Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ] |
| Subject: Why are the proposed members of the Federal Commonwealth mostly white? NT | |
Author: What about India? | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 17:21:51 10/31/04 Sun a [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: The countries proposed for federation | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:44:10 10/31/04 Sun I don't really see "white" as being a very relevant category. Who is "white" anyway? Who decides? New Zealand is officially bicultural - Maori and non-Maori, essentially - and has large populations from other Pacific nations. Canada and Australia also have their (not especially white) indigenous populations and are officially multicultural, having welcomed migrants from all over the world. The UK is home to large populations of people from South Asia and the West Indies. These are not "white countries". What they are is countries that share many fundamental institutions and values, have essentially the same core culture, although clearly with regional variations, and have never fought amongst themselves. If we start inviting countries that don't share our monarch, then why India and not Pakistan? It would be a trifle difficult to have them both, would it not? A federation that aims nuclear missiles at itself is not something I would want to be part of. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Maoris are the minority in NZ. Why not India and Pakistan and Africa then? nt | |
|
Author: anon [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:44:55 10/31/04 Sun a [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Are you serious? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:06:07 10/31/04 Sun What exactly is your point? I gather you have read our website anon, or whatever your name is? If you had, you will realise perfectly well why we have excluded India and Africa. This is about building a federation of equals, with common culture, heritage, institutions and economic systems. Under our proposal, no single country would completely dominate the Parliament. We want to give ourselves a bigger voice in the world by creating a partnership of equals, not to recreate another EU, where our voice is drowned out by a much larger contingent, who do not share our ambitions. It sounds very much like your point is another leftish attempt to find racism behind every lamppost, and hence stifle a perfectly sensible debate with banal nonsense. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: India and Pakistan have common language and culture with much of England, such as Bradford nt | |
|
Author: anon [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:39:56 11/01/04 Mon a [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:02:21 11/01/04 Mon Admittedly, that's true, but they AREN'T PART OF THE CROWN COMMONWEALTH. If they wish to sign up, then sure, I'm sure many people would be delighted to accept them back into the fold, as it were. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: They also have English as the premier language (second in the case of India) nt | |
|
Author: Hindustani [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:33:39 11/01/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Let me Clarify... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:19:05 11/01/04 Mon Population of Crown Commonwealth: Circa 130 Million Population of India and Pakistan combined: 1.2 Billion -- Crown Commonwealth GDP Per Capita Circa $25500 India Circa $75 Pakistan Circa $83 -- These statistics of course do not include education, literacy rates, economic aid, debt etc, etc, etc… Please explain how such an enlarged federation would make any sense whatsoever? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: And another thing... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:40:20 11/02/04 Tue Am I right in thinking that the Maori Council has stated explicitly that, shoudl NZ decide to become a Republic, the Maoris would form an independent Maori state loyal to the Crown, since their treaties were signed with the British government (the Crown in Parliament) and not with the often unscrupulous settlers? If so, then we could easily end up with Maori New Zealanders as part of the FC and Anglo-Saxon New Zealanders outside it. How does that square with the comments here about creating a "White's Only Club"? Frankly, if anything, this raises my concern that this is predominantly a monarchists' movement. Calvin's Case of 1608 established that common nationality was defined by a common sovereign, and I don't think that this is what the FC is about... it's supposed to be about bringing nations together where they have a common cultural patrimony. This can be true of nations which do not have the same head of state: Luxembourg and France, for example; or Germany and Austria; or the pre-twentieth century rhetoric in Britain and the USA which represented both as part of the Greater Britain...just some members lived in a Republic and others a monarchy. If our arguments against bringing in Pakistan and India et alia are to be based on the Crown, then we must be very careful. Such an attitude, taking Calvin's Case as legal precedent, could be very dangerous: should any of the Big Four become republics, they would ipso facto be ineligible for the FC, and frankly that is not an attractive prospect. Indeed, it defeats the whole object of this excercise. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Monarchy | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:00:05 11/02/04 Tue We all know that the "White's only club" accusations are completely unfounded. They are most likely levelled at us by those who would rather see Britain in the Socialist Republic of Europe - a club that will prove its "white-only" credentials more than the Federal Commonwealth ever will. Although this is not a Monarchist movement per se, I think people realise that the Monarchy is a significant part of the shared culture, values and heritage that we talk about. It is the only political entity that binds the CANZUK countries together at present. If the Monarch were to disappear in any of the CANZUK countries, who is to say that the political systems would not change beyond recognition, as the Westminster system of Government is designed around a constitutional monarch? What has created the commonality that we have identified amongst the four main countries of the FC that we do not have with other former colonies such as the USA? I would say that it is the political system, of which the Monarchy is an intrinsic part. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Quite | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:03:22 11/02/04 Tue I agree; but all I wanted to say before was that making the Crown a 'sine qua non' for the FC is probably too prescriptive. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: monarchy | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:10:05 11/02/04 Tue I tend to think that if one of our countries chooses to go republic then that is a sign that they are unlikely to see themselves as part of a global british culture. It isn't that the fact of being a republic excludes them, rather than showing that they exclude themselves. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: I will not debate with people that don't have names | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:59:18 10/31/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Race and culture | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:44:09 11/01/04 Mon Racism racism everywhere, and not a stop to think. This is not about creating a white supremacist state, but a country based on loosely connected countries which share a common history and culture. There are many non-white people who share our culture, and many white people who don't. Norwegians are racially closer to us than Frenchmen, but Frenchmen are our partners in the European Union and Norwegians are excluded from British trade, security and political arrangements. And they are both white, and we don't want to federate to either of them. On the other hand, Jamaica is cordially invited, in spite of being predominantly black. Racism? Not here, laddie! Surely the conversation about Boers somewhere else on this forum is demonstrative that the FC is based on culture not skin colour. Indeed, I would argue that Indians and Pakistanis would make better candidates for Federation than the Boers, so I hardly think that skin colour is an important criterion here. Skin colour, incidentally, aside from the moral dimension, is the most useless way ever devised to make a hierarchy of the races. Compared to me, for example, a reasonably pale hispanic might as well be Nelson Mandela. But a Scandinavian would find me very dark. The Arabs look down on the Indians as dark and hence degenerate, but, in turn, the Greeks think the Arabs dark, and the Africans think them weirdly pale. It just doesn't work, and as soon as we eradicate the bizarre tendency in human beings to think that skin colour differentiation makes sense, the better for international relations and the hope for the future of humanity. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |