US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1692

On March 03 2015 23:29 MoltkeWarding wrote:

British India was not a colony, it was ruled by the British East India Company until 1858, and subject to direct rule thereafter. There was no “popular sentiment” or “national consciousness” in the modern sense until the later phases of the Raj. Among traditional Hindu society, caste was more important than political allegiance. British domination in the 19th century did not come about as a consequence of ideology or planning, but by a gradual historical process which was inherited from generation to generation. Prior to the War of the Austrian Succession, European East India Companies had no interest in acquiring territory, and generally accepted the sovereignty of the Mughal state. Then came the weakening of Mughal hegemony over India, the rise of the Mahratta confederacy, the Mahratta attack on the Carnatic coast, triggering intervention of European trade companies, at first more in a bid for survival than a desire to interfere in local affairs. British victory over the French in the Carnatic wars allowed them to install their own allies in the Carnatic and Hyderabad. British hegemony in the southeast came by default in the power vacuum which emerged.

British acquisition of Benghal followed a similar process: The French allied themselves with Surajah Dowlah, who attempted to push the British East India Company out of the Benghal. The British in Calcutta were captured and thrown in the infamous “black hole” When the British returned, a civil war had broken out in the Benghal, and in accordance with the elementary rules of politics, the British aligned themselves with the anti-Dowlah faction. The Anglo-Indian alliance beat the nawab of Benghal at Plassey, and the British candidate ascended the throne. However, the rule of Mir Jafar in Benghal was insecure, and he was thereafter dependent on British protection from Moslem incursions, Oudh and the French. Once again, the British role in Benghal was inherited by her military supremacy in a power vacuum, in which the British became the indirect rulers of the Benghal. In achieving this military supremacy, the British East India Company largely acted on its own initiative, with minimal interference from the British government. Communications in the eighteenth century were too primitive and spartan, and the East India Company essentially became an indigenous actor in the local scene, owing formal allegiance to a European state.

The British came into actual hegemony over the subcontinent with the defeat of the Mahratta confederacy half a century later.

As John Seeley once remarked, the British seemed to have “conquered half the world in a fit of absence of mind.” De facto British hegemony in India, the long process through which she came to inherit such a position, ought not be confused either in the motives or processes during the later, self-conscious land rushes of the late-Victorian period. It was plainly speaking, “Imperial Expansion” only in the sense of its consequences, but not in the sense of its motives or aims. The British East India Company was interested in commerce and dividends, not in temporal power. On her path to protect her commerce, she accidentally came into it.

The transition from indirect company rule to direct rule was in response to an attempt to place India under proper administrative government, and political responsibility, and an effort to stamp out the Company’s misrule in India.
On the whole, this attempt to draw some kind of systematic parallel between the British in India and the Americans in Europe falls flat.

In India, British hegemony replaced another foreign hegemony, not a pluralistic power system, although without European involvement, it is very likely that India would have eventually become dominated by another Indian state after a long period of anarchy and wars. Contrary to the resentful insinuations of modern Indian nationalism, India was not a nation when the British came in. The postcolonial narrative of resentment has to take as its focal point the myth of British infringement on Indian nationhood, or on the particularism of the many Indias. The former is a retrospective fabrication. The latter has to take into account that such particularism was historically accustomed to paternalistic relations with a hegemonic power. As for British “assault” on Indian culture, I have no idea what is meant by this. For the most part, Indian culture remained intact during British rule, and India until today remains one of the most conservative societies in the world.

Implying that the “colonies” could have chosen their political overlords can be argued one of two ways. In making themselves the allies and protectorates of European powers, indigenous powers did indeed “choose” their political overlords, and this paradigm occurred not only in India, but everywhere from Tanzania to Egypt to Cambodia. These decisions were made by local chieftains largely seeking allies or protection against rivals. If on the other hand, it implies that the British ought to have held popular elections in India, or Egypt or among the bushmen of the Cape, it is simply an ahistorical projection of contemporary ideology.

Having said all this, the question of British rule in India as a historical epoch (rather than a Hegelian proposition) is irrelevant to the original point, which focuses on Europe. Pluralism for European Powers in the 19th century was de facto pluralism in the world. Of the five great powers, only the UK was owed her great power status to any extent on overseas colonies, and even without her Empire, the UK would have been a European power in her own right.

I am rather indifferent to Imperial history, and, for that matter, to the culture and civilisation of the non-West. While denying that foreign nations have any obligation to adopt Western attitudes and mores, I deny by the same impulses that I am obligated to regard Hindu or Pashtun or Bantu civilisation as equally worthy of my attentions or respect. If that is the kind of statement you are seeking to squeeze out of me, I offer it to you freely and without hesitation.

Finally, I have to address this implication (or at least selective obsession) of yours that the primary consequence of the Vienna state system was the distribution of colonial territories. The purpose of the Congress system was to maintain peace in Europe, and colonial congresses became subject to the general system. Colonial expansion would have occurred with or without the 19th century state system. The system existed to prevent the outbreak of general wars over any issue, domestic, European or colonial.

On March 04 2015 04:41 Gorsameth wrote:

I wonder what makes you think that this would be a blunder when even the Mossad is not convinced that Iran is actually working on a nuclear weapon (Source).
If anything I would compare Netanyahu's actions to the invasion of Iraq on the base of weapons that did not exist.

On March 04 2015 05:47 oneofthem wrote:
btw for republicans to pull this is pretty over the line. netanyahu made specific allegations against the UNITED STATES's negotiations with a foreign state, a process that is supposed to be confidential and relies on sensitive intelligence. they put obama in a position of having to defend the u.s. policy against a foreign politician's propaganda and we can't even release intelligence to prove the case.

On March 04 2015 07:23 xDaunt wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why Moltke thinks that "American Hegemony" in Europe has not been a good thing for the Europeans since the end of WW2. Europeans are more or less free to do whatever they want while benefiting from the protection of American military might with very few strings attached.

On March 04 2015 07:27 coverpunch wrote:

Your last sentence kind of sums up the gist of why this move might be necessary. Obama making deals that he won't justify because he "can't" release the information he's using to support his argument sounds shady at best. This isn't supposed to be a secret deal, it is something the U.S. has been trying to get for DECADES. Netanyahu is simply ensuring America's biggest regional ally isn't cut out of the process, as it appears they have been if their leader feels he needs to go to the Congressional floor to say so.

On March 04 2015 07:27 coverpunch wrote:

Your last sentence kind of sums up the gist of why this move might be necessary. Obama making deals that he won't justify because he "can't" release the information he's using to support his argument sounds shady at best. This isn't supposed to be a secret deal, it is something the U.S. has been trying to get for DECADES. Netanyahu is simply ensuring America's biggest regional ally isn't cut out of the process, as it appears they have been if their leader feels he needs to go to the Congressional floor to say so.

On March 04 2015 07:27 coverpunch wrote:

Your last sentence kind of sums up the gist of why this move might be necessary. Obama making deals that he won't justify because he "can't" release the information he's using to support his argument sounds shady at best. This isn't supposed to be a secret deal, it is something the U.S. has been trying to get for DECADES. Netanyahu is simply ensuring America's biggest regional ally isn't cut out of the process, as it appears they have been if their leader feels he needs to go to the Congressional floor to say so.

On March 04 2015 07:23 xDaunt wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why Moltke thinks that "American Hegemony" in Europe has not been a good thing for the Europeans since the end of WW2. Europeans are more or less free to do whatever they want while benefiting from the protection of American military might with very few strings attached.

On March 04 2015 07:27 coverpunch wrote:

Your last sentence kind of sums up the gist of why this move might be necessary. Obama making deals that he won't justify because he "can't" release the information he's using to support his argument sounds shady at best. This isn't supposed to be a secret deal, it is something the U.S. has been trying to get for DECADES. Netanyahu is simply ensuring America's biggest regional ally isn't cut out of the process, as it appears they have been if their leader feels he needs to go to the Congressional floor to say so.

On March 04 2015 07:23 Danglars wrote:

All the intelligence prior to the invasion of Iraq pointed to Saddam's possession of WMD's. I imagine you supported the Iraq war for the same reasons you support Obama's current negotiations with Iran today.

Seriously, guys, if you're tempted to follow the secondary reporting on the speech only, go watch the speech first.

On March 04 2015 07:27 coverpunch wrote:

Your last sentence kind of sums up the gist of why this move might be necessary. Obama making deals that he won't justify because he "can't" release the information he's using to support his argument sounds shady at best. This isn't supposed to be a secret deal, it is something the U.S. has been trying to get for DECADES. Netanyahu is simply ensuring America's biggest regional ally isn't cut out of the process, as it appears they have been if their leader feels he needs to go to the Congressional floor to say so.

On March 04 2015 07:23 Danglars wrote:

All the intelligence prior to the invasion of Iraq pointed to Saddam's possession of WMD's. I imagine you supported the Iraq war for the same reasons you support Obama's current negotiations with Iran today.

Seriously, guys, if you're tempted to follow the secondary reporting on the speech only, go watch the speech first.

On March 04 2015 08:03 oneofthem wrote:
israel is pretty intimately involved in the negotiations and they even talk about the terms with some specificity and at length. they are not being shut out of the process or kept in the dark.

e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAf-Jsx_wH8
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/opinion/dont-make-a-bad-deal-with-iran.html?_r=0

On March 04 2015 07:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Not to say I agree with things Moltke says (and I'm not really planning on sorting through his points to even figure out what he's trying to say), but American military might isn't actually much "benefit" for the major European nations...because post WW2 all of the major military powers in the world have been extremely gun-shy of each other. Mostly because all of them have nuclear armaments, and no nation actually wants to start a major conflict against an enemy that can actually fight back.

Every war since WW2 has basically been a war-by-proxy, or a military power invading some lesser power.

On March 04 2015 07:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
Negotiations with Iran aren't his fucking business. Netanyahu refuses to concede anything at all to Iran, he's like that guy who shows up at a potluck with nothing (uninvited, mind you), then complains that there's not enough food for him.

The Iranian negotiators want a deal and are negotiating in good faith, but they can't capitulate to every demand otherwise they lose face at home, and whatever deal they manage to structure is rejected by the rest of the government. They still need to have some wins back home if this is ever gonna work out. If Netanyahu was even remotely interested in better relations with Iran (or at least more interested in that than staying in power), he could help out-- having Israel actually sit down for talks would go a long way to making Iran agree to... something.

On March 04 2015 08:19 xDaunt wrote:

What exactly is the US getting out of the negotiations? From what I've read, I don't get the sense that Iran has put anything meaningful on the table.