British Colonies and Spanish Colonies

[Ruso]

Actually seasonal variations are no guarantee of national success.  Great Britain has a much milder climate than Europe and has less variation between extremes due to the Gulf Stream.  But Britian has always been a very successful nation in comparison to Europe.  England has had nation status for over a thousand years while a country like Germany did not exist as a single political entity until the 1870s.

Also note the similarites in climate and terrain between the U.S. and Russia.  The U.S. is a super-power, while Russia has a long history as a backwards nation- as today's news about the loss of yet another Russian submarine shows.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know that it would not be a guarantee.Nevertheless there is an interesting pattern. Russia could be a sociological exception. Maybe the fact the the nobility had serves assured, and that provoked a lesser need for comunal development. Am just especulating.

[jeafl]

The royal family lives in absolute luxury at the taxpayers expense and supported by "the law" there.  No common person in the UK could ever hope to have such advantages.  This privilege would never be tolerated in the USA.

Actually the Royal family used to pay income taxes and after a period of exemption I think they once again have to pay these taxes.

And you should note that after Edward VIII abdicated he and Mrs. Simpsom lived by going from one rich American's house to the next. He once commented that the hospitality he found in these houses was more lavish than what the royal households of Europe had ever provided for him.

You say America does not tolerate such luxury? Try researching the salary and compensation package granted to members of Congress.

Further, members  House of Lords get the right to make and pass laws that affect everyone.

For at least 100 years the Lords have had no power to originate legislation and the most they could to veto legislation was to delay passage by one year. And a recent law has even taken away this power.

[jeafl]

I know that it would not be a guarantee.Nevertheless there is an interesting pattern. Russia could be a sociological exception. Maybe the fact the the nobility had serves assured, and that provoked a lesser need for comunal development. Am just especulating. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually the Russians have been a basket case since the nation's founding. One of the ethnic components of the Russian People is Scandinavians. While other Norsemen were raiding the coasts of Western Europe some were estabishing overland trade routes with Byzantium. The Vikings would put their boats in the first river they could find going south, row to the end of that river and then carry their boats overland till they found the next river going south- all the way to Byzantium. And, of couse, on the way back the same routine with the boats out of water had to be repeated. I guess it never occured to these soon to be Russians to build a road or connect the rivers with canals. If the trade goods available in the eastern Med could have been taken by water to northern Europe without going past Gilbraltar, the whole of European history would have been different. It would have been Britain against Russia or Germany instead of Britain against France and Spain.

[Ruso]

Democracy: government by the people; rule of the majority; gov. in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usu. involving periodically held free elections. the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.

Jeafl: It is not about knowing a lot of facts. What is important is to be able to make relations between them. Random information about names and dates might help in a trivia contest, not necessarily to argue anything. Read the definition of democracy. Maybe the British had a culture that would eventually lead to a democratic gov, but it is ludicrous to say that they were democratic from the beginning. And just in case, my praises about your comments were sarcastic, (I got the impression you did not get that, sorry I tend to do that)

Well, off to bed.... (UP lacks a sleepy face)

*source: Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary

[monsoon]

You say America does not tolerate such luxury?  Try researching the salary and compensation package granted to members of Congress.

For at least 100 years the Lords have had no power to originate legislation and the most they could to veto legislation was to delay passage by one year.  And a recent law has even taken away this power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Read what I said again. I did not say American's don't tolerate luxury. Our entire economic system is based on the pursuit of luxury.

Instead, I said the UK system is not a democratic system as long as it has a members that enjoy special govermental privileges, rights, and support based solely on what family they were born into. i.e. The Royal family and members of the House of Lords.

The income tax the Queen pays is irrelevant. I will point out the Queen only volunteered to pay this tax to deflect criticism from her family's preposterious and excessive lifestyle paid for by the common person. The common citizens have no ability to make her do so and if she stopped, there would be no repercussions for her or her family. That is not equal treatment. What do you think would happen if the average person in the UK stop paying taxes?

This unequal legislative system would not be tolerated in the USA. Here any citizen, no matter who their parents are, can become members of any branch of the government.

[jeafl]

Democracy: government by the people; rule of the majority; gov. in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usu. involving periodically held free elections. the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.

Jeafl: It is not about knowing a lot of facts. What is important is to be able to make relations between them.  Random information about names and dates might help in a trivia contest, not necessarily to argue anything. Read the definition of democracy. Maybe the British had a culture that would eventually lead to a democratic gov, but it is ludicrous to say that they were democratic from the beginning. And just in case, my praises about your comments were sarcastic, (I got the impression you did not get that, sorry I tend to do that)

Well, off to bed.... (UP lacks a sleepy face)

*source: Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have seen

[jeafl]

Read what I said again.  I did not say American's don't  tolerate luxury.  Our entire economic system is based on the pursuit of luxury.   

Instead, I said the UK system is not a democratic system as long as it has a members that enjoy special govermental  privileges,  rights,  and support based solely on what family they were born into.  i.e. The Royal family and members of the House of Lords. 

The income tax the Queen pays is irrelevant.  I will point out the Queen only volunteered to pay this tax  to  deflect criticism from  her family's preposterious and excessive lifestyle paid for by the common person.  The common citizens have no ability to make her do so and if she stopped, there would be no repercussions for her or her family.    That is not equal treatment.  What do you think would happen if the average person in the UK stop paying taxes? 

This unequal legislative system would not be tolerated in the USA.  Here any citizen, no matter who their parents are, can become members of any branch of the government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you are still failing to make the proper distinction between a democracy and a republic, between democratic ideals and tyranny. As I just said both the U.S. and U.K. have democratic governments in that no individual or class of individuals has absolute power. This is the very essence of democracy.

As for public criticism prompting a government official to do something, again the essence of democracy.

[Mith242]

As soon as I start having computer problems all sorts of interesting topics get discussed over here. Unfortunately I don't have time at the moment to comment on everything discussed here recently. But it is all very interesting. Until I can get my computer up and running again I hope to see this topic keep going.

[Ruso]

I have seen

[jeafl]

Nazi germany did have arbitrary political offices. That is a terrible example because then you are ignoring other parts of the definition. No am not confusing a republic with a democracy, just read the definition. And I do know history, alot, I just dont like to brag about my studies.  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nazi Germany had no hereditary politcial office. This the classic definition of a republic. However, Nazi Germany had no concept of the rule of law or human rights or civil rights. Nazi Germany was a republic, but not a democratic one.

[jeafl]

While we are on the topic of Germany, let me draw your attention to the analysis of journalist and historian William L. Shirer. In his Rise and Fall of the Third Reich Shirer commented that the Weimar constitution was, "was, on paper, the most liberal and democratic document of its kind the twentieth century had seen, mechanically well-nigh perfect, full of ingenious and admirable devices which seemed to guarantee the working of a an almost flawless democracy."

However, Weimar's system of proportional representation allowed small splinter parties to proliferate. This made a stable majority in the Reichstag impossible and lead to frequent elections while allowing the Nazi Party to gain an influence Nazi voters may not have otherwise had.

But, the most damming part of the Weimar constitution was Article 48, which allowed the president to rule by decree during times of emergency. Thus a chancellor did not have to have the support of a majority in the Reichstag- he could simply rule by having the president issue decrees. This is precisely how Hitler gained his own dictatorial powers. Someone, most likely the Nazis themselves, set fire to the Reichstag building. Chancellor Hitler then prompted President Hindenburg to issue a decree that suspended civil rights. Thus the Nazis managed to lock up members of the left-leaning political parties, shut down their publishing operations and suspend their campaign activities. This enabled the Nazis to browbeat the centrist parties to accept the passing of a law that stripped the Reichstag of its legislative powers and made Hitler chancellor for as long as he wanted to be chancellor.

Some democracy. I'll take the Anglo or American version anytime.

[Ruso]

Nazi Germany had no hereditary politcial office.  This the classic definition of a republic.  However, Nazi Germany had no concept of the rule of law or human rights or civil rights.  Nazi Germany was a republic, but not a democratic one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nobody said Nazi Germany was democratic....

[monsoon]

And you are still failing to make the proper distinction between a democracy and a republic, between democratic ideals and tyranny.  As I just said both the U.S. and U.K. have democratic governments in that no individual or class of individuals has absolute power.  This is the very essence of democracy.

As for public criticism prompting a government official to do something, again the essence of democracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I am not. Democratic governments presume that all people are created equally. Democratic is used loosely in this meaning as from a practical matter its not possible to have the population vote on every single issue. That is why we have representative democratic governments. aka republic. People vote for a representative and they act on behalf of their constitutiants. In the USA, all people are created equal in this form of government and can hold any office in the government. I assumed you knew this.

I will repeat what I have said all along. The system in the UK is not a modern democratic representative government as long as it recognizes that certain families are better than others and allow people to hold public office based on what family they were born in. A backwards system in my opinion.

In comparison, the UK has several elements of its government which does not allow any citizen to hold office. Instead it is passed on by inheritance. A huge difference and in my mind not a modern government of the people where everyone is treated equally and presumed to be created equally. As I said before, its only found in old europe and a number of backward countries. Laws, civil rights etc, are fine, but it is an inferior system if they don't apply equally to everyone.

Hitler and Stalin did not run democracies.

[jeafl]

Nobody said Nazi Germany was democratic....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But, technically it was a republic. You can have a democratic monarchy or a democratic republic. Whether or not you have a king or hereditary aristocrats does not determine whether or not you have a democratic society.

[jeafl]

No I am not.  Democratic governments presume that all people are created equally.

Since when? The U.S. once allowed slavery- but we still had democratically elected representative government. The U.S. once did not allow women to vote, but we still had a democratically elected representative government. The U.S. once did not allow 18 year-olds to vote, but we still had a democratically elected representative government.

I will repeat what I have said all along.  The system in the UK is not a modern democratic representative government as long as it recognizes that certain families are better than others and allow people to hold public office based on what family they were born in.  A backwards system in my opinion.

And I will repeat what you still don't seem to understand: The House of Lords has been essentially powerless for the last century and has essentially ceased to exist under Tony Blair.

Since medieval times Knights of the Shires were included in the council that advised the English king. This council was transformed into the Parliament in 1295 when the Model Parliament also included representatives for towns (boroughs).

So you see it has been a very long time since the English aristocracy was allowed to run roughshod over commoners.

And note that it was the House of Commons that lead the rebellion against Charles I.

It does not matter whether or not someone hold office by right of birth. What does matter is how much power that person is allowed to exercise unchecked. Either the king's council or Parliament has always held him in check and the Commons has done the same for the Lords for over 700 years.

[ilektronik]

I find it interesting that the Mexican/South American civilizations (and Central American) were FAR more advanced than those that existed in North America. Now it is the complete opposite.

[jeafl]

No I am not.  Democratic governments presume that all people are created equally.

Since when?

The people on this board make no sense. On the one hand you say I give the British too much credit for originating democracy because the Greeks and Romans had democracies before the Brits did.

But, then you also insist that democratic governments presume that all people are created equal.

Did the Greeks and Romans see all people as equal? The Athenians did not extend their democratic voting rights to women, slaves or non-Athenians. And were the Roman senators not all from aristocratic families?

You cannot have it both ways.

[jeafl]

I find it interesting that the Mexican/South American civilizations (and Central American) were FAR more advanced than those that existed in North America. Now it is the complete opposite.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are no doubt referring to the indigenous civilizations. The North had superiority over the South since 1607.

[monsoon]

Since when?  The U.S. once allowed slavery- but we still had democratically elected representative government.  The U.S. once did not allow women to vote, but we still had a democratically elected representative government.  The U.S. once did not allow 18 year-olds to vote, but we still had a democratically elected representative government.

And I will repeat what you still don't seem to understand: The House of Lords has been essentially powerless for the last century and has essentially ceased to exist under Tony Blair.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We have been talking about modern democratic governments. Not ones of centuries ago. I think I have said modern several times now. Slavery was certainly backwards and uncivilized and not something that would be accepted in most of the world today. Monarchs and Government by inheritance is also backwards, uncivilized and something that most of the world would not accept today.

I will repeat my original statement. The US and UK governments are not the same and while the USA's government is a model for modern countries to follow, the system in the UK certainly is not. The UK system is backwards as long as it recognizes that certain citizens are better than others based solely on what family they are born into. The same basis for Ameircan slavery which ended here 140 years ago.

[jeafl]

We have been talking about modern democratic governments.  Not ones of centuries ago.  I think I have said modern several times now.  Slavery was certainly backwards and uncivilized and not something that would be accepted in most of the world today.  Monarchs and Government by inheritance is also backwards, uncivilized and something that most of the world would not accept today.

I will repeat my original statement.  The US and UK governments are not the same and while the USA's government is a model for modern countries to follow, the system in the UK certainly is not.  The UK system  is backwards as long as it recognizes that certain citizens are better than others  based solely on what family they are born into.  The same basis for Ameircan slavery which ended here 140 years ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This thread is about the history behind the variant conditions in countries that originated as British colonies as opposed to countries that originated as Spanish or French colonies. That being the case I cannot help but discuss the democratic history of the British and American Peoples. If you wish to have a limited discussion on conditions prevailing in modern democratic societies start a thread to that effect. But, you cannot discuss the prevailing conditions in former colonies without discussing their history so I reiterate that the British and American People are the only people in history inherently suited to live in a democratic society. They originated the concept of democracy as the world now knows it and only a fool would deny them the credit they are due.

[Ruso]

Since when?

The people on this board make no sense.

[monsoon]

  They originated the concept of democracy as the world now knows it and only a fool would deny them the credit they are due.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would be the USA only.

When George Washington's final term ended and Adams became President, it marked the first time in human history the leader of a nation changed hands without death or violence (war). People came from all over the world to witness this "specticle" at the ceremony in Philadelphia. It inspired nations all over the world to eventually adopt the system in the USA. (and move away from ones such as an idiot king sitting on the throne in Britian)

[jeafl]

I have forgotten about this thread, but oh well.

As I said before, it is not about random facts. You need to relate them to form an argument.

This is precisely what I have done. I guess you are just too ignorant to understand.

Of course the Greeks and Romans did not have equal rights for everyone. It is a process. Therefore, it is ludicrous to say that the brits had democracy from the beginning. Post-hoc logic: A parliament does not mean a democracy. With that method of reasoning, you could say Cuba is democracy (they have congresses)

Post-hoc logic example : You have a cat, Chinese people have cats, then you must be Chinese.

You obviously fail to see the difference between tyranny and free and open elections. In Britain the Crown has never had much, if any, say in who sits in Parliament and the Lords has had similar limitations when it comes to selecting the Commons. And as historian Bruce Catton said, working class Britons have not always been able to cast votes, but they have always been able to cast bricks- meaning that the common people of Britain have always been willing and able to riot when their government becomes abusive and they had no alternative way of influencing public policy.

Argentina was one of the 5 wealthiest nations until WW1

And your documentation for this is what?

They did not originate it. You need to realize that it is a process. The ideas that inspired them came from other people, from other nations, from other times.

Like I have said before, since Saxon times the British have been somewhat isolated from the rest of Western Europe and they had no contact with Eastern Europe until the Crusades and no large scale contact with Eastern Europe until the Renaissance. The British had no contact with Grecco-Roman knowledge, government or philosophy until they had already established representative government. The Brits did originate their own democracy.

It has been said that they who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. In the same vein, someone who does not know and understand history, but persists in trying to lecture them that do invariably plays the role of the fool. Since you have yet to clarify the extent to which you have studied history, you must be the fool in this equation.

[jeafl]

That would be the USA only. 

When George Washington's final term ended and Adams became President, it marked the first time in human history the leader of a nation changed hands without death or violence (war).  People came from all over the world to witness this "specticle" at the ceremony in Philadelphia.  It inspired nations all over the world to eventually adopt the system in the USA.  (and move away from ones such as an idiot king sitting on the throne in Britian)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually both England and Scotland had had several instances in which the monarchy changed hands in a peaceful succession. Henry VIII had taken the throne when his father Henry VII died. Edward VI had no trouble taking the throne when Henry VIII died. Bloody Mary did take the throne by violence, but her own successor, Elizabeth I, became queen peacefully. And Elizabeth left the throne to her distant cousin James I who was succeeded by his son Charles I without violence and Charles II was given the throne by act of Parliament.

And in American history it had never happened that a state governor had was driven from office or placed in office by violence. Washington's leaving office voluntarily was nothing new.

And if you want to talk psychological impact, Washington resigning command of the army was greater in Europe than his leaving the presidency. The Europeans believed that Washington would become a dictator because dictatorship was the only thing the Europeans (with the possible exception of Holland) knew. They still believed that humans could not naturally govern themselves- even though the British had shown the opposite for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Historians make much of the Revolution of 1800 whereby government power shifted from one political faction to another in a peaceful manner. But, control of Parliament had shifted peacefully several times between Whig and Torry in Great Britain and Prime Ministers had come and gone without violence for almost a hundred years. America did not set the precedent.

[Ruso]

This is precisely what I have done.