#1
the american revolution popularised the concept that populations should be governed by themselves, and the 20th century saw the collapse of most of the old european empires. but what really counts as "themselves"?

we live in representative democracies, not true democracies. no one really rules themselves. how far away do you have to be from the capital to deserve independence? russia covers peoples in 10 different timezones. Is there a certain population beyond which you are no longer represented? the government of india rules a larger population (and a larger percentage of world population) than the british empire ever did. is it about having neat national borders? the US, with hawaii and alaska certainly doesn't have that.

if it's a question of culture then aren't we hypocrites by allowing the development of multicultural societies? plenty of countries have huge variations in language and religion. has globalization and the internet if anything made us more amenable to living in the same country with very different people. a hundred years ago i might have thought of people on the other side of the world as strange and alien. now i talk to them every day.

is it possible to imagine a world where the british empire became a modern federal democracy, without the slavery and racism, where all citizens had equal rights and opportunities and were equally represented both at local level and centrally? would the world be a safer place were that the case?

i hope this isn't deleted. i don't think it need be any more devisive than the religion or politics thread.
Ever wonder what rock would have sounded like in 2010 if grunge hadn't made it cool to be stupid?

The Three Aces
On UG profiles - On Myspace

Please mark yourself as a fan if you like!
#3
*looks at thread title*
VICTORIAN ERA!!

...sorry, I just had a british lit test.
My Gear:
Peavey 6505+
Marshall 1960B
Schecter Hellraiser Avenger
Ibanez VBT700
Marshall Guv'nor
Marshall Echohead
Morley Tremonti Wah
Boss TU-2
Boss NS-2
Avatar 2x12
EHX Holy Grail Reverb
Furman SPB 8C
Boss Flange
#6
The divergent economic interests of Ireland and Britain, which have needed to be advanced and defended by two distinct sovereign governments, have also been highly visible within the European Community, where the two States have chosen to pursue quite different approaches in key areas such as regional policy and agriculture.

The rationale of Irish independence is not, however, confined to economic factors. There are other less tangible, but no less important, factors. Thus, cultural differences between the people of the Irish State and those of neighbouring Britain are such that these two peoples could not, I believe, have continued indefinitely to co-exist comfortably and successfully within a single political entity.

This has been evident, for example, in the quite different roles that Ireland and Britain have chosen to play in global affairs.

The Irish decision to choose the path of independence has thus been fully justified by the events of the past eighty years.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#7
Quote by Lin


if it's a question of culture then aren't we hypocrites by allowing the development of multicultural societies?

is it possible to imagine a world where the british empire became a modern federal democracy, without the slavery and racism, where all citizens had equal rights and opportunities and were equally represented both at local level and centrally? would the world be a safer place were that the case?


No
Yes
No
Quote by FrenchyFungus
Hey y'all!!! Me and my friend were over at her house. I we were wonder what guys think when they see a hot girl at the mall or whatever walk by. (We're both pretty as y'all would say "blonde" sometimes).


Quote by rabidguitarist
I just look like some homo.
#8
Quote by Lin
the american revolution popularised the concept that populations should be governed by themselves, and the 20th century saw the collapse of most of the old european empires. but what really counts as "themselves"?

we live in representative democracies, not true democracies. no one really rules themselves. how far away do you have to be from the capital to deserve independence? russia covers peoples in 10 different timezones. Is there a certain population beyond which you are no longer represented? the government of india rules a larger population (and a larger percentage of world population) than the british empire ever did. is it about having neat national borders? the US, with hawaii and alaska certainly doesn't have that.

if it's a question of culture then aren't we hypocrites by allowing the development of multicultural societies? plenty of countries have huge variations in language and religion. has globalization and the internet if anything made us more amenable to living in the same country with very different people. a hundred years ago i might have thought of people on the other side of the world as strange and alien. now i talk to them every day.

is it possible to imagine a world where the british empire became a modern federal democracy, without the slavery and racism, where all citizens had equal rights and opportunities and were equally represented both at local level and centrally? would the world be a safer place were that the case?

i hope this isn't deleted. i don't think it need be any more devisive than the religion or politics thread.



So, you're saying we could have a World Government then>National Governments>State/Province Government>County Government>Town Government>Village/City Government. All of these would be democratic republics including the World government.
It's all very feasible and probably would make the world a better place.

We're a long way off but I'd say everyday we're one step closer to something like this, and the world might very well be a better place.

Like Lennon said, Imagine no countries... it's easy if you try.
Advertising is rape of art.
#10
Quote by Ur all $h1t
The divergent economic interests of Ireland and Britain, which have needed to be advanced and defended by two distinct sovereign governments, have also been highly visible within the European Community, where the two States have chosen to pursue quite different approaches in key areas such as regional policy and agriculture.

The rationale of Irish independence is not, however, confined to economic factors. There are other less tangible, but no less important, factors. Thus, cultural differences between the people of the Irish State and those of neighbouring Britain are such that these two peoples could not, I believe, have continued indefinitely to co-exist comfortably and successfully within a single political entity.

This has been evident, for example, in the quite different roles that Ireland and Britain have chosen to play in global affairs.

The Irish decision to choose the path of independence has thus been fully justified by the events of the past eighty years.


i think with ireland, the biggest problem was the history of violence. there are plenty of countries with divided populations of catholics and protestants, and plenty of countries where regions have very different levels of development. i would not dream of saying ireland should still be part of the uk, but if the empire had responded earlier with reform rather than force resentment might not have been built up. couldn't the differences in policy necesarry have been ut in place by a powerful federal government?
Ever wonder what rock would have sounded like in 2010 if grunge hadn't made it cool to be stupid?

The Three Aces
On UG profiles - On Myspace

Please mark yourself as a fan if you like!
#11
The title of the thread?
I didn't sense the connection between that and the thread itself.
BRIAN. SCHNEIDER.
#12
Quote by Lin
i think with ireland, the biggest problem was the history of violence. there are plenty of countries with divided populations of catholics and protestants, and plenty of countries where regions have very different levels of development. i would not dream of saying ireland should still be part of the uk, but if the empire had responded earlier with reform rather than force resentment might not have been built up. couldn't the differences in policy necesarry have been ut in place by a powerful federal government?

We tried all that. the British told us tht if we were sensible about it and did it democratically we could have a Home rule government that would allow us to control internal affairs and still be in the empire. Then we did that and the British government said "No, actually we're moving the goalposts now, no Home Rule for you". So the Irish decided they wanted a republic and clearly the only way to get that was by force.

I don't think the British government could ever have properly ran Ireland. They showed, time and time again, a profound misunderstanding of Irish issues, which made Ireland's struggle for social reform incredibly difficult while under the British empire.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#13
Quote by Ur all $h1t
We tried all that. the British told us tht if we were sensible about it and did it democratically we could have a Home rule government that would allow us to control internal affairs and still be in the empire. Then we did that and the British government said "No, actually we're moving the goalposts now, no Home Rule for you". So the Irish decided they wanted a republic and clearly the only way to get that was by force.

I don't think the British government could ever have properly ran Ireland. They showed, time and time again, a profound misunderstanding of Irish issues, which made Ireland's struggle for social reform incredibly difficult while under the British empire.


so what do you think would have happened if they hadn't "moved the goalposts" and changed their minds? if ther had been a better response to events like the great famine?
Ever wonder what rock would have sounded like in 2010 if grunge hadn't made it cool to be stupid?

The Three Aces
On UG profiles - On Myspace

Please mark yourself as a fan if you like!
#14
Quote by Lin
so what do you think would have happened if they hadn't "moved the goalposts" and changed their minds? if ther had been a better response to events like the great famine?

I don't think it was so much the response of Britain to the great Famine that created a move for Irish Independence, that had been there since before the famine. the Irish always considered themselves separate, just like the French and Germans do.

I think that if Britain had granted Ireland Home Rule the Irish political leaders would have slowly used it to chip away at the bonds of British power in Ireland until we were a republic. The desire was always there for an independent republic. The British couldn't rule us effectively (e.g. the land wars with C.S. Parnell) and we considered ourselves a different people.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington