Spanish/British -- FCS Discussion Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

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: Spanish/British

Author:
Owain (UK)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:47:25 11/26/04 Fri
In reply to: Ed Harris (Venezia) 's message, "What what what?" on 23:22:18 11/25/04 Thu

"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.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> [> 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 ]