Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jasmine

: Thank you my friend and answer all the questions

Recommended Posts

elef,

 

 

 

At the risk of being a killjoy, werent these states part of Mexico until they were, ahem, ANNEXED by the US ?

 

 

 

Not sure what kind of wealth they had at that time, but you can name any two 'Sister Cities' that straddle the border on either side, and I can guarantee you that no-one on the US side would be willing to swap places with those on the other side. We had a lively debate about the plight of Filipina and Thai domestics in Singapore recently, and someone compared their conditions to those of Mexicans in places like San Diego - not a happy thought.

 

 

 

I cant blame modern day Spain for the sins of their Fathers (sic), but Catholicism and its prohibitive attitude to birth control has entrenched the cycle of poverty in so many of its former colonies. I stand by what I said - they took thriving, vibrant civilisations and left them with death and disease. Then the priests moved in to 'save' them ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artiew,

 

 

 

just joking even if it's a historical fact (-but California was just part of Mexico 1 year (1821-1822) before US stole it!)

 

 

 

Of course you're right about cultural influence from colonializing countries. But remember the Dutch/Belgian examples also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

"Funny it comes back to education level, to me it appears the better educated and more exposed we are, the better chance we have of adapting to strange surroundings. "

 

 

 

I think this is so true....the more educated and exposed one comes the better they adapt to new surroundings!!!!

 

 

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

 

 

Sanukboot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No-one can deny that the US has absorbed a wide variety of influences and prospered by taking the best of them and, largely, discardng the negative aspects (the Mob notwithstanding). My own view is that the whole is much better than the sum of its component parts - how many of us would prefer to live in Arkansas rather than upstate Vermont ? Too cold ? How about Florida vs New Mexico ? All of these have their pros and cons, but the US as a nation still has an enviable standard of living, at least if you are on the right side of the wealth gap.

 

 

 

If you want to see real economic success stories, however, check out the Scandinavian countries : they stopped trying to (forcefully) export Viking culture a long time ago, and have legal, social and economic infrastructures which reflect their compassion for one another. Cold hands, warm hearts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your view of the effects of colonization is rather myopic and superficial. Countries were colinized because they lacked the advantages of Western technology and science. How do you put a monetary value on the effects this exposure brought to the country?

 

[color:blue] I think you really need to study the European colonization and understand that it was empire building. Countries were primarily colonized because they had an abundance of natural resources or they were strategically placed from a geographical point militarily. color=blue>

 

 

 

Take the US-it would never have developed into the great country it is today under the stewardship of the native americans (they were not exterminated).

 

[color:blue] The US is a great nation because the colonists did not try to coexist with the indigenous population. They rebelled against their European masters, accepted every immigrant possible,instituted a democracy and practiced a policy of isolationism until WWI.

 

 

 

You can't compare America to a country like the Phillipines because Americans are primarily European descendants. The original argument was the benefits of colonization to the native population. In effect America colonization was a failure becuase the native population was destroyed.

 

 

 

No, the American Indians were not exterminated, just the recepients of systematic genocide GO ask a Native American his opinion about it). Nearly every treaty they signed with the US govt was broken, they were herded like cattle(called resettlement)onto the crappiest land available and their reservations were flooded with alcohol. color=blue>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The colony at Plymouth in 1620. By 1640 there were already 40,000 British subjects living in the colonies.

 

 

 

[color:blue] The Pilgrims were not considered British citizens or subjects. They were exiled from Britain for religious and political reasons and sought refuge in The Netherlands or Sweden. They then sailed to America to escape religious persecution and would have perished had it not been for the generosity of the Native Americans at the time. color=blue>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They most certainly were British subjects. What they were not was "franchisees" -- they could not vote because of their religion. While the Puritan community did reside for a time in Leyden, Holland, from 1607-1620, there's no historical evidence that they ever relinquished their British citizenship. Further, it was their national pride in being British that prevented any assimilation into Dutch culture; the very reason for emigration to the colonies!

 

[color:blue] You are correct there is no evidence that they were not still considered British subjects. That is an inference I made considering that they were exiled by King James I for not recognizing the authority of the Crown as the head of the Anglican Church. Some will say that the Pilgrims voluntarily left, I guess it depends on who is writing the story.

 

 

 

Technically, the pilgrims were not considered colonists because King James refused to grant them a royal charter to establish a colony in America. They received the assistance of a British merchant company and indentured themselves 7 years to payoff the cost of passage and supplies. color=blue>

 

 

 

The legend of the friendly Indians is largely a Hallmark Greeting Card myth. Actually it dates from the late 17th and early 18th century anti-British feeling in America. The colony survived by trapping and fishing with staples coming largely by way of resupply from Britain rather than significant local agriculture with or without aboriginal assistance.

 

 

 

[color:blue] This statement is largely inaccurate. The Pilgrims lost half of their numbers during their first winter. The Indians provided them with the knowledge of planting corn, using herring as fertilizer(English seeds didn't adapt well to the soil) and fishing to ensure their survival. There is no way in hell the Pilgrims would have survived without their assistance. I think the source of your "Hallmark Greeting" card information wants to downplay the assistance of the Indians. color=blue>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is kind of a nihilistic assessment. Catholicism was one of the predominant religions in Europe and yet, the proscription on birth control did not lead Europe into disease and poverty. Catholic missionaries brought many things to the colonies, including schools, hospitals and medicines, progressive agricultural practices, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catholic missionaries brought many things to the colonies, including schools, hospitals and medicines, progressive agricultural practices, etc.

 

 

 

[color:blue] Last time I checked the Incas, Mayans and Aztecs had flourishing cultures, with engineering marvels, productive agricultural practices and I doubt that they had an inadequate educational system. It appears that some people who post here believe that education and schooling was a European invention! color=blue>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...