(no subject)

[jack]

I recently read a novel describing an invasion of Great Britain in Napoleonic time. Though London was occupied, fortunately the government and armed forces were able to retreat to Scotland. However, the south suffered much despoilation, guerilla fighting, collaboration, massacres, starvation, etc, much as all the other countries in Europe had.

Obviously there are many examples of countries that suffered like that at the time, and that suffer like that now. Some endlessly war-torn. Some without any hope of reclaiming the country, and with refugees scattered to countries not their own to live as best they can. Sometimes integrated, sometimes not integrated for hundreds or thousands of years. (I deliberately said Great Britain rather than United Kingdom at the start, as regardless of the situation now, I didn't feel comfortable describing a conquest of Ireland by a foreign power as fictional.)

And there are many fictional books about a noble rebellion overthrowing an evil dictator or conqueror. Although in most, you don't have any attachment to the country before, you just want things to get better than they are now. I know there ought to be examples, but I can't think of any books with the same vibe.

For though I'm not especially a British nationalist, what I wanted to say was that it felt different when it was this country, than in all those other examples.

Comments

[pavanne.livejournal.com]

Out of interest, what was the book? Was it good?

[ilanin.livejournal.com]

I deliberately said Great Britain rather than United Kingdom at the start, as regardless of the situation now, I didn't feel comfortable describing a conquest of Ireland by a foreign power as fictional.)

But the conquest of Scotland and Wales is just fine?

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Does it sound like that? I don't want to justify old conquests or devalue how Scottish and Welsh people feel being ruled from London. And if people kick up less of a stink about it, I may sometimes forget to pay equal wieght to them. But I think the reasons for having saying that were:

* Regardless of the history, the invasion, though landing near London, was of mainland Britain, attacking all of England, Scotland and Wales, both the people, and the unified armed forces, so there might be a choice between saying "invaded UK" and "invaded great britain", but "invaded england" would be essentially incorrect.
* I don't know the history well, but I think at that time, Ireland felt invaded right then, whereas Scotland and Wales had joined much longer ago.
* There are people being tortured to death due to the Irelend question now; however much Wales being ruled from London sucks, it's a lot less touchy because a lot fewer people die
* Scotland may not have received a fair deal since, but if I recall correctly, at the time, England and Scotland had merged since both had voted to do so.

[ilanin.livejournal.com]

* I don't know the history well, but I think at that time, Ireland felt invaded right then, whereas Scotland and Wales had joined much longer ago.

Debatable. Irish nationalism had undergone a major resurgence in the 1790s culminating in the Rebellion of 1798, but prior to that had been peaceful for over a century. Scotland had risen in rebellion four times in the eighteenth century. Wales, of course, still felt invaded in centuries much later - hence the presence of "Os treisiodd y gelyn fy ngwlad tan ei droed" ("If the enemy oppresses my land under his foot") in Land of My Fathers (1856)

You're also clearly not familiar with the aftermath of the Battle of Culloden (1745) and what can really only be called ethnic cleansing against the Highlanders by the Campbells and the Hanoverian government. Insofar then, as Scotland was more peaceful at the time, it may be regarded as being due to the fact that the British government had spent 50 years attempting to destroy the Scottish way of life - going so far as to outlaw highland dress excepting for the British Army.

I don't know if you know what my surname is. It's not all that common in Scotland these days, but before 1745, it was.

* There are people being tortured to death due to the Irelend question now; however much Wales being ruled from London sucks, it's a lot less touchy because a lot fewer people die

This argument appears to be "because the SNP doesn't have a terrorist wing, Scotland has less claim to be regarded a conquered nation than Ireland does".

* Scotland may not have received a fair deal since, but if I recall correctly, at the time, England and Scotland had merged since both had voted to do so.

Also true of Ireland - the Act of Union 1801 was a bill passed by the Irish Parliament as well as by Westminster.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

In which case I see where you're coming from, and I'm sorry, I wish I had known more of the history.