That can be done without indepedence.
Advertisement
by Lackadaisical2 » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:34 am
Vestr-Norig wrote:Blazedtown wrote:
Name one country that has never used force to try and expand its borders and influence. I'll even believe you.
To expand one nation's borders if the area culturally, religious and etnic, as well as historical belongs to the nation, is not imperialism. If the nation takes by force others nations or areas, where the people is not willing to be a part of that nation, and do not culturally belong to the nation, is imperialism. Imperialism is bad, while nationalism is good.
And nations that have never used force to expand its borders and influences; Finland, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, just to mention a few
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Proud member of the Vile Right-Wing Noodle Combat Division of the Imperialist Anti-Socialist Economic War Army Ground Force reporting in.
by SD_Film Artists » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:35 am
by Salandriagado » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:36 am
Vestr-Norig wrote:Blazedtown wrote:
Name one country that has never used force to try and expand its borders and influence. I'll even believe you.
To expand one nation's borders if the area culturally, religious and etnic, as well as historical belongs to the nation, is not imperialism. If the nation takes by force others nations or areas, where the people is not willing to be a part of that nation, and do not culturally belong to the nation, is imperialism. Imperialism is bad, while nationalism is good.
And nations that have never used force to expand its borders and influences; Finland, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, just to mention a few
by Lucatopia » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:37 am
by Allied Governments » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:37 am
by H-Alba » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:37 am
by Vestr-Norig » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:38 am
Salandriagado wrote:Vestr-Norig wrote:
To expand one nation's borders if the area culturally, religious and etnic, as well as historical belongs to the nation, is not imperialism. If the nation takes by force others nations or areas, where the people is not willing to be a part of that nation, and do not culturally belong to the nation, is imperialism. Imperialism is bad, while nationalism is good.
And nations that have never used force to expand its borders and influences; Finland, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, just to mention a few
Finland: Continuation war (Shifting the borders with Russia)
Switzerland: Battle of Arbedo (attempt to take Milanese territory, there were many more successful attempts prior to this)
Norway: Theatre War (shifting the borders with Sweden)
Iceland: Cod wars (expanding it's nautical territory)
Just the latest one I could find from each.
Anyway, in general, yes, the empire was bad. However, the way it was dissolved was worse. It was done too quickly and with too little regard for the economic and political situations of the newly created states they left behind, a series of mistakes that they're still suffering for now.
by SD_Film Artists » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:39 am
Salandriagado wrote:Vestr-Norig wrote:
To expand one nation's borders if the area culturally, religious and etnic, as well as historical belongs to the nation, is not imperialism. If the nation takes by force others nations or areas, where the people is not willing to be a part of that nation, and do not culturally belong to the nation, is imperialism. Imperialism is bad, while nationalism is good.
And nations that have never used force to expand its borders and influences; Finland, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, just to mention a few
Finland: Continuation war (Shifting the borders with Russia)
Switzerland: Battle of Arbedo (attempt to take Milanese territory, there were many more successful attempts prior to this)
Norway: Theatre War (shifting the borders with Sweden)
Iceland: Cod wars (expanding it's nautical territory)
Just the latest one I could find from each.
Anyway, in general, yes, the empire was bad. However, the way it was dissolved was worse. It was done too quickly and with too little regard for the economic and political situations of the newly created states they left behind, a series of mistakes that they're still suffering for now.
by Lackadaisical2 » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:39 am
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Proud member of the Vile Right-Wing Noodle Combat Division of the Imperialist Anti-Socialist Economic War Army Ground Force reporting in.
by Vellosia » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:42 am
by Lackadaisical2 » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:42 am
Lucatopia wrote:If I had to take a postion, I'd say bad. All arguments on civilizing the world are surely invalid as these are clearly eurocentrist in nature. But everybody likes to romanticize their past.
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Proud member of the Vile Right-Wing Noodle Combat Division of the Imperialist Anti-Socialist Economic War Army Ground Force reporting in.
by Salandriagado » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:43 am
Vestr-Norig wrote:Salandriagado wrote:
Finland: Continuation war (Shifting the borders with Russia)
Switzerland: Battle of Arbedo (attempt to take Milanese territory, there were many more successful attempts prior to this)
Norway: Theatre War (shifting the borders with Sweden)
Iceland: Cod wars (expanding it's nautical territory)
Just the latest one I could find from each.
Non of these has nothing to do with imperialism, only nationalismAnyway, in general, yes, the empire was bad. However, the way it was dissolved was worse. It was done too quickly and with too little regard for the economic and political situations of the newly created states they left behind, a series of mistakes that they're still suffering for now.
by SD_Film Artists » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:44 am
by Parhe » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:46 am
SD_Film Artists wrote:Salandriagado wrote:
Finland: Continuation war (Shifting the borders with Russia)
Switzerland: Battle of Arbedo (attempt to take Milanese territory, there were many more successful attempts prior to this)
Norway: Theatre War (shifting the borders with Sweden)
Iceland: Cod wars (expanding it's nautical territory)
Just the latest one I could find from each.
Anyway, in general, yes, the empire was bad. However, the way it was dissolved was worse. It was done too quickly and with too little regard for the economic and political situations of the newly created states they left behind, a series of mistakes that they're still suffering for now.
Indeed; you don't see Hong Kong having problems with dictatorship and poverty. ......well..there is China's human rights abuses and fake democracy, but that's another issue..
by Salandriagado » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:49 am
Parhe wrote:SD_Film Artists wrote:
Indeed; you don't see Hong Kong having problems with dictatorship and poverty. ......well..there is China's human rights abuses and fake democracy, but that's another issue..
I only know four English colonies granted freedom that is well off, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Hong Kong. But, the majoritty of people in hong kong did not want to be returned to China, they favored being a British colony. I am sure there are more than four British colonies in Africa granted freedom that is not well off.
by Lackadaisical2 » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:49 am
Parhe wrote:SD_Film Artists wrote:
Indeed; you don't see Hong Kong having problems with dictatorship and poverty. ......well..there is China's human rights abuses and fake democracy, but that's another issue..
I only know four English colonies granted freedom that is well off, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Hong Kong. But, the majoritty of people in hong kong did not want to be returned to China, they favored being a British colony. I am sure there are more than four British colonies in Africa granted freedom that is not well off.
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Proud member of the Vile Right-Wing Noodle Combat Division of the Imperialist Anti-Socialist Economic War Army Ground Force reporting in.
by Vestr-Norig » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:50 am
Salandriagado wrote:
Fixed that for you. I quite agree. The original challenge, however, wasn't to provide nations that have never undertaken imperialism, it was nations that have never expanded their borders by force. I'd also argue the nature of the Swiss-Milanese war. I'd say they're far too separated ethnically to call it nationalism. I'd also argue that there is no difference, in any objective frame of reference, between the two.
by H-Alba » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:52 am
SD_Film Artists wrote:H-Alba wrote:
I would rather be an independent nation then stuck in an union with another nation that did not like nor appreciate your own culture -- Especially when many of them still call it a "caveman" and "barbarian" culture today.
You'll get that nomatter how much power the Scottish parliament has. Norfolk is rarely mentioned on TV without being followed by an incest joke. But I'd still gladly fly the union jack.
......not that incest is my culture.....
Different areas always take the piss out of other areas, but said different areas are better together than without, sharing a proud history together.
..and I havn't heard people saying "caveman" or "barbarian". Wishful thoughts of a Nationalist perhaps? As the worst enemy of a Scottish nationalist (or at least the racist brand of Scottish nationalism) is a lovely kind Englishman. As nasty Englishmen perpetuate the myth that we're still living in Medieval times.
by Lucatopia » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:53 am
Lackadaisical2 wrote:Lucatopia wrote:If I had to take a postion, I'd say bad. All arguments on civilizing the world are surely invalid as these are clearly eurocentrist in nature. But everybody likes to romanticize their past.
How can you dismiss all euro-centric viewpoints and then go ahead and declare something 'bad'?
Surely your definition of good and bad is just as biased.
by SD_Film Artists » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:54 am
H-Alba wrote:SD_Film Artists wrote:
You'll get that nomatter how much power the Scottish parliament has. Norfolk is rarely mentioned on TV without being followed by an incest joke. But I'd still gladly fly the union jack.
......not that incest is my culture.....
Different areas always take the piss out of other areas, but said different areas are better together than without, sharing a proud history together.
..and I havn't heard people saying "caveman" or "barbarian". Wishful thoughts of a Nationalist perhaps? As the worst enemy of a Scottish nationalist (or at least the racist brand of Scottish nationalism) is a lovely kind Englishman. As nasty Englishmen perpetuate the myth that we're still living in Medieval times.
I've been told several times on the forums here that the Highland culture is Barbaric and "cavemen" as well as the normal things as "Backwards" and "Mediaeval"
by Vellosia » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:54 am
H-Alba wrote:SD_Film Artists wrote:
You'll get that nomatter how much power the Scottish parliament has. Norfolk is rarely mentioned on TV without being followed by an incest joke. But I'd still gladly fly the union jack.
......not that incest is my culture.....
Different areas always take the piss out of other areas, but said different areas are better together than without, sharing a proud history together.
..and I havn't heard people saying "caveman" or "barbarian". Wishful thoughts of a Nationalist perhaps? As the worst enemy of a Scottish nationalist (or at least the racist brand of Scottish nationalism) is a lovely kind Englishman. As nasty Englishmen perpetuate the myth that we're still living in Medieval times.
I've been told several times on the forums here that the Highland culture is Barbaric and "cavemen" as well as the normal things as "Backwards" and "Mediaeval"
by Salandriagado » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:58 am
Vestr-Norig wrote:Salandriagado wrote:
Fixed that for you. I quite agree. The original challenge, however, wasn't to provide nations that have never undertaken imperialism, it was nations that have never expanded their borders by force. I'd also argue the nature of the Swiss-Milanese war. I'd say they're far too separated ethnically to call it nationalism. I'd also argue that there is no difference, in any objective frame of reference, between the two.
Well, Finland only got independent from Russia, they never expanded their territory, and in the winter war they lost territory to Russia
Specifically for the Continuation War, Finland also aimed at reversing its territorial losses under the March 1940 Moscow Peace Treaty and by extending its territory further east
Norway never fought an war against Sweden for independence but secceded peacfully.
And earlier, the only reason Norway was in war with Sweden, was because it was in union with Denmark.
by Parhe » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:59 am
Lackadaisical2 wrote:Parhe wrote:I only know four English colonies granted freedom that is well off, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Hong Kong. But, the majoritty of people in hong kong did not want to be returned to China, they favored being a British colony. I am sure there are more than four British colonies in Africa granted freedom that is not well off.
Singapore is doing quite well, Malaysia is alright, same as South Africa and Botswana (the AIDS epidemic is hurting those last two the most, through no fault of British Rule)
by Izzyshipper » Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:02 pm
H-Alba wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
Care to elaborate?
All the British Empire did was spread English culture around the world. I am glad the world is the way it is today, yes. And I wouldn't want to go back to change it. I think there were more effective ways then building an empire.
As for my second statement I feel the term British is unfair. When people say British then tend to mean English, and the "other Brits' are left out in "British Culture".
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ameriganastan, Bienenhalde, Hidrandia, Ifreann, Improper Classifications, Juansonia, Keltionialang, Likhinia, Novarisiya, Philjia, Port Carverton, Shaharsa, Shidei, Simonia, Souverain Revachol, Squirreltopia, The Two Jerseys, Tiami, Tungstan
Advertisement