NationStates

Insaanistan wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:As I recall America was a British colony.

Let’s rephrase:
Not being colonized until the mid-late 20th century.

19th*

The Marlborough wrote:

Insaanistan wrote:Let’s rephrase:
Not being colonized until the mid-late 20th century.

19th*

Who cares when they were colonized? All that Sanghyeok said was "colonized". Leave the dates out of this, and leave the goalposts where they are.

Insaanistan wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:As I recall America was a British colony.

Let’s rephrase:
Not being colonized until the mid-late 20th century.

Canada was a colony well into the mid 20th century

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:

Middle Barael wrote:When it comes to dissolving entire political institutions that make up the historic precedent and “Overton window” of a nation and instead replacing in with Western values in government, I find that it is vest not to interfere. Even though we may be trying to establish democracy, we are still essentially doing Cultural Imperialism.

As for the Rights of the Oppressed, we should always try to help them, but again abolishing the monarchy in its entirety does not seem fair either.

I’d suggesting trying to diplomatically incentivize the democratization and civil rights in these nations, while allowing them to keep their monarchy that is so tied to their history and culture.

Monarchy and Civil Rights need not be a zero-sum game, and I find that by instituting our Westernized values of democracy where it is not wanted or needed we are being as undemocratic to the culture as the Monarchs are to the people.

Then it is not going anywhere. Human rights and “right” to oppress packaged as culture are not compatible. ISIS sex slave markets, Sati, headhunting and lynching are all cultural practices, aren’t they? Shall we tolerate the existence of these cultural practices? NO!

Collectivism which caused lots of misery shall have no place on Planet Earth.

Those things ought to be banned, but we have no right to invade those countries to bring “democracy”.

Obviously ISIS, lynching, lack of political freedom, etc are bad and should be banned, but I draw the line at invading/meddling in these nations to bring democracy.

Forced democracy is not democratic

Adamede wrote:If we can’t advance western ideals of democracy in other cultures, why can we advance western ideals of human rights in them instead?

This we can do.

Human rights obviously should be pushed for, but not militarily unless they are literally committing genocide of some sort, which none of the Gulf States seem to be committing. However, democracy, as in the deposition of the monarchy, should not be forced onto them, as forced democracy is not democracy. We already saw how that turned out, in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Of course I agree that generally speaking Democracy is better than Absolute Monarchy, but it is not our place to force it, especially on cultures where monarchy is the traditional, normal model of governance. We can still push for human rights, but the question of monarchy should be determined by the citizens of those countries and no one else

Kexholm Karelia wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
However the western tradition eventually evolved into western liberal democracy. No other 'culture' seems to have done so.

I honestly would be interested in your take on this.

Are you aware of the political history of the Maratha confederacy?

The Maratha Confederacy wasn't a democracy.

Atheris wrote:

The Marlborough wrote:19th*

Who cares when they were colonized? All that Sanghyeok said was "colonized". Leave the dates out of this, and leave the goalposts where they are.

Well even if they hadn't been colonized, they most likely wouldn't have become Western liberal democracies on account of most African political bodies prior to the wave of New Imperialism being kingdoms, empires, or chiefdoms.

Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana wrote:

Insaanistan wrote:Let’s rephrase:
Not being colonized until the mid-late 20th century.

Canada was a colony well into the mid 20th century

I wasn't aware 1867 was in the 20th century.

Sanghyeok wrote:Not being colonised certainly helps.

Colonization seems to have facilitated the more widespread adoption of liberal and democratic ideas in many instances - at least in the long-term. Which isn't surprising given that the modern conceptions we have of both things emerged from Enlightenment philosophy. Heck, even Arab, Kurdish, and Turkish nationalism were arguably influenced by European romanticism. I actually read an interesting take on the subject concerning poetry and the development of Kurdish national awareness awhile back.

Not until the world needs oil that badly.

When we get nuclear fusion up and running? Maybe.

The Archregimancy wrote:... it would be better to state that Augustus and his immediate successors absolutely intended their office to be a monarchy, but intentionally masked their power under residual - but increasingly powerless - republican institutions...

Republican institutions being exploited by Italian politicians to stay in power forever.

Well colour me surprised.

Fahran wrote:

Sanghyeok wrote:Not being colonised certainly helps.

Colonization seems to have facilitated the more widespread adoption of liberal and democratic ideas in many instances - at least in the long-term. Which isn't surprising given that the modern conceptions we have of both things emerged from Enlightenment philosophy. Heck, even Arab, Kurdish, and Turkish nationalism were arguably influenced by European romanticism. I actually read an interesting take on the subject concerning poetry and the development of Kurdish national awareness awhile back.

Depends on colonial policies, though. Some, like my own country, are luckier as they allow the creation of an educated academic elite during colonial times that will later direct post-independence institution-building. Others, who are less lucky, are forced to rely on revolutionary military leaders that quickly instated unstable despotic states funded by resource extraction.

I feel like this kind of question should always have the follow-up of 'Are you volunteering to do the abolishing?'

Kings rarely resign of their own, free will. 'Abolishing' thus means 'Invade and topple the regime.'

Surely everyone who voted 'Yes' is thus ready to volunteer for the army and be first guy to jump into combat. Right?

... right?

Fahran wrote:

Sanghyeok wrote:Not being colonised certainly helps.

Colonization seems to have facilitated the more widespread adoption of liberal and democratic ideas in many instances - at least in the long-term. Which isn't surprising given that the modern conceptions we have of both things emerged from Enlightenment philosophy. Heck, even Arab, Kurdish, and Turkish nationalism were arguably influenced by European romanticism. I actually read an interesting take on the subject concerning poetry and the development of Kurdish national awareness awhile back.

Turkish Nationalism is really unique, Turkey is one of the few countries where everyone on all sides of the political spectrum takes pride in their nation and its history. Kemalism is also an ideology that took inspiration from American Capitalism, Italian Fascism, and Russian Communism and blended it together

But seriously if absolute monarchism is condoned elsewhere why are the Gulf countries any different? Seriously no person has the right to be in absolute power of their country. And they are also extremely socially conservative and don't respect human rights in the slightest. So yes, please abolish them. And get rid of Bruneis while your at it.

Nazis in Space wrote:I feel like this kind of question should always have the follow-up of 'Are you volunteering to do the abolishing?'

Kings rarely resign of their own, free will. 'Abolishing' thus means 'Invade and topple the regime.'

Surely everyone who voted 'Yes' is thus ready to volunteer for the army and be first guy to jump into combat. Right?

... right?

Yes, if need be.

Arisyan wrote:

(Image)

But seriously if absolute monarchism is condoned elsewhere why are the Gulf countries any different? Seriously no person has the right to be in absolute power of their country. And they are also extremely socially conservative and don't respect human rights in the slightest. So yes, please abolish them. And get rid of Bruneis while your at it.

"No person has the right to be a monarch, but Westerners have the right to seize power in other countries."

Checks out.

Arisyan wrote:

(Image)

But seriously if absolute monarchism is condoned elsewhere why are the Gulf countries any different? Seriously no person has the right to be in absolute power of their country. And they are also extremely socially conservative and don't respect human rights in the slightest. So yes, please abolish them. And get rid of Bruneis while your at it.

That's up entirely to the citizens of those nations

Arisyan wrote:But seriously if absolute monarchism is condoned elsewhere why are the Gulf countries any different?

Because not all societies are predicated on the same values and this produces dramatically different political cultures. A good many people do not want to live under a liberal democracy, and compelling them to live under a liberal democracy requires coercion.

Arisyan wrote:Seriously no person has the right to be in absolute power of their country.

No person has absolute power over a country on paper. As an example, Mohammed ibn Salman has had to walk a tight-rope between modernization, such as giving women the right to drive and funding ambitious urban projects, and appeasing the Ulema by continuing to fund mosques and maintain a somewhat strict adherence to sharia. Toppling the monarchy in Saudi Arabia isn't going to change the values of that society. The Arabs living there are still going to be Wahhabis as a rule. We'd just be introducing political instability into the mix.

Arisyan wrote:And they are also extremely socially conservative and don't respect human rights in the slightest.

Because invading and occupying a country for ten years screams "respect for human rights."

Arisyan wrote:So yes, please abolish them. And get rid of Bruneis while your at it.

Oof.

Punished UMN wrote:

Arisyan wrote:

(Image)

But seriously if absolute monarchism is condoned elsewhere why are the Gulf countries any different? Seriously no person has the right to be in absolute power of their country. And they are also extremely socially conservative and don't respect human rights in the slightest. So yes, please abolish them. And get rid of Bruneis while your at it.

"No person has the right to be a monarch, but Westerners have the right to seize power in other countries."

Checks out.

monarchy bad, but regime change is far worse

The Marlborough wrote:

Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana wrote:Canada was a colony well into the mid 20th century

I wasn't aware 1867 was in the 20th century.

The poster you quoted is referring to either 1932 (Westminster Conference) or 1982 (patriation). But I would consider an earlier date such as 1932 or 1867 the end of Canada's colony status.

Resilient Acceleration wrote:Depends on colonial policies, though. Some, like my own country, are luckier as they allow the creation of an educated academic elite during colonial times that will later direct post-independence institution-building. Others, who are less lucky, are forced to rely on revolutionary military leaders that quickly instated unstable despotic states funded by resource extraction.

Well, yes. My point with objecting to the characterization of liberal democracy as antithetical to colonization was to illustrate that, as a broad principle, it's largely false. India wasn't broadly democratic prior to colonization. West African polities occasionally had elements of democracy prior to colonization, but those institutions did not resemble what we'd call a liberal democracy. The lot of the major indigenous polities that dotted what we now call Latin America weren't democratic. And we could go on. The Middle East was characterized by monarchical rule or rule by members of the clergy - with movements such as Baathism being a response to European romantic ideals and nationalism in the wake of the French Revolution. In the absence of colonization, it's not unreasonable to conclude that we'd have fewer liberal democracies rather than more. We'd also not have quite a few modern states - such as India, Nigeria, Iraq, Mexico, etc.

El-Sallia wrote:

The Marlborough wrote:I wasn't aware 1867 was in the 20th century.

The poster you quoted is referring to either 1932 (Westminster Conference) or 1982 (patriation). But I would consider an earlier date such as 1932 or 1867 the end of Canada's colony status.

I am quite aware to what they were alluding to but it is blatantly wrong and I'm really tired of it being used in regards to Canadian history. Canada ceased to be a colony in 1867. Dominions were not the same as colonies and were granted a considerable amount of leeway in domestic affairs and a number of them operated as de facto independent countries for the most part, Canada chief among them. While it's true that Canada didn't become a fully independent country until much later, it ceased to be a colony when it became a dominion.

Isn't that up to them?

Or are we playing "Please fuck up the Middle East more, Western powers"?

The Marlborough wrote:

El-Sallia wrote:
The poster you quoted is referring to either 1932 (Westminster Conference) or 1982 (patriation). But I would consider an earlier date such as 1932 or 1867 the end of Canada's colony status.

I am quite aware to what they were alluding to but it is blatantly wrong and I'm really tired of it being used in regards to Canadian history. Canada ceased to be a colony in 1867. Dominions were not the same as colonies and were granted a considerable amount of leeway in domestic affairs and a number of them operated as de facto independent countries for the most part, Canada chief among them. While it's true that Canada didn't become a fully independent country until much later, it ceased to be a colony when it became a dominion.

Fair enough.

Salus Maior wrote:Isn't that up to them?

Or are we playing "Please fuck up the Middle East more, Western powers"?

Apparently the latter.