|
computer parts posted:So did the US for many decades.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 11:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:How the gently caress is that relevant? How is it not? The US had nominal control over wide swaths of its territory outside of practical control for decades, the same as Spain or France did. The map of the US you see circa late 19th century of the US is just as made up as the Spanish one of the 18th Century.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
Claiming the land is different from occupying it. What staking a claim with remote forts like that is really doing is saying to the rest of the world 'well, it's ours unless you're willing to come and militarily contest it'. 99/100 powers need not apply because they can't even dream of having the logistical and economic capability of waging a war in the far-flung reaches of nowheresville.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:How is it not? The US had nominal control over wide swaths of its territory outside of practical control for decades, the same as Spain or France did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 12:54
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:So? That the US colonized certain territories pretty drat late compared to what the maps would tell you doesn't change the fact that the Spanish and the French never colonized them at all. Most people would dispute that first fact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:None of these are the major reasons why healthcare is so expensive in the US,. In fact, because hambeasts and people with other unhealthy lifestyle habits die faster, they're cheaper to handle long-term than seniors. Well ill be damned. Didnt see that coming... well then americans still go to doctor for little things more where europeans will use home remedies from my anecdotal experience. Also how/why do americans end up with a kitchen table worth of medicine and europeans dont if not because of lifestyle?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
davidb posted:Well ill be damned. Didnt see that coming... well then americans still go to doctor for little things more where europeans will use home remedies from my anecdotal experience. No, they don't. Here is one of many reports on surveys where Americans say they specifically ignored healthcare concerns because of costs. This isn't really an issue in the UK- occasionally, an illness will go untreated for a long time (with it either luckily resolving on its own or eventually needing treatment), but it's either because there is a long waiting list for the treatment or because the individual prefers to rely on quack treatments, rarely due to worries about the cost. I can't imagine it is much different in places like France and Spain. I know that article is from a few years ago and Obamacare is improving things, but you don't seem to realize that it won't necessarily lead to full socialized medicine because people are blaming the limitations of Obamacare on the wrong things and would probably be hostile to further change. When my boyfriend got those bills he started criticizing Obama because he realized if he hadn't been "forced to get insurance" he would ultimately be paying less for healthcare- a shortsighted opinion of course because insurance is invaluable for the things that cost thousands of dollars if you get them, but all he was seeing in the moment was the slight disadvantage when it came to the cheaper bills. I would not be surprised if he tried to pick up something from the drugstore and hope for the best next time, whereas I would definitely go to the doctor in the UK again if I got another eye infection. It's free, you can rule out more serious things with similar symptoms, and you can get a stronger medicine on prescription for only around £8. Not to mention that the idea that people don't go to the doctor for minor ailments in the UK but do in this US seems anecdotally spurious when every time I call my GP the place is fully booked up for about a month (you are told to call at like 8am the next day and hope there was a cancellation, luckily there often is), whereas when I accompanied my bf to the walk-in centre there was no one there and he didn't even have to make an appointment. There doesn't seem to be as much demand being put on the system. Even if you don't go to the doctor because it's obvious you just have a cold and you don't want to waste their time, you usually take over-the-counter drugs. Almost every home in Europe also has a medicine cabinet with cough syrup, headache pills and first aid stuff in it. I'm not sure where you get the impression that we cook up a home remedy on the stove. Maybe some chicken soup or lemon tea to relieve symptoms, but not usually to the exclusion of actual medicine as well. At least in the developed areas, I am not sure about what a small village in a poorer country like Bulgaria is like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That Mexico had heavier settlement in areas that were later conquered by the US doesn't change the fact that Spain had laid claim to massive areas far outside their practical control, or that France had likewise claimed a ton of territory where they had essentially no presence. England didn't do anything more serious than them, dude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Weldon Pemberton posted:you can get a stronger medicine on prescription for only around £8.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Most people would dispute that first fact. Nintendo Kid posted:England didn't do anything more serious than them, dude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Eh, England colonized North America far more heavily than France did, with the settler population of New France being like 20 times smaller than that of the Thirteen Colonies around 1750. Anyway, that doesn't really matter anyway, since my whole point is that it was the US which colonized most of that poo poo, not anyone else. Well, the US and Canada, given that western Canada is a pretty sizable chunk of North America. We traded an Island with the Dutch for New Amsterdam We want that Island back!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:How does the UK compare when it comes to pharmaceutical testing? Do they have a three-phase system like here in the US, or is it more streamlined? Because pharmaceutical testing is probably the biggest factor in medicine costs. Testing processes aren't why medicines are cheap in countries with socialised healthcare, it's subsidies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 11:11
|
|
|
Fluo posted:We traded an Island with the Dutch for New Amsterdam Surinam is not, in fact, an island.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Surinam is not, in fact, an island. Might aswell, have been! Fluo fucked around with this message at 12:59 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:western Canada is a pretty sizable chunk of North America. And so is Mexico.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:So? 1750 is like 150 years later after a long rear end time of colonists actually being there, and England having encroached pretty heavily on lands previously controlled by the French and Spanish, let alone swallowing up the Swedish and Dutch colonies whole. Interesting situation for 1750 though: total population of the North American continent excluding Mexico (its full extent, not merely it's size these days) was about 2 million. The 13 colonies made up about 1.2 of that. Latin America including Mexico was 16 million people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:1750 is like 150 years later after a long rear end time of colonists actually being there, and England having encroached pretty heavily on lands previously controlled by the French and Spanish, let alone swallowing up the Swedish and Dutch colonies whole. Mexico City and Lima were the power centers of the early colonial Americas. Anglo North America was a backwater.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:1750 is like 150 years later after a long rear end time of colonists actually being there, and England having encroached pretty heavily on lands previously controlled by the French and Spanish, let alone swallowing up the Swedish and Dutch colonies whole. computer parts posted:And so is Mexico.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The British were able to encroach on that poo poo because they had actual settlers, instead of forts and a few fur traders. The population disparity was pretty much the same a hundred years earlier. The British had the most settlers because Britain was a bigger stinkhole than all the other places in Europe. The story of colonists leaving England isn't one of Enlightened Europeans exploring to spread their beneficence with the dirty savage, it's the story of people who were sick of smelling poop everywhere they went, and being held down by their society, trying to escape it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 11:24
|
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:The British had the most settlers because Britain was a bigger stinkhole than all the other places in Europe. The story of colonists leaving England isn't one of Enlightened Europeans exploring to spread their beneficence with the dirty savage, it's the story of people who were sick of smelling poop everywhere they went, and being held down by their society, trying to escape it. The argument is not that Britain was enlightened or otherwise, simply that they were responsible for the creation of the United States in its existing form. Hence that if the USA gets to claim any good done by the modern German or Japanese states as its own accomplishment, then any good done by the United States is really just an accomplishment of Great Britain. The fact that Britain was full of poo poo both literally and figuratively actually just strengthens the reductio ad absurdum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 12:00
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:
Actually, going by your definition of "colonized" the vast majority of Canada still hasn't been.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Actually, going by your definition of "colonized" the vast majority of Canada still hasn't been.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The Canadian government has the ability to actually control the territory it claims, through the wonders of modern technology. It doesn't need boots on the ground in the same fashion as we did before modern communication networks, plus I'm not aware of anyone in Canada not recognizing the Canadian state as the de facto supreme authority of that territory, even if I suppose some people aren't that happy about it. So you admit the defining factor is not people actually living there, but ability to be contested militarily?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So you admit the defining factor is not people actually living there, but ability to be contested militarily?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
If nobody contests your colouring in of the map then one might perhaps argue that that is all of the enforcement you need?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If nobody contests your colouring in of the map then one might perhaps argue that that is all of the enforcement you need?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
"we", "you". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN1WN0YMWZU Is anyone here 150 years old and/or a government?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The British were able to encroach on that poo poo because they had actual settlers, instead of forts and a few fur traders. The population disparity was pretty much the same a hundred years earlier. No, dude, that's because Britain won wars against several European states which ended up with them being granted territories often pretty decently settled before they sent much of anyone over. Everyone back then held that alternately France and Spain owning the Louisiana territory was unambiguously belonging to the current owner, for example. You really have to work up some anti-historical logic to declare that France and Spain weren't owning most of the continent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No, dude, that's because Britain won wars against several European states which ended up with them being granted territories often pretty decently settled before they sent much of anyone over. Nintendo Kid posted:Everyone back then held that alternately France and Spain owning the Louisiana territory was unambiguously belonging to the current owner, for example. You really have to work up some anti-historical logic to declare that France and Spain weren't owning most of the continent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Wasn't that generally dependent on the actual situation on the ground? Do you think Britain would've been able to run roughshod over New France and declare fait accompli, if New France had a million Frenchmen? For that matter, would the British have wanted to take that territory? You don't think seizing the already developed bits of New Sweden and New Netherland helped any? Robust port facilities and trading networks don't grow on trees. Additionally, New France was primarily able to be seized due to France being close to collapsing in Europe, it being a result of the colonial possession swaps that ended that war, rather than overwhelming strength on the North American continent. You might recall that during it the British had been able to successfully blockade much of French shipping, while they themselves could freely travel between continents. That had a lot more to do with anything than raw population numbers. Going by "the native population" you certainly can't say England conquered the continent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Wasn't that generally dependent on the actual situation on the ground? Do you think Britain would've been able to run roughshod over New France and declare fait accompli, if New France had a million Frenchmen? For that matter, would the British have wanted to take that territory? No, you're right, the massive population disparity would have meant that it was nearly inevitable that Britain would have been able to conquer New France, unless the American Revolution somehow happened before that, which seems unlikely. In 1760 the population of New France was about 70,000 people, while the British mainland colonies had a population of more than 1.5 million. That meant that the British could invade into New France and besiege the cities as long as they had the money and manpower for it, while trying to march an army through the British 13 colonies to capture the major cities would soon be nigh-impossible for even the ruling authority with a significant number of loyalists on their side. The only thing that could have saved New France was if for some reason the French performed much better in the 7 Years War and could negotiate New France back if it was captured, but after that they'd have to get really really lucky. A Buttery Pastry posted:Does everyone include the native population? Yeah, that's why that argument is kind of stupid. Anyone can stick a flag in the ground somewhere and say "This is for Le Roi" and that mattered to the other European powers, but doesn't mean the land was actually conquered. Now if the local natives' trade all centered around congregating at European forts and they acknowledged the king as their "protector," then it probably does count, so I'd say the French/British actually did rule most of eastern North America, but past the Mississippi 50 miles north or west of New Orleans it was mostly just lines on paper. Sucrose fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Should this thread go away now y/n.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Okay good meeting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:00
|
|