The slow, painful death of UK armed forces

[viper37]

ve done it before, although that was to colonize in your own right.

Link, plz.

Mexican-American war
Spanish-American war
Indian wars.
And I suppose one could make an argument for Vietnam war being a continuation of the French Indochina colonial war, though that's a muddy issue.

[Ideologue]

ve done it before, although that was to colonize in your own right.

Link, plz.

Mexican-American war
Spanish-American war

Stop supporting slavery and/or exploitation.

[Sheilbh]

I applaud the plucky Brits for kicking in when they can, but you know damned well the SDSR and the 2020 model is right royal poo-poo.

I agree entirely, but that's not got much to do with the British contribution to Libya.

The answer is easy.  The UK just won't get involved.

Yes we will.  I can't imagine likely circumstances where the US would get involved in a conflict that we wouldn't try to join in.

[Tamas]

ve done it before, although that was to colonize in your own right.

Link, plz.

Mexican-American war
Spanish-American war

Stop supporting slavery and/or exploitation.

I love this subject, you Americans get so defensive on what is crystal clear: the wars with Mexico, and later Spain were blatant imperialist conquests.

[Admiral Yi]

I love this subject, you Americans get so defensive on what is crystal clear: the wars with Mexico, and later Spain were blatant imperialist conquests.

The population of the territories conquered in the Mexican-American War were granted full citizenship.  If you're going to call that an imperial conquest (or colonization, as it was earlier) then the terms lose most of their meaning.

[Sheilbh]

The population of the territories conquered in the Mexican-American War were granted full citizenship.  If you're going to call that an imperial conquest (or colonization, as it was earlier) then the terms lose most of their meaning.

How so?

[Admiral Yi]

How so?

Colonization and imperialism both have strong connotations of subject peoples with inferior rights.  An Algerian couldn't run for president of France, an Indian couldn't run for Prime Minister of Great Britain, a Lesbian couldn't vote in the Athenian Senate.

It's obviously a little different if the colonizing power is an absolute monarchy, because then all subjects are, uh, subjects, whether they live in the metropole or not.

The nearest analogy I can think of in Europe is the German annexation of Alsace-Lorraine.  One day they were French citizens, the next they were German citizens.  Would you describe that as colonization?

[Sheilbh]

Colonization and imperialism both have strong connotations of subject peoples with inferior rights.  An Algerian couldn't run for president of France, an Indian couldn't run for Prime Minister of Great Britain, a Lesbian couldn't vote in the Athenian Senate.

The Athenians didn't have a Senate.  Indians could run for PM, as in they could become MPs.  There's lots of obstacles to any of that happening but they were for the most part social and territorial.  I take your point on the social equality, to an extent.  But did these areas automatically become American states or did they become American territories (that were somewhat settled) and later become states?

The nearest analogy I can think of in Europe is the German annexation of Alsace-Lorraine.  One day they were French citizens, the next they were German citizens.  Would you describe that as colonization?

No.  But it would also be my prime example of an imperial conquest.  Like the Mexican-American war, the Spanish-American war was colonial.

[Admiral Yi]

You mean there were no legal obstacles to Gandhi running for British PM?  That doesn't sound right.

I think Texas entered as a state, but that's an odd case.  California might have gotten statehood right away, not sure.  Maybe fast-tracked.

edit: And regardless of whether or not Gandhi could run for office, he certainly couldn't vote for himself.

[Sheilbh]

You mean there were no legal obstacles to Gandhi running for British PM?  That doesn't sound right.

No, if he was an MP which he could become.  We never had a colour bar and one of the problems the post-war Labour government had was immigration from the British Empire.  They couldn't refuse Caribbean immigrants moving to the UK because they were British Empire subjects.  The only solution they could think of was of creating effectively a second passport of limited travel for non-whites, but they didn't do it because that would have made their prejudice quite explicit and revealed the lie of the British Empire.

The first Asian MP (who could have become PM) was in the 1890s, Jinnah was one of his assistants and he was later President of the Indian National Congress.

[Sheilbh]

edit: And regardless of whether or not Gandhi could run for office, he certainly couldn't vote for himself.

Why not?

[CountDeMoney]

I love this subject, you Americans get so defensive on what is crystal clear: the wars with Mexico, and later Spain were blatant imperialist conquests.

I can't defend much of the Mexican War, other than it was right in its righteousness, and the Spanish-American War was a response to international terrorism.

[CountDeMoney]

I applaud the plucky Brits for kicking in when they can, but you know damned well the SDSR and the 2020 model is right royal poo-poo.

I agree entirely, but that's not got much to do with the British contribution to Libya.

Except that it stretched capacities, particularly with the Royal Navy.

[Admiral Yi]

Why not?

I assume it's because he lived in the wrong place.  Anyway Shelf, it's interesting to learn that colonial England had no legal color bars.

Would you happen to know if the same was true of France?  Could an Algerian or Vietnamese vote if they were living in France?

[Sheilbh]

I assume it's because he lived in the wrong place.  Anyway Shelf, it's interesting to learn that colonial England had no legal color bars.

As I say the obstacles were territorial and social.  It's a very British approach to racism to make it implicit and lace it through the entire system.  The other thing, especially with India was the use of other princes.  Lots of British colonial subjects were actually subject to a local ruler so they wouldn't be legally British subjects.

Would you happen to know if the same was true of France?  Could an Algerian or Vietnamese vote if they were living in France?

My understanding is that an Algerian could even vote in Algeria if he opted to accept French citizenship but that meant rejecting all customary and Islamic law - even on things like family law - so almost no-one did.  I'd assume they could given the rhetoric of the French Empire.