What is the verdict of history? Would the US have been better off if we had stuck with the British? Would slavery have been abolished more promptly? Would the American Indians have been spared the bloody ravages of so-called "manifest destiny," which was an essentially racist doctrine that treated the Anglo-Saxon man as a "supreme race" that was destined to dominate the globe? Could Hitler have been "stopped at Munich" had North America remained under the authority of the Crown? Would the UK have loosened its grip on India earlier if they had not lost their hold on what is now known as the United States of America? Do you think the Great Depression may never have happened? Let's hear your views!
I think there is something in the water wherever you are. Try the bottled stuff from now on.
Completely pointless "what if?".
History doesn't do "verdicts".
The past has passed and the future doesn't exist yet. Yes we should learn from it, but looking back into the past and trying to see where it all went "wrong" won't change the way things are today.
What would have happened if X? There is no way to know and it won't change the world we got to work with.
Quote from: tekla on July 01, 2009, 12:34:05 PM
I think there is something in the water wherever you are. Try the bottled stuff from now on.
Once again you've made me spew coffee out my nose! :laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: Miniar on July 01, 2009, 12:37:15 PMCompletely pointless "what if?".
I wouldn't say so! I think that we can learn a great deal from history by analyzing our past mistakes! Besides, it will be a joyous occasion when we have finally burst the bubble of American exceptionalism and done away with romantic nationalism once and for all! Huzzah!
Would the American Indians have been spared the bloody ravages of so-called "manifest destiny," which was an essentially racist doctrine that treated the Anglo-Saxon man as a "supreme race" that was destined to dominate the globeBecause British Imperialism was always conducted with racial sensitivity and cultural preservation in mind.
Post Merge: July 01, 2009, 12:46:15 PM
Quote from: Miniar on July 01, 2009, 12:37:15 PM
What would have happened if X? There is no way to know and it won't change the world we got to work with.
Sure there is! haven't you seen the back to the future trilogy?
Once you change one variable, then everything else downstream could change. So I'm with Miniar, it's pointless.
Besides, I'm pretty much of the opinion that all revolutions are are a good thing until proved otherwise.
Quote from: Mister on July 01, 2009, 12:45:10 PMBecause British Imperialism was always conducted with racial sensitivity and cultural preservation in mind.
That is a very strong point! That does undermine my claim that the bloodshed of American expansionism could have been averted! As a counter-claim, I submit that the Canadian government did far less damage to the Inuit people than the USA did to the Indians. This is partially due to the results of a British Naval expedition, led by William Edward Parry, which produced a sympathetic, relatively accurate account of the Inuit people. Slightly later in American history, Lincoln's transcontinental railroad did egregious damage to the the Indian peoples of the Western United States, and I submit that we would have conducted this project in a different spirit if it had been led by the British.
If you think the British went about things so differently, read up on the colonization of India.
Quote from: Mister on July 01, 2009, 01:02:12 PM
If you think the British went about things so differently, read up on the colonization of India.
Or for that matter, Cecil Rhodes exploits in South Africa. (and by proxy, the rest of the continent)
Quote from: Flan on July 01, 2009, 01:09:26 PM
Or for that matter, Cecil Rhodes exploits in South Africa. (and by proxy, the rest of the continent)
Another good example.
Quote from: Mister on July 01, 2009, 01:02:12 PM
If you think the British went about things so differently, read up on the colonization of India.
That was part of my argument. If the energies of the British Empire had been devoted to the colonialization of North America, I believe that this would have slowed the progress of their efforts in other parts of the world for long enough to allow the social liberalization inspired by the Scottish Enlightenment to set in. Because North America was far less populous at the time, the resulting bloodshed would have been significantly less than it was in India. In fact, if they had had a greater abundance of positive experiences with the North American Indians due to their lower population density, they may have behave more gently toward the peoples of India and South Africa.
Also, it is a possibility that losing part of their territory in North America may have resulted in the tightening their grip on their other colonies. A modern parallel is the panicky reactions of the Chinese government over the secession of Tiawan. As a result of the secession of Tiawan, the Chinese government seems to be far more reluctant to allow for discussion over the expansion of political freedoms in their country, so the Tiawanese may have done more harm than good for their cause.
Post Merge: July 01, 2009, 11:14:51 AM
Quote from: Flan on July 01, 2009, 01:09:26 PM
Or for that matter, Cecil Rhodes exploits in South Africa. (and by proxy, the rest of the continent)
Ouch! Direct hit! Yes, this damages the position that I took in generalizing Parry's expedition to the behavior of all or most British Naval officers.
As an amendment, I think that South Africa enjoys a much higher level of social prosperity as a result of being a member of the British Commonwealth. In spite of the historical transgressions of Cecil Rhodes and in spite of the Apartheid, I believe that South Africa is significantly better off due to British intervention. I believe that Anglicization has made them much stronger, in the long-term, in the area of human rights.
Was the American Revolution a mistake?
No.
Who do you think taught the French how to do it?
Whatever the outcome in America, it would have profoundly changed the history of Australia.
Social prosperity for South Africa? Sure, if you happen to be British, not African.
Quote from: lisagurl on July 01, 2009, 01:26:23 PM
Who do you think taught the French how to do it?
Danged French ninnies! They ruined our language! Shaaaaaaaaaaame! Shame! However, I think that the Spanish were better teachers in regard to coordinated cultural genocide.
In fact, the British had to pay the Spanish a large sum of money to finally cut off the slave trade to Cuba, Peurto Rico, and Santa Domingo. In fact, the British established a number of treaties with other nations that led to the abolition of slavery. Also, in spite of the fact that the British practiced a form of slavery against the peoples of India (indentured servitude), it deserves to be mentioned that, while they were there, they crowded out Muslim cultures that also practiced slavery and were less keen on abolition. The British potentially did the world a service in helping to snuff out the Mughal Empire, for example.
Quote from: Mister on July 01, 2009, 01:33:02 PM
Social prosperity for South Africa? Sure, if you happen to be British, not African.
Last I checked the majority of white people in South Africa were of Dutch descent, not British. That's why the Afrikaans language is a dialect of Dutch.
Quote from: Sigma Prime on July 01, 2009, 01:45:57 PM
Danged French ninnies! They ruined our language! Shaaaaaaaaaaame! Shame! However, I think that the Spanish were better teachers in regard to coordinated cultural genocide.
I believe lisagurl was referring to the French Revolution in 1790.
Quote from: Lisbeth on July 01, 2009, 01:47:31 PM
Last I checked the majority of white people in South Africa were of Dutch descent, not British. That's why the Afrikaans language is a dialect of Dutch.
i was referring to the olde timey colonial days.
Quote from: Mister on July 01, 2009, 01:49:07 PM
i was referring to the olde timey colonial days.
Okay, so let us suppose an alternate history in which the British did not have an excuse to send its navies around the world. The way I see it, this would have given Muslim dynasties freer rein in the African continent and the Orient. If I understand correctly, they did not have an abolition movement. On the other hand, the Enlightenment was still running hot in Western Europe, and they
did have an abolitionist ideology.
Yes, you're right! We'd be so much better off without a revolution.
Ok, next.
-Sandy
QuoteIn fact, the British had to pay the Spanish a large sum of money to finally cut off the slave trade to Cuba, Peurto Rico, and Santa Domingo.
Servitude is still alive and well around the world, except the corporations found out how to get away with it.
Quote from: Sandy on July 01, 2009, 02:23:01 PM
Yes, you're right! We'd be so much better off without a revolution.
Nope. I changed my mind. I discussed the matter privately with a friend. He convinced me that the American Revolution may have prevented a bloodier, more widespread revolution. The American Revolution helped drive home to the British that their power is not without limits, and it may very well have prevented them from suffering from a wholesale global political coronary heart attack
a la the Roman Empire. It reminded them that their resources were stretched far too thin, and it also reminded them that their exploitations would only be tolerated to a certain extent. He also suggested that the American Revolution may have inadvertantly served as a catalyst for the abolition of slavery; although he did not support this claim himself, I thought it through, and I decided that, if the British had maintained complete control over North America, the excesses of available land may have resulted in the abolition movement in Britain being put on hold. Wherever there is a surplus of land compared to the labor needed to claim and cultivate it, the importation of slave labor is likely to look attractive. As it was, the British ended up doing the entire world a service by
heavily promoting the abolition of slavery and the slave trade. I hardly call that a loss, even if it cannot absolutely or definitively be credited in part to the American Revolution.
Furthermore, he pointed out a multitude of similar events that history clearly tells us were very beneficial, all things considered.
Sorry, but I'm going to pull a partial 360 on this. I do not strongly advocate the American Revolution as a beneficial historical event, but I tentatively acknowledge its advantages.
QuoteOk, next.
Oh?
If you look at the record the decline in slavery probably has more to do with the rise of industrialism and its labor dictates then with any continental philosophical movement.
Quote from: tekla on July 01, 2009, 05:10:57 PM
If you look at the record the decline in slavery probably has more to do with the rise of industrialism and its labor dictates then with any continental philosophical movement.
Made possible by a mixture of philosophical and political movements. The Industrial Revolution was not created in a vacuum, nor was anything else during that time period. The truth is that Europe had been a geopolitical powderkeg for centuries.
The Industrial Revolution was not created in a vacuum, nor was anything else during that time period.
Or indeed in any time or place. All ideas are part of a larger social and cultural context.
Quote from: lisagurl on July 01, 2009, 03:41:18 PM
Servitude is still alive and well around the world, except the corporations found out how to get away with it.
Which is why I am a vocal advocate for synthetic foodstuffs. Picky, snooty people like me might notice the difference, but the average Jane American will only see it as cheap nourishment, particularly if it were sold in the form of processed, prepared foodstuffs. We already have a form of fullerene material that can harness carbon directly from the same air we breathe. If this were combined with a process that can convert the product into synthetic glucose, which can then be converted into starch, our need for agricultural sources of glucose and starch would be reduced. Heck, Sigma-Aldrich already has a way to synthesize cholesterol from non-animal sources, which can then be synthesized into estradiol. In the end, it will all come from the air that we breathe and the sun in the sky. Our reliance on the underdeveloped world has put a drag on our transition into a full-fledged knowledge economy. We've still got one foot in the age of market imperialism, and this is really not to our benefit.
OK, that's one vote for Soylent Green then. Although I guess that's organic in the end. I'm not betting on a huge demand for synthetic food anytime soon - Pringles and Kraft Cheese Whiz aside.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce)
Wilberforce was one of the guiding voices of the British Abolishionist Movement.
Some interesting dates in Britain and the US. Britain outlaws the slave trade itself in 1808. The US circa 1812. Remember the Constitution of the US outlawed the importation of slaves 20 years after ratification. The Brits end slavery throughout the Empire in 1834. We weren't that far behind in that the civil war ended in 1865/ Keep in mind also that the French and British considered aiding the Confederate cause.
Another Amrican British pararel. Check out the book, Slavery by Another Name. Documents the Jim Crow era south and north. India and Ghandi achieved independene in 1948? They then fought a sersis of wars with Pakistan. Sort of similar to our civil rightas movement in the US.
The American Indians, south American Indian populations, Africans, Aborigines, the Koreans, the entire Middle East. I'll leave it at this. It sucks to be on the receivig end of ANY expanding power.
I could write alot more. But will leave it at this. If America is so bad, than why do so many die trying to get here?
Quote from: michellesofl on July 01, 2009, 06:22:29 PMIf America is so bad, than why do so many die trying to get here?
People don't have to die trying to get to New Zealand, which provides just as many opportunities. They have a much looser immigration policy, which is one of the reasons that it is difficult to immigrate to the USA if you are moving here from New Zealand.
You got a better example than an island nation which is four hours from Australia by air?
Personal opinion. Not for one minute. I don't think that the USA would have grown as it has. And Canada and the USA would be one country by now, with a French or Mexican country in the middle.
Janet
Quote from: michellesofl on July 01, 2009, 07:23:37 PM
You got a better example than an island nation which is four hours from Australia by air?
Of good countries, you mean? Hey, if I wanted to live a prosprous, healthy life, I'd go live in Gibraltar.
What if no one figured out how to re-attach the end of my nose without much scaring? What if the NAZIS were successful because AMERICA wasn't there to join the fight? What if the JAPANESE ruled everyone because AMERICA wasn't there to finish the fight? What if no-one was willing to lead several people to safety in several countries and sustain a variety of injuries? What if someone kicked your silly butt all the way to Gibraltar and then said "Have a nice day" :laugh:
Remember the poms always said the sun would never set on the British Empire. That's because even God wouldn't trust the poms in the dark :laugh: :laugh:
Cindy
Quote from: CindyJames on July 02, 2009, 04:14:19 AM
Remember the poms always said the sun would never set on the British Empire. That's because even God wouldn't trust the poms in the dark :laugh: :laugh:
Oh you can trust me honey - honest! :)
finewine places clingfilm, family sized tub of yoghurt and a wooden spatula on the table while reaching for the light switch...muahahaha