British Colonies and Spanish Colonies

[jeafl]

I suspect that all of them consider that a good thing.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Speaking as someone with extensive English ancestry, I agree. All English are glad that they are not Scots.

Hadrian, you should've built us a bigger wall.

[jeafl]

Before all of you praise the 18th century British system, I would highly recommend a read of the the Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies (United States).  It is a pretty good documentary on what people in the soon to be United States thought of the system in Britian.  If you believe the document, then the British system was as just as corrupt and backwards as that in Spain.  i.e. No Human rights, no representation, and rule by a despot. 

History doesn't seem to be a subject of much interest in American public school these days, and based on the comments presented here I suspect most of you have not read this fine document.  A copy can be viewed here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And were there not many Brits who agreeed with the American cuase? What about Wilkes, Barre and Burke? Even Admiral Lord Howe was something of an American sympathizer.

[jeafl]

I have read the Declaration Of Independence in its entirety many times.  I have also read the US Constitution.  I suggest you read the Magna Carta, which is the basis for the rights of Englishmen (and, by extention, us).  If you read this, you will find many parallels with our current system of government, such as the right to trial by jury and prohibiting the taking of life, liberty or property without due process of law.  The problem with the American colonies was that we did not have the same rights as Englishmen, in that we were governed from Britain but we did not have any representatives in Parliament (hence the phrase "no taxation without representation").  The British in 1770 were actually the freest people in the world, by the way, and the tax burden on the colonists was relatively light, especially compared with today.  It is clear that Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration, was trying to cast King George III in the worst possible light.  I personally think a compromise could have been reached to accommodate all parties had cooler heads prevailed but the British govt. chose an iron fist response which alienated the colonists and led to independence eventually.  You should read David McCollough's new book 1776 for more on this.  I am descended from both loyalists and patriots so I can sympathize with both positions. 

By the way, I have a BA in History from the University Of Florida, so I am well acquainted with the subject.

For more on the Magna Carta, see  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta

For more on the book, 1776:  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem in 1776 did not rest on the British system, but rather the Hun who was allowed to run it.

[Mith242]

I was away from this topic for a few days and got busy all of a sudden. After hearing all the interesting viewpoints I was also wondering. Does anyone think or see a time where a Latin American country becomes a major player in the world? It doesn't have to be like a superpower or anything quite like that. That and do Latin American countries and their people want that kind of government and country?

And back to a topic that was mentioned a little before, it is how some aspects of society seem to have been carried over into the new countries. The US is often viewed as being 'prudish' by many other countries. It almost seems that many of the early colonist who came over like the Puritans and so on had a lasting effect on the country. I'm not even sure if they were even in the majority amoung the colonists. But it seems certain aspects have been carried on and are now almost a part of the culture here.

[jeafl]

I was away from this topic for a few days and got busy all of a sudden.  After hearing all the interesting viewpoints I was also wondering.  Does anyone think or see a time where a Latin American country becomes a major player in the world?  It doesn't have to be like a superpower or anything quite like that.  That and do Latin American countries and their people want that kind of government and country? 

And back to a topic that was mentioned a little before, it is how some aspects of society seem to have been carried over into the new countries.  The US is often viewed as being 'prudish' by many other countries.  It almost seems that many of the early colonist who came over like the Puritans and so on had a lasting effect on the country.  I'm not even sure if they were even in the majority amoung the colonists.  But it seems certain aspects have been carried on and are now almost a part of the culture here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mexico probably has the greatest potential considering its size, population and oil reserve. But, something would have to be done about the drug trade and corruption in general. And in my opinion, Mexicans would also have to greatly change their attitude towards Americans. A few months ago I heard about a U.S.-Mexico soccer game in Mexico City. Any time the Mexicans scored a game the spectators yelled "Osama".

[Ruso]

What other country or culture has ever implemented anything comparable to the democratic societies the Brits and Americans enjoy?

If no such country or culture exists, my generalization is valid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Currently, the scandinavians, the french, the germans, the italians, western europe in general. Again, of course there is not going to be other nations with the exact british or american sense of democracy. The concept changes according to each culture. According to many, the american method of election is not democratic. See, it is all about perspective, as I have said many time in many places.

I was away from this topic for a few days and got busy all of a sudden.

[monsoon]

I saw a program on the History channel that discussed why English, American English BTW, became the defacto "universal language" spoken on the earth.

One of the distinctions that it made was the difference between English colonists and those of France, Spain and Portugal. English colonists came here to stay in comparison there really were no colonists from the other countries and instead they mainly came here to harvest resources for their respective countries and to either convert and/or conquer the natives to Christianity. In North America (minus Mexico) this meant that English based society and common law were established here from early days and overrode areas settled by Spain and France.

As a side note, American English is different from British English for a few reasons, most having to do with Webster. His book "The American Spelling Dictionary" was used for decades in the 18th and 19th centurys to teach millions of American children English. In this book, he decided to first clean up english words by removing extra characters such as the "u" in honour, convert centre to center, and so forth. Also as a snub to the English Aristocracy, he changed the punctuation of many words to what is common in the USA today. Webster's system worked remarkably well.

[jeafl]

Currently, the scandinavians, the french, the germans, the italians, western europe in general.

And these countries have had democracy since when? The English have had some for of democracy since at least the time King Egbert- no Saxon king was an absolute monarch.

In the time that America went from colonies to republic France has had 2 kingdoms, 2 or 3 empires and 5 republics.

In that same time Germany has had hundreds of petty principalities, an empire, a Third Reich, the SS and Gestapo and 50 years of military occupation by the British and Americans.

And since the Italians overthrew the dictator Mussolini what is the longest period of time they have gone with the same government? Have the Italians really achieved national unity?

Again, of course there is not going to be other nations with the exact british or american sense of democracy. The concept changes according to each culture.

I did not ask about cultural variations on democracy. I asked which country/culuture had anything close to Anglo-American democracy.

Chile, Argentina and Brazil, and even Colombia, are for me and many experts, future fisrt world countries. Chile already is.

And all of these countries had to learn democracy from the Anglo-American model. It is not something any of them created solely on their own.

[jeafl]

I saw a program on the History channel that discussed why English, American English BTW, became the defacto "universal language" spoken on the earth. 

One of the distinctions that it made was the difference between English colonists and those of France, Spain and Portugal.  English colonists came here to stay in comparison there really were no colonists from the other countries and instead they mainly came here to harvest resources for their respective countries and to either convert and/or conquer the natives to Christianity.  In North America (minus Mexico) this meant that English based society and common law were established here from early days and overrode areas settled by Spain and France. 

As a side note, American English is different from British English for a few reasons, most having to do with Webster.  His book "The American Spelling Dictionary" was used for decades in the 18th and 19th centurys to teach millions of American children English.  In this book, he decided to first clean up english words by removing extra characters such as the "u" in honour, convert centre to center, and so forth.  Also as a snub to the English Aristocracy, he changed the punctuation of many words to what is common in the USA today.  Webster's system worked remarkably well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I recently read a book The Adventure of English that claimed that Americans have a purer pronounciation than the English now do. Americans sound more like the way the English used to sound. The author said that regional dialects in America are not so distinct that people in different parts of the country cannot understand one another. I find this hard to believe since I have trouble understanding both Southerners and Yankees (I'm a native Floridian and my family has lived in the South since the Revolution). I gather that this English writer does not have a very good understanding of American culture and geography. But, this may be typical of English writers in general. Even Winston Churchill (half American himself) was flat wrong about some of the things he said in his History of the English Speaking Peoples.

The author of The Adventure of English also claims that dialects in Britian are still so distinct that people living no more than a hundred miles away cannot understand each other.

[monsoon]

This same point was made in the show on the History channel that I referred to and I think its pretty on the mark.

[RiversideGator]

monsoon: I saw part of that program too and it was very interesting. I find the study of English dialects fascinating. As for the people in England today, not only is it people in different parts of the country having widely different accents, but also people even in different neighborhoods of London. The Eastenders sound completely different than the residents of Kensington, for example. Having travelled all over England, I can clearly notice the regional differences too - people in the Northeast in Durham and Newcastle sound much different than someone in Bath or London, not to mention Scotland or Wales. Some regional differences have become less pronounced due to radio/TV, but they are surprisingly stubborn and persist both in America and Britain. Long live regional accents!!

[Ruso]

I saw a program on the History channel that discussed why English, American English BTW, became the defacto "universal language" spoken on the earth.

[jeafl]

I find that linguistics are a very interesting topic. French is second world language right?

Nope, it's English.

And the angloamerican model of democracy is not something they created on their own. Again, of course the angloamerican way is not going to be exactly the same in every democratic nation, because of the cultural variations. But that does not mean democracy does not exist in other parts of the world.

Who created on their own? Since the English and the Americans are the only people in history who had and have maintained a democratic government since their earliest history, is Anglo-American democracy not the model all other countries have used for their own democracies? Have you never heard the Parliament in Westminster called The Mother of Parliaments?

(Ex:Americans also got hats, but they do not have the mexican models. Their hats have the same purpose, but they are adapted to the culture.  )

Also, you cannot measure them according to time, what is important is that they are aplying them now.

What do hats have to do with the topic under discussion? Clothing fashions change. Anglo-American democratic ideals are timeless. In all of recorded history these ideals have no documented point of origin. They are something the English and the Americans have always taken for granted. We did not have to copy what anyone else was doing. Democracy is the natural state for the Anglo-American.

[jeafl]

Robin McNiel

[jeafl]

As for the Irish accent: If it is coming from Maureen O'Hara, I'll take it.

Otherwise, I still blame the Irish for producing the Kennedys.

[Ruso]

Nope, it's English.

Who created on their own?

[jeafl]

I thought the first one was english, the second french. I am pretty sure.

I have seen estimates that about 400 million people have English as their first language and another 400 million use it as a second language. OTOH the total number of French speakers (first and second language) is only 300 million. I doubt that French can be the 2nd most used 2nd language.

Natura democracyl? Oh, be careful with that kind of idealizations. I suggest you to read Europe's earliest history. It is quite interesting . And democracy, similarly to fashion is adaptable to different times, cultures, and beliefs.

You are making the erroneous assumption that the British are European. God put the English Channel there for a purpose. Thus the British Isles developed by and large in isolation from Europe and thus are a distinct entity from Europeans.

Their earliest history, really???????Are you including nomadic american tribes?

Not unless the nomadic American (please use proper capitalization) tribes are British. England has been a distinct political unit since Egbert, King of the West Saxons, gained the allegiance of all of the English tribes in the 9th century. England's history goes back to this time. And (speaking as someone who took 40 credit hours of history/social studies while earning a B.A. in biology from Emory University) I use history in the proper technical sense- history has to be written.

Are you including  bce times in England?

Like I just said England did not exist in the era Before Christ. Their (written) history goes back to the 9th century AD and they have been democratic since that time. So the English have been democratic for their entire history.

And the americans and the british were the first ones to implement the system, yet remember that from the greeks, to the romans, to a variety of many philosophers and thinkers, the idea is not created by either british or americans.

I've already covered how the Romans and Athenians (and Greeks in general) failed to maintain their democracy and do not need to cover this material again. This means the Romans and Greeks are not naturally democratic. And I will add that neither the Greeks, nor the Romans, had anything comparable to Anglo-American common law or trial by jury and both had very limited definitions of citizenship and very limited civil rights. I'll take the Anglo-American version of democracy any day.

It is a consequence of earlier civilizations'intents. Without the greek idea, maybe democracy perse would not exist today.

Can you document that any member of the Witan ever read Grecco-Roman philosophy? Did King Egbert? What about Alfred the Great? Surely William the Conqueror must have been reading about Greek democracy in 1066. And, if what you say is true, the barons who yoked King John at Runnymede in 1215 must have access to the laws of Solon.

If you know anything about European history, you would know that Western Europe had little, if any, knowledge of the Grecco-Roman World until the Crusades and this knowledge did not become widespread until the Reanaissance. These events took place several centuries after the English already had their democracy.

The congress, and voting method was invented there. I truly believe that it is thanks to the american and french revolutions that democracy and other essential values  have been succesfully been added to the world order of today.

The French? Surely you are joking what with Napoleon and Vichy.

And about the hats, have you ever heard the term metaphor?

Two years of English literature and compositon and 1 year of AP English literature and composition in high school; I do know what a metaphor is. But, your metaphor does not hold up. Hat style is a just that a style. As I said in my other post Anglo-American ideals are not merely fashion statements subject to the whim of the moment.

[Ruso]

I have seen estimates that about 400 million people have English as their first language and another 400 million use it as a second language.

[monsoon]

Nope, it's English.

  Have you never heard the Parliament in Westminster called The Mother of Parliaments?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well only in terms of where they insist on keeping a king/queen on the throne. I would not lump the UK and the US together in terms of being an example to the rest of the world. The system in the USA is much much more preferable to a modern democratic society than that in the UK.

The idea of a Parliament and government by inheritance (UK model) was totally rejected by the USA when they formed the government. The USA model, with it's Constitution that grants the same rights to all citizens, is the model for modern democratic governments. The government jn the UK which still recognizes Royality and allots special priviledges to this group of people simply because they were born into the right family. Thats hardly democratic and it is only found in old Europe and backwards places such as Saudi Arabia,and Jordan

The presumption that "All Men are Created Equal" still does not exist in England and until it does, I would not recommend its government to anyone. The USA stands alone as being the oldest Constitutional government, that grants the same rights to all people, in the world.

[jeafl]

Sorry about capitalization errors, I got other things to do so I did not have time to spell check.

Unfortunately, the internet (or Internet if you are MS Word), will likely be the death of the English Language as we now know it.

The language is not only about the number of people that speak it, but about its general use. If it was about numbers, then the Chinese would take the price.

Price or prize?

And BTW: I read that English has a vocabulary of anywhere from 500,000 to 1,000,000 words and it has a word-creation ability second only to Mandarin Chinese.

But the truly remarkable thing about English is that it is a difficult language to learn, has been mastered only 3 times in its history (Shakespeare, the King James Bible and Sir Winston Churchill) and yet it is still the world's #1 second language.

So british entire history has been democratic? With such knowledge, I cannot find a right answer. Is it that absolute, that simple? They have always been democratic by nature. Is it that easy to reduce history and sociology to that statement?

I have never seen any claim or documentation that the earliest known Saxon kings did not have a Witan or that the King did not serve at the Witan's pleasure. You may have individual kings who claimed Divine Right (James I) or individual kings who tried to rule as despots or against the rule of law. But, never has a British tyrant been allowed to reign long unchecked.

So, you include Henry XIII's stuff as democratic? The purges against different religions?

Henry's actions were directed against his own family. If he had tried to run over the peerage or the Parliament, he would have had a rebellion on his hands. His daughter, Mary I remained a fierce Catholic, but she died before a rebellion could coalesce against her; and even Catholics did not like her because she married a Spaniard. Henry's other daughter, Elizabeth I, was Protestant, but she did not engage in any active persecution of Catholics. She allowed Catholics to worship in private as long as they paid the tax that was used to support the Anglican Church. She did target Catholics in any kind of inquisition, but she did target Catholics that wanted her killed (namely Mary, Queen of Scots), but note that one of the naval commanders (Howard) that lead the battle against the Spanish Armada, was related to Elizabeth (via her mother

[jeafl]

Well only in terms of where they insist on keeping a king/queen on the throne.  I would not lump the UK and the US together in terms of being an example to the rest of the world.  The system in the USA is much much more preferable to a modern democratic society than that in the UK. 

Israel has a parliament but no (earthly) king. When the modern State of Israel was established the British Parliament sent a gift (I cannot rember what it was) to the Kinesset(sp?)- from the world's oldest parliament to the world's newest.

And Germany has its Bundestag (or more rightfully its Reichstag because the Huns are still as bad they ever were on racial matters), but no king.

And what about Russia or the other former Soviet republics?

No nation in the Americas, except for the ones in the Commonwealth) have monarchs, but all (but Cuba) do have legislative bodies that may or may not be called parliaments. The term is generally not used in the Americas, but it is still used elsewhere.

The idea of a Parliament and government by inheritance (UK model) was totally rejected by the USA when they formed the government.

As I just explained in my last post, the existence of a monarch does not negate a democratic form of government.

The USA model, with it's Constitution that grants the same rights to all citizens, is the model for modern democratic governments.

And a bill of rights is something we inherited from the British.

The government jn the  UK which still recognizes Royality and allots special priviledges to this group of people simply because they were born into the right family.  Thats hardly democratic and it is only found in old Europe and backwards places such as Saudi Arabia,and Jordan

You are confusing democracy with republicanism. A country can have inherited offices and still have a democratic form of government.

And BTW: The House of Lords has not been able to do anything but delay passage of a law approved by the Commons since about 1900. And under Blair, the House of Lords has all but been abolished.

The presumption that "All Men are Created Equal" still does not exist in England and until it does, I would not recommend its government to anyone.  The USA stands alone as being the oldest Constitutional government, that grants the same rights to all people,  in the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What "special privileges" exist in the U.K.? Is any member of the Royal family or the peerage above the law? Can a commoner not tell the Crown or a peer what a miserable so-and-so she or he is?

[Ruso]

Price or prize?

And BTW: I read that English has a vocabulary of anywhere from 500,000 to 1,000,000 words and it has a word-creation ability second only to Mandarin Chinese.

But the truly remarkable thing about English is that it is a difficult language to learn, has been mastered only 3 times in its history (Shakespeare, the King James Bible and Sir Winston Churchill) and yet it is still the world's #1 second language.

Price or Prize? Maybe Prise too....

Is it too hard to find out by the context? Give it a try! I guess that when one is too busy, and typing in a second language, it is hard not to make mistakes.....

Second really? Maybe you are right, yet I am pretty sure that english is the first universal language in the world. By the number of nations, I would have said that spanish came third after french. But who knows.

Interesting: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/lang/vocab.html

[Ruso]

Israel has a parliament but no (earthly) king.

[jeafl]

Nevertheless, besides the question I made before, I wanted to add the ever so interesting idea that relates land to culture. According to many, one of the reasons for the USA to develop is its northern location. Many demonstrate that curiously enough, most first world countries have seasons. This climate "difficulty" forces them to work hard to survive, whereas nations with constant climates have everything they need, and this promotes in  a cultural comformity. While they got food given from the fertile land, the others must produce it. It works either in the north with the USA and Europe or in the South, with Argentina, Chile, Australia, etc. Interesting, huh?

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.

[monsoon]

What "special privileges" exist in the U.K.?  Is any member of the Royal family or the peerage above the law?  Can a commoner not tell the Crown or a peer what a miserable so-and-so she or he is?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

Further, members House of Lords get the right to make and pass laws that affect everyone. Because of this right, they also don't need participate in elections for those in the House of Commons that represent the Common People. Membership in the House of Lords is also by birthright and they too get monentary priviledges at the expense of the common taxpayer. This is not democratic representation.

Both institutions are un-Democratic, and presume that all men are NOT created equal.