Jump to content

World Politics Thread


mtutiger

Recommended Posts

Just got some good news, Charles and Camilla are coming for a visit /sarcasm

Is there a family more clueless on the entire planet than the English royal family?  William and Katharine or whatever her name is are just back in England from a Caribbean tour that was in shockingly bad taste, during which they were plainly informed by Jamaica that the monarchy would be ending there shortly, following Barbados' recent move.  The photo ops were right out of the 1960's, with the pale white visitors at one point standing behind a chain link fence with tiny brown hands extending through it.

So based on that catastrophe they send out Charles and Camilla, to "strengthen the ties" I suppose, by a visit from two of the most universally mocked people on the planet.  Polling in Canada has been pretty clear that the constitutional monarchy is going to end "when the Queen dies", stated just that simply.

Knowing us though we will take years to get to a parliamentary republic with a non-executive head of state, while we fuddle through competing regional interests and indigenous grievances.  While we are at it though we can get rid of the Senate, something else that has been talked about for decades.  These are people who are political appointees with guaranteed jobs until age 75, and who accomplish the square root of SFA.  Canada has 105 Senators and I can name exactly one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my wife loves the royal family.  a lot of her friends do too.

people may not think much if charles, but william's kids are cute.  people eat that shit up.

but i do agree with you that after qeii dies a lot of the commonwealth countries will leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, buddha said:

my wife loves the royal family.  a lot of her friends do too.

people may not think much if charles, but william's kids are cute.  people eat that shit up.

but i do agree with you that after qeii dies a lot of the commonwealth countries will leave.

I think that they are more popular in the USA than they are in Canada or Australia.  They can always draw a crowd in New York or Los Angeles.  There is an argument to be made that they are beneficial for tourism in England, or at least the history of royalty is.  But they are of no value anywhere else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

You are COMPLETELY discounting the fact that in order to create the United States of America, in 1776 and shortly thereafter, that northern states and any abolitionist, Founder or otherwise, HAD to accept slavery in order to get the southern states to participate in the Union.

Otherwise, no United States of America, no successful American Revolution.

= FAILURE.

Ratification of the proposed constitution was on thin ice anyway. The 3/5 compromise was a Hail Mary pass. Failure would have left what was left of the post Revolutionary Confederacy with two giant states (New York and Virginia) and a bunch of smaller ones. Remember Virginia at the time stretched to the Mississippi River, theoretically, and included what is now Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan.

Not to mention a strong presence in the region from Spain and France...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said:

I think that they are more popular in the USA than they are in Canada or Australia.  They can always draw a crowd in New York or Los Angeles.  There is an argument to be made that they are beneficial for tourism in England, or at least the history of royalty is.  But they are of no value anywhere else. 

the queen draws huge crowds.  charles?  not so much.

the next generation will.  people love the royals.  heck, my wife is mexican and in mexico they love the spanish royals.  people love celebrity and gossip.

plus, like you said, the history is a huge draw in england.  who doesnt love a good henry viii story?  fat ol bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, buddha said:

the queen draws huge crowds.  charles?  not so much.

the next generation will.  people love the royals.  heck, my wife is mexican and in mexico they love the spanish royals.  people love celebrity and gossip.

plus, like you said, the history is a huge draw in england.  who doesnt love a good henry viii story?  fat ol bastard.

LOL. If the Monarchy survives Charles, it will survive anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

You are COMPLETELY discounting the fact that in order to create the United States of America, in 1776 and shortly thereafter, that northern states and any abolitionist, Founder or otherwise, HAD to accept slavery in order to get the southern states to participate in the Union.

Otherwise, no United States of America, no successful American Revolution.

= FAILURE.

And then we would have remained a crown colony probably until England, getting crushed under the weight of maintaining an expensive worldwide empire, would have granted us our independence from the British crown as they granted such to so many other countries. We could have had a parliamentary democracy with universal health care, strict control on ownership of guns, solid educational system, and ketchup-flavored potato chips.

In other words, we could have been a bigger, warmer Canada.

Man ... good thing we dodged that bullet ... 😁

Edited by chasfh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, chasfh said:

An

 

17 minutes ago, chasfh said:

In other words, we could have been a bigger, warmer Canada.

Man ... good thing we dodged that bullet ... 😁

Well...warmer perhaps 🙂

Something interesting happens in 1834...abolition of slavery.  Does that touch off your civil war 26 years sooner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, chasfh said:

And then we would have remained a crown colony probably until England, getting crushed under the weight of maintaining an expensive worldwide empire, would have granted us our independence from the British crown as they granted such to so many other countries. We could have had a parliamentary democracy with universal health care, strict control on ownership of guns, solid educational system, and ketchup-flavored potato chips.

In other words, we could have been a bigger, warmer Canada.

Man ... good thing we dodged that bullet ... 😁

LOL - yup. The winners spend so much time justifying their wins that reality sometimes gets lost. Since I was old enough to understand a little history it has always made me laugh we call 1776 a 'Revolution', it was a 'revolt' at best. War of Independence - sure; Revolution? Not so much. Has there ever been a 'revolution' fought to change so little of the existing political structure? The colonies basically fought to preserve exactly what had already evolved rather than to change it. It was maybe the most conservative 'revolution' in history. Probably has a lot to do with why it succeeded!  In any case I find the use of the term 'revolutionary' more than a bit ironic.

OTOH, you can say the American revolution in turn sped the greater democratization of England as well, so it  goes both ways. The biggest 'problem' in US history in terms of intellectual consistency is the Civil War.  By any measure of what we tell ourselves about political theory, it should not have been fought, and the biggest part of the federalism in the original Constitution was rendered 'dead man walking' status by it. But that is what happens when facts on the ground don't fit into anyone's neat definitions. Sometimes you have to just have to win, regardless of who has what theory. 

Not unlike Ukraine today.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, chasfh said:

... would have granted us our independence from the British crown as they granted such to so many other countries. We could have had a parliamentary democracy with universal health care, strict control on ownership of guns, solid educational system, and ketchup-flavored potato chips...

Pros and Cons dude.

Pros and Cons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said:

... Something interesting happens in 1834...abolition of slavery.  Does that touch off your civil war 26 years sooner?

As a British Colony it would have been forced upon us. And no United States = no Civil War.

Probably would have kicked off American Revolution part deux however...

(see what I did there...?)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

As a British Colony it would have been forced upon us. And no United States = no Civil War.

 

Yes exactly it would have been forced, that's what I said.  Don't call it "Civil war" then, I don't see the relevance, but call it "armed conflict to preserve slavery".  Does it happen 26 years sooner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said:

Yes exactly it would have been forced, that's what I said.  Don't call it "Civil war" then, I don't see the relevance, but call it "armed conflict to preserve slavery".  Does it happen 26 years sooner?

It's an interesting thought experiment. Say England had granted the colonies Parliamentary representation and patched it up with the northern colonies. You could easily see the South revolting over a slavery prohibition and an *English* army composed mostly of native North American British soldiers putting it down. OTOH, how much more reluctant might England have been about ending slavery if it were still British land owners in the new world making all that money on cotton?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

LOL - yup. The winners spend so much time justifying their wins that reality sometimes gets lost. Since I was old enough to understand a little history it has always made me laugh we call 1776 a 'Revolution', it was a 'revolt' at best. War of Independence - sure; Revolution? Not so much. Has there ever been a 'revolution' fought to change so little of the existing political structure? The colonies basically fought to preserve exactly what had already evolved rather than to change it. It was maybe the most conservative 'revolution' in history. Probably has a lot to do with why it succeeded!  In any case I find the use of the term 'revolutionary' more than a bit ironic.

OTOH, you can say the American revolution in turn sped the greater democratization of England as well, so it  goes both ways. The biggest 'problem' in US history in terms of intellectual consistency is the Civil War.  By any measure of what we tell ourselves about political theory, it should not have been fought, and the biggest part of the federalism in the original Constitution was rendered 'dead man walking' status by it. But that is what happens when facts on the ground don't fit into anyone's neat definitions. Sometimes you have to just have to win, regardless of who has what theory. 

Not unlike Ukraine today.

the american revolution inspired the french revolution which was the most important political revolution in world history.  the significance of the american revolution on world affairs should not be underestimated simply to show how cool you are for saying "america sucks".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calling it the “Civil War” has developed into a bit of a peeve of mine, because it wasn’t really a true civil war. It was a war between two nation states, and except for areas along the actual border, where you might have seen some brother-against-brother shit, the sympathies one way or the other were pretty clear cut based on geography.

On the other hand, what we call the “Revolutionary War”? That was way more of an actual civil war. Sure, an army from another land came from across the sea to fight it, but it also split colonists on a house by house basis all across the colonies, not just in any one corner of it. There was a lot of internecine battling that was among neighbors only, no redcoats involved. That looks a lot more like a civil war to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, buddha said:

the american revolution inspired the french revolution which was the most important political revolution in world history.  the significance of the american revolution on world affairs should not be underestimated simply to show how cool you are for saying "america sucks".

if that how you read that you missed my point. It's not that what happened in the US was not significant, it's that is was NOT the overthrow of any existing social or political system, with the single exception of the top level authority. Everything in the colonies stayed the same after Yorktown: The state govs, the voting rights, the courts, legal and justice systems the social and economic system and everyone's place in it. It *had* to be the least 'revolution' producing 'revolution' in history. The colonists didn't want a different England, they just wanted a place in th existing one they were being denied -  so they created pretty much a clone of everything in England as it had evolved locally  - just without the King. That part was certainly important in its significance to the rest of the world, but it still didn't represent any change in the life of the average colonist. The comparison to France is exactly apt. The French revolution undertook to change *everything* and *everyone's* place in the existing order. It was bound to fail because that just isn't sustainable.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What an interesting discussion.  The British Empire made a significant wrong turn: racism was the issue of course, when it failed to offer Indians the same legal rights as white settlers during the Ilbert Bill controversy in 1883.   I often think how different global history would be if an India that was similar in outlook to the other dominions was still part of a political and defensive framework with the West.   I don't think you were going to change the nature of White British settlers in 1883 when they had all the advantages of being on top of the social, economic and political pyramid but, it was one of those 'don't you see how stupid you are' moments of history.  Possible outcomes:

  • Better integration of the great masses of Indian human resources into British imperial governance -- untold benefit
  • India possibly helps defeat Japan much earlier because no 'quit india' movement
  • Maybe avoids the partition bloodbath when India becomes independent
  • India not a weapons market for Soviet Union
  • Pakistan not a basket case

Of course other problems maybe not foreseen by all this.  Maybe the Soviet states of Europe.  Maybe Orwell's Oceania vs Eastasia, and Eurasia. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

if that how you read that you missed my point. It's not that what happened in the US was not significant, it's that is was NOT the overthrow of any existing social or political system, with the single exception of the top level authority. Everything in the colonies stayed the same after Yorktown: The state govs, the voting rights, the courts, legal and justice systems the social and economic system and everyone's place in it. It *had* to be the least 'revolution' producing 'revolution' in history. The colonists didn't want a different England, they just wanted a place in th existing one they were being denied -  so they created pretty much a clone of everything in England as it had evolved locally  - just without the King. That part was certainly important in its significance to the rest of the world, but it still didn't represent any change in the life of the average colonist. The comparison to France is exactly apt. The French revolution undertook to change *everything* and *everyone's* place in the existing order. It was bound to fail because that just isn't sustainable.

that wasnt how i read your post.  that was how i read tater and chas's posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

oh.  /...sheepish grin..../

i mean, the american revolution is very important in world history, but did not have the immediate impact of the french revolution, which, as you point out, upended 1000 years of monarchy (more or less) in europe's biggest, most powerful nation and set off a series of wars and revolutions that changed europe (and inspired other revolutions all across the globe).

but america was the first.  and the first to establish a "modern" nation based solely on the rights of its citizens, not on a particular tribe or a particular geographical place.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...