Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[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.