The Battle of Toubacanti 1700 a.D. (Darian Expedition)

[TheScottishEconomist]

Originally posted by Skyelander

I agree with Scottish Republican on this one. To many books produced today only look at the economic aspects of the Highland Clearances - as if somehow the loss of economy explains all the evictions and atrocities committed on those people. It is excuse-making history at it height.

Its nothing to do with "excuse making", that you use such language reflects poorly on your ability to critically analyse historical sources. Serious history must be about a disinterested appraisal of a subject using the available information. Turning it into high romance does the opposite.

Originally posted by Skyelander

Prebbble wasn't an historian: luckily for us, historians aren't the only ones allowed to write about history! I am an historian, and I would read Prebble over many of my own colleagues, simply for his readability. I never found anything terribly deficient in his works.

That perhaps say’s more about you as an historian than it does about Prebble or anything else.

[TheScottishEconomist]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
In England it was not unknown for entire villages to be uprooted for no better reason than to allow landowners to expand their country mansions and the methods employed were often no less brutal than in the highlands.The highland clearances were not a myth but they should be seen in their proper context as part of a wider process of agricultural reform involving upheaval and hardship for rural communities throughout the UK.The Gaels were not singled out for special treatment and there wasn't a concerted effort on the part of the British government to depopulate the highlands,although the unique traditional relationship between landowners and their tenants which existed in the Highlands meant the victims perhaps felt a deeper sense of betrayal than displaced peoples in the rest of the UK.Also the fact that Scotland was less urbanised than England ensured that less employment opportunities were available so many highlanders were forced to move abroad

Andy: The voice of reason! Thankfully!

Scotland was indeed less urbanised than England, but during the 19th century it urbanised at the fastest rate in Europe (and hence caused a lot of social problems in the cities of Scotland). Those people had to come from somewhere, and they came from the rural areas of both the highlands and lowlands. There were push and pull factors involved. It should also be kept in mind that there was a very long history of temproary migration from the highlands to the lowlands.

[Scottish_Republican]

SE, I find your assumption that economics is just a social/historical process and little else, a bit quasi-Marxist.

"The scribblings of some semi literate person do not offer even remotely convincing evidence that it was a Scottish nationalist uprising, and I don’t think any reasonably minded person could come to the conclusion that it was."

Again, you fall into the same trap. An uprising is not just an organic thing independent of people. The uprising consisted of many people, including this semi-literate (which most of them would have been incidentally).

"That people were unaware of Wallace before that appalling bad film is an indictment of our society and its values."

Not our society's values, but our society's education system, and academia in general.

"In the case of John Maclean, he is unfortunately one of those Scots who is loved for being a loser. Not despite being a loser, but because he is a loser."

That's an unfounded assumption. He is remembered better for his successes in organising people. He would be even better remembered if he had succeeded further.

"Not one of your finest refutations SR, but I have noticed that you quite frequently disagree with things because you don’t find them convenient rather than because evidence clearly indicates something to the contrary."

Well, it is a little odd for you to say this after condemning some members of a working class uprising for being "semi-literate", partly because said piece "indicates something to the contrary".

"Whats wrong with a bit of 19th century cross border solidarity? I am puzzled as to why you seem to find such things so threatening that you prefer to argue against them even if it diminishes your own credibility."

The Scots were also in contact with the Irish and French radical movements at this time, or perhaps that doesn't find a place in your history book. I don't find it threatening, in fact I'm well aware of it. I have a book at home which is thoroughly anglocentric and sees the uprising merely as a far flung tentacle of the "English radical" movement (their words, not mine), rather than looking at its own unique characteristics. It was both Scottish and internationalist in its outlook, rather than purely "British".

Less of the ad hominem please, it reduces your own credibility.

[TheScottishEconomist]

Originally posted by Scottish_Republican
SE, I find your assumption that economics is just a social/historical process and little else, a bit quasi-Marxist.

"The scribblings of some semi literate person do not offer even remotely convincing evidence that it was a Scottish nationalist uprising, and I don’t think any reasonably minded person could come to the conclusion that it was."

Again, you fall into the same trap. An uprising is not just an organic thing independent of people. The uprising consisted of many people, including this semi-literate (which most of them would have been incidentally).

Actually it consisted of a small number of people and it got smaller as it went along. As I said earlier, the extreme radicals scared off the moderate majority.

Quasi Marxist? Try Adam Smith.


[quote]"That people were unaware of Wallace before that appalling bad film is an indictment of our society and its values."

Not our society's values, but our society's education system, and academia in general.[quote]

A societies education system is a reflection of its values. However academia - unlike what goes on in secondary schools - certainly concerns itself with the era of Wallace, there has been a great increase in Scottish historical research in the last ten years, and a good deal in the last thirty years.

"In the case of John Maclean, he is unfortunately one of those Scots who is loved for being a loser. Not despite being a loser, but because he is a loser."

That's an unfounded assumption. He is remembered better for his successes in organising people. He would be even better remembered if he had succeeded further.

If what you are saying was correct there would be others held in greater regard for their greater (and more pragmatic) achievements. No the Scottish working class love a loser, that is essentially Macleans appeal to them.

"Not one of your finest refutations SR, but I have noticed that you quite frequently disagree with things because you don’t find them convenient rather than because evidence clearly indicates something to the contrary."

Well, it is a little odd for you to say this after condemning some members of a working class uprising for being "semi-literate", partly because said piece "indicates something to the contrary".

"Whats wrong with a bit of 19th century cross border solidarity? I am puzzled as to why you seem to find such things so threatening that you prefer to argue against them even if it diminishes your own credibility."

The Scots were also in contact with the Irish and French radical movements at this time, or perhaps that doesn't find a place in your history book.

Irish radicals were addressed in the Address to the Inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland (hence the title), so again your point is a very bad one. As regards French radicals, the aim was to reform how Great Britian and Ireland was governed. While there was contact with French radicals, it was not the French state that their aim was to reform, it was the British state.

I don't find it threatening, in fact I'm well aware of it.

Then why the silly comment about the Poll Tax?

I have a book at home which is thoroughly anglocentric and sees the uprising merely as a far flung tentacle of the "English radical" movement (their words, not mine), rather than looking at its own unique characteristics. It was both Scottish and internationalist in its outlook, rather than purely "British".

As stated earlier, the radicals aimed to reform the British state, that they took ideas from abroad does not alter that. Certainly there was a Scottish dimension to it, but essentially it was a shared struggle between the Scottish and English radicals. Scottish nationalism was never on the agenda. Attempts to try and read a Scottish nationalist meaning back into will not stand up to close scrutiny of the available information.

[Scottish_Republican]

Well, I was SHOCKED by how many people didn't know of Wallace when that film came out. I assumed that they did. I was brought up knowing about Wallace and the Bruce etc. I think it was the Bruce who was more romanticised, but Wallace was certainly known to me. 1820 was something that I'd never have heard of. In fact, I think there were two big gaps in the popular history I knew of, namely between Bruce and Mary QOS, and between BPC and the late Victorian period. Of course, this has been filled in since, and wasn't completely empty to begin with...

However, I was very fortunate in having a schoolteacher who went out of her way (i.e. off syllabus), to teach us about early Scotland, i.e. from about the time of the Romans through Dalriada/Strathclyde and the Norse up until the dawn of the Normans. This was very good. While I don't agree with some of the things she said, and she was an unpleasant woman otherwise, she saw to it that many of us were exposed to a period we may have never learnt about subsequently.

"Irish radicals were addressed in the Address to the Inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland (hence the title), so again your point is a very bad one. As regards French radicals, the aim was to reform how Great Britian and Ireland was governed. While there was contact with French radicals, it was not the French state that their aim was to reform, it was the British state."

It is not a bad one at all. There was a great internationalist aspect to it, great inspiration from the Continent etc. The aim was reform, but not all in the way you state. Needless to say, as with the Poll Tax rebellion, the rebels would have had widely differing viewpoints and reasons anyway.

Of course, evidence to the contrary can be written off, because of bad spelling.

"As stated earlier, the radicals aimed to reform the British state, that they took ideas from abroad does not alter that."

Of course they did. They were in the British state. They were radicals. Even if some of the radicals wanted independence, this in of itself was reform of the British state.

"essentially it was a shared struggle between the Scottish and English radicals. Scottish nationalism was never on the agenda"

It was a shared struggle across Europe. The inspiration came from France and affected the entire continent from Ireland to Moscow.

Like I say, I doubt we would be discussing Darien or the Clearances if it weren't for Prebble. We can argue the toss about his methods, motives and whatever, but he resurrected the issue(s). I thank him for that much. Otherwise the issue would be only discussed in a few costly journals that a handful subscribe to.