6 ms·

That's neat. Cromwell's legacy is his treatment of the Irish the rest of his legacy can be safely disregarded. "Estimates of the drop in the Irish population r

by Grimm1 6y ago

That's neat. Cromwell's legacy is his treatment of the Irish the rest of his legacy can be safely disregarded. "Estimates of the drop in the Irish population resulting from the Parliamentarian campaign range from 15 to 83 percent.[11] The Parliamentarians also transported about 50,000 people as indentured labourers.[2]" We don't go but, "oh Hitler painted pictures too". Edit: Swap "painted pictures" for "built roads", or "helped progress rocket technology", my point is unchanged and in fact strengthened.

carmen_sandiego 6y ago
I'm not sure the things listed are the same as 'painting pictures'. I'm not even saying you're wrong about Cromwell, but at least take the points fairly.
- Macha 6y ago
  * The first two are simply a rotation. Jews were back in favour, and Catholics were out. * The third was something that happened in Cromwell's reign, but there's no evidence he contributed positively or negatively, and the fact that the monarchy followed up by supporting it and actually chartering the royal society seems to indicate that it had little connection to what the actual regime in power was. * Primary education good, sure. * So I was not familiar with the anglo-dutch war so I read the wikipedia article. This appears to be a trade dispute because the English wanted to look the dutch out of shipping to England that was escalated to war by the English after the Dutch refused their ultimatum? This is being offered as a "good" act? So overall, I don't think funding primary education is an achievement that even begins to counterbalance his actions, sorry. Besides, to go back to the example of Hitler (and no, this is not Godwin's law, Hitler is the most appropriate comparison to Cromwell in Irish history), Hitler was _great_ for technology. The germans started modern rocketry which led to our modern satelite communications, the allies invented computing, both sides made big leaps in industrial production. I don't think anyone sensible thinks the above should be considered in a judgement on Hitler's actions. Neither do I think education/scientific funding should excuse Cromwell's.
  - dash2 6y ago
    "... a rotation. Jews were back in favour" is a weird way to parse the end of a 400 year period during which Jews weren't even allowed in the country. About his patronage for science: he was more interested in training up preachers, but he wouldn't have seen these as opposed. He planned to set up colleges in the North; Hartlib (key figure in the Invisible College) was on the committee for Durham. These plans were ended by the Restoration. You're very casual about primary education! It wasn't seen as an obviously good thing at the time - which is why it was reversed. Even in the 19th century, many people still argued that you shouldn't over-educate the working masses. Early literacy may have been a crucial step towards the take-off into economic growth. There's a lot of people making the comparison with Hitler. I suggest that even the harshest interpretation of the Irish campaign does not bear comparison with the industrialized murder of the Holocaust. English colonization predates Cromwell by at least a century. Ethnic cleansing was planned and carried out in several areas of Ireland. This is, obviously, very bad indeed! But it is not the same as Zyklon gas. The plan had also been laid down before Cromwell became Protector. When he intervened personally, it was usually to urge mercy for specific individuals. This is not the same as "no Hitler, no Holocaust". Lastly, you're assuming that I only wanted to mention "good stuff". I just wanted a slightly broader and calmer debate. I don't know the historical effects of defeating Spain or Holland.
    - Grimm1 6y ago
      There's no broader debate to be had, you're simply being an apologist for someone who cannot be redeemed. At every chance at multiple places in this thread you try to play down his actions, and at every point you're offered decent explanations as to why he's worse -- I'm starting to consider you a bigot lightly couched in academic reading.
      - dash2 6y ago
        I'm sorry you think so! You would make your argument stronger if you addressed some of my specific points. I'm sure my reading is pretty light (full disclosure: it consists of the Fraser biography, plus the King's War, King's Peace and Trial of Charles I trilogy), so if you have more or different sources, they might add some balance.

by Grimm1 6y ago

carmen_sandiego 6y ago

I'm not sure the things listed are the same as 'painting pictures'. I'm not even saying you're wrong about Cromwell, but at least take the points fairly.

Macha 6y ago
* The first two are simply a rotation. Jews were back in favour, and Catholics were out. * The third was something that happened in Cromwell's reign, but there's no evidence he contributed positively or negatively, and the fact that the monarchy followed up by supporting it and actually chartering the royal society seems to indicate that it had little connection to what the actual regime in power was. * Primary education good, sure. * So I was not familiar with the anglo-dutch war so I read the wikipedia article. This appears to be a trade dispute because the English wanted to look the dutch out of shipping to England that was escalated to war by the English after the Dutch refused their ultimatum? This is being offered as a "good" act? So overall, I don't think funding primary education is an achievement that even begins to counterbalance his actions, sorry. Besides, to go back to the example of Hitler (and no, this is not Godwin's law, Hitler is the most appropriate comparison to Cromwell in Irish history), Hitler was _great_ for technology. The germans started modern rocketry which led to our modern satelite communications, the allies invented computing, both sides made big leaps in industrial production. I don't think anyone sensible thinks the above should be considered in a judgement on Hitler's actions. Neither do I think education/scientific funding should excuse Cromwell's.
- dash2 6y ago
  "... a rotation. Jews were back in favour" is a weird way to parse the end of a 400 year period during which Jews weren't even allowed in the country. About his patronage for science: he was more interested in training up preachers, but he wouldn't have seen these as opposed. He planned to set up colleges in the North; Hartlib (key figure in the Invisible College) was on the committee for Durham. These plans were ended by the Restoration. You're very casual about primary education! It wasn't seen as an obviously good thing at the time - which is why it was reversed. Even in the 19th century, many people still argued that you shouldn't over-educate the working masses. Early literacy may have been a crucial step towards the take-off into economic growth. There's a lot of people making the comparison with Hitler. I suggest that even the harshest interpretation of the Irish campaign does not bear comparison with the industrialized murder of the Holocaust. English colonization predates Cromwell by at least a century. Ethnic cleansing was planned and carried out in several areas of Ireland. This is, obviously, very bad indeed! But it is not the same as Zyklon gas. The plan had also been laid down before Cromwell became Protector. When he intervened personally, it was usually to urge mercy for specific individuals. This is not the same as "no Hitler, no Holocaust". Lastly, you're assuming that I only wanted to mention "good stuff". I just wanted a slightly broader and calmer debate. I don't know the historical effects of defeating Spain or Holland.
  - Grimm1 6y ago
    There's no broader debate to be had, you're simply being an apologist for someone who cannot be redeemed. At every chance at multiple places in this thread you try to play down his actions, and at every point you're offered decent explanations as to why he's worse -- I'm starting to consider you a bigot lightly couched in academic reading.
    - dash2 6y ago
      I'm sorry you think so! You would make your argument stronger if you addressed some of my specific points. I'm sure my reading is pretty light (full disclosure: it consists of the Fraser biography, plus the King's War, King's Peace and Trial of Charles I trilogy), so if you have more or different sources, they might add some balance.