A Real Left’s reader’s critique of Part I of my three-part essay has prompted me to respond in a little more detail. It became apparent to me that something which I had thought was obvious might not be that obvious to others. It then occurred to me that my argument, a central plank in the whole piece, might suffer from a deficiency stemming from my own complacency about it.
"the migrants from Europe were, for the most part, not “armed to the teeth”, although we know full well that Britain did use military force to protect its overseas trade interests and that the settlers or colonisers themselves were more than heavy-handed with the ‘natives’"
This is the same as saying, "the migrants from Europe were, for the most part, not “armed to the teeth”, although we know full well that Britain was armed to the teeth."
A Reader’s Comment on Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Immigrant? – Part I
"the migrants from Europe were, for the most part, not “armed to the teeth”, although we know full well that Britain did use military force to protect its overseas trade interests and that the settlers or colonisers themselves were more than heavy-handed with the ‘natives’"
This is the same as saying, "the migrants from Europe were, for the most part, not “armed to the teeth”, although we know full well that Britain was armed to the teeth."
I think this writer is confused.