[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The British Empire
Jowan 'ap jowan yscreus:
> Padrig Bryn yscrifef:
> > The fundamental problem here is that a snaggle in the Weave of History
> > will (probably) spawn "anomalous solutions", ie., things will turn out in
> > unexpected ways, and those ways will probably not be "similar". It all
> > comes down to the Butterfly Effect.
> Absoluately. But if you really take that seriously, then there's simply
> no knowing how things would have come out. If history is really chaotic,
> then changing one tiny thing --- John Fredericks (made him up, don't
> bother with the E.B.) dying in 1453 instead of 1452 --- renders everything
> utterly unrecognizable. So we have to assume that history has some kind
> of inertia, or hysteresis, call it what you will, that tends to minimize
> the effects of changes.
Perhaps that's carrying it a bit far. I don't mean that Empires will rise
and fall 300 years from now simply because I had marmite on my toast
instead of peanut butter. But the fact remains that when History is
played with, things change in a big way. I think what might be
interpreted from your last statement is that History has Trends, and I
think the Trends will likely be similar *Here* and *There*. The specifics
I think must be different.
> > Were they politically active enough to actually _do_ anything?
The Pennsylvania Germans. Whoever wrote what what was originally
immediately before this brought up a bilingual Pa., etc. It was my
impression that the Pa. Germans were pretty reclusive/seclusive and not
too interested in the Outside World. Many are still this way.
> > Perhaps, but without a George III to peg everything on, we may never have
> > rebelled. This, too, was never a sure bet. I believe the stats were
> > something along the lines of 30 to 40 percent in favour of rebellion
> > *Here*.
> Don't confuse rebellion with revolution. The British colonists *Here*
> rebelled against Parliament, not the King --- they were still proclaiming
> in 1775 that "we wish not a diminution of the [royal] prerogative".
> Their claim was essentially that they were separate Dominions of the Crown,
> like Scotland, with their own independent legislatures.
> German George didn't get involved until later, with the Proclamation of
> Rebellion. Many colonists who supported strong action against Parliament
> remained royalist until well after 1776.
I'm afraid I was probably taught that they were One and The Same, the King
and Parliament, that is. The stats, though, I belive to be correct. The
whole affair was minority driven.
> > > Not so clear. If James II/VII loses power and the Hanoverians take over,
> > > then we see the 'Fifteen, the 'Forty-five, and the Clearance essentially
> > > unchanged.
> > Perhaps, but Wary-of-Saxon-Depravities Comro may see to siding with the
> > Scottish in a Let's-put-the-English-in-their-Place action of some sort.
> > "Gos Nustr" not withstanding.
If the English *There* try to clear out the people of another country
(ie., Scotland), then I'm sure many a wary Comro would gladly join
whatever movement there may be in Scotland to keep the English in their
proper place, as a preemptive action. They might be inclined to think
that they are the next Targets.
> > But there may not even _be_ a famine. I got the impression that Comro
> > interests were strongest in Ulladh,
> Weakest. Ulster became British *Here* because it was so strongly Irish;
> the English decided to encourage Scots to move there (the first English
> territory called a colony). The Cambrians with their lesser sense of
> manifest destiny didn't do that.
> > leaving the rest of the island to the
> > Irish (and the Bogs). Since the only thing the Irish had to eat,
> > apparantly, besides Bogs were potatoes. Thence the Famine.
> Not at all. Ireland grew plenty of non-potato food during the 1847-49
> period, but all of it was shipped to England, leaving none to feed
> the starving Irish. Kemrese law would have allowed the Irish more
> self-help than that, but probably not enough.
Well if all were going to do is relex English politics and call it Comro
then I suppose this will happen, and all of the subsequent "stuff" that
immediately followed. My contention is that this probably would not be the
> > And why
> > should the Comro allow the Irish to starve anyway? Just because the Saxon
> > would?
All governments have been greedy. The question stands.
> > Different and yet the same!!?? What, Jowcko map Jowan, great grandson of
> > a Kernow immigrant becomes Prez and has his finger in the Red Button
> > during Bay of Pigs? How close are you trying to figure? I would concur
> > on your last point. Especially with the Natives, as I doubt there would
> > be a Manifest Destiny. Let alone a Louisiana Purchase. Somebody Else can
> > jerk the Natives around.
> Remember that the Bloody Saxons still have plenty of influence both in
> Britain and overseas: they have most of the industry.
What is this in reference to?
> > > > fal mag; ffew yn mellt? ffageth a ysplicharlla.
> > >
> > > Translation, please?
> > Its bad with me; it was a joke? please to explain-it.
> The Welsh phrase "ach y fi", beloved of our Rhaifun, is some kind of
> mild expletive: I don't know how it translates exactly. But in
> Brithenig that spells "HIF" or "HIV".
Ahhh. Pretty clever!
> John Cowan email@example.com
> e'osai ko sarji la lojban.