Isn't the Constitution illegal and Britannical?

[Infohawk]

Sorry, I disagree. Many European countries still have restrictive citizenship laws that restrict suffrage to a class of people who would have citizenship elsewhere in the world. Ethnicity/Race-based citizenship is something that has to be abolished. It's a step that they skipped. Even Switzerland, a supposed very progressive European country, didn't allow all women to vote until the 1980s. That was after Yemen.

Also, I'm not aware of the UK being colonized by another stronger, more democratic society. Unless you're from the future?

During colonial times, India was a weak society dominated by the barbaric caste system. At the time, the UK gave rights to more of its citizens and had less class distinctions than India. Non-aristocrat born Brits were thus allowed to make great scientific and technological achievements. (Newton for example.) Britain easily conquered India at that time.

Yemen wasn't a "republic" until 1990. I use quotes because it is still what would be considered a banana Republic. And you've never provided any evidence that Europe is unusual in its immigration policies. Do a search if you want to see where I pointed out to you that India for example has just as restrictive immigration policies. In fact, European countries have more immigrants than most other non-European countries do.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Even Switzerland, a supposed very progressive European country, didn't allow all women to vote until the 1980s. That was after Yemen.

Amazing.

(My google-foo says 1971, but still amazing)

Fern

 

[CanOWorms]

During colonial times, India was a weak society dominated by the barbaric caste system. At the time, the UK gave rights to more of its citizens and had less class distinctions than India. Non-aristocrat born Brits were thus allowed to make great scientific and technological achievements. (Newton for example.) Britain easily conquered India at that time.

Sorry, I disagree with that. A monarchy, a country still to this day that not only maintains government-mandated class/caste distinctions but socially as well, is not more democratic. They were likely very close in degree.

In addition, the British pillaged the world and added very little to it. I wonder how much humanity would have been advanced, not only scientifically but culturally, if the British horde was stopped by any of early its rivals.

Yemen wasn't a "republic" until 1990. I use quotes because it is still what would be considered a banana Republic. And you've never provided any evidence that Europe is unusual in its immigration policies. Do a search if you want to see where I pointed out to you that India for example has just as restrictive immigration policies. In fact, European countries have more immigrants than most other non-European countries do.

Just because X does something doesn't excuse Y. It means that they're both wrong.

 

[CanOWorms]

Amazing.

(My google-foo says 1971, but still amazing)

Fern

1971 is for the Swiss federal elections. On the canton-level it was in the 1980s.

 

[Infohawk]

Sorry, I disagree with that. A monarchy, a country still to this day that not only maintains government-mandated class/caste distinctions but socially as well, is not more democratic. They were likely very close in degree.

In addition, the British pillaged the world and added very little to it. I wonder how much humanity would have been advanced, not only scientifically but culturally, if the British horde was stopped by any of early its rivals.

You may disagree but you have no evidence. Britain had the magna carta and the House of Commons? What equivalent did India have at the same time? We're not talking about right now, we're talking about the origins of modern democracy being in Europe.

 

[CanOWorms]

You may disagree but you have no evidence. Britain had the magna carta and the House of Commons? What equivalent did India have at the same time? We're not talking about right now, we're talking about the origins of modern democracy being in Europe.

Again, saying you have something doesn't mean much unless it's actually practiced. In addition, there was no India at the time. Not only that, I don't care for that country. I simply recognize that the British were quite barbaric and anti-democratic at the time. They subjected hundreds of millions of people around the world as slaves and yet you're claiming they're democratic. It is an interesting argument.

 

[Infohawk]

Again, saying you have something doesn't mean much unless it's actually practiced. In addition, there was no India at the time. Not only that, I don't care for that country. I simply recognize that the British were quite barbaric and anti-democratic at the time. They subjected hundreds of millions of people around the world as slaves and yet you're claiming they're democratic. It is an interesting argument.

You act like democracy doesn't exist unless it's full-blown modern universal suffrage. History moves in steps and you have to compare apples to apples. Comparing industrial revolution England to modern US is unfair. How about comparing Industrial Revolution UK to most countries at that time? As I discussed, Britain was at the forefront of modern democracy and wasn't passed in a major country until the French revolution.

 

[CanOWorms]

You act like democracy doesn't exist unless it's full-blown modern universal suffrage. History moves in steps and you have to compare apples to apples. Comparing industrial revolution England to modern US is unfair. How about comparing Industrial Revolution UK to most countries at that time? As I discussed, Britain was at the forefront of modern democracy and wasn't passed in a major country until the French revolution.

Yes, history moves in steps. But having hundreds of millions of slaves is quite a few steps backwards. Comparing the UK to many other countries would portray them unfavorably in that era. They're certainly not the example to use.

Maybe you've been watching too many Jane Austen movie adaptations.

 

[Infohawk]

Yes, history moves in steps. But having hundreds of millions of slaves is quite a few steps backwards. Comparing the UK to many other countries would portray them unfavorably in that era. They're certainly not the example to use.

Maybe you've been watching too many Jane Austen movie adaptations.

What country at that time had suffrage for people of other races or for women? None. Feel free to point out countries that had more democracy at that time. You'll find they are European.

 

[CanOWorms]

What country at that time had suffrage for people of other races or for women? None. Feel free to point out countries that had more democracy at that time. You'll find they are European.

What country had more slaves than the UK at that time? Probably none.

 

[CanOWorms]

You should probably also read up on Wikipedia's article on Democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Middle_Ages

It has many examples of other societies/cultures that disagree with your assertion.

 

[Infohawk]

You should probably also read up on Wikipedia's article on Democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Middle_Ages

It has many examples of other societies/cultures that disagree with your assertion.

I read it and it reinforces my position. The house of commons was an important step in the creation of the British and American democracies. The other ones are flashes in the pans that are described as oligarchies.

And stop acting like no other countries ever tried to enslave people. The US was good at it too. The reason the British Empire had so many subjects was precisely because it was more modern than its counterparts.

 

[CanOWorms]

I read it and it reinforces my position. The house of commons was an important step in the creation of the British and American democracies. The other ones are flashes in the pans that are described as oligarchies.

The British system pales in light of many of those examples. It was also an oligarchy/monarchy system. The British resembled a modern democracy starting in 1832! Amazing. But even today, how can we claim it even resembles modern democracies today with its Monarchy? Nepal got rid of that barbarism yet the British still cling to that anti-democratic instrument of barbarism.

And stop acting like no other countries ever tried to enslave people. The US was good at it too. The reason the British Empire had so many subjects was precisely because it was more modern than its counterparts.

Why are you calling them subjects? They were slaves. And they had more slaves not because it was modern in any humane, democratic, or political sense. They were masters of greed and bloodlust. That's like saying the Nazis were more modern than its counterparts.