Merkel Is Getting Me All Hot And Bothered

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

What your actually describing is called Post-Colonialism and to remove it from a nation or a peoples character takes ages and ages. If you have had to conform to a certain trait for a long time it naturally takes a long time for people to grow out of it. An example is to watch any film about the Ireland before the say the 70's/80s the directors always get one thing wrong no woman or man would ever hold there head up like the young people of today.

Another example when asked how his day went on any particular day most Irish people will say "Ah not too bad now it could be worse" if pushed he might say it was "A fine day" or that it was "A grand day". No Irish person ever really wants to use words like superb, excellant, super, great or fantastic not that they couldnt but they generally wont.

Some people would say it comes from people needing a coping mechanism for the abject poverty and second class status they had in the past.

Patrick: "Oh jeez Sean you hurt your foot in an accident"
Sean: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda have broke me leg so I could"


Patrick: "Oh jeez Sean you broke your leg in an accident"
Sean: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda have lost me leg so I could"

Patrick: "Oh jeez Sean you lost your leg in an accident"
Sean: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda died so I could"

Patrick: "Oh jeez me an Sean was in an accident and poor Seaneen was killed so he was"
Patrick: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda being killed an all so I could"

Even the bailout gets treated the same "Ah sure it could be worse we could be Greece" or "Ah sure it could be worse we could owe more so we could" I even heard someone say rather after a skinfull how "Could be worse the Germans could set the Tans on us"

There is always something worse that could happen thats is the Irishmans coping mechanism.

---

So keep me honest here. The situation with Ireland strikes me as fundamentally different than the Civil War in America. I know that Cromwell was a ripe, giant bastard and what he did to the Irish is a sore spot that will probably be as much a part of the Irish self-identity for centuries and millennia to come. The other major aspect is the situation with Northern Ireland. As I understand it, NI is occupied mostly by the descendants of English settlers who came over during efforts by the English to systematically oust the Irish and redistribute land. In essense, Ireland is a partially "occupied" nation. That wouldn't sit well with me either. I know the discussions about potentially returning NI to Ireland is a long, drawn out, very complex and intricate discussion, but my understanding is that it's an ongoing process of talks to with no definite decisions at all in sight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

So, what has changed in the past 30 years?

---

Any young girl today is generally far more confident in her body, her opinions etc etc you name them out they act different and lads are pretty much the same. Now most people would say oh thats just becaue your having a belated 60's or that the Church is losing it's grip but it really is more than that.

My grandfather was born into a country that was under imperial rule that has an effect on you all your life. Grandad then raised children in a free country but he probably never lost the fear of sense of freedom being fragile, only his great granchildren were raised by people who only ever knew freedom as a fact of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Any young girl today is generally far more confident in her body, her opinions etc etc you name them out they act different and lads are pretty much the same. Now most people would say oh thats just becaue your having a belated 60's or that the Church is losing it's grip but it really is more than that.

---

This is happening across Europe though, it isn't unique to former client states.

Quote:

---

My grandfather was born into a country that was under imperial rule that has an effect on you all your life. Grandad then raised children in a free country but he probably never lost the fear of sense of freedom being fragile, only his great granchildren were raised by people who only ever knew freedom as a fact of life.

---

I presume your father was born in free Ireland. Does he have any fear of the Empire?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Yesterday, on local radio, as I was driving to work.

You people think America has no history because you either choose to ignore it or focus on specific parts. Being an old country isn't a sign of accomplishment, it is a disadvantage.

Late edit:

Again, more willful ignorance; in less it's due to your own preconceived notion of national suffering.

---

Try several centuries of oppression and being ground-at-heel. Every country in Europe has had that, the English had the Vikings, then the Normans - the Irish had the Normans then the English, the Catalonians had the Muslims, then the Castilians...

America had the English/French - but then you had the Civil War and nothing since. The "Great Depression" bearly registers as a blip in European history, a pivotal moment to be sure, but hardly an Epoch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

I'm assuming you meant tied, yes? A bit of a cross-over from the judging history thread, but yes, the whole "Southern Cause" was about slavery. Revisionists will try to put spin on it that it was about freedom of choice and self-determination, or a slew of other things, but it's all glossing over or dismissing the reality of it. It was about a way of life based on slavery, racism, and segregation. To be certain, the Union and rest of the world for that matter weren't saints, but it was a sight better than basing an entire existence and way of life on slavery. As for the Union's "merciless" tactics, both sides were equally guilty of "unrestricted warfare". In fact, if you go back throughout modern history, most every war falls into that category, and one sees examples of "total war" as prosecuted by all belligerents.

---

I do mean tied, but you are wrong it is not just about Slavery, it is about the Southern States choosing how they progress socially. Arguably, a lot of the current problems with racial strife in the South have to do with the North imposing abolition on the Southern States rather than allowing the movement to spread naturally - as it spread from England to the US.

Quote:

---

Vietnam. Korea. Afghanistan.

---

Vietnam certainly left it's mark, but the other two are draws at worst and they aren't exclusively American conflicts either. None of them compare to dates like 1066 or 1314 in the National Psyche. None of those wars actually involved America losing anything, other than men, material, and prestige, and in fact America became more powerful after both Korea and Vietnam.

Quote:

---

Sasaki

---

Quote:

---

put it beautifully. Making suffering and grudges a pillar and fixture of a national identity will breed nothing but insularism, closed-mindedness, and negative attitudes towards not only the object of the anger but towards others in general. "Southern culture" is the poster child for this, they are extremely resistant to any non-southern types who move into those regions, and while they have outstanding manners the ostracism is plain for all to see and experience. Southerners will be very quick to tell you (and often repeat it), always as a joke of course, that "A yankee is a northerner who comes to visit. A damn yankee is one who comes to visit and stays."

---

Southern Culutrue is hardly the "poster child", believe you me. While I don't dissagree with your sentiment, it really doesn't matter - and the fact remains that an adversarial mindset has preserved cultures that would otherwise have died out.

You know who have lots of history in the US? The American Indians, if they didn't loathe whites and especially "the Federal Government" their communities would have died and and they would have been completely absorbed into the general population, just like the Southern Indians in Mexico and further South.

Quote:

---

I didn't say I'm ashamed of them in general. I'm ashamed they fought for the Confederacy, because I despise everything the Confederacy stood for. On the other hand, I have to admit a certain amount of pride that they were willing to stand up and fight for what they believed in, even if I detest what that cause was. And no, none of my ancestors owned slaves, I come from a long history of poor working class families. My father was the first to break that barrier and graduate from college on his entire side of the family, as far as we have ascertained. I was the second. As for any ancestors moving west... not to my knowledge, not that it would matter at all to me where they settled.

---

That's a partial vew of US history, the families that went West backed by "manifest destiny" were displacing the native population, that genocide is arguably worse than fighting for the South - but nobody seems to care. As to Southern soldiers, primarily I expect they fought because the Union was fi8ghting them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

So keep me honest here. The situation with Ireland strikes me as fundamentally different than the Civil War in America. I know that Cromwell was a ripe, giant bastard and what he did to the Irish is a sore spot that will probably be as much a part of the Irish self-identity for centuries and millennia to come. The other major aspect is the situation with Northern Ireland. As I understand it, NI is occupied mostly by the descendants of English settlers who came over during efforts by the English to systematically oust the Irish and redistribute land. In essense, Ireland is a partially "occupied" nation. That wouldn't sit well with me either. I know the discussions about potentially returning NI to Ireland is a long, drawn out, very complex and intricate discussion, but my understanding is that it's an ongoing process of talks to with no definite decisions at all in sight.

---

I have heard unification described as an "eternally delayable aspiration" generally aspirations for a nation can be a good thing.(if there used correctly) nowadays Ireland is moving more to the idea that if the North votes for unification than were happy to have them, there will alwys be louts and terrorists that will just be have to be a fact of life sadly.

Partition is without a doubt the biggest scar and the greatest wrong ever done on this island, really the parties involved should have spent more time and not less deciding on the future of the island. Many catholics were standed in a state that was in some cases actively hostile to them while the South probably didnt appreciate just how apocalyptic a worldview Ulster protesstants actually had. Southern protestants had in reality less in common with Ulster protestants than there Catholic neighbours this probably skewed our idea of Protestant thinking with regards to the North.

Seeing as people might like to know what my thoughts are on the subject I would be pretty confident that Ireland will unify later on this century. It seems to me the train has started because of Sinn Fein's rise in the North and the continual rolling back eastward of Protestant electoral success lately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Vietnam certainly left it's mark, but the other two are draws at worst and they aren't exclusively American conflicts either. None of them compare to dates like 1066 or 1314 in the National Psyche.

---

I am having a really tough time imagining the impact of 1066 on the psyche of modern England.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

This is happening across Europe though, it isn't unique to former client states.

---

Each case is different but obviously I am of talking about former or current colonies/client states. And you couldnt compare say people in England in the 1910s to a person in Ireland in even the 1960's. Yes people had it tough in England but people in ireland grew up with no hope thats a big difference.

Learned helplessness was a significant factor in the Irish mindset and it is only really really changing now.

Quote:

---

I presume your father was born in free Ireland. Does he have any fear of the Empire?

---

Yes but he was raised in a culture of resistance and of the fear of freedom being snatched away, however any children born to say myself will have no need of either resistance or continually having to stand on there hind legs watching out for eagles like a prarie dog. Also the last of the Resistance Generation has passed away now and since they formed our state there institutions shaped there children.

But now there grandchildren run the state and they have differing atitudes and institutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Vietnam. Korea. Afghanistan.

---

Pffft. Did Ho Chi Minh appoint a military governor to keep New York in line? Are Afghan troops doing the rape/pillage thing throughout Pennsylvania? The North has no reference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

What would you suggest then?

---

It's already been mentioned in the thread. Why have Japan and Germany turned out so well? Their occupations were focused on positive goals, not punitive measures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

I am having a really tough time imagining the impact of 1066 on the psyche of modern England.

---

The English became second-class citizens in their own country, even todat 1/4 of England is owned by the descendants of William's 100 favoured retainers.

That is to say nothing of the mark left on our laws and our language, and just the general change it enacted in out culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

It's already been mentioned in the thread. Why have Japan and Germany turned out so well? Their occupations were focused on positive goals, not punitive measures.

---

There was also a civil society and potentialy unifying elite ready to take over afterwards, this would not be the case in Afghanistan in any stretch of the imagination.(plus it helps if the fighting doesnt go on too long)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The English became second-class citizens in their own country, even todat 1/4 of England is owned by the descendants of William's 100 favoured retainers.

---

Wealth begets wealth. Would things really be much different if 1/4 of England were owned by the descendants of Harold Godwinson's retainers?

Quote:

---

That is to say nothing of the mark left on our laws and our language, and just the general change it enacted in out culture.

---

That didn't turn out so bad, did it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

America had the English/French - but then you had the Civil War and nothing since. The "Great Depression" bearly registers as a blip in European history, a pivotal moment to be sure, but hardly an Epoch.

---

You must have missed the part where it caused America to withdraw most of it's financial support to Weimar Germany, which was near totally dependent on that money to continue it's growth and war reparations. Yanking that out from under them directly lead to the re-emergence of the NSDAP as a significant power source, and ... you know where it went from there. I'd hardly call it a blip.

Quote:

---

I do mean tied, but you are wrong it is not just about Slavery, it is about the Southern States choosing how they progress socially. Arguably, a lot of the current problems with racial strife in the South have to do with the North imposing abolition on the Southern States rather than allowing the movement to spread naturally - as it spread from England to the US.

---

I think you're confused now mate. It's about how the United States of America progresses socially. The problems with slavery and abolition were handled at the proper level, which was the national, federal level. This was in no shape or form an individual state to state issue. It also had and was spreading naturally from England to the US.

Quote:

---

Vietnam certainly left it's mark, but the other two are draws at worst and they aren't exclusively American conflicts either. None of them compare to dates like 1066 or 1314 in the National Psyche. None of those wars actually involved America losing anything, other than men, material, and prestige, and in fact America became more powerful after both Korea and Vietnam.

---

Korea was certainly an American conflict. The vast majority of combatants on the side of South Korea were US soldiers, followed by native South Koreans. It was the first of the major cold war proxy conflicts between the "forces of democracy and communism", ie. US and the Soviet Union, and at the time China. The end result when the armstice was drawn up was highly unfavorable to the US/SK lead alliance, and I wouldn't call it any more of a draw than Vietnam was.

Quote:

---

Southern Culutrue is hardly the "poster child", believe you me.

---

You really don't know much about the South, do you?

Quote:

---

While I don't dissagree with your sentiment, it really doesn't matter - and the fact remains that an adversarial mindset has preserved cultures that would otherwise have died out.

---

Agree, the gist of what I'm getting at though is that it's not the "rest of the US's fault" that the southern folk have decided to retain this ridiculous sense of victimhood. After the war, the south was occupied by the military and martial law was universally declared. Lots of other things happened, but it generally was milder than one would see as the result of a traditional occupation post-bellum. Look at what the allies and Soviets did to post WW2 Germany, they stripped it bare. The US did just the opposite, it tried to rebuild and reintegrate in the following years, hence the Reconstruction period in US history. The thing that is most telling is not only did the southerners hold and nurse that grudge, they passive-aggressively waited for the right time (about a decade) after the war was over and had regained some measure of autonomy and authority in the federal government, and proceeded to near completely undo every socially progressive measure made in that time, and in many cases reverse and revert back to near pre-war slavery. The fact that a good amount of southerners never owned up, and further attempted to direct blame and responsibility for their morally, ethically, and legally reprehensible actions to other parties is the core of the problem. The olive branch was extended a long time ago, and they chose to burn it. The ball for moving past this is in their court.

Quote:

---

You know who have lots of history in the US? The American Indians, if they didn't loathe whites and especially "the Federal Government" their communities would have died and and they would have been completely absorbed into the general population, just like the Southern Indians in Mexico and further South.

That's a partial vew of US history, the families that went West backed by "manifest destiny" were displacing the native population, that genocide is arguably worse than fighting for the South - but nobody seems to care. As to Southern soldiers, primarily I expect they fought because the Union was fi8ghting them.

---

Completely different situations and circumstances.

To understand the souths reasons for war one must understand John Randolph and the brakdown of the Jeffersonian Virginia dynasty. No one has mentioned that and I therefore assume you are all idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Wealth begets wealth. Would things really be much different if 1/4 of England were owned by the descendants of Harold Godwinson's retainers?

---

Yes, it probably would be different, because the changes in social structure insulated the Anglo-Normans from economic shocks and prevented most Englishmen from generating wealth, at all. This was the same for about 300 years, then you have a period of loosening during the Renaissance, but the final change only came when Peers were made equal before the law by forcing them to stand before a Criminal Court rather than the House of Lords. Mid 20th Century.

Quote:

---

That didn't turn out so bad, did it?

---

The jury is still out - we did used to elect our Kings, for one thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Pffft. Did Ho Chi Minh appoint a military governor to keep New York in line?

---

No, because New York didn't try to pick up it's ball and leave when it didn't get it's way in the due course of legitimate government process.

Quote:

---

Are Afghan troops doing the rape/pillage thing throughout Pennsylvania? The North has no reference.

---

No different than Lee and crew living off the land in Pennsylvania. Here's another part. If the South didn't want Sherman rampaging through Georgia and taking the fight to the people who started it, then maybe they shouldn't have started it.

Quote:

---

It's already been mentioned in the thread. Why have Japan and Germany turned out so well? Their occupations were focused on positive goals, not punitive measures.

---

Seriously? Really? See my post to PVC. The South was held accountable for what it did. In many ways they got off far easier than a separate belligerent nation, because the goal at the end was reintegration and reconstruction, which were aggressively pursued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

No, because New York didn't try to pick up it's ball and leave when it didn't get it's way in the due course of legitimate government process.

No different than Lee and crew living off the land in Pennsylvania. Here's another part. If the South didn't want Sherman rampaging through Georgia and taking the fight to the people who started it, then maybe they shouldn't have started it.

Seriously? Really? See my post to PVC. The South was held accountable for what it did. In many ways they got off far easier than a separate belligerent nation, because the goal at the end was reintegration and reconstruction, which were aggressively pursued.

---

Way to completely miss the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Way to completely miss the point.

---

OK, let's try this another way.

What, in your opinion, does the average southerner want or expect from non-southerners in regards to moving toward true and complete reconciliation? This can be words or actions. Please be very specific, these need to be concrete, actionable things, not vague or ephemeral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

OK, let's try this another way.

What, in your opinion, does the average southerner want or expect from non-southerners in regards to moving toward true and complete reconciliation? This can be words or actions. Please be very specific, these need to be concrete, actionable things, not vague or ephemeral.

---

Still missing the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Still missing the point.

---

Then we're talking past each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Then we're talking past each other.

---

I told you that you were confused.

This isn't a question for rational debate, as I indicated at least a page back.

The fact that you don't "get" it strongly suggests I am right and you have no history as we in Europe understand it. If you did, I wouldn't have to try to explain it to you.

Let me try something else, you said the war was about the Social development of the "United States", but you ttok for granted that everyone would read "United States" and not "United States".

To you it is self evident that the Union should decide whether slavery was legal, to the Southern States this was obviously a reserved Right. It isn't about the Right to own slaves, it's about who has the Right to grant you the Right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

OK, let's try this another way.

What, in your opinion, does the average southerner want or expect from non-southerners in regards to moving toward true and complete reconciliation? This can be words or actions. Please be very specific, these need to be concrete, actionable things, not vague or ephemeral.

---

Since when has the discussion been about Southern reconciliation? That ship has sailed. The point is that Northerners don't understand what being occupied is like, and can't comprehend why Southerners would feel the way they do, or how the Welsh feel about the English, etc.. Who was right, who was wrong, it doesn't matter, you pounding home the "South was evil" point is condescending in the same way an Englishman telling a Scot that he's better off now. It may be true, but do you think it makes the Scot feel peachy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

To you it is self evident that the Union should decide whether slavery was legal, to the Southern States this was obviously a reserved Right. It isn't about the Right to own slaves, it's about who has the Right to grant you the Right.

---

Antebellum U.S. government did not in any way infringe upon the right of the southern states to maintain the institution of slavery. By the time the Emancipation Proclamation was signed time for talk had passed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Then we're talking past each other.

---

Take Ireland it is not that the English will have to do anything to help us move from a post colonial to a truly free mindset, it is the Irish that have to come to terms with what happened to them. Our nation was formed by continual tragedy and by a sucessful resistance in order to achieve freedom, hence PVC is naturally incapable of understanding why I wouldnt shout for England if Ireland went out early this summer in Poland/Ukraine.

To the Englishman this question is settled and he has moved on (it wasnt really a big part of his mindset anyway) but for us it is merely the start of the journey of who and what we will become due to freedom we have achieved.

Therefore it's not the Northern Unitied States that has to do anything it is the South that will have to work through it's own culture, beliefs etc etc to eventually come to terms with what happened and what they did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Antebellum U.S. government did not in any way infringe upon the right of the southern states to maintain the institution of slavery. By the time the Emancipation Proclamation was signed time for talk had passed.

---

Incorrect, would you like to spin the wheel again?

Quote:

---

To you it is self evident that the Union should decide whether slavery was legal, to the Southern States this was obviously a reserved Right. It isn't about the Right to own slaves, it's about who has the Right to grant you the Right.

---

I tend to agree with this bit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Our nation was formed by continual tragedy and by a sucessful resistance in order to achieve freedom, hence PVC is naturally incapable of understanding why I wouldnt shout for England if Ireland went out early this summer in Poland/Ukraine.

---

How about Scotland? Would your root for Scotland?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

How about Scotland? Would your root for Scotland?

---

Indeed I would but that has as much to do with supporting the little guy or the underdog as it does sticking it to the English.

Plus there is a kinship with Scotland that even though they had a religious reformation and occupied parts of Ulster we would still have more in common with them than we do England.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I told you that you were confused.

This isn't a question for rational debate, as I indicated at least a page back.

The fact that you don't "get" it strongly suggests I am right and you have no history as we in Europe understand it. If you did, I wouldn't have to try to explain it to you.

Let me try something else, you said the war was about the Social development of the "United States", but you ttok for granted that everyone would read "United States" and not "United States".

To you it is self evident that the Union should decide whether slavery was legal, to the Southern States this was obviously a reserved Right. It isn't about the Right to own slaves, it's about who has the Right to grant you the Right.

---

My response is the same, I think you're the one who's confused.

For the record the statement about "understanding history like we do in Europe" is that "we r old skool" mentality that Americans are so sick and tired of, and why you've been getting the responses from others like you have. We have our own collective history from the founding of our nation to before, up to now. Just because it doesn't stretch back thousands of years doesn't make it any less meaningful or comprehensive, or give us less perspective. In that regard, Europeans do need to get over themselves.

To the rest of it, I've been getting what you've said. I don't think you get it. The notion of southern "independence", or anything whatsoever that directly states or implies that the south is a separate entity from the rest of the US is flat out rejected. Any discussions along those lines or with that as a basis are pointless and will go nowhere. For the record, in the discussions I have had with deep southerners have never gone along these lines. I think you understand the whole North/South Civil War situation as well as I understand the England/Wales/Scotland situation. In that regard, "I guess you Europeans will never understand the concept and history behind the Civil War like we Americans do."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Indeed I would but that has as much to do with supporting the little guy or the underdog as it does sticking it to the English.
Plus there is a kinship with Scotland that even though they had a religious reformation and occupied parts of Ulster we would still have more in common with them than we do England.

---

So, would it be fair to say that you have a problem with England, but not with Britain as a whole?

I think he's being intentionally obtuse

Few, if any southeners would call for an actual secession and creation of a Neo-Confederacy

The (small) push is for a massive devolution towards states rights

The large portion of Southeners whom still stoke the lost cause embers are contraians. Happy to be the foil of the mainstream "yankee" culture. In this day and age nearly apolitical. There is no true and serious movement. Unlike Scotland we wont be voting on independence anytime soon.

A distiniction that needs to be made here. The UK started seperate and came to. The US started together and came apart

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

The point is that Northerners don't understand what being occupied is like, and can't comprehend why Southerners would feel the way they do, or how the Welsh feel about the English, etc..

---

Welsh vs English was a totally different situation. I wouldn't know what it feels like to be in jail, because I've never done anything that would merit me going to jail. Sorry if that's harsh, the truth can be.

Quote:

---

Who was right, who was wrong, it doesn't matter, you pounding home the "South was evil" point is condescending in the same way an Englishman telling a Scot that he's better off now. It may be true, but do you think it makes the Scot feel peachy?

---

England vs Scotland is likewise completely different. As for the whole "South was evil" point being "pounded home", that's not how the history books in school read. Pounding it home would be near propaganda-ish levels of reciting every single one of the South's wrongs and associated demonizing. That's not how it is, it's more of a factual retelling of the factors that lead up to it, what occurred at a really, really high level, and the outcome. No demonizing of either side. For the record, this is generally the same response I've had in the past when discussing this aspect of history with other southerners, so the message is consistent.

If the average southerner is still bitter about history being a reminder of their our ancestor's faults, then ... tough. History is taught that we should not repeat the mistakes of the past, and some of it is embarrassing. Don't know what else to say, except that I don't agree whatsoever that the "South is evil" is the overriding message and portrayal taught in the school rooms. Most of my opinions on this were formed much later in life after more reading and research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

It isn't about the Right to own slaves, it's about who has the Right to grant you the Right.

---

Indeed and guess who helped form Southern culture along with other immigrant groupings why Scots and Ulster Scots people these would be a people who had a long history of defiance on various questions of "Rights"

Of course plenty of them fought on the Northern side too probably more in fact but then they were on the winning side, in war there is no substitute for victory. It's no wonder that today the South still feels even today some slight resentment, as I said it takes a long time to remove such ideas from any culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Take Ireland it is not that the English will have to do anything to help us move from a post colonial to a truly free mindset, it is the Irish that have to come to terms with what happened to them. Our nation was formed by continual tragedy and by a sucessful resistance in order to achieve freedom, hence PVC is naturally incapable of understanding why I wouldnt shout for England if Ireland went out early this summer in Poland/Ukraine.

To the Englishman this question is settled and he has moved on (it wasnt really a big part of his mindset anyway) but for us it is merely the start of the journey of who and what we will become due to freedom we have achieved.

Therefore it's not the Northern Unitied States that has to do anything it is the South that will have to work through it's own culture, beliefs etc etc to eventually come to terms with what happened and what they did.

---

To clarify, I do get it, it just makes me sad.

Sad, though, that our ancestors couldn't find a better way to work out how Ireland and the rest of the British Isles fit together.

I also find it difficult to accept on an emotional level even though I understand it intellectually, and appreciate the Irish viewpoint.

Actually, thinking about it, I probably find it somewhat upsetting because I'm aware Irish independence is more to do with failings in London that anything else - that probably explains the general English unwillingness to examine the issue too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

So, would it be fair to say that you have a problem with England, but not with Britain as a whole?

---

Eh I dont have a problem with England at all I just wouldnt feel right cheering for them thats all, it would basically be too much and really would be too soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I think he's being intentionally obtuse

---

Moi?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Therefore it's not the Northern Unitied States that has to do anything it is the South that will have to work through it's own culture, beliefs etc etc to eventually come to terms with what happened and what they did.

---

Aye, that's the conclusion I came to ages ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Sad, though, that our ancestors couldn't find a better way to work out how Ireland and the rest of the British Isles fit together.

---

But that was then. What's the on it of focusing on it today?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Welsh vs English was a totally different situation. I wouldn't know what it feels like to be in jail, because I've never done anything that would merit me going to jail. Sorry if that's harsh, the truth can be.



England vs Scotland is likewise completely different. As for the whole "South was evil" point being "pounded home", that's not how the history books in school read. Pounding it home would be near propaganda-ish levels of reciting every single one of the South's wrongs and associated demonizing. That's not how it is, it's more of a factual retelling of the factors that lead up to it, what occurred at a really, really high level, and the outcome. No demonizing of either side. For the record, this is generally the same response I've had in the past when discussing this aspect of history with other southerners, so the message is consistent.

If the average southerner is still bitter about history being a reminder of their our ancestor's faults, then ... tough. History is taught that we should not repeat the mistakes of the past, and some of it is embarrassing. Don't know what else to say, except that I don't agree whatsoever that the "South is evil" is the overriding message and portrayal taught in the school rooms. Most of my opinions on this were formed much later in life after more reading and research.

---

That bold bit, that's the problem - what you wrote, despite there being Southerners here.

As to the rest, the Welsh/Irish/Scots/Cornish/Manx situation are all different, but despite that they all feel pretty much the same, a feeling they share with the Bretons, Basques, Catalans, and others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

But that was then. What's the on it of focusing on it today?

---

It's part of our history, which makes it part of our national (English) psyche - and that's why we keep repeating the same mistakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

It's part of our history, which makes it part of our national (English) psyche - and that's why we keep repeating the same mistakes.

---

It just seems irrational, sorta like holding modern Germany accountable for what Hitler once did. Makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

That bold bit, that's the problem - what you wrote, despite there being Southerners here.

As to the rest, the Welsh/Irish/Scots/Cornish/Manx situation are all different, but despite that they all feel pretty much the same, a feeling they share with the Bretons, Basques, Catalans, and others.

---

Hence why I was trying to coax drone's perspective out of him. Each southerner's feelings are similar but unique in some regards.

As to the first bit, it is what it is. We aren't going to sugarcoat things. I can own up to the fact that my ancestors fought on the wrong side. That doesn't make me, drone, or anyone else here responsible for the actions of our fathers or forefathers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

It just seems irrational, sorta like holding modern Germany accountable for what Hitler once did. Makes no sense.

---

This. It's pretty much time for the world to move past what happened during WWII, the generation that was generally responsible for it has since died, and the generation that fought it is dying out rapidly and mostly gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

To clarify, I do get it, it just makes me sad.

Sad, though, that our ancestors couldn't find a better way to work out how Ireland and the rest of the British Isles fit together.

I also find it difficult to accept on an emotional level even though I understand it intellectually, and appreciate the Irish viewpoint.

Actually, thinking about it, I probably find it somewhat upsetting because I'm aware Irish independence is more to do with failings in London that anything else - that probably explains the general English unwillingness to examine the issue too.

---

One day possibly I do get the feeling that things are begingin to change but it is still to soon for me at least:clown:(mad as that sounds) When you come to a match an international match in Ireland we only need too separate people because it's the rules of the various international bodies, not because we will kill the opposing fans over percieved slights(excepting the North everything is different there)

Bother has only ever being caused (yet) by hooligans coming into Ireland and I expect that will continue.

I have been at World Cup matches where English people cheered us on and they loved every minute of the match, technically it was cos we were playing Germany though. I'm telling you I never seen a happier racist football hooligan as I did that night in Ibaraki, he nearly fell of the upper tier so he did. Also I have actually sang rebels songs at family gathereings in england in front of English people and they loved every minute of it, they knew that the atmosphere was one of celebration and rememberance not one of anger.

Irish people will one day root for England if were not playing ourselves, I know this to be ultimately a truth but we will always savour the odd victory we get over yous lot :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

It just seems irrational, sorta like holding modern Germany accountable for what Hitler once did. Makes no sense.

---

But what Hitler did still does affect Germans today essentially the World does have not to forgive them anything instead it is they themselves who must work through it.

Germany has basically gone from expansionism to a trend of pacifism that borders almost on the neurotic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

But what Hitler did still does affect Germans today essentially the World does have not to forgive them anything instead it is they themselves who must work through it.

---

There's hardly anyone left to forgive. The direct participants are frail old men who will be dead within the next couple of decades, and the new generation has nothing to apologize for, just like the new generation in, say, France has nothing to forgive for. It's not our war, not our conflict, not our place to assign guilt or to forgive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

There's hardly anyone left to forgive. The direct participants are frail old men who will be dead within the next couple of decades, and the new generation has nothing to apologize for, just like the new generation in, say, France has nothing to forgive for. It's not our war, not our conflict, not our place to assign guilt or to forgive.

---

I thnk were missing each other ina dark tunnel here in reality.

Germanys mindset is influenced by WW1 the Recession and WW2 there is no need in the wide earthly world for anyone to be even alive who remembers this for them to be shaped by it.

Americans are shaped by ideas of freedom from freedom of expansion, movement, conscience or choice etc etc blah blah this is purely because America is still a big place with plenty room left in it even today. Various terrorists groups and whatnot will be easily forgotten in America because they were not the foundation of the American worldview to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I thnk were missing each other ina dark tunnel here in reality.

Germanys mindset is influenced by WW1 the Recession and WW2 there is no need in the wide earthly world for anyone to be even alive who remembers this for them to be shaped by it.

Americans are shaped by ideas of freedom from freedom of expansion, movement, conscience or choice etc etc blah blah this is purely because America is still a big place with plenty room left in it even today. Various terrorists groups and whatnot will be easily forgotten in America because they were not the foundation of the American worldview to begin with.

---

I'm not convinced that size has anything to do with this. I mean, look at Russia, they have plenty of land, far fewer people than we do, yet suffer from the same issues as the rest of Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

I'm not convinced that size has anything to do with this. I mean, look at Russia, they have plenty of land, far fewer people than we do, yet suffer from the same issues as the rest of Europe.

---

Russia never has had any of the advantages that the USA ever did.

Russian rivers flow the wrong way for trade, her agricultural areas while good are far from it's markets.
Much of the expanse has no one in it so effectively Russians live in a big field with the front and back gate open for anyone to walk in.

You could say Russia is obssesed with getting buffers to protect itself or at least why the elite are obssesed with that idea.

To be honest I dont know enough about Russian character to argue this, but we all see American character on telly everyday. Since your telly is how you as Americans see yourselves it's easy pick up on a few traits that you all might have.

An yes I am aware thats a fictional version of American character but it is still influenced by actual American traits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Hence why I was trying to coax drone's perspective out of him. Each southerner's feelings are similar but unique in some regards.

As to the first bit, it is what it is. We aren't going to sugarcoat things. I can own up to the fact that my ancestors fought on the wrong side. That doesn't make me, drone, or anyone else here responsible for the actions of our fathers or forefathers.

---

My perspective is atypical, I'm probably a bit more rational about it than most Southerners. I know the history, and my family's role in it, and have pretty much come to the conclusion that the South got what it deserved. The North probably could have handled things better both before and after, but what's done is done. To paraphrase a famous Jedi master, "I don't hate the Yankees, they're just :daisy:" I dislike the North, but for reasons completely unrelated to the war.

I do understand the mindset however, which is apparently something that I'm not getting across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Russia never has had any of the advantages that the USA ever did.
Russian rivers flow the wrong way for trade, her agricultural areas while good are far from it's markets.

---

But we have to cross an ocean to do any kind of serious trading.

Quote:

---

Much of the expanse has no one in it so effectively Russians live in a big field with the front and back gate open for anyone to walk in. You could say that is why Russin is obssesed with obtaining buffers to protect itself or at the very least why the elite are obssesed with that.

---

Canada has similar disadvantages, but not the same issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

But we have to cross an ocean to do any kind of serious trading.

---

All maritime powers are richer than land powers, to trade across land is expensive.

Thats why Ireland has potential for a large GDP per person despite her size.

Quote:

---

Canada has similar disadvantages, but not the same issues.

---

But crucially Canada real security defense wise due to the Empire and had shared cultural mores with America. Later Canada orientated it's trade to integration with the USA to overcome the disadvantage of effectively being two islands and of course she shares the Atlantic and Pacfic with you making trade from either coastline easier.

Russia does not even come close to having the lesser advantages of Canada never mind America.

Well, I understand the mindset of rabid nationalists. I "get it". But when people criticize rabid nationalists I don't say "you don't understand the mindset".

The resentment occupied people feel isn't some deterministic inevitability that we can just shrug our shoulders and say "that's the way it is". If it's probable it's because too many people are weak and petty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

My perspective is atypical, I'm probably a bit more rational about it than most Southerners. I know the history, and my family's role in it, and have pretty much come to the conclusion that the South got what it deserved. The North probably could have handled things better both before and after, but what's done is done. To paraphrase a famous Jedi master, "I don't hate the Yankees, they're just :daisy:" I dislike the North, but for reasons completely unrelated to the war.

I do understand the mindset however, which is apparently something that I'm not getting across.

---

Meh. I (think that I) understand it pretty well. Agree it can be hard to elucidate to others.

Guess for me it boils down to my perception that the South can't let go of an uglier part of it's/our nation's past. The insularism, exclusionism, and revisionism are what're most annoying. For the most part it's never an issue, unless one moves there or has regular contact with that region. One can pick and move just about anywhere in the US outside of the Southeast and fit right into whatever community they move into. New Englanders, Midwesterners, Great Plainers, they all have their own somewhat unique cultural backgrounds, but don't actively attempt to socially ostracize new folks like I've seen and experienced in the South. Be nice if that changes some day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Well, I understand the mindset of rabid nationalists. I "get it". But when people criticize rabid nationalists I don't say "you don't understand the mindset".

The resentment occupied people feel isn't some deterministic inevitability that we can just shrug our shoulders and say "that's the way it is". If it's probable it's because too many people are weak and petty.

---

Indeed which is exactly the reason why rabid nationalism is no longer popular in the South of Ireland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

All maritime powers are richer than land powers, to trade across land is expensive.

---

I'm not sure I can agree with this. Pre-colonial India was hardly a maritime power, but fabulously rich nonetheless. China was also wealthy even though most of its trade up until the 19th century was conducted via the Silk Road. Colonialism was the primary advantage of maritime powers, but the neither U.S. nor Canada had any colonies worth mentioning.

Quote:

---

But crucially Canada real security defense wise due to the Empire and had shared cultural mores with America. Later Canada orientated it's trade to integration with the USA to overcome the disadvantage of effectively being two islands and of course she shares the Atlantic and Pacfic with you making trade from either coastline easier.

---

But that's just one trade partner. Not enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

I'm not sure I can agree with this. Pre-colonial India was hardly a maritime power, but fabulously rich nonetheless. China was also wealthy even though most of its trade up until the 19th century was conducted via the Silk Road. Colonialism was the primary advantage of maritime powers, but the neither U.S. nor Canada had no colonies worth mentioning.

---

Pre-Colonial India has a massive all year round ice free coastline and Indian rivers flow through it's agricultural areas to bring goods to port. It actually doesnt matter whose boats they were the key is the wonga the Indains got for things like tea or spices.

China is a special case her problem is the interior is waay waay poorer than her coastline, this has historically fed instability kinda like a stone on a seesaw.
Isolationism is a way to equalise the disparity and balance the seesaw, I'm not saying it's rational just what they did/do to an extent.

Quote:

---

But that's just one trade partner. Not enough.

---

Obviously it is to a certain extent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Pre-Colonial India has a massive all year round ice free coastline and Indian rivers flow through it's agricultural areas to bring goods to port.

---

And Russia has the mighty Volga flowing through its heartland and into the Caspian Sea for the lucrative trade with Iran.

Quote:

---

China is a special case her problem is the interior is waay waay poorer than her coastline, this has historically fed instability kinda like a stone on a seesaw. Isolationism is a way to equalise the disparity and balance the seesaw, I'm not saying it's rational just what they did/do to an extent.

---

But the point is that you can get rich even as a dedicated landlubber.

Quote:

---

Obviously it is to a certain extent.

---

Not really, especially since we had little to offer to one another: we didn't need their furs, and they didn't need our furs. Timber? No, plenty of that on both sides. Some agricultural produce from the Deep South, yes, but that's it really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

To clarify, I do get it, it just makes me sad.

Sad, though, that our ancestors couldn't find a better way to work out how Ireland and the rest of the British Isles fit together.

I also find it difficult to accept on an emotional level even though I understand it intellectually, and appreciate the Irish viewpoint.

---

I'm too awkward to say this myself but that is the viewpoint I would like to think I hold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

One day possibly I do get the feeling that things are begingin to change but it is still to soon for me at least:clown:(mad as that sounds) When you come to a match an international match in Ireland we only need too separate people because it's the rules of the various international bodies, not because we will kill the opposing fans over percieved slights(excepting the North everything is different there)

Bother has only ever being caused (yet) by hooligans coming into Ireland and I expect that will continue.

I have been at World Cup matches where English people cheered us on and they loved every minute of the match, technically it was cos we were playing Germany though. I'm telling you I never seen a happier racist football hooligan as I did that night in Ibaraki, he nearly fell of the upper tier so he did. Also I have actually sang rebels songs at family gathereings in england in front of English people and they loved every minute of it, they knew that the atmosphere was one of celebration and rememberance not one of anger.

Irish people will one day root for England if were not playing ourselves, I know this to be ultimately a truth but we will always savour the odd victory we get over yous lot :wink:

---

...Wanna play CK2?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

And Russia has the mighty Volga flowing through its heartland and into the Caspian Sea for the lucrative trade with Iran.

---

But Russian habitation is further west and north and and it's really productive agricultural areas are further south and southwest effectively there was no one there to trade with Iran and they faced west and east as a landpower both of them.

Also Russia has always felt and acted like a landpower trading with Iran while possible was not there priority. There priority was ensuring the regime didnt collapse trying to compete with richer western europe or get eaten by the eastern hordes.

Quote:

---

But the point is that you can get rich even as a dedicated landlubber.

---

I never said you couldnt it's just generally easier to be rich if you have a maritime coast you can actually use, it doesnt take a genius to figure out a ship load of fur is worth more to a nation than a cartload.

Quote:

---

Not really, especially since we had little to offer to one another: we didn't need their furs, and they didn't need our furs. Timber? No, plenty of that on both sides. Some agricultural produce from the Deep South, yes, but that's it really.

---

I said later Canada integrated with the USA as in 19th century early 20th before that all trade went back to the imperial core from her expansive coastlinies and the Hudson river.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

...Wanna play CK2?

---

I dont have it but will get it soon enough funds need minding for the summer in Poland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

But Russian habitation is further west and north and and it's really productive agricultural areas are further south and southwest effectively there was no one there to trade with Iran and they faced west and east as a landpower both of them.

---

That is definitely not the case. Volga passes through major industrial and agricultural regions of Russia. It is quite easily the most important Russian river.

Quote:

---

I never said you couldnt it's just generally easier to be rich if you have a maritime coast you can actually use, it doesnt take a genius to figure out a ship load of fur is worth more to a nation than a cartload.

---

Let's not forget that one can get lots of carts for the price of one ship.

Quote:

---

I said later Canada integrated with the USA as in 19th century early 20th before that all trade went back to the imperial core from her expansive coastlinies and the Hudson river.

---

But my points stands: Canada was not a suitable trading partner for the U.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

That is definitely not the case. Volga passes through major industrial and agricultural regions of Russia. It is quite easily the most important Russian river.


Let's not forget that one can get lots of carts for the price of one ship.

But my points stands: Canada was not a suitable trading partner for the U.S.

---

Until the early 20th century the US was almost completely self sufficient in every respect. You had both the industiral base and high technology, coal, oil, other materials were not far away, and you had Mexico to trade with for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Until the early 20th century the US was almost completely self sufficient in every respect. You had both the industiral base and high tehcnology, coal, oil, other materials were not far away, and you had Mexico to trade with for them.

---

Russia is also blessed with resources though. Yet, their outlook on history differs from ours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Meh. I (think that I) understand it pretty well. Agree it can be hard to elucidate to others.

Guess for me it boils down to my perception that the South can't let go of an uglier part of it's/our nation's past. The insularism, exclusionism, and revisionism are what're most annoying. For the most part it's never an issue, unless one moves there or has regular contact with that region. One can pick and move just about anywhere in the US outside of the Southeast and fit right into whatever community they move into. New Englanders, Midwesterners, Great Plainers, they all have their own somewhat unique cultural backgrounds, but don't actively attempt to socially ostracize new folks like I've seen and experienced in the South. Be nice if that changes some day.

---

You obviously have never to the north. Northerners and the damn yankees in new england are the most close minded rude, uninviting, cold and classless people in north america...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

That is definitely not the case. Volga passes through major industrial and agricultural regions of Russia. It is quite easily the most important Russian river.

---

Indeed but the Missippi Missouri Ohio river system is practically an integrated highway system and it flows to the correct population centers or to the Gulf to allow transport by sea to New York

The Volga however does not have the same advantage.

Quote:

---

Let's not forget that one can get lots of carts for the price of one ship.

---

Ah come on now your just being silly here during the time people used carts for moving trade goods the roads were also either non-existent or few and far between. It wasnt until the 19th early 20th that we had the technology with trains to overcome these disadvantages, but I cant think of a country that didnt already have most of it's cultural tics by then.

And thats what we were talkin about initially anyway.

Quote:

---

But my points stands: Canada was not a suitable trading partner for the U.S.

---

Thats interesting but that wasnt the point I was making to begin with Canada could trade from her martitime cores on either side early on. Then later she had the ability to trade with Detroit an Chicago cities that developed industry due to there proximity to the great lakes and rivers of the American heartland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Russia is also blessed with resources though. Yet, their outlook on history differs from ours.

---

Their history is also more bloody, and there's more of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Indeed but the Missippi Missouri Ohio river system is practically an integrated highway system and it flows to the correct population centers or to the Gulf to allow transport by sea to New York

The Volga however does not have the same advantage.

---

Sure it does. Most of European Russia's important industrial centers are situated on the banks of Volga or its tributaries.

Quote:

---

Ah come on now your just being silly here during the time people used carts for moving trade goods the roads were also either non-existent or few and far between. It wasnt until the 19th early 20th that we had the technology with trains to overcome these disadvantages, but I cant think of a country that didnt already have most of it's cultural tics by then.

And thats what we were talkin about initially anyway.

---

Except that you're not taking into account that an overland journey would be much shorter than a transoceanic one. A couple of hundred miles on bad roads vs a few thousand miles across the ocean.

Quote:

---

Thats interesting but that wasnt the point I was making to begin with Canada could trade from her martitime cores on either side early on. Then later she had the ability to trade with Detroit an Chicago cities that developed industry due to there proximity to the great lakes and rivers of the American heartland.

---

All of that is good and such, but the U.S. commodities still have to cross an ocean to be traded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Sure it does. Most of European Russia's important industrial centers are situated on the banks of Volga or its tributaries.

---

You said it yourself who would they trade with Iran?? You need access to the sea an Russia never had proper access to secure blue water ports with which to trade from.

Quote:

---

Except that you're not taking into account that an overland journey would be much shorter than a transoceanic one. A couple of hundred miles on bad roads vs a few thousand miles across the ocean.

---

Quote:

---

All of that is good and such, but the U.S. commodities still have to cross an ocean to be traded.

---

I think you will find sending a barrel or whatever from America by boat to England will beat a barrel sent by cart from Russia plus they can carry more stuff reducing price and thereby reducing the cost of the voyage.


Russia is and always has been a landpower geography and security considerations have always made it so and it's lack of development has also hampered it.
But this does not mean Russia cannot be powerful chiefly again due to pure size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

You said it yourself who would they trade with Iran?? You need access to the sea an Russia never had proper access to secure blue water ports with which to trade from.

---

Why wouldn't they trade with Iran. They'd trade with whoever would be willing to pay.

Quote:

---

I think you will find sending a barrel or whatever from America by boat to England will beat a barrel sent by cart from Russia plus they can carry more stuff reducing price and thereby reducing the cost of the voyage.

---

What holds true for England wouldn't hold true for, say, Poland.

Quote:

---

Russia is and always has been a landpower geography and security considerations have always made it so and it's lack of development has also hampered it. But this does not mean Russia cannot be powerful chiefly again due to pure size.

---

If size was all that mattered, Russia should have been more powerful than anybody else simply because it's significantly larger than the competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Why wouldn't they trade with Iran. They'd trade with whoever would be willing to pay.

---

Could they afford it Iran I mean by the time Russia could trade in 19th early 20th there industrila development was primitive at best. Later there products were not required because until the Shah was toppled as Iran was outside there orbit. Afterwards what did they have to give them only weapons a typical obsession of a land based power.

Quote:

---

What holds true for England wouldn't hold true for, say, Poland.

---

Interesting and this proves what exactly that you can send a cartload of barrels to Poland it will still be more exspensive and awkard to trade this way. A horse needs feeding and it can only travel in daylight, while a ship can move all day an night and can carry it's crew supplies and trade goods together.

Land based trade required the train and the further east you went the less developed and integrated a rail network you had. By the time the Soviets arrived to get rail moving they were behind in the goods we might buy from them and crucially they isolated themselves from potential buyers though communism.

Quote:

---

If size was all that mattered, Russia should have been more powerful than anybody else simply because it's significantly larger than the competition.

---

I said Russia can be powerful due to it's size I did not say they would or even can be all powerful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Could they afford it Iran I mean by the time Russia could trade in 19th early 20th there industrila development was primitive at best.

---

Russia has traded with Persia for a lot longer than that.

Quote:

---

Later there products were not required because until the Shah was toppled as Iran was outside there orbit. Afterwards what did they have to give them only weapons a typical obsession of a land based power.

---

It wasn't an issue of orbit. Shah's dollars were just as green, and Russia traded extensively.

Quote:

---

Interesting and this proves what exactly that you can send a cartload of barrels to Poland it will still be more exspensive and awkard to trade this way. A horse needs feeding and it can only travel in daylight, while a ship can move all day an night and can carry it's crew supplies and trade goods together.

---

Don't sailors need to eat and sleep?

Quote:

---

Land based trade required the train and the further east you went the less developed and integrated a rail network you had.

---

If the land based trade required the train, then how was it possible to conduct land based trade before railroads came to be?

Quote:

---

I said Russia can be powerful due to it's size I did not say they would or even can be all powerful.

---

And I didn't accuse you of saying that. My point all along has been that neither size nor population nor coastline can account for the success of the US as a nation: Russia has far more land, China has far more people, and Britain historically had a far better maritime trade network.

Now RVG I have really had enough of this continual back and forth were way off what the original statement I was trying to make.

This is that America was influenced in it's national character by it's size, because there was room to develop and crucially the means to do so both from a geographic and technical point of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Now RVG I have really had enough of this continual back and forth were way off what the original statement I was trying to make.

This is that America was influenced in it's national character by it's size, because there was room to develop and crucially the means to do so both from a geographic and technical point of view.

---

So...here we go again: if size is so important, why isn't Russia or China further ahead? You keep mentioning the size, and I keep thinking about how the small nation of Japan, with barely any land or natural resources managed to first whip Russia in 1905 and later on make a mess out of China.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Russia has traded with Persia for a lot longer than that.


It wasn't an issue of orbit. Shah's dollars were just as green, and Russia traded extensively.


Don't sailors need to eat and sleep?


If the land based trade required the train, then how was it possible to conduct land based trade before railroads came to be?



And I didn't accuse you of saying that. My point all along has been that neither size nor population nor coastline can account for the success of the US as a nation: Russia has far more land, China has far more people, and Britain historically had a far better maritime trade network.

---

Because before real sea trade got going everyone was landbased which removed any cmopetitive adavantage they might potentially have.
A cart driver needs to stop at night and change horses to contiue the journey safely, while a boat has a crew that can eat and sleep in shifts.

As already discussed once colonialism got really going the ship massively boosted trade and the train while good back then was not nearly good enough to go from China to France.


Crucially Russia and China also have problems with both restive populations and with greater actual security threats to the core. This has encouraged expansion to give strategic depth to secure there cores. There economies are landbased and while that was fine in the 14th century it was not fine in the 16th century and as discussed already China shut itself off which negatied it's own maritime advantage.

This has all combined to give them the typical landbased mindset always looking west and east in Russias case or inwards in Chinas case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Because before real sea trade got going everyone was landbased which removed any cmopetitive adavantage they might potentially have.
A cart driver needs to stop at night and change horses to contiue the journey safely, while a boat has a crew that can eat and sleep in shifts.

As already discussed once colonialism got really going the ship massively boosted trade and the train while good back then was not nearly good enough to go from China to France.


Crucially Russia and China also have problems with both restive populations and with greater actual security threats to the core. This has encouraged expansion to give strategic depth to secure there cores. There economies are landbased and while that was fine in the 14th century it was not fine in the 16th century and as discussed already China shut itself off which negatied it's own maritime advantage.

This has all combined to give them the typical landbased mindset always looking west and east in Russias case or inwards in Chinas case.

---

Okay, so if size and rivers and trade are so important, then how do you explain the success of Meiji Era Japan? No land to speak of, no resources to speak of, no colonies, almost completely isolated until the 1850s, and yet by 1900 Japan was a world class imperial power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

So...here we go again: if size is so important, why isn't Russia or China further ahead? You keep mentioning the size, and I keep thinking about how the small nation of Japan, with barely any land or natural resources managed to first whip Russia in 1905 and later on make a mess out of China.

---

They whipped them in maritime Russia at a time when they were probably one of the weakest large European powers and crucially they beat them in Asia not Europe.

As discussed already China was behind in development and shut itself off leaving itself ripe for an aggressive power like Japan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

They whipped them in maritime Russia at a time when they were probably one of the weakest large European powers and crucially they beat them in Asia not Europe.

As discussed already China was behind in development and shut itself off leaving itself ripe for an aggressive power like Japan.

---

They beat Russia on land just as well. And while the battles took place in Asia, those were the same Russian soldiers as the ones that were stationed in European Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Okay, so if size and rivers and trade are so important, then how do you explain the success of Meiji Era Japan? No land to speak of, no resources to speak of, no colonies, almost completely isolated until the 1850s, and yet by 1900 Japan was a world class imperial power.

---

Indeed and what did they do as a result they opened up of course and then traded what little they had from there ports. There small size meant the new rail networks could cover them more easily to transport goods such as they were to port.

China is really only doing that now and hey presto look at that China is gettin massively rich harvesting a competitive advantage in numbers allied with global sea trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Indeed and what did they do as a result they opened up of course and then traded what little they had from there ports. There small size meant the new rail networks could cover them more easily to transport goods such as they were to port.

---

Which means that the importance of size and resources has been highly overstated. Q.E.D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

They beat Russia on land just as well. And while the battles took place in Asia, those were the same Russian soldiers as the ones that were stationed in European Russia.

---

Still in Asia and also far away from the european core the logistical nightmare of supplying from Europe as opposed to a short hop in a boat back to Japan does not compare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Still in Asia and also far away from the european core the logistical nightmare of supplying from Europe as opposed to a short hop in a boat back to Japan does not compare.

---

Difficult logistics can hardly account for tactical defeats though. The Battle of Mukden comes to mind.