What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Sheilbh]

Yes.

Thinking about rights and political principles was universalist.  Application of those principles to the context of the American colonies was particular.

Thanks all - I think I might have slightly misframed my question. I wasn't so much wondering about the individual level.

But more about where and why those rights apply or exist - was that to people in America because it is America, or perhaps the Americas (these societies that created something new forged from European imperialism and now throwing off the shackles of Europe) or was the sense that they also apply to those European states, Asia etc?

Maybe. I like to think our revolution helped the British rule their settler colonies in a wiser way moving forward.

And more cynical. I think in India, for example, but also other areas of the British empire they either banned or strongly discouraged Brits obtaining land or ownership of property to try and prevent the emergence of a creole (in the Latin American sense) elite class attached to and with economic interests in the colony or permanently settling. The model was instead broadly that they earn enough (with all the implications that carries in an extractive imperial model) to set themselves up in the UK for retirement.

Although flipside of that is it makes decolonisation a lot easier - because the property typically isn't owned by individuals but corporate bodies who can (and do) endure.

Incorrect, something like this did actually happen in Britain. Had the American Revolution not occurred, likely that Canada or the other colonies would not have been given more autonomy for their internal affairs. Arguably, the American Revolution is the single biggest reason why Britain eventually gave up its Empire voluntarily.

I think that's too strong. And I think what drives Britain from its empire (like the rest of Europe) is more descended from European nationalism and national liberation, through colonial self-strengthening/modernisation movements and emerging nationalism to various forms of national liberation.

I think the Americas is part of that story but it's sort of semi-detached.

I don't think the American revolution would have happened if not for the Enlightenment...at least, not in anywhere near the egalitarian (if flawed of course) form.

Especially as the southern colonies were probably the most resistant to the idea of rebellion.  Alternately, a non-happening revolution might have shifted to being a southern-colonial initiated rebellion over slavery when it came time for the British Empire to abolish it.

Interesting I always thought the most resistant was New York and basically not so much the states but the port cities with ties to the Caribbean trade (providing ships, materials, supplies etc to the slave colonies there and getting some of the benefit of the richest colonies in the world) - which I think provides an interesting complication to the role of slavery in war of independence.

FWIW I actually think we could do with a focus on abolitionism again (while acknowledging Eric Williams' point) - it was a couple of years ago but I read Hakim Adi's fantastic African and Caribbean People in Britain: A History. I had no idea quite how strong abolitionism was in the late 18th century and how close to success before it declines due to association with the French revolutionary and that form of radicalism (with fulsome support from the sugar interest). I think it's possibly the first mass political movement (including women) in a way that I hadn't fully appreciated and it had huge momentum in the late 18th century until the guillotine gets rolled out.

Well yes, American imperialism within North America undermines their claim to universal rights. The rights were always only those that were given to certain Americans.

This is where I'm wondering about American particularity to the concept of rights because from my understanding Jefferson - as well as the Louisiana purchase - is considering the Caribbean as the next step. But that is not a contradiction of imperialism and universal rights but a revolutionary fulfillment of universal rights across North America - in the similar way as Napoleon is both liberator and autocrat. It is fulfilling the universalism of the French revolution, through imperialism and expropriation (I feel like Napoleon is seen more positively the further East you go in Europe - liberator of the Poles, very much exploiter of the Dutch, say).

[The Minsky Moment]

Look, I know that's the mantra of American myth but how were the American colonies neglected?

Your rebellion needed to be justified and my God has it been justified to the extent that most Americans cannot see the contradictions.

The North Ministry's policies in America were hardly uncontroversial; they were heavily criticized even in Britain.

Could anything be a subject of more just alarm to America than to see you go out of the plain highroad of finance, and give up your most certain revenues and your clearest interest, merely for the sake of insulting your colonies? No man ever doubted that the commodity of tea could bear an imposition of three-pence. But no commodity will bear three-pence, or will bear a penny, when the general feelings of men are irritated, and two millions of people are resolved not to pay. The feelings of the colonies were formerly the feelings of Great Britain. Theirs were formerly the feelings of Mr. Hampden, when called upon for the payment of twenty shillings. Would twenty shillings have ruined Mr. Hampden's fortune? No! but the payment of half twenty shillings, on the principle it was demanded, would have made him a slave. It is the weight of that preamble, of which you are so fond, and not the weight of the duty, that the Americans are unable and unwilling to bear.

Edmund Burke, 1774

[Sheilbh]

The North Ministry's policies in America were hardly uncontroversial; they were heavily criticized even in Britain.

In fact America's apparently getting a triumphal arch for its 250th birthday.

Britain already has one, constructed by a Whig MP in 1781:


And in 1783 he had it updated with a new engraving: "LIBERTY IN N. AMERICA TRIUMPHANT MDCCLXXXIII".

Apparently the Wilson government explored the possibility of sending it to America as a gift for the 200th birthday.

Total aside - but just on Valmy's as someone who's read a fair bit of British and Irish history - there is no concept as specifically American as "Scots-Irish" which I was not even aware of until JD Vance

[Valmy]

Total aside - but just on Valmy's as someone who's read a fair bit of British and Irish history - there is no concept as specifically American as "Scots-Irish" which I was not even aware of until JD Vance

So what do you call all those Scots who moved to Ireland in the 17th century? 

[Sheilbh]

Ulster unionists

But I think that is sort of the answer. They were called Ulster Protestants or Ulstermen - because that's where they settled but also they were (after 1798 and particularly as Home Rule became a big issue) identifying with the province over Ireland. A big part of this which I think is ellided in the US concept of Irish-Scots is that only some of them were from Scotland - what's distincitve is that they weren't Anglican. The Scots wer Presbyterian but the "Scots-Irish" or Ulster Protestants also included a decent number of English non-conformists, French Huguenots etc.

Looking it up and in the US they initially seemed to describe themselves as "Irish" and it's only when Catholic Irish start arriving after the great famine that they clarify they're Scots-Irish (i.e. not those shifty, lazy Catholics).

Having said that you now see references to Ulster Scots but I think that's relatively recent and there's two big drivers - one is American tourism and interest in roots (a bit like the rest of Ireland in that) and the other is the language debate. So it's a constant battle in Stormont where Sinn Fein want increased prominence and support for the Irish language which for years Ulster unionists just opposed in total, but have now come to the position that they will back it if there is also more prominence and support for Ulster Scots (I think there is some debate about the extent to which it is really a distinctive language or dialect and the extent to which a badging of something for political ends - but that's a common enough story around language and identity and nationhood).

[crazy canuck]

Yes.

Thinking about rights and political principles was universalist.  Application of those principles to the context of the American colonies was particular.

Thanks all - I think I might have slightly misframed my question. I wasn't so much wondering about the individual level.

But more about where and why those rights apply or exist - was that to people in America because it is America, or perhaps the Americas (these societies that created something new forged from European imperialism and now throwing off the shackles of Europe) or was the sense that they also apply to those European states, Asia etc?

Maybe. I like to think our revolution helped the British rule their settler colonies in a wiser way moving forward.

And more cynical. I think in India, for example, but also other areas of the British empire they either banned or strongly discouraged Brits obtaining land or ownership of property to try and prevent the emergence of a creole (in the Latin American sense) elite class attached to and with economic interests in the colony or permanently settling. The model was instead broadly that they earn enough (with all the implications that carries in an extractive imperial model) to set themselves up in the UK for retirement.

Although flipside of that is it makes decolonisation a lot easier - because the property typically isn't owned by individuals but corporate bodies who can (and do) endure.

Incorrect, something like this did actually happen in Britain. Had the American Revolution not occurred, likely that Canada or the other colonies would not have been given more autonomy for their internal affairs. Arguably, the American Revolution is the single biggest reason why Britain eventually gave up its Empire voluntarily.

I think that's too strong. And I think what drives Britain from its empire (like the rest of Europe) is more descended from European nationalism and national liberation, through colonial self-strengthening/modernisation movements and emerging nationalism to various forms of national liberation.

I think the Americas is part of that story but it's sort of semi-detached.

I don't think the American revolution would have happened if not for the Enlightenment...at least, not in anywhere near the egalitarian (if flawed of course) form.

Especially as the southern colonies were probably the most resistant to the idea of rebellion.  Alternately, a non-happening revolution might have shifted to being a southern-colonial initiated rebellion over slavery when it came time for the British Empire to abolish it.

Interesting I always thought the most resistant was New York and basically not so much the states but the port cities with ties to the Caribbean trade (providing ships, materials, supplies etc to the slave colonies there and getting some of the benefit of the richest colonies in the world) - which I think provides an interesting complication to the role of slavery in war of independence.

FWIW I actually think we could do with a focus on abolitionism again (while acknowledging Eric Williams' point) - it was a couple of years ago but I read Hakim Adi's fantastic African and Caribbean People in Britain: A History. I had no idea quite how strong abolitionism was in the late 18th century and how close to success before it declines due to association with the French revolutionary and that form of radicalism (with fulsome support from the sugar interest). I think it's possibly the first mass political movement (including women) in a way that I hadn't fully appreciated and it had huge momentum in the late 18th century until the guillotine gets rolled out.

Well yes, American imperialism within North America undermines their claim to universal rights. The rights were always only those that were given to certain Americans.

This is where I'm wondering about American particularity to the concept of rights because from my understanding Jefferson - as well as the Louisiana purchase - is considering the Caribbean as the next step. But that is not a contradiction of imperialism and universal rights but a revolutionary fulfillment of universal rights across North America - in the similar way as Napoleon is both liberator and autocrat. It is fulfilling the universalism of the French revolution, through imperialism and expropriation (I feel like Napoleon is seen more positively the further East you go in Europe - liberator of the Poles, very much exploiter of the Dutch, say).

Again, it can only be a statement of universal rights if one understands the universal rights is only belonging to a certain class of white men

[crazy canuck]

Look, I know that's the mantra of American myth but how were the American colonies neglected?

Your rebellion needed to be justified and my God has it been justified to the extent that most Americans cannot see the contradictions.

The North Ministry's policies in America were hardly uncontroversial; they were heavily criticized even in Britain.

Could anything be a subject of more just alarm to America than to see you go out of the plain highroad of finance, and give up your most certain revenues and your clearest interest, merely for the sake of insulting your colonies? No man ever doubted that the commodity of tea could bear an imposition of three-pence. But no commodity will bear three-pence, or will bear a penny, when the general feelings of men are irritated, and two millions of people are resolved not to pay. The feelings of the colonies were formerly the feelings of Great Britain. Theirs were formerly the feelings of Mr. Hampden, when called upon for the payment of twenty shillings. Would twenty shillings have ruined Mr. Hampden's fortune? No! but the payment of half twenty shillings, on the principle it was demanded, would have made him a slave. It is the weight of that preamble, of which you are so fond, and not the weight of the duty, that the Americans are unable and unwilling to bear.

Edmund Burke, 1774

Edmund Burke, that voice of prudence and moderation.

[Barrister]

Since it's 3/8 of my heritage I always used the term "Irish Protestant".

On reflection though I suppose that ignores the existence of the Church of Ireland.

[Sheilbh]

On reflection though I suppose that ignores the existence of the Church of Ireland.

Yeah and that was the big divide. The Penal Laws hit both Catholics and non-conformists, Presbyterians etc. The Protestant ascendancy was an ascendancy for the established church. Which is why Wolfe Tone (himself established church) and the United Irishmen hoped for and had some success among Ulster Protestants as a group who were also oppressed under the rule of the ascendancy.

It shifts in the 19th century but there is still a divide - with an additional element of Ulster (particularly Belfast) becoming the only truly industrialised part of Ireland. So the Ulster Protestants become the industrial working class building the Titanic etc, while largely outside of Ulster there's Irish Protestants are Church of Ireland, established church, Protestant ascendancy types are country gentry, big houses, professions like the bar etc.

And then after the Act of Union and the abolition of the Penal Laws, Irish nationalism shifts from Wolfe Tone's Republican, universal (with the caveats CC is correctly flagging) project to one that is tied more to Catholic identity, to the revival of Gaelic culture. There is a schism between Ulster Protestants who identify more and more with their province as a safeguard against Rome Rule requiring ever harsher repression of the Catholic population in Ulster - accompanied, indeed, by a not insignificant number of Church of Ireland Protestants who identify more with the romantic Ireland of nationalism (Yeats, Wilde, Childers, Casement and even the first President, Douglas Hyde).

Again, it can only be a statement of universal rights if one understands the universal rights is only belonging to a certain class of white men

Sure - I think that's a given in the context. That can be implied into anything I'm saying about the founders or the American war of independence I have no illusions on that.

[crazy canuck]

It's not a given.  You have Americans now who argue that their founding fathers met universal in the sense that they were right and enjoyed by all. JR just sent it in answer to your question.

The fact that that is blatantly not true, needs to said out loud.  Not as a given.

[Valmy]

Again, it can only be a statement of universal rights if one understands the universal rights is only belonging to a certain class of white men

I disagree that is the only way it can be understood.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I think JR and others posting here are fully aware of slavery or women not having the same rights of men at the turn of the 18th/19th century or that that was the way in which those men understood universal rights.

Or perhaps it's possibly worse (I think this might be case with Jefferson) - and at least some of those men did understand universal rights in a broadly universal way that we would recognise. But knew that their social position, their wealth, their "society" was based on an evil.

Again I don't think it's a million miles from Napoloen as tyrant and liberator - and there are other similar figures within the French revolution too. But I think to an extent this goes to my wider view that rights are always socially, culturally and historically contingent - no more so than who benefits from them or has access to them (even in theory, if not in practice).

[crazy canuck]

Again, it can only be a statement of universal rights if one understands the universal rights is only belonging to a certain class of white men

I disagree that is the only way it can be understood.

Oh sure, I agree that is not the only way it can be understood.  But that is the way your nation has put it into practice.

[Zanza]

Not sure if it was mentioned before, but the Supreme Court decision on the independent agencies also has ramifications for transatlantic data transfer. The EU prescribes an independent institution that enforced data privacy standards. We all know that was never really the case, see Cloud Act. Bit the legal fiction was at least there. No more.

Maybe we need to force Microsoft, Google etc. to sell their European business similar to how the US forced Bytedance (aka Tiktok). 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

No one in Europe has sufficient brass or steel to craft those balls