Conservative imperialist rule sharpened the English-Irish conflict

Evidence

The strange fact was that two parties, which between themselves completely dominated the area of political struggle, nevertheless did not fight each other radically—because they had a silent mutual pact against something which was not a political party at all. Historians have connected the parliamentary corruptibility of that period with this strange limitation of the fight. Nobody thought too badly of a party’s selling its conviction in favor of the opposing party because the conviction of that opposing party had a rather broad, even though hidden common basis, and the fight lay elsewhere. The ease of corruption showed that here the restriction of the antagonism through a common feature did not make the conflict more fundamental and objective. On the contrary, it blurred it and contaminated its meaning as necessarily determined by objective circumstances. — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 309 (#contradicts, via linked claim)

Having unsuccessfully summoned the garrison to surrender, he breached the ramparts with his cannon, and at the third assault, which he led himself, stormed the town. … The consequences of Cromwell’s rule in Ireland have distressed and at times distracted English politics down even to the present day. — Winston Churchill, A History of the English-Speaking…, 1116 (#responds-to, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Eighteenth-century English parties’ shared aristocratic pact blunted genuine conflict — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 309; English colonial ideology of savagery extended from the Irish to Africans and natives; Cromwell’s actions in Ireland created lasting political consequences in England. — Winston Churchill, A History of the English-Speaking…, 1116 (+1 more)

Broader Connections