I can't dignify your rant by refuting every point, but here are a few facts: 1) Religious minorities often seek assistance from co-religionists in foreign powers. The English Catholics looked to Spain. That's one reason they were persecuted under Elizabeth in England, because England was fighting for its life against His Catholic Majesty Philip of Spain. 2) There isn't a single religious or ethnic group which has not persecuted, massacred, or enslaved members of another group. To portray the Huguenots as some uniquely evil tribe which caused trouble everywhere they went is absurd. Because of the Protestant stress on self-control, literacy, thrift, and honesty, Huguenots and other Protestants tended to progress economically more than Catholics. The Industrial Revolution was largely the work of Protestants. The original American Republic was largely founded by and populated by British-American Protestants, building on historical developments in Protestant Britain. The expulsion of the educated, progressive Huguenots was a major reason why France was unable to establish a limited Republican govt. 3) The Irish Catholics have concocted a self-pitying hype about alleged persecution in America. Irish immigrants had a hard time, but largely because they were uneducated, unskilled peasants. There was little available for such people in a largely agricultural 19th century American society but brutal, exhausting, unsafe toil. The stories of signs reading "Irish need not apply" have been shown to be mythical.
The article in the OP is obviously written to push the cause of "tolerance" toward illegal Hispanic immigration. If not stopped, that trend will destroy what little is left of limited republican govt. in America.
If you want to check history, check the facts for yourself. If you don't, here they are:
So, let's see in conclusion -- Huguenots first start their provocations in 1534, then in 1560 start attacking Catholic Churchs (with no provocation), then start their political support against the conservatives and start a civil war. After 12 years their side loses the civil war and yet they are still allowed to live and practise their faith (note this is the 1500s, not a nice time, yet they get this tolerance) -- but they still play political intrigues. So, one faction starts to attack and massacre the other faction
o, stop the entire "poor persecuted Huguenots" -- they brought it on themselves.
2. hellb: There isn't a single religious or ethnic group which has not persecuted, massacred, or enslaved members of another group -- true again. The Huguenots did that to Catholics in areas of France where they were the majority and repeated doing the same in Prussia, South Africa, the Netherlands, England etc.
3. hellb: To portray the Huguenots as some uniquely evil tribe which caused trouble everywhere they went is absurd. -- I apologize if that is the image conveyed, it is not what I meant, I point out, just as you that they persecuted and were persecuted and to point out the historical reasons for St. Barts which show this to be more
Today about half the Irish ancestry in this country is through people here BEFORE the Revolution and about half the Irish ancestry is through people who came DURING the Famine period.
Irish history is bifurcated.
The other day I watched another kinsman (all Murphy family members are kinsmen) receive the Medal of Honor ~ Michael P. Murphy follows in a long line of great American warriors bearing the name Murphy ~ Audie Murphy, Timothy Murphy, and hundreds of thousands of others.
Some are Catholic, some are Protestant, some are nothing, but America has been very, very good to them, and they have reciprocated.
Actually it doesn't seem quite that way. That's a very interesting question on whether scientific breakthrough was purely or even lead by "Protestants"
Let's check through this
Let's set the historical background first -- Europe in 1500. Population estimates taken from Internet Medieval Source book
Country |
Population (millions) |
Position as a nation-state |
British Isles |
3 |
Until the end of the 100 years wars, it seemed that England and France would merge under one king. When the English lost and were thrown out of Western France, that led to the consolidation of both England and France as nation-states with language unity. However, Scotland still was independent and the Welsh chaffed under English rule. Ireland is reduced to warring clans. |
France & low countries |
12 |
See above. France emerges as the strongest nation-state, but is really an empire with the northern, “French-speaking” population around Paris ruling over the southern l’Oil areas. The French had recently destroyed and conquered the Duchy of Burgundy
The low countries (Belgium, Netherlands) are part of Spain and remain so until 1600. These were once the capitals of the Holy Roman Empire (Bruges was once a center of trade) and hence have a larger population, more trade and commerce. Belgium is part of Holland until 1830 even though it is completely Catholic. In 1830 it fights and gets independence. |
Germany & Scandanavia |
7.3 |
No sense of nation-state until Napoleon and even then as nation-states like Hesse, Bavaria, etc. not as Germany (that only happens post WWI and more especially post WWII when Germans from Eastern Europe who have lived in EE for centuries are thrown out to Germany) Scandanavia has a stronger sense of nation-states, but the Swedes are in union with the Geats (Goths) and the Norwegians and Danes are in a union. The strongest nation-state is Denmark. Sweden is close but will not develop it until the 1600s. Norway is still tribal as is Iceland and Finland Switzerland is still part of the Holy Roman Empire and has no sense of a nation-state but is a loose confederation that have nothing in common except that they band together against common enemies. This will remain the state of Switzerland until Napoleon conquers Switzerland and creates the Helvetic Confederation (and then adds it to France!). Post Napoleon, there is consolidation, but Switzerland still has a large civil war and only gets some semblance of a nation state in the late 1800s |
Italy |
7.3 |
No sense of nation-state, but strong city-states. This is the most advanced “nation” in Western Europe, with an advanced financial system, manufacturing, strong in agriculture etc. Only it does not have a central government, which puts it in a bad position compared to France and Spain who interfere in the city-states. Italy is not united until Garibaldi in the late 1800s. |
Spain/Portugal |
7 |
Strong nation-states formed in opposition to the Moors. Not very advanced economically as this is still very agricultural. However, it is tied to the economically stronger Arab world and with the discovery of gold in the Americas, it will be the most powerful state for the 1500s -1680s until the rise of Louis XIV France |
Greece/Balkans |
4.5 |
Under Ottoman rule, strong sense of nation-state, but no self-rule. Highly advanced economies in Greece and Anatolia, arguably most advanced in all of Europe. Romania, Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bulgaria are devastated by the Ottomans with many fleeing to the mountains. Agriculture, culture etc. severely decline. They are hit on two sides – by the Turks militarily and, because the Turks have a “millet” system where people of one religion are grouped together and the millet for all of these is Orthodoxy, the Bulgarians, Romanians etc. are kept under Greek Phanariotes. Hence their culture declines while Greek culture thrives. |
Russia |
6 |
Still expanding south and east, conquering the Emirates of Kazan etc. This is still a barbaric state and remains so until Peter the Great. It has a sense of purpose, but it’s purpose is Christianity as they believe they are the last Christian state and have a holy duty to push back the Moslems. Economic and scientific development is poor as the focus is on war and agriculture – life is too hard and land too vast to develop like Western Europe. |
Poland/Lithuania |
2 |
Consolidating nation-state, however, more based on a confederacy as there are 4 nations here: Poles, Lithuanians, Ruthenians (Ukrainians, Belarusians) and Jews. This mixed with 4 different religions (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Judaism and Islam (Lipka Tartars)) means a very tolerant state – tolerance levels of these are not reached by Western Europe until the late Victorian era. |
Hungary |
1.5 |
Strong nation state of the Magyars in Magyaristan (we English speakers give them an exonym of Hungary while they call themselves Magyar). However, the Magyars (descendents of Finno-Ugaric warriors) are mostly ruling class and warriors, they import Saxons as merchants. The native Romanians, Slovaks, etc are kept as serfs. The state is one of war |
Bohemia |
1 |
Strong nation-state but at war with the Holy Roman Empire and Poland has given it a sense of insecurity. It will eventually be absorbed by Austria-hungary. |