450 posts IS a worse crime than wanting to kill us .
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, May 22, 2009 14:59
VIEWED: 29463
PAGE 40 of 46
Quote:And what about Canada? Was Canada a British administrated nation of Inuit? No. The British displaced the native population and set up shop. What about Australia? Yeah, Australia was a British administered nation of Australian Aboriginals. NOT. Hey, what about the US? Yeah, the Brits did the same there to. New “England” wasn’t a British administered nation of Algonquian, it was new England. And that wasn’t anything new for the British. They did everything they could to erase the native culture from Ireland, including ethnic cleansing.
Originally posted by citizen:
Sure, there was cultural bleed, but largely in it's colonies Britain adapted local rule to a British flavor of what came before, that is you had a British Raj of India, not a governor. India didn't get absorbed by Britain, it didn't become completely anglicised, it became British Administered India. This is uniquely different to territorial empires, Gaul wasn't merely administered by Rome, it was Roman. California isn't Administered by Washington, it's every bit as American as New England. I think that's a fairly big difference.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And what about Canada? Was Canada a British administrated nation of Inuit? No. The British displaced the native population and set up shop. What about Australia? Yeah, Australia was a British administered nation of Australian Aboriginals. NOT. Hey, what about the US? Yeah, the Brits did the same there to. New “England” wasn’t a British administered nation of Algonquian, it was new England. And that wasn’t anything new for the British. They did everything they could to erase the native culture from Ireland, including ethnic cleansing.
Ok, there are aspects of the ethnic cleansing undertaken by some British colonies that are the same as the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the American nations westward expansion. Those speak to certain techniques for gaining Empire, rather than the flavour of that Empire though.
My wider point still stands, the British Empire was a colonial empire, while America is a territorial one. Even your examples fail. All of those were counted as colonies under the charge of the British (or English) Government, they were never incorporated as British home territories, with only maybe the exception of Ireland, but only really the North. Is California just a colony of the USA, like Australia and Canada were Colonies of Britain? Or is it a state with voting rights in the national government?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Nuclear technology is marked “Restricted Data” by the US and NATO. The UK sometimes has a different marking for it, but it amounts to the same thing.
I thought the US designation for secure atomic information was Secret and Top Secret as well actually?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Is California just a colony of the USA, like Australia and Canada were Colonies of Britain? Or is it a state with voting rights in the national government?"
The people of the French colonies OTOH were citizens with voting rights etc.
It didn't make those countries any less of French colonies because of that.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"We don’t want these weapons in the hands of nations like Iran or North Korea, because we have good reason to be leery that these nations will use those weapons responsibly."
Of course there could always be a completely suicidal maniac leading a country - so twisted with hate that he (or she) will explode a nuclear device on US soil if it's that LAST thing they do - which it would be.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The people of the French colonies OTOH were citizens with voting rights etc.
It didn't make those countries any less of French colonies because of that.
Which French Colonies? The one's in the US were lost while France was still a monarchy, and even when they returned to France after the revolution, they were almost immediately sold to the US.
Besides, my question wasn't of voting rights or citizenship, I was talking about representation in the national government.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think your wider point is sounds more like the self-serving rhetoric of British ethnocentrisms. California is an independent state administered by Washington. That was even more so when it became a state. That’s not that different from the way British colonies were treated by London, except that London didn’t let them vote, so they didn’t have a say on how they were administered. And the only reason the British Crown didn’t displace the local culture in India, as they did in Canada, Australia and the Americas, is because the Indian culture was less primitive and more organized then it was in those colonies and therefore more difficult to eradicate. If they could have they would have completely displaced every culture they encountered with a British one. The only significant difference between the British Empire’s “flavor” of Empire and Manifest Destiny is that the British Manifest Destiny didn’t end at the Pacific – any place they could conquer they would make their own.
Originally posted by citizen:
Ok, there are aspects of the ethnic cleansing undertaken by some British colonies that are the same as the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the American nations westward expansion. Those speak to certain techniques for gaining Empire, rather than the flavour of that Empire though.
My wider point still stands, the British Empire was a colonial empire, while America is a territorial one. Even your examples fail. All of those were counted as colonies under the charge of the British (or English) Government, they were never incorporated as British home territories, with only maybe the exception of Ireland, but only really the North. Is California just a colony of the USA, like Australia and Canada were Colonies of Britain? Or is it a state with voting rights in the national government?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Secret and Top Secret are classification levels. They have nothing specifically to do with nuclear technology.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Nuclear technology is marked “Restricted Data” by the US and NATO. The UK sometimes has a different marking for it, but it amounts to the same thing.
I thought the US designation for secure atomic information was Secret and Top Secret as well actually?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think what Hero is referring to change in thought that occurred during the late 16th and early 17th century concerning the idea of freedom. The so called inalienable rights didn’t always exist. For most of European history, there was a caste system where a certainly ruling class was born with freedom and rights, while another working class was born with no freedom and no rights. This, like a lot of things, came from the Romans. Roman society was divided up into a ruling class (Patricians), euphemistically called the “fathers,” while everyone else were Plebeians (commoners). This was a purely artificial division based on presumed birthrights or genes. It had nothing to do with wealth, in fact, many patrician families were very poor (of course there social status meant they were never without a luxurious home and plenty of food). On the other side, the Plebeians weren’t always poor. There was a large diversity of wealth including everything from slaves to the fabulously wealthy robber barons, but they were never patricians. This aristocracy continued in Europe, and in some ways exists now. For instance, the British Parliament is divided into the House of Commons (the lower house) and the House of Lords (the upper house), which parallels the aristocratic divisions of British society into the nobles or Lords (those who were born with rights) and the everyone else.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
What Liberal revolution are you referring to? I must have skipped class the day they taught that one.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think your wider point is sounds more like the self-serving rhetoric of British ethnocentrisms.
Then you should take your own advise and learn to read posts, because it would seem your own "self-serving rhetoric" of "American ethnocentrism" is getting in the way
.Seriously though if you had bothered to read my posts, you might have picked up on the fact that I wasn't making any of the moral or "ethnocentric" judgements that you claim I am (but you yourself did, interestingly).
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
California is an independent state administered by Washington. That was even more so when it became a state. That’s not that different from the way British colonies were treated by London, except that London didn’t let them vote, so they didn’t have a say on how they were administered.
That was my wider point, thanks for parroting it back to me as if it's some new revelation I've missed. America conquered new territory, and absorbed it, making it uniquely American with all the rights and privileges of such, which is closer to how other territorial Empires such as Rome functioned. Britain administered areas to gain control of their resources and markets under a Mercantile trade doctrine, but the interest wasn't in making them British.
Quote:
And the only reason the British Crown didn’t displace the local culture in India, as they did in Canada, Australia and the Americas, is because the Indian culture was less primitive and more organized then it was in those colonies and therefore more difficult to eradicate.
Really most of the displacing of the native populations of the America's were done after 1776, but if you feel the need to palm that off on too Britain, I understand.
You're statements don't really work overly much for a great deal of the Empire though, British rule in Africa was far more like British rule in India, and the tribes of Africa were far from being more organised than those native to America.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The only significant difference between the British Empire’s “flavor” of Empire and Manifest Destiny is that the British Manifest Destiny didn’t end at the Pacific – any place they could conquer they would make their own.
There was some talk about ethnocentrism?
I'm not defending the British Empire in anyway. Nothing I've said should be construed as making a moral judgement either, I find it interesting you feel the need to make moral judgements and prove how much nicer and better American Empire building is. So American's decided that the one continent, and half a dozen Islands in the pacific is enough for their empire? That makes you more moral because? I fail to see how drawing an arbitrary line about which countries and territories are ok to subjugate, makes you more moral. I'm still making no moral judgements particularly, just interested about your reasoning for yours. Britain of course didn't have a continent to expand across, which perhaps explains the different approach.
Though I feel this is a good opportunity to note that places like Iraq aren't on the Pacific. Make of that what you will.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME