|
caberham posted:Perhaps if the description was more elaborate? That's still leaves 'free land for European immigrants' as true though. It's not a whitewash to say that's what attracted people, even if that's not where they were able to settle. It wouldn't be the first time the US has pulled a major bait and switch on somebody.
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Up until 1910 there were more people living in rural areas than in urban areas. Yeah but the question is how many were immigrants and how many immigrants went to cities vs seeking land.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:How many recent immigrants actually came for that land instead of just settling in the cities with the immigrant communities that were already there? That's not a dickish question trying to minimize your point, I'm genuinely curious. For the most part US population centers are still in cities and that's not where the free land was. What's "recent?" There hasn't been a homestead program as such anywhere since 1986, and agriculture has been significantly consolidated since then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
This thread just seems to skip from critique from critique and if it touches anything that could be construed as positive someone throws out a non-sequitor like "only if you were white" in a conversation about European immigration, with the clear implication that the reader should come to a negative value judgment, and then moves on to something else you can say something negative about. The thread is tendentious and it's annoying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:How many recent immigrants actually came for that land instead of just settling in the cities with the immigrant communities that were already there? That's not a dickish question trying to minimize your point, I'm genuinely curious. For the most part US population centers are still in cities and that's not where the free land was. It depends on the immigrant group and the era. The Chinese, for example, ended up building railroads. My own ancestors, the Polish, scraped up what money they could, moved to the area in and around Pennsylvania, and bought land to farm. Their intent was to farm up a fair load of cash and go back home. Then World War 2 happened and they decided they liked it better here, you know where there WASN'T a war happening, and hung around. The Irish mostly seemed to have settled in the cities that their boats landed at. Amused to Death posted:I think is really dependent on where you go to school because America is not singular entity, it's a continent wide country of thousands of school districts in each district different ethnic groups dominated. Like in this heavily Italian place we learned about the Italian immigration wave, discrimination they faced, and how the immigration laws in 1921 were basically an attempt to keep more grease balls from entering. There is some variety, I'll grant you that. The version I got was "white people are awesome and invented everything that matters." I've spoken to a fair number of people who got the same version. drat near all of my high school history study was devoted to books that were nothing but, cover to cover, the "America, gently caress yeah!" version. I didn't learn just how badly immigrants had it until later in life and the only time abuse of the natives was mentioned was the Trail of Tears, which wasn't spoken of as "yeah this was a lovely thing that we did, let's not do it again" it was "just the price of progress." They didn't even mention why it was called the Trail of Tears. Everything that was mentioned was various conflicts with the natives which were always prefaced with "in our defense, they started it."
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:This Fixed that for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:This thread just seems to skip from critique from critique and if it touches anything that could be construed as positive someone throws out a non-sequitor like "only if you were white" in a conversation about European immigration, with the clear implication that the reader should come to a negative value judgment, and then moves on to something else you can say something negative about. Yeah I don't get it. This is D&D, I don't think there's a major prevailing notion of the standard 'it wasn't so bad for da blacks why can't they get a job, jus like my immigrant granfadder!?' that people would feel the need to push back against. White supremacy was and is a central pillar of American consciousness for a lot of people but that doesn't mean every single issue that comes up needs to be tethered to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Regardless of the motivations for immigration and settlement, calling it "Free land!" without regards to how the land was obtained is disingenuous. Everyone knew it wasn't really *free*. Natives are only savages and don't deserve this land. Sorry, I'm not trying to antagonize anyone here  Nowadays, the Mid West makes good craft beer Amused to Death posted:Yeah but the question is how many were immigrants and how many immigrants went to cities vs seeking land. I would be curious about these figures as well. Can you just drop your "free land starter kit" and just look for work in the cities? Granted, "free land" is a big allure and lots of people settling in were farmers. But man, cultivating that was hard hard work. Ok, time to play the Oregon trail again. Can someone elaborate on that trail? Can someone please tell me more about settlement of the western territories? Lincoln was assassinated 1865 and swaths of land was still considered Territories instead of States right? So does that mean land was still free and open for settlement well into the 1900's? That you have the roaring 20's and Al Capone, and you also have "Territories"? This reminds me of the TV show Deadwood. People want land to be incorporated as a state because of having official title to land, making State laws, Federal funding, and protection right? caberham fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Oh, and just as a reminder- I posed this question in the first place because I find the idea that our country was founded on the idea of free land hilarious, given that modern conservative talking points insist that free stuff is the worstest most unamerican thing either. So even if we weren't complaining about how bad white people were it was still kind of a mean-spirited question anyway. It puts a lot of things into perspective though. Like, I can see why Oklahomans call themselves Sooners with pride. They were just living up to the American principles of free land which the greedy federal government wasn't giving them fast enough!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Much of my family immigrated to the US to farm in the very late 1800s to the very early 1900s so I would assume there was still free or inexpensive land at that time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
caberham posted:Lincoln was assassinated 1865 and swaths of land was still considered Territories instead of States right? So does that mean land was still free and open for settlement well into the 1900's? That you have the roaring 20's and Al Capone, and you also have "Territories"? So up until 1912 with the admittance of Arizona there were still technically territories in the continental United States and the last stragglers of the Indian Wars hung on until 1924. To answer your question crudely, while Al Capone is mucking about there are 48 states (one of whom is about 10 years old) and the 300 year Indian War is still on going. This isn't really the wild west period like you see in films and TV, though, its the last sputtering gasps of an era that had already had a time limit placed on it in 1868 when basically all the modern state borders were drawn up and that by 1875 had finished off the last major Native American military powers. Barudak fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
America was super awesome to come to because Europe was a shot hole at the time. It's the same as today, with immigrants seeking better wages abroad. I guess people in this thread forget how awful it was to be a poor person at the time? I can't really gauge what people think American history of immigration is, but it's been a long long time since anglo/Franco immigrants made up a large share. It has always been immigrants from poor areas. First waves had Germans and Irish and Chinese and then slabs and south east europeans. Like today, half of them went back to their home country after making some money, while the other half decided they liked it and stayed. Then our first immigration laws banned Chinese labor because of racism and hurr stealing white jobs. Then by the 20s actual immigration laws are in place which effectively ban all immigration to America because of fear of Slavic and southern European political activiets. '65 is when our modern system came about, hilariously enacted with zero fanfare because no one thought anyone would come immigrate to America en masse. Most bizarrely given modern discourse, Mexicans enjoyed for the longest time very favorable immigration status due to the nature of treaties we had post Mexican war recognizing Mexicans as "white" which was a precondition for immigration. Coupled with low border enforcement and the traditional porous nature of the border, Mexicans were able to come and go as they pleased until the modernizing reforms of '65. Other honorable mentions for consideration is the anti ellis island of the west coast, angel island Which was more of a prison than a processing center for Asian immigrants. Berke Negri fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
caberham posted:Lincoln was assassinated 1865 and swaths of land was still considered Territories instead of States right? So does that mean land was still free and open for settlement well into the 1900's? That you have the roaring 20's and Al Capone, and you also have "Territories"? Though there were still territories, the frontier was more or less considered closed in 1890 during the Benjamin Harrison administration. In 1889-90, six states were admitted: North Dakota and South Dakota (November 2, 1889), Montana (November 8, 1889), Washington (November 11, 1889), Idaho (July 3, 1890), and Wyoming (July 10, 1890).
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Then our first immigration laws banned Chinese labor because of racism and hurr stealing white jobs. Then by the 20s actual immigration laws are in place which effectively ban all immigration to America because of fear of Slavic and southern European political activiets. '65 is when our modern system came about, hilariously enacted with zero fanfare because no one thought anyone would come immigrate to America en masse. This might interest some folks: http://chinahistorypodcast.com/china_history_podcast_044-the_chinese_exclusion_act_of_1882 quote:In an effort to bring some understanding to the recent proposed call for a resolution to formally acknowledge and express regret for banning Chinese immigration and other violated rights of the Chinese settlers, we examine the history of the Chinese Exclusion Act. The resolution was introduced by L.A.’s very own Rep. Judy Chu, the first Chinese American elected to the US Congress. It is also co-sponsored by Rep. Judy Biggert of Illinois and Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado. The resolution is calling on Congress to express regret for the passage of several laws between 1882 and 1904 that violated the fundamental civil rights of Chinese-Americans. In today’s episode of the China History Podcast we look at the history behind this resolution and why it is important to understand the past in order to be better informed about the issues of today. Also possibly of interest: http://chinahistorypodcast.com/chp-123-the-history-of-the-chinese-in-mexico
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
caberham posted:Regardless of the motivations for immigration and settlement, calling it "Free land!" without regards to how the land was obtained is disingenuous. Everyone knew it wasn't really *free*. Natives are only savages and don't deserve this land. the JJ posted:At the same time, we aren't a direct democracy, and I'd much rather, given the populace's recent predilections (two terms of Bush?) have the Bill of Rights than an unlimited democracy. quote:
It was different at different times for different immigrants. There's like, huge bodies of work on this. This will give you a good enough primer to free agricultural land: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts Jane Addams' Hull House is a pretty good autobiography talking about setting up a sort of urban integration center for new immigrants. That's a fair starting point for urban life. Short answer: practically no one had a loving plan, and those who did immediately had to rethink. quote:Granted, "free land" is a big allure and lots of people settling in were farmers. But man, cultivating that was hard hard work. Ok, time to play the Oregon trail again. Can someone elaborate on that trail? Can someone please tell me more about settlement of the western territories? Short answer: setting up camp in the prairie land was, until modern irrigation, a real poo poo prospect. Oregon was, well, super rainy and poo poo. The Oregon Trail games pretty well chart a series of waves of immigration, often premised on various mineral finds, the infamous 'Gold Rushes' or silver, usually. You could go out, pick some land, maybe you get lucky. Most of the people who actually made it rich were the ones supplying picks, food, booze, and sex to the wanna be miners, until someone's claim panned out, that dude got super rich and hired everyone else to work his claim. See: Horace Tabor (and the Legend of Baby Doe) quote:Lincoln was assassinated 1865 and swaths of land was still considered Territories instead of States right? So does that mean land was still free and open for settlement well into the 1900's? That you have the roaring 20's and Al Capone, and you also have "Territories"? See the Homestead Acts but, at least de jure, you couldn't just pitch tent and call the land yours. Not that, e.g. Aaron Burr or the Mormons didn't try. quote:This reminds me of the TV show Deadwood. People want land to be incorporated as a state because of having official title to land, making State laws, Federal funding, and protection right? Yeah, statehood was something that some people wanted for a lot of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
Aaron Burr is great because he shot Hamilton, a beloved figure by that time, after Hamilton shot in the air making it double dishonorable, fled to the west because everyone hated him in the mid Atlantic States and ended up arrested for high treason after attempting to arm and organize a secessionist plot. What a colossal rear end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
Well now that's misleading. You left out the part where Marshall refused to convict him because there was a lack of evidence that he was building an army to fight the United States. They had evidence that he was building an army, but Burr somehow managed to convince everyone that the reason he was building the army was not to secede from the United States, but to attack Spain, take all their land, and give it to the United States as a present. Most of Aaron Burr's written instructions were written in incomprehensible Shakespearean metaphors so there was no way to disprove his explanation of events. Also the guy actually running the army was kind of skeevy and nobody liked him. Read Henry Adam's history of the Jefferson and Madison administrations. There's all sorts of great crazy stuff in there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Aaron Burr is great because he shot Hamilton, a beloved figure by that time, after Hamilton shot in the air making it double dishonorable, fled to the west because everyone hated him in the mid Atlantic States and ended up arrested for high treason after attempting to arm and organize a secessionist plot. What a colossal rear end. If you like Aaron Burr read up some on Charles Lee who was a colossal rear end in addition to being a big coward. Also after the Revolution he had to retreat to the country because he pissed off so many people they lined up at the door to duel him. A surgeon who operated on him tried to assassinate him afterwards. Bro Dad fucked around with this message at 09:58 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:If you like Aaron Burr read up some on Charles Lee who was a colossal rear end in addition to being a big coward. Also after the Revolution he had to retreat to the country because he pissed off so many people they lined up at the door to duel him. A surgeon who operated on him tried to assassinate him afterwards. Stories like that always amuse me. You know it's time to rethink your life's decisions when even doctors hate you so much that they want you to die.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Much of my family immigrated to the US to farm in the very late 1800s to the very early 1900s so I would assume there was still free or inexpensive land at that time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Well now that's misleading. You left out the part where Marshall refused to convict him because there was a lack of evidence that he was building an army to fight the United States. They had evidence that he was building an army, but Burr somehow managed to convince everyone that the reason he was building the army was not to secede from the United States, but to attack Spain, take all their land, and give it to the United States as a present. Most of Aaron Burr's written instructions were written in incomprehensible Shakespearean metaphors so there was no way to disprove his explanation of events. Also the guy actually running the army was kind of skeevy and nobody liked him. That's all I remembered! I didn't recall whether he was convicted or not. That's pretty good. Still a colossal dick! Who shoots Hamilton and then writes secessionist claptrap in Shakesperean metaphors? Also I'm pretty sure Charles Lee was killed by a half-Mohawk assassin. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 11:50
|
|
|
Hahaha holy poo poo that wiki article.quote:Although his army was supposed to join that of Washington's in Pennsylvania, Lee set a very slow pace. On the night of December 12, Lee and a dozen of his guard inexplicably stopped for the night at White's Tavern in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, some three miles from his main army. The next morning, a British patrol of two dozen mounted soldiers found Lee writing letters in his dressing gown, and captured him. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Well now that's misleading. You left out the part where Marshall refused to convict him because there was a lack of evidence that he was building an army to fight the United States. They had evidence that he was building an army, but Burr somehow managed to convince everyone that the reason he was building the army was not to secede from the United States, but to attack Spain, take all their land, and give it to the United States as a present. Most of Aaron Burr's written instructions were written in incomprehensible Shakespearean metaphors so there was no way to disprove his explanation of events. Also the guy actually running the army was kind of skeevy and nobody liked him. It's really fascinating to me just how often this idea comes up. I guess it's part of the whole Manifest Destiny thing, but the number of people who thought conquering bits of Latin America was a great idea does kind of surprise me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 20:02
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:It's really fascinating to me just how often this idea comes up. I guess it's part of the whole Manifest Destiny thing, but the number of people who thought conquering bits of Latin America was a great idea does kind of surprise me. I believe one of the major reasons the United States didn't fully annex Mexico during the Mexican-American war instead of just taking the land they did take was because the land they took was basically uninhabited and the rest of land was full of people the US didn't want to make part of its country. I always feel like most historical Manifest Destiny types are real quitters when they settled for East->West and didn't want to push it from North to South.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Barudak posted:I believe one of the major reasons the United States didn't fully annex Mexico during the Mexican-American war instead of just taking the land they did take was because the land they took was basically uninhabited and the rest of land was full of people the US didn't want to make part of its country. Well, the real reason was that the Southern states wanted to annex Mexico/The Caribbean and make them into slave states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Barudak posted:I believe one of the major reasons the United States didn't fully annex Mexico during the Mexican-American war instead of just taking the land they did take was because the land they took was basically uninhabited and the rest of land was full of people the US didn't want to make part of its country. The US was willing to buy more of northern Mexico in the Gadsden Purchase had antislavery protesters not blocked anything further than the present southern border of Arizona and New Mexico.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Aaron Burr is great because he shot Hamilton, a beloved figure by that time, after Hamilton shot in the air making it double dishonorable, fled to the west because everyone hated him in the mid Atlantic States and ended up arrested for high treason after attempting to arm and organize a secessionist plot. What a colossal rear end. I don't know if I would call Hamilton a ”beloved” figure. I can think of a few people (other than Burr) that did not like Hamilton very much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Barudak posted:I believe one of the major reasons the United States didn't fully annex Mexico during the Mexican-American war instead of just taking the land they did take was because the land they took was basically uninhabited and the rest of land was full of people the US didn't want to make part of its country. We tried to get those drat Canadians but they got away from us. One of these days though...
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Ethiser posted:We tried to get those drat Canadians but they got away from us. One of these days though... A great many of us were on board until you started pillaging all our poo poo. Now we can celebrate 1812 as the war where 2500 Americans inside Detroit surrendered because they were deathly afraid of Indians, and
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
I'm ever mystified by how the US constitution is still so unchanged (apart from the 27 amendments, of course), but then I also recognize that the only reason other countries have more, shall I say, "modern" constitutions is because they're either much younger than the US or they went through different forms of government and so had to write them at a time when they were much more aware of contemporary issues. Are there countries that "updated" their constitutions with things like term limits or clarified antiquated/vague wordings entirely of their own accord? I'm sorry if the question is vague or rambling. I guess this is more of a general thing where I don't want to keep laughing at how much trouble the US gets in over debates regarding things that the constitution does or does not cover without recognizing first that maybe no one has really done better either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I'm ever mystified by how the US constitution is still so unchanged (apart from the 27 amendments, of course), but then I also recognize that the only reason other countries have more, shall I say, "modern" constitutions is because they're either much younger than the US or they went through different forms of government and so had to write them at a time when they were much more aware of contemporary issues. I'm not absolutely sure what you're asking, but for reference Finland's constitution was first laid in 1919, less than two years after declaration of independence, and was originally designed to be sort of semi-monarchist where the president held considerable power, as after the civil war there were fears that socialists might eventually return to government and OHMIGODWEGETSOVIETIZED. And they did form a minority government in 1926, but like all other minority governments at the time it lasted for a year before being voted down. The constitution has since been updated many times over, the latest in 2000 which replaced all of the previous constitutional decrees. Most importantly, after over a quarter century of Urho Kekkonen's presidency it was decided that presidency should be limited to just two subsequent terms, and the president's functions also were limited to a mostly ceremonial and diplomatic role. Ironically, this change came at the same time as the presidential election changed from electoral college to direct voting, so right now the only power that be that is chosen by a majority of voters holds no real power, whereas in parliamentary elections voters have no way of knowing what kind of strange coalition government will form, as the president no longer has any sway over government formation and can't support minority or caretaker cabinets. Our current president has invested his political energy in telling peeps that kids should go to sleep early, instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:The US was willing to buy more of northern Mexico in the Gadsden Purchase had antislavery protesters not blocked anything further than the present southern border of Arizona and New Mexico. Yep, a big reason why the United States didn't go for more of Mexico was simply that most of the cuntry wasn't behind it in the first place. Manifest Destiny had it's place, but Northern-Southern tensions over expanding slavery was a much bigger issue than the background of Mexicans at the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
sullat posted:I don't know if I would call Hamilton a ”beloved” figure. I can think of a few people (other than Burr) that did not like Hamilton very much. By that point the founding fathers were starting to die off and Hamilton's unpopular (but correct) policy ideas were starting to fade in the general glow of being one of the guys who were in on the ground floor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Finland's constitution Thanks, that was kind of the answer I was looking for!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:The US was willing to buy more of northern Mexico in the Gadsden Purchase had antislavery protesters not blocked anything further than the present southern border of Arizona and New Mexico. The US was also stymied from grabbing Baja California and possibly other territories by the actions of its diplomat, Nicholas Trist: Wikipedia posted:During the Mexican-American War, President James K. Polk sent Trist to negotiate with the Government of Mexico. He was ordered to arrange an armistice with Mexico for up to $30 million U.S. dollars, depending on whether he could obtain Baja California and additional southern territory along with the already planned acquisitions of Alta California, the Nueces Strip, and New Mexico. If he could not obtain Baja California and additional territory to the south, then he was instructed to offer $20 million.[6] President Polk was unhappy with his envoy's conduct and prompted him to order Trist to return to the United States. General Winfield Scott was also unhappy with Trist's presence in Mexico, although he and Scott quickly reconciled and began a lifelong friendship. There was a fairly significant "all Mexico" movement within the Democratic Party at the time, seeking to annex the entire country. Rogue0071 fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Mar 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I'm ever mystified by how the US constitution is still so unchanged (apart from the 27 amendments, of course), but then I also recognize that the only reason other countries have more, shall I say, "modern" constitutions is because they're either much younger than the US or they went through different forms of government and so had to write them at a time when they were much more aware of contemporary issues. The French have also done this. They reconstituted the state after World War 2, but the resulting parliamentary system meant that governments were wildly unstable. So they dissolved the Fourth Republic and wrote a constitution that started the Fifth Republic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:The French have also done this. They reconstituted the state after World War 2, but the resulting parliamentary system meant that governments were wildly unstable. So they dissolved the Fourth Republic and wrote a constitution that started the Fifth Republic. By ”they”, I assume you mean De Gaulle and the army, and by ”dissolved” you mean overthrew. Since that's kind of what happened, thanks the issues raise by decolonization and the post-war rebuilding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Are there countries that "updated" their constitutions with things like term limits or clarified antiquated/vague wordings entirely of their own accord? Not sure if it's exactly what you're looking for but Britain's consitution has changed considerably over the time the USA has been in existence. Of course it's a very different sort of constitution, being unwritten, but we've seen an expansion of the voting principle, the introduction of parliamentary parties and a shift from monarchy backed by Parliament to full Parliamentary rule with a largely powerless monarch along with many other more minor changes such as the ability for the lower House to push legislation past the upper House. We've also fairly recently moved from an upper House that was majority inherited power to one that is appointed. That's not to bring up the change in status and governance of different parts of the Union.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Not sure if it's exactly what you're looking for but Britain's consitution has changed considerably over the time the USA has been in existence. Of course it's a very different sort of constitution, being unwritten, but we've seen an expansion of the voting principle, the introduction of parliamentary parties and a shift from monarchy backed by Parliament to full Parliamentary rule with a largely powerless monarch along with many other more minor changes such as the ability for the lower House to push legislation past the upper House. We've also fairly recently moved from an upper House that was majority inherited power to one that is appointed. That's not to bring up the change in status and governance of different parts of the Union. Do you have Tea Party levels of ancestor worship?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Do you have Tea Party levels of ancestor worship? They are all in sleazy bars in Thailand  This is just anecdotal, but it's easy to find RAWWWWR RAWWWR WE GIVEN THE EMPIRE AWAY neo colonists in British expat bars. You will see the Union Jack hanging there and if you are non white then you can easily get some bad vibes being there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 17:19
|
|