NationStates Jolt Archive

In another thread, I realized that not all people necessarily celebrate the same thing on the 4th of July, even amongst Americans...so this thread/poll is here to give a percentage-esque idea of what people think, as well as open up debate for what should be celebrated...

I celebrate the Birth of America.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. --And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

No matter how anti-American you might be, if you believe in Democracy, you can not read the above document too many times.

I celebrate the birth of the US, the declaration of independence and a proud tradition of civil disobedience that is shown in Ohio on July 4 every year (setting off fireworks is illegal, but owning and purchasing said fireworks is legal, as such no one follows the law.)

I celebrate the birth of the US, the declaration of independence and a proud tradition of civil disobedience that is shown in Ohio on July 4 every year (setting off fireworks is illegal, but owning and purchasing said fireworks is legal, as such no one follows the law.)
I love it how legislatures try making fireworks illegal.

Cop: "Now son, you know those fireworks are illegal, right...?"

Teen: "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot! What are we celebrating here?!"

Cop: "The birth of the United States of America--"

Teen: "Which essentially was all those guys we read in our history books breaking all sorts of British laws..."

Well, I celebrated a significant anniversary with my boyfriend, and I did so by blowing large chunks of land out of the neighboring county.

The streets, when filled with smoke, are a lovely sight indeed.

The Birth of the US, the Constution, and 'Other', which is essentially nursing my hope to move to the USA in the near future.

I Celebrate blowing things up.

Happy Fireworks!

Well it was only the end of the First British Empire, which was based around Atlantic Trade. The bigger (and arguably more famous) one was the world encompassing one that was India, Africa, etc.

And the Constitution was written much later (Ratified March 4). So really it's only the Declaration of Independance.

Personally, I celebrated the 818 anniversary of the Battle of Hattin :D

To me it was just another crappy monday. And my ex gfs Bday. The bitch. heh.

I'm curious as to why you included "not just Americans" in your thread title. Do you seriously believe that non-Americans would celebrate an American holiday? Do you celebrate Guy-Fawkes night? Burns night? No?

The Declaration of Independence (The Birth of Modern Democracy) :rolleyes:

The Declaration of Independence (The Birth of Modern Democracy)

:rolleyes:

It's funny how there's no way to tell just what you're commenting on and exactly what your comment is if you don't even write one sentence to explain your views.

I'm curious as to why you included "not just Americans" in your thread title. Do you seriously believe that non-Americans would celebrate an American holiday? Do you celebrate Guy-Fawkes night? Burns night? No?

Although we celebrate Robert Burns Day and Guy Fawkes in Canada, nobody here pays any attention to the Fourth of July. Canada Day is July 1st.

My native cuban cousin was born on the 3rd of July, he missed it by one day early. So over the weekend we celebrated a combination birthday party and 04 Th of July
family dinner gathering.

At the family dinner we had a relative who just legally emigrated to Miami direct from Cuba 3 months ago, you should hear the stories of hardship and how happy cubans in Cuba are to be living in Cuba that many risk thier lives across 90 miles of shark infested waters on anything that floats, rafts, inner tubes and floating trucks and cars, when he compares it to the USA and the freedoms and blessings he has here.

We also had his sister who emigrated legally from Cuba to
the USA via Spain about 7 years ago, she is a talented guitar playing music teacher who performed a few patriotic american songs on her guitar for us in honor of the 04Th of July like The Star Spangled Banner.

There are millions of decent patriotic americans who celebrated the 04Th of July and appreciate the rights, freedoms and blessings that they have, but I guess it takes an immigrant that dosent have those right, freedoms and blessings in his nation of origin to appreciate and not take for granted the rights, freedoms and blessings they have here.
La Habana Cuba.

I celebrated love.

I celebrated the ideals of the country, not the way it has become.

I celebrated the positive potential this country could have.

I celebrated being fortunate enough to live comfortably in a free country.

The Birth of the US, the Constution, and 'Other', which is essentially nursing my hope to move to the USA in the near future.
That's good to hear.

Parthini] Well it was only the end of the First British Empire, which was based around Atlantic Trade. The bigger (and arguably more famous) one was the world encompassing one that was India, Africa, etc.

And the Constitution was written much later (Ratified March 4). So really it's only the Declaration of Independance.

Personally, I celebrated the 818 anniversary of the Battle of Hattin
It could be argued that had the US never drafted the Declaration of Independence and kick the British out, the rest of the empire may not have gained its independence. If you buy that, cool...if not, we can discuss it. Either way, this is part of the answer to the next person I quoted...

I'm curious as to why you included "not just Americans" in your thread title. Do you seriously believe that non-Americans would celebrate an American holiday? Do you celebrate Guy-Fawkes night? Burns night? No?
Explain the International significance of these events. If there is one, then maybe I should start recognizing the events.

However, it is my opinion that July 4th, 1776 holds SIGNIFICANT international importance, beyond just the birth of a new nation. The ideas the Americans presented in the Declaration of Independence paved the way for more British colonies to demand their independence and really articulated John Locke's ideas...and as I put parenthetically next to the Declaration of Independence option, "The Birth of Modern Democracy."

Do you really believe France wouldn't have become a republic a few years after the ratification of the US constitution had the US not done so first? If so, you're sadly misguided. The 4th of July holds no importance in world events, nor in the evolution of democracy. If America hadn't been first, France would've been.

Do you really believe France wouldn't have become a republic a few years after the ratification of the US constitution had the US not done so first? If so, you're sadly misguided. The 4th of July holds no importance in world events, nor in the evolution of democracy. If America hadn't been first, France would've been.
America and France were pretty much going through the same process are the same time, however, when the French revolutionaries heard about the Americans Declaration of Independence, it re-inspired them, and gave them higher morale.

Not to mention, even if you don't buy that, there is still a significant difference between France and America. The French revolutionaries were not breaking off...they were just demanding a change in the way government was done. Had France won her Revolution, but America failed hers, the British empire would have stayed standing and none of the other colonies would've broken off. The British empire would've only fallen to other European empires.


And by the way, the US constitution was ratified quite a few years after the Declaration of the Independence...and I'm not claiming the US Constitution has ANY International significance at all...(although I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm simply not discussing the US Constitution).

"The Birth of Modern Democracy."


Sorry, what? America wasn't even close to being the first democracy and it's declaration of independance certainly wasn't a major international event then and it isn't one now.

Sorry, what? America wasn't even close to being the first democracy and it's declaration of independance certainly wasn't a major international event then and it isn't one now.
Modern

Modern

How so? Or shall we just randomly embolden our words?

If July 4th, 1776 is not the birthday of Modern Democracy, then when is, pray tell?

If July 4th, 1776 is not the birthday of Modern Democracy, then when is, pray tell?

Why does it need one, exactly?

And you still haven't bothered telling me why your silly little holiday should be a major international event.

Why does it need one, exactly?
Then at least tell me what modern democracies existed before America created modern democracy?

If July 4th, 1776 is not the birthday of Modern Democracy, then when is, pray tell?

Probably some point in time when universal suffrage actually meant universal suffrage.

Dave Barry puts it best:
The word Democracy came from two Greek words, Demos and Crates. Demos, meaning everyone gets to vote, and Crates, meaning except of course women, slaves and black people.

Next you're going to tell that day is the birth of freedom too...

August 18, 1920?

...despite having been written down for a significant time, the words of John Locke never really had much meaning until the Americans showed the British that they did have meaning...


Look, July 4th, 1776, is just about as significant in World History (actually moreso) as D-Day...except the Brits didn't lose D-Day, so they'll admit its significance.

Of course...Britain still isn't a Democracy...so...I don't know why I'm arguing with them about when modern democracy was born...

played kickball, and went shooting

hells yeah

Of course...Britain still isn't a Democracy...so...I don't know why I'm arguing with them about when modern democracy was born...

Could you explain that?

Could you explain that?
Constitutional Monarchy.

Constitutional Monarchy.

I doubt you truly understand how a Constitutional Monarchy works.

I doubt you truly understand how a Constitutional Monarchy works.
Well, let's look at the power to declare war.

In America, the congress, half of which are direct representatives of the people, the other half are representatives of the people for the states (who recieve their legitimacy through the people), and they have the SOLE power to declare war.

In Britain, the queen (or king) (who recieves his/her "legitimacy" through some supposed birth-right or divine intervention or some watery tart lobbed a sword at them) has the SOLE power to declare war. He/she does so with the counsel of the prime minister, who is selected by the house of commons, which is made up direct representatives of the people, etc. etc., but it does not negate the fact that the monarch is left with the decision and does not have to answer to the people.

Of course...Britain still isn't a Democracy...so...I don't know why I'm arguing with them about when modern democracy was born...

Of course, AMERICA ISN'T A DEMOCRACY, either. So... maybe I'll just... use some... ellipsis...yeah...

Of course, AMERICA ISN'T A DEMOCRACY, either. So... maybe I'll just... use some... ellipsis...yeah...
Not a direct democracy.

But it's what I'd call a modern democracy, in that every person in a position of power ABSOLUTELY MUST ANSWER TO THOSE WHICH THEY GOVERN.

Not a direct democracy.

But it's what I'd call a modern democracy, in that every person in a position of power ABSOLUTELY MUST ANSWER TO THOSE WHICH THEY GOVERN.


Hyuk hyuk, because that sure doesn't happen in Britain! Your ignorance is showing.

Well, let's look at the power to declare war.

In America, the congress, half of which are direct representatives of the people, the other half are representatives of the people for the states (who recieve their legitimacy through the people), and they have the SOLE power to declare war.

In Britain, the queen (or king) (who recieves his/her "legitimacy" through some supposed birth-right or divine intervention or some watery tart lobbed a sword at them) has the SOLE power to declare war. He/she does so with the counsel of the prime minister, who is selected by the house of commons, which is made up direct representatives of the people, etc. etc., but it does not negate the fact that the monarch is left with the decision and does not have to answer to the people.

Let's consider the system of legislation in the United States. The final say on all legislation passed in the United States is not given to an elected body, but rather the Supreme Court, which is an appointed body whose members never face re-election. Familiar with the term "legislating from the bench"? Now I know what you're going to say. That doesn't happen because the court knows its place, but it's the exact same in Constitutional Monarchies: the monarch knows her place as a figurehead, and just like the Supreme Court won't legislate even though there's nothing to stop it, the queen isn't about to stick her nose in the business of the people and their representatives.

Let's consider the system of legislation in the United States. The final say on all legislation passed in the United States is not given to an elected body, but rather the Supreme Court, which is an appointed body whose members never face re-election. Familiar with the term "legislating from the bench"? Now I know what you're going to say. That doesn't happen because the court knows its place, but it's the exact same in Constitutional Monarchies: the monarch knows her place as a figurehead, and just like the Supreme Court won't legislate even though there's nothing to stop it, the queen isn't about to stick her nose in the business of the people and their representatives.

First off, court justices, as I'm sure you know, have to face confirmation in the senate, a body made up of direct representatives of the people. Do monarchs face this? No.

Second off, the only thing the court can do is "intrepret" legislation that congress has written as the law of the land. If the court "legislates from the bench" (which happens in ALL court systems, not just America) in such a fashion that the public does not approve, congress can ammend the law, clarifying it, which overrules the courts decision.

First off, court justices, as I'm sure you know, have to face confirmation in the senate, a body made up of direct representatives of the people. Do monarchs face this? No.

Firstly, you should know this means nothing at all. A great example is David Souter, who was appointed by a Republican president and confirmed by a Republican Senate only for them to find out he was far more left-leaning than he sounded during any hearing.

Second off, the only thing the court can do is "intrepret" legislation that congress has written as the law of the land. If the court "legislates from the bench" (which happens in ALL court systems, not just America) in such a fashion that the public does not approve, congress can ammend the law, clarifying it, which overrules the courts decision.

Ah, but the courts then get to interpret that ammendment, and no one can stop how they interpret it. As a result, they always have the final say. The only way to get around an overbearing court is also the same way you get over an overbearing monarch: you ignore their rulings. In this sense, the two positions are quite similar, despite your protests. If the British Commonwealth systems are not democracies, then neither is America: they share the same flaws.

Firstly, you should know this means nothing at all. A great example is David Souter, who was appointed by a Republican president and confirmed by a Republican Senate only for them to find out he was far more left-leaning than he sounded during any hearing.
So the person nominated might not having the political views you expect (honestly, I don't like the idea of nominating people based on political stances), but regardless, you know he or she is clearly capable of doing the job, whereas there is no gaurantee of this in the British system. Not to mention, judges are impeachable...actually...any elected official in the American government is impeachable...

Ah, but the courts then get to interpret that ammendment, and no one can stop how they interpret it. As a result, they always have the final say. The only way to get around an overbearing court is also the same way you get over an overbearing monarch: you ignore their rulings. In this sense, the two positions are quite similar, despite your protests. If the British Commonwealth systems are not democracies, then neither is America: they share the same flaws.
Take a look at the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. They are a great example of Congress amending and amending the law so that it is impossible to be wrongly intrepretted. Had it took 20 amendments, congress would have passed 20 amendments.

And actually, I would not be surprised to see another constitutional amendment here in the next 10-20 years (which is a short time constitutionally speaking) that adds "sexual preference" to the list of things that citizens may not be discriminated against for...it may happen, it may not...it depends on whether or not the people wish to explicitly extend certain rights to homosexuals.

But in America, the constitution, amendable by representatives of the people, is the law of the land. Not any monarch.

^-- and the instant judges start ignoring the constitution and making rulings that are clearly contradictory to it is the instant they are impeached.

But in America, the constitution, amendable by representatives of the people, is the law of the land. Not any monarch.

And in Canada the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, amendable by representatives of the people, is the law of the land. Basically, the queen stays in power as long as she doesn't do anything we don't like, and considering that we help to pay for her, she would be wise not to mess with us. It's just silly to say we don't have democracy here.

And in Canada the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, amendable by representatives of the people, is the law of the land. Basically, the queen stays in power as long as she doesn't do anything we don't like, and considering that we help to pay for her, she would be wise not to mess with us. It's just silly to say we don't have democracy here.
How do you elect the queen?

By the way, if it weren't for the Declaration of Independence, Canada very well could've remained a part of Britain...

How do you elect the queen?

I didn't say we did, though Poland used to.

My point is simply that you treat the monarch as if it is something more than a figurehead position, which is a mistake.

EDIT: We saw your revolution and decided to stay part of Britain. However, I'll give you guys some credit. We did ask the parliament of Great Britain if we could confederate because you guys couldn't keep your Union soldiers under control after the Civil War and they kept going into Canada.

My point is simply that you treat the monarch as if it is something more than a figurehead position, which is a mistake.

Who had the authority to decide to assist the United States' efforts in Iraq?

Why did the Queen have to decide?

The Birth of the Way Things Currently Are in America, perhaps.

To call anything on this side of the Atlantic "the birth of modern democracy" just seems silly to me. To start with, there will never be agreement on what we shall consider "modern". If when you say "modern" you will ultimately resort to claims of "having abolished the monarchy" then you are just re-defining the English language to suit your particular stance. And democracy of course had its roots millenia before The U.S. of A. existed.

EDIT: We saw your revolution and decided to stay part of Britain. However, I'll give you guys some credit. We did ask the parliament of Great Britain if we could confederate because you guys couldn't keep your Union soldiers under control after the Civil War and they kept going into Canada.
The question is purely curiousity, because I know pretty much nothing about Canadian history...

Did Britain give Canada any representatives in Parlaiment any time before they finally confederated (if that's a word)?

Who had the authority to decide to assist the United States' efforts in Iraq?

Why did the Queen have to decide?

First, Canada didn't assist the United States.

Second, the event that made the news was parliament deciding not to support the war. Why? Because the queen does what we want.

I celebrated the birth of America by blowing up a small part of it. A small, unpopulated patch of grass and dirt, albeit, but the fact remains.

The question is purely curiousity, because I know pretty much nothing about Canadian history...

Did Britain give Canada any representatives in Parlaiment any time before they finally confederated (if that's a word)?

No. Instead each Canadian colony had a democracy overseen by an representative of the Queen that wielded more power than the queen's representative does now.

An interesting bit on the American Revolution:
You were being asked to pay so much in taxes because Great Britain had just fought the French-Indian War on your behalf at the expense of the British taxpayer. You were being asked to pay 1/30th the taxes those in Great Britain paid. However, you claimed that because the British Empire couldn't accomplish the then impossible task of having American representatives in Parliament, you shouldn't have to pay any of the taxes being put on you in order to pay off the debt Great Britain acquired so you could have the land you expanded into. Some of us think you guys were being rather ungrateful about the whole thing.

Hmm, while I don't want to really concede this argument...I'd like to get back to the main point of this thread...


Here's something for the person that said something about the French revolution...

"the Revolution was the first lesson in politics for many European radicals who would later take on active roles during the era of the French Revolution."

French Revolution was after the American revolution. Declaration signed in 1776, French Revolution starts in 1789. And Wikipedia lists the American Revolution for one of the influences that sparked the French Revolution.


By the way, The American Revolution is an excellent example of what happens in a "constitutional monarchy" when the citizens decide to ignore the orders of the monarch...


Wikipedia also credits the American Revolution to having an influence on the Haitian Revolution, the Latin American wars of liberation, the 1798 rising in Ireland...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution#Revolution_beyond_America

Monday.

You were being asked to pay so much in taxes because Great Britain had just fought the French-Indian War on your behalf at the expense of the British taxpayer. You were being asked to pay 1/30th the taxes those in Great Britain paid. However, you claimed that because the British Empire couldn't accomplish the then impossible task of having American representatives in Parliament, you shouldn't have to pay any of the taxes being put on you in order to pay off the debt Great Britain acquired so you could have the land you expanded into. Some of us think you guys were being rather ungrateful about the whole thing.

In all honesty...there was an urban terrorist group at that time called the Sons of Liberty (who were involved in things like the Tea Party, and making sure no stamps were sold, etc.) who didn't really want representation because they wanted revolution, but Benjamin Franklin (I believe he was the one) was actually in Britain as an observer to the Parlaiment, but no Americans could vote on any business conducted there...

Having an American representative in the British parlaiment is no more impossible than having Hawaiian representatives in US Congress...

But...I guess you hate democracy, since you think Americans were ungrateful about having taxes placed on us without having a say on those taxes...

Just an interesting note, at that time in world history, north east America was the most literate place in the world...so the stamp act really would've hurt us...

The Wikipedia entry on the American Revolution is also probably written by Americans...

First, Canada didn't assist the United States.

Second, the event that made the news was parliament deciding not to support the war. Why? Because the queen does what we want.
I was talking about Britain (from the start of this) which did go to Iraq.

But, let's get back to the actual thread topic.

Something I would like to iterate...

I'm not trying to argue that everyone in the world SHOULD celebrate July 4th, but I'm trying to show that it would be perfectly acceptable for any non-American to celebrate the day...

Having an American representative in the British parlaiment is no more impossible than having Hawaiian representatives in US Congress...

But...I guess you hate democracy, since you think Americans were ungrateful about having taxes placed on us without having a say on those taxes...

Okay, now try having a Hawaiian representative in US Congress in 1776. Suddenly it isn't as easy to get that person to and from anymor, now is it? Even American history textbooks will recognize the impossibility of the American demand for representation.

So, rather than hating democracy, I'm saying that given that democracy was impossible to achieve in this situation, does that mean that you shouldn't have had to pay taxes at all? If you agree to this, doesn't that also mean that the British government shouldn't have fought for their colonies in the French-Indian War and let America be overrun? After, if there's no taxation without representation, why should there be defence without representation?

Do you really believe France wouldn't have become a republic a few years after the ratification of the US constitution had the US not done so first? If so, you're sadly misguided. The 4th of July holds no importance in world events, nor in the evolution of democracy. If America hadn't been first, France would've been.

I do not believe it would not have turned into a Republic in the same way you think of it now. It probably would have just turned into a civil war with either a change of its monarchy as history usually has shown to happen. Hell, its amazing it DID turn into a republic as we know it now. The whole French Revolution was a damned mess. It didn't even last that long as a Republic. Napeleon remember? Plus, there was this whole issue of the Constitutional Republic NOT EXISTING TILL AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARIES DESIGNED IT.

Your highly underestimate what American Revolutionaries did for modeling almost all modern democratic republics after the events of 1776. Why? (well aside from your lack of an education) Because America was probably the only place where the conditions were right enough for the "ruling class" to properly adopt it due to their motivation and intrests aligning with the revolution appropriately.

This is why Mexico didn't even succeed in keeping their first Constitution when they won their independence. They too were were far from their government political captial just like Americans. The factor of having their Spanish government to involved in their everyday lives and their lack of independence and pragmatism that the American colonies had within their leaders allowed Santa Anna to abolish their Constitution relatively easy. They were nowhere nearly as protective of civil liberties and suspicious of government as the Americans were. The only people ballsy enough to challenge the fact Santa Anna abolished the Constitution? The Tejanos/Texans which were composed of mostly rebellious white Americans giving more courage to the Tejanos (former native Texas Mexicans) who lived in the region.

France? Heh, hell no. They would NOT have formed a Republic. Laffayette would have had no inspirational document to draw from. I think the ONLY people who would have had the best chance for a Republic in europe was Denmark or the Netherlands (I forget at the moment, sry) seeing how they were the only Europeans who actually had an appropriate economical alignment with an independent Republic.

Okay, now try having a Hawaiian representative in US Congress in 1776. Suddenly it isn't as easy to get that person to and from anymor, now is it? Even American history textbooks will recognize the impossibility of the American demand for representation.

So, rather than hating democracy, I'm saying that given that democracy was impossible to achieve in this situation, does that mean that you shouldn't have had to pay taxes at all? If you agree to this, doesn't that also mean that the British government shouldn't have fought for their colonies in the French-Indian War and let America be overrun? After, if there's no taxation without representation, why should there be defence without representation?
Without representation, there shouldn't be anything. Hence, revolution.

Denmark or the Netherlands
The Netherlands.

Without representation, there shouldn't be anything. Hence, revolution.

Yeah, but if the British hadn't acted in 1754-63 despite the lack of representation, we'd all be speaking French right now.

Hence, Quebec.

However, if France took over the American colonies...I have this feeling revolution would've come even quicker.

The Netherlands.

Thank you for the assistance. It has been a long time since I read up on that particular point of history.

Thank you for the assistance. It has been a long time since I read up on that particular point of history.
I'm just glad to see I finally have some assistance here. It assures me that I'm not completely crazy. It'd be really interesting to get a non-American, non-"still part of the British empire," person involved in this...

I'm just glad to see I finally have some assistance here. It assures me that I'm not completely crazy. It'd be really interesting to get a non-American, non-"still part of the British empire," person involved in this...

No I looked over your posts. They all seem solid as historical perpective goes. Very few people (and of course that includes non-Americans) seem to know little of history and the situations where modern Republics formed. Hell most don't even know much about historical conditions for forming Republics in general. Hell it was by sheer series of miracles that America pulled it of in such a storybook happy ending. The whole history almost makes me believe in divine intervention or something. The problem with most Republics is not every country meets the proper conditions in the society to form them correctly. In short, they are ****ing hard to grow properly and have a lot of growing pains.

It would be intresting to see if Iraq doesn't fall apart as its own Republic in a few years. The whole religious thing mixing with it is going to hurt them in the future or be a completely unique way of handing a religious republic due to the types of manipulation the politicans can pull with the "religion justifying their actions" card.

I celebrated my B-Day on 4th of July. Not more, not less. Although I'm somewhat sorry I'm not an american - not everybody has fireworks on his birthday. ;)

No I looked over your posts. They all seem solid as historical perpective goes. Very few people (and of course that includes non-Americans) seem to know little of history and the situations where modern Republics formed. Hell most don't even know much about historical conditions for forming Republics in general. Hell it was by sheer series of miracles that America pulled it of in such a storybook happy ending. The whole history almost makes me believe in divine intervention or something. The problem with most Republics is not every country meets the proper conditions in the society to form them correctly. In short, they are ****ing hard to grow properly and have a lot of growing pains.

It would be intresting to see if Iraq doesn't fall apart as its own Republic in a few years. The whole religious thing mixing with it is going to hurt them in the future or be a completely unique way of handing a religious republic due to the types of manipulation the politicans can pull with the "religion justifying their actions" card.

A religious republic would be interesting as it is the exact anti-thesis of America...(or at least what America was founded on).

But honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see Iraq and Afghanistan not do well, simply because they will have a harder time having that extreme sense of pride concerning their founding fathers, seeing as a significant amount of work was done by foreigners...which aren't too well liked in the Mid East anyway...

A religious republic would be interesting as it is the exact anti-thesis of America...(or at least what America was founded on).

But honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see Iraq and Afghanistan not do well, simply because they will have a harder time having that extreme sense of pride concerning their founding fathers, seeing as a significant amount of work was done by foreigners...which aren't too well liked in the Mid East anyway...
Iraq and Afganistan were 'founded' many years ago. what you mena is the date democracy was imposed on the country, and the date the US recognised it because it was more pleasing to them. Even if the system of democracy is more UK than US based.
As to all the options in the pole, they are python esque in the humour they display. If they were not meant to be read with a rye smile then they show a isolationist, narrow minded and egocentric view of the world that is exactly what gets on the Tits of the rest of the world.

I celebrate fireworks, even though I live in the United States. ^_^

Iraq and Afganistan were 'founded' many years ago. what you mena is the date democracy was imposed on the country, and the date the US recognised it because it was more pleasing to them. Even if the system of democracy is more UK than US based.
As to all the options in the pole, they are python esque in the humour they display. If they were not meant to be read with a rye smile then they show a isolationist, narrow minded and egocentric view of the world that is exactly what gets on the Tits of the rest of the world.
1. Thanks for correcting my misstatement.

2. Read through the posts and the discussion of the significance of the Declaration of Independence.

1. Thanks for correcting my misstatement.

2. Read through the posts and the discussion of the significance of the Declaration of Independence.
I have read the posts and yes it was significant to the US and influenced the French, however that had been brewing for a long time and would have sparked off at some time. The UK had already been through it's revolution.
Still think the options on the pole were either, python esque, ill advised and introverted or intended to flame.
As after the US was granted independance the empire grew to be the biggest and most powerfull the world has known. Not saying that was good or bad just a fact.
It's great that as a country the US has pride in it's history and accomplishments, shame the UK does not allow it's citizens the same pride, in case some one gets upset. Considering all the UK has been involved with in the past we are bound to insult some one what ever we do. So let's take a leaf out of the American's book and be proud and if some one does not like it tough.

I'd appreciate if you were more specific with your pronouns. What had been brewing for a long time and would have sparked off anyway?

What UK revolution are you talking about? (I'm not denying there was one, just not as familiar with UK history as American, and would like specifics if you don't mind.)

I'm not familiar with "python esque," and neither is Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Apython+esque&btnG=Google+Search). And the poll was not intended to flame.

The British granted America her independence in the same way Hussein abdicated his presidency at the request of the United States Military.

And I'm baffled that you deny the fact that American Independence marks the beginning of the last chapter of the British empire.

By the way, if you're not American (and especially if you're British), it is essentially impossible to understand the pride that Americans have because to non-Americans, the story of the American Revolution is just "some other skirmish in the history of the empire," but I'll tell you, most Americans could probably name more people involved with the American revolution than involved with the current administration.

I don't know about other Americans, but all the other wars American has participated in and that we learn in our American history, European history, modern World History classes, etc...none of them seem nearly as interesting as the American Revolution to me.

It was official mourning day here. Many Jews were killed on this day few decades ago.

I'd appreciate if you were more specific with your pronouns. What had been brewing for a long time and would have sparked off anyway?

What UK revolution are you talking about? (I'm not denying there was one, just not as familiar with UK history as American, and would like specifics if you don't mind.)

I'm not familiar with "python esque," and neither is Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Apython+esque&btnG=Google+Search). And the poll was not intended to flame.

The British granted America her independence in the same way Hussein abdicated his presidency at the request of the United States Military.

And I'm baffled that you deny the fact that American Independence marks the beginning of the last chapter of the British empire.

By the way, if you're not American (and especially if you're British), it is essentially impossible to understand the pride that Americans have because to non-Americans, the story of the American Revolution is just "some other skirmish in the history of the empire," but I'll tell you, most Americans could probably name more people involved with the American revolution than involved with the current administration.

I don't know about other Americans, but all the other wars American has participated in and that we learn in our American history, European history, modern World History classes, etc...none of them seem nearly as interesting as the American Revolution to me.
Monty Python.
I can't see how you can see the granting of American independance as the start of the fall of the Empire. The empire was exapnding then and continued to do so for many many years.
Your analogy about Iraq and Sadam is far from accurate. The British were occupied with events all over the globe and it was decided that other more profitable ventures should be followed rather than keeping the Americas. Do you think for one minute that if the British had given up India and expansions in that direction and turned all it's might to America there would have been any outcome but vivtory for the British? If you do you are more delusional than I thought.
As to the revolution in England, the removal of the Crown as head of state had been tried and had failed (yes it failed or we would not have a Queen). Oliver Cromwell was a hick up in the history of the UK.
Yes I cannot know what it is like to be an American, but I do appreciate what the war meant to the US. I also appreciate what the US civil war meant and that what is given as facts today by many is not the whole story. The fact that anyone thinks the North fought for the imancipation of slaves and that that was the major factor in the North fighting is eye poppingly funny.
And if you did not intend to flame with your choice of options was leading to say the least. The 4th of July is a day of celebration for the US, and good for you. As far as the comments on the founding of modern democracy etc, well tha's about as mis informed as anyone can get. where do you think the whole two house set up came from? I'm not claiming that for the UK as we know that we did not invent or found democracy, we adopted it and changed it to suit our specific needs, as did the US.

No matter who is President,
I love America and my family does too.
La Habana Cuba.

I don't celebrate July 4th, I'm Canadian, I celebrate July 1st.

NianNorth, if you want me to buy your claims that everything I've said is wrong, then you have to do more than simply say "Hey Unblogged, you're entirely wrong."

I've spent the past few pages of this thread EXPLAINING my position, and you're going to simply say "You're wrong." with no explanation.

By the way, keep in mind that when it comes to knowing the history, any American most likely has the advantage here, because while this is absolutely, unarguably the most important day in American history, it's "just another lost colony" to the British.

If America does not mark the last chapter of the British empire, then point to another time in the history of the empire (before America) when Britain lost anything from itself (as in, part of its territory was lost due to an uprising, as opposed to another empire conquering it).

And sure, if Britain moved her entire Armed forces into America, America may not have gotten her independence (despite the fact that probably every other colony would have), but if America were to move her entire armed forces into Iraq and Afghanistan, we'd probably already be done there. The problem is, if we do move more troops there, we begin loosing other important battles. We don't think that the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan are worth giving up, but at the same time, we can't bring more troops there because we have other important things to get done too.

The fact of the matter is, there is no way Britain could have won in America and not lost something else (after the drafting of the Declaration of Independence anyway)...although, it would have been pretty funny to see Spain or someone go take London...

But regardless, Britain didn't "grant" America her independence. America demanded her independence because she was not treated appropriately under British rule (and if you believe she was, then again, you have some problems understanding how democracy is supposed to work). The outnumbered American patriots outsmarted and outfought the British (with the only foreign assistance coming from a few units of Hessian mercanaries, some French and German generals to help train troops, and close to the end, supplies from the French).

And I know exactly about the Civil War, and don't like that a Britain is assuming that he knows the American Civil War better than I do...but there's no room for discussing that war in this thread.

we celebrated the fact that they sell lots of fireworks

I'm curious as to how many non-Americans that are arguing against me so vehemently bothered to read the Declaration of Independence that I posted on the first page...

The 4th of July is my grandfather's birthday along with Independence Day for me. However, I don't think that, as a family, we really celebrate a specific piece of America or it's history so much as we want an excuse to shoot fireworks! :D

No matter how anti-American you might be, if you believe in Democracy, you can not read the above document too many times.
that is not democracy. real democracy is good, it's when all the people vote and their vote has unlimited political power. that is a limited bicameral republic.

Viva America.

Iraq and Afganistan were 'founded' many years ago. what you mena is the date democracy was imposed on the country, and the date the US recognised it because it was more pleasing to them. Even if the system of democracy is more UK than US based.
As to all the options in the pole, they are python esque in the humour they display. If they were not meant to be read with a rye smile then they show a isolationist, narrow minded and egocentric view of the world that is exactly what gets on the Tits of the rest of the world.

Not democracy. An attempt at a Constitutional Republic. The dicussion regarding what he said was in regards to what I said. Please stop being a hypocritcal prick who tries every way to tarnish real credit to the events of the time and does it by misconstruding his words. We do not make asine attempts to discredit Locke, Voltaire, or even Newton because we somehow don't want to credit your country's contributions to the world. Your posts show a nilhistic and pessimistic view of history in regards to what our founders accomplished simply to validate your uneducated perception of them.

I have read the posts and yes it was significant to the US and influenced the French, however that had been brewing for a long time and would have sparked off at some time. The UK had already been through it's revolution.
Still think the options on the pole were either, python esque, ill advised and introverted or intended to flame.
As after the US was granted independance the empire grew to be the biggest and most powerfull the world has known. Not saying that was good or bad just a fact.
It's great that as a country the US has pride in it's history and accomplishments, shame the UK does not allow it's citizens the same pride, in case some one gets upset. Considering all the UK has been involved with in the past we are bound to insult some one what ever we do. So let's take a leaf out of the American's book and be proud and if some one does not like it tough.

Yes, we addressed the civil uprising would have happened. We explained why the conditions wouldn't have made it a real revolution without the contributions of America's founders. The UK wasn't through a real revolution. If you are mistaking revolution for enlightenment period, then please understand what is actually being discussed in the subject.

Monty Python.
I can't see how you can see the granting of American independance as the start of the fall of the Empire. The empire was exapnding then and continued to do so for many many years.
Your analogy about Iraq and Sadam is far from accurate. The British were occupied with events all over the globe and it was decided that other more profitable ventures should be followed rather than keeping the Americas. Do you think for one minute that if the British had given up India and expansions in that direction and turned all it's might to America there would have been any outcome but vivtory for the British? If you do you are more delusional than I thought.
As to the revolution in England, the removal of the Crown as head of state had been tried and had failed (yes it failed or we would not have a Queen). Oliver Cromwell was a hick up in the history of the UK.
Yes I cannot know what it is like to be an American, but I do appreciate what the war meant to the US. I also appreciate what the US civil war meant and that what is given as facts today by many is not the whole story. The fact that anyone thinks the North fought for the imancipation of slaves and that that was the major factor in the North fighting is eye poppingly funny.
And if you did not intend to flame with your choice of options was leading to say the least. The 4th of July is a day of celebration for the US, and good for you. As far as the comments on the founding of modern democracy etc, well tha's about as mis informed as anyone can get. where do you think the whole two house set up came from? I'm not claiming that for the UK as we know that we did not invent or found democracy, we adopted it and changed it to suit our specific needs, as did the US.

We know about Monty Python. We don't know why you are using a made up word however. And I CAN agree with you saying it wasn't the beginning of the end of the UK empire. I think WW2 really is what I would consider the beginning of the end. I consider the American Revolution the beginning of the end of European colonization.

The analogy was inaccurate, but the British didn't exactly "grant" America its independence. They finally just didn't have the stomach to fight for it due to as you mentioned a lot of other problems that spurred up with the expanding global Empire. In otherwords, it was the UK's Vietnam which WAS more accurate. And if your someone who claims we lost Vietnam, then I'm sorry but Britain lost the Revolutionary war legitimately. Hell there were treaties, surrendering and withdrawl of armies and other documents to legalize AND prove it. We didn't do it alone thanks to the French assistance, but we did not lose it, nor did Britain win or "grant" it.

The Revolution as we see it was more than just a removal of a crown. It was a government finally applying civil rights and ensured civil liberties to its citizens and being designed in a unique way as to prevent a misuse of government power. (Of course, our government is rather different in these days.)

We know the Civil war was fought to save the union, and for the south in regards to state rights and a confederation. Your average American doesn't know it likely, but that is in part due to our education system not being federalized as opposed to a state responsibility which is going to lead to problems.

Bi-cammeral house is a UK idea. One however that the UK did not "give us", and it is one we had to work and design on our own considering that the houses' make up is a design of our own because the composition of those who sit there was a design of our own. So, honestly, **** you is where we got it from. Your little mockfest of legitimate human achievements really doesn't gain much respect from me. You can criticize my patriot counter-part all you want, but frankly I haven't seen you do any better hypocrite.