Re: The British Empire

[Padraic Brown <pbrown@nova.umuc.edu>]

Jowan 'ap jowan yscreus:

> 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.

Perhaps that's carrying it a bit far.  I don't mean that Empires will rise
and fall 300 years from now simply because I had marmite on my toast
instead of peanut butter.  But the fact remains that when History is
played with, things change in a big way.  I think what might be
interpreted from your last statement is that History has Trends, and I
think the Trends will likely be similar *Here* and *There*.  The specifics
I think must be different.

> 
> > Were they politically active enough to actually _do_ anything?
> 
> Who?

The Pennsylvania Germans.  Whoever wrote what what was originally
immediately before this brought up a bilingual Pa., etc.  It was my
impression that the Pa. Germans were pretty reclusive/seclusive and not
too interested in the Outside World.  Many are still this way.

> 
> > 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.

I'm afraid I was probably taught that they were One and The Same, the King
and Parliament, that is.  The stats, though, I belive to be correct.  The
whole affair was minority driven.

> 
> > > 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?

If the English *There* try to clear out the people of another country
(ie., Scotland), then I'm sure many a wary Comro would gladly join
whatever movement there may be in Scotland to keep the English in their
proper place, as a preemptive action.  They might be inclined to think
that they are the next Targets.

> 
> > 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.

Well if all were going to do is relex English politics and call it Comro
then I suppose this will happen, and all of the subsequent "stuff" that
immediately followed. My contention is that this probably would not be the
case.

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

All governments have been greedy.  The question stands.

> 
> > 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.

What is this in reference to?

> 
> > > > 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".

Ahhh.  Pretty clever!

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