4 ms·

>Yes. Was it a colony? No, not in any defined meaning of that word. Since you only responded to one comment and not the numerous other points that were made by

by ac2u 4y ago

>Yes. Was it a colony? No, not in any defined meaning of that word. Since you only responded to one comment and not the numerous other points that were made by other posters, maybe you could provide these defined meanings you speak of. Again, I propose that you're letting strict semantics get in the way of a wider truth. During the famine Ireland's "relief" programme was run by a colonial administrator. It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. But to extend an olive branch to your argument, let's pull the first definition of colony from Google. "a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country and occupied by settlers from that country." Sounds like the shoe fits to me. Now you might not agree with the definition, but it is a defined definition all the same. Again though, my argument in another thread is that you're myopically focused on textbook definitions instead of wider patterns. I'd have the same lack of patience for someone insisting that what is going on in Ukraine is "not a war" because of a lack of formal delcarations. A "special operation", it is not.

geenew 4y ago
Your definition is fine. Trevelyan was not a colonial administrator at the time, he was a civil servant in the treasury. He was a colonial administrator in other parts of his career. The definition you cite doesn't match the conclusion you draw, since Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom. This is the sole point I was raising. There is a wider pattern of English military, cultural, and political dominance within the UK. That complexity should argue for use of precise language and avoidance of provocative metaphor. For Cornwall, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, the north, did the domination of England within the UK mean that their national freedom was curtailed? Yes. Is that bad? Sure. Does that make them colonies? No. They were not ruled by the FCO, did not have an appointed governor, did have a say in the laws that affected them. To abuse the ugly counterexample you raise at the end: I'd have the same lack of patience for someone insisting that what is going on in Ukraine is "not a war" because of the involvement of two major powers. A "world war", it is not.
- ac2u 4y ago
  >To abuse the ugly counterexample Apologies, probably was a a bit of a blunt instrument, no linkage with your views intended.

by ac2u 4y ago

geenew 4y ago

Your definition is fine. Trevelyan was not a colonial administrator at the time, he was a civil servant in the treasury. He was a colonial administrator in other parts of his career. The definition you cite doesn't match the conclusion you draw, since Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom. This is the sole point I was raising. There is a wider pattern of English military, cultural, and political dominance within the UK. That complexity should argue for use of precise language and avoidance of provocative metaphor. For Cornwall, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, the north, did the domination of England within the UK mean that their national freedom was curtailed? Yes. Is that bad? Sure. Does that make them colonies? No. They were not ruled by the FCO, did not have an appointed governor, did have a say in the laws that affected them. To abuse the ugly counterexample you raise at the end: I'd have the same lack of patience for someone insisting that what is going on in Ukraine is "not a war" because of the involvement of two major powers. A "world war", it is not.

ac2u 4y ago
>To abuse the ugly counterexample Apologies, probably was a a bit of a blunt instrument, no linkage with your views intended.