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: New FCS memberships | |
Author: Jim (Canada) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 18:54:43 11/23/04 Tue I have tabulated the new members form June 2004 to the present and here it stands: UK 42 CANADA 16 AUSTRALIA 4 USA 5 SWEDISH 1 MALTESE 1 INDIAN 1 BAHAMAS 1 IRELAND 1 [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: wow | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:48:47 11/23/04 Tue Wow we have way more members than I thought and from places I didnt realise, including a Swede, wow. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Swedish? Really? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:01:24 11/23/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: U.S? | |
|
Author: Kevin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:59:53 11/24/04 Wed who the hell else in here is from the U.S.?? I thought I was the only one [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: The other Americans registered, but do not post messages here. I have their details | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:53:33 11/24/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Me for one | |
|
Author: Steph (US) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 04:18:32 11/24/04 Wed I just joined a few days ago. I am a long time supporter of an idea like this. It is great the web lets us get together. Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Welcome, Steph | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:23:20 11/24/04 Wed Would you care to tell us how an idea like this one came to be important to you? I'm intrigued. I sign myself "Ian (Australia)" because that's my background and the position that I inevitably think from, but I actually live in Brazil, and it was the experience of life in a Latin country that convinced me that Australia is a British one and should work more closely with the countries it is closest to by afiliation, not by geography. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Comments left by new applicants for membership | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:21:23 11/24/04 Wed Here are the comments left with the applications for membership so far this year: Flag idea: A sphere made up of the flags of the english speeking nations supper imposed on the cross of St. George A good National Anthem is needed, not dull, but something upbeat like Land of Hope and Glory My own idea, before learning of the FCS was what I call the Commonwealth Confederation (CC), a somewhat looser voluntary intra-national democratic union. The aim is to maintain prime power and democracy at the nation-state whilst pro-actively developing shared cooperative policies and standards. Within the CC, the Realms would effectively form an enlarged devolved United Kingdom, but the confederate mechanism means that republics and non-Windsorian monarchies (Malaysia, Brunei etc) can interface politically, without sacrificing their chosen fount of sovereignty. Membership would be dependent on signing up to a Commonwealth Convention that would outline appropriate behaviour for members towards each other and their populi. The confederate system would aim to be rather Swiss, so that the intra-national institutions are slim and strictly limited in power. For example, the Commonwealth Convention would have a court to ensure that the CC's citizens' rights were protected accordingly, but it would not operate outside this jurisdiction. Whatever the final aim, I would heartily agree that the place to start is with the Realms. A dual Brit/New Zealand friend of mine has a desire to become PM of both states and join them into the UK of GB, NI and NZ, which I think is a nice way to start! Inconceivable as some might think it now, I believe that if it was possible to sell the EU to the British, it must be possible to sell Crown Union to the other realms. My belief is that we simply are not trying hard enough to do so. Good luck with your efforts! I think is this was in the relms of possibility, Ireland(a former colony) as an english speaking country and GB's neighbour would be a willing ally or possible member Reading through the website I was quite supportive of the FCS until I read that you would support a republican style head of state over a Monarch. The Monarchy is the tie that binds the "CANZUK" nations, without it there would be no cultural foundation on which to build, or re-build a federated commonwealth. I'd support you, but not if it meant supporting the removal of the Monarch in favour of Republicanism. Is your programme officially supported by any political party in the United Kingdom, or Canada, or Australia or New Zealand? Canada and Uk and Australia, New Zealend, and Turks and Caicos should ban together and take over the Americans Dear Federal Commonwealth Society, I'm writing to congratulate you on an excellent site, which I only just stumbled across this evening, when I read a comment a supporter of yours left in the guestbook of a website I administer (the Irish Unionist Alliance) I've been thinking along these lines for years and years, literally since the age of 15 or so, and I know many others in Ireland, north and south, have been too. It's great to read your site, especially the bits where you start to actually flesh out how the federation might come to fit together, and the political forms it might take. The organisation I'm involved with in Ireland, the Irish Unionist Alliance, is basically a small group of people aiming at bringing the Irish Republic back into the Commonwealth, and, one day, into a federal relationship again with the UK. Our site is at http://www.irishunionism.org - I mention this because as you can see in our policy section we do state support for the idea that the UK & Ireland should re-orient away from the EU and towards the Commonwealth, and the NorAtlantic FTA concept. Our multimedia section has the anthems of many Commonwealth members, and the general tone of the site is very pro-CW. At the age of 15 I remember writing a pamphlet, entitled "Eire Nua (New Ireland)" which advocated almost precisely the sort of thing you're pushing for - a Federal Commonwealth. I think we're in the latter part of the age of geographic regionalism right now, the next era is that of the global village. In a global village, where travel and transport costs are greatly decreased, and any Londonder can read the Sydney Morning Herald, and any Aucklander can check out the Cape Town Mail Guardian in an instant - in this coming era the idea of Federal Commonwealth will seem to make more and more sense. Your comment about the tides of history being difficult to judge is particularly apt. "Federal Commonwealth" strikes me as one of those ideas that grow and grow, quietly at first, in the background and on the internet, before bursting out at the appropriate moment to grab the imagination of the people at large. Canadian Confederation and Australian Federation were similar ideas, slow to catch on at first, and then taking fire! Now, not to detract from my general sense of great enthusiasm at having discovered your organisation, I do have a few points of constructive queries / criticism which I'd like you to consider: (i) The "rich white countries only" criticism is your greatest weakness - this criticism is definitely going to be leveled at you, regardless of the fact that each of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK are now very multi-racial, multi-cultural societies. Why not invite South Africa, and perhaps later other African countries, in, provided they meet strict democratic criteria for membership? The first thing Nelson Mandela did as President was to rejoin the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has meaning in South, Central & Eastern Africa in a way which it has in few other regions of the world - it joins people together, no matter how heinous the local despot may be, there's always the BBC World Service for accurate news, and English has become a lingua franca for the entire region, in much the same way as the speaking of Swahili brings together diverse East African societies. When I grew up I used to read my dad's old geography books, written in the mid-1950s, they were full of the diversity and working-togetherness of the Commonwealth and all it's peoples. People were full of dreams for these countries before independence. The death and destruction and dictatorship of the past 40 years leads us to forget how optimistic we once were for their future. A Federal Commonwealth that would not just be a talking-shop, but a proper federation with a common armed forces - on the lines it used to be envisaged that the old Empire would evolve - would be able to ensure that democracy in Africa was protected, and development encouraged. Countries like South Africa, and later Kenya, Tanzania, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe (post-Mugabe), Zambia, Nyasaland/Malawi - and in west Africa, the Gold Coast/Ghana and Sierra Leone (which is practically a dependency anyways right now) could all be considered. The process the EU has used to integrate backward Eastern European countries could be adopted - i.e. new candidates for the federation would have to satisfy definite criteria, particularly on democracy and human rights issues. They would also have to be committed to the whole concept of Federation, as something much more than the toothless talking-shop model of the present-day commonwealth. ii) I think your basic economic model can withstand the addition of poorer countries with historic links to the Commonwealth. African GDP per capita is much lower, for sure, but if we're talking about a true federation here, the rich countries can help the poor for a period - everyone benefits in the end from this. Something akin to the way the EU has raised up countries like Ireland, Portugal and Greece is needed - the EU accomplished this in a relatively short period too. Sustained structural aid on these lines is probably the only thing that can save many African economies, and it would serve to gel them into the new federation. Of course, there's no need to ensure that the average Tanzanian earns the same as the average Canadian - but if the Federation can ensure a safe, democratic environment of self-government in these countries, along with a flow of structural aid and development funding, then South/Central Africa would prove to be an increasingly prosperous part of the Federal Commonwealth, and a model of racial co-operation. What about Cape Town as Federal Capital? ;-) iii) Basically, I think the whole idea of Federal Commonwealth is best sold as a reflection of the multicultural societies that exist in it's constituent members. I mean, the vast majority of immigrants to each of the CANZUK countries, come from other Commonwealth members. They are naturally going to be inclined to support an idea that brings their past and present countries together. This is why I think including a fair mix of rich and poor, black and white countries is important. I doubt many African countries would support the idea at first incidentally, I feel they would be suspicious of a "return to colonialism". The model may need to be up and running between CANZUK for a few years before South Africa and her regional satellites would be tempted in. (Sierra Leone is a de facto UK dependency right now, and could be factored in from the start as a special exception). *** But, regardless of whether they want to join at first, the mere fact of inviting them in, and encompassing a racially diverse group of countries in your proposal would totally immunize you against the Rich White Country criticism, which I see as the biggest weakness in your proposal. It would turn the whole perception of your idea inside-out. *** Most citizens of the Canzuk countries, white or black, are pretty liberal folk these days, and aren't going to want anything that smacks of Old Empire. By encompassing Africa, you are totally identifying yourselves with the future and not the past - it would give the whole idea enormous sex appeal and you would find support for it far outside the dwindling constituency of empire nostalgics. You'd be supported both by the Colonel Blimp's, and by the guys with the fading "Free Mandela" posters on the bedroom wall! You'd also be acting in the highest traditions of the old Empire - it used to be envisaged that the Empire would evolve into a vast multi-racial federation of peoples linked together. Instead Africans got a toothless 'talking shop commonwealth', a worthless on-paper independence, and one dictator after another. iv) The only other real point where I differ from you is that you seem to be suggesting a fairly unitary model of government for the federation. I've spent the last year living out here in Canada and, while Canadians are very attached to Commonwealth and to the British link - especially as a counterbalance to the Colossus to our South! - they're also very proud of the journey Canada has taken under self-government and Confederation. To my mind, Canadians would be up for a strong federation, with many strong unitary elements, they would also be very opposed to surrendering their self-government. Until we really do have a global village, we've got to accept that the separate interests of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and so on are not always going to coincide. We need a federal governmental mechanism that ensures that when our interests do coincide, we can take that ball and run with it. Everyone would benefit from Canzuk free trade for example. Where our interests don't coincide, our federal governmental mechanism has got to have the flexibility to let it's members pursue their own interests. As the tide of history sweeps us towards a global village, our interests will increasingly coincide more and more, hence federation would deepen over time. But, for now at least, I would strike a balance which gave a greater emphasis to the self-government and self-determination of the constituent parts of federation, and lesser emphasis on the powers of a central Federal Parliament. Though a central Federal Parliament should definitely be created, as it would bind the people together, I would suggest sovereignty remain, at least for now, with the national parliaments in Ottawa, London, Cape Town, Canberra etc. - these are the historic parliaments which have the most legitimacy in the eyes of citizens. We want to avoid the EU mistake of pushing everyone too fast too soon into a giant federal structure that looks great on paper, but grows unloved and bureaucratic in practise. Anyways, by the way I've typed so much, I guess you can tell I'm interested and would like to sign up for any news or information you have, and to get involved as best I can. Looking forward to hearing from you, David Christopher ( B.A (Hons., Dubl.) - History & Politics, 1999, Trinity College Dublin) Create viceregal posts for members of the Royal family. Just as Edward I. made the heir to the English throne Prince of Wales to ensure the connection between Wales and England, why not make the second in line Prince of New South Wales or British Columbia to secure that link? I think that young William would like that... Perhaps we could encourage the US to join and shove the capital in Philadelphia. It was, after all, the lessons learned by Britain from Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia which led Lord Durham to propose the 'federal solution' in Canada and, later, in Australia, an extension of which you are proposing for the Realms as a whole. The US, of course, would not be interested! Secondly, an updated and more 'P.C.' version of the old British Empire flag might be more powerful than a new ensign. See: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb-colon.html#emp. You'd probably have to get rid of the Star of India, though... I think this idea sounds great. I am British and I hate the idea of being called European. I would sooner this country join with the countries that we have had ties with for centuries and we have always been friends. It's an interesting idea, and I've toyed with it while thinking of Canada's future in a world where geopolitical power is split between the US and the EU. It has *some* potential; I think the greatest hurdle would be convincing people that you're not here to take the constitution back to London, so to speak. Also: in regards to this survey, I think I can safely say that should Quebec separate from Canada, the flag would certainly not undergo any changes. The Red Ensign (and any representation of the Union Jack on a federal Canadian flag) is undoubtedly a relic of the past at this point in time, even in English Canada. In my opinion, the goal should not be to remove the existing federal/national governments of Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Northern Ireland but to preserve them and enhance their power by acting collectively on foreign policy and defence. I do not support a new federal structure with an overseas parliament and executive body with power over a whole host of issues. This is not a realistic proposition even though I support the larger idea of a new international geopolitical entity. I'd love to see further variations on the Lion Flag. Federate or Perish! I find the idea very good, I would surely vote(if I had the age) for such a referendum, but I haven’t heard much of this idea of an union of the Commonwealth. And times are going pretty well in Canada so the thought might not be very good right now, I mean, yes, we are loyal to Britain, but we are dependent of the U.S. economically and I don’t know if we would accept changing to go and start exchanging goods with Britain or Austrailia. They are much further away. Anyways you guys are doing a good job, except that I would like to point out that your front page, the one with FCS in black, well, its not too "inviting", try to make it look better. Anyways, it's just a suggestion. Long live the American Empire. Our time is now. I think this website is fantastic guys! This is exactly what CANZUK needs. The British people mainly detest the idea of being ruled by Brussles and the idea of a new unbiased Federation that favoured no particular country. What now needs to be done is to broaden membership and support for an idea within the nations relevent. If popular support can be harvested on this issue, National goverments will take note. The idea of a Federation sits well with me and I would feel far more comfortable with CANZUK than any Union with arrogant Frenchmen and other European nations. I wholly support this movement and look forward to joining and contributing in the future. From what I have seen much talking has been done on this matter, what we now need is action and publicity! Incidentaly the important selling point to all nations involved is that while this Federation would have it's roots in the British Empire and Commonwealth this movement should not be a movement for a neo British Empire. I like the ideas presented in principle, however I believe more work is essential before moving forward too quickly. I am concerned about maintaining the identities of the "Regions" and feel torn about the potential breakdown of Nation States as we currently know them. On the other hand for Canada to continue to exist in the manner that I desire, a Commonwealth concept is essential to avoid being sucked further into the American vortex. The development of a flag or flags deserves careful consideration to balance the needs of individualism and collectivism while speaking to a common heritage. I am looking forward to discussing options and ideas. I think a common curency should be adopted. As well as a common uniform and common weapons for military personel. Think about it. Kingdom would not suffice for such a large power. Japan is an Empire, and a fully democratic and prosperous one at that. The FC would actually be around the same size in population. Why not convert the monarch's title from King/Queen to Emperor/Empress? And do away with all other titles except a few Princes and Princesses. While I'm at it, let the Irish in. They're just turning Euroskeptic now, and it's the perfect time. They're actually far more British than the Canadians. While I tend to agree with the argument of a federal government, I don't see how it would fit in with a supreme executive and constiutional monarchy. Federalism by definition, is a form of government with clear boundaries between national and regional government. If there was a supreme parliament, federalism in this sense wouldn't be able to exist. We would have to create some sort of neo-federalism. While I am in total support of Commonwealth countries working together, I am concerned with the very pro-British (for lack of a better term, no offence intented) attitude put forward by your organization. I am a very proud Nova Scotian first and foremost, but a proud Canadian secondly. I have no connection to Mother England, my family has lived here for over 16 generations. I wish Britions no ill-will, but I am not British. As such, I would not support any Federation that just dressed-up the old Empire in new clothes. I would however support a union of sovereign nations, whom have culture, history and friendship to unite them. As such, with all due respect to HRH, any federation should have a president, not a King, nor should it have London as it's capital. I've suggested Liverpool. (And of course, I mean Liverpool, NS - population 3000, home of Hank Snow. Okay, maybe not.) A few more comments: - No one will ever touch my Maple Leaf. I would die for that flag, and I would not be alone. - My mother is an Acadian, and while I don't consider myself Acadian, I do wait for the apology that I know will never come. Oddly enough though, she is a Monarchist, and dragged us out when I was a child to see the Prince and Princess of Wales during their tour of NS. - As a Canuck married to an Aussie, I have long wanted these two nations to develop closer ties. Hopefully this will help keep loyal Ulster in the UK, and maintain our links. Never Surrender! God Save the Queen! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: thoughts | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:47:45 11/24/04 Wed Someone mentioned exchanging the titel of Queen for Empress. I had thought about that before but only because I have a fondess for the title, it would not be practicle to try and change the title I dont think. Though perhaps having the Queen (or almost certainly King by that far off time) crowned Empress of the Commonwealth would be a grande and final way of showing unity when it is finally achieved. Someone else mentioened he was put off by the pro-Britishness of the site. I fail to see anything particularly pro-British, I suspect that guy had decided he woudl say that before he had even had a proper look. I mena common the best section the site is FCS Canada. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Thanks for that kind remark about the FCS Canada site, Owain. | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:13:55 11/24/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Lots of encouraging comments there - I hope these people are spreading the idea around | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:47:56 11/25/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Any yobbo can become "Emperor". A King is special. | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:43:16 11/25/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Royal Titles | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:24:16 11/25/04 Thu I don't know about that. The Emperor of Japan is hardly a yobbo - he has a direct line of descent from all the Japanese emperors for almost 2,000 years, which is more than can be said even for our ancient monarchy. Also, I don't think that the Royal Titles Act (1877) made Victoria a yobbo. Of course, Gladstone thought that it did, but then he was always saying things like that, and even suggested 20 years later that she should abdicate on the grounds that she was very old and hence a bit past it: pretty cheeky since she outlived him. No wonder she prefered Disraeli. The trouble is that a lot of lunatic usurpers have called themselves "emperor" - Napoleon, the Kaiser, Idi Amin (didn't he call himself Emperor of Scotland?) - and this has demeaned the title. But there are two problems with this. Firstly, as above, there are examples of perfectly civilised emperors. Secondly, there have been plenty of nutcases who have styled themselves 'king' - Leopold of the Belgians; Tharrawaddi, Baggidaw, and Theebaw of Burma; even some of our own kings, from William the Conqueror to Stephen to Edward I - in fact, most of the Plantagenets were a bit hopeless. The use of the word 'Emperor/Empress' needn't be an abrogation of British principles, not need it imply despotism and illegitimacy. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: King Leopold? | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:26:30 11/25/04 Thu Ed, why was Leopold of the Belgians a loony? We are thinking of the same Leopold right? The imperialist ahead of his times who took the congo and was a key figure in the scramble for africa? I have always admired the man, a good King and a very succesful man in an excepted line of work at the time (imperialism). [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Leopold & imperialism | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:28:52 11/25/04 Thu Initially the Congo was ruled directly as his own personal posession, rather than as a posession of the Belgian state. This gave him an enormous source of revenue. The trouble was that he wished to maximise this revenue and told his European overseers on the plantations to do anything they could to maximise profits. The result was that starving underpaid workers had their hands chopped off or their bodies mutilated in the most ghastly way if they were caught stealing a tiny quantity of rubber hoping to sell it to feed their families. Also there were random reprisals against all of the workers for the slight misdeeds of the minority. All of this horror took place on the whim of some ignorant plantation overseer without any form of trial. While the Congo was under direct rule from the crown there was no benefit brought to the natives at all and the crown is responsable for the lack of law and order of this time. In the Congo the Belgians were savgaes right up until they left. They killed more innocent people than the NAZIs did throughout their rule. I deliberately did not use the phrase Nazi-like reprisals above as it would be more accurate to describe NAZI deeds as Belgian-like. Sadly the Congo has learnt a lot from its period ruled by the Belgians. Since 1998, the still-ongoing war in the Congo has resulted in three million deaths, 6 or 7 times the total number of British Commonwealth and Empire deaths of the second world war ( estimated around 450000). The population of the Congo is now about 50,000000 - the war has caused the death of about 6% of the current total. Owain, "Imperialism" is what the British (and to an extent, the French and the Americans) were doing at the time. In the territories occupied/colonised by Britain the rule of law was paramount over all things. Years before the Belgians moved into the Congo the British had concluded the treaty of Waitangi with the natives in New Zealand. The document essentially was an offer of British protection of the rights of the Maori and is incredably enlightened for the time. The natives became British subjects with the benefits of the protection of British law over the white British settlers who wished to take their land off them. The date of the signing is a national holiday in New Zealand, understandably so. General Smuts, in my opinion one of the greatest statesmen in the history of the Empire actually fought against the British during the Boer war but afterwards concluded that wherever the British had established themselves good things had come of it and threw himself in with the new South Africa. Subsequently he fought the Germans out of East Africa with troops from across the British Empire. The French settlers along the coast of Algeria reclaimed land close to the sea from marsh-land, meaning that under Islamic law the land was actually theirs. They did not just throw the peasants off their land crudly, there were elements of diplomacy involved. Looking at the legacy of Empires, former British territories such as Botswana, South Africa on the African continent and India and Malasia are all stable democracies. This is due to leaders having respect for the things they learnt from Britain and a lot of hard work on their part. Yes on the other side of the coin there are Zimbabwe and Burma, though due to the rulers of these nations since Britain left them with the guidebook. There are no French models left from their empire. However, they do actually have a very large number of troops in Africa at any time keeping the peace, the Banque de France controls the currency of 14 sub-saharan African countries (wierdly meaning that now the Banque de France has more control over a foreign currency than it has over that of France) and French investors hold large amounts of investments there. In short, the French know that their former territories are hell-holes but at least they get involved, more often for the better than not. (I for one cannot see Britain should be unwilling to depose Mugabe and get those National Health Service glasses back to give to somebody who does not have 15 billion swiss francs sitting in Geneva). Just because somebody rules over a territory does not make them an imperialist. Imperialism as a concept is actually a noble one in many ways - set up a benign dictatorship until things in a territory get "better" and the Natives know how to behave. The actions of the Belgians, Spanish and Germans in their "Empires" were not Imperialist ones, they were appalling criminal ones for the most part. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I disagree | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:58:21 11/25/04 Thu I know about the terrible way the Belgians (and the Germans, though I have read nothing on the Spanish African Empire, though if the Americans thought they were oppressed they should have looked to the South) treated there African subjects. My admiration is for Leopold, not the Empire he created. Indeed atrocities commited by the people of the low countries pop up quite frequently throughout history. I have wondered if perhaps this is in any related to there rather bloody brake from Spain, I dont know enough about that to say so though. I disagree with your definition of Imperialism. Your right to say that someone who rules over a teritory is not neccesarly an imperialist. An imperialist is someone who actively seeks to acquire more territory. Cecil Rhodes was an Imperialist. He was so because he wished to make lots of money, not because he wanted to bring the natives into the 19th century. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I fail to understand how you can feel any kind of admiration for Leopold | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:35:56 11/25/04 Thu He is right up there with the Mugabes, the Stalins and the Pinochets in the far-from-admirable stakes. I admire people who set out to do something positive and who respect the rights and freedoms of others as they do their own. Leopold manifestly did neither. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: sorry about the enormous number of typing errors in the above! | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:10:39 11/26/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: My my, that says a lot... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:40:09 11/25/04 Thu I am sorry if my analysis was too advanced for you to understand. Leopold allowed the most barbaric louts to rule over primitive people with absolute power to inflict any punishment they chose upon anybody - even if innocent. My point is that there was no exportation of ideas or rule of law. It was not imperialist. The term "imperialism" came into being around the time of the Scramble for Africa. Before that the conquest of another country was the natural result of wars. By the late 19th century many Europeans (including the USA which is a European power) through their interactions with other races & cultures began to see their relatively advanced systems of government and way of life were superior to the savage, non-europeanised peoples. It therefore became for many people a moral quest to go out and give civilization to people. Of course, trade concessions/advantages were there two. Imperialism is a blend of the two. The following quotation is from a speech by Lord Curzon after he had returned as Viceroy of India and summarises well the imperialist feelings of the age. "Wherever the Empire has extended its borders ... there misery and oppression, anarchy and destitution, superstition and bigotry, have tended to disappear, and have been replaced by peace, justice, prosperity, humanity, and freedom of thought, speech, and action...... But there also has sprung, what I believe to be unique in the history of Empires, a passion of loyalty and enthusiasm which makes the heart of the remotest British citizen thrill at the thought of the destiny which he shares, and causes him to revere a particular piece of coloured bunting as the symbol of all that is noblest in his own nature and of best import for the good of the world" Imperialism was a belief that the world deserved to get British values. The example that you give, Cecil Rhodes, is in fact one that backs up my argument entirely. He saw British Influence as a civilizing force for good. He decided to finance the railway after he had made himself the controller of the world diamond market. Yes, he hoped to make a profit, but without the territory open to the British it was harder to do buisiness. Cecil Rhodes initially paid his workers in advance to show them that he trusted them. He did not have his overseers chop off the legs and gouge out the eyes of a worker suspected of swallowing a diamond. That is the point. Does anybody else disagree? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Bravo | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:20:34 11/26/04 Fri No, I don't disagree. In fact, I couldn't agree more. Curzon was an absolute dude, and one of the most enlightened men ever to rule with no democratic mandate. He was practically forced out of India by the British community there because he refused to allow a regiment to hush-up the murder of an Indian servant; he encouraged Indians to keep their national dress and customs and not just ape the British; he spent millions on restoring the Taj Mahal and other irreplaceable bits of Indian heritage which were about to be lost forever; he provided funds to irrigate the deserts of the North West; and he resigned when Kitchener tried to turn India into a military dictatorship. As for Rhodes - a man demonised by African successor governments and in particular by Mugabe - he was the first person ever, anywhere, black or white, to campaign, as PM of Cape Colony, to give black people the vote. He opened up new territory to agriculture and exploration. As the first train to roll into Salisbury (now Harare) said on the front, "Rhodes, Railways, and Imperial Expansion"! I don't know if you've visited his grave up in the rocky Matopo Hills, overlooking the country which he created and which was named after him - awaiting, one feels, not the Last Trump but the next regime - but that says it all. Such men as these are unparalleled in other empires. These men were imperialists, Leopold was a thief, a slaver and a despot. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Leopold was a brilliant (if distasteful) man | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:44:23 11/26/04 Fri "I am sorry if my analysis was too advanced for you to understand." I understood your analysis Paddy, I merely disagreed with it. Why cant we debate without patronisation? Why do you feel I have to take everything you say for granted? My only knowledge of this subject comes from Thomas Pakenham's "Scramble for Africa", a book I thoroughly enjoyed. I couldnt help admire Leopold after reading that book, he beat everyone. By the time he did have the congo taken from him he made loads of money. In short I admire his succsess and skills and a polatician. Did the Germna Imperialists beleive the world deserved British values? Did they even belive it deserved German values? These were a bunch or pretty nasty empire builders. They are reffered to as imperialists in the book "Scramble for Africa". Ed, if Leopold was a thief, then so were we, but I suppose at least we werent despots or slavers (on the whole). You make it sound like Britain was the only imperialist nations. Yet so often I hear about "European" imperialism in the 19th century. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Owain, I am sorry if I have offended you and will attempt not to patronise you again... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:11:08 11/26/04 Fri "Did the Germna Imperialists beleive the world deserved British values?" I was speaking specifically about British Imperialists. No, the Germans believed that the natives in their territories would best be served by giving them German-style authority. They thought that the British were decadent. The difference is that the British had evidence that everywhere they had established control things had got better for the average man compared with what had gone before. The Germans had no such experience and were only there to impose their values on their Empire as an attempt to counter the British Empire. They only knew that they had better weapons than the savages, and principle had nothing to do with it. The same goes for the Belgians. The British did make a lot of money out of the slave trade in its day, but Britain outlawed slavery throughout the British Empire in 1833 and sent the Navy to intercept any slavers attempting to engage in the trade. By 1833 the idea that all within the Empire had the protection of law was established. The USA did not abolish it until a generation later after the civil war. The Spanish outlawed it even later (due to foreign pressure) around 1880 but never made any serious efforts to stamp it out in the 19th century. Leopold had supreme authority over the Congo. He was not the first European ruler to rule over a non-European race and there were plenty of examples such as the British in India and North America for him to observe and subsequently devise a just, prosperous system from the start. This is what he manifestly failed to do. In the Dark Ages in Europe there was a good reason for people not to have advanced levels of civilisation. The old order had crumbled and knowledge was lost. Nowadays, for somebody in Britain to say that we would actually be better off under a NAZI-model dictatorship against all of the historical evidence to the contrary would really have to be considered loony or deeply stupid or very wicked. Leopold ignored some already long-established basic rules of humanity in order to maximise financial profits. To quote Walter Sobchak from "The Big Lebowski": "Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos" He authorised the atrocities in the Congo only to make money, not for any reason of spreading "European" civilisation. All this in an age where the British authorities were giving the natives protection under law AGAINST colonial settlers. The New Zealand Maories are loyal to the Crown because of these assurances given more than one hundred and forty years ago. Leopold knew what was going on in the Congo and for this he cannot be considered to be a good King, and he has to be considered a bad person - especially within the context of the age. Yes, he got into the Congo and established a Belgian presence there thus preventing a more civilised power fron establishing its rule over the Congo - but in what way was that a good thing? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I never said he was a nice kinda guy | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:28:00 11/26/04 Fri Now I think your missunderstanding what I am trying to say. I know Britain was in the words of a politician whose name I cannot remember "the greatest empire of good the world had ever known". I am only questioning the meaning of the word Imperialism and defending my admiration for Leopold. Timur was a very nasty chap. He liked to build mountains of heads for one thing. But he never lost a battle in his life and for that I admire him. Thats not to say I am applauding mountain building with heads. My History teacher said "Hitler was a political genious" to say so does not mean my teacher is a nazi. Napoleon is admired for his military skill by many people, these people dont neccesarily like the idea pof europe being united under a an upstart despot. And with Leopold I merely admire his political skill, its not like I wish to use him as a role model for how I shall live my life. I am aware of what he did in the congo (Thomas Pakenhams book, monstous in size, is very detailed) and I am also aware of the British Empires good deeds, including the abolition of slavery (something made even more noble when you consider how much money we were making out of it and how much we would have made when Empire was even larger later in the century). "Yes, he got into the Congo and established a Belgian presence there thus preventing a more civilised power fron establishing its rule over the Congo - but in what way was that a good thing?" Didnt say it was a good thing, nothing he did was good as such. But I dont admire him as a philanthropist (as people at first believed him to be), but as a very clever man. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Owain: | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:40:33 11/26/04 Fri Go to Muscat. There is a plaque in the grounds of the old British residency where the flagpole used to be. It describes how run-away slaves from all over the Middle East, East Africa and beyond would risk everything to get to Muscat, through the town, to the British residency, and throw their arms around the flag-pole, knowing that they would be brought before the Governor and set free, and that those who captured and sold them would be punished, if possible, in whatsoever country they lived. If you can tell me that any other Empire in history has been worthy of such a plaque, then I will accept your point. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: and the typing errors in the above too! | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:14:48 11/26/04 Fri Sorry, I will be more careful in future. When I read spelling mistakes I feel it lowers the quality of the debate. :0) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: What what what? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:22:18 11/25/04 Thu Leopold of the Belgians supported and encouraged what was going on in the Congo. I'm not entirely sure how anyone can admire him, unless one imagines that African people are human forms of plastic cutlery: use them, and then throw them away when they break. No person is anything of the kind, and a failure to recognise this, such as that of Leopold III, is the sign of rather evil derangment. There is a distinction between mere empire-building and imperialism. The latter is not merely the acquisition of territory, but the expansion of its usefulness through improvements. It all goes back to Locke and that passage in his Second Treatise on Government where he contrasts Spanish imperialism in America with British imperialism. The Spaniards, he argues, do not really 'own' their empire, since their claim is based on landing on it, putting a flag on it, digging something out of it and then buggering off. The British, on the other hand, had real claim to property over their acquired territories because they took them out of the state in which they found them and, through their labour, improved them. In short, empire-building is just an activity; imperialism is a political philosophy. It may now be discredited, but it had real thought and real goals, not just some phallic imperative to own more stuff. In this context, Paddy is right to say that very few nations which had empires were actually imperialist. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Spanish/British | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:47:25 11/26/04 Fri "The Spaniards, he argues, do not really 'own' their empire, since their claim is based on landing on it, putting a flag on it, digging something out of it and then buggering off. The British, on the other hand, had real claim to property over their acquired territories because they took them out of the state in which they found them and, through their labour, improved them." I believe this merely shows the superiority of British Imperialism. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Okay, we can agree to differ: because to me it shows that the Spaniards weren't imperialists but conquerors! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:07:39 11/26/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: conflicting definitions | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:33:02 11/26/04 Fri "the practice by which powerful nations or peoples seek to extend and maintain control or influence over weaker nations or peoples" "national policy of conquest of other regions or peoples for the purpose of extending political and economic control and of exploiting the resources of other regions or people" "any instance of aggressive extension of authority" "Control of other countries by a dominant nation " These are just some of the many definitions I found on google of the word Imperialism that support my view. On the other hand I found one that supports your ideas: "The drive toward the creation and expansion of a colonial empire and, once established, its perpetuation. (de Blij & Muller, 1996) Infrastructure. The foundations of a society: urban centers, transport networks, communications, energy, distribution systems, farms, factories, mines and such facilities as schools, hospitals, postal services, and police and armed forces." [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hm. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:42:20 11/26/04 Fri I won't be convinced. Imperialism was an ethos, not a set of actions. I don't care if even the OED contradicts me: in this context, I know better! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: too specific | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:30:08 11/26/04 Fri I think your looking for something to specific in the meaning of imperialism. When words are too specific we have to invent new words. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: All right... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:50:44 11/25/04 Thu Perhaps you have a point. The limitations are: In Japan the Mikado ("exalted gate") has never been in a position of real power. He has always been more of a figurehead than the actual ruler. To fit this latin title into the intricately complex Japanese system is not quite possible, although now the title has stuck and Japan is now described as an Empire. Victoria only emphasises my point in that she had nothing to do with the former Empires in India and was declared Empress of India without any continuity. My point is that a monarch has about him a certain chivalric, Tolkien-style nobility about him (not always in practice, I'll admit!) while an Emperor has no such TITLE to the post and may well be an upstart. Notable exceptions to prove the rule are the self-declared King Zog of Albania (very romantic figure!) and the late Hapsburg Austro-Hungarian Emperors. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Zogs and Burgs | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:08:50 11/25/04 Thu Ah, but His Majesty King Zog of the Albanians - at least, the previous one who was ousted by the Commies and not the young fat one - is one of the few monarchs to have won a place in the Guiness Book of Records, holding the title for 'most cigarettes smoked daily'. Weighing in at an average of just under two hundred, he was a truly world-class smoker, and died in his 90s. Of course, the very title "emperor" yields some etymological problems. It was first used by the Roman emperors... but only when they were commanding armies ('imperare - to command', 'imperator - one who commands', of course), and the rest of the time they used 'Caesar'. This got into various languages, including German (Kaiser), Russian (Csar) and early-Byzantine Greek (Kaisar). Other people whom we call emperors did not call themselves anything of the kind - the Japanese, as you point out, were Mikados; the Mughal Emperors were called 'Shehen-shaah' (great king); and so on. I suppose that its first use as primary title for a monarch was Napoleon's 'empreur', which he chose deliberately because he was a specifically military dictator in the mein of Trajan; and as such I think that the point in your first post was dead right. Nevertheless, I think that Victoria made a splendid empress, and the two Edwards and two Georges after her made smashing Emperors. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I agree that Queen Vic the two Teds and Georges V &IV were indeed good Eperors of India. | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:20:58 11/26/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I really cannot spell today... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:22:06 11/26/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Wasn't Elizabeth an Empress though, Paddy? Empress of India | |
|
Author: David Hicks [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:02:40 11/26/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Eh? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:59:29 11/26/04 Fri HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was the last Empress of India. Her 'styles and titles' at her funeral, which I was privileged to attend, were as follows: "Thus it hath pleased Almighty God to take out of this transitory life unto His Divine Mercy the late Most High, Most Mighty and Most Excellent Princess Elizabeth, Queen Dowager and Queen Mother, Lady of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Lady of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Lady of the Imperial Order of the Crown of India, Grand Master and Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order upon whom had been conferred the Royal Victorian Chain, Dame Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Dame Grand Cross of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John, Relict of His Majesty King George the Sixth and Mother of Her Most Excellent Majesty Elizabeth The Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Sovereign of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, whom may God preserve and bless with long life, health and honour and all worldly happiness." Golly, what a mouthful... The best I can do for 'styles and titles' is "esquire"! In pace requiescat Regina Imperatrix. If you mean our Elizabeth II, D.G. R., F.D., then no, since she ascended the throne in 1952, five years after Indian independence. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Two years after the passing of the Indian republic would be more accurate | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:23:15 11/28/04 Sun Apart from that Ed is quite right [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes, that's true, but... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:53:38 11/28/04 Sun 1947 abolished the emperorship. 1949 (or was it fifty?) saw the coming of the Republic (Bharat Ganarajya). So, even if our Liz had come to the throne in 1948, she would have been Queen but NOT empress. Isn't that right? Or am I getting confused! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Don't know but the coinage continued to use the form 'Ind Imp' until 1950. | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:55:09 11/29/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Actually, you are right, Ed, the Indian Empire was transformed into a constitutional monarchy in '47 and then India was declared a republic in '50 | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:25:14 11/29/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Although... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:34:56 11/29/04 Mon My point was more about her missing out on being Head of state of India by two years rather than five... Either way, Elisabeth was never the Empress or Queen of "India", although she was the head of state of other territories of the former Indian Empire - Pakistan until 1956 and Ceylon until 1972. In that respect she was an "Indian" ruler for a while. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Ian here is how I got interested | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 07:18:37 11/26/04 Fri Hello Ian and other fellow FCS members. To respond to Ian’s question, the idea of a union of English speaking nations is one I have though on for some time. It is the result of several factors. I am a huge fan of Sir Winston L. S. Churchill. His History of the English Speaking People has prominent place on my book shelf and I am trying to write a follow on history of the English speaking peoples during the 20th century. This of course predisposed me towards the idea of Union. Furthermore, we all share common institutions of government which I think highly of, and believe that it is important to preserve. Working together we can better spread and preserve, trial by jury, the common law, and other shared institutions. Growing up when I did, in the 80s I couldn’t help but notice that our closest friends and most reliable allies were the other English speaking nations. It only seemed reasonable to think about closer political ties. Fourthly it has become increasingly evident to me that a strong force for world stability is needed. The U.N. has failed, to my mind predictably. The U.S. can’t do the whole job by itself. It seams to me that a United Commonwealth could. I will write more later. Good night, Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: And... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:14:54 11/26/04 Fri Do you think that the USA should be part of a union similar to that proposed by the FCS for CANZUK? A sort of USCANZUK (Sounds like Tibetan to me...)? If so, how do you think that we could or should resolve the dichotomy between the Monarchical/parliamentary system on the one hand, and the presidential/congressional system on the other? I've spoken to various Americans about reunification, and some said that they'd accept the monarchy but want to keep the dollar; others said that they wouldn't mind using pounds, but that the idea of monarchy made them ill; one oddball from NH seemed to suggest that he'd like an absolute monarchy ruled from London; another thought that Britain should be split into five states and become states 51 through to 55 of the USA, since you couldn't just have one new state of 60 million people. These are all quite interesting points, and I'd be interested in your point of view as a Unitedstatesian... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: thoughts on government | |
|
Author: Steph (US) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:16:17 11/26/04 Fri Yes I do think the United States should be part of a federation of English speaking nations. As to how to achieve such a Union I see three different methods of federation. A) As you mentioned the other English speaking nations could be admitted as states of the Union, but I don’t know how well that would go down in the commonwealth nations. We would also have to amend the constitution to allow the crown commonwealth nations to remain constitutional monarchies because currently the U.S. constitution requires states to have republican constitutions. B) A national federation or confederation with the Austrialia, Canada, the U.K. and U.S. as member states. C) A federation of the states and constituent kingdoms of the various countries with the current federal or union governments as alliances within the larger commonwealth union. I personally favor C but it is discussable. As to the question of monarchy, I personally have mixed feelings about this. I see strong advantages to monarchy, but I would be less than honest if I didn’t say I am proud to belong to the oldest extant constitutional republic. I believe we could solve this problem by allowing the U.S. states and the U.S. federal government to remain republican while having a commonwealth federation that was monarchic with H.M. having a title like First Citizen and Head of State of the Commonwealth Federation and continue to be Queen of Australia, Canada, and the U.K. I have been working on a proposed constitution along those lines and will post it later. The outline is something like this Constitution Idea Head of State H.M. Elizabeth II Parliament Composed of Senate and House of Representatives House of Representatives districts apportioned among the states 1 per million each district electing 2 members and chosing 1 by lot. Senate 2 Senator per state appointed by the states plus: 15% of that number appointed for life by the crown 15% of that number elected by Austrian Senate Method Up to 5% Hereditary Senators appointed 1 per reign Executive The excutive power shall be vested in a First Minister either elected by majority vote or by something like the U.S. electoral collage. Judicial Supreme Court with purely appellate jurisdiction from the appellate courts of the members. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: USA in the federation | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:34:52 11/26/04 Fri I am completely opposed to the idea of the USA being involved in the federation. Nothing against the people there, but its just not what I want. It would be a much less equal federation and it would be very differnet in character and world outlook to the federation I envision. If this society ever changes its position to allow the USA to be a member then I would be the first to leave and would put my efforts in to Swissifying British foreign policy. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I don't insist on it | |
|
Author: Steph (US) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:48:53 11/26/04 Fri Well I don't want to bust up the group or derail the idea of a Australia, Canada, United Kingdom federation. We would be friends anyway, but I am curious about you reasons. Please write more. Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Mandela, America and cultural homogeneity. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:32:58 11/26/04 Fri I don't know if you recall Nelson Mandela's visit to the USA during Clinton's difficult months of the Lewinsky affair. He said something about how, "as members of the British world", Americans should allow their president the ancient right of innocence until guilt be proven. I remember that a few aides' jaws dropped when he said it, but I think that he hit the nail right on the head. As an outsider, he was not subject to the propensity to see huge barriers where there are in fact only small differences, and the USA is indeed "one of us". If the Canadians are brothers, than the Americans at the worst are second cousins. Of course, his use of the word "British" was old-fashioned; but there is a community of nations which has no name - except for 'English-speaking', which is inadequate because it implies that the only thing we have in common is our language, as if it were some kind of cosmic coincidence that we all speak it - and the USA is part of it. Moreover, it is very telling that the Canadian members of the FCS, in particular, get very worked up at the closeness of relations between the US and the UK to the exclusion of Canada. It is indicative that, rightly or wrongly, London is much closer to Washington than to Ottowa or Melbourne. The relations bewteen the US and the UK are subject to the same forces which hold together CANZUK - we watch the same films and TV shows, read the same books, go to the same plays, listen to the same music; we have similar legal and political systems; we have a common cultural patrimony. Admittedly, the constitutional link via the Crown is not there, but our links with Canada, Australia and NZ would not disappear if these places became republics; so why should they not exist between the UK and the US? I think that this is especially true today, as Americans are forced by the fact that the UK is America's only real ally to realise that the myths shoved down their throats about the 1770s - which demonised the Brits - are largely untrue. For these reasons, I support Steph and not Owain. Also, Owain, you mention the 'unequal' relationship. I think that this is not fair, for a very simple reason: think how an Australian or Canadian or especially a New Zealander must feel at the prospect of federation with the UK. Britain has twice the population of Canada, three times that of Australia, and a massive twenty times that of NZ. For Brits to baulk at the 'unequal relationship' when that is exactly what we would be imposing on the former dominions strikes me as somewhat precious. We can not ask people to do what we refuse to do ourselves, you know. The integration of the USA into our federation involves additional problems, I grant you. But I suggest that it could be accomplished after a federation bewteen CANZUK were set up, in the same way that we talk about the Caribbean, or South Africa, etc. Any thoughts? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Including the US will significantly devalue the Federation | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:02:13 11/26/04 Fri Yes, in an ideal world, they'd be happy to be part of the Federation and everyone would be happy to accept them. However, if it was an ideal world, then there would be no need for this forum. A federation of the 'CANZUK' nations and other realms is reasonably simple to establish; there will be no major legislative changes in terms of the everyday running of the places - each country will function as it does now, but closer together. The US is completely different. It is a republic; you simply cannot mix republics and monarchies together. Few people in Britain will accept this idea of a republic federation because the same people that are likely to support closer links to Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and other realms, are the same people that like the monarchy. The same can presumably be said for the majority of those in other realms. The US is unlikely to dump their idea of a single man who holds all the power, but is elected, either. Apart from a Civil War 140 years ago, the system has worked rather well for them. What's more, the culture of the CANZUK nations and of the US is more different than you imagine - it really is. As you rightly say, speaking roughly the same language does not make us identical. 'CANZUK-ians' are, for the most part, in favour of better public services and (slightly) higher taxes over a bare minimum of public services and a bare minimum of taxation. CANZUK-ians like to know that business practices are closely regulated; that the government is keeping a close eye on the environment and poor people; that the idea of freedom of speech should not be taken too far; that international relations should be, for the most part, preserved even when not necessary, et cetera. The majority of US-Americans do not agree (if they did, then President Bush wouldn't be there). The US is also very sure of itself and seems to believe that the political world has solidifed and will be roughly the same in 50 or 100 years - the US will of course be still on top, Europe perhaps number two or three, China close behind (but then perhaps every 'empire' has, and none so far have been right. I would not be surprised if in 50 years China is the world's super power). This means that they are unlikely to accept any compromise that weakens them, even temporarily - such as a shared army or increased taxation. With their massive population and huge GDP, they would dominate the federation. What's more, most CANZUK-ians are proud of their heritage and so are US-Americans - and the two differing perspectives are simply incompatible. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: my gut feeling | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:00:19 11/26/04 Fri Australia has institutional and cultural ties with NZ, Canada and the UK which are of quite a different order from those with the USA. I find it hard to see how it would be possible to harmonise two political systems with such different views of the relationship between the legislative and executive functions of government. At heart, though, I think I would find it very difficult to get used to being part of a "United States of the Anglosphere". It just doesn't really appeal to me. And since a lot of Canadians seem to have strong feelings about having been invaded by the USA, I suspect it would be even harder for them. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: You are certainly right about that, Ian | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:25:57 11/26/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Question to Steph in the USA | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:07:37 11/26/04 Fri I am currently President of FCS Canada and I am not sure about the inclusion of the USA in the federation. However, I will not rule it out and having American support willbe a big boost to us. I believe that there is a role that you and fellow Americans can play with us. How about we set up FCS North America as a a sort of umbrella liaison group to include FCS Canada, USA and West Indies? What are your thoughts on that? I am certainly willing to look at it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Not India Either | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:29:02 11/27/04 Sat I would also never support the idea of India being in the union. I am simpy not interested in moving beyond the CANZUK. If you do you may as well say we will make world wide federation your ultimate goal, which is something I for one dont want. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: India | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:03:54 11/27/04 Sat I would not support India's inclusion unless the Indians wanted it, of course. Because if they ever did want it, it would be a sign that they share our sense of common cultural and historical ties. But before you write off India as a country where this is not only impossible, but completely absurd, go and have a look at it. I have been in taxis in Bombay in which the owner has plastered the Union Jack on his dashboard; I have heard Bombaysiders ranting about how their idiot government has changed the name of The Strand to 'Ramchandani Marg' and Victoria Station into 'Chatrapathi Sivaji'; I have seen Madrasis nodding their respects to the imperial war memorial; I have lived in a supposedly alien country whose principal national newspaper is called "The Times"; I have sat on the veranda of Royal Yacht Clubs listening to Indian businessmen talk about chaps whom they know who are "bloody great blokes"; and I have been to Dravidian Hindu temples in Karnataka designed and built by Englishmen. And it works both ways, because I have eaten the best Indian food anywhere in Leicester, been to the largest Swaminarayan Temple in the world in North London, next year am going to study in the best Indian history library in the world at Oxford, and am engaged to a Gujerati from the British midlands. India, of course, is not British, but it is not entirely un-British either; and Britain is not entirely un-Indian. I have also lived in Italy, and would suggest that we have a better chance of making it work with the Indians than with such as the Italians, much as I love them. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: maybe | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:20:15 11/27/04 Sat I dont doubt India's cuklurla ties with Britain. But I still dont to federate with it. Nothing against the Indian people but I dont wnat to move beyond the CANZUK excpet perhaps with the other crown dominions, but no more. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Fair enough | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:34:53 11/27/04 Sat I, and indeed most Indians, would heartily agree with you. All I was trying to refute was your association of the inclusions of India with the idea of 'world government'. What makes us closer to India than, say, Cambodia or Peru? Why, all the same things which make us closer to Australia than Germany. The question is one of degree, and our cultural and historical links with India, while present and important, are nowhere near so strong as those between the CANZUK countries, or even the USA. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: cultural similarities? India plays cricket : the USA does not | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:55:43 11/27/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I love cricket, but it is not the only yardstick by which to measure cultural affinity! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:21:21 11/27/04 Sat After all, the Scots and Canadians don't really play cricket either. Does that make them more foreign than Pakistan? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: damn, this guy always uses logic and common sense to spoil my fun | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:13:12 11/27/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That is a charge which has never been levelled at me before! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:34:42 11/27/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: compromise | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:11:53 11/26/04 Fri I can see the objections that some people have to the U.S. being in the federation and don’t want to cause trouble. What about this as a compromise position. The U.S. is not part of the Federation, at least not at first, but to be encouraged to join the Commonwealth of Nations. We are a former colony after all and there is no reason we should not be accepted to that extent. Then after all the members of the crown commonwealth are part of the Federation and it is time to consider India, Erie, and South Africa then we can be considered with that tertiary group and then only if we accept the monarchy. What ever you decide, I hope I can keep posting here. I believe that the English Speaking People are one nation governed by many states and I hope that even if the U.S. is not a member, some of those states unite. As for the idea of a North American FCS group I am in favor of that idea, but only if it is acceptable to the majority of the members. Cheers from NYC, Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: CANZUKUS | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:33:28 11/26/04 Fri Well, I have no objection in principle. I'm probably the greatest Americophile there is... outside Texas, anyway. It would be more difficult to arrange a constitutional rapprochement with the USA because of the very different political systems and the longer tradition of separateness. Otherwise, fine! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: CANZUKUS | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:47:28 11/26/04 Fri I certainly wouldn't object to the United States being part of a federation with CANZUK. I'm generally pro-American and feel that there are no great cultural differences in the way there are with the European Union, I may be a little biased as I have Texan family. And perhaps most importantly it would really annoy the Frence :) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: No objections at all, Steph | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:57:50 11/26/04 Fri It would be downright silly to object to you posting here. As to the USA wanting to join the Commonwealth, I think it is a fascinating idea, but find it hard to imagine Americans accepting membership of an organisation under the Queen. Do you really think it could catch on? As for English-speaking peoples being one nation, I'm not sure that I believe in nations in that sort of way. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: If... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:02:26 11/26/04 Fri If the Indians can accept being part of an organisation under the Queen, I can't see why Americans couldn't. It's not as if membership of the Commonwealth means monarchism in any real sense. Also, joining the Commonwealth would allow the USA to leave the bloody UN whilst at the same time salving the concience of the internationalists! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Joining the Commonwealth is a lot different to restructuring your soverignty | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:19:46 11/26/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Freedom of opinion and expression | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:13:59 11/27/04 Sat Hey, a pro-commonwealth yank - fantastic. (Don't take offence at the use of yank - there're Brits, Aussies, Kiwis and Canucks here - it's shorthand to differentiate between Native and Immigrant-extracted US citizens, nothing more). Don't let anyone tell you you cannot post here. As one of the anti-US brigade I should be first to start the usual snide retorts but I won't - I object to US foreign policy, electoral system etc. but not to the people - you're human beings after all and are like all of us. This, of course, extends to having your own opinions which I welcome. Just because some of us disagree with you or the idea of a Commonwealth including the US doesn't mean you are to stop posting - quite the opposite. You have a definite stance and one I'd be quite happy to debate and disagree with you on. I'm not a founder or moderator, just a poster like yourself, so I speak in no official capacity but: welcome, glad to have you here. Now, the pleasantries out of the way, let's begin with the real debate: Given that the US is so committed to republicanism, how could you possibly accept taking the head of state you fought a much-publicised war against? Surely, as a Yank, you are diametrically opposed to the notion of hereditary head of states, are you not? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I appologise if my earlier post was a little rude, i merely meant to imply that there are some deep-seated differences | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:27:22 11/27/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Roberdin I agree and was not offended (NT) | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:02:40 11/28/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I mean that I agree that joining the commonwealth is very different than joining a federation | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:05:59 11/28/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Trixta History | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 04:55:45 11/28/04 Sun Trixta, I agree that monarchism might be a hard sell to people in the U.S. in as far as the republic has done fairly well, but I dispute absolutely your assertion that anti-monarchism was the cause of the revolution. The cause was due to differences about our rights as Englishmen. We held that just as taxes levied in the U.K. were and are a gift by the commons to the crown, taxes in the colonies were a gift of the colonial assemblies to the crown. Thus the stamp act and other taxes levied by parliament on the colonies were not well received. When the stamp act was repealed loyalty to the crown was high, in fact a large gold leafed lead equestrian statue of the king was erected in New York to celebrate. Ironically a few short years later the statue was torn down and the lead used for musket balls. Other complaints included the quartering of soldiers in the colonies without the permission of the colonial assemblies and the use of military trials for tax evaders when it proved difficult to get jury convictions. The declaration of Independence lists the grievances at length. The fighting only started when the government tried to seize our arms which the bill of rights of 1689 had guarantied us. This, not hatred of the monarchy was the cause of the war. The royal health was still being drunk after the fighting had started. It is worth noting in that connection that the fighting started in April 1775 but independence was not declared until July 1776. Even this did not end American affinity for British systems of government. The fact is that despite being a liberal revolution, the American Revolution was in many ways conservative in that we were rebelling against one of the most liberal states in Europe. We felt that our traditional rights were being violated by innovations in Britain. In fact, what is interesting about people on this site saying that our system of government is so different from the U.K. and the crown commonwealth, is that our system of government is basically not greatly changed since before the War for Independence. You have to remember that at this time in Great Britain the crown still had major say in the government. In the colonies we had no responsible government. We had a governor, usually appointed by the crown, a bicameral legislature composed of a council appointed by the governor and an elected lower house. That is basically the system our states are governed by today. When independence was declared, we wrote constitutions for our states and started electing the governor and the upper house was either elected by a different franchise or was chosen by the lower house and governor. While there have been some changes, this in essence still the system our states use. Only one or two states have unicameral legislatures. We still call our chief executives governors. When the Confederation was found to be unworkable, the British system was explicitly looked to as a model. If you read the account of the proceedings at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, you will find extremely nice things said about the British system of government including a wish by some of the delegates to establish a monarchy, but with the recognition that by that point feelings had changed greatly. Even so proposals were made to have either the President or the Senate elected for life. The system we do have is basically modeled on the British system of government as it existed in theory in 1787 or for that matter today. The President is basically an elected monarch, you will note he is in theory not even directly elected. As the Queen is in theory part of Parliament and the royal assent is in theory necessary to make a law, the President, while not a part of Congress, has to grant his assent to laws, a difference is that Congress can by a supper majority pass a law without his assent. As the Queen is commander in chief, so is the President. The Queen is Chief Executive, so is the President. As the Queen in theory chooses her ministers, so the president chooses his cabinet with the consent of the Senate. In that context remember how much more powerful the lords were in 1787. Congress like Parliament is bicameral. The Senate while not composed of hereditary aristocrats was originally not directly elected but composed of members chosen by the state legislatures. While the Senate is not the highest court in the United States, it in conjunction with the president appoints judges to the Supreme Court and lesser courts. The Senate does retain some juridical powers in that it tries impeachments. The House of Representatives is directly elected like the House of Commons. All finance bills must originate in the House of the Representatives. In short our system is not that different in theory from the British System. The practical differences are the result of the fact that we started electing the monarch so there was less support for the legislature when it tried to use the power of the purse to control the executive. Therefore we did not develop the Prime Ministerial system. The French revolutionaries made a big deal about how our state constitutions were so conservative and aping the evil monarchical system instead of concentrating all power, legislative, executive, and judicial, in a unicameral body which they conceived as the “proper” republican thing to do. This led John Adams, later our second president and then ambassador to the court of St. James, to write his three volume “A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States.” In the Defense Adams looks at basically all of the republics through out history to defend our state constitutions. He uses the word republic in its proper sense to mean governments that are not absolute monarchies, absolute aristocracies, or absolute democracies and discusses the British system in flattering terms under the category Monarchical Republics. The Defense not only had a good deal of influence on republican thought in Europe, but was published as the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was meeting in Philadelphia. Further his earlier “Thoughts on Government’ published during the revolutionary war was influential when the state constitutions were being written. In that pamphlet he drew on the American experience with the colonial governments and the British system. He even recommended that the more aristocratic states like Virginia might choose to have a hereditary upper house. He also wrote the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the oldest written constitution still in force. Anyway anti monarchism was not the motivating force behind the war for independence and our government is not as different or un-British as some might think. P.S. I am not offended by being called a yank. I understand the problem is that we are over paid, over sexed, and over here ;-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Steph, I dare say you are far more aware of this history than most Americans | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:26:15 11/28/04 Sun You are obviously far more knowledgeable about it than I am. I'm not so sure that current US citizens would view this historical relationship with the British monarchy and the British system of government in quite such a positive way. I am, as always, more than happy to be proved wrong. Regardless of the common origins of our forms of government, I do feel there is a substantial difference in functioning between a parliamentary system, with a symbolic head and a government based on a majority of local representatives, and a presidential system, with a powerful head and frequent conflict between executive and legislative branches. My experience of living in Brazil is largely responsible for this feeling. I, for one, would be astonished and very pleased if the USA should show interest in joining the Commonwealth, not so much because of anything related to the monarchy, but because joining an organisation that would put it on the same level as Lesotho would be an important sign of multilateralism. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:27:44 11/28/04 Sun I agree that many Americans have a less positive view of our early conection to the crown. But I do think that many of us have a positive view of Great Britain. We were allies through all of the 20th Century. There are substantial differences in functioning between our systems. I only wanted to point out that they are different developments of the same system. If Cromwell had made the Protectorship directly ellected and their had been no restoration, the American system would be standard through out the English Speaking world. As for us joining the Commonwealth it is something that would have to be worked at just as Federation will have to be worked at. As for having only one vote, we had only one at the U.N. and the U.S.S.R. had three. We didn't like it but we lived with it. Regarding multilateralism, I guess I hold to view that the purpose of the state is to defend the persons, rights and interests of its citizens. To sacrifice those to international concensus would be to deligitimize itself. Cheers Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well said | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:39:20 11/28/04 Sun I don't always agree with Dubya, but making US defence policy dependent on the consent of foreign nations is rather an abrogation of the Commander-in-Chief's responsibilities. Look at how much fuss we're making over here about the Euro-army! It would be hypocritical for Brits to criticise Americans for refusing to do something which we refuse to do ourselves. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Emperor or President | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:26:37 11/28/04 Sun I agree with Ian and think that perhaps you study political history or something similar. Would I be right? My point is that, in today's US, selling the concept of an impotent monarch over an all-powerful president would be an uphill struggle at best. I accept there are are a huge number of similarities between our systems - that's why we refer to Westminster as the mother of all parliaments. The British system is one that has been exported all over the world and forms the very backbone of modern democracy. As it happens I disagree with you on the idea that the monarch held such sway at the time of the war. Since Cromwell did his one good thing, taking the power from an absolute monarch into representative government, the monarch has been increasingly disempowered while, on the contrary, the US presidency has become more powerful over time. At the same time that the monarch was effectively being made little more than a glorified meet-n-greet diplomat the US president was forming the basis of its role as policeman of the world. Our empire fades, yours ascends - c'est la vie. > The President is basically an elected monarch, you will note he is in theory not even directly elected. Agreed. >As the Queen is in theory part of Parliament and the royal assent is in theory necessary to make a law, the President, while not a part of Congress, has to grant his assent to laws, a difference is that Congress can by a supper majority pass a law without his assent. In theory, okay. In practice, however, very different. The Queen dare not oppose parliament, assenting to legislation is little more than a rubber stamp. The Queen cannot initiate legislation, influence parliament to introduce legislation or, perhaps most significantly, hold any political affiliation. Thus, the monarch is always separate from political machinations, she can be neither conservative nor labour. The president is, obviously enough, part of a political party and, in fact, elected as much for his party affiliation as for his own policies. >As the Queen is commander in chief, so is the President. The Queen, however, cannot send her troops into battle - she can only agree with the PM should he wish to do so. As I understand it the president can send US forces into combat without the consent of the houses, albeit for a limited period. >The Queen is Chief Executive, so is the President. In name only. As above, she has no political influence, she leads no party, she cannot instruct the politicians on any matter, legislative or otherwise. > As the Queen in theory chooses her ministers, so the president chooses his cabinet with the consent of the Senate. Yet again theory and practice are two completely different things. As you no doubt well know, the PM picks his cabinet and the Queen rubber stamps it for the sake of tradition. So, really, the British system works almost in reverse to the US system: the British head of state has no real power or say in the running of government, merely a few administrative niceties to perform as and when instructed to by the PM. The US system has a powerful, monarchical head of state whose political affiliation dominates the daily governmental regime and dictates policy. In summary, yes, I agree that the US system is an imitation of the British system, which is itself an imitation of the earlier Greco-Roman systems. Practically all democratic systems in the world today share the same roots and almost all British ex-colonies have the Parliamentary system at their core. However, I disagree that they are the same, or anything close, because (as you observe) the US system has replaced an hereditary head of state whose power is continually waning with an elected head of state whose power would seem to be continually on the increase. By the way, how would you describe the commonly held view of the war of independence? If asked, how would the average Yank tell the story? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Revolutionary wars | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:26:02 11/28/04 Sun I recently wrote an article on the origins of the American Revolution, which was quite well received by various professors. If you're interested, I'll e-mail you a copy. Without wishing to flatter, the views which you express on this forum reveal you to be a well-informed and thoughful human being (much as I occasionally disagree!), and I'd be interested in what you think. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes I would be interested to read it | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:13:15 11/28/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Righty ho. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:20:59 11/28/04 Sun I would be interested to get a reaction from an American point of view, just as, I presume, you would be curious to read about the Revolution from a British standpoint. Consider yourself emailed. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Good Article | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:55:45 11/30/04 Tue Ed I realy enjoyed your article. You were right on about the causes of the revolution. It was intresting to read about the War of Independance from a the point of view of imperial policy. That is as a failure, rather than a success. By the way you might be intrested in Ben Fraklin's Albany Plan of Union of 1754. Which would have created a Federal Colonial government for British North America. It called for a President General appointed by the crown, and a council chosen by the colonial legislaturesl. cheers Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Powers of the Crown | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:18:31 11/28/04 Sun You are quite right to think that I studied history at university or as we yanks would say ¡§I majored in history at college.¡¨ ƒº My knowledge of government is due to that and personal study. I agree that monarchism would be a hard sell. Personally I have monarchist tendencies. For me, the hard sell would be the over integration of the legislative and executive and a lesser extent the judicial functions in the Prime Ministerial system. I would be very happy with a monarch and a directly elected head of government. You wrote, ¡§As it happens I disagree with you on the idea that the monarch held such sway at the time of the war. Since Cromwell did his one good thing, taking the power from an absolute monarch into representative government, the monarch has been increasingly disempowered while, on the contrary, the US presidency has become more powerful over time. At the same time that the monarch was effectively being made little more than a glorified meet-n-greet diplomat the US president was forming the basis of its role as policeman of the world. Our empire fades, yours ascends - c'est la vie.¡¨ Well I may have over stated the authority of the crown at the time of the revolution, but I think you are understating it. George the Third was the most dynamic monarch since the Hanoverians came to the throne. Lord North was very much his minister. It is not until the civil list is established and the monies of the crown and the monarch were clearly sperate, that the Prime Ministerial system is clearly established. The madness of George the Third was such a serious problem because he was still an important part of the government. In a very real sence, the dissolute nature of George IV is the foundation of the current system. William, Mary, and Anne had not been mere figure heads though they were constitutional monarchs. George I was unable to speak the English language and George II was not that much better. George III the first really English Hanoverian was a much more active monarch than his grandfather or great grandfather. In that context it is also worth noting that during the 18th Century, the opposition tended to congregate around the court of the Prince of Wales, because his influence would be important for patronage purposes. Re Cromwell, he was in no sence a Prime Minister. As Lord Protector he was King in all but name and he excersised the royal prerogatives including proroguing parliament, dismissing it, and ruling with out it. Remember the words with which he dismissed the long Parliament, ¡§You have sat to long here for any good you might be doing, be gone I say and let us have done with you. In the name of god go!¡¨ To quote myself ¡§If Cromwell had made the Protectorship directly ellected and their had been no restoration, the American system would be standard through out the English Speaking world.¡¨ So while it is true that the Americans had an exaulted view of the powers of the Monarch which reflected the past more than future, and assigned sed powers to our president, the issue was not so clear in 1787. As late of the budget crises of the early 20th Century, the government had to ask for the power to appoint enough lords to break the power of the lords to the will of the commons and that was granted only after parliament was desolved and the government sustained by the electorate. Even today laws are not made by parliament, but ¡§enacted by the Queen¡¦s Most Excellent Majesty.¡¨ Personally I think things have gone to far. The commons now have almost the power that the French revolutionaries were advocating for a single unicameral legislature. Some checks are needed. More later, Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: "Some checks are needed": not wrong there! | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:32:57 11/28/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Ed, Article | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:26:49 11/28/04 Sun Ed , could you email you article to me at adamben9187@yahoo.co.uk, thanks. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Sure! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:28:04 11/28/04 Sun But I don't promise that it'll be any good! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: hey Ed, | |
|
Author: Kevin (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:37:51 11/28/04 Sun Ed, could you possibly send me a copy also. If I give my history teacher a different view point of the revolution, maybe she'll start taking me seriously! falla830@gmail.com [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> Subject:  Who is the person from India?
|
|
|
Author: G.Singh [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:19:37 11/25/04 Thu Hey Jim! Who is from India on here? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I thought he might be thinking your Indian, I certainly dont know of any Indian member, perhaps they never post | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:17:32 11/25/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: G Singh is British. There is an Indian who has registed and not posted. | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:11:01 11/25/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: New members are young | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:40:26 11/26/04 Fri One very encouraging thing is the ages of the new applicants. They are mostly between 16 and 25. This shows that our ideas are popular with the young, which is very good. It shows that we are in tune with the future and with newer trends. If we had nothing but elderly people joining and no interest from the young, then I would worry. However, having mostly youngsters shows that we can go somewhere. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:50:41 11/26/04 Fri I had noticed that just from this forum. Most people who post here seem to be students of some kind, and some still even at school. I admit that when I started posting I was concerned that I would be discussing these things with a lot of ancient British Empire nostalgics, who, though I might agree with them, would have no appeal to the vast majority of people; but that does not seem to be the case. I myself - although about 102 years old in physical condition and malevolent cynicism - am only 23. Indeed, I think that it shows a healthy awareness amongst our youth. I mean to say, that older people might have lived through the fragmentation of the British world over years and years, and become acustomed to it; but young people, born under the current ghastly mess, are looking around and realising that it doesn't make any sense. There is, however, a more cynical explanation. Younger people tend to use the internet more, and since this is an entirely internet-based organisation, with no permanent office or headquarters or newspaper adverts etc., it might be argued that a younger membership were inevitable. I wonder, if the organisation were to gain a wider profile, whether the age statistics would remain the same. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: suddenly I feel very, very old | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:02:06 11/27/04 Sat I'd say a certain skew towards younger people on this discussion is understandable for technological reasons, and may not reflect true levels of (potential) interest at large. I also think that young people are less likely to have settled into habits of thought, and might thus find it less difficult to imagine the world being rearranged. That doesn't stop it from being encouraging that the connections between our countries have not disappeared. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: It's not until the first of your friends gets married that you are allowed to feel old... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:27:35 11/27/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That happened in 1987, Ed | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:33:32 11/27/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: For me it was only a couple of years ago, but the principle is the same... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:36:23 11/27/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Heh, I'm probably one of the youngest here... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:19:38 11/27/04 Sat ...at only 15. But the idea of the FCS does make a lot of sense to me, and not just for reasons of supporting Britian - I shall be sad when the Union Jack is replaced, but not so much if in its place flies the federation's flag. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well said | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:30:59 11/27/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: u mite not be the youngest | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:18:59 12/01/04 Wed Your not the only 15 yearold. Me and Kevin are the same age. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: You're wront there Owain. Im 16. Soon to be 17 God willing | |
|
Author: Kevin (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 04:49:47 12/02/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: OHHHhhhhhh | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:22:53 12/02/04 Thu Ohhh rite I damn heheh. Well I myself am actualy 16 next monday so actualy I think Roberdin must be youngest here. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: right wing youth | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:50:13 12/02/04 Thu I think this organisation will appeal to the young more even if it werent entirely internet based. New and radical ideas have a habit of attracting youthful attention. And a new kind of right-wing national pride is coming up all over europe within our youth (I read a very good article about it by Otto Von Hapsburg, he was worrying about it actualy, though I took it as good news). Our organisation I suspect is perfect for this neo-rightism which is losing its fondness of over political correctness and actualy starting to be... shock horror... proud of there country (obviously there all facist scum). I know this is not a right wing orgnaisation as such but I dont think you can deny that on the whole right-wingers will be most attracted to it. No offense to any lefties here, I am sure we have some. I am a rightwinger of socialist sympathies as it happens (good old government control and centralisation). [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: kind-of true | |
|
Author: Frank (US) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:25:22 12/02/04 Thu Well, I'm a new member and its true that I lean more to the right, although I have my reservations about socialism...especially social health care. So I think u have a point. Although I must ask, I emailed in a member registration...am I supposed to get a confirmation email of some sort? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Right wing national pride | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:25:29 12/02/04 Thu Right wing national pride can be a good thing if it is not taken too far. My worry with the UK is that will it be national pride for Britain or just England, Scotland, Wales or Ulster? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Not sure about that... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:37:39 12/02/04 Thu ... Young people in our country are travelling a lot more than their parents' generation did (the so-called "Easy-Jet Setters"); and, as Ian has argued on this forum, that is something which almost universally opens people's eyes to cultural realities. I don't think it is a coincidence that my parents were better travelled as 'young adults' than most of their generation, and are all for the Commonwealth and allergic to the EEC. Many, indeed I would say most, of people around my age who are both educated and well-travelled are conservative, patriotic and eurosceptic. As for local patriotism within the British regions, I think that the same forces apply. I doubt that many SNP voters spend a good time in England; and Scots who do spend time working or living south of the border are more likely than not to discover - shock! horror! - that the Sassenachs are not bogeymen who lure children into their gingerbread houses and plot the exploitation of Scotland in leather armchairs whilst clutching globes of brandy in talon-like fingers, but are in fact just ordinary people who differ from Scots in not much more than accent and ability to cope with cold weather. Oh, and Frank, you're not alone! Socialism in all its forms is distinctly dodgy, and, if the US wants to make its health care system even worse, then the way to do it would be to adopt the British model of centralised, bureaucratic nightmare-healthcare, which has now become the biggest state-sector employer anywhere in the world since the collapse of Soviet Russia, with a workforce of 2 million, and waiting lists to match, and still we can't cure anyone... We should scrap the whole thing, remove it from the tax bill, and make insurance compulsory. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:55:46 12/02/04 Thu On a more serious note: While socialism and Europeanism, in even the mildest of forms, is enough to induce gnashing of teeth and involuntary spasms within every sinew of my being, I have grave reservations about US style healthcare. While I do not dispute that the level of care and medical prowess in the US is greater, the fact remains that healthcare ceases to be an emergency service, like fire or police. I have grave reservations about the prospect of me being wheeled into a hospital on a trolley whilst being quizzed “what kinda insurance you got honey?” by some over-zealous administrator, during brief bouts of consciousness. I agree that the NHS should be reformed totally, to cut out the bulk of the expenses such as: More managers than patients. Subsidised drugs. Free surgery for the purposes of vanity. Free drugs for feckless wasters. Etc etc etc… [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: forgot the first bit... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:57:34 12/02/04 Thu "Sassenachs are not bogeymen who lure children into their gingerbread houses and plot the exploitation of Scotland in leather armchairs whilst clutching globes of brandy in talon-like fingers" I was wondering if you lifted this from the SNP website? :-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: No, groundskeeper Willie from the Simpsons... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:09:52 12/02/04 Thu Although I see it in Eye-Tie not English... but I guess that the original would have been something like that. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well.. | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:23:16 12/02/04 Thu He does serve as the inspiration behind much political thinking (or lack of) at Holyrood. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Are you crazy? | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:02:38 12/03/04 Fri If there's one thing that post-1945 Britain has done right it's create an NHS that could centrally purchase drugs and then pass them on for (in many cases) a fraction of their cost to patients who NEED them. I think being ill is one moment in anyone's life when the basic tenet of COMMUNISM (to each according to his need...) is EXACTLY RIGHT, and the US system is a DISASTER for people who require expensive or long-term drug care. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Perhaps, but sanity is a relative term. | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:48:15 12/03/04 Fri I agree with you in principle. However, in practice, things are different. My attack was on the current prescription fraud, rather than providing cheaper drugs to the long-term ill. The first part of the communist ethos (from each, according to their means) is not being practiced here. Why should I, for example, expect the state to provide subsidised hay-fever tablets all summer, when I can well afford them myself? We have an enormous problem in Britain with people who are addicted to prescription drugs. GPs are being inundated with habitual bogus patients who pester Doctors for repeat prescriptions of certain drugs. Some of these GPs routinely adhere to the requests, if only for an easy life. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I believe that you should recieve treatment because you are ill, not because you are rich. | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:43:59 12/03/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: right-wing socialist | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:35:03 12/02/04 Thu It seems I am once again alone in my views. I am socialist. A right-winger on almost any issue you care to name until you come to things like privatisation, National insurance and health care. Its my other views (which I consider to be more important than the NHS) that put me in the right-wing. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Ah, so a National Socialist, then? | |
|
Author: Owain the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and possibly Seventh [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:46:56 12/02/04 Thu So what you're saying is that you simultaneously support a resurgence of nationalism (all across Europe, apparently - you quote a Hapsburg, who I'm sure would be all too happy to see a return to nostalgia for the old Austria) and the welfare state. And you're not crazy about those nasty foreigners. Where have I heard that one before? I wonder. Wait a second, wasn't that German bloke with the moustache a national socialist? What was his name again? Adolf something-or-other... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I do sincerely hope that you are alone in your views | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:18:54 12/03/04 Fri The mythical Owain of the increasingly large numbers has it right, as far as I can tell. We have seen the ideological combination you are talking about, and we fought a very, very nasty war to try and rid the world of it. I would, if necessary, be prepared to go to war myself should it become necessary to perform the job again. I must say, young man, that I get a distinct mental shudder when I read some of your comments. I find both of your terms – "right wing" and "socialist" – equally distressing. I find that simplistic divisions of complex issues into "left" and "right" are usually a sign of soft-headedness dressing itself up as willpower. I have no problem at all with being proud of one's own culture, but I can't see why it should ever descend to the hostile, bigoted, bone-headed flag-waving and name-calling of nationalism. I believe that you are playing a dangerous game, Owain, and I hope that you will grow out of it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Owain.... | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:26:21 12/03/04 Fri I agree with you, Ian. Owain's views seem to fit in rather disturbingly with a party known in Australia as the One Nation Party. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Wait a second | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 04:50:09 12/03/04 Fri Just because Owain is patriotic and socialist that does not necessarily mean he is a fascist. There have been ok democratic socialists who were also nationalists. I mean as libertarian-liberal nationalist, they are not my favorite, but they are not all dictators in waiting. Unless he has been posting hyper nationalist – anti freedom drivel and I have missed it, let’s let him explain his beliefs a little before we jump all over him. Remember he is only 15. On the other hand Owain, Nationalism and Socialism are both potent forms of collectivism and mixing them together can give fairly nasty results. So please explain your views to the board so we can see where you are coming from and don’t have to feel we need to sleep with loaded guns by our beds. Of course as a good yank I do that anyway, but I like to think of it as participating in a long standing Anglo-American tradition of anti authoritarianism, not as a practical necessity. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: my views | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:35:11 12/03/04 Fri What follows is an outline of my views and beliefs. Socialism - Like most things should never be taken to the extreme. But I cant accept any form of laissez-faire system of things. Freedom is good, but that doesnt mean people should have the freedom to pay for there own health care. I am a great fan of the NHS and would hate to see it privatised. The welfare state is worth dying for. I am opposed to privatisation of public services, though I recognise the danger of allowing a governemnt to get its hands on every sector of the countries industry and infrastructure. Certainly I would like an end to privatised rail network. Nationalism - It would be nice to have a government that actualy loved the country dont you think? I love this country (Britain that is, just so were all clear what I belive my country to be) and would never accept any other nation as my own, I shall not adopt any other. How do I justify my nationalism? Do I really need to? I love my country. Britain made me and in return I shall love it and never abandon it. Differing views of what nationalism actualy is. If England football supporters wave the St George they are patriots, if Welsh supporters wave the Dragon, they are nationalists. I was always told that those Seperatists waving that flag were nationalists. It made sense to me then to call myself a nationalist when I was waving the union jack and saying how much I loved my country (Britain), doing no more than those Welsh "nationalists". Though to many this came accross as simple patriotism, just because I was waving a different flag. This is stupid. I am no more or less a patriot/nationalist/whatever than those seperatists, the difference is that I know what my counry really is. So whether I am a nationalist or a patriot is all down to perception, note that I have no sympathies for the BNP or the order of St George or the national front or any other similar organisations. Having both Socialist and Nationalist views does not make me a National-Socialist. I am just a proud Britain who likes to share. I am extreme in niether direction. My other prinicple views consider Unionism and Monarchism. I am British, thats all that matters. I love Britain and I love the Union. I am a monarchist because I ahve a deep respect for my countries traditions and form of Governmnt and also for purely ideological reasons. I genuinely belive that constitutional monarchy is the greatest form of government yet discovered, though I recognise not all nations would be suited to such a system. I do believe that ones patriotism and good character can be judged by their loyalty to there monarch. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: that should have read | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 04:54:33 12/03/04 Fri I mean as a libertarian-liberal nationalist, they are not my favorite, but they are not all dictators in waiting. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Owain | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:30:18 12/03/04 Fri I suggest looking at: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ there is a test there that tells you where you lie on a revised political spectrum that does not look simply at "left" and "right", but also at "authoritarian" and "libertarian". [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Me | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:22:41 12/03/04 Fri I don't think this is entirely accurate but I got: Economic Left/Right: 4.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49 I consider myself to be fairly right wing on economic issues, but I have very mixed views on social policies. While I would generally consider myself liberal on most social isses, I am not quite sure I deserve a score of -5.49 perhaps it was simply that particular mix of questions. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: My results | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:58:30 12/03/04 Fri Me, I got pretty much what I expected. Economic Left/Right: -3.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62 [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: politicalcompass | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:16:16 12/03/04 Fri Obviously it isn't 100% accurate but I got Economic Left/Right: 0.38. Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.74. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: hmmm | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:20:40 12/03/04 Fri That can't be right! I was placed near Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroder on the graph. Then however, I realised that their compass positions were determined by their speeches, rather than their actions. I can sleep easy now... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Political Compass | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:41:55 12/03/04 Fri Dave, I can assure you based on my readings of your posts you are nothing but a solid Tory. I couldn't see a large amount of agreement between you and Blair/Schroder on many issues at all. I think it is difficult to take a one-size-fits-all approach to this sort of thing. For example if you included Australian questions such as on the Monarchy, aussie flag, British Empire/Commonwealth, Knighthoods, oath etc. I would clearly be seen as a tory, however with the political compass questions I appear to be very much a liberal. One thing is for sure though, I am definantly NOT a socialist/Labour supporter! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I got.......... | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:18:40 12/03/04 Fri Economic Left/Right: -1.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90 That is, two squares to the left and four squares towards libertarian. Some of the questions obviously refer to specific national contexts, though, like the one about civil liberties and terrorism. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I'm afraid that you'll find the majority of today's (British) youth stands with me and Owain | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:51:03 12/03/04 Fri Most people that I talk to (those who are British, at least) are usually pro flag-waving and pro-welfare state. I fail to see why this makes us 'facist'... no-one is proposing that we are superior to other races and have a destiny to capture all of the world or anything - we believe that all are equal, but when in Rome (that is, Britain), do as Romans (Britions) do (wave the flag). [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Its "Owain and I". Come on now. lol. Just kidding | |
|
Author: Kevin (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:39:23 12/03/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Not exactly... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:07:52 12/03/04 Fri No, it's "Owain and me", because if it was 'I', then "Today's youth stands with I" would also be correct - the sentence must make sense with the and clause removed - and it is not, AFAIK... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: indeed roberdin | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:38:06 12/03/04 Fri Indeed Roberdin. I am very hopeful about the future and the role todyas youth will play in it. I am thankful I wasnt born 30 years earlier as my life would probably have been one of frustration and anger. As it is I believe we will soon be able to get Britain back on track and end the leftist disaster story of the twentieth century. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: You are probably not fascists, but… | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:22:12 12/03/04 Fri Some people get very worried about this because strictly speaking fascism is a form of socialism. What Ludwig von Mises called socialism of the German pattern. It differed from orthodox Marxist socialism or orthodox democratic socialism in that it called not for state ownership of the means of production, but rather state control of the means of production. While democratic socialism was an out growth of Marxism that developed in the 1890s when many Marxists realized that in democratic capitalist societies, the working class has no revolutionary potential, in as far as their standard of living tends to increase. Fascism on the other hand is a development of the German welfare state. Modern democratic socialism like Blair’s Labour Party are in fact mildly fascist in as far as they have renounced the goal of state ownership of the means of production and substituted the idea of state regulation and welfare. However, most democratic socialist parties, have maintained the internationalist bent that is a legacy of Marx’s idea of the international working class and are of course democratic. Orthodox fascism will exhibit the following symptoms: revolutionary violence (aimed against real enemies of the fascist state such as labor unionists, democrats and capitalists; against competing forms of socialism e.g. social democrats and communists; and against scapegoats such as jews, gypsies, etc.), extreme nationalism, antipathy to liberal ideas (representative democracy, capitalism, individual rights etc.), state control of the means of production, and a robust welfare state. Now of course not all fascist states or movements have all of these characteristics. Notably most did not carry revolutionary violence to the extreme seen in Nazi Germany. Argentina for example while fascist was not as revolutionary as Germany. The more of the above traits a person or movement has the more fascist it is. That is not to say that the two of you are fascists, in fact, if you are against increases in state power by the current labour government then you are of course less fascist than them. There is nothing wrong with patriotism, pride in your country for its long history of democracy, individual rights, and industrial achievement and a desire to defend it. But people do get leery when they here nationalist and socialist together, now I hope you understand why. B.T.W. As a libertarian, I must ask why in the name of god are you in favor of the welfare state? Cheers, Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |