EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 287
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
2) i objected to the "teleologic" naming in the application of a "pre-" anything label 3) what is the "very specific point" in history in your view? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
1844 is when we started to see the term used. The concept of nationalism and sovereignty rose up during that period earlier than that. Though its origins can be traced back to around Henry the 8th and the establishment of the church of England. Queen Elizabeth in England as well and her famous phrase "I am married to England". There are countless other examples for each nation. The concept of a nation is only a little over 300 years old. It is lightly older than the US. There was a time in history when there were no nations. There was no Germany, England, Italy or France. There was an island north of where the Franks lived an it was filled with all these different people. People didn't define themselves as Englishmen or French. The cultures that we know to define these nations did not exist yet. We can see the beginnings of these ideas with Rome, but they are never as clearly defined by a specific land mass, area and culture. As Americans we have no concept of this because it does not exist in our history. Our nation was created in an era after these concepts were developed by the people would would later create our country. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18004 Posts
For starters, the rise of nationalism is not a real thing, just as little as the rise of democracy is. Abstract concepts like that don't just pop into existence, their meaning evolves (and in the case of nationalism and democracy, over 1000s of years). Nation-states have existed for as far back as the bronze age, and people felt enough allegiance to them that they fought bloody wars over who got to rule them. Why is that not nationalism? If feudalism is too broad a term to describe all the different forms of government in medieval Europe, don't go and replace it with something worse. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
I am suprised that no-one is talking about this. Surely you have have an opinion on this bardtown. You were so angry about the supreme court ruling that the Theresa May must consult Parliament. I guess even you must be tired of your own rhetoric on the genius of Teresa May's style of brexit strategy. Also I am suprised legalord isn't here talking about how undemocratic UK is or some bullshit either. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On March 03 2017 06:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39133400 I am suprised that no-one is talking about this. Surely you have have an opinion on this bardtown. You were so angry about the supreme court ruling that the Theresa May must consult Parliament. I guess even you must be tired of your own rhetoric on the genius of Teresa May's style of brexit strategy. Also I am suprised legalord isn't here talking about how undemocratic UK is or some bullshit either. Funny how some government official/moron decided that guarantees shouldn't be given to EU citizens because then you'll have "half of Romania and Bulgaria". Yeah, right. Bulgaria + Romania is like 1/2 Poland on that graph. No one gets 1/2 nation in peaceful times. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On March 03 2017 06:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39133400 I am suprised that no-one is talking about this. Surely you have have an opinion on this bardtown. You were so angry about the supreme court ruling that the Theresa May must consult Parliament. I guess even you must be tired of your own rhetoric on the genius of Teresa May's style of brexit strategy. Also I am suprised legalord isn't here talking about how undemocratic UK is or some bullshit either. I wrote about it about five pages back. I think it's inappropriate for the lords to try to direct the Brexit process at this point when the bill is simply to implement the result of the referendum. The specific implementation should be separate, and the lords know full well that nobody would agree to punish EU citizens who moved here legally anyway. Not the people, not the commons, not the lords themselves. It's just an exercise in stubbornness. As long as it doesn't delay the triggering of A50 it's ultimately irrelevant, anyway, just like the ruling itself - which, by the way, I was not angry about. I actually found the whole charade quite amusing, because there were still people who legitimately believed that the decision of the people could be blocked. If anything it gives me pleasure to see people like that waste money and be frustrated. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Eventually, she said she would guarantee the rights of EU citizens and British nationals, so why she would not simply take the first steps towards that and give relief to the millions of British in the EU is quite beyond me except as a measure of spitefulness which she has already exhibited, or becuase she intends not to honour that promise in the first place. Also stop with this decision of the people being blocked nonsense already. 52% against 48%. If it was the other way round, you would claim that those who voted to leave would have a great say, so why would you wish against the same in reverse? Also, you seem to lack understanding of our legal systems. The supreme court ruling prevented Theresa May from acting in a non-democratic manner without consulting parliament; the representatives of the people. The most that would occur with the House of Lords, if you ignore sensationalist newspapers, is that the suggested amendment would be refused in the House of Commons and sent back to the House of Lords. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
Arguably, guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens from the outset would have been a good move. Arguably. It's not hard to understand why TM wants reciprocal guarantees for UK citizens in the EU, however, and the EU have made it clear that they won't discuss this until A50 is triggered. Feel free to disagree, but if you continue to pretend you can't understand her point of view you just come across as disingenuous. To make a unilateral guarantee would be a gambit, and not in her character. If Remain won then that would have been the decision of the people. I do not only accept democratic results when I'm on the winning side because I have faith in the fundamentals of the process as a means of assessing the state of the system, not just the process insofar as it helps me to achieve my own individual desires. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1536 Posts
The more interesting thing than my post are later posters, the experts in Irish and southeastern Asian history that also decry its usage. On March 02 2017 17:43 Acrofales wrote: What hogwash. If you object to terms like feudalism or the middle ages as descriptors for an epoch because it's imprecise, please don't try to replace it with an even worse descriptor. For starters, the rise of nationalism is not a real thing, just as little as the rise of democracy is. Abstract concepts like that don't just pop into existence, their meaning evolves (and in the case of nationalism and democracy, over 1000s of years). Nation-states have existed for as far back as the bronze age, and people felt enough allegiance to them that they fought bloody wars over who got to rule them. Why is that not nationalism? If feudalism is too broad a term to describe all the different forms of government in medieval Europe, don't go and replace it with something worse. Here's the thing though, "nationalist" and "democrat" are actual terms that people use to describe themselves. And they correspond to real things, i.e. the ethno-linguistic nation-state, and a democratic system of government. Feudalism on the other hand has never been a term of self-description, and was pretty much invented by a historian who heavily oversimplified how economic relationships worked for centuries. It's not the same thing. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On March 03 2017 23:19 LightSpectra wrote: Sorry for being late to the party here, but ten years ago on another forum, I made a topic explaining why modern historians don't like the term "feudalism": https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/on-feudalism.478010/ The more interesting thing than my post are later posters, the experts in Irish and southeastern Asian history that also decry its usage. Here's the thing though, "nationalist" and "democrat" are actual terms that people use to describe themselves. And they correspond to real things, i.e. the ethno-linguistic nation-state, and a democratic system of government. Feudalism on the other hand has never been a term of self-description, and was pretty much invented by a historian who heavily oversimplified how economic relationships worked for centuries. It's not the same thing. I think he was specifically objecting to 'nationalism' being used to describe a specific time period, whereby it becomes even less applicable than feudalism. Nations are just tribes with better infrastructure. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1536 Posts
I'll agree though that using nationalism to define a time period isn't so great. But it's a helluva lot more meaningful than feudalism. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18004 Posts
On March 03 2017 23:19 LightSpectra wrote: Sorry for being late to the party here, but ten years ago on another forum, I made a topic explaining why modern historians don't like the term "feudalism": https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/on-feudalism.478010/ The more interesting thing than my post are later posters, the experts in Irish and southeastern Asian history that also decry its usage. Here's the thing though, "nationalist" and "democrat" are actual terms that people use to describe themselves. And they correspond to real things, i.e. the ethno-linguistic nation-state, and a democratic system of government. Feudalism on the other hand has never been a term of self-description, and was pretty much invented by a historian who heavily oversimplified how economic relationships worked for centuries. It's not the same thing. Yup. Feudalism as a way to refer to a "system of government" is imprecise. I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater: many of the aspects that are heaped under "feudalism" that were studied over the years, are an accurate portrayal of power structures in the middle ages. Just feudalism in its narrow sense is incorrect and in its broad sense is far too meaningless for historians to make use of (as opposed to laypeople). Anyway, the entire tangent about feudalism came about because kwark decided to be snide in his response to p6 (who in turn was being flippant in his dismissal of the government as an organic system... note that organic is another hilariously imprecise word when applied in anything other than chemistry). | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1536 Posts
It's like saying that all economies in the history of the world were "capitalist". Ok, sure, call it whatever you like, but if that's the case, "capitalism" now has no connection to its widely-accepted meaning, it's equally as defining as "stuff" or "blah". | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1536 Posts
What's going to happen if the Sinn Fein win a majority in Northern Ireland? I don't know anything about the climate there these days, although The Irish Times is making a big deal out of it. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
When the dust finally settled Saturday on Northern Ireland's snap assembly election, it became clear a new political reality now awaits voters there. After an exceedingly strong showing by Sinn Fein, Northern Ireland's government is split all but down the middle between Irish nationalists and their pro-British counterparts. The snap election, which was held after Sinn Fein withdrew from a previous power-sharing agreement, handed the Democratic Unionist Party a victory at a steep price. Though the DUP won, the party did so with a historically narrow margin, earning 28 seats to Sinn Fein's 27 — a dramatic change from the 10-seat advantage the DUP held over Sinn Fein going into the election. The result, which also handed fewer seats to a smattering of other parties, leaves unionists without a firm majority — and thus without veto power — for the first time since Ireland was partitioned in 1921, according to Reuters. The Irish Independent reports that all told, the assembly now has "40 unionists and 39 nationalist/republicans, with the remainder of the 90 MLAs affiliated to neither tradition." Now, the province faces a fateful three weeks. CNN notes that under the 1998 Good Friday peace accord, which ended three decades of sectarian violence in the region, Northern Ireland's government "must be run jointly by unionist and nationalist parties." If the evenly matched parties should fail to reach a power-sharing agreement in the next three weeks — a prospect that many expect — power over Northern Ireland would be returned to British Parliament for the first time since 2007, says Reuters. "If we can't do it in three weeks it could be a prolonged period of direct rule," the DUP's Jeffrey Donaldson told BBC Radio, according to Reuters. "In those circumstances, with Brexit coming down the road, we won't have our own administration to speak for us and offer the best prospect of delivering the kind of outcome we need." As Joe Zefran reports for our Newscast unit, this was Northern Ireland's first assembly election since last year's Brexit vote, which determined that the U.K. would leave the European Union — a result most voters in Northern Ireland opposed. Meanwhile, Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams trumpeted Saturday's result as a sea change in the politics of Northern Ireland and a sign of hope for the party's goal of a united Ireland. "The notion of a perpetual unionist majority has been demolished," Adams said, according to the BBC. Source | ||
| ||
