The NDP's view on monarchy
Comments
Do you have a link for that the land claim?
I know this from what I learned in school.
It is probably pretty easy to find on the net.
Look under "Causes for the War of 1812."
Isn't oil already a strategic resource?
Absolutely.
Uncle Sam is the world's superpower.
In order to be the world's superpower, Uncle Sam needs the world's largest military.
Uncle Sam's military runs on oil.
Uncle Sam doesn't have a lot of oil of his own.
Other countries have a lot of oil.
Having the world's largest military is very expensive.
Uncle Sam needs to use his military in order to justify it and its colossal expense.
Uncle Sam invades oil rich countries so its military can have oil.
Uncle Sam has the world's largest problem:
Cost of military+cost of wars - the dollar value of the "cheap" oil Uncle Sam was able to get his hands on since 2001=$1.5 trillion debt+$14.5 trillion deficit.
The sands of time are running out very fast in the hourglass for the American Empire as a result of Uncle Sam living beyond his means.
I double 
ya! 
Rebecca West wrote:Repeatedly stating your position, and beligerantly I might add, isn't discourse - it's bullying.
Move on or move out.
Beligerent adj. 1, waging war; as, beligerent nations; 2, warlike; as, belliegerent words: - n. a nation or person at war; as, the belligerents laid down their arms.
Provide a quote from this thread to show me where I was belligerent or warlike so I may amend my errors.
In order to amend one's errors, one requires the humility to recognize them. I don't see this happening.
If I'm banned from posting on this thread it probably will kill the debate.
And in the grand sceme of babble, that wouldn't represent much of a loss, since most here have a diversity of interests and opinions.
No one learns anything from others always agreeing with them.
And no one learns anything by focusing all their energy on one single issue, from an immovable position that is deaf to all opposition. If you choose to believe that your purpose here is to enlighten, that's swell. You've enlightened everyone with your views on monarchy repeatedly for quite some time now. If others choose facilitate your mission to instruct, that of course is their choice. But it's a pretty one-sided learning experience - patronizing and repetitious.
The best thing about this thread is the juxtaposition of diversity and flexibility against rigid pedantry. It's like this wonderful microcosm of the relationship between the US and the rest of the world, and that's both interesting and enlightening.
@ Frmrsldr
Re: individuality. I know. A Canadian friend of mine down there told me that even many people on the left seem to have that odd streak of not trusting the govenrment, and anything that might impinge in their "liberty" and mistrusting social programs because people might abuse them, and get ahead unfairly. And this is people who are relatively "left".
A gross generalization I know, but....
And I don't think it is so much that the Brits learned new control techniques after your revolution. If anything, the war of 1812 galvanized Canadian sovereignty - and Native sovereignty, because in a number of those battles it was Native people who were far better organized and effective than whites.
And I forgot to mention that had there been no war between Britain and France, there would have been no tax pressures put on your country, and your history may have taken a different course.
Our revolution came in the 1830s and 1840s, and involved uprisings first, then political resistance to the traditional system of governors controlling their colonies. There was even a point at which members of the Family compact and pro-British anglos joined with their former Quebec patriote enemies (a few - not all) to lobby for joining the United States rather than see an autonomous, democratic Canada.
The difference in our revolution is that it stopped at the point at which they had democracy. There was no immediate need to cut ties with Britain, so they did not do that.
If you look at western Canada, all the forces pointed in the direction of union with the States. There was no road or rail between Canada and the prairies, and all goods and people flowed north-south to Minnesota. But because of a series of accidents, it became part of Canada.
And John Brown? Of course murder is wrong. But consider the institution which drove him to outlaw action - where a slave holder could take children from their parents, torture, murder, rape, and buy, sell and use people like a horse or a tractor.
"[The Queen] symbolizes for many the merits of a constitutional monarchy in which the head of state [...] is separate and apart from the ongoing political struggles of the day."
-Bill Blaikie, MP, (NDP) 6th February 2002
the House of Commons, Golden Jubilee Accession Day
And no one learns anything by focusing all their energy on one single issue,...
I'm passionate about anti-monarchy/republicanism.
But it's simply not true that I focus all my energy on this one single issue.
... from an immovable position that is deaf to all opposition. If you choose to believe that your purpose here is to enlighten, that's swell. You've enlightened everyone with your views on monarchy repeatedly for quite some time now. If others choose facilitate your mission to instruct, that of course is their choice. But it's a pretty one-sided learning experience - patronizing and repetitious.
LOL. No, I don't see my purpose in life to enlighten (read as "convert") others to my point of view. Were this the case, then I'm going about it entirely the wrong way and I know it.
Philosophical debate is like the legal adversarial system: the learning is a dialectical symbiotic process:
Positions, beliefs, ideas that don't stand up to fact or logic or are weak are proven false or fallacies and are either discarded or strengthened. Those that withstand the test of fact or logic are retained, strengthened, refined.
From this process - I learn, you learn, everybody learns.
We shouldn't get so emotionally wrapped up when our beliefs are challenged.
For all anyone knows, maybe I am a monarchist who's playing devil's advocate to learn how the 'other side' sees things to gain more knowledge.
"[The Queen] symbolizes for many the merits of a constitutional monarchy in which the head of state [...] is separate and apart from the ongoing political struggles of the day."
-Bill Blaikie, MP, (NDP) 6th February 2002
the House of Commons, Golden Jubilee Accession Day
Yes, but this position is based on heredity.
Could there possibly be a worse means of determining who gets to hold this office?
There's violence, 'might makes right' and right by conquest - but then that's how kings originally became kings.
And I forgot to mention that had there been no war between Britain and France, there would have been no tax pressures put on your country, and your history may have taken a different course.
The significance of the British taxes, referred to as the "Intolerable Acts" is overhyped.
After the French and Indian War, the colonials came to see things differently.
They came to see themselves as Americans whose home was America, and not as British.
They came to view British soldiers in America as foreign military occupiers.
They resented "billeting" where British soldiers took up room and board in American homes without compensating the owners.
They saw the British Empire with its merchantile form of commerce as stifling American home industry.
Americans were beginning to realize that they could look after (govern) themselves. They weren't going to accept any laws or directives coming from the government in London anymore.
American independence was something whose time had come.
Our revolution came in the 1830s and 1840s, and involved uprisings first, then political resistance to the traditional system of governors controlling their colonies. There was even a point at which members of the Family compact and pro-British anglos joined with their former Quebec patriote enemies (a few - not all) to lobby for joining the United States rather than see an autonomous, democratic Canada.
The difference in our revolution is that it stopped at the point at which they had democracy. There was no immediate need to cut ties with Britain, so they did not do that.
I see this as a struggle for national identity. What was the national identity of the people of British North America?
During the Revolutionary War of Independence and its aftermath, Americans saw the people of British North America as fellow Americans - neighbors, family and friends with whom they wished to share the benefits of the revolution.
To address the portion I bolded, it seems most people in British North America didn't see themselves as American, but (excluding people of French or mixed heritage) still as British, unlike the Americans.
And John Brown? Of course murder is wrong. But consider the institution which drove him to outlaw action - where a slave holder could take children from their parents, torture, murder, rape, and buy, sell and use people like a horse or a tractor.
You know what's interesting though?
Here's another thing that I've learned in my discussions with Canadians:
Let me respond to your comment in the way I think many Canadians would:
Violence only begets more violence.
The family, friends and neighbors of the people who John Brown and his family and followers murdered, in turn murderd the family, followers, neighbors and friends of John Brown and other abolitionists. Resulting in a blood feud/civil war in Kansas (to the point where the state was referred to as "Bleeding Kansas") and Missouri. These state blood feud/civil wars raged on until they merged with the U.S. Civil War.
So yes, in the end violence - in the form of the Civil War ended slavery.
Look at the results:
The number of people whose lives were destroyed and the amount of physical destruction wrought.
The belief to a large degree in America that violence is a good, easy and acceptable way to solve problems.
The violence and "gun culture" prevalent in America.
And let's not forget that the "Windsor" family was on the throne when Britannia was perpetrating some pretty terrible crimes against humanity in India and colonies. Millions of their charges died while in the care of England's brutal colonizers. They were arrogant imperialists then in treating the occupied as little better than cattle in cruel ways that would have made even the Nazis blush.
rabble.ca is a public, independent, progressive news and information source. In defining itself as "progressive," rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and as such encourages discussions which develop and expand progressive thought.
British royalty and democracy are generally incompatible as far as many Canadians and Britons are concerned. The Yanks knew this to be true as well.
In 2008, Morton Sobell, who was convicted with the Rosenbergs, admitted that he and Julius were spies, and that Ethel probably knew about it but was not involved.Might he be lying? perhaps. But given his age (91) and the time that had passed there is a fair chance he was telling the truth. After all, I would think there is more reason for him to clear the air than smear a couple of dead people and perpetuate the lies of the cold war.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/nyregion/12spy.html"What he gave them was junk," Mr. Sobell said of Julius Rosenberg, his classmate at City College of New York in the 1930s.
There is still no hard evidence that Julius Rosenberg was guilty of passing nuclear weapons secrets to the Soviets, which was the crime for which he and his wife Ethel were executed.
There is more evidence today that US State Dept. officials have been selling nuclear weapons technology on the black market. Whistleblowers have named names, and various US government officials have backed up Edmonds' sworn depositions made in front of Congress.
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
Humor aside,
the reverse is true.
What the British learned from their defeat in the Independence War, they applied to the United Empire Loyalists in Upper and Lower Canada.
This could also be the reason why the British monarchy is so deeply entrenched in (most of) English (speaking) Canada: A few centuries of a very intense and effective propaganda effort.
You don't think the defeat in Vietnam was inevitable?
You don't think defeat in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia and Libya and the (imminent, I should think) fall of the American Empire is inevitable?
Then why does kicking the monarchy habit seem to be as difficult as kicking the smoking habit?
Making money off the slave trade would be a difficult habit for some to kick too.
Murder is never justified no matter how just the cause (is believed to be.)