Corsican Ogre vs. Perfidious Albion TEH POLL

[garbon]

Everything prior to, roughly, the 1940s is evil, and much of it thereafter.

If you actually believe that, then the rush to defend Britannia this thread exhibits seems silly.

The rush? France and Britannia seem neck and neck in the poll.

[Neil]

Everything prior to, roughly, the 1940s is evil, and much of it thereafter.

If you actually believe that, then the rush to defend Britannia this thread exhibits seems silly.

The rush? France and Britannia seem neck and neck in the poll.

It has tightened up quite a bit, thanks to American stupidity.

[CountDeMoney]

Everything prior to, roughly, the 1940s is evil, and much of it thereafter.

If you actually believe that, then the rush to defend Britannia this thread exhibits seems silly.

The rush? France and Britannia seem neck and neck in the poll.

It has tightened up quite a bit, thanks to American stupidity.

Pretty funny, all this Brit ass-to-mouth action coming from a Canadian. You don't even realize how insignificant they consider you, do you?

[Neil]

Pretty funny, all this Brit ass-to-mouth action coming from a Canadian. You don't even realize how insignificant they consider you, do you?

Don't know, don't care.  The bonds that bound the Empire together are disintegrating year by year.  But there are still people out there who remember that the greatest force for good and justice that the world has ever known was the British Empire, and that Canada was second only to England herself in that great assemblage of peoples.

[Razgovory]

Very touch choice.

On the one hand England was a parliamentary democracy, on the other it was allied with all of the reactionary monarchies. 

Is it fair to call it a parliamentary democracy when it had severe restrictions on free speech, discriminated against religious minorities, oppressed Ireland (to say nothing of India), etc.?

My choice goes to the House of Washington, who built a nation based on liberty, and justice, for all. Evenually. 

Given that the US at the time discriminated against religious minorities, oppressed the natives and kept a quarter of their population as slaves, maybe you should shut your mouth, you ignorant Martinus.

I thought Faelin was a Brit.  At the time, I think many states still had a property restrictions on holding office and voting.

[garbon]

I thought Faelin was a Brit.  At the time, I think many states still had a property restrictions on holding office and voting.

Fae attends law school in New York.

[Camerus]

IIRC, Fae's father is a British doctor or something?

Anyway, as for this poll:

[grumbler]

Very touch choice.

On the one hand England was a parliamentary democracy, on the other it was allied with all of the reactionary monarchies. 

Is it fair to call it a parliamentary democracy when it had severe restrictions on free speech, discriminated against religious minorities, oppressed Ireland (to say nothing of India), etc.?

Yes it is.

But it isn't "fair" to call it a Parliamentary democracy at all, when membership in the two most significant and powerful elements of Parliament is hereditary, and the members of the third are chosen by a tiny handful of voters.

Napoleonic France was probably more "democratic" than Napoleonic-era Britain.

[Slargos]

Very touch choice.

On the one hand England was a parliamentary democracy, on the other it was allied with all of the reactionary monarchies. 

Is it fair to call it a parliamentary democracy when it had severe restrictions on free speech, discriminated against religious minorities, oppressed Ireland (to say nothing of India), etc.?

Yes it is.

But it isn't "fair" to call it a Parliamentary democracy at all, when membership in the two most significant and powerful elements of Parliament is hereditary, and the members of the third are chosen by a tiny handful of voters.

Napoleonic France was probably more "democratic" than Napoleonic-era Britain.

Is it fair to call the US a democracy when you don't allow all your citizens the vote?

[Razgovory]

I imagine the British would have objected to calling their system a Democracy at the time.  I believe that word had a negative connotation in the late 18th century.  It did in the early US at least.

Still, I think it's unfair to use the modern day as the reference point for Democracy in other times and places.  People in the US considered themselves living in a Democracy a hundred years ago, despite women being unable to vote and most blacks.  A hundred years from now people may consider us undemocratic for some reason.

[Ideologue]

Everything prior to, roughly, the 1940s is evil, and much of it thereafter.

If you actually believe that, then the rush to defend Britannia this thread exhibits seems silly.

Yes.  Although it probably is correct to say that the United Kingdom is better than Napoleonic France, and possibly correct to declare it the best country ever, "better than a dictatorship that killed millions, arguably for nothing" and even "the best country ever" is still rather faint praise.

Still, I think it's unfair to use the modern day as the reference point for Democracy in other times and places.  People in the US considered themselves living in a Democracy a hundred years ago, despite women being unable to vote and most blacks.  A hundred years from now people may consider us undemocratic for some reason.

The advance of morality in the decades following World War II is really an amazing thing.  But it's certainly not unfair to judge historical regimes by modern standards.  Those standards may continue to evolve, but if they can't be applied universally then they're not really standards, and more like opinions, aren't they?  And you don't get much of anywhere by having an opinion that slavery and genocide are wrong.

[garbon]

Is it fair to call the US a democracy when you don't allow all your citizens the vote?

Ron Paul was just on the news saying that the US is not a democracy.

[Eddie Teach]

But it's certainly not unfair to judge historical regimes by modern standards. 

Fair or not, it's not remotely useful to do so.

[The Brain]

Is it fair to call the US a democracy when you don't allow all your citizens the vote?

Ron Paul was just on the news saying that the US is not a democracy.

President Bartlet said the same thing.

[Razgovory]

The advance of morality in the decades following World War II is really an amazing thing.  But it's certainly not unfair to judge historical regimes by modern standards.  Those standards may continue to evolve, but if they can't be applied universally then they're not really standards, and more like opinions, aren't they?  And you don't get much of anywhere by having an opinion that slavery and genocide are wrong.

Yes, but you misunderstand me.  I'm not talking about morality.  I'm talking about government.  I'm saying it's unfair to so narrowly define Democracy to only the government we have right now.