The Instigator
Adam2
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
scots
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Lowlands of Scotland should apologize for the Highland Clearances

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,633 times Debate No: 54863
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Adam2

Pro

I will be arguing for the above case. First round is for acceptance.
scots

Con

I accept your argument that the Lowlands Of Scotland should apologise for the Highland clearances.


Debate Round No. 1
Adam2

Pro

The Lowland Clearance were an extreme act of brutality and in some cases racism on the Lowland's part. One can even argue that the Scandinavian influence on Lowlanders might have even propelled that desire for world domination, which I'll explain to you later. It was a time when the Lowlander Anglo-Saxons did everything they could to be purge a Nordic, Protestant Scotland or Gaelic, Catholic (and in some cases Anglican, since Highlanders would must likely identify with southern England before the Lowlands of Scotland).

I also add as a side note (which maybe my opponent will agree or disagree with) that the Lowlands of Scotland, and the north of England, are solely responsible for the British, alone. The king who did the colonizing was Scottish -- King James the First. There was nothing English or Anglican about him. He was the absolute monarch behind the conquest of Virginia. And the first colonial governor, though English, hailed from Yorkshire. That was John Smith.

The Highland Clearances were basically pretty much like the trail of tears. It was conquest. It was basically an attempt to steal the Highlander's land, in which it forced many Highlanders to emigrate to Canada, where they remain for the most part today. Of course there was resistance to this, but it wasn't successful.
http://en.wikipedia.org...;

Personally if you ask me this is worse than anything Hitler or Mussolini did.
scots

Con

I myself a highlander, unfortunately must defend the horrific acts done against us. Yet in a way they we necessary, these new breeds of sheep were making the highland lord (now land lords) very wealthy and these lord were evicting people for the sake of profit. Some of these lord did not want to evict the people, like Lord McDonald who could not afford to keep the people there was forced to do it. This was not just happening in the Scotland but all over Britain, this was a decrease in the cottage industry and people began to move to cities for employment. This was Britain workforce this is what pushed Britain's factories forward, which also pushed the country forward. This was a new age of modernity and profit and the Highland lords were not going to be left behind they were left behind then the country would crash and poverty would hit every one.

You say this is worse then Hitler and Mussolini, well I disagree. Because they singled out a group of people and killed them, it was genocide. The Highland and lowland lords did not round these people up and kill them they just did what was necessary, for them to get profit. The potato famine killed thousands of Irish men women and children, but in Scotland the death toll was in the hundreds. this is because in Scotland the better off helped them in their time of need while in Ireland the better of could care less this is partly Sir Walter Scott's doing for in his novels he praised the Highlander, and now the praised Highlander was endangered so they wanted to help.

Your argument is that the Lowlanders should apologise to the Highlanders, but why if the same thing was done to the lowlanders by the Highlanders. If anyone should apologise it should be the lords who did it. Unfortunately they are dead so it cannot be done.

Also many Scots not only emigrated because of the clearances but because of the poor working conditions, pay, and living conditions.

https://www.youtube.com...
ttp://www.scotclans.com...
http://www.cranntara.org.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
Adam2

Pro

I myself a highlander, unfortunately must defend the horrific acts done against us. Yet in a way they we necessary, these new breeds of sheep were making the highland lord (now land lords) very wealthy and these lord were evicting people for the sake of profit. Some of these lord did not want to evict the people, like Lord McDonald who could not afford to keep the people there was forced to do it. This was not just happening in the Scotland but all over Britain, this was a decrease in the cottage industry and people began to move to cities for employment. This was Britain workforce this is what pushed Britain's factories forward, which also pushed the country forward. This was a new age of modernity and profit and the Highland lords were not going to be left behind they were left behind then the country would crash and poverty would hit every one.
As much as I would like to agree with you, brother, that's not how it happened. James the First was the absolute tyrant monarch behind the Clearances. Before he went to try to steal the Crown of England and conquer the English, he led the Clearances. He was a Presbyterian, a devout diehard one at that, thus conflict. The Highlanders were Roman Catholics, and outside of Catholicism, their main sympathy was with the Anglican Church in southern England (thus known as the Jacobites). (On a side note: Anglicanism, as we know, is not really Protestant. It's more Catholic. The origins of the church was not out of a desire for radical traditionalist change like the Presbyterian and Lutheran churches. The church of England was formed because Henry VIII was pretty peeved about the Catholic doctrine of divorce. He wanted one and so he changed it. It should be noted that Anglican was not the term right away. It was just the Church of Henry VIII, who still consider himself a Catholic. Anglicans also believe in priesthood and confession.)

Now, modernity is a very subjective term, bro. Is everything that's modern necessarily good? Great Britain is one of the many countries with weapons of mass destruction, and not too long ago, Scotland (because of Tony Blair), along with Denmark and the USA was involved in a very brutal invasion of Iraq (which did not have weapons of mass destruction). In this age of computers, do you think people who work in office clerk kind of jobs all day are really happy with themselves? You're talking about something that came as a result of imperialism. All these corporate minions are just unwinding the spoils of looting. The majority of the folks who work in these offices are white people and many them are racist and have grumpy attitudes.
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Not to mention the Lowlands of Scotland and Scandinavia lead the world in high taxes, in many cases being thies to the established state churches (favoritism and corruption, big times).

You say this is worse then Hitler and Mussolini, well I disagree. Because they singled out a group of people and killed them, it was genocide. The Highland and lowland lords did not round these people up and kill them they just did what was necessary, for them to get profit. The potato famine killed thousands of Irish men women and children, but in Scotland the death toll was in the hundreds. this is because in Scotland the better off helped them in their time of need while in Ireland the better of could care less this is partly Sir Walter Scott's doing for in his novels he praised the Highlander, and now the praised Highlander was endangered so they wanted to help.
No offense, bud, and I don't mean this as an insult: that sounds like something a puritanical Klan member would say. I know you don't think of it that way, but that seems to be a Klan belief. Hitler and Mussolini didn't invade a continent, loot from it, and try to enslave its people a few centuries prior, like the Brits and Danes did. The KKK was purely a deceitful organization at its best. Hitler and Mussolini came from countries angry at Allied mistreatment. They did have a right to be angry and try to rise their country up. Now, what you say about Scottish Highlands improvement in the standard of living -- that might have come from English aid. England is one of the many countries that donates a lot to international aid and relief funds, with many offices in London and Bristol. England is a very giving country. But the Lowlanders weren't helping them. They were launching ruthless wars. They were extremely racist against the Highlanders too. The Potato famine was an act of greed on the Lowlander's part. They tried to steal potatoes to enrich the people live in the Lowlands and in cities like Glasgow, Edinburgh, Yorkshire, and Liverpool. Meanwhile, relief efforts to help the Irish were started in London.

Your argument is that the Lowlanders should apologise to the Highlanders, but why if the same thing was done to the lowlanders by the Highlanders. If anyone should apologise it should be the lords who did it. Unfortunately they are dead so it cannot be done.
What did the Highlanders do? They were an honest and innocent people that minded their own business. They've had to put up with centuries of oppression, from the Anglo-Saxon invaders, the Danish, and the Lowland Scots. The Highlander history is rough, much like Scotland.

Also many Scots not only emigrated because of the clearances but because of the poor working conditions, pay, and living conditions.
Every country goes through times of crisis. But in many cases many Highlanders left for Canada because of the attempted expelling. The Highland clearance were more like the Trail of Tears. It was a policy of expulsion. A brutal one at that.

On another subject, Highland Scots, along with the English, Welsh and Irish were subject to slavery at British hands. It's unfair to say that just black people were subjected to this. Oliver Cromwell (who was a Midlander by the way, with the Lowland Scots being his allies) also led a vicious invasion of Ireland in order to use the Irish for testing ground as slaves, raping their women at every given chance.
http://www.globalresearch.ca...
A Midlander he was, not a southerner.

Before I close my argument for this round, I would love to thank my opponent for his opinion. You put up quite an argument. Don't take my argument as personal. I know my opinions sound harsh and cold, but I don't mean it against you. I respect your opinion, but I just can't relate or sympathize with it, partially because I'm Hispanic and historically we've been subjected to Scots-Irish (Lowland Scots/northern English) racism in the Americas. Nevertheless, great argument and I look forward to your next round. Good sources too. ;)

scots

Con

Thank you, your arguments a good as well.

Now, modernity is a very subjective term, bro. Is everything that's modern necessarily good?

Aye, in this case it was sure the people were not treated as they should but you have to look at the big picture. As I said before If the country is not making money then everyone will fall into poverty. I mean with no one to work the factories, how would the country make trade and therefore they will make no profit. If they stayed behind the other nations that would put Britain at the bottom and that is the last place a country wants to be.

Now, what you say about Scottish Highlands improvement in the standard of living -- that might have come from English aid. England is one of the many countries that donates a lot to international aid and relief funds, with many offices in London and Bristol. England is a very giving country. But the Lowlanders weren't helping them. They were launching ruthless wars. They were extremely racist against the Highlanders too. The Potato famine was an act of greed on the Lowlanders part. They tried to steal potatoes to enrich the people live in the Lowlands and in cities like Glasgow, Edinburgh, Yorkshire, and Liverpool. Meanwhile, relief efforts to help the Irish were started in London.

The English did not really care for Scotland, On wages day the Scot's would receive less then an English worker for the same job. Also the Scot's were living in poverty and squalor If it was not for rebellion on the Scot's part then the English would never have entered. They aided because it was burning a hole in their pocket sending troops to crush rebellion after rebellion, and they wanted political stability. Actually the potato famine was not an act of greed, because first of all it was no ones fault that it happened and the Lowlanders did help the Highlanders. And the Lowlanders had to supply the big cities, where the majority of the people live.

What did the Highlanders do? They were an honest and innocent people that minded their own business. They've had to put up with centuries of oppression, from the Anglo-Saxon invaders, the Danish, and the Lowland Scots. The Highlander history is rough, much like Scotland.

Well the Highlanders are just as guilty as the Lowlanders, evicting fellow Highlanders and Lowlanders. You are acting as if the Highlanders were the only ones being driven off their lands ( I wish). The truth is that both are as guilty as the other. Also the Highlanders were not always persecuted, look what happened to the Picts. They were forced into a new and different religion and some were put to death because they did not convert. This was done by the Gaels which would be the new Highlanders. Also Scotland has been united for sometime especially under Alexander the Second, So don't consider them different, we are all Scots. "One people, one nation."

On another subject, Highland Scots, along with the English, Welsh and Irish were subject to slavery at British hands. It's unfair to say that just black people were subjected to this. Oliver Cromwell (who was a Midlander by the way, with the Lowland Scots being his allies) also led a vicious invasion of Ireland in order to use the Irish for testing ground as slaves, raping their women at every given chance.

Aye Oliver committed these crimes, all I have to say of this is that sure he had some Lowlanders as allies (once again they did this for profit) But not ever single Lowlander participated in this in fact Henry Dundas, which was the lord advocate of Scotland defended Joseph Knight against his master John Wedderburn, The case went to the court of session in Edinburgh the highest court in Scotland. Scotland's High judges in Edinburgh( which is in the Lowlands) voted for the freedom of Joseph Knight

I wish my opponent good luck in the next round and would like to thank him for his comments.

http://livingstonfamily.org...
http://www.nas.gov.uk...
http://www.islandguide.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
Adam2

Pro

Thank you, but there is a lot of problems with the statement that "England didn't care for Scotland." That is a major error. If an part of England hated any part of Scotland, it was the north and the Midlands.
Thank you, your arguments a good as well.

Aye, in this case it was sure the people were not treated as they should but you have to look at the big picture. As I said before If the country is not making money then everyone will fall into poverty. I mean with no one to work the factories, how would the country make trade and therefore they will make no profit. If they stayed behind the other nations that would put Britain at the bottom and that is the last place a country wants to be.
But you're forgetting one thing, King James the First was the one who led this. This was a deliberate attempt at conquest and driving a people off their land. James the First was behind it all the way. He and his personal troops.

The English did not really care for Scotland, On wages day the Scot's would receive less then an English worker for the same job. Also the Scot's were living in poverty and squalor If it was not for rebellion on the Scot's part then the English would never have entered. They aided because it was burning a hole in their pocket sending troops to crush rebellion after rebellion, and they wanted political stability. Actually the potato famine was not an act of greed, because first of all it was no ones fault that it happened and the Lowlanders did help the Highlanders. And the Lowlanders had to supply the big cities, where the majority of the people live.
Only one thing is true though -- the north of England and the midlands didn't care for the Highlands of Scotland. That is true. But the south of England has done a lot for the world. Many modern goods we love came from southern English inventors. The first abolitionist society was made in London, established by many Anglicans. Another note: Winston Churchill was a northerner in ancestry. The Spencer family originated somewhere in the Midlands. The southerners were heavily against Churchill the warmonger. Neville Chamberlain, a well-loved guy, came from the south.
Now it's true that some Lowlanders led Highland armies. But they were few. The Lowlands were extremely brutal and cruel against the Highlands.
Also saying that England was behind the empire is pretty much implying that the English are Anglo-Saxons and Nordic, which is far from true in the case of the south of England. The Lowlands of Scotland and northern and middle England were the main people behind the empire. It was also in the north of England that slavery was strongest, with the main slave port being in the Liverpool.

Well the Highlanders are just as guilty as the Lowlanders, evicting fellow Highlanders and Lowlanders. You are acting as if the Highlanders were the only ones being driven off their lands ( I wish). The truth is that both are as guilty as the other. Also the Highlanders were not always persecuted, look what happened to the Picts. They were forced into a new and different religion and some were put to death because they did not convert. This was done by the Gaels which would be the new Highlanders. Also Scotland has been united for sometime especially under Alexander the Second, So don't consider them different, we are all Scots. "One people, one nation."
I'm sorry if this comes as a crush to your spirits, but no they are not the same people. Many Lowlanders I know are proud of things like the KKK, imperialism, the British Empire. So many of them who I talk to talk about how they were the best. Lowlanders descend from the very same cruel tyrants that rule in Denmark and Sweden and built their brutal empires. They descend from the very same people who were notorious for racism and KKK-style hatred.
In the Lowlands of Scotland exists a guilty-before-proven-innocent system of law. Plus it was the Scots-Irish behind the KKK.

Aye Oliver committed these crimes, all I have to say of this is that sure he had some Lowlanders as allies (once again they did this for profit) But not ever single Lowlander participated in this in fact Henry Dundas, which was the lord advocate of Scotland defended Joseph Knight against his master John Wedderburn, The case went to the court of session in Edinburgh the highest court in Scotland. Scotland's High judges in Edinburgh( which is in the Lowlands) voted for the freedom of Joseph Knight
It wasn't for profit. I don't believe classism was a case. Anyone can support subjugating another race or ethnicity of people. That's what racism is. They sided with him because the majority of Lowlanders, and northern English were orthodox Christians, and had a "to hell with those who don't believe" attitude. It's not profit. The Lowlanders are the same as the Highlanders.

I wish my opponent good luck in the next round and would like to thank him for his comments.

Thank you
scots

Con

England didn't care for Scotland." That is a major error. If an part of England hated any part of Scotland, it was the north and the Midlands.
Thank you, your arguments a good as well.

If it is not hate what do you call it? I mean many English kings "Believe to be Scotland's overlord for many years. Where you could see this most is Edward the First treatment of Scotland.

Only one thing is true though -- the north of England and the midlands didn't care for the Highlands of Scotland. That is true. But the south of England has done a lot for the world. Many modern goods we love came from southern English inventors. The first abolitionist society was made in London, established by many Anglicans. Another note: Winston Churchill was a northerner in ancestry. The Spencer family originated somewhere in the Midlands. The southerners were heavily against Churchill the warmonger. Neville Chamberlain, a well-loved guy, came from the south.
Now it's true that some Lowlanders led Highland armies. But they were few. The Lowlands were extremely brutal and cruel against the Highlands.

Once again I state that the same was done by the Highlanders to the Lowlanders. Look some of the great people who came out of the lowlands that benefited Scotland Alexander the second (the great) of Scotland and Sir Walter Scott. Alexander the second unified Scotland to make a better Scotland, unfortunately he did not get the Northern territories for Scotland, He invited the Gaelic warlords out from the cold (even though his family had kept them out in favor of a Norman future) , But this was the only way he could unify Scotland. For at the time it was spilt. And Sir Walter Scott helped by supporting Scotland in his writing, and trying so hard to crush uprising and help the monarchy to further Britain.

Also saying that England was behind the empire is pretty much implying that the English are Anglo-Saxons and Nordic, which is far from true in the case of the south of England. The Lowlands of Scotland and northern and middle England were the main people behind the empire. It was also in the north of England that slavery was strongest, with the main slave port being in the Liverpool.

England is defiantly behind the empire, Where is Westminster? Which is the most controlling. Which one is most associated with the empire?

Clearly Westminster is in England and England was the most controlling, They were the ones that added Wales into their Kingdom, Ireland, and Scotland for sometime. Also England being the biggest and strongest is most associated with the empire.

I'm sorry if this comes as a crush to your spirits, but no they are not the same people. Many Lowlanders I know are proud of things like the KKK, imperialism, the British Empire. So many of them who I talk to talk about how they were the best. Lowlanders descend from the very same cruel tyrants that rule in Denmark and Sweden and built their brutal empires. They descend from the very same people who were notorious for racism and KKK-style hatred.
In the Lowlands of Scotland exists a guilty-before-proved-innocent system of law. Plus it was the Scots-Irish behind the KKK.
They are the same people, and some Highlanders can be even more racist then the Lowlanders. going back to the Knight vs Wedderburn case that was in a Lowland court with Lowland judges and the best in Scotland. The only reason for slavery in Scotland was because it was a main source of profit. Today the though of racism are long gone we left that behind for the better of the country.

It wasn't for profit. I don't believe classicism was a case. Anyone can support subjugating another race or ethnicity of people. That's what racism is. They sided with him because the majority of Lowlanders, and northern English were orthodox Christians, and had a "to hell with those who don't believe" attitude. It's not profit. The Lowlanders are the same as the Highlanders.

How was it not for the profit, I think that if there was not profit in it they would have not need for slavery. They sided with him because they knew it was right. also the something happened with Somerset. They won sided with them because all British citizens are free and them living there makes them a British citizen and gives them freedom in any free country.

I say that the whole of the Lowlanders are to blame but all the BRITISH lords which evicted these people from their homes. Also the Highlanders are not innocent they have created plenty of problems and killed many Lowlanders. Unfortunately The Highlanders are not always the innocent ones .Also one thing that could prove my theory that if slaves were not needed for profit, Scotland would not use them, was John Wedderburn's treatment of Joseph Knight he treated him like a way ward son teaching him to read, write, and was kept in better conditions than the rest. The only reason Knight wanted to leave was because the girl he got pregnant (the maid) way because of his relation with him. She was white and he was black and he choose him over her.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, it was interesting. I wish the best of luck to my opponent. :)
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by scots 2 years ago
scots
*I say the whole of the Lowlanders are not to blame
Posted by scots 2 years ago
scots
the maid was sent away
Posted by scots 2 years ago
scots
No they are not
Posted by Adam2 2 years ago
Adam2
@Scots
Pardon me, I meant "The Lowlanders are the same as the northern English"
No votes have been placed for this debate.