Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (161660)	5/10/2005 12:02:04 AM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The french really had pushed the limits of civilised behaviour on the frontier, so there was hard feeling left over ... also Québec was given self-governing powers that other colonies had been wanting for years, powers they likely would have gotten had they not been making hooting noises of rebellion ... the royal proclamation of 1763 actually came after land speculation companies had been organised to exploit the gains of the seven years war ... that proclamation still forms part of canadian constitutional documents, especially as it applies to relations with indians .... it didn't stop the 'buying' of indian lands, it just tried to make the process a little more equitable than it had been, most members of a tribe had to agree to move, instead of the old way where you handed one guy some beads or a steel knife, then when he smiled and nodded you owned everything you could find until you bumped into the next tribe The government in parliament had changed, too, this is part of it ... Pitt the elder had done alright in colonial affairs, Lord North not so well, he misread the depth of anti-british feeling that was rising, thought he could straighten things out with firm measures, but they only made it worse ... one of these was when he dismissed the members of one colonial legislature and said members would be appointed for the next session, well that was probably the wrong move ... at the time, it was considered unfair by the british parliament, who were pretty strapped for funds, that the colonies were refusing to pay for any part of a war that had been for their own benefit, and that they themselves had initiated Robbing the loyalists - Washington even signed off on the robbing of the entire family of a woman he had courted, Mary Philipse, took everything they had, including an hundred-year old house, the family had been there for generations ... loyalists were the majority in large parts of the colonies, they were all robbed, killed or chased away, dissent was not permitted A lot of the 'rights of man' political philosophy stuff that forms US rhetoric regarding those days was actually shared by many british whigs ... in fact, there were far more whigs in the UK than in the colonies, there were liberal thinkers all over Europe, not too many years later the name Liberales would first be applied to anti-imperialists in Spain ... this is not generally recognised in the US, where Liberty is seen as made-in-the-USA with no imported parts, no Magna Carta, no old saxon assemblies, no tradition of rights of the english yeoman ... at least, that's the impression gained from Hollywood and most internet threads This Kingdom of Heaven flic sounds worth seeing, must be alright if Nadine doesn't like it -g- ... it will be an abridged version of history, you can't put out otherwise in two hours, but it may encourage people to read up on the full history, which relates directly to today's events - 'Kingdom of Heaven Tops Box Office' - ca.us.biz.yahoo.com