Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[rvg]

So the Revolution didn't do much for political equality, especially since legal Apartied continued into the 1960's. In any case, citizenship did not necessarily equate to "voting rights" because the US had applied property qualifications to citizen sufferage in the past. In any case, as I have already said, there was never a racially discrimination between British Subjects in the UK, so that's not something to crow about.

By the 1860s property requirements for voting purposes were ancient history. Citizenship was the universal factor that granted voting rights.

Why fight a brutal Civil War when you can live in peace and negotiate?

Events like the Boston Massacre leave little room for negotiation.

That is patently not true, as you yourself have admitted the London had already compromised on the tax issue, and Howe was authorised to negotiate, it was the Patriots you declared "give me liberty or give me death."

Too little, too late.

Objectively, this is clearly not true. The original US Constitution is a seriously flawed document from the perspective establishing "Freedom" and you had to have another Civil War to sort it out.

The interpretation of freedom might have been flawed at the time, but the Constitution itself had it right from the beginning.

True, but not the point. Particularly if you were to ask Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse, who were murdered during Parlay.

Crazy Horse had plenty of blood on his hands.

If Washington had brought the Virginia Regiment to the Loyalist side he would have recieved a Regular Commission.

By then he didn't want it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

By the 1860s property requirements for voting purposes were ancient history. Citizenship was the universal factor that granted voting rights.

Yes, but you still had the Apartied.

Events like the Boston Massacre leave little room for negotiation.

Yes, well people pelting soldiers with snowballs and rocks does put a pall on things.

Five men is not a massacre.

Too little, too late.

Apparently so.

The interpretation of freedom might have been flawed at the time, but the Constitution itself had it right from the beginning.

It was basically the same interpretation as the King of England had - but you elect your Kings.

[quote]Crazy Horse had plenty of blood on his hands.

OK, you can have another WTF LOL for that one - especially since you've spent the last few pages defending a man's right to bloody insurrection in the cause of Freedom. Crazy Horse's people were facing cultural annihalation at best.

By then he didn't want it.

Since way of not backing down.

Not the point, is it?

[rvg]

Yes, but you still had the Apartied.

Doesn't matter.

Yes, well people pelting soldiers with snowballs and rocks does put a pall on things.

Five men is not a massacre.

Life's cheap when it's not your people that are getting killed.

It was basically the same interpretation as the King of England had - but you elect your Kings.

And not for life. And we hold them accountable to the people.

OK, you can have another WTF LOL for that one - especially since you've spent the last few pages defending a man's right to bloody insurrection in the cause of Freedom. Crazy Horse's people were facing cultural annihalation at best.

He lost though. We couldn't coexist in peace, someone had to go.

Not the point, is it?

Then why bring up a hypothetical situation?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Doesn't matter.

Yes it does. Your vaunted Republic was hideously flawed, and the scars of that remain to this day. You think it's a coincidence that the first Black President has no "African American" blood?

Life's cheap when it's not your people that are getting killed.

They were the same people that's the bloody point! [infraction please]

British subject attacked British soldiers, read the entry on wiki. Hell, there was a deposition afterwards. It wasn't a small incident for the Army. It remains "not a massacre" however, Bloody Sunday was a massacre.

And not for life. And we hold them accountable to the people.

From where I'm sitting you have two parties and they switch every eight years - unless one side REALLY screws up.

He lost though. We couldn't coexist in peace, someone had to go.

That's because you killed all his Buffalo, stole his land, put his children into cultural re-education schools and broke the treaties you made with him; repeatedly.

To this day large swathes of America are technically illegally held by either the Federal Government or settles in violation of Treaties the Federal Government signed with the Native American Tribes.

Then why bring up a hypothetical situation?

To help illustrate that this is not an issue of "Colonialism" or "subservience" - it is merely one of Order of Precidence.

[rvg]

Yes it does. Your vaunted Republic was hideously flawed, and the scars of that remain to this day. You think it's a coincidence that the first Black President has no "African American" blood?

Flawed? Perhaps. Better than any alternative? Absolutely.

They were the same people that's the bloody point! [infraction please]
British subject attacked British soldiers, read the entry on wiki. Hell, there was a deposition afterwards. It wasn't a small incident for the Army. It remains "not a massacre" however, Bloody Sunday was a massacre.

Oh please. We were the pond scum: indentured servants, religious cultists, political dissidents, disgraced aristocrats and other misfits. America was a human trash pile, perhaps a notch above Australia, but that's about it. And it was treated accordingly.

From where I'm sitting you have two parties and they switch every eight years - unless one side REALLY screws up.

A democracy nonetheless.

That's because you killed all his Buffalo, stole his land, put his children into cultural re-education schools and broke the treaties you made with him; repeatedly.

To this day large swathes of America are technically illegally held by either the Federal Government or settles in violation of Treaties the Federal Government signed with the Native American Tribes.

I did no such thing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Flawed? Perhaps. Better than any alternative? Absolutely.

The UK has achieved a smiliar settlement, but with fewer wars and less bloodshed. If the UK becomes a Republic then your point will be completely moot. Note it has only remain a monarchy because the people wish it so.

Oh please. We were the pond scum: indentured servants, religious cultists, political dissidents, disgraced aristocrats and other misfits. America was a human trash pile, perhaps a notch above Australia, but that's about it. And it was treated accordingly.

Errrr

No. If you were we wouldn't have sent eminent Aristocrats out to govern you. America was the heart of the Old Empire, the land of opertunity, the engine of British Commerce. Even the currency used in the UK to this day, pounds sterling, bears witness to this.

A democracy nonetheless.

So are Canada, the UK, and Australia.

I did no such thing.

You said "we", you want to laud your Republic? Take the bitter pills with the sugar then.

[rvg]

The UK has achieved a smiliar settlement, but with fewer wars and less bloodshed. If the UK becomes a Republic then your point will be completely moot. Note it has only remain a monarchy because the people wish it so.

Similar <> the same. And making Britain a republic will not turn it into mini-USA.

No. If you were we wouldn't have sent eminent Aristocrats out to govern you. America was the heart of the Old Empire, the land of opertunity, the engine of British Commerce. Even the currency used in the UK to this day, pounds sterling, bears witness to this.

I believe that "eminent aristocrats" were also sent to govern India. The subcontinent is still rejoicing from the experience.

So are Canada, the UK, and Australia.

Today. Not back then.

You said "we", you want to laud your Republic? Take the bitter pills with the sugar then.

It's not a bitter pill at all. I feel absolutely no guilt about it. I was just stressing that *I* did not do it. Like I said earlier, it was a war of the worlds. Our world happened to prevail. It happened before, back when the Vikings settled in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. At that time *they* became the victims.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Still thinking about what to reply to Sasaki, just wanted to chime in and say that I am really, really enjoying this back and forth between RVG and PVC. A lot that has come up so far has only reinforced my notions, but other things are making me skeptical of my overall position.

Thanks to both of you for not wanting to give up the last word.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Similar <> the same. And making Britain a republic will not turn it into mini-USA.

That's true, Britain is better governed, 100% of the country is covered by professional Police and Fire Service.

There are many things about the US which are laudable but the failure to address the defecit and the current farcical election cycle are symptoms of design flaws. The model is not perfect.

I believe that "eminent aristocrats" were also sent to govern India. The subcontinent is still rejoicing from the experience.

See, that's funny, because in India the Middle Class speak English as a first language, they have English habits, fashions and manners. They also play cricket. Then there are the Indian railways...

Before you get the Sepoy Rebellion, it was a farce because the cartridges issued to Sepoys were waxed, not greased, the rumour that cow or pig grease was used was spread by malcontents.

India also follows British Parliamentary practice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_India

Don't try to tell me India would have been better off without the Raj - India would not exist without the Raj.

quote]Today. Not back then.[/quote]

If the UK was not a democracy in 1780 then neither was the US.

As I said, there's much or muchness is the timeline of "democratisation".

It's not a bitter pill at all. I feel absolutely no guilt about it. I was just stressing that *I* did not do it. Like I said earlier, it was a war of the worlds. Our world happened to prevail. It happened before, back when the Vikings settled in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. At that time *they* became the victims.

OK, so now you're really stretching it. The Vikings in Vinland starved to death, they weren't systematically wiped out.

[rvg]

That's true, Britain is better governed, 100% of the country is covered by professional Police and Fire Service.
There are many things about the US which are laudable but the failure to address the defecit and the current farcical election cycle are symptoms of design flaws. The model is not perfect.

I didn't say it was perfect, I only said it was the best.

See, that's funny, because in India the Middle Class speak English as a first language, they have English habits, fashions and manners. They also play cricket. Then there are the Indian railways...

And despite all that they still chose freedom.

Before you get the Sepoy Rebellion, it was a farce because the cartridges issued to Sepoys were waxed, not greased, the rumour that cow or pig grease was used was spread by malcontents.

I actually wasn't going to bring that up at all.

Don't try to tell me India would have been better off without the Raj - India would not exist without the Raj.

Oh, it most certainly would have been there. Would it have been better off? Now that is a difficult question.

If the UK was not a democracy in 1780 then neither was the US.

Sure we were. At least once the Constitution was adopted, I think that was in 1787.

OK, so now you're really stretching it. The Vikings in Vinland starved to death, they weren't systematically wiped out.

Perhaps "wiped out" is the wrong term. "Booted out" would be more accurate. Vinland was too remote and thus too difficult to protect from ever increasing Indian raids. So the Vikings packed up and left.

[Strike For The South]

So much wrong.

American treatmeant of the Indians was bad by even the contemporary standards of the day. The fact one general can win one battle and then remove all the Indians east of the Mississippi based on that one success is shocking.

Granted the British had the luxury of not setteling their colonies in large numbers (which, for the purpose of this arguement, was what the newly acquried American lands were).

It's not a cyclical thing either. Unless you count 1492-present cyclical. Europeans wiped out an entire hemisphere worth of culture and the few that do survive today are drunken slobs living on government aid. I mean we won, but it certainly wasn't a fair fight.

True, alls fair in love and war but to say they would've done the same to us is patently false. All indications show the five civilized tribes more than willing to hold up their end of the bargin. The idea that they would've done the same to us is insane and has no basis in fact. Only to assuage modern guilt

I also take issue with being called pond scum. Unlike the majority of you swarthy, east of vienna, Johnny Come Latelys, my family owned land in England and came to the colonies under their own volition. In fact Great Gran Pappy was a doctor who served under General Washington. I'm extremely proud that my fore fathers were men whom belivied in the vaules of the enlightenment (even if for less than prestine reasons) Lumping me in with the rest of the huddled masses like I'm some common Irishman

HARUMPH.

I would like to add some nuance to the whole aparthied republic arguement. Jim crow did not start right after the war. From 1865-1879 federal troops ensured voting rights to blacks at bayonet point. This is when you see the first black congressmen and republican parties in the south. When troops left the voting rights were slowly stripped until a voting black man in the south became a recent memory. So yes, while the 14th amendment beat the reform act to the punch, I humbely submit that when you have to use force to ensure voting rights, it might not count.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I didn't say it was perfect, I only said it was the best.

Something I take issue with on the basis that "best" is a very subjectively weighted. As I said, the UK is arguably still better governed at the County Level and we have one form of electing representatives for every English County, the same for every Welsh and Scottish district and in Northern Ireland. The rule of law extends without interuption from Lands End to John O Groats.

And despite all that they still chose freedom.

No, they chose political independance, they were already getting "freedom". Before you go off on one about that, Consider that it was the opinion of the Foriegn and Commonwealth Office that India was not yet ready for full autonomy. Given that the country broke into two, and then broke into two again, has suffred several wars between the various states and continues to have issues with military coups, corruption and now Islamic extremism I would say the Civil Servants might have been right.

Wouldn't you?

Oh, it most certainly would have been there. Would it have been better off? Now that is a difficult question.

The sub-continet would be there, the modern countries of India, Pakistan and Bangledesh would not - most likely is would still be a Balkan-like collection of Principalities where Muslim rulers held sway over the majority Hindu population with no Prince able to unify the whole or forge a confederation that lasted beyond his own life time.

Britain undertook not only the political and legal reforms that created the modern states, it also built the essential infastructure for them to function, including the massive land-reclamation project that created Bombay and the modern Indian Parliament building to name but two.

Sure we were. At least once the Constitution was adopted, I think that was in 1787.

It was still minority franchise just like the UK and Senatores were still chosen not elected, not totally dissimilar to the way one got into the House of Lords.

Perhaps "wiped out" is the wrong term. "Booted out" would be more accurate. Vinland was too remote and thus too difficult to protect from ever increasing Indian raids. So the Vikings packed up and left.

Vinland was never seriously settled. The suggestion that Norsemen could not hold their own against Native Americans, if they chose to, is laughable. The Norse technology was centuries ahead of the Native equivilent.

So much wrong.

American treatmeant of the Indians was bad by even the contemporary standards of the day. The fact one general can win one battle and then remove all the Indians east of the Mississippi based on that one success is shocking.

Granted the British had the luxury of not setteling their colonies in large numbers (which, for the purpose of this arguement, was what the newly acquried American lands were).

It's not a cyclical thing either. Unless you count 1492-present cyclical. Europeans wiped out an entire hemisphere worth of culture and the few that do survive today are drunken slobs living on government aid. I mean we won, but it certainly wasn't a fair fight.

True, alls fair in love and war but to say they would've done the same to us is patently false. All indications show the five civilized tribes more than willing to hold up their end of the bargin. The idea that they would've done the same to us is insane and has no basis in fact. Only to assuage modern guilt

I also take issue with being called pond scum. Unlike the majority of you swarthy, east of vienna, Johnny Come Latelys, my family owned land in England and came to the colonies under their own volition. In fact Great Gran Pappy was a doctor who served under General Washington. I'm extremely proud that my fore fathers were men whom belivied in the vaules of the enlightenment (even if for less than prestine reasons) Lumping me in with the rest of the huddled masses like I'm some common Irishman

HARUMPH.

I would like to add some nuance to the whole aparthied republic arguement. Jim crow did not start right after the war. From 1865-1879 federal troops ensured voting rights to blacks at bayonet point. This is when you see the first black congressmen and republican parties in the south. When troops left the voting rights were slowly stripped until a voting black man in the south became a recent memory. So yes, while the 14th amendment beat the reform act to the punch, I humbely submit that when you have to use force to ensure voting rights, it might not count.

When I was in school is was suggested that part of the issue affecting the relationship between settlers and Natives was the lack of central control or law enforcement. Even today the population density in the Mid West in particular is very low. That implies that is wasn't lack of space which caused the problem, but more the tendancy of settlers to get into conflict with Natives.

In Canada a similar thing did happen but in a markedly less violent way, and legally.

[rvg]

As I said, the UK is arguably still better governed at the County Level and we have one form of electing representatives for every English County, the same for every Welsh and Scottish district and in Northern Ireland. The rule of law extends without interuption from Lands End to John O Groats.

Better? Better how?

No, they chose political independance, they were already getting "freedom".

So, they were "free" but didn't know it, so they chose to be free instead.

Before you go off on one about that, Consider that it was the opinion of the Foriegn and Commonwealth Office that India was not yet ready for full autonomy.

And that's the problem. When some "Foreign and Commonwealth Office" is telling me whether or not my people are ready to run their own affairs I can conclusively say that they aren't free.

Given that the country broke into two, and then broke into two again, has suffered several wars between the various states and continues to have issues with military coups, corruption and now Islamic extremism I would say the Civil Servants might have been right.
Wouldn't you?

Hell no. Seriously, the whole idea of the Wise and Benevolent "Foreign and Commonwealth Office" deciding on whether or not I'm mature enough to be free is infuriating.

The sub-continet would be there, the modern countries of India, Pakistan and Bangledesh would not - most likely is would still be a Balkan-like collection of Principalities where Muslim rulers held sway over the majority Hindu population with no Prince able to unify the whole or forge a confederation that lasted beyond his own life time.

By the time of the British conquest much of India was already under Hindu Marathan rule.

Britain undertook not only the political and legal reforms that created the modern states, it also built the essential infastructure for them to function, including the massive land-reclamation project that created Bombay and the modern Indian Parliament building to name but two.

I do not seek to diminish Britain's contribution to India's industry, but I doubt it was done for the sake of the people of India.

It was still minority franchise just like the UK and Senatores were still chosen not elected, not totally dissimilar to the way one got into the House of Lords.

Senators were chosen by State legislatures, i.e. it was still a democratic process.

The Norse technology was centuries ahead of the Native equivilent.

Centuries? You mean sharper arrow points and such? So, a Viking felled by the Indian arrow would be dead, but the Indian felled by the Viking arrow would be deader? Metalworking would have given the Vikings some edge, but it would still be a melee. Considering the Natives' larger numbers, Viking prospects weren't looking too good.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Better? Better how?

How? I told you, 100% coverage by professional law enforcement and Fire Service for starters. Our legislature is also not currently paralysed.

So, they were "free" but didn't know it, so they chose to be free instead.

You can mince words as much as you like, but the preamble to the 1911 act indicates that the goal was Indian self-governance developed over time.

And that's the problem. When some "Foreign and Commonwealth Office" is telling me whether or not my people are ready to run their own affairs I can conclusively say that they aren't free.

Hell no. Seriously, the whole idea of the Wise and Benevolent "Foreign and Commonwealth Office" deciding on whether or not I'm mature enough to be free is infuriating.

You are ban of bloody insurrection, then?

I find that difficult to understand. I can appreciate the desire to "seize" freedom, but if the result is that you bequeeth a corrupt state or future Civil War to your children it isn't worth it, especially if your children will be granted peaceful freedom anyway. Self-rule is only one form of freedom, and it has no value if the only rule you can exercise is where your feet rest before some warlord runs you through.

Take the average Afgan, you think he enjoys his "freedom", or might he have prefered his King and a modicum of peace?

By the time of the British conquest much of India was already under Hindu Marathan rule.

The British Raj included almost 600 petty states. Parts of India might have been unified, but the history suggests it was unlikely to last.

I do not seek to diminish Britain's contribution to India's industry, but I doubt it was done for the sake of the people of India.

Then you don't know much about British Colonial policy - which was to trade, not to extract. The British philosophy was "Paternalism", British supremacy in art, governance, technology and science was considered self evident. One of the prime objectives of the Empire was to spread those virtues.

Senators were chosen by State legislatures, i.e. it was still a democratic process.

But not directly elected, and nor is the president even today. Those who could stand for election were the wealthy with the money to campaign and then travel between Washington D.C. and their home States. As I said, little different from England at the time.

quote]Centuries? You mean sharper arrow points and such? So, a Viking felled by the Indian arrow would be dead, but the Indian felled by the Viking arrow would be deader? Metalworking would have given the Vikings some edge, but it would still be a melee. Considering the Natives' larger numbers, Viking prospects weren't looking too good.[/QUOTE]

I mean Dragon Boats, maile armour, iron helms, swords, battle axes, limewood shields, longbows.

It is a common misconception that metel weapons are sharper than flint or obsidion ones when in fact the reverse is true. The sharpest blades are obsidion, the edge being 1 micron wide as opposed to the 20 microns of the sharpest steel blade
.
However, the Norsemen would have had every other advantage. In particular, the Norse were conditioned to fight pitched battles and to defend fortified strongholds. By contrast, the Natives would have had stone axes and spear heads and probably shortbows with flint arrowheads. Flint can't cut iron maile, but iron can shatter flint.

[rvg]

How? I told you, 100% coverage by professional law enforcement and Fire Service for starters. Our legislature is also not currently paralysed.

Law Enforcement and Fire Services are the prerogative of the states, not of the federal government. I do not see a problem with coverage, as the damn cops are on every corner.

You can mince words as much as you like, but the preamble to the 1911 act indicates that the goal was Indian self-governance developed over time.

Preambles are great. Great because they allow one to declare lofty goals and at the same time hold zero legal weight.

You are ban of bloody insurrection, then?

I find that difficult to understand. I can appreciate the desire to "seize" freedom, but if the result is that you bequeeth a corrupt state or future Civil War to your children it isn't worth it, especially if your children will be granted peaceful freedom anyway. Self-rule is only one form of freedom, and it has no value if the only rule you can exercise is where your feet rest before some warlord runs you through.

transitions and negotiations are great when they don't require centuries to actually bear fruit.

Take the average Afgan, you think he enjoys his "freedom", or might he have prefered his King and a modicum of peace?

Oh, I'm sure he'd pick the king. His king though, not the British one.

The British Raj included almost 600 petty states. Parts of India might have been unified, but the history suggests it was unlikely to last.

How does it suggest that? It took Britain three wars to subdue the unified Marathan resistance. If anything, the history suggests otherwise.

Then you don't know much about British Colonial policy - which was to trade, not to extract. The British philosophy was "Paternalism", British supremacy in art, governance, technology and science was considered self evident. One of the prime objectives of the Empire was to spread those virtues.

Paternalism, eh? No wonder they couldn't wait any longer.

But not directly elected, and nor is the president even today. Those who could stand for election were the wealthy with the money to campaign and then travel between Washington D.C. and their home States. As I said, little different from England at the time.

Lincoln was a small time lawyer from Illinois, a one term Congressman and a virtual unknown as far as the nation was concerned. Yet, he became president.

I mean Dragon Boats, maile armour, iron helms, swords, battle axes, limewood shields, longbows.

Dragon boats would be useless as Vikings were the ones being raided, not the ones doing the raiding. Iron would have been an advantage, but not enough of an advantage.

However, the Norsemen would have had every other advantage. In particular, the Norse were conditioned to fight pitched battles and to defend fortified strongholds. By contrast, the Natives would have had stone axes and spear heads and probably shortbows with flint arrowheads. Flint can't cut iron maile, but iron can shatter flint.

That's all good and such, except that Vikings weren't engaged in a war, they were being raided. Repeatedly. Now, I'm not a tribal chief, but if I were to raid someone, I wouldn't raid a fort, I'd raid a farming community. Kill all men, take the women and the rest of the livestock and call it a day. In a way Vikings got the taste of their own medicine.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Law Enforcement and Fire Services are the prerogative of the states, not of the federal government. I do not see a problem with coverage, as the damn cops are on every corner.

We have County (or cross-county) Constabularies and regional Fire Services. In the US most law enforcement if still provided by sheriffs outside the major metropolitan areas, and there was a story last year about a guy in a rural area who had his house burn down because he hadn't paid some surcharge for the city Fire Service to cover his house.

Like I said, we have 100% coverage by professionals.

Meh to the rest, because I'm suddenly more interested in this:

Dragon boats would be useless as Vikings were the ones being raided, not the ones doing the raiding. Iron would have been an advantage, but not enough of an advantage.

That's all good and such, except that Vikings weren't engaged in a war, they were being raided. Repeatedly. Now, I'm not a tribal chief, but if I were to raid someone, I wouldn't raid a fort, I'd raid a farming community. Kill all men, take the women and the rest of the livestock and call it a day. In a way Vikings got the taste of their own medicine.

I'd like to hear the evidence of sustained raiding against the Norse settlers (they aren't "Vikings" because "Vikings" are pirates). From what I know the Sagas provide no evidence to back up your narrative, there were never large Norse communities to be raided, for one, and no one ever bothered to stay long-term. If the Norse king had wanted to settle Vinland he was perfectly capable of outfitting a fleet and sending Thanes and Huscarls.

He didn't bother.

So, evidence of sustained raiding and carrying off of women and livestock please.

[rvg]

We have County (or cross-county) Constabularies and regional Fire Services. In the US most law enforcement if still provided by sheriffs outside the major metropolitan areas, and there was a story last year about a guy in a rural area who had his house burn down because he hadn't paid some surcharge for the city Fire Service to cover his house.

Like I said, we have 100% coverage by professionals.

You also have to pay a lot more on taxes. I'll take the U.S. system any day.

I'd like to hear the evidence of sustained raiding against the Norse settlers (they aren't "Vikings" because "Vikings" are pirates). From what I know the Sagas provide no evidence to back up your narrative, there were never large Norse communities to be raided, for one, and no one ever bothered to stay long-term. If the Norse king had wanted to settle Vinland he was perfectly capable of outfitting a fleet and sending Thanes and Huscarls.

He didn't bother.

So, evidence of sustained raiding and carrying off of women and livestock please.

I have one word for you: Skraelings...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[QUOTE=rvg;2053441942]You also have to pay a lot more on taxes. I'll take the U.S. system any day.

The average marginal tax rate in the UK is about 20%, and you pay no tax on the first £8,000. Only the rich pay more tax here.

I have one word for you: Skraelings...

Nice word, now show me evidence of sustained and effective raiding in Vinland.

[rvg]

[QUOTE=Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla;2053441965]

You also have to pay a lot more on taxes. I'll take the U.S. system any day.

The average marginal tax rate in the UK is about 20%, and you pay no tax on the first £8,000. Only the rich pay more tax here.

You're forgetting the 17% abomination known as VAT

Nice word, now show me evidence of sustained and effective raiding in Vinland.

Greenland Saga speaks directly of conflict between Vikings and Skraelings.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're forgetting the 17% abomination known as VAT

What, sales tax?

THe US has multiple levels of tax, the UK has only one - plus Council rates

Greenland Saga speaks directly of conflict between Vikings and Skraelings.

It says a large number of the natives attacked and were repulsed with minimal casualties. That in no way amounts to "raiding", in fact it seems to have been a single event triggered by a native stealing something and being killed as a result.

The Norse went back at least one more time, and probably again later.

That sort of attack is very common at the time, it hardly amounts to a Hall burning and in fac the site discovered in Newfoundland bears to marks of attack that I have heard of.

[rvg]

What, sales tax?

Yeah, and my bad, it's 20%, not 17.

The US has multiple levels of tax, the UK has only one - plus Council rates

Let's put the tax issue to rest, shall we? This is a bit dated (from 2008), but things aren't looking in Britain's favor. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad....-us-taxes.html

George Bush is a stronger believer in income equality than Gordon Brown.
These figures (pdf) from the CBO (via Greg Mankiw and the Kruse Kronicle) show that the poorest fifth of Americans paid an average of 4.3% of their income in federal taxes whilst the richest fifth paid 25.5%.
How do these figures compare to the UK? Table 16A here gives the answer. The poorest quintile in the UK paid 36.5% of their income in tax, whilst the richest fifth actually paid less - 35.5%.

It says a large number of the natives attacked and were repulsed with minimal casualties. That in no way amounts to "raiding", in fact it seems to have been a single event triggered by a native stealing something and being killed as a result.

The Norse went back at least one more time, and probably again later.

That sort of attack is very common at the time, it hardly amounts to a Hall burning and in fac the site discovered in Newfoundland bears to marks of attack that I have heard of.

Let's keep things in perspective here: it's a Norse Saga. Sagas oftentimes exaggerate enemy casualties while minimizing friendly losses. More importantly though, it shows a pattern: Vikings try to settle, they trade with the natives, natives want something that Vikings wouldn't sell (weapons), conflict ensues, skirmish happens, Vikings leave before a serious retaliation by the natives occurs (Thorvald's Expedition specifically). Vikings were farmers while the natives were hunters: vikings were tied to the land (unless they chose to completely evacuate) while the natives were mobile. The pattern of harassment by the natives occurs throughout the saga with varying level of success, but in at least one case (Thorvald) harassment is a direct cause of the Vikings abandoning a settlement and heading back to Iceland.

[Noncommunist]

I find that difficult to understand. I can appreciate the desire to "seize" freedom, but if the result is that you bequeeth a corrupt state or future Civil War to your children it isn't worth it, especially if your children will be granted peaceful freedom anyway. Self-rule is only one form of freedom, and it has no value if the only rule you can exercise is where your feet rest before some warlord runs you through.

Except that India did not experience it. Sure, there have been a few wars and issues but India has had uninterrupted democracy since independence which is pretty impressive for new countries.

The British Raj included almost 600 petty states. Parts of India might have been unified, but the history suggests it was unlikely to last.

Germany and Italy at the time had been a few dozen states. However, they were able to consolidate and turn into fairly effective countries. Presumably, some of the same technology would have been available to any of the larger states which would allow them to take advantage of their size and take over a more solid chunk of the sub-continent.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah, and my bad, it's 20%, not 17.


Let's put the tax issue to rest, shall we? This is a bit dated (from 2008), but things aren't looking in Britain's favor. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad....-us-taxes.html

Is fuzzing the figures - it counts all UK tazes but only Federal Income Tax in the US. Bear in mind that the poorest fifth in the UK get essentially free healthcare as well, by far the largest expediture Per Capita in the US.

Let's keep things in perspective here: it's a Norse Saga. Sagas oftentimes exaggerate enemy casualties while minimizing friendly losses. More importantly though, it shows a pattern: Vikings try to settle, they trade with the natives, natives want something that Vikings wouldn't sell (weapons), conflict ensues, skirmish happens, Vikings leave before a serious retaliation by the natives occurs (Thorvald's Expedition specifically). Vikings were farmers while the natives were hunters: vikings were tied to the land (unless they chose to completely evacuate) while the natives were mobile. The pattern of harassment by the natives occurs throughout the saga with varying level of success, but in at least one case (Thorvald) harassment is a direct cause of the Vikings abandoning a settlement and heading back to Iceland.

The Greenlanders were only there a few years, five at the outside, there is no "pattern" of harrasment because they weren't there long enough to form one. Also, you'll note that the attack apparently happened in the winter and they returned the following Ssummer with lumber and grapes. The latter means they could travel unimpeded down the Eastern Seaboard of America and go far enough inland to harvest wild fruit.

What the Sagas make clear is that it wasn't exactly worth the trouble.

As to the Norse being "tied to the land" this is not an accurate charactarisation. The fact that a small expedition crossing the Atlantic took its own women and livestock should tell you that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Except that India did not experience it. Sure, there have been a few wars and issues but India has had uninterrupted democracy since independence which is pretty impressive for new countries.



Germany and Italy at the time had been a few dozen states. However, they were able to consolidate and turn into fairly effective countries. Presumably, some of the same technology would have been available to any of the larger states which would allow them to take advantage of their size and take over a more solid chunk of the sub-continent.

For this argument you have to look at the Sub Continent as a whole. The Settlement didn't work, India and Pakistan broke apart and fought several wars, East and West Pakistan broke apart in a bloody Civil War, 1948 saw mass displacements of people, progroms and purges.

Not what Mountbatten and the Raj government wanted.

[rvg]

Is fuzzing the figures - it counts all UK tazes but only Federal Income Tax in the US. Bear in mind that the poorest fifth in the UK get essentially free healthcare as well, by far the largest expediture Per Capita in the US.

The income taxes vary by state. Some states have 3% income tax, some have 5%, some don't have any income tax whatsoever. Same with sales taxes: People's Republic of California charges a staggering 11% sales tax, while the neighboring Oregon doesn't have a sales tax at all. Most states have a sales tax between 4% and 7%. So, once it's all tallied up we definitely have lower tax rates when it comes to individuals.

What the Sagas make clear is that it wasn't exactly worth the trouble.

Isn't that the point of harassment? To make life so uncomfortable for the adversary that they pack up an leave. Vikings were badasses, but not even a Viking would cherish the idea of plowing the fields in full battle gear.

As to the Norse being "tied to the land" this is not an accurate charactarisation. The fact that a small expedition crossing the Atlantic took its own women and livestock should tell you that.

Actually, that fact is telling me that they were looking for a place to settle, but didn't find one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The income taxes vary by state. Some states have 3% income tax, some have 5%, some don't have any income tax whatsoever. Same with sales taxes: People's Republic of California charges a staggering 11% sales tax, while the neighboring Oregon doesn't have a sales tax at all. Most states have a sales tax between 4% and 7%. So, once it's all tallied up we definitely have lower tax rates when it comes to individuals.

I don't deny that taxes are lower in the US, but the treasury is also emptier.

My point was that the source you linked was obscuring the figures. A better comparison would be to add Federal and State income taxes together, and then compare to the 20% base rate here, adjusting for the fact that noboday pays tax on the first £8000.

Isn't that the point of harassment? To make life so uncomfortable for the adversary that they pack up an leave. Vikings were badasses, but not even a Viking would cherish the idea of plowing the fields in full battle gear.

Actually, that fact is telling me that they were looking for a place to settle, but didn't find one.

Your thesis has variously been that:

A) the Norse were massacred.

B) the Norse were repeatedly raided.

Neither of those are born up by the evidence. I'll freely admit that the Norse don't seem to have felt it worthwhile to stay, but if you contrast that with the stiff opposition the Saxons put up to Cnut's successful Norse invasion a few decades later you have to conclude it was a lack of motivation more than anything. For one thing, you had to cross the Atlantic.

Oh, and re: bringin animals, that's a necessity if you plan on wintering in somewhere, you need milk and cheese to sustain you if you weren't able to plant any crops the previous spring.

[rvg]

I don't deny that taxes are lower in the US, but the treasury is also emptier.
My point was that the source you linked was obscuring the figures. A better comparison would be to add Federal and State income taxes together, and then compare to the 20% base rate here, adjusting for the fact that noboday pays tax on the first £8000.

After all adjustments an average American still pays less than an average Englishman. That's all that matters.

Your thesis has variously been that:

A) the Norse were massacred.

B) the Norse were repeatedly raided.

Neither of those are born up by the evidence. I'll freely admit that the Norse don't seem to have felt it worthwhile to stay, but if you contrast that with the stiff opposition the Saxons put up to Cnut's successful Norse invasion a few decades later you have to conclude it was a lack of motivation more than anything. For one thing, you had to cross the Atlantic.

Oh, and re: bringin animals, that's a necessity if you plan on wintering in somewhere, you need milk and cheese to sustain you if you weren't able to plant any crops the previous spring.

Oh fine, be that way, here's your evidence:
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

I will emphasize this part:
"Inuit-Norse relations seem to have been fairly friendly at times, hostile at others. Few Inuit objects have been unearthed at the farms. Various Norse items, including bits of chain mail and a hinged bronze bar from a folding scale, have been found at Inuit camps in Greenland, mainland Canada, and on Baffin, Ellesmere, and Devon Islands. These are suggestive of commerce between the two peoples, but they may also have been seized by Inuit during raids on hunting parties in the Nordseta or plundered from farms."

From the Sagas we know that Norse would never trade away their weapons or armor. They were raided.

[gaelic cowboy]

I will emphasize this part:
"Inuit-Norse relations seem to have been fairly friendly at times, hostile at others. Few Inuit objects have been unearthed at the farms. Various Norse items, including bits of chain mail and a hinged bronze bar from a folding scale, have been found at Inuit camps in Greenland, mainland Canada, and on Baffin, Ellesmere, and Devon Islands. These are suggestive of commerce between the two peoples, but they may also have been seized by Inuit during raids on hunting parties in the Nordseta or plundered from farms."

From the Sagas we know that Norse would never trade away their weapons or armor. They were raided.

They might have also being left behind an picked up by the Inuit after the Norse left or died out or whatever happened.

[rvg]

They might have also being left behind an picked up by the Inuit after the Norse left or died out or whatever happened.

Possible, except that the Inuits would have no use for armor except for raiding, unless they were also fond of wrestling with polar bears. Furthermore, the Beothuk people of Newfoundland were far more hostile than the Inuit. A conflict in Vinland is a more likely scenario, especially considering that Vinland didn't turn into an icebox like Greenland did.

[Noncommunist]

For this argument you have to look at the Sub Continent as a whole. The Settlement didn't work, India and Pakistan broke apart and fought several wars, East and West Pakistan broke apart in a bloody Civil War, 1948 saw mass displacements of people, progroms and purges.

Not what Mountbatten and the Raj government wanted.

Sure, it wasn't the best and the muslim portions of the subcontinent didn't do so hot but the majority of people do live in a solid democracy and a few live in shakier democracies but it still seems better than a government which was extremely negligent of the populous and is from far away with different cultural values.

Also, Britain has gone to war a number of times since the independence of India.