A few comments on your last statement, as it says a lot.
I didn't say not appropriate. I said it is difficult to discuss such broad issues via email. Emails are typically short and without the use of historical notes, sources and caveats. I think I'm the original proponent of history and genealogy going hand in hand [:-)] but in the context of where we use family stories and personal experiences to create a broader history, we have to be extremely careful and not assume our little world to be the same truth as that of the whole.
The original proponent indeed, and the one who set the H-L standard in many ways. I can recall the memorable Karsten Laekamp debate from ages back, which not only proved your jousting abilities, but set the tone for others to speak their minds freely and without acrimony, including those who might disagree with you. It is from small and measured doses of sturm und drang we all learn (or at least are exposed to more divergent and wide-ranging views, often for the better). I have always enjoyed the range of views expressed on this forum, even the 'controversial' ones that occasionally arise (and of which I myself sometimes proffer).
- Fred: History is an anthology of many, many sources. Individual experiences are but one of them. But please feel free to talk and present your own version. Out of the whole we can learn.
- Jb: Somewhere in between what you, I and Jane have written lies the truth I believe, in all its nebulous glory. Hopefully it is the sum of the various parts that makes for the fullest story.
- Jane: History and genealogy go hand in hand.�How can we possibly understand what motivated our ancestors without a knowledge of the history they lived thru?�
So beyond the troublesome particulars, let us also take note that there is something at the base of this in which we fully agree. Hope springs eternal!
My reticence in challenging emails, which I disagree with from a broader historical standpoint, is simply a basic problem of time and space for such a lively discussion. Email is a discussion of blurbs and brief commentary and in our group it comes from what we think may have happened in individual situations.
The dichotomy remains: brevity both helps and hinders discussions on lists like this. The sword cuts both ways in this regard, and either way is open for criticism (one may say too much, or too little, but I hold that it beats saying nothing at all :: most of the time).
Such statements that the large emigration from the Hanoverian kingdom was due to Prussian hegemony need to be proven and not just placed on the table as fact. The millions of people who left the various German lands to go to where the grass was greener each had their own personal reasons but at bottom was always the desire for a better life and the possibility of owning something and becoming someone.
For the most part true, but as in all things, exceptions apply (and when we speak of emigration numbers, we speak of voluminous exceptions thusly). When conditions or the status quo changes politically or socially, there are always new winners and losers. Ours was a landed family when the Prussians arrived and imposed their will. Consequent of the fallout came a loss of political connections, so they were left holding a far less attractive bag so to speak, and thus the desire or compulsion to emigrate was overwhelming (beyond the enmity that I'm sure existed). I guess America offered the best 'alternative view' at that point.
In the end, it was a disruption that turned their world on its head. But this scenario has to be seen - as was stated earlier - from the larger perspective also. While ours were part of the 'exceptions' group (the losers and disenfranchised), the great majority of Hanoverians simply got on with things after adjusting to the new order, though not without a degree resentment and uneasiness in large part, just as Jane alluded to.
One cannot underestimate also how many Germans did not enthusiastically embrace the Prussian militaristic view, which while I agree is often an overplayed theme (particularly by those with more pacifistic views), was not without some substance either, all the more so early on. Many Germans were long since weary of seeing their sons marched off to war; the thought of doing so under the Prussian banner must have sent chills up many Saxon spines. So while the Prussians did not invent regular or forced conscription, their presence certainly would have ramped up these forebodings a notch or two for many in the areas in which they were now in charge. And it goes without saying that many of these folks felt even less connection to Bismarck and the Preu�ens (and their often rigid strictures) as they would have their own regional ruling family.
The great irony is - as both Fred and I pointed out - a lot of good also came from this uneasy accommodation turned quasi-amalgamation, especially with the passage of time. Moreover, the German nation was officially recast as a unified entity. Prussian consolidation was in the end a form and means of German unification. It remains Bismarck's most important legacy.
All of us are driven by a desire to give more to our children then we had ourselves. It is why the whole world became populated by human beings.
Would have to agree, if you can look beyond the accompanying downsides that regretfully come as part of this otherwise laudable impulse. They say more is better but ... so is indulgence (who could possibly be guilty of such blatant, materialistic desires today?). Wonder how those Spartan-like Prussians would have looked at our modern day largess? At the end of the 19th century, Prussians were still fond of saying that "Mensch is nicht auf der Erde um gl�cklich zu sein, sondern um sein Pflicht zu tun" [man is not on earth to be happy but to do his duty]. We've come a long way (I suppose) ... but so too have the Prussians who are little more than a memory now, along with most of their credos and beliefs.
Jb
PS. Apologies to Bob and Helmut if we inadvertently hijacked the original question and took it into a larger - and perhaps more convoluted - discussion. If nothing else, a little additional ground was covered (I hope). 