I doubt it. At least Augustus pretended to be upholding the will of the people.
The British Empire
- Thread starter Flying Pig
- Start date
Well we could say that the people chose Berlusconi, but the people wanted Augustus. Which is more democratic is quite a question indeed.
Which people?
The Roman people - at least, their poets seemed keen enough on him. After the civil war, mass theft of land, and proscription he must have seemed like a godsend (indeed Virgil said that he literally was).
vogtmurr said:
No, they didn't and no they didn't. That's the short answer.
The looooong answer is that they didn't know what to do with those who stayed. In the early days most of the 'Chinese' had returned home to China. Those that stayed usually integrated into the pre-existing Malayo-Chinese community, which tended to maintain a rather loose affiliation with the homeland. Many did not speak 'Chinese' after a generation or two. Some had been there for hundreds of years. But even so, they formed a rather distinct Malayised (for want of a better word) 'foreign' community. This didn't stop them becoming citizens, as many married Malay wives. And when they didn't, the situation could usually be resolved with negotiation. This ad-hoc system lasted in various guises until the First World War.
Around that time, it began to fall apart as the central assumption of there being a manageable number of Chinese became untenable in the face of China's Civil War and latter the Japanese invasion. More Chinese began to stay, even if the flow in absolute terms (I believe) fell. This wasn't the only factor, but it was the most significant. The other being that the Chinese community had outgrown the ability of the pre-existing Malayo-Chinese community to integrate them properly into the 'new' society. This began in the 1860s as numbers rose and the consequent ability to maintain Chinese cultural institutions also increased. The apex was reached sometime around the 1900s when Chinese schools began to pop up en-masse and it became possible to educate young Chinese as young Chinese.
Basically, this overwhelmed the old ad-hoc system and left a growing surplus of Chinese who wanted to take out citizenship unable to do so. On the other hand, Malay resistance to a perceived Sinification of Malaysia (although this is being overly broad, many British also abhorred the Chinese presence) caused a backlash against the awarding of citizenship that gradually crystallised into a general resistance to the whole notion. This simply built on the presumptions of the old ad-hoc system and drew them to their logical conclusion: that Chinese could not become citizens and that they could just return home if they didn't like it. This was true to an extent, but completely impractical for obvious reasons.
The Chinese community didn't see fit to really push against the issue because, in part, many of them believed the assumptions: they wanted to return home, and they would when things got better. Obviously, as time went on and China became a distant memory, particularly for those second generation Chinese educated immigrants, this began to rankle more and more. The resistance to this was peaceful and occurred through all kinds of forums. I can't be bothered to go through them all here. Suffice to say, that it took the war, the Japanese persecution, the leading role of Chinese in resisting them, the threat of a Malay dominated Malaysia, a British pull-out, the ultimate failure of the Union and the breaking of the promises implicit and explicit in that for the situation to spin-out of control.
As to the region, Thailand had managed to integrate its much older and smaller Chinese community quite comfortably. But that's hardly relevant, when we consider that most had been there longer than the modern notion of citizenship had existed. Indonesia didn't resolve the problem fully until the late 50s, early 60s and that was largely as a result of the good relations that Sukarno had with Mao. But it was on a much smaller scale. Otherwise, there isn't much to go on. The Viet Chinese situation still hasn't been resolved and most left during the war. The Philippines' Chinese community dates from before the American occupation and is well integrated. And the two headed birds don't really have large Chinese communities. In short, there was no precedent at that stage for a full integration.
vogtmurr said:
It was a loooooooong conflict. You really need to remeber that the MLNA were freaking heroes to the rural Chinese after the war. Not only had they stood up to the Japanese, they stood up to the colonialists during the strike. So it was not a bad thing to give them rice. It became a virtue when the government crackdowns began. As the war dragged on perceptions changed. Government tactics improved. The MLNA became predatory. And rural Chinese political aspirations remained constant, the MLNA became more militant and the government became more willing to comprimise.
vogtmurr said:
Nothing changed. Time didn't make the rights issue go away. And the MLNA got more aggressive, it forced the issue as it were. Which was going to happen one way or another anyway.
vogtmurr said:
If the definition of a word is reductionist in nature, how can using it in an obviously reductionist context make it any less reductionist? I'll reiterate, any narrative that gives any time to a race war or a clash of culture is arrant nonsense.
vogtmurr said:
That's more or less what you were saying. I put it to you that people don't go out to the Jungle for years because some dude whipped out the Little Red Book.
vogtmurr said:
Read about the MLNA during the war to know how rubbish this is.
vogtmurr said:
... which means what? Blame teh natives.
Well, to say that in no case the local people have anything to do with the state of a former colony would be totally misguided.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
You've just accounted for <.0001% of the population of ancient Rome.
I liked the long answer part but why do you keep repeating this same nonsense ?
Are you trying to put the same words in my mouth again >?
tell you what Masada - Maoism had nothing to do with it, there was no Malay sentiment in the picture, and everything including the deplorable way they handled it in the 1950s, is the fault of the British ! Fair enough ?
Conversation is over - 0 accomplished.
I would interpret this as the people who voted for Berlusconi, wanted somebody as talented as Augustus, but were disappointed. C'mon guys - are we incapable of seeing a little joke once in a while ?
That would make sense if he hadn't, you know, said that he was saying that the Roman people were the ones who wanted Augustus.
True; but the media generally reflects the views of a society - whether that's because it shapes them or draws inspiration from them is moot.
Not that he came to power because of their wishes, but I'll stand by what I said that after the chaos and terror of the civil war the stability he brought must have been what they wanted, and besides it's difficult to win a civil war without some measure of popular support or at least apathy.
Standing by for the usual Dachs 'actually, everyone hated him, your history's rubbish FP'
Unfortunately, the poets weren't even remotely analogous to the modern media.
Nah, you're not really wrong, but you're not really right eitherFlying Pig said:
"it's complicated", unfortunately, and what I know of the imperial transition really isn't enough to do it justice, but the sources with regards to the transition are extremely problematic as far as "stability" and "public approval" go
Of course Maoism was a factor. But people don't start revolutions based solely on an imported ideology. There have to be sufficient reasons to support a revolution in the first place, which this ideology can be piggy-backed onto.
The Chinese Revolution in 1911 didn't occur because people wanted Republicanism. It occured because the Qing were doing a piss-poor job of reforming at the time and their military got out of their control. Once it was, it needed a new ideology to hang its hat on, so it latched onto the thin reed that Sun Yat-sen was waving at them.
The Russian Revolution of 1917 didn't occur because the workers read The Communist Manifesto and decided they liked it. It began because of consistently poor leadership by the Czar and the Czarina's chosen creatures, most-famously Rasputin. The Bolsheviks merely emerged as the leaders of this revolution because they (conveniently) already existed as a dissident group with an ideology perfectlly suited to the situation.
And, in Malaya, the Chinese didn't revolt because they read Chairman Mao's Little Red Book and applied it to their situation. They revolted because of the reasons Masada has already given, which basically amounted to being disenfranchised by the Malays and denied what they saw as their basic rights. Once they had their blood up (so to speak) they latched onto Maoism as a convenient ideology.
All revolutions need an ideology to latch onto for legitimacy, otherwise it's simply a case of civil war. Popular support needs a lantern to hang onto, and that lantern is an ideology. It doesn't really matter what the ideology is, so long as it is loosely applicable to the common folk's situation. Hence we see Nepal embracing Maoism, a philosophy that has already failed miserably and been abandoned in neighbouring China.
Baal, I don't have a problem with your examples and assertions; in fact they are quite obvious even to an amateur historian like me.
I just find it tiresome that after I said 'that was oversimplifying it' and to use his own words 'that is reductionist', somebody's continued assertion that I believe a foreign sponsored demagogue could forge an armed insurrection with no pretext, has gained enough traction to convince you that was my intent. The situation in Malaya was the kind of opportunity where a Maoist inspired revolutionary philosophy could attract adherents, and it wasn't that unique, with lots of anti-colonial and nationalistic sentiment in different parts of the world, as well as the appeal communism had for uneducated peasants and workers who felt disenfranchised. Independence movement is one thing; the method of carrying out this armed insurrection, was inspired by Maoist philosophy, right down to the PLA-style uniforms and titles the insurgents wore. And lets be realistic, the Malayan Emergency was not just about obtaining citizenship rights, it was to be a sea-change, where the revolution would impose its own particular brand of morality and justice. Was it the right way and the only way the people could achieve legitimate aims ? When you look at the examples you've quoted, I'm not sure those were the best things that ever happened to those great nations. It happened in Greece too, and was 'successful' in Cambodia. It's all about perception and how that can be twisted. Back in the day nobody underestimated the power of a revolutionary doctrine, because it often found willing ears, and was remarkably successful at convincing people, even when they were left alone and had a livelihood of sorts, to throw themselves in to a disruptive and bloody war, thinking somehow it would all be better afterwards.
And for a variety of reasons, most Malays didn't buy into it. There are problems with laying the whole situation at the feet of a colonial administration, whether it is the growing presence of migrant workers or refugees, economic inequities that already existed, or nationalistic resentment that in other cases, forced the colonial power to abandon the country to chaos. That is unless they were supposed to be perfect and omnipotent, and had the wherewithal to quickly enact 20th century social change without offending some locals in other ways. The British brought the insurrection to a successful close, without alienating everyone, and said rights were granted. This is not a victory for the MNLA, and there was that little rematch in Borneo in the 60s. Well I have to admit this wasn't a complete waste of time, I did learn some things. Hell, Chin Peng was even awarded the Order of the British Empire before he went rebel. I acknowledge he had his conviction, aka: he wasn't just a common criminal. Its ironic some of his detractors claim he didn't follow Mao's 'eight rules of attention', when civilians and isolated planters were murdered. But we all know how rigidly Mao followed his principles.
I just find it tiresome that after I said 'that was oversimplifying it' and to use his own words 'that is reductionist', somebody's continued assertion that I believe a foreign sponsored demagogue could forge an armed insurrection with no pretext, has gained enough traction to convince you that was my intent. The situation in Malaya was the kind of opportunity where a Maoist inspired revolutionary philosophy could attract adherents, and it wasn't that unique, with lots of anti-colonial and nationalistic sentiment in different parts of the world, as well as the appeal communism had for uneducated peasants and workers who felt disenfranchised. Independence movement is one thing; the method of carrying out this armed insurrection, was inspired by Maoist philosophy, right down to the PLA-style uniforms and titles the insurgents wore. And lets be realistic, the Malayan Emergency was not just about obtaining citizenship rights, it was to be a sea-change, where the revolution would impose its own particular brand of morality and justice. Was it the right way and the only way the people could achieve legitimate aims ? When you look at the examples you've quoted, I'm not sure those were the best things that ever happened to those great nations. It happened in Greece too, and was 'successful' in Cambodia. It's all about perception and how that can be twisted. Back in the day nobody underestimated the power of a revolutionary doctrine, because it often found willing ears, and was remarkably successful at convincing people, even when they were left alone and had a livelihood of sorts, to throw themselves in to a disruptive and bloody war, thinking somehow it would all be better afterwards.
And for a variety of reasons, most Malays didn't buy into it. There are problems with laying the whole situation at the feet of a colonial administration, whether it is the growing presence of migrant workers or refugees, economic inequities that already existed, or nationalistic resentment that in other cases, forced the colonial power to abandon the country to chaos. That is unless they were supposed to be perfect and omnipotent, and had the wherewithal to quickly enact 20th century social change without offending some locals in other ways. The British brought the insurrection to a successful close, without alienating everyone, and said rights were granted. This is not a victory for the MNLA, and there was that little rematch in Borneo in the 60s. Well I have to admit this wasn't a complete waste of time, I did learn some things. Hell, Chin Peng was even awarded the Order of the British Empire before he went rebel. I acknowledge he had his conviction, aka: he wasn't just a common criminal. Its ironic some of his detractors claim he didn't follow Mao's 'eight rules of attention', when civilians and isolated planters were murdered. But we all know how rigidly Mao followed his principles.
Irrelevant, the majority of the organisation was dominated by a specific ethnic group within Malaysia and that was Chinese communists inspired by what had happened in China. They had little support outside of this, and yet still failed in their insurgency once the British had left.
Malaysia is a majority Muslim country, and it's laws have Islamic influences even if, as you say, it is not a Muslim country. It bears credence to our influence to help shape the future of an independent Malaysian country in a positive way.
Yes, positive in the sense that today you have a quasi-apartheid state that racially discriminates against 35% of its population... wait...
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Malaysia must be the only country in the world, maybe in history, where their racist policies designed to be bias towards a certain group of people, fail to actually give them an edge over other groups.
The ideology behind is pretty weird too, as far as I can tell: Malays (and other indigenous peoples) enjoy positive discrimation not because they're thought to be superior to everyone else, but because they fear that they're not as good as the other races and therefore need a bit of a helping hand to compete.
Not that I even begin to understand it, but racism southeast-Asia-style has all the nuttiness of "normal" racism plus a whole extra kind of nuttiness all of its own, which as far as I can tell is one of the more problematic legacies of European colonialism.
Not that I even begin to understand it, but racism southeast-Asia-style has all the nuttiness of "normal" racism plus a whole extra kind of nuttiness all of its own, which as far as I can tell is one of the more problematic legacies of European colonialism.
Similar threads
