1846: Oregon War

[Sean Swaby]

Newsflash, most of the British public at the time is overtly RACIST. Fighting colonial wars is one thing--fighting a war against other whites (and a country who is a rising power) had better have a damn good reason.

This is also horse-shit, since
1) It would apply to every other European nation or European-spawned (i.e. USA) nation on the planet and not just the British

2) So the British government had to give damn good reasons to their population every time to fight the French and Spanish(both too many times to count), Dutch(at least thrice), Americans (twice) and Russians (once)? Man, they must have run out reasons by 1846.

The British public may have been rascist, but they were not so rascist as to have demonstrations and vote out or topple governments because some of their soldiers were killing fellow whites half-way across the globe. You name one instance where the British public dissuaded the government from fighting another European power or from fighting America because of race or give examples of these good reasons (which the government could probably very well apply to Oregon if it wanted) which would work elsewhere, but not in Oregon.

 

[Brilliantlight]

This is also horse-shit, since
1) It would apply to every other European nation or European-spawned (i.e. USA) nation on the planet and not just the British

2) So the British government had to give damn good reasons to their population every time to fight the French and Spanish(both too many times to count), Dutch(at least thrice), Americans (twice) and Russians (once)? Man, they must have run out reasons by 1846.

The British public may have been rascist, but they were not so rascist as to have demonstrations and vote out or topple governments because some of their soldiers were killing fellow whites half-way across the globe. You name one instance where the British public dissuaded the government from fighting another European power or from fighting America because of race or give examples of these good reasons (which the government could probably very well apply to Oregon if it wanted) which would work elsewhere, but not in Oregon.

Agreed, the main problem would be the British merchant class who would wonder why they are fighting yet another expensive war with the US with very little to gain out of it. They are also going to be upset that it is going to cost them at least a good part of the very profitible trade they had with the US. The Brits can raid and invade but not conquer the US.

 

[JimmyJimJam]

they must have run out reasons by 1846.

Yes, thats right. They would run out of reasons to fight fellow whites over a backwater wilderness that offered nothing of interest.

 

[Bulgaroktonos]

I wouldn't call the British public racist in the sense of the Ku Klux Klan, but a form of racism nonetheless. This is the same society that is outraged at slavery and the public lauds all efforts to stamp out the trade in West Africa. They don't view other races as sub-human, but rather, uncivilized, in need of saving, because God only knows that they are incapable of running the show themselves, eh?

Either way, their colonial wars have little or nothing to do with racism, and are more along the lines of profit at the expense of less advanced cultures who can be easily swindled or brushed aside. Therefore, there is no basis for the claim that British pols would need some kind of reason to attack the US due to the color of the ethnic majority....

 

[Sean Swaby]

Yes, thats right. They would run out of reasons to fight fellow whites over a backwater wilderness that offered nothing of interest.

Some people, just can't take sarcasm can they? If you going to go and call over people's post "horse-shit", then you should also be prepared to have your own posts called "horse-shit" if other people can point out why. I noticed that the bit about reasons running out in 1846, was the only part my post you could actually respond to, and since that part was a jest, then it would imply that you can find no reasons to counter my arguments.

I used that jest to point out that the British did fight other European nations after 1846, most notably in the 1850s over some backwater provinces in south-eastern Europe.

And since when has a wilderness had nothing to offer? All of us get products made of timber from there, or do you only use aluminium...oh, wait, minerals (such as gold, silver, bauxite) are found in the backwater wilderness as well, rather like the "wilderness" that was all of the Americas that the Spanish discovered.

Bulgaroktonos, I agree with your post 100%.

 

[Norman]

I wouldn't call the British public racist in the sense of the Ku Klux Klan, but a form of racism nonetheless. This is the same society that is outraged at slavery and the public lauds all efforts to stamp out the trade in West Africa. They don't view other races as sub-human, but rather, uncivilized, in need of saving, because God only knows that they are incapable of running the show themselves, eh?
QUOTE]

I think that the racism of England took the form of what was called the "White Man's Burden". As some would say, "A softer, gentler" form of racism that was focused on helping these poor natives (even if they didn't want it).

 

[JimmyJimJam]

"horse-shit" And since when has a wilderness had nothing to offer? All of us get products made of timber from there, or do you only use aluminium...oh, wait, minerals (such as gold, silver, bauxite) are found in the backwater wilderness as well, rather like the "wilderness" that was all of the Americas that the Spanish discovered.

Bulgaroktonos, I agree with your post 100%.

Was it worthwhile for Britain to put its balls on the line for resources it already possessed elsewhere? Sure, more is always good but was an infrastructure at this time to exploit it (transcontinental railroad) present? Also, didn't public opinion have more sway in the mid 1800's than it did in earlier centuries for Britain (Queen Victoria seemed awfully worried about the British public's support of the limited action of the Crimean war, and this war was a lot simplier and closer to home than a war against the U.S. would be.). In the case of the Chinese Opium war, the benefits and economic reasons for pursuing the war were pretty clear, and the enemy was pretty weak (and it probably helped too that the enemy were Asians).

 

[Brilliantlight]

Was it worthwhile for Britain to put its balls on the line for resources it already possessed elsewhere? Sure, more is always good but was an infrastructure at this time to exploit it (transcontinental railroad) present?

Good point, they would have to build infastructure in a hostile area far away instead of having the Americans build it in friendly area and sell it to you. GB loses money out of this deal because even in 1846 the US is not a complete technological backwater like half the British Empire was.

 

[Sean Swaby]

Was it worthwhile for Britain to put its balls on the line for resources it already possessed elsewhere? Sure, more is always good but was an infrastructure at this time to exploit it (transcontinental railroad) present? Also, didn't public opinion have more sway in the mid 1800's than it did in earlier centuries for Britain (Queen Victoria seemed awfully worried about the British public's support of the limited action of the Crimean war, and this war was a lot simplier and closer to home than a war against the U.S. would be.). In the case of the Chinese Opium war, the benefits and economic reasons for pursuing the war were pretty clear, and the enemy was pretty weak (and it probably helped too that the enemy were Asians).

Now this is a good point. Not that bit about racism. Of course, having infrastructure is not necessarily a pre-requisite. Going back to my example of the wilderness of newly the discovered Americas, the Spanish decided to exploit the area despite the fact that there was no infrastructure in many areas. And then, if the various European powers only wished to exploit areas where infrastructure was already in place in a remotely settled region..then that begs the question of who would build such infrastructure to start with?

Public opinion does figure more prominently as time goes by, because more people get the vote and can vote out governments they do not like. You make a good point on the Crimea. However, the Crimean War was not over disputed territory between Russia and Britain and any war that starts in Oregon is unlikely to be due to the government in London issuing telegrams to the Army in the British North America to effect of "expel and kill all Americans in Oregon". It would most likely start by accident, rather like in the San Juan Pig War thread. So if the war already starts without the government having had a hand in it, then the govt. will probably look weak and be unpopular if it doesn't at the least try to sort out what happened and return peace based on the status quo ante bellum or to continue the war if it was found that the British Army had not started it.

You make a good point about fighting weak enemies. Most countries will fight wars if the enemy is perceived to be weak, or in self-defence (Operation Iraqi Freedom fits both categories according to George W., but only fits the first in my opinion). For example the Opium Wars, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, Operation Barbarossa (Hitler thought wrong there)...etc.

 

[Tyr]

Even for the internet, this is a rare instance of pure horse shit.

Like half of what you say?
Britain has never been a racist country, we didn't look down on Africans because they were black, we couldn't care less about that. We looked down on them because many of them lived little better then animals.
So Britain:
Culturist- Definatly so.
Racist- Definatly not.

 

[Norman]

Like half of what you say?
Britain has never been a racist country, we didn't look down on Africans because they were black, we couldn't care less about that. We looked down on them because many of them lived little better then animals.
So Britain:
Culturist- Definatly so.
Racist- Definatly not.

As a citizen of a country regularly maligned and put down, I'm a lttle surprised at the strong reaction to this issue. What is the difference between what you term a 'culturist' and a racist, particularly if the result is largely the same?

I would just have one question, was allowing the irish to starve a racial issue or a cultural issue?

 

[Bulgaroktonos]

Damn.....I don't think I have ever heard a burn as bad as that one......I think its because they just hated the Irish for being Irish, just as the Irish hate the English.

 

[Grey Wolf]

You make a good point about fighting weak enemies. Most countries will fight wars if the enemy is perceived to be weak, or in self-defence (Operation Iraqi Freedom fits both categories according to George W., but only fits the first in my opinion). For example the Opium Wars, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, Operation Barbarossa (Hitler thought wrong there)...etc.

Of course, the British did not always view their colonial enemies as weak - in fact from the Maharatha to the Sikhs and later to the Afghans, the Indian wars were fought because of a fear that these non-integrated peoples could pose a very real threat to British interests

Grey Wolf

 

[Tyr]

Its hard to define, I guess I'd stab that culturist is a black man living in his hut in Africa, letting his wife walk around with no top on and hunting with a spear is inferior. A black man who lives like a regular white man and holds a decent living and everything- they have no problem with that.
Racist is 'He is black so he is 100% inferior whatever he does'.

The Irish/English thing is iffy and I'm not sure of all of the exact history of it. My grandmother was Irish so I'm not totally biased for the English side on that. I think it was mainly to do with the Catholicism why they were disliked in Victorian times. I'm sure the routes of it are discussed in many places, I'd guess it goes back to Ireland being the last fully celtic place.

 

[JimmyJimJam]

This is also horse-shit, since
1) It would apply to every other European nation or European-spawned (i.e. USA) nation on the planet and not just the British

2) So the British government had to give damn good reasons to their population every time to fight the French and Spanish(both too many times to count), Dutch(at least thrice), Americans (twice) and Russians (once)? Man, they must have run out reasons by 1846.

The British public may have been rascist, but they were not so rascist as to have demonstrations and vote out or topple governments because some of their soldiers were killing fellow whites half-way across the globe. You name one instance where the British public dissuaded the government from fighting another European power or from fighting America because of race or give examples of these good reasons (which the government could probably very well apply to Oregon if it wanted) which would work elsewhere, but not in Oregon.

By the way on this one Sean. No shit Europe at this time was racist, and so was America. No shit they still are. And don't gloss over tons of wars spread out over hundreds of years. England's government changed over that time and they had to answer to their public more and more.

Of course race isnt the only reason you go to war. There is one reason why a country does or doesnt go to war. Any 10th grade world history student can tell you that. And I'll name once instance where the British public didnt like going to war with whites: The Boer war. According to accounts at the time, public opinion at the time went from thinking it was justified to not liking it. Was it because the Boers were white? Who knows. But the British Empire was about exploiting indigenous people, who weren't usually white.

 

[Sean Swaby]

By the way on this one Sean. No shit Europe at this time was racist, and so was America. No shit they still are. And don't gloss over tons of wars spread out over hundreds of years. England's government changed over that time and they had to answer to their public more and more.

Of course race isnt the only reason you go to war. There is one reason why a country does or doesnt go to war. Any 10th grade world history student can tell you that. And I'll name once instance where the British public didnt like going to war with whites: The Boer war. According to accounts at the time, public opinion at the time went from thinking it was justified to not liking it. Was it because the Boers were white? Who knows. But the British Empire was about exploiting indigenous people, who weren't usually white.

I never said that Europe and America were not and still are not. And it is true that Britain's government changed over time (I never denied that). And it is good to see that you acknowledge that race isn't the only reason you go to war.
Any 10th grade history student could also tell you that the British fought the Germans in WWI and that you would be hard pressed to see the difference between them.
As for the Boer War, why would the public move from "justified to not liking it" if they were so concerned about race? Did they suddenly realise the Boers were European? Might'n their change in attitude be due to the defeats suffered by the British in 1899 and the generally long duration of the war from 1899 to 1902? Might it also not have been due to the generally vicious nature of that war? As you yourself said, "Who knows?" So I don't quite see how this proves that the British public didn't like going to war because of race.

What is with you and the word "shit", anyway? I only called your post "horse-shit", because your response to Leej was unnecessarily rude. You could have simply responded by stating the obvious, that the British were racist just like any other country and if he still didn't believe, throw in a few examples.

 

[Ian the Admin]

Jimmy, I really don't think it's a suitable, civil approach to discussion to start describing other posters' ideas as horseshit.

 

[Straha]

well I think its a new flavorful and spicy method of debate but thats just my opinion