Expelling your minorities = Losing World Power?

[TheArchduke]

Expelling your minorities = Loosing World Power?

Three examples for that. Everytime a supreme power shot herself in the knee:

Spain with the Expulsion of the Moors and Jews, both very productive and economic-wise important people.

France with Expelling her Protestants. Thereby strengthening her enemies who came down on her in the war of Spanish succession.

And Germany with the Holocaust expelling the economic and scientific important Jew minority.

All three were very close on the brink of world domination and in my opinion destroyed themselves by getting rid of a productive part of their on populace.

Is this so or am I mistaken?
The British after all didn´t rid themselves of anyone really.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

This is a valid point.... except... The British did expell the catholics, although not to the same extent as the Spaniards or French expelled Protestants.

The United States did similar things to the Indians, and no-one can claim that the US has lost world power status.

Conversly, Iraq has done horrible things to the Kurds, and although never a great power, is on the verge of destruction.

China expelled the Capitalists to Taiwan, and hasn't really lost its 'great' power status. I say this because China as a nation is powerful, but the people are starving.

Finally, Russia killed millions of people, of all kinds of various groups, and didn't really lose its power status (if at all) until recently, and is still a powerful nation.

Just some observations. Your theory is interesting.

Steele

 

[stnylan]

Re: Expelling your minorities = Loosing World Power?

Originally posted by TheArchduke
Is this so or am I mistaken?
The British after all didn´t rid themselves of anyone really.

Well you're mistaken about the British (English anyway - though the Scots didn't have many Jews so it was a moot issue for them). We got rid of the Jews in 1290 iirc - though by that time various Kings had more or less emptied their coffers so it was a (relatively) cheap publicity stunt, of course taking the opportunity to relieve them of any valuables they might still have possessed (Edward I was a cash-strapped man remember).

I don't think your idea holds good for Spain - at least not for the Jewish expulsion in 1492 since Spain's greatest years were yet ahead. The later stuff with the Moriscos though is much more convincing.

France. Mmm. I agree that those France expelled went to France's enemies and in the long run contributed much to them. However, again France remained great regardless. Indeed saw some of her greatest years after those expulsions. Religious harmony does bring many benefits of its own accord.

Germany, yes, broadly.

In conclusion, I think such expulsions can and do create short-term problems, and can certainly contribute to a longer process of decline, and maybe even be an important catalyst of that decline, but that a nation can cause such expulsions and also suffer no long term effects.

In other words I'm sitting on the fence

 

[stnylan]

Originally posted by steelehc
This is a valid point.... except... The British did expell the catholics, although not to the same extent as the Spaniards or French expelled Protestants.

Actually we expelled more Puritans than Catholics. The English and Scots wanted to convert Catholics not expel them.

One of the slightly strange things about British history is that after the Glorious Revolution for quite some time England was one of the most tolerant countries in the world. With the exception of dodge satanic stuff and 'barbaric' paganism only one denomination/religion was actually banned.

Catholicism. Hinduism, Islam, and so on were certainly legally discriminated against, but were also legally tolerated.

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by stnylan
Actually we expelled more Puritans than Catholics. The English and Scots wanted to convert Catholics not expel them.

One of the slightly strange things about British history is that after the Glorious Revolution for quite some time England was one of the most tolerant countries in the world. With the exception of dodge satanic stuff and 'barbaric' paganism only one denomination/religion was actually banned.

Catholism was prohibited in Ireland after the 1688 coup. The Penal Laws were repressive, and a method for magistrates to raise money through property seizures.

Further, Catholics in England were prohibited from certain professions; teachers etc. If you are thinking the Toleration Act ended religious persecution, it did so for Protestant nonconformists, not Catholics.

Catholic Emancipation was not officialy passed until 1829.

The last vestige of anti-Catholicsim is still in place, neither the Prime Minister, nor monarch can be a Catholic.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

By 'expelled' I was using the ArchDuke's word. The English did not open their arms lovingly to the catholics. They were mistreated, and many of them fled.

Steele

 

[stnylan]

Archduke cited in his posted three cases where peoples were clearly expelled. Expelled means something quite different from repression.

Or rather two definite cases, and Germany.

I took it to mean this fashion.

I am well aware of the continued restrictions against Catholicism in the UK, both legal and cultural, being a Catholic myself. However, given the past these are incredibly minor and, sex-scandals notwithstanding, the Catholic Church is today held in higher repute in England and Scotland that at any time since the Reformation.

Regardless, if you consider Catholics in the England/Great Britain/UK to qualify then you would seem not to support the main thrust of Archduke's post since persecution of Catholics did precious little to effect the decline of the British Empire.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

I defined my use of 'expelled.' You'll notice in my original post, I listed several pro- and con- scenarios about this issue, none of which fit perfectly (except possibly for China), simply to prove a point: that no one historical analogy can be drawn that fits all situations.

As for the Catholics in England, I realize they weren't actually expelled (kicked out by those in power). But niether were the Jews in Germany, or indeed all of the Jews in Spain (if they became Catholic, and renounced Judaisim, they could have stayed). If you take expelled literally, than almost nothing fits the scenario, whereas if you take it to mean repressed with the intent of forcing out, than it works much better.

Steele

 

[brandnew70x7]

But the Sunni Regime in power is a minority..

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
The last vestige of anti-Catholicsim is still in place, neither the Prime Minister, nor monarch can be a Catholic.

I'm aware that the monarch cannot be a Catholic, but why not the Prime Minister? The office of Prime Minister certainly did not exist in 1689 when Catholics were barred from the throne via the Declaration of Rights. The office of Prime Minister did not even exist in any legal sense until 1905, so I can't see how there could have been any legal bar to Catholics becoming Prime Minister being erected prior to that. I'm genuinely curious - I'm doing a PhD in modern British political history, so I am concerned that I have overlooked something!

 

[stnylan]

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck
I'm aware that the monarch cannot be a Catholic, but why not the Prime Minister? The office of Prime Minister certainly did not exist in 1689 when Catholics were barred from the throne via the Declaration of Rights. The office of Prime Minister did not even exist in any legal sense until 1905, so I can't see how there could have been any legal bar to Catholics becoming Prime Minister being erected prior to that. I'm genuinely curious - I'm doing a PhD in modern British political history, so I am concerned that I have overlooked something!

It's not actually the office of Prime Minister - but one of his other offices, First Ward of the Treasury I believe. All Prime Ministers are also First Wards.

 

[TheArchduke]

Some of you misunderstood me.

The Moors, Protestants and Jews were mostly representants of the more or less wealthy middle class which is the main drive behind the economic growth in my opinion.

I am afraid I wasn´t informed about the whole Catholicism issue. The English had some serious religious problems but did they throw out so many like the other three powers did?

"The last vestige of anti-Catholicsim is still in place, neither the Prime Minister, nor monarch can be a Catholic."
Well this clearly is something left over from ancient times. I think it was issued to prevent something like Philipp from Spain seizing the Throne.

 

[stnylan]

Originally posted by TheArchduke
Some of you misunderstood me.

The Moors, Protestants and Jews were mostly representants of the more or less wealthy middle class which is the main drive behind the economic growth in my opinion.

I am afraid I wasn´t informed about the whole Catholicism issue. The English had some serious religious problems but did they throw out so many like the other three powers did?

"The last vestige of anti-Catholicsim is still in place, neither the Prime Minister, nor monarch can be a Catholic."
Well this clearly is something left over from ancient times. I think it was issued to prevent something like Philipp from Spain seizing the Throne.

The legislation arose from the shenanigans of James II & VII.

England did not expel really any of the christian groups - but economic and other sanctions were used to encourage conversion. In England, and most of Scotland, this resulted in very insular Catholic communities. Under the Act of Toleration all religions were tolerated (though discriminted against) but Catholicism was not. Efforts to repeal some of the anti-Catholic legislation aroused great opposition (the Jacobite rebellions were seen as being Catholic, which didn't help). iirc Catholics were not allowed to build churches until 1853, and various other little measures took a greater or lesser time to repeal.

The Act of Succession is unlikely to change however until such a time as the reigning monarch ceases to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England. If a member of the Royal Family converts (as minor members sometimes do) then they put themselves outside of the succession. There is a little ceremony to formalise this I believe.

There is still an anti-Catholic perception in the UK. I am not saying that it is on purpose, because it isn't. It is a cultural phenomenon. Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder plot, the Armada, James II, and so on. The IRA probably didn't help either.

That is very basic, and ignores the Irish migrations to London, Liverpool, and Glasgow etc. However, broadly speaking expelling didn't happen. A case can be made for some of the dissenters and the Mayflower et al, but the numbers were actually quite small and 'puritan' congregations remained.

 

[unmerged(13241)]

Spain got a world power after it expelled his jews and moors so they aren't a good example.
The Ottoman Empire on the other hand was greatly strenghtend by the minorities, when the empire was on the rise. Yet it also greatly weakend them once they were falling.

Also Turkey is a much stronger state then the OE was, after they have expelled they minorities.

 

[Dinsdale]

I believe the exclusion of a Catholic monarch is Act of Settlement 1701. Section 1 is what is commonly known to exclude the PM as well as Monarch from being Catholic. There is however an express provision somewhere, as posted relating to one of the PM's official titles.

While not expelling Catholics, their exclusion from the Act of Toleration ensured a "forced" conversion.

The next wave of Catholicism in England occured post 1840 with the Irish migrations. Prior to that Catholicism had been almost removed.

 

[TheArchduke]

Originally posted by madner
Spain got a world power after it expelled his jews and moors so they aren't a good example.
The Ottoman Empire on the other hand was greatly strenghtend by the minorities, when the empire was on the rise. Yet it also greatly weakend them once they were falling.

Also Turkey is a much stronger state then the OE was, after they have expelled they minorities.

Spain expelled her Moors in 1600 which resulted in the deathblow to her owerblown economy. I don´t say it is the sole reason for decline but is a very important one.

And Turkey stronger than OE? You must be joking!

 

[unmerged(234)]

Originally posted by TheArchduke
And Turkey stronger than OE? You must be joking!

Turkey is stonger than the OE was in late 19th century, yes. Not as the where in the 16 and 17th.

 

[unmerged(13241)]

And Turkey stronger than OE? You must be joking!

Of course stronger, the Ottoman empire was once a superpower, but in the 20 century they lost versus Italians, and an alliance of minor balkan powers.
In fact you have to go a long way to find a victorius Ottoman war.
Turkey is by all means a regional power, heck they have one of the best armies in Europe, and none of they neigbours would have a chance versus them.

Spain expelled many Jews and Moors aound 1492, and they were a superpower afterwards.

 

[unmerged(7924)]

Turkey is by all means a regional power, heck they have one of the best armies in Europe, and none of they neigbours would have a chance versus them.

What about Iran?

Regarding OE, wasn't Jannisaries christian prisoners that became elite soldiers? A somekind of minority...

 

[unmerged(10224)]

Well...

Uganda expelled their Asians "The Asians came here to build the railway, the railway is built. Go home!" They went down the tubes, especially since the Asian community controled the food supply network!

Zimbabwe acted in a simular way. Since the economies collapsed, the state have moved further into repression.

Al-Andalus attempting to expel the Berbers, which caused a civil war.

Japan expelling foreigners retarded economic growth. Although it did stop them from meddling in their developing political system.

Can't think of anymore just now!