I have always been interested in history and now that I rate as a senior, I realise that some of my history lessons we slanted and not critical of the groups of peoples who were allied to us - which was English and British.
It does not matter who was allied to who, but the thing about history that stands (shockingly) out to me, is man's inhumanity to man.
I have done my share of travelling and employed a wide range of people and my philosophy has has always been, people are people - we all have the same basic desire and needs.
Point one: It is interesting and amazing all the international cooperation and organization required to keep the world's transport system - that is aircraft - running and to schedule. Not only the technical side of maintenance, navigation and communication, but also booking, scheduling, luggage control, food, personnel and more.
So if we have international cooperation with air transport, why do we have no cooperation to sort out problems like Syria, starvation and all manner of ills afflicting the planet?
On a trip to Ireland, I was reminded about the Irish Famine of 1845 - 52. This was caused by a potato blight which decimated the potato crops.
Ireland at the time was dependent on the potato as a staple diet.
John Mitchell said, The Almighty, indeed, sent the potato blight but the English created the famine.
It has been estimated that one million people starved to death during the famine and the population for eight million was halved because many emigrated to escape the terrible times.
Still during the famine food was exported from Ireland. Merchants and money.
Little aid was forthcoming for the Irish from the English, but the Native American Choctaws did sent money because they too had experienced starvation.
Islam also made a contribution from the Ottoman Sultan. Curiously though he intimated that he would donate
£10 000 but Queen Victoria asked him to reduce the amount to £1 000 - she herself donated £2 000. However it is said - and difficult to prove/disprove that the Sultan sent three shiploads of food aid - successfully, despite English attempts to blockade them.
This was not the Dark Ages and and European countries were sending missions to Africa and the Antipodes to bring 'civilization'. The treatment of the Irish was not very civilized.
How did all this come about?
Well old Henry VIII did not get his own way in ditching one wife for another - the Pope did not give him permission. So instead, Henry VIII ditched the Pole and Roman Catholicism and created the Church of England. In doing so he made it illegal to be a Roman Catholic.
You can guarantee this caused opportunities for those so inclined (and with the approval of the King) to rob and plunder 'in the name of the Church of England' and to take property from folk who wanted to retain their Catholic faith.
Ireland had been governed by England and the 17th and 18th century Penal laws prohibited Catholic from owning land, leasing land, voting or holding political office, obtaining education,and even to live within 5 miles of a corporate town. This did change with the 1795 and 1829 Emancipation Act but when the potato blight struck in 1845, the bulk of the Irish population were still desperately poor.
So essentially the Irish were living on small parcels of land, eking out a subsistence living and in some way paying or providing some of their crop to absentee (mainly English) landlords. In turn, the landowners were required to pay a rate (land tax), presumably to the English government.
So when the blight struck, the landowners could not extract anything from the Irish tenant farmers to pay the rate, so they tipped the farmers off the land! To encourage the farming families to go, roofs were removed from dwellings, or houses were destroyed, so not only were they hungry, they were homeless as well.
The death toll may not have been totally because of starvation, but because of cold and disease as well.
Of course no doubt money (or other perceived riches) was to be made by tipping the farmers from the land and is often the underlying cause of conflict.
Appalling as the treatment of the Irish was, they are by no means alone. History is littered with conquerors, exploiters, exterminators, squatters, civilizors and the like.
Point two: Religious fervor is the other main cause of conflict over the ages. Most religious doctrines preach peace, harmony, tolerance, respect and 'all things good'. But if people could not be converted peacefully, then it was quite profitable to bring a crusade or kill/torture people until they 'saw the light' - sometimes straight out genocide was used.
Religion is a sensitive subject and it easy to offend and these days there are those who receive some gratification by offending; offending religion or just being offensive. Take South Park and the Mary episode, take the photographer who took the topless photos of England's future queen (and the magazines), take also the people who have published films and cartoons offensive to Islam.
Where though does mob violence come from? I watched with horror, the riots in Britain. Senseless stuff where people were caught up in the moment and were making use of the opportunity to destroy property, throw things at the police and loot where they could.
There were riots in Holland overnight because 4 000 turned up to a birthday party advertised on Facebook - these people just wanted to fight with the police and wreak havoc.
I ask the same question to Islam, why destroy property and kill innocents when doing such things is against the teachings? How many young men are actually having fun wreaking havoc? And the Pakistani politician who offered a reward for the murder of the film maker - he too no doubt is personally gratified by being outrageous. As did the Australian woman who held up a placard stating that people acting against the prophet should be beheaded! I don't think prophet taught such things.
An young African girl once asked me, 'Why is it that in Africa the people go to church regularly and pray for better things, but they remain poor and have a difficult life, while in rich counties few people go to church yet they have a good life?'
I was unable to offer a logical answer.
Point three: Money sees to have the ability to corrupt. Had the English reacted differently, the Irish may still have been hungry, but they would not have been homeless! I need not detail the quest for wealth, land and glory over the ages and the atrocities committed in the process.
Of course we generally believe that is past history and we are all civilized now.
Not so human nature is opportunistic. A child will always choose the biggest slice of cake and capitalism ranks business by wealth rather than the good they may do.
Governments (including local governments) - that is politicians, and the very rich have always managed to look after themselves and will continue to do so.
But in the end money is no panacea.
Here in New Zealand we have a problem: In our early history the Maori population, perhaps not on the scale of some peoples, were treated poorly and it has taken generations for the extent of the maltreatment to be recognized. Mind you there has always been inter-tribal maltreatment too.
The Waitangi Tribunal was set up to compensate for the maltreatment and this process is ongoing.
There is now criticism that Maori are making claims for water and wind (as well as other ongoing claims) without true justification for such claims.
What did I say above about the human 'frailty' of being opportunistic? The same goes here - if there is money and resources up for grabs, let's hop on the gravy train.
So in this case, the Government has apologized and handed over money and resources. The money and resources have been accepted, but to my knowledge the apology has not been accepted nor has forgiveness been forthcoming.
The New Zealand economy is fragile so money and resources need to be managed more effectively. We have to look at who and why further claims are being made.
What have Maori - as a nation - done with the resources and money? It is not readily apparent to me but Maori poor and Maori prison inmates dominate per head of population, so the real problems have not been addressed.
But it would be good if someone was to say, Maori settlements amounted to (whatever it is) and with it we have developed so much housing, these health initiatives, these employment initiatives and whatever training for our youth.
Instead the is a bureaucracy building.
Lets hope we can learn from history.
Ireland had been governed by England and the 17th and 18th century Penal laws prohibited Catholic from owning land, leasing land, voting or holding political office, obtaining education,and even to live within 5 miles of a corporate town. This did change with the 1795 and 1829 Emancipation Act but when the potato blight struck in 1845, the bulk of the Irish population were still desperately poor.
So essentially the Irish were living on small parcels of land, eking out a subsistence living and in some way paying or providing some of their crop to absentee (mainly English) landlords. In turn, the landowners were required to pay a rate (land tax), presumably to the English government.
So when the blight struck, the landowners could not extract anything from the Irish tenant farmers to pay the rate, so they tipped the farmers off the land! To encourage the farming families to go, roofs were removed from dwellings, or houses were destroyed, so not only were they hungry, they were homeless as well.
The death toll may not have been totally because of starvation, but because of cold and disease as well.
Of course no doubt money (or other perceived riches) was to be made by tipping the farmers from the land and is often the underlying cause of conflict.
Appalling as the treatment of the Irish was, they are by no means alone. History is littered with conquerors, exploiters, exterminators, squatters, civilizors and the like.
Point two: Religious fervor is the other main cause of conflict over the ages. Most religious doctrines preach peace, harmony, tolerance, respect and 'all things good'. But if people could not be converted peacefully, then it was quite profitable to bring a crusade or kill/torture people until they 'saw the light' - sometimes straight out genocide was used.
Religion is a sensitive subject and it easy to offend and these days there are those who receive some gratification by offending; offending religion or just being offensive. Take South Park and the Mary episode, take the photographer who took the topless photos of England's future queen (and the magazines), take also the people who have published films and cartoons offensive to Islam.
Where though does mob violence come from? I watched with horror, the riots in Britain. Senseless stuff where people were caught up in the moment and were making use of the opportunity to destroy property, throw things at the police and loot where they could.
There were riots in Holland overnight because 4 000 turned up to a birthday party advertised on Facebook - these people just wanted to fight with the police and wreak havoc.
I ask the same question to Islam, why destroy property and kill innocents when doing such things is against the teachings? How many young men are actually having fun wreaking havoc? And the Pakistani politician who offered a reward for the murder of the film maker - he too no doubt is personally gratified by being outrageous. As did the Australian woman who held up a placard stating that people acting against the prophet should be beheaded! I don't think prophet taught such things.
An young African girl once asked me, 'Why is it that in Africa the people go to church regularly and pray for better things, but they remain poor and have a difficult life, while in rich counties few people go to church yet they have a good life?'
I was unable to offer a logical answer.
Point three: Money sees to have the ability to corrupt. Had the English reacted differently, the Irish may still have been hungry, but they would not have been homeless! I need not detail the quest for wealth, land and glory over the ages and the atrocities committed in the process.
Of course we generally believe that is past history and we are all civilized now.
Not so human nature is opportunistic. A child will always choose the biggest slice of cake and capitalism ranks business by wealth rather than the good they may do.
Governments (including local governments) - that is politicians, and the very rich have always managed to look after themselves and will continue to do so.
But in the end money is no panacea.
Here in New Zealand we have a problem: In our early history the Maori population, perhaps not on the scale of some peoples, were treated poorly and it has taken generations for the extent of the maltreatment to be recognized. Mind you there has always been inter-tribal maltreatment too.
The Waitangi Tribunal was set up to compensate for the maltreatment and this process is ongoing.
There is now criticism that Maori are making claims for water and wind (as well as other ongoing claims) without true justification for such claims.
What did I say above about the human 'frailty' of being opportunistic? The same goes here - if there is money and resources up for grabs, let's hop on the gravy train.
So in this case, the Government has apologized and handed over money and resources. The money and resources have been accepted, but to my knowledge the apology has not been accepted nor has forgiveness been forthcoming.
The New Zealand economy is fragile so money and resources need to be managed more effectively. We have to look at who and why further claims are being made.
What have Maori - as a nation - done with the resources and money? It is not readily apparent to me but Maori poor and Maori prison inmates dominate per head of population, so the real problems have not been addressed.
But it would be good if someone was to say, Maori settlements amounted to (whatever it is) and with it we have developed so much housing, these health initiatives, these employment initiatives and whatever training for our youth.
Instead the is a bureaucracy building.
Lets hope we can learn from history.
No comments:
Post a Comment