Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
sebster wrote: But you listed the other extreme outliers. Which doesn't mean anything.
Wouldn't the fact that I can list further examples without trying all that hard make those outliers less "extreme"? It wasn't exactly an exhaustive list.
Spoiler:
It does.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/06 06:36:37
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
Monster Rain wrote: Wouldn't the fact that I can list further examples without trying all that hard make those outliers less "extreme"? It wasn't exactly an exhaustive list.
Spoiler:
It does.
No, naming four governments doesn't mean it becomes the majority. That's just silly.
Spoiler:
Seriously, it doesn't.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Monster Rain wrote: Wouldn't the fact that I can list further examples without trying all that hard make those outliers less "extreme"? It wasn't exactly an exhaustive list.
Spoiler:
It does.
No, naming four governments doesn't mean it becomes the majority. That's just silly.
You do know what "exhaustive" means. And don't move the goalposts. There's a vast difference between "majority" and "extreme outlier."
I do agree that passive resistance works against civilized and sane governments. I'm just saying that regimes that don't fit that description are "extreme outliers."
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/11/06 07:01:34
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
You think the list of successful pacifist movements I posted was exhaustive?
And don't move the goalposts. There's a vast difference between "majority" and "extreme outlier."
I do agree that passive resistance works against civilized and sane governments. I'm just saying that regimes that don't fit that description are "extreme outliers."
Oh, okay. Then we're back to my first reply, where you agree with me, except you'd maybe prefer a term like 'a small minority of governments' than 'extreme outlier' to describe those against which it wouldn't work.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
htj wrote: It's also worth noting that, outliers or minorities or not, those listed were all put into power by use of violent force.
pretty sure most of Britain's empire was built through force as well. (though I could be wrong)
True, but I'm not sure what you're driving at here.
Just saying that just cos power was gained through force originally doesn't mean peace won't work.
Right, totally agree with you. You've got me all backwards, I was trying (and apparently failing) to imply that those dictators that were being listed as examples that would require violent force to oust were in fact put in place by using violent force to oust the previous governments. So, I was saying that violent force often leads to a repeating cycle of violence.
DC:80SG+M+B+I+Pw40k97#+D+A++/wWD190R++T(S)DM+
htj wrote:You can always trust a man who quotes himself in his signature.
htj wrote: It's also worth noting that, outliers or minorities or not, those listed were all put into power by use of violent force.
pretty sure most of Britain's empire was built through force as well. (though I could be wrong)
You can be, and are, wrong. You could argue that it was secured by force, but really it was built on trade. The dirty secret of the British Empire is that it was much more of a consensual arrangement than it's given credit for. British Africa was administered and garrisoned by a relative handful of Brits.
Albatross wrote: You can be, and are, wrong. You could argue that it was secured by force, but really it was built on trade. The dirty secret of the British Empire is that it was much more of a consensual arrangement than it's given credit for. British Africa was administered and garrisoned by a relative handful of Brits.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Albatross wrote: How so? It's a fact that local co-operation was vital to the success of the Empire. It's certainly the case with America's imperial project.
Cooperation from a very small, unrepresentative population of local elites, sure, but it's more than a tad fallacious to suggest the British Empire was built with local popular support.
Albatross wrote: How so? It's a fact that local co-operation was vital to the success of the Empire. It's certainly the case with America's imperial project.
Cooperation from a very small, unrepresentative population of local elites, sure, but it's more than a tad fallacious to suggest the British Empire was built with local popular support.
Phew! Good job I didn't say that then, isn't it? I used the word 'co-operation', not support.
Nevertheless, the idea that the British Empire basically consisted of ruddy-faced gentlemen in red coats showing up in a place, plonking a flag in the ground and going 'Now see here natives, you belong to us now. Stop standing around scratching your bums and get to work!' is a childish oversimplification, peddled largely (it seems) by adult Americans who really should know better.
Phew! Good job I didn't say that then, isn't it? I used the word 'co-operation', not support.
Okay. If I replace "local popular support" with "local popular cooperation" it's still incorrect.
Nevertheless, the idea that the British Empire basically consisted of ruddy-faced gentlemen in red coats showing up in a place, plonking a flag in the ground and going 'Now see here natives, you belong to us now. Stop standing around scratching your bums and get to work!' is a childish oversimplification, peddled largely (it seems) by adult Americans who really should know better.
I don't recall suggesting that was the case, but excellent ad hominem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/06 19:32:19
Albatross wrote: How so? It's a fact that local co-operation was vital to the success of the Empire. It's certainly the case with America's imperial project.
Cooperation from a very small, unrepresentative population of local elites, sure, but it's more than a tad fallacious to suggest the British Empire was built with local popular support.
Phew! Good job I didn't say that then, isn't it? I used the word 'co-operation', not support.
Nevertheless, the idea that the British Empire basically consisted of ruddy-faced gentlemen in red coats showing up in a place, plonking a flag in the ground and going 'Now see here natives, you belong to us now. Stop standing around scratching your bums and get to work!' is a childish oversimplification, peddled largely (it seems) by adult Americans who really should know better.
Well sure, but saying 'we did it to make the world a better place' is just as naive and silly.
What is this why I don't even...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/06 20:19:35
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Albatross wrote: How so? It's a fact that local co-operation was vital to the success of the Empire. It's certainly the case with America's imperial project.
Cooperation from a very small, unrepresentative population of local elites, sure, but it's more than a tad fallacious to suggest the British Empire was built with local popular support.
Phew! Good job I didn't say that then, isn't it? I used the word 'co-operation', not support.
Nevertheless, the idea that the British Empire basically consisted of ruddy-faced gentlemen in red coats showing up in a place, plonking a flag in the ground and going 'Now see here natives, you belong to us now. Stop standing around scratching your bums and get to work!' is a childish oversimplification, peddled largely (it seems) by adult Americans who really should know better.
Well sure, but saying 'we did it to make the world a better place' is just as naive and silly.
I'm not saying that, although I believe that the British Empire did do a lot of good. I think the spread of Common Law, Parliamentary democracy and the English language (to name a few) are very good things indeed.
In any case, my point was that the British Empire was not built solely (or even largely) by force. A lot of people had a stake in it's success, and those people weren't all British. At the height of the Raj, India was one of the wealthiest nations on earth by GDP, and something like 1% of that wealth went back to London. The rest stayed in country. The Empire invested massively in Indian infrastructure and they're still reaping the benefits of that today. But of course, it's not cool to say that, especially to Americans, for whom we will ever be the pantomime villains of their national mythology. The fact that some people actually liked British rule just doesn't sit well with American creation myths because it's far better for you guys to have us be the jack-booted tyrants than actually examine the truth. The truth is far more complicated, and thus, uncomfortable.
You don't get to the top if everyone hates you and sees you as a brutal tyrant. That's why the USA has been doing so well for the last century. I fear that particular tide is turning, sadly. The German and Belgian colonial empires never really got off the ground precisely because they acted like most people seem to assume we acted around that time. Except it just isn't true.
Nevertheless, the idea that the British Empire basically consisted of ruddy-faced gentlemen in red coats showing up in a place, plonking a flag in the ground and going 'Now see here natives, you belong to us now. Stop standing around scratching your bums and get to work!' is a childish oversimplification, peddled largely (it seems) by adult Americans who really should know better.
I don't recall suggesting that was the case, but excellent ad hominem.
It's actually implied in what you've just said, which was that there wasn't widespread local co-operation with native populations. That, in turn, implies a brutal level of systematic physical coercion, which the British Empire wasn't particularly bad for, for the most part. They were certainly better than their contemporaries the French, Dutch, Spanish, Belgians, Germans, and well... you guys. Sorry, but there it is.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/11/06 21:06:44
It's actually implied in what you've just said, which was that there wasn't widespread local co-operation with native populations. That, in turn, implies a brutal level of systematic physical coercion, which the British Empire wasn't particularly bad for, for the most part.
That's true...as long as we ignore the vast spectrum of client state governance between "enlightened cooperation" and "grimdark death camps." In other words, one doesn't need systematic physical coercion to rule a populace against the will of said populace.
Albatross wrote: I'm not saying that, although I believe that the British Empire did do a lot of good.
I didn't mean to imply that you personally had said it, just that it has been said. I think it has done good as well, but I rarely believe much of anything is all good or all bad. There are some dark moments in the empires rich history, but there are some very bright ones as well. The trick, at least to me, is to understand all elements and not pretend only one or the other exists.
Without quoting everything else, I will just say that I agree with you that the success of the British Empire was not solely based on force, and that trade (I thought I mentioned the role of mercantilism, but it may have been a rough draft in my head, or from another source) was probably more important.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Albatross wrote: I'm not saying that, although I believe that the British Empire did do a lot of good.
I didn't mean to imply that you personally had said it, just that it has been said. I think it has done good as well, but I rarely believe much of anything is all good or all bad. There are some dark moments in the empires rich history, but there are some very bright ones as well. The trick, at least to me, is to understand all elements and not pretend only one or the other exists.
Without quoting everything else, I will just say that I agree with you that the success of the British Empire was not solely based on force, and that trade (I thought I mentioned the role of mercantilism, but it may have been a rough draft in my head, or from another source) was probably more important.
Thank-you, yes, that's basically what I was driving at. I'm fasting today, and it occasionally makes my head a little fuzzy.
AustonT wrote: Grammar aside this comment has no basis in reality.
What are you disputing, that Ender's Game is a book whose primary market is those who read it while they were disaffected teenagers?
Or that Ender is a fictional character who's only success is in a fictional book, while Ghandi was a key figure in the formation of the world's biggest democracy, and that as such, Ghandi is a much bigger deal than Ender?
Because if you really want to argue with the first point, then I'll just grant it to you. But if its the latter you're arguing, I will have to respectfully suggest that you're out of your mind.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Pretty sure I made it very clear which part I was addressing. Which is why you didnt just hit quote and start writing. Don't play dumb it doesn't become you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/07 03:51:19
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
