics and Huns all raised Roman cities to the ground, the Huns more got a bad rep because they were not Christian.

You are correct that they are Altaic, I am glad you mentioned that, however they are not necessarily the Xiongnu. Like you, I do think their is enough evidence for the Xiongnu and the Huns to be the same group (or the Huns to be part of it; though many Huns were ethnically Gothic later on), but it is not accepted as fact by many. Whatever the case, Huns and Xiongnu are both ''Turkic'' (or more correctly Turko-Mongol), and thus Altaic. If we are to look at Germanic people and Celts, then we should look at them as Turko-Mongol, which has some more peaceful groups and some more aggressive ones, like Celts and Germanics.





Spartacus' fight was objectively closer to what we would understand as class struggle, so it was qualitatively difference to the mainly national struggles made by Celtic and Germanic peoples.

Yes, I agree with that. One of the reasons I think of him as the greatest heroes of the classical age is because he was part of a class, rather than national, struggle. The Celts and Germanic people were parts of nations, with armies to support them, which many have described as ''empires'' (though mostly not connected by governments), whereas Spartacus was poorer than poor and had to fight a whole national army.

[Rooster]

Since that we're using a Leninist term (based on his readings of Marx) for what imperialist means (the highest form of capitalism), it would be wrong to read back into history into a pre-capital society as being imperialist in the sense that we would use it. So, to say that they were anti-imperialist in the sense we mean it would be wrong. But that doesn't mean we can't look back and tack inspiration from the people like Spartacus or Vercingetorix or Alaric, but we shouldn't use the bourgeois attempt to claim legitimacy from something in ancient history.

[Queercommie Girl]

Look, we can disagree over historical details, but that's solely an academic matter. I'm simply not happy about how you are trying to label me as an "anti-Germanic" simply because of our disagreements over historical details, even though I've not made any cultural essentialist comments at all, and have repeatedly said so.



Define the capitalist era, as Spain and Portugal (first global empire) had empires until circa 1899-1900s, and circa 1999, respectively.


When the dominant productive relation in the heart of the empire becomes capitalism-based. Even during the Spanish Civil War in the 20th century, Spain was still a semi-feudal nation.



No, Portugal and Spain had fully capitalist empires. Also we are talking about imperialism not one type of empire.


No they didn't. The empire of the Spanish conquistadors was not fully capitalist, but semi-feudal semi-capitalist, like the Tsarist Russian empire later.

I was only talking about capitalist empires. If we broaden the discussion to include all empires, then obviously it's not just the Germanic-speaking people that had empires. The Chinese, the Mongols, the Turks, the Arabs, etc all had feudal empires; the Romans, the Aztecs, the Incas, etc all had slavery empires.



Only because it is the biggest and most populated countries, some of the major imperialists were Scottish. My point stands.


I don't deny there were a few prominent Scottish figures in the history of British imperialism, but it cannot be denied that England was the political and economical heart of the British Empire, like how the area around Beijing (Hebei) was the political and economical heart of the Manchu Qing Chinese Empire.



No, it is not a fact. You are claiming that Germanic people have been more imperialistic in recent history, which I have shown to be inaccurate.


As a fact, the majority of major fully capitalist empires in the 19th and 20th centuries speak Germanic languages as a first language. Spain and Portugal were still not fully capitalist even in the early 20th century, and by then their empires had already mostly fallen away. They certainly weren't major imperialist powers anymore.

But objectively for non-cultural essentialists this fact doesn't really mean anything concrete. I only raised this point to show that because of this fact, some people then make the mistake of connecting Germanic culture in an intrinsic manner to imperialism.



I do not believe you mean to be an essentialist, of course, but it seems to be that you have bought into the anti-Germanicist myth that Germanic speakers are more aggressive and have been the most imperialistic, which is not true.


Wait. If I'm not a cultural essentialist then how can I ever be "anti-Germanic"? The whole point about rejecting cultural essentialism is precisely to not link any descriptive facts of history to any supposedly cultural essentialist "quality" of a nation or nations, like being more aggressive etc.

Non-cultural essentialism means not explaining any historical events using cultural factors.



The Portuguese empire was worse than the British empire in terms of slavery and violence, and the longest lasting


Because it was still semi-feudal. Semi-feudal empires were generally more brutal.



BUT we cannot single out Latin speakers or Germanic speakers as more Imperialist-Capitalist because it has nothing to do with their cultures and both groups have equally bad empires, for slightly different reasons. And what about Fascist Italy is another example of a non-Germanic imperialist nation.


When did I ever say it had anything to do with their cultures? I told you many times that I reject cultural essentialism.



The fact is that imperialism was a plague that affected mankind as a whole in the 17th-20th centuries especially.


You mean capitalist-imperialism. Pre-capitalism imperialism existed all over the world for thousands of years.



Huns were no more warlike than the Celts and Germanic people, their culture just succeeded in doing more ''aggressive'' actions against Rome and other powers at the time of their power. But Celts, Germanics and Huns all raised Roman cities to the ground, the Huns more got a bad rep because they were not Christian.


Actually Germanics and Celts almost never destroyed entire cities, but only looted them. The Huns were indeed more brutal, as Roman sources suggest, not because they were not Christian (the Celts weren't Christian either) or something, but because of their socio-economic structure, which was firstly based on nomadism (unlike the largely settled peasant populations of the Celts and the Germans), and also the Huns already had a fully established state society (an empire) by the time of Attila, while the Celts and Germans were still semi-tribal.



You are correct that they are Altaic, I am glad you mentioned that, however they are not necessarily the Xiongnu. Like you, I do think their is enough evidence for the Xiongnu and the Huns to be the same group (or the Huns to be part of it; though many Huns were ethnically Gothic later on), but it is not accepted as fact by many. Whatever the case, Huns and Xiongnu are both ''Turkic'' (or more correctly Turko-Mongol), and thus Altaic. If we are to look at Germanic people and Celts, then we should look at them as Turko-Mongol, which has some more peaceful groups and some more aggressive ones, like Celts and Germanics.


Why is it that some were more peaceful than others? It's due to their socio-economic structure. Tribal and semi-tribal societies were generally more peaceful than fully established empires/state societies. This is why the Tibetans were more peaceful than the Mongols and Manchus, despite both of them being nomadic/semi-nomadic.



Yes, I agree with that. One of the reasons I think of him as the greatest heroes of the classical age is because he was part of a class, rather than national, struggle. The Celts and Germanic people were parts of nations, with armies to support them, which many have described as ''empires'' (though mostly not connected by governments), whereas Spartacus was poorer than poor and had to fight a whole national army.


It doesn't mean the national liberation struggles of the Celts and Germanics were not important though. One important aspect of Leninism is to support national liberation struggles.

[Queercommie Girl]

Since that we're using a Leninist term (based on his readings of Marx) for what imperialist means (the highest form of capitalism), it would be wrong to read back into history into a pre-capital society as being imperialist in the sense that we would use it. So, to say that they were anti-imperialist in the sense we mean it would be wrong. But that doesn't mean we can't look back and tack inspiration from the people like Spartacus or Vercingetorix or Alaric, but we shouldn't use the bourgeois attempt to claim legitimacy from something in ancient history.

We cannot limit the term "imperialism" to what is said about it in a single short pamphlet. That's excessive dogmatism.

We can certainly use the term imperialism to describe events during pre-capitalist eras (slavery and feudalism), if it is understood in the geo-political sense, i.e. one state/empire conquering by force other states, nations and tribes.

Marxism opposes all forms of conquest in this sense, not just economic conquest under capitalism. We must understand that capitalism ultimately developed from the womb of feudalism and slavery, and that capitalist economic imperialism is simply a higher form of the more crude and direct imperialisms that had existed under slavery and feudalism for thousands of years all over the globe.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Wasn't that movie Centurion based on the 9th Legion, too? I read somewhere that the defeat in Scotland was a myth, and that the 9th Legion was merely re-deployed in continental Europe.

[Rooster]

We cannot limit the term "imperialism" to what is said about it in a single short pamphlet. That's excessive dogmatism.

We can certainly use the term imperialism to describe events during pre-capitalist eras (slavery and feudalism), if it is understood in the geo-political sense, i.e. one state/empire conquering by force other states, nations and tribes.

Marxism opposes all forms of conquest in this sense, not just economic conquest under capitalism. We must understand that capitalism ultimately developed from the womb of feudalism and slavery, and that capitalist economic imperialism is simply a higher form of the more crude and direct imperialisms that had existed under slavery and feudalism for thousands of years all over the globe.

I agree that it's dogmatic but we're trying to not to romanticise the past here, and seeing how we don't live in a pre-capital society, and Marx explicitly wrote about capitalism and a capitalist society, then I'm going to take all of the people from history who rebelled as just being defenders of their own freedoms against the tyranny of Rome (and there's a debate on what that tyranny is). I don't think we should call Spartacus a socialist because he wasn't for the socialisation for the means of production in a pre-industrial world.

[Queercommie Girl]

I agree that it's dogmatic but we're trying to not to romanticise the past here, and seeing how we don't live in a pre-capital society, and Marx explicitly wrote about capitalism and a capitalist society, then I'm going to take all of the people from history who rebelled as just being defenders of their own freedoms against the tyranny of Rome (and there's a debate on what that tyranny is). I don't think we should call Spartacus a socialist because he wasn't for the socialisation for the means of production in a pre-industrial world.

I agree we shouldn't simply call Spartacus a "socialist", since the socio-economic forces back then were completely different from today.

But anyone with common sense can see that people like Spartacus and the national liberationists of conquered nations like the Celts and Germans were relatively progressive. It's not about "romanticising" the past at all, because although we may not live in a pre-capitalist society, the fact that oppressed peoples and oppressed nations always fight back against their oppressors is simply a constant throughout human history.

A debate on what "tyranny" is? Are you kidding? Are you trying to say that only capitalist oppression is tyranny, while slavery and feudal oppressions are not? This is wrong, because Marxism is not just about overthrowing capitalism, it's about overthrowing all types of class society.

[Tim Finnegan]

And the many Welsh and Scottish imperialists would reject the notion that the British empire is Germanic, though you are right in the lingua franca being the norm.
I'm sure why the delusions of my more contemptible countrymen have any bearing on the fact that Anglo-supermacism lies at the heart of the very concept of "Britain". That the stormtroopers of empire have been known to don the plaid hardly offers full counter-weight to centuries of denigration and subjugation.


Wasn't that movie Centurion based on the 9th Legion, too? I read somewhere that the defeat in Scotland was a myth, and that the 9th Legion was merely re-deployed in continental Europe.
And The Last Legion a few years before that. It seems to be a popular topic lately, a product, I would imagine, of neo-imperial insecurities- the Afghanistan parallels hardly need elaborating on.

[El Chuncho]

I'm sure why the delusions of my more contemptible countrymen have any bearing on the fact that Anglo-supermacism lies at the heart of the very concept of "Britain".

In some ways, as a Gael, I want to agree with you entirely, but I think you are forgetting that Scotland and England were unified by a Scottish tyrant. And what do we mean by ''Anglo'', do we mean English or also Inglis (living in Northumberland, it is plain to see that the English culture doesn't stop at the border, and the area was even part of the same country before England was created). Anglicism played an inexcusable part of the Highland clearances and the denigration of Gaelic peoples in Ireland and Scotland, however, I argue that it is naive to think that ''Anglocentrism'' was the main cause. Many English traditions were denigrated in favour of the national ''Briticist'' myth concerning the ancient Britons, Boudicca etc, London is a testament to that, and the influence of Norman and Frankish monarchs on the country over the years. However, what lies behind the heart of ''Britain'', is not ''Anglicism'' or ''Briticism'', but simply Imperialism and Capitalism. Britain thrives on gain and conquest, it doesn't really care about spreading any culture unless it sees a profit in it.

''Culture'' is rarely the main drive of the more modern empires, especially ones that were brought about by unifications of two or more countries, like the British empire.



That the stormtroopers of empire have been known to don the plaid hardly offers full counter-weight to centuries of denigration and subjugation.

Imperialist Scottish overlords do go against the ''empire'' being the fault of England, though.

I will not deny the denigrating and subjugation of Gaelic people. My family don't live in the home due to being driven out in the clearance and it is a black mark on the British empire, one of many. ''English'' certainly was used as a tool for imperialism, you are right there.




And The Last Legion a few years before that. It seems to be a popular topic lately, a product, I would imagine, of neo-imperial insecurities- the Afghanistan parallels hardly need elaborating on.


Agreed.

[El Chuncho]

Look, we can disagree over historical details, but that's solely an academic matter. I'm simply not happy about how you are trying to label me as an "anti-Germanic" simply because of our disagreements over historical details, even though I've not made any cultural essentialist comments at all, and have repeatedly said so.

I didn't label you as being racist towards Germanic nations, I just meant that some sources undoubtedly are (most from the Victorian and Edwardian era are; hence when discussing King Arthur, the Britons are seen as a paragon of virtues whereas the Anglo-Saxons were uncouth and ''racist''. It is nonsense). But I am sorry if I wrote my comment wrong and I don't want you to think I think you are racist or essentialist, and you clear up a point I made a mistake on anyway. :)




No they didn't. The empire of the Spanish conquistadors was not fully capitalist, but semi-feudal semi-capitalist, like the Tsarist Russian empire later.

The Spanish empire undoutably was founded as semi-feudalist, but they did become a Capitalist empire like the British one. But, I guess we'll have to disagree. :D


I was only talking about capitalist empires. If we broaden the discussion to include all empires, then obviously it's not just the Germanic-speaking people that had empires. The Chinese, the Mongols, the Turks, the Arabs, etc all had feudal empires; the Romans, the Aztecs, the Incas, etc all had slavery empires.

Yes, you are right there. And I was talking about empires. I do not differentiate between them too much. If the Spanish empire isn't capitalist, it still has a history as black as the British one. All empires by their nature are evil.




I don't deny there were a few prominent Scottish figures in the history of British imperialism, but it cannot be denied that England was the political and economical heart of the British Empire, like how the area around Beijing (Hebei) was the political and economical heart of the Manchu Qing Chinese Empire.

You are right, but that is due to the location of the capital (London) of the empire (mainly due to the fact that the Scottish king James and his heirs decided to make it his main residence when taking the English crown. Full unification happened under Anne, though), and due to the fact that London was the biggest city in the British isle, and a main center of trade.




As a fact, the majority of major fully capitalist empires in the 19th and 20th centuries speak Germanic languages as a first language. Spain and Portugal were still not fully capitalist even in the early 20th century, and by then their empires had already mostly fallen away. They certainly weren't major imperialist powers anymore.

Again, I disagree, Portugal especially was very much capitalist when its empire crumbled. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. ;)


But objectively for non-cultural essentialists this fact doesn't really mean anything concrete. I only raised this point to show that because of this fact, some people then make the mistake of connecting Germanic culture in an intrinsic manner to imperialism.

OK, maybe I misunderstood. It is, indeed, wrong (and xenophobic/racist) to connect any one culture to imperialism or capitalism.




Wait. If I'm not a cultural essentialist then how can I ever be "anti-Germanic"? The whole point about rejecting cultural essentialism is precisely to not link any descriptive facts of history to any supposedly cultural essentialist "quality" of a nation or nations, like being more aggressive etc.

You can believe pop-culture versions of history that have always portrayed all Germanic cultures as proto-Nazi, when they were no less violent, heathen and progressive as Celtic people, who almost exist in one cultural continuum due to the influence of Celtic culture on Germanic cultures since the proto-Germanic period, and the later influence of Germanic culture on Celts.






Because it was still semi-feudal. Semi-feudal empires were generally more brutal.

You are right, usually, but I wouldn't describe the Portuguese empire at its height as semi-feudal, it was just Capitalist-Imperialist, in my opinion.




When did I ever say it had anything to do with their cultures? I told you many times that I reject cultural essentialism.

It was probably my mistake. :) In my defense I have poor eyesight and the tiredness of yesterday to hinder me. :D




Pre-capitalism imperialism existed all over the world for thousands of years.

Agreed.




Actually Germanics and Celts almost never destroyed entire cities, but only looted them.

You are right there. Only a limit number of accounts of destruction of settlements by these people are recorded, and they are most likely exaggerated.



The Huns were indeed more brutal, as Roman sources suggest, not because they were not Christian (the Celts weren't Christian either) or something, but because of their socio-economic structure, which was firstly based on nomadism (unlike the largely settled peasant populations of the Celts and the Germans), and also the Huns already had a fully established state society (an empire) by the time of Attila, while the Celts and Germans were still semi-tribal.

Actually most Celts were Christian in that era, unlike the Huns and Germanic people (though many Germanic nations were Christian by the time of Attila), and I still think the brutality of the Huns is more of an exaggeration due to their heathen nature, strange appearance, their Nomadic nature and military success (which is not the same as brutality) in conquering Europe.

And yes Attila had an empire with such things as baths, buildings (rather than yurt-type accommodations) and quite an advanced society, but by that point you also had an advanced, quasi-Roman state society of Visigoths and a few other Germanic nations (though many of these were part of Attila's empire). The Celts did too at the time, due to the fact that almost all Celtic nations had been conquered and Romanized.




Why is it that some were more peaceful than others? It's due to their socio-economic structure.

You are right there. The northern Germanic tribes were more peaceful than the southern tribes (with some exceptions), and they had better lifestyles.






It doesn't mean the national liberation struggles of the Celts and Germanics were not important though. One important aspect of Leninism is to support national liberation struggles.

Yes, I do not want my comment to come off the wrong way. National liberation is important, all I meant was that the Celts and Germans didn't have to fight as hard as Spartacus, because they had full nations (thus real, in the context of most nations at the time, armies and leaders) between them. Both are important, of course. :)

Anyway, I am out on this one. We view certain empires as different types, so arguing that point could go on forever, and I like debating (but this is not too important to me, as much as I study history :D). Anyway, we agree on many points, and no one in this thread is racist, so peace to you and remember to keep strong in your beliefs! ;)

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

If anyone had bothered to do any research, it would appear that the 9th Legion wasn't destroyed.

This will teach you to base your history on movies.

[Queercommie Girl]

The Spanish empire undoutably was founded as semi-feudalist, but they did become a Capitalist empire like the British one. But, I guess we'll have to disagree. :D


This can't be right. If you read any account of the Spanish Civil War, it would say that even in the early 20th century many parts of Spain were still semi-feudal, not much more advanced than Russia before 1917. Spain was no industrialised England.



You are right, but that is due to the location of the capital (London) of the empire (mainly due to the fact that the Scottish king James and his heirs decided to make it his main residence when taking the English crown. Full unification happened under Anne, though), and due to the fact that London was the biggest city in the British isle, and a main center of trade.


But regionalism and ethno-centrism are always linked. Like in ancient times Northern Han Chinese always discriminated against the Southern Han Chinese, because North China was always the political centre of the country.



Again, I disagree, Portugal especially was very much capitalist when its empire crumbled. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. ;)


Portugal was even less industrialised than Spain was, actually.



You can believe pop-culture versions of history that have always portrayed all Germanic cultures as proto-Nazi,


I never said I believe in this kind of thing.



You are right, usually, but I wouldn't describe the Portuguese empire at its height as semi-feudal, it was just Capitalist-Imperialist, in my opinion.


Why not? Even Portugal itself was semi-feudal, never mind the colonies.



I still think the brutality of the Huns is more of an exaggeration due to their heathen nature, strange appearance, their Nomadic nature and military success (which is not the same as brutality) in conquering Europe.


Nomadic peoples do tend to be more systematically violent than the settled peasant populations of China and Europe. This is not "racism", because it's simply a matter of the socio-economic mode of production.

"Military success" does become brutality if it means entire cities were burned to the ground.



And yes Attila had an empire with such things as baths, buildings (rather than yurt-type accommodations) and quite an advanced society, but by that point you also had an advanced, quasi-Roman state society of Visigoths and a few other Germanic nations (though many of these were part of Attila's empire). The Celts did too at the time, due to the fact that almost all Celtic nations had been conquered and Romanized.


Attila's empire was a more well-established state society than the semi-tribal semi-state societies of the Celts and Germans at this time.



You are right there. The northern Germanic tribes were more peaceful than the southern tribes (with some exceptions), and they had better lifestyles.


True.



Anyway, I am out on this one. We view certain empires as different types, so arguing that point could go on forever, and I like debating (but this is not too important to me, as much as I study history :D). Anyway, we agree on many points, and no one in this thread is racist, so peace to you and remember to keep strong in your beliefs! ;)


Ok. That's great! Peace to all!! :lol:

[El Chuncho]

OK, it was nice debating with you. I should make a clarification that my ''you'' (in ''you can believe...''), didn't meann you literally, it was figurative (as in ''people, members of society''). :)

;)

[El Chuncho]

OK, it was nice debating with you. I should make a clarification that my ''you'' (in ''you can believe...''), didn't mean you literally, it was figurative (as in ''people, members of society''). :)

;)

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I wonder why Iseul always links everything in every debate to China.

[El Chuncho]

I wonder why Iseul always links everything in every debate to China.

Is it that important? Maybe she just uses them as examples because they come to mind first or because she knows a lot about Chinese history? I often mention the Old English era because it is what I have studies and written about the most, along with Gothic history and Japanese history, so I feel more qualified to use it as an example than other eras and cultures. Just my two cents. :)

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Is it that important? Maybe she just uses them as examples because they come to mind first or because she knows a lot about Chinese history? I often mention the Old English era because it is what I have studies and written about the most, along with Gothic history and Japanese history, so I feel more qualified to use it as an example than other eras and cultures. Just my two cents. :)

It's kind of annoying, she goes on about China in virtually every damn thread, now, I know a lot about Hellenistic Asia, but I don't try to compare the Allied intervetion in lybia to Ptolemaic support for the City states in the Lamian war, as that would be largely irrelevent to the topic, beyond stroking my own ego.

[Tim Finnegan]

In some ways, as a Gael, I want to agree with you entirely, but I think you are forgetting that Scotland and England were unified by a Scottish tyrant. And what do we mean by ''Anglo'', do we mean English or also Inglis (living in Northumberland, it is plain to see that the English culture doesn't stop at the border, and the area was even part of the same country before England was created). Anglicism played an inexcusable part of the Highland clearances and the denigration of Gaelic peoples in Ireland and Scotland, however, I argue that it is naive to think that ''Anglocentrism'' was the main cause. Many English traditions were denigrated in favour of the national ''Briticist'' myth concerning the ancient Britons, Boudicca etc, London is a testament to that, and the influence of Norman and Frankish monarchs on the country over the years.
I think you have a point about "Anglo"- it isn't exactly wise of me to indulge too heavily in the relative recent national constructs of England and Scotland when discussing this. As you say, until the late 18th century, a good chunk of Scotland was "Anglo", and it participated quite enthusiastically in the British imperial project. (It was on the receiving end of some cultural denigration of well, of course, but in the more passive way that many regions of England were.)

However, I have two points in regards to this: firstly, that this really just goes to emphasise my point: that "Englishness", whatever form it took, has always been the dominant national-ethnic force in the British imperial project; the supression of Scottish Gaelic culture was quite often undertaken by enthusiastically "English" Lowlanders, for example. Secondly, that contemporary Scotland is a hybrid of the Anglic and the Gaelic aspects of its history, so as much as the former draws the latter closer to the apex of ethnic privilege, so the latter drags it down, leaving the Scots in that quasi-English limbo called "Britishness". The modern Scots certainly aren't in the position of the 18th century Gaels, but the development of the modern Scottish, Irish and Welsh national identity, alongside non-white immigration, has, over the last century, forced the re-constitution of Englishness proper as something strictly bound to white English-English speakers.


However, what lies behind the heart of ''Britain'', is not ''Anglicism'' or ''Briticism'', but simply Imperialism and Capitalism. Britain thrives on gain and conquest, it doesn't really care about spreading any culture unless it sees a profit in it.

''Culture'' is rarely the main drive of the more modern empires, especially ones that were brought about by unifications of two or more countries, like the British empire.I think you under-estimate the importance of nationalist ideology in the construction of the modern bourgeois state. While it's certainly an entity fundamental driven by accumulation, the bourgeoisie are, more often than not, far from entirely concious in this, and indulge in their own nationalistic mythology as enthusiastically as they expect the proles to. For example, one of the quirks of WWI history is that the upper classes actually suffered a disproportionate loss, because so many young men of that class leapt into the trenches "For king and country" at the first possible opportunity.


Imperialist Scottish overlords do go against the ''empire'' being the fault of England, though.True, true- that's actually something which a lot of liberal national Scots indulge in, much to my frustration, so I should certainly avoid that myself. What I mean is that the ideology of the British empire was one which elevated Englishness above all over nationalities- ethnosupremacism being ideologically necessary for the bourgeois nationalist empire- even when it was obliged to offer a quasi-Englishness, which is to say "Britishness", to its more loyal non-English subjects. The "British" national project, long the love of the Scottish bourgeois (such look at how Gordon Brown used to drool over it) allows the reconstitution of Scottishness as an eccentric regional form of Englishness, elevating it into this in-group internationally, but in doing so demanding the further degradation of independent Scottish culture and the formal acceptance of subjugation to "proper" Britishness, something which is almost explicitly identical to upper-class Home Counties Englishness.

/too much text

[GallowsBird]

Like my brother and comrade Chuncho I also do think the "Englishness" of the British Empire is over played and not because I live in a part (the most oppressed in my opinion part of England) but because looking at the history real "Englishness" bound by history to the era preceding 1066 and the Norman conquest has been suppressed. Even the capital of London, while being in England (in Old English it was Lundenwic and Lundenburh depending on the town that makes up modern day London... London was a Normanised name based on the Roman Londinium) wasn't the capital of England (which was Winchester, the older capital of Wessex). Look at mythology and folklore and how little they are taught in England... most have heard of Greek, Roman and Norse mythology and Brythonic folklore and literature but not English mythology... King Arthur was forced upon England by the upper-class, the Norman Yoke as much as it is downplayed now being very real even to this day. If anything a separate "Britishness" has prevailed made up of Welsh-Norman-Frankish literature and customs but using a debased form of the English language with its French terms for "classy", "intellectual" (AKA bourgeois) communication. The "Norman" class, the UK's bourgeois, have prevailed however in causing a wedge between the proletariat of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland by pretending that the UK is around due to English expansionism when, in fact, other than the "migration age" in which many tribes migrated to the British Isles becoming the Angles, Saxons, Jutes et cetera, the expansion into Wales, Scotland (not counting the Anglian Lowlands which are from the same era as Gaelic Scotland) and Ireland was a purely Norman thing. Not also that the English are the only group who are not taught about their origins for example in school the only eras covered are usually the Pre-Roman and Roman age, the High Middle Ages, The Tudors and Stewarts/Stuarts, the Georgian age, The Industrial Revolution. The Old English era doesn't get a look in.

The English however are too blame for not overthrowing the bourgeoisie properly after the English Revolution and for letting their language be taken to oppress others with. Winstanley was right that the Conqueror/Bastard's heir Charles had been overthrown and that the Norman Yoke of tyranny should have been thrown off for good... if that happened I doubt you'd have had the British Empire as it was a few years later. Also calls to modify the language during that era were correct. The English language as it is just highlights that the common folk of England are oppressed and have been ever since our "Masters" came from Normandy.

If only we could be done with the bastards at the moment. They should all get to the wall frankly. I am not rejoicing for the new wedding of some layabout (as you would expect). If only the English would fight and throw out or eliminate the oppressors the world would be a much better place. Why are the English so weak? Come on England you are letting MARX down dammit!

[El Chuncho]

Yeah, I am certainly against the royal wedding too, which I think is another way to delude English workers. Things are bad at the moment due to the onslaught of capitalism, so the bourgeois state has dangled this ''holiday'' for workers to celebrate the wedding of whatever he is called and that Kate Middleton, whilst also using the money stolen from the people via taxes to fund it.

The fact that these scum in the palace are seen as national darlings is so ridiculous. GallowsBird, you will remember our trip to the royal palace when younger, and the fact that the garden there is meant to be for the people yet has armed guards to stop anyone other than the nobles from visiting it! What rubbish.

[El Chuncho]

Yeah, I am certainly against the royal wedding too, which I think is another way to delude English workers. Things are bad at the moment due to the onslaught of capitalism, so the bourgeois state has dangled this ''holiday'' for workers to celebrate the wedding of whatever he is called and that Kate Middleton, whilst also using the money stolen from the people via taxes to fund it.

The fact that these scum in the palace are seen as national darlings is so ridiculous. GallowsBird, you will remember our trip to the royal palace when younger, and the fact that the garden there is meant to be for the people yet has armed guards to stop anyone other than the nobles from visiting it! What rubbish.

[GallowsBird]

Sorry if it has been mentioned before. But this event (the destruction of the 9th Legion) likely didn't happen (or at least not in the British Isles). A better example of this type is the defeat of Varus's legions at the battle of Teutoburg by Arminius's confederacy of Germanic tribes. Also the earlier part of the campaign of Spartacus is a better example however in the end Spartacus became a martyr to the struggle for freedom.

[El Chuncho]

A better example of this type is the defeat of Varus's legions at the battle of Teutoburg by Arminius's confederacy of Germanic tribes. Also the earlier part of the campaign of Spartacus is a better example however in the end Spartacus became a martyr to the struggle for freedom.

Mentioned them already. :laugh: Another example is the fighting to the death of Jewish resistance fighters against the Romans in the Bar Kokhba revolt.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Romans had an imperial and proto-Capitalist society. The greatest heroes against Rome were Spartacus and ''Arminius''.

Also the Gracchi brothers i think

[Tim Finnegan]

Like my brother and comrade Chuncho I also do think the "Englishness" of the British Empire is over played and not because I live in a part (the most oppressed in my opinion part of England) but because looking at the history real "Englishness" bound by history to the era preceding 1066 and the Norman conquest has been suppressed. Even the capital of London, while being in England (in Old English it was Lundenwic and Lundenburh depending on the town that makes up modern day London... London was a Normanised name based on the Roman Londinium) wasn't the capital of England (which was Winchester, the older capital of Wessex). Look at mythology and folklore and how little they are taught in England... most have heard of Greek, Roman and Norse mythology and Brythonic folklore and literature but not English mythology... King Arthur was forced upon England by the upper-class, the Norman Yoke as much as it is downplayed now being very real even to this day. If anything a separate "Britishness" has prevailed made up of Welsh-Norman-Frankish literature and customs but using a debased form of the English language with its French terms for "classy", "intellectual" (AKA bourgeois) communication. The "Norman" class, the UK's bourgeois, have prevailed however in causing a wedge between the proletariat of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland by pretending that the UK is around due to English expansionism when, in fact, other than the "migration age" in which many tribes migrated to the British Isles becoming the Angles, Saxons, Jutes et cetera, the expansion into Wales, Scotland (not counting the Anglian Lowlands which are from the same era as Gaelic Scotland) and Ireland was a purely Norman thing. Not also that the English are the only group who are not taught about their origins for example in school the only eras covered are usually the Pre-Roman and Roman age, the High Middle Ages, The Tudors and Stewarts/Stuarts, the Georgian age, The Industrial Revolution. The Old English era doesn't get a look in.
I'm really talking about these concepts contemporary to the development of capitalism and imperialism, not their feudal or pre-feudal antecedents; specifically, as nationalities in the bourgeois understanding of the concept. Englishness- (specifically, a South-Eastern, bourgeois Englishness), was the imposed norm of the British state, even when it was presented in its slightly more flexible form of "Britishness"- something which has been, historically, a sort of national "middle class", a construct allowing non-English people to invest themselves in the British nation-state. (It's no coincidence that white English people generally conflate the two concepts, while non-white English and non-English Britons are overwhelmingly aware, if not always entirely consciously, of the exclusive status of that identity.)

Noting, while we're on the topic, that the idea of some pure, Anglo-Saxon Englishness is just as inaccurate as a pure Gaelic Scottishness. Both are purely romantic notions, not one with a firm basis in either modern nationality.

[El Chuncho]

Also the Gracchi brothers i think

Good suggestion, their attempt to redistribute landholdings from the rich to the poor are very proto-socialist.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's kind of annoying, she goes on about China in virtually every damn thread, now, I know a lot about Hellenistic Asia, but I don't try to compare the Allied intervetion in lybia to Ptolemaic support for the City states in the Lamian war, as that would be largely irrelevent to the topic, beyond stroking my own ego.

Where did I mention China, except in the most peripheral sense (for the sake of being inclusive when discussing world history), in this thread at all?

What I find annoying is the fact that you constantly pick on me for no good reason at all. Maybe you just don't like me personally, but then you have a strange and weird way of showing it.

Or maybe you have a secret fetishic crush on me, which is why you like to annoy and troll me often. Many men are like that. Who knows? :rolleyes:

This is just a forum, people say whatever they like, if you don't find certain posts interesting, just don't read them. No-one is forcing Chinese history down your throat.

Objectively, China is a very large and important country, which is why it often comes up. You don't seem to complain that Europe is mentioned in every history-related thread though, do you? Biased?

[Queercommie Girl]

Good suggestion, their attempt to redistribute landholdings from the rich to the poor are very proto-socialist.


Gracchus' reforms were quite limited, they were essentially "keynesian" (or the slavery equivalent of capitalist keynesianism) in character, not "proto-socialist".

The word "socialist" should never be applied lightly, especially when discussing ancient history.

[Queercommie Girl]

On the topic of whether or not we can call Rome imperialist, I think it stands to reason that since Marx explicitly called Spartacus a great proto-proletarian leader of the ancient world, then it stands to reason that Rome must have been imperialist in some sense at least, otherwise what exactly was Spartacus fighting against?

[Red Future]

Sorry if it has been mentioned before. But this event (the destruction of the 9th Legion) likely didn't happen (or at least not in the British Isles). A better example of this type is the defeat of Varus's legions at the battle of Teutoburg by Arminius's confederacy of Germanic tribes. Also the earlier part of the campaign of Spartacus is a better example however in the end Spartacus became a martyr to the struggle for freedom.

Didn't Arminius actually serve with the Romans first ??

[Tim Finnegan]

Didn't Arminius actually serve with the Romans first ??
He lived among the Romans as a hostage after a treaty arranged between his father and the empire, a common element of peace agreements in that time, and, as befitting a young man of his social class, was trained as a Roman officer. That is, in part, how he was able to combat them so effectively: he knew how to think like a Roman commander, while the Romans had no idea how to think like a German.

[GallowsBird]

Didn't Arminius actually serve with the Romans first ??

He did breifly yes. Its how he learnt Roman tactits and use them against the Roman Empire. Much in the same way that many revolutionaries (such as many in Ireland) have spent time in the army of the power they oppose. And as Tim Finnegan says he was a hostage as was common at the time with high ranking members of peoples that the Romans attempted to dominate and eventually absorb into the Roman Empire proper.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

He lived among the Romans as a hostage after a treaty arranged between his father and the empire, a common element of peace agreements in that time, and, as befitting a young man of his social class, was trained as a Roman officer. That is, in part, how he was able to combat them so effectively: he knew how to think like a Roman commander, while the Romans had no idea how to think like a German.

Yeah, he was educated in the Roman style, and served the Empire for a while before the rebellion.

[GallowsBird]

I'm really talking about these concepts contemporary to the development of capitalism and imperialism, not their feudal or pre-feudal antecedents; specifically, as nationalities in the bourgeois understanding of the concept. Englishness- (specifically, a South-Eastern, bourgeois Englishness), was the imposed norm of the British state, even when it was presented in its slightly more flexible form of "Britishness"- something which has been, historically, a sort of national "middle class", a construct allowing non-English people to invest themselves in the British nation-state. (It's no coincidence that white English people generally conflate the two concepts, while non-white English and non-English Britons are overwhelmingly aware, if not always entirely consciously, of the exclusive status of that identity.)


"White English people" conflate the two because they are brainwashed, oppressed and now weak. They have been easily swayed by the propaganda that tells them what to think... It isn't so much that they think English and "British" are the same but that "British" is more important than "English". They are sadly deluded and afraid to step away from the instrument of their bondage (hence they haven't got rid of the monarchy).

As Gerrard Winstanley (an agrarian communist and founder of the True Levellers movement around the time of the English Revolution) put it "O what mighty Delusion, do you, who are the powers of England live in! That while you pretend to throw down that Norman yoke, and Babylonish power, and have promised to make the groaning people of England a Free People; yet you still lift up that Norman yoke, and slavish Tyranny, and holds the People as much in bondage, as the Bastard Conquerour himself, and his Councel of War." The English could through most of history see the difference between the Norman/Frankish and then British state (AKA the king and lords and government of the state).

Sorry but my problem with Irish and Gaelic nationalists is that the movements have a lot of racism towards English (hence all the "Teutonic conquerors" rhetoric) people, which includes the workers and is thus counter-productive to the revolutionary goals within the British Isles. We are in a state where the Irish, Welsh, Scottish and Cornish are acceptable whereas the English are seen as the overlords. You can't just ignore the longer history, you have to examine the buildup towards the current situation (history isn't just a string of meaningless happenstances after all) and remeber that in a country that still has aspects of feudalism (which the UK does as minor as many may see them) it is important to look at those eras and the change from Feudalism to Capitalism (around the 14th century). Thus when you look at it in full (taking into account the Norman conquest, Frankish dynasties, the peasant revolts in the Middle-Ages, the takeover of England by a Norman-Scottish monarch) you can see that the history of Imperialism in the British Isles isn't a clean cut case of "English expansionism"; at the very least Scotland is equally as guilty as England. Chuncho has already mentioned the Scottish king James IV, but more importantly look at how the Orcadians and Shetlanders are marginalised throughout Scottish history into the present day. At least the Scottish media and parliament see Scotland in terms of its Gaelic heritage over its Anglian*... but what of its Norse? But then they are just Teutonic conquerors and not "native"** Gaels. Now I am mostly of Gaelic descent and can't verify any ancestry from England but I really find this "Celtic vs Germanic" rhetoric (which is ironic as the English are supposed to see themselves as wholly descendants of the Brythons now...which of course denies them a truly unique history but that is another subject :rolleyes: ) is very counter-productive and breeds racism in the other nations of the British Isles and within England, which knowing the establishment is probably the way things have been planned. Divide the opposition!

As I am starting to ramble I shall summarise:

I don't think that "Britishness" is equivalent to Englishness nor that it particularly comes from it. It is merely a joining of the "upper-classes" of England and Scotland (who were themselves a mix of Gallic people, Bretons, Normans, Franks, Gaels... oddly enough not "Anglo-Saxons" originally as the Anglo-Saxon nobility were mostly dispossessed after 1066 though after a while the rulers of England married into the Scottish regal line thus gaining descent from Edgar Atheling, the last English king) as well as well as minor parties in Wales. Incidentally England is the only country without national representation in the UK at the moment which is quite telling but in my mind all the nations should be out of the British Empire (or UK) anyway. Sadly though when that day comes (along with the removal of the monarchy) I fear the damage has been done and we'll still find hatred for the English workers in Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and Ireland.
The usual Anti-English nature of many on the left in other nations of the British Isles downplays the English National Liberation struggle thus forcing them to appeal to the far right rather than the far left. While at the same time many in the struggles of Ireland and Scotland racism (a far right and Imperialist ideology) has been accepted as the English are seen purely as conquerors when they were conquered as much as any other nation in the British Isles by a group that thought they were ethnically superior to the English population and I would say they still do hence they still rule.

;
Noting, while we're on the topic, that the idea of some pure, Anglo-Saxon Englishness is just as inaccurate as a pure Gaelic Scottishness. Both are purely romantic notions, not one with a firm basis in either modern nationality.That is a fair point and one I agree with 100%! I can't think of a country which is purely anything.

** Which is wrong and just adds to the marginalisation of the Borders.
*Who are as native to Scotland as the Angles and Norse... which isn't particularly native.


EDIT: Note I am not saying Tim Finnegan is a racist just that there is a lot of racist rhetoric in the National Liberation movements of the British Isles.

[GallowsBird]

On the topic of whether or not we can call Rome imperialist, I think it stands to reason that since Marx explicitly called Spartacus a great proto-proletarian leader of the ancient world, then it stands to reason that Rome must have been imperialist in some sense at least, otherwise what exactly was Spartacus fighting against?

The Romans were at least proto-Imperialist. That goes without saying in my opinion.

[GallowsBird]

GallowsBird, you will remember our trip to the royal palace when younger, and the fact that the garden there is meant to be for the people yet has armed guards to stop anyone other than the nobles from visiting it! What rubbish.

I do. As we said at the time; if the garden belongs to us then why can we not enter it? It's the same with all palaces that are claimed to belong to the nation and people... well if they belong to me then I am setting up my home in Buckingham palace then! :lol:

[El Chuncho]

EDIT: Note I am not saying Tim Finnegan is a racist just that there is a lot of racist rhetoric in the National Liberation movements of the British Isles.

There always is to be fair, it helps national liberation (which I totally agree with) gain popular support. Rhetoric and hyperbole are very powerful.

As a Marxist-Leninist I agree with comrade Stalin's view that cultures are different from ''paper nations'' and are, to quote Stalin, "neither racial nor tribal, but a historically formed community of people". I would have no problem if the UK allows Gaels, as well as the Welsh and English, to exist as cultures (multiculturalism is fine, why do we want monoculture? Slight differences are fine, there is more of a divide between classes than cultures. cultures will always borrow form each other and mix) and has a socialist backbone to it. As I know you agree, the UK is not social and wants to hold Scotland, England and Wales together without the regard to the individual cultures. It forces a British identity on the populace to delude them into think that capitalism is fine for them, but it is causing further divide, because it is making the cultural groups of the isles see themselves as more different than they actually are.

The main cause of ''left-wing nationalism'' (or revolutionary patriotism, or national liberation) and National Socialism in the UK are fundamentally the same. Left-wing nationalism is more cultural self-determination, opposed to cultural assimilation (like Titoism) and people can belong to that culture without being an ethnic group, I feel, whereas National Socialism is just racism, an adherence to the erroneous view of races and paper nations.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

There always is to be fair, it helps national liberation (which I totally agree with) gain popular support. Rhetoric and hyperbole are very powerful.

As a Marxist-Leninist I agree with comrade Stalin's view that cultures are different from ''paper nations'' and are, to quote Stalin, "neither racial nor tribal, but a historically formed community of people". I would have no problem if the UK allows Gaels, as well as the Welsh and English, to exist as cultures (multiculturalism is fine, why do we want monoculture? Slight differences are fine, there is more of a divide between classes than cultures. cultures will always borrow form each other and mix) and has a socialist backbone to it. As I know you agree, the UK is not social and wants to hold Scotland, England and Wales together without the regard to the individual cultures. It forces a British identity on the populace to delude them into think that capitalism is fine for them, but it is causing further divide, because it is making the cultural groups of the isles see themselves as more different than they actually are.


The main cause of ''left-wing nationalism'' (or revolutionary patriotism, or national liberation) and National Socialism in the UK are fundamentally the same. Left-wing nationalism is more cultural self-determination, opposed to cultural assimilation (like Titoism) and people can belong to that culture without being an ethnic group, I feel, whereas National Socialism is just racism, an adherence to the erroneous view of races and paper nations.

Interesting point. In a different context how would you feel about Sultan-Galiev, the early "Muslim Bolshevik"? He was an atheist but he had a theory of the Muslim people (I guess in a cultural sense) being an oppressed nation. Some Maoists tend to like him. Carried too far this idea of an oppressed cultural community can transcend working class solidarity and at an extreme lead to national Bolshevism.

Having said that I support Scottish, Welsh, and Cornish (if that is desired by the people of Cornwall) independence.

The comments about English or "Anglic" culture being submerged by an aristocratic- Norman-Frankish-Celtic culture is interesting. As I remember the original Morte d'Arthur was written as a sort of Norman-Frankish would be national epic during the Hundred Years War when there was the possibility of England and France becoming one country or at least sharing the same monarch.

Could El Chuncho or GallowsBird elaborate on this? What does it mean to be "English"? Of course, I'm on the other side of the pond.

[Tim Finnegan]

*snip*
To be honest, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. My comments have been in regard to the construction of the insular nations as modern, bourgeoisie entities, something which, while certainly influenced by the existing ethnic distribution, has never been defined by it. Scottishness, Englishness, and so forth did not crystallise until the bourgeoisie revolution of the 17th to 18th century century- tellingly, there is little in the way of nationalist rhetoric in the Jacobitism of Gaelic aristocracy of that period- and must be viewed as a product of those revolutions, and not simply as the modern incarnation of some ancient lineage, even if they may occasionally dress themselves up as such (and that's not something that I believe Scottish nationalists, at least, are as quick to do as you seem to imagine).

Also, I would observe that the "Norman yoke" is a romantic fiction which did not emerge until the 17th century, not an accurate understanding of British history. It's a narrative which supported the emerging bourgeois ideal of state and church- parliamentarian and Protestant- in opposition to the aristocratic form- monarchical and Catholic- allowing it to be decried as "foreign", and in opposition to the "nature" of the English people, a prototype of later bourgeoisie declarations of a general "human nature".

[Pavlov's House Party]

Good suggestion, their attempt to redistribute landholdings from the rich to the poor are very proto-socialist.

The Gracchi were populares; members of the ruling senatorial class who relied on the urban masses for political power through their positions as tribunes of the plebs. While they may have had some honest intentions, populares would almost always switch to become conservative/reactionary optimates and side with the Senate once they had gained enough political power, then turn against the plebeians who had supported them. In all likeliness, the reason so many people think of the Gracchi as some proto-socialists is that they were killed before they had the opportunity to become optimates. Their land reforms more resemble contemporary bourgeois politicians running on campaigns promising public healthcare etc. to pander to the working class.

[Fietsketting]

You are not that much different from the 18th century nationalists looking up to Vercingetorix or Joan of Arc as a nationalist patron for France, Arminius for Germany and use them for your own political program.

[southernmissfan]

On the topic of whether or not we can call Rome imperialist, I think it stands to reason that since Marx explicitly called Spartacus a great proto-proletarian leader of the ancient world, then it stands to reason that Rome must have been imperialist in some sense at least, otherwise what exactly was Spartacus fighting against?

Slavery?

[El Chuncho]

Interesting point. In a different context how would you feel about Sultan-Galiev, the early "Muslim Bolshevik"? He was an atheist but he had a theory of the Muslim people (I guess in a cultural sense) being an oppressed nation. Some Maoists tend to like him. Carried too far this idea of an oppressed cultural community can transcend working class solidarity and at an extreme lead to national Bolshevism.

I am not familiar with Sultan-Galiev, it sounds like he might be an Arab national liberationists, in which case I do not disagree with him. National liberation is important, as it frees cultures from being oppressed by other cultures and ideas. Maoists would like him because they do not define cultures as negative as a whole, which is why they protected the rights of many non-Han people in China, as well as the rights of the Han people.

Cultural identity is built up of language, cultural mannerism and certain traditions (that should always change and evolve) including folk songs (which were popular with the Russian revolutionaries and the folk-singer communists of the 50s, 60s and 70s). My idea of culture and national liberation is summed up by Speech by Frantz Fanon:

''The natives who are anxious for the culture of their country and who wish to give to it a universal dimension ought not therefore to place their confidence in the single principle of inevitable, undifferentiated independence written into the consciousness of the people in order to achieve their task. The liberation of the nation is one thing; the methods and popular content of the fight are another. It seems to me that the future of national culture and its riches are equally also part and parcel of the values which have ordained the struggle for freedom.

And now it is time to denounce certain pharisees. National claims, it is here and there stated, are a phase that humanity has left behind. It is the day of great concerted actions, and retarded nationalists ought in consequence to set their mistakes aright. We, however, consider that the mistake, which may have very serious consequences, lies in wishing to skip the national period. If culture is the expression of national consciousness, I will not hesitate to affirm that in the case with which we are dealing it is the national consciousness which is the most elaborate form of culture.''

And my idea of English nationalism being wrong, and right-wing, whereas Scottish and Irish nationalism isn't, was summed up by Paul Kingsorth - who is a left-winger, though he is not revolutionary enough and especially not Marxist-Leninist enough, but on this issue he is correct:

''There are reasons, too, to be concerned about some of those who take on the mantle today, many of whom do come from a dark political place. But wait a minute: how have the Scottish managed to get themselves a government that is both nationalist and left-wing? How is it that the French are able to invoke 'état from the left as well as the right? Why do the Zapatistas in Mexico, who talk proudly of their Mexican as well as their indigenous identity while conducting armed insurrections against the state, attract the admiration of young English radicals? Why is nationalism good in Venezuela or Cuba but not here? And why is talk of identity and culture admired among our ethnic-minority communities, yet when the English as a whole discuss such ideas, the spectre of Enoch Powell and the British National Party is immediately conjured up?

"But decades of such cultural self-harm have had three dangerous consequences. The first is that the far right has been able to colonise Englishness for itself, conflate it with whiteness and make us all even more nervous about discussing it. The second is that the genuine political injustices under which England currently labours are not being addressed by the left. And the third is that the door has been flung wide open for global capitalism to gleefully tear up what remains of the English landscape, both physical and cultural, and replace it with strip malls, motorways, corporate farms and gated communities for the rich. England is losing its soul, and the left has had far too little to say about it.''

In my opinion, attacking the ideas culture is quite dangerous and will cause negative blacklashes such reactionism and racism. If people are not allowed a culture, they will start to envision their culture as a race thing, also ignoring people who are part of the culture but have heritages from elsewhere (I am an English peasant, but I have no verifiable English ancestry, the only verifiable ancestry I have is Gaelic), and I think this is the reason that the BNP is growing in popularity with English workers.





Having said that I support Scottish, Welsh, and Cornish (if that is desired by the people of Cornwall) independence.

I support the right to self-determinism in Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, England, the Falklands and other countries under the UK or other imperialist powers. When culture is freed from nationalism, racism and oppression, the workers would be more free and their culture would be free to ''to influence and permeate other cultures'' and that ''the heart of national consciousness that international consciousness lives and grows.''

Internationalism shouldn't be about replacing cultures with a monoculture, if we try to do this we are doomed to failure. What culture will we be basing a monoculture on? Mish-mashing elements of other cultures to create a set culture for the people of the Earth is a noble idea? But would it work? I do not think so. What language will we use? What counting system? Multiculturalism is best. Cultures should exist but live and work together as one, as members of the human race. The states of the USSR are probably the best way of achieving a socialist paradise. In the USSR you had many country, each with their own character (and in many cases many, many cultures within them), not just one country with a monoculture. It is the same in China where you have Han, Manchus, Mongols, Turkic people.

I have a problem with ''nationalism'' when it is racial and oppression, but not national liberation of the idea that cultures exist. Free the workers, keep cultures, and they will grow a part of the family of human culture. That is true internationalism.


The comments about English or "Anglic" culture being submerged by an aristocratic- Norman-Frankish-Celtic culture is interesting.

Well, I could not say that it would have been submerged by a Celtic culture. It is true that the aristocracy did use Arthurian, which is partly from Welsh mythology, as a justification to conquer, or ''unite'' (their view) the British Isles as a single country.


As I remember the original Morte d'Arthur was written as a sort of Norman-Frankish would be national epic during the Hundred Years War when there was the possibility of England and France becoming one country or at least sharing the same monarch.

Actually, in the defense of 'Morte d'Arthur', it was mainly written in the tongue of the people, the peasants and workers, Middle-English, but the title and a few words are evidence of the legacy of Norman-French spoken by the upper-class.

The aristocracy of England are shamefully almost an ethnic class, and were exactly that for centuries after the rule of William The Bastard. This fact was not lost of the early English communists who often mentioned the ''Norman yoke'' (being the aristocracy, the ultimate legacy of the subjugation of a native society), which was later used by Thomas Jefferson in reference to the aristocracy of the Georgian period, who were still mostly descended from the ethnic class set up during the reign of William the Conquerer, many centuries before. left-wing national liberationists in England contend that Britain and England are not the same thing, pointing to the unification of England and Scotland by a foreign family (a Scottish family again of Norman descent), the fact that English politicians have no real say on other countries in the UK, yet the politicians in the other countries have a say in the governance of England (this is called the 'West Lothian question'', which is used by both left and right wing nationalists).


Could El Chuncho or GallowsBird elaborate on this? What does it mean to be "English"? Of course, I'm on the other side of the pond.

The same as it means to be Scottish or Irish, so it means you can be black etc. You can acknowledge that you are from a culture without being a nationalist (in the right-wing, racial sense). If culture was not worthy of existence in the world, then national liberation movements in Ireland and other countries are unimportant, and we should instead push for a revolution in Ireland as part of Britain, instead of as a separate entity. In short, the Irish revolutionaries should be the same movement as those in Scotland, England, Wales and Cornwall, but the Irish are Irish, and would be the first to point that out. Again multiculturalism is the best policy of any socialist state. When the national struggles of each country are won, they will belong to a union of other states on the earth, and petty nationalism and racialism will dissipate.

[GallowsBird]

To be honest, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. My comments have been in regard to the construction of the insular nations as modern, bourgeoisie entities, something which, while certainly influenced by the existing ethnic distribution, has never been defined by it. Scottishness, Englishness, and so forth did not crystallise until the bourgeoisie revolution of the 17th to 18th century century- tellingly, there is little in the way of nationalist rhetoric in the Jacobitism of Gaelic aristocracy of that period-

But Jacobitism wasn't a purely Gaelic, or even Scottish thing, hence most of Northern England supported the Jacobite cause (with some exceptions such as Newcastle, though not Northumberland as a whole, supporting the king).


and must be viewed as a product of those revolutions, and not simply as the modern incarnation of some ancient lineage, even if they may occasionally dress themselves up as such (and that's not something that I believe Scottish nationalists, at least, are as quick to do as you seem to imagine).

Please don't put thoughts in my head. And I am not sure what point you are trying to make either.


Also, I would observe that the "Norman yoke" is a romantic fiction which did not emerge until the 17th century, not an accurate understanding of British history. It's a narrative which supported the emerging bourgeois ideal of state and church- parliamentarian and Protestant- in opposition to the aristocratic form- monarchical and Catholic- allowing it to be decried as "foreign", and in opposition to the "nature" of the English people, a prototype of later bourgeoisie declarations of a general "human nature".

No, it was a legitimate reading of history mentioned by revolutionaries around the time of the English Revolution such as Winstanley, Lilburn et cetera. Just because the modern bourgeois class that run the media have decided that it isn't true doesn't make it so (and many Marxist scholars have written and supported the hypothesis such as , of the top of my head, Christopher Hill). If something is claimed to be "romantic fiction" by the ruling elite then that makes it so? I don't think so.
Even if there is no "Norman yoke" (though I am sure that the term is the most accurate title of the aristocracy populated almost exclusively by descendants of the Norman conquering class to this day) it is still a line of thought that has been used by English revolutionaries who have seen a distinction between the worker and the ruling class. The term may be, as you have said, from around the 17th century (or at least that is when it was first written) but there is evidence for this strand of belief all the way back to the time of Chaucer (in which a distinction is made between the conquering class and the conquered, in the first era of regular English literature since the Old English era) back to the Peasant's Revolt (especially in the speech of John Ball).

[GallowsBird]

You are not that much different from the 18th century nationalists looking up to Vercingetorix or Joan of Arc as a nationalist patron for France, Arminius for Germany and use them for your own political program.

Or it could be examining historical figures and finding historical precedents like Karl Marx, Che Guevara and various Communist groups did with Spartacus... :rolleyes:

[Fietsketting]

Or it could be examining historical figures and finding historical precedents like Karl Marx, Che Guevara and various Communist groups did with Spartacus... :rolleyes:

You can find that in most historical figures, the reasoning behind it is quite the same tho.

[Queercommie Girl]

Slavery?

Rome was a slavery empire. Also don't forget the national struggles against Roman imperialism by people like Vercingetorix and Arminius. If one refuses to acknowledge the geopolitical imperialism of Rome, then one is denying the partially progressive features of these national struggles.

[Queercommie Girl]

You are not that much different from the 18th century nationalists looking up to Vercingetorix or Joan of Arc as a nationalist patron for France, Arminius for Germany and use them for your own political program.

I disagree. It depends on who is using such figures. Different ideologies can use the same historical figures.

Besides, bourgeois nationalism was actually relatively progressive compared with feudal imperialism back in the 18th century. Marx was clear that the French Revolution was a relatively progressive historical event that smashed feudal rule.

[Tim Finnegan]

But Jacobitism wasn't a purely Gaelic, or even Scottish thing, hence most of Northern England supported the Jacobite cause (with some exceptions such as Newcastle, though not Northumberland as a whole, supporting the king).
I know that. My point was to emphasise the ideological distinction between the anti-Unionist movements in Ireland and Scotland before and after the completion of the bourgeois revolutions in those countries, and that it reflects the nature of nationalism as a particularly bourgeois ideology.


Please don't put thoughts in my head.I'm not "putting thoughts in your head" (:confused:), I'm making inferences based on your post. Specifically, I am inferring from your claims that Scottish nationalism is often "racist" that the nationalist movement is based on some declaration of pure Gaelic heritage, which is not something which is at all evidenced in practice. (Aside from anything else, those elements of Gaelic culture which are celebrated as universally Scottish are usually de-ethnicised, hence the existence of, for example, Sikh, Jewish and Chinese tartans.)


And I am not sure what point you are trying to make either.My point is that my original comments in regards to the English and Scottish nations referred to the modern bourgeois nations, not to the ethnic groups declared by nationalist romantics to represent the essential antecedents of those nations.


No, it was a legitimate reading of history mentioned by revolutionaries around the time of the English Revolution such as Winstanley, Lilburn et cetera. Just because the modern bourgeois class that run the media have decided that it isn't true doesn't make it so (and many Marxist scholars have written and supported the hypothesis such as , of the top of my head, Christopher Hill). If something is claimed to be "romantic fiction" by the ruling elite then that makes it so? I don't think so.
Even if there is no "Norman yoke" (though I am sure that the term is the most accurate title of the aristocracy populated almost exclusively by descendants of the Norman conquering class to this day) it is still a line of thought that has been used by English revolutionaries who have seen a distinction between the worker and the ruling class. The term may be, as you have said, from around the 17th century (or at least that is when it was first written) but there is evidence for this strand of belief all the way back to the time of Chaucer (in which a distinction is made between the conquering class and the conquered, in the first era of regular English literature since the Old English era) back to the Peasant's Revolt (especially in the speech of John Ball).You're confusing class conflict with ethnic conflict, the same silly old mistake made by the Medieval and Early Modern English people themselves. The two barely coincide in the first place- plenty of common-born Normans came across with William, plenty of Saxon nobles went Quisling- and was something which had more or less entirely dissolved by the time of Henry VII- a man for whom his command of French was no more native than his command of German or Spanish.

[El Chuncho]

(Aside from anything else, those elements of Gaelic culture which are celebrated as universally Scottish are usually de-ethnicised, hence the existence of, for example, Sikh, Jewish and Chinese tartans.)



I have to cut in there, as it is connected to my explanation of left-wing nationalism, national liberation and multiculturalism. English left-wing nationalism is not necessarily about an ethnic group just as Scottish isn't. William Morris ( a key figure in UK socialism and Libertarian Socialism), Christopher Hill (who I didn't know about till reading his name in this thread), the musician Billy Bragg etc. are all left-wing nationalists and unlike national socialists they didn't see culture as race, nor were they against multiculturalism in favour of monoculturalism, but they did see the Norman invasion as a case of an ethnic class being placed in power. Some Normans (although very few, as most soldiers on the side of the Normans were Breton and ''French'' (Frankish, Gaulish etc.) as the Normans of Normandy were almost an ethnic class) were poor, but that doesn't quite change the fact that English males were not allowed to hold great power (only a handful of Quislings in the few years following the invasion, most of which were yeomen), and that the majority of their descendants are still aristocrats to this day. Socialists like William Morris and Christopher Hill did see it as a class-struggle with ethnic overtones, just as Irish people see the trouble in Ireland in the same light (with Anglo-Irish being an overclass), and obviously thought that history was important to the socialist struggle. History and the historians conflicting views of historical events have proven to be quite ''important'', as this thread has become very, very interesting. I am reminded of this quote by William Morris;

''The past is not dead, it is living in us, and will be alive in the future which we are now helping to make.''

[A.J.]

And a little on the Celtic languages. It was the Romans who destroyed the Celtic languages. Once spoken from Spain to Palestine, from Italy to Scotland. There is evidence of a great deal of words being borrowed from the Celtic languages and Latin. I think it's a shame that what's left isn't spoken much these days. Gaelic is such an interesting language.

Except in Roman times Gaelic, a Q-Celtic language, wasn't spoken in the area now known as Scotland. It is believed the peoples who inhabited Caledonia spoke a P-Celtic language like Welsh and Breton.