Re: The British Empire

[John Cowan <cowan>]

Padrig Bryn yscrifef:

> The fundamental problem here is that a snaggle in the Weave of History
> will (probably) spawn "anomalous solutions", ie., things will turn out in
> unexpected ways, and those ways will probably not be "similar".  It all
> comes down to the Butterfly Effect.

Absoluately.  But if you really take that seriously, then there's simply
no knowing how things would have come out.  If history is really chaotic,
then changing one tiny thing --- John Fredericks (made him up, don't
bother with the E.B.) dying in 1453 instead of 1452 --- renders everything
utterly unrecognizable.  So we have to assume that history has some kind
of inertia, or hysteresis, call it what you will, that tends to minimize
the effects of changes.

> Were they politically active enough to actually _do_ anything?

Who?

> Perhaps, but without a George III to peg everything on, we may never have
> rebelled.  This, too, was never a sure bet.  I believe the stats were
> something along the lines of 30 to 40 percent in favour of rebellion
> *Here*.

Don't confuse rebellion with revolution.  The British colonists *Here*
rebelled against Parliament, not the King --- they were still proclaiming
in 1775 that "we wish not a diminution of the [royal] prerogative".
Their claim was essentially that they were separate Dominions of the Crown,
like Scotland, with their own independent legislatures.

German George didn't get involved until later, with the Proclamation of
Rebellion.  Many colonists who supported strong action against Parliament
remained royalist until well after 1776.

> > Not so clear.  If James II/VII loses power and the Hanoverians take over,
> > then we see the 'Fifteen, the 'Forty-five, and the Clearance essentially
> > unchanged.
> 
> Perhaps, but Wary-of-Saxon-Depravities Comro may see to siding with the
> Scottish in a Let's-put-the-English-in-their-Place action of some sort.
> "Gos Nustr" not withstanding.

Details?

> But there may not even _be_ a famine.  I got the impression that Comro
> interests were strongest in Ulladh,

Weakest.  Ulster became British *Here* because it was so strongly Irish;
the English decided to encourage Scots to move there (the first English
territory called a colony).  The Cambrians with their lesser sense of
manifest destiny didn't do that.

> leaving the rest of the island to the
> Irish (and the Bogs).  Since the only thing the Irish had to eat,
> apparantly, besides Bogs were potatoes.  Thence the Famine.

Not at all.  Ireland grew plenty of non-potato food during the 1847-49
period, but all of it was shipped to England, leaving none to feed
the starving Irish.  Kemrese law would have allowed the Irish more
self-help than that, but probably not enough.

> And why
> should the Comro allow the Irish to starve anyway?  Just because the Saxon
> would?

Greed.

> Different and yet the same!!??  What, Jowcko map Jowan, great grandson of
> a Kernow immigrant becomes Prez and has his finger in the Red Button
> during Bay of Pigs?  How close are you trying to figure?  I would concur
> on your last point.  Especially with the Natives, as I doubt there would
> be a Manifest Destiny.  Let alone a Louisiana Purchase.  Somebody Else can
> jerk the Natives around.

Remember that the Bloody Saxons still have plenty of influence both in
Britain and overseas: they have most of the industry.

> > > fal mag; ffew yn mellt?  ffageth a ysplicharlla.
> > 
> > Translation, please?
> 
> Its bad with me; it was a joke?  please to explain-it.

The Welsh phrase "ach y fi", beloved of our Rhaifun, is some kind of
mild expletive: I don't know how it translates exactly.  But in
Brithenig that spells "HIF" or "HIV".

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.