SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ilaine who wrote (25604)11/25/2007 12:37:13 AM
From: pogohere  Respond to of 217574
 
"The Brits ran a tight ship. They were about as good as it gets, empire-wise, the best since the Romans. Better than the Spanish, who did very well, indeed."

You betcha by golly they did. They developed a body of law built on terrorism inflicted on their own people:

"In England the expropriation of the peasantry was accompanied by systematic violence and terror, organized through the criminal sanction, public searches, the prisons, martial law, capital punishment, banishment, forced labor, and colonization. Magistrates used cruel and pitiless legislation to whip, dismember, brand, hang and burn thousands; privy searches rounded up thousands more masterless men and women [some crime, being masterless, huh?]. The judicial decision known as Gateward's Case (1607) denied common rights to villagers and propertyless commoners. Despite these cruel expropriations, a residue of paternalism remained: it was still expected that, to quote from Ben Jonson's play Bartholemew Fair (1614), Justice Overdo would "give puddings to the poor . . .the bread to the hungry, and custard to his children."

The real-life equivalents of Justice Overdo routinely sent the poor, the hungry, and the young to prison, an institution that was central to the regime in terror in England."

Linebaugh & Rediker, "the Many Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Commoners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic," (2000) p.50

Knowing this was the foundation for the establishment of a central government under the proposed constitution that would mimic the British foundation, one anti-federalist wrote:

"Upon an attentive examination you can pronounce it [the proposed federal government] nothing less, than a government which in a few years, will degenerate to a compleat Aristocracy, armed with powers unnecessary in any case to bestow, and which in its vortex swallows up every other Government upon the Continent. In short, my fellow citizens, it can be said to be nothing less than a hasty stride to Universal Empire in this Western World, flattering, very flattering to young ambitious minds, but fatal to the liberties of the people. The cord is strained to the very utmost.-There is every spice of the Sic. Jubeo [thus, I command] possible in the composition. Your consent is requested, because it is essential to the introduction of it; after having received confirmation, your complaints may increase the whistling of the wind, and they will be equally regarded."

Kenyon, ed.,"The Antifederalists," (1966) p.104

The Cherokee could tell you a tale. So could a few others. And now, 200+ years later, we have 700+ military bases in 130+ countries.

Let us give thanks, this day after Thanksgiving, for that heritage of a "tight ship" run by those Brits.

By the way, how's the domestic war on terror going?



To: Ilaine who wrote (25604)11/25/2007 4:27:32 AM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217574
 
If you had not booted them out this thing would be a big Zimbabwe! They wanted to tax you. Keep you as agricultural. Partioning the country among their Lords!

Only booting them out caused nations to progress.



To: Ilaine who wrote (25604)11/25/2007 11:16:19 AM
From: gg cox  Respond to of 217574
 
Message 24081498



To: Ilaine who wrote (25604)11/25/2007 11:37:56 AM
From: arun gera  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217574
 
>America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are, of course, completely remade in England's image as much as if England terraformed new planets.>

Yes, wherever the native population was sparse, the european population and their culture came to dominate. It became their country and the native voices were not heard and forgotten.

Wherever there were sizable populations that existed in the colonies, the European colonial powers have been struggling (the process is still ongoing) to impose their culture and values (these are just alternate values, another world view, and not necessarily the natural progression for the better in all ways).

The japanese have outwardly adopted some of the way of the European powers, but still cling on strongly to their insular island culture.

The educated Indians of previous generations psychologically adopted the Victorian British values. The newer generation is more fascinated by the current day american culture, what in their minds stand for "hedonism is good". Fortunately, many of the educated are now in contact with real americans and appreciate their honesty and hard work, and notice what makes USA tick.

-Arun



To: Ilaine who wrote (25604)11/25/2007 11:48:56 AM
From: arun gera  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217574
 
You seem to be echoing some of this in a milder form.

cfr.org

“Walter Mead’s new book is both delightful and outrageous: delightful in his mischievous, well-chosen use of poems, pamphlets, and political speeches to illustrate his arguments; and outrageous in the proper sense of the word–for it will outrage lots of readers: American know-nothings who assume life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only began in 1776; liberal Brits who will be furious at the idea that they are the true and only forebears of our neocon obsession with changing the world, and making a profit from it; and foreigners everywhere, especially in French-speaking and Arabic-speaking countries, who will have their worst historical myth confirmed: that the Anglo-Saxons have been intent on dominating world affairs for at least the past four centuries and have no plans to give up the habit now.”
—Paul Kennedy, historian, Yale University

-Arun



To: Ilaine who wrote (25604)11/25/2007 1:18:58 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217574
 
Well I only have time for one shot right now CB so you are it :O)

Actually I do not disagree that the British spread a civilisation. I do disagree that this was some kind of higher goal. It was a by-product. Example, do you know the main reason why the 49th parallel is our common border for most of the west ? It is mostly because the British still were thinking in terms of the fur trade. Quite short sighted if one is hell bent on bringing the world a greater civilisation... to focus on the mostly empty, barely habitable north.. You know what the by-product of that is.

My problem with M's assertions is that he implies some higher purpose which justifies the means. That is what I disagree with. The actual results are there for all to see and the credits and debits are obvious. It is 2007 and what enduring successes have been brought upon Africa by the British, or French or Germans etc.. there ? South Africa is finally coming around.. What would have happened otherwise in the world we will never know, so there is no point in worrying about that. Hong Kong and Singapore are so tiny compared to the size of China ? An accomplishment ? or small cloisters from which to gather money ? If the British influence was so superlative in China why did we have Mao ? Heck why did we even have Sun ? There was no higher purpose, just business and commerce.. OTOH I'm quite happy with the British legacy in my country :o)

America ? You started to boot the British in 1776... You guys were in the right place at the right time. I would almost completely disagree and offer that under British hegemony and thinking you guys would never have grown as you have.. not even close.. Just look north. That is not a value judgment either by the way. It just depends on your yardstick. I'd say Australia and New Zealand are also much further down the totem pole also compared the US success story... Aw what might have been had we booted the Brits out too :o) ...

Romans ? I agree that British were more efficient. The Romans actually spent too much time spreading their civilisation... as in trying to make everything just like home where they held on to land long enough.. The British took little enclaves/strongholds mostly it appears relative to the areas they controlled. I guess South Africa and Rhodesia would be sort of exceptions as they took large tracts of land not legally owned under British law for themselves.. So far one of those is on the right track now more or less..

Spanish ? That ended well ? They blew all their wealth like drunken sailors and what have they left behind except language (and Catholicism) ? I'd say the Portuguese actually left a far better legacy with Brazil.

we just subvert and assimilate them. We turn them into us, just as we did Canada. Sorry. ROTF.. Yeah a lot of that is true but the cultural differences are still huge.. so no need to apologize.. As an aside to the similarities.. When I was in Beijing this summer the news (a Chinese tv station) had a ten minute spiel on Paris Hilton and jail woes.. It was British feed and reporter being translated into Chinese.. I'm moaning who cares... but here we are thousands of miles away across the Pacific and yet finding the world is riveted on Paris Hilton ? WTF :O) That part of us you have taken over... You are more than welcome to it LOL..


Of course you don't agree, you think you're different and special.
Again that is Mq's take, not mine. I clearly stated that the British were no better or worse than anyone. I'm of course part of anyone. Also my take on the US BTW.. Everyone that gets a chance takes their turn at the top..

I get the impression that this is his view of the British...


Reformed English pirate Captain Morgan (Laird Cregar, Blood and Sand) now enjoys respectability and the governorship of Jamaica following a truce between his native country and Spain. Settling into the life of a bureaucrat, Captain Morgan employs some of his former colleagues in crime to rule the island and wipe out the remaining pirates of the Caribbean. For his chief lieutenants he hires buccaneer Jamie Waring (Power) and Tommy Blue (Mitchell), a curmudgeonly pirate who holds lifelong allegiance to Waring.

All's well until the brutish Captain Leech (Sanders) and his first mate Wogan (Anthony Quinn, The Guns of Navarone), refuse to lay down their cutlasses in favor of attacking gold-laden ships. Leech gets his intelligence from Roger Ingram (Edward Ashley), a disgraced Jamaican official who wants to impeach Morgan so he can regain control of the island for corrupt former governor Lord Denby (Zucco). Ingram also has his eye on Lord Denby's gorgeous daughter Lady Margaret (O'Hara). But Buccaneer Jamie Waring has other ideas when he catches a glimpse of Margaret's emerald eyes and fiery hair.

When Waring and his old pal Tommy Blue are double-crossed and have to flee Jamaica, they kidnap Lady Margaret so she can't marry Ingram. The wily pirates hastily assemble a crew and set to sea after the vile Leech, captain of The Black Swan, the fastest ship on the Caribbean.

Romance blooms as Waring and his pirates race to Tortuga where Captain Leech plans to loot the entire fleet of the Spanish Main in an explosive, swashbuckling climax.


It was a great flic when I was a child.. and the line between good and bad was defined by John Wayne and Randolph Scott :O)

The Black Swan :O)



To: Ilaine who wrote (25604)11/25/2007 1:42:23 PM
From: gg cox  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217574
 
<<Of course you don't agree, you think you're different and special. Well, of course you do. And of course you are. Different and special. Not at all assimilated. No worries. >>

Your pack is different and special too. <<gg>> No worries.

youtube.com

mywonderfulworld.org



To: Ilaine who wrote (25604)11/25/2007 1:51:15 PM
From: Snowshoe  Respond to of 217574
 
>>The Brits ran a tight ship.<<

They also ran some tight nooses around the necks of my rebellious ancestors!



To: Ilaine who wrote (25604)11/28/2007 8:52:26 AM
From: gg cox  Respond to of 217574
 
Message 24089750



To: Ilaine who wrote (25604)11/28/2007 8:32:33 PM
From: gg cox  Respond to of 217574
 
Message 24091689