Share Your Heritage

[Wildeybeast]

I appreciate your comments. I was unaware that their was a general ribbing of us "colonials", so I will keep that in mind and try not to take things of that nature as seriously in the future.

Yeah, sorry, I should have made clear that my comments about colonials, perverts politicians and presidents in the thrall of bug business was a light hearted jibe to indicate the fact that pretty much all head of states are ineffective wastes of money. I'm just glad ours has no political or personal agendas to push and has their power limited.

[Nabterayl]

Your conception of liberty stems from the British conception, there were few people more free than the US colonists under British rule. The War was not about liberty but about ending cheap British imports (tea in particular) which was undercutting the expensive crap smuggled in by various Founding Fathers.

As to Washington, he was not a bad person but he was overrated. His military skills are overrated, his skills as a statesmen are overrated. He stands out as a moral paragon because he was positively saint-like compared to his peers and it suited the early historians of your Republic to liken him to Cincinnatus and various Roman Republican heroes to add some classical flair and heritage to what was then a brand new state. In short he was a very impressive man but he is not the paragon of humanity he is made out to be.

On that we mostly agree. I don't think it's fair to say that none of the colonists' rights as Englishmen had been violated. On the other hand, I do think it's fair to say that the per capita standard of living in the colonies at the time of the Revolution was pretty much the envy of the world, and I find it difficult to support starting a war over mere principle. At this point it is what it is, and I think we've made a decent country out of it all things considered, but I likely would have opposed the Revolution at the time. That's inconsistent with my current stance on liberty, but the truth is, when somebody says, "You can kill somewhere north of 25,000 of your countrymen, or you can preserve your ancient rights," I'm not at all sure I would stick to my principles.

As for Washington ... I agree that he's overrated by the 18th and 19th century standards we teach our schoolchildren. But most historical figures are vastly overrated by that standard. To be sure, he swore like a sailor and was obsessed with his personal image and legacy, but simply being a more principled politician than most - which I think we both agree he was, even if that's a fairly low bar - is still worth celebrating. I also give him credit for managing to not bungle a war* which, I am sure we all agree, he was wildly underqualified to lead. On the other hand, everybody in the colonies was wildly underqualified to challenge the Royal Army, especially given the joke that was the Continental Army. I don't mean to undervalue the contribution of the French to American independence, but simply managing to survive and win enough to make the Revolution a worthwhile bet for the French is no mean feat. I seem to recall the Royal Army recently naming Washington its most successful foreign opponent on essentially those grounds. The Revolution was never going to be won by rebels killing so many redcoats that His Majesty's Government give up; that's not how you win revolutions. At the end of the day, Washington did what a rebel military leader needs to do to win that particular brand of war, and that's not something many rebel military leaders can say.

Oh and constitutional monarchy is around 350 years old, republicanism is 2500 years old, so you tell me which is the anachronism.

I'll give you guys credit for constitutional monarchy; that's a damn impressive cultural feat. But come on, even you have to admit that America is like, what, the second most successful republican empire in history? Last time anybody did what we've done was like 2,000 years ago. We're not so dime a dozen ourselves in terms of historical precedent.

* Not that he didn't come close, but still, there's a big difference between bungling a war and almost bungling a war.

[Ze_Shoggoth]

There is a quote allegedly from Churchill that goes 'The monarchy isn't notable for the power it wields but for the power it denies others'. So long as we have a constitutional monarch no politician can gain the kind of power the US president has by default and not enough to become tyrannical. As to work, the Queen has something like 350 official engagements a year, possibly over 400 I forget. She hasn't had a day off since 1953 and she is intimately involved in the affairs of government even if she can't intervene in them. Her Majesty is the ultimate balance against the power of government.

Sorry but I am a republican. But saying that always makes me feel uneasy because its been used for hate and violence. She should not have that power and Cameron who is 5th cousin to the queen should not be allowed anywhere near government to!.

I do not want any un-elected people involved with decisions that effect millions. Sorry but we need the monarchy to take a more Historical seat
. We need a president, We need an elected PM and not some guy rich / Trade unionists choose.
We need an elected Upper House. we don't elect about 75 percent of the government / officials in the UK and it is shocking. Are we children scared to make decisions so we need mommy queen to do it for us?

I'm not saying we should not have a monarchy I am just saying we need more choices. The Liberals promised us an elected upper house in this coalition? Where the hell is that?

People might think less of me for this or not like me and that's fine. I see this huge injustice to the British / Commonwealth people and I must say something I will no longer be a Subject, I am a Citizen and I want my rights for a fully electable government.

Fatagn!

[Chris Copeland]

My surname is Copeland. My understanding is that my ancestors came to America as immigrants by way of Canada and settled in the North Eastern part of the United States in the 1800s. My mother is of Czech and Polish stock. Her people settled in the little town of West, Texas sometime in the 1800s (West has been in the news recently because of the big chemical plant explosion there). So, my ethnic makeup is essentially English, Czech, and Polish (with whatever else got mixed in there over the centuries).

I live in New Braunfels, Texas. It was settled by my wife's ancestors (from Germany) in the 1800s. Her background is German (on her mother's side) and Irish (from her dad). So my kids are German-Irish-English-Czech-Polish-Whatever-Americans... I tend to think that my family's history is quintessentially American: we are the children of immigrants! Cheers!

[Deadlift]

People might think less of me for this or not like me and that's fine. I see this huge injustice to the British / Commonwealth people and I must say something I will no longer be a Subject, I am a Citizen and I want my rights for a fully electable government.

Fatagn!

I certainly don't think any less of you, everyone's entitled to their opinion. It's not just what you say, it's how you say it

[Alex Knight]

Heritage, easy:

English x 5 or 6, Polish, Austrian or German (Wagner), and possibly (unprovable) Native American. (Algonquin from what I am told.)

[Psychosplodge]

well you wouldn't have any culture, or indeed a country, without immigrants. .

I think you might be going too far the other way there if you're applying that to us Kirsten, considering till the 50's there'd been no large scale immigration since the Noman invasion in 1066. Certainly not on the scale seen in the last decade or two.

Sorry but I am a republican. But saying that always makes me feel uneasy because its been used for hate and violence. She should not have that power and Cameron who is 5th cousin to the queen should not be allowed anywhere near government to!.

I do not want any un-elected people involved with decisions that effect millions. Sorry but we need the monarchy to take a more Historical seat
. We need a president, We need an elected PM and not some guy rich / Trade unionists choose.
We need an elected Upper House. we don't elect about 75 percent of the government / officials in the UK and it is shocking. Are we children scared to make decisions so we need mommy queen to do it for us?

I'm not saying we should not have a monarchy I am just saying we need more choices. The Liberals promised us an elected upper house in this coalition? Where the hell is that?

People might think less of me for this or not like me and that's fine. I see this huge injustice to the British / Commonwealth people and I must say something I will no longer be a Subject, I am a Citizen and I want my rights for a fully electable government.

Fatagn!

You don't have to apologise for being wrong Shoggoth
If you have an elected upper house you might as well do away with it entirely as it would be fulfilling the same purpose as the commons. The current set up of appointed peers is too open to cronyism and corruption. I don't doubt all the former MPs finding themselves there will keep having the same arguments they used to have in the commons.
At lest hereditary peers had a sense of duty to the country and weren't in the pockets of the political parties or trade unions.

Presidents are a terrible idea as most of the country didn't vote for them ( bear in mind you're lucky to get 40% turnout). And you only have to look at the US system where obscene amounts of money are spent to buy a seat for four years. At least with a ceremonial figurehead there's no politics involved.

plus democracy doesn't work. They give people a vote for things like xfactor and the dancing things and look how well that works.

[Kirsten]

I think you might be going too far the other way there if you're applying that to us Kirsten, considering till the 50's there'd been no large scale immigration since the Noman invasion in 1066. Certainly not on the scale seen in the last decade or two.

not at all, you just think too modern. the norman invasion, just like the romans and the vikings, ha da huge impact on our culture. without that influence we would be a very different place.

[DarkLink]

The real problem with the presidency is that we've got a two party system. Otherwise, it's got all the advantages of a monarchy, without the inherent immoralities. And democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other methods that have been tried.

[Psychosplodge]

And democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other methods that have been tried.

Indeed, but doesn't mean it works...
Obviously a benevolent dictator like myself would be the best system...