150th Gettysburg Address

[Drunkencorgimaster]

Oh, I don't think whether something is noticed at the time is particularly important to gauging its place in history. If we collectively decided we value something after the fact, it then becomes important after the fact. By the end of the American Civil War certainly the Address had become important. It just struck me as odd that Obama would not want to cash in on an obvious and largely bi-partisan "feel good" thing as the 150th anniversary of the Address. On the other hand if he did go, he'd probably be criticized for just that: cashing in on a historical event.

[Wildeybeast]

Again, that's why monarchs are great. Their presence at such events is completely apolitical and adds some much needed glamour (or not, if you get Edward)

[DarkLink]

Of course, the open implication that said monarch is somehow inherently better than their subjects simply for being born into a particular family isn't so great. Maybe if we appointed a figurehead, sure, but no one needs royalty nor nobility.

[Psychosplodge]

So more like [URL="http://youtu.be/MkTw3_PmKtc"]this [/URL]then than the magna carta, like I said.

[Wildeybeast]

Of course, the open implication that said monarch is somehow inherently better than their subjects simply for being born into a particular family isn't so great. Maybe if we appointed a figurehead, sure, but no one needs royalty nor nobility.

Nobility or a family with huge of sacks of cash and wealthy business backers. Either way the, position of head of state is very much a closed system for all but a tiny minority who are there through accident of birth.

[DarkLink]

Possibly.

Think of it this way. If I were to give a super-brief history of the United States, it would look like this:

1: We rebelled against the British and with the Declaration of Independence declared our, well, independence.
2. We expanded west, buying/taking land as we went.
3. We fought a civil war that was, for all intents and purposes, over slavery, and with the Gettysburg Address and the Emancipation Proclamation Lincoln declared the slaves free.
4. WWII ended European dominance and set the stage for the Cold War. Peal Harbor and FDR's Day of Infamy speech sparked off America's coming-to power.
5. Vietnam and the Cold War.
6. Modern day stuff.

So, yeah.

[Psychosplodge]

2 pretty much being the real reason for 1...

Didn't the emancipation proclamation not include freeing slaves in union states though? Only in confederate ones?

[Wolfshade]

I think you missed no 7 where you allowed black people the right to sit anywhere on a bus...

Ah flippancy.

While not strictly related I was thinking about republicans (not The Republicans, just republicans, as in those who believe that a republic is a better governmance system). One of the things that they proclaim is that the monarchy is wrong as a person through no merit of their own inherits a position and it is this inherited inequality which is wrong. Sentiments that I would agree with, but I am quite happy to have our big tourist attraction and apolotical figure head. Because they come from wealth and power they start of life with an inherent advantage. So, if we were to remove the monarchy and landed gentry then what, would that make us all equal? No.
Rich parents have more resources than poor and so the children of the rich also have a distinct advantage over their poor equivalents. So you end up with rich clique, and the thing is that people socialise with their socio-economic peers and pick mates from that circle so you end up with a privelidged elite again who have better chances just because of a fortune of birth.

The only way to really get everyone equal is for all children to be brought up away from their parents in state schoolaria, there they can be indoctrinated for a love of the country and society over that of an individual and within 2 generations we can take over the world!

*Ahem* sorry little off sheet their, but the thing of it is that there will always be those who are advantaged/disadvantaged through a freak accident of birth.

[ElectricPaladin]

Personally, I think it's very interesting that the UK has - for example - a higher real life rate of upwards mobility than the US does. I recall having a very strong bias against this fact and having to have statistics quoted at me until I believed it.

My bias came from the perception that you guys have a more stratified society. You have a royal family and noble class; we don't. Everyone has classist ways of perceiving others based on how they talk, but you guys seem to make a science of it. We have a system where anyone can go to university if they can convince one to accept them, you have a more complex system where you've got to test in at one specific point in your life.

But apparently all that cultural stuff is just so much noise and the only thing that counts is the free university you (used to ) have.

[Psychosplodge]

You can go later, or rarely earlier. But the pushing everyone in post 18 is more to keep them off the unemployment figures than anything else. I think they said yesterday on news 40% of graduates in London are doing non graduate jobs.

The last government got rid of the biggest aid to social mobility by closing grammar schools.

You'd have to ask someone more in the know about the aristocracy but below that it's just money...