Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Turkey raises pitch, India reaffirms support for Cyprus

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    The text doesn't really justify the title imho.

    Even though Streeck points out a few very real complications that may arise from Brexit, there's very little causation in the article for the impending "fall" of the "EU empire", other than the author saying so...
    Still an interesting read and it points out that, in his view anyway, the EU is already an empire whereas we've mostly assumed it just aspires to be one,





    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Gooner View Post

      Good but a bit repetitive trolling.

      Of course Anglo-Saxon England, was already a far more advanced and sophisticated country than Gaelic Ireland was, as we have already discussed. Still it was a bit of a surprise to me learn that Ireland didn't even have money!
      Except that they did use money for external trade but most transactions, as was the case in England, were through barter. The Celts across Europe, including Ireland, used a form of coinage called ring money. It was portable, durable, easily divisible and widely recognised so it was money by any reasonable standard.
      The English used money earlier because, prior to being conquered by the French, they had been conquered by the Romans. It was only in the 8th Century that the Saxons started minting their own coins with reasonably widespread usage not coming until the early 10th century. Maybe if we had been conquered so many times we'd have had money earlier.

      I'm not sure if you can say that England was a more advanced and sophisticated country as you didn't have a common language and didn't have a common legal system until one was imposed on you by your French conquerors after 1066. Alfred the Great tried to ape the Germanic system from Northern Europe but local customs still held sway in most areas and most matters. Church Law meant more than Alfred's law in most of the country. If you look at the UK them Common Law didn't apply in Wales until the 16th Century. Ireland on the other hand had a common legal system a thousand years before that.

      But whatever the differences it didn't justify the invasion and enslavement of a people. Just because your ancestors owned slaves it doesn't make it okay for you to think owning slaves is a good thing.
      Last edited by E.D. Morel; 09 Oct 19, 06:43.
      "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
      validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
      "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post

        Except that they did use money for external trade but most transactions, as was the case in England, were through barter. The Celts across Europe, including Ireland, used a form of coinage called ring money. It was portable, durable, easily divisible and widely recognised so it was money by any reasonable standard.
        The English used money earlier because, prior to being conquered by the French, they had been conquered by the Romans. It was only in the 8th Century that the Saxons started minting their own coins with reasonably widespread usage not coming until the early 10th century. Maybe if we had been conquered so many times we'd have had money earlier.
        Actually they were minting coins in Britain before the Romans came.
        http://www.tha-engliscan-gesithas.or...lo-saxon-coins

        The Anglo-Saxon's began minting coins by the early 7th century, first in Gold [img]https://d3ums4016ncdkp.cloudfront.ne...7006_688_1.jpg [/img] then silver. It was common enough that the Anglo-Saxons were able to pay vast sums in Danegeld so the Vikings could off and raid much poorer lands - like Ireland.

        I'm not sure if you can say that England was a more advanced and sophisticated country as you didn't have a common language and didn't have a common legal system unyil one was imposed on you by your French conquerors after 1066. Alfred the Greta tried to ape the Germanic system from Northern Europe but local customs still held sway in most areas and most matters. Church Law meant more than Alfred's law in most of the country.


        Quite the ignoramus aren't you. Old English, the language of Bede and of Beowulf, was a Germanic language so was pretty intelligible across the swathe of Germanic Europe.
        Anglo-Saxon law was likewise a Germanic law not only holding sway across the most of the Anglo-Saxon lands but also being written down very early
        The Laws of Æthelberht, King of Kent, 560-616 A.D. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/560-975dooms.asp
        You can actually read the development in Anglo-Saxon law there.


        "after the tenth century there were some changes in Anglo-Saxon England. All shires, or counties, were subdivided into hundreds. These hundreds were subdivided into tithings. The three types of division had three types of representatives as well: the tithings had a tithingman, the hundreds a hundredman and the shires a shire-reeve. They met every four weeks. The main function of this group seems to have been administrative: the king spoke to the shire-reeve, the shire-reeve spoke to the hundredmen, and the hundredmen spoke to the tithingmen when giving tasks. Examples of tasks could be, for instance, that legitimate trading was encouraged or that there was no cattle theft. They also dealt with crimes that were against a king's peace. But still the biggest power of seeking justice lay in the hands of the victim or the victim's family.

        The judicial functions of the Anglo-Saxon legal system was mainly practiced by courts. Once a charge had been brought, it had to be heard by a court which would decide whether or not a crime had been committed and, if so, what action was necessary. The hundred court met every 4 weeks but the shire court only met twice a year. Lawsuits could be passed on to the shire court if the hundred court was not able to reach a judgement." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_law

        In contrast the fabled Irish law was not written and it was pretty much upto the local king to decide, on advice from a 'judge', what the law was.


        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Gooner View Post
          Still an interesting read and it points out that, in his view anyway, the EU is already an empire whereas we've mostly assumed it just aspires to be one,
          Arguably it is more effective and less expensive (or less oppressive and intrusive) than any true European "empire" ever was.

          In that regard I can live with the term "Liberal Empire" as an historical witticism.
          High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Gooner View Post

            Actually they were minting coins in Britain before the Romans came.
            http://www.tha-engliscan-gesithas.or...lo-saxon-coins

            The Anglo-Saxon's began minting coins by the early 7th century, first in Gold [img]https://d3ums4016ncdkp.cloudfront.ne...7006_688_1.jpg [/img] then silver. It was common enough that the Anglo-Saxons were able to pay vast sums in Danegeld so the Vikings could off and raid much poorer lands - like Ireland.
            Okay, so they made forgeries of Roman coins to aviod a fight. Got it. They still weren't common though so not really true to say that money was used in everyday life.


            Originally posted by Gooner View Post
            Quite the ignoramus aren't you. Old English, the language of Bede and of Beowulf, was a Germanic language so was pretty intelligible across the swathe of Germanic Europe.
            Anglo-Saxon law was likewise a Germanic law not only holding sway across the most of the Anglo-Saxon lands but also being written down very early
            Old English wasn't the only language spoken in England in Saxon times. Old English and Old Saxon are not the same thing; old Saxon being a very Germanic Language whereas Old English has far more Danish and Swedish influences (yet more people who conquered you).

            Originally posted by Gooner View Post
            "after the tenth century there were some changes in Anglo-Saxon England. All shires, or counties, were subdivided into hundreds. These hundreds were subdivided into tithings. The three types of division had three types of representatives as well: the tithings had a tithingman, the hundreds a hundredman and the shires a shire-reeve. They met every four weeks. The main function of this group seems to have been administrative: the king spoke to the shire-reeve, the shire-reeve spoke to the hundredmen, and the hundredmen spoke to the tithingmen when giving tasks. Examples of tasks could be, for instance, that legitimate trading was encouraged or that there was no cattle theft. They also dealt with crimes that were against a king's peace. But still the biggest power of seeking justice lay in the hands of the victim or the victim's family.

            The judicial functions of the Anglo-Saxon legal system was mainly practiced by courts. Once a charge had been brought, it had to be heard by a court which would decide whether or not a crime had been committed and, if so, what action was necessary. The hundred court met every 4 weeks but the shire court only met twice a year. Lawsuits could be passed on to the shire court if the hundred court was not able to reach a judgement." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_law
            That's actually very close to Brehon Law


            Originally posted by Gooner View Post
            In contrast the fabled Irish law was not written and it was pretty much upto the local king to decide, on advice from a 'judge', what the law was.
            The Christian Churchmen were writing things down for centuries, including Brehon Laws, which is why we know what they were.
            You're understanding of it is, to say the least, very limited.
            While there were weaknesses with Brehon law the fact remains that it was a unified and standardised (in as much as anything was back then) national legal system which, along with a common language and common culture, gave Ireland a distinct and unified identity.


            It is ironic, considering what it currently going on in your parliament, that you talk about laws not being written down but rather them requiring interpretation by judges. 1500 years ago we had a more codified system than what currently passes for your constitution.
            "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
            validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
            "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
              Okay, so they made forgeries of Roman coins to aviod a fight. Got it. They still weren't common though so not really true to say that money was used in everyday life.
              From the earliest in Anglo-Saxon law compensation was paid in coin. (in Ireland by slaves or cattle).

              "Their use may also have been concentrated in certain classes of society, and was probably most associated with particular transactions such as the payment of rents, tributes and legal fees. However, analysis of surviving single-finds (principally made since the 1970s by users of metal-detectors) shows that coins were used extensively, especially in the eastern half of England, both within and outside towns; they also circulated widely, and are frequently found far from their mint of origin. Substantial numbers of English coins have been found elsewhere in Europe, especially in Italy and Scandinavia," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...%E2%80%93_1066)



              Old English wasn't the only language spoken in England in Saxon times. Old English and Old Saxon are not the same thing; old Saxon being a very Germanic Language whereas Old English has far more Danish and Swedish influences (yet more people who conquered you).
              Uh, the language evolved into Old English. You do realise the Vikings extensively raided in and settled in Ireland? Indeed it was they who founded Dublin, Cork and other Irish cities. It says something for a country when the most civilized people in it were Vikings!

              The Christian Churchmen were writing things down for centuries, including Brehon Laws, which is why we know what they were.
              You're understanding of it is, to say the least, very limited.
              While there were weaknesses with Brehon law the fact remains that it was a unified and standardised (in as much as anything was back then) national legal system which, along with a common language and common culture, gave Ireland a distinct and unified identity.
              Churchmen wrote down scraps of the law - which were then buried away in monasteries and never referred to. The laws were not codified nor unified nor standardised. How could they be when they were not written down?





              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Gooner View Post

                From the earliest in Anglo-Saxon law compensation was paid in coin. (in Ireland by slaves or cattle).

                "Their use may also have been concentrated in certain classes of society, and was probably most associated with particular transactions such as the payment of rents, tributes and legal fees. However, analysis of surviving single-finds (principally made since the 1970s by users of metal-detectors) shows that coins were used extensively, especially in the eastern half of England, both within and outside towns; they also circulated widely, and are frequently found far from their mint of origin. Substantial numbers of English coins have been found elsewhere in Europe, especially in Italy and Scandinavia," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...%E2%80%93_1066)

                So they were used in the regions where the Romans had introduced their coins. You were craving after your betters after they left.

                Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                Uh, the language evolved into Old English.
                Exactly, from a dialect which was different to other saxon languages and was not common throughout England until centuries later than Irish was common throughout Ireland; wer had a common language, legal system and culture long before England had one.

                Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                You do realise the Vikings extensively raided in and settled in Ireland? Indeed it was they who founded Dublin, Cork and other Irish cities.
                Yes, I'd assume that everyone with a passing interest in Irish history knows that.

                Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                It says something for a country when the most civilized people in it were Vikings!
                Are you referring to Ireland or England?


                Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                Churchmen wrote down scraps of the law - which were then buried away in monasteries and never referred to.
                What makes you think that?

                Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                The laws were not codified nor unified nor standardised. How could they be when they were not written down?
                Something doesn't have to be written down to be codified, unified or standardised. Just look at your constitution.
                I do accept that since we are a much more ancient people and had a system of laws which was far older than those of England, before or after the French conquest, our laws were less developed. Since we were conquered by fewer invaders there was less evolution of our legal system and less consolidation of our political powers. That made it easier for the English to conquer us when they invaded in 1169.
                None of that distracts from my original point that Ireland had a common legal system, a common language and a common culture long before England did. Since they were older and more stable and not influenced by more developed conquering powers than late Saxon or post French conquest England they were less advanced.

                "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by vikram72 View Post

                  Yes the British are in denial mode .

                  There are hundreds of research work on it.

                  but they cant see it
                  As I tried to explain the Administration of India, prior to the British departure, included what is now India, Pakistan,Sri Lanka (Ceylon),Bangladesh and Myanmar ( Burma) .All together. United. As one. Now these nations are split asunder and mutually hostile. Please explain how the so called British “Divide and Rule” policy operated then.

                  No need for “research work”. Just explain.
                  "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                  Samuel Johnson.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post

                    As I tried to explain the Administration of India, prior to the British departure, included what is now India, Pakistan,Sri Lanka (Ceylon),Bangladesh and Myanmar ( Burma) .All together. United. As one. Now these nations are split asunder and mutually hostile. Please explain how the so called British “Divide and Rule” policy operated then.

                    No need for “research work”. Just explain.
                    Denial of Historical Fact like Genocide / Holocaust denials. Calling it fake is same as not acknowledging Bengal Famine. Policy of Divide and Rule by British Empire. Jalianwalla bagh Massacre.

                    An Empire bent upon to loot and plunder a colony will never acknowledge it's crimes. They will pose as benefactors of opressed people.

                    Whereas they are causing actusl misery.

                    In History one has to accept bitter truth.

                    https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-Br...olicy-in-India

                    https://www.jstor.org/stable/4040004...n_tab_contents

                    ​​​​​​​main-qimg-08f7de5e6624f52707cc3cc470cd5e89.png

                    Comment


                    • The British Government under Churchill wanted India divided into 4 - 5 parts. And as many dissident native princely states as possible.

                      The outcome was operation Madhouse by Field Marshall Wavell .

                      Fortunately for us the departure of Churchill stopped its implementation .

                      Mountbatten came in hurry. I believe British knew thar Jinna was dying of tuberculosis so the partition was fast tracked to destroy India and create Pakistan in his life time.


                      https://amp.theguardian.com/books/20...uardianreview5

                      https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...51729.html?amp

                      Like Divide and Rule Policy no records of Operation Madhouse was preserved in British and Indian Archives.

                      The Opinion of Raj mohan Gandhi.

                      Comment


                      • Shashi Tharoor. On British rule

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
                          So they were used in the regions where the Romans had introduced their coins. You were craving after your betters after they left.
                          Empires brought progress, what else is new? As for the Roman being our (the Britons? Anglo-Saxons?) betters remember the name of your official religion, also recall that you couldn't go to Church in your country until the 1970s(?) without hearing the language of the Romans.

                          Exactly, from a dialect which was different to other saxon languages and was not common throughout England until centuries later than Irish was common throughout Ireland; wer had a common language, legal system and culture long before England had one.
                          A dialect of common, or rather, pretty similar languages. You do realise that from the time of the Germanic invasions to the Norman conquest, the Irish language changed from Primitive Irish to Old Irish to Middle Irish. Without much internal trade or any education the chances of Ireland having a 'unified' language as we understand it today are slim.

                          Yes, I'd assume that everyone with a passing interest in Irish history knows that.
                          OK, so next time you're in your cups bewailing the 800 years of English oppression remember to add 'and the 300 years of Scandinavia oppression before that'.


                          Something doesn't have to be written down to be codified, unified or standardised. Just look at your constitution.
                          Uh, the British constitution is written down. Just not all in the same place. And yes language and law does need to be written down to be codified, unified or standardised. How cannot it not be, the belief that everyone would remember everything exactly the same over generations?

                          None of that distracts from my original point that Ireland had a common legal system, a common language and a common culture long before England did.
                          Common is a much better word to use than unified. Similar might be better yet.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by vikram72 View Post
                            The British Government under Churchill wanted India divided into 4 - 5 parts. And as many dissident native princely states as possible.

                            The outcome was operation Madhouse by Field Marshall Wavell .

                            Fortunately for us the departure of Churchill stopped its implementation .

                            Mountbatten came in hurry. I believe British knew thar Jinna was dying of tuberculosis so the partition was fast tracked to destroy India and create Pakistan in his life time.


                            https://amp.theguardian.com/books/20...uardianreview5

                            https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...51729.html?amp

                            Like Divide and Rule Policy no records of Operation Madhouse was preserved in British and Indian Archives.

                            The Opinion of Raj mohan Gandhi.

                            But the British departed seventy years ago. Since their malevolent influence has departed (as you claim) why hasn’t the situation improved ?
                            "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                            Samuel Johnson.

                            Comment


                            • I think the Raj is a convenient excuse to avoid blaming Indians for whatever problems they have today. I remember reading about the Great Bengal Famine in 1943 (?). Yes much suffering was caused, but you can't get around that native Indians made it worse by hoarding the local available grain. The war also made it worse by cutting off the rice surplus normally produced by Burma. You could not ship surpluses from other parts of India because the military had control of the rail system. The Raj to me was negligent in not expanding the rails before 1939. It was not as if there had never been a Famine before. The Japanese also were sinking coastal shipping. Last, there was a shortage of merchant ships. The population in Bengal also did not like wheat when Rice was not available. The Indian Army finally stepped in and asked that some of their shipping be used to bring in Wheat from Australia. The IA also used its transport to reach areas that could not be reached using local transport.

                              You can blame the Raj for some of the ills in India, but one can't say the locals were not contributing to the problems.

                              Pruitt
                              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post

                                But the British departed seventy years ago. Since their malevolent influence has departed (as you claim) why hasn’t the situation improved ?
                                India has progressed . Bangladesh is doing well.

                                Pakistan is the problem.

                                British legacy had good and bad things.

                                We want them to apologies for Jalianwalla Massacre. Bengal Famine. Divide and Rule Policy and creation of Jihadist Pakistan.

                                Then all British Parliamentarians called Pakistani Terrorists " Freedom Fighters " before 9 / 11. And Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir as occupied Kashmir.

                                When the accession of Princely state of Kashmir in to India was done with accent of British Viceroy Lord Mountbatten. With British Chief of staff accepting the initial troop lift to Kashmir.

                                Later the Interim Indian Cabinet ( We became Sovereign Republic in 1950 ) was advised by Lord Mountbatten to have Indian General oversee the operation.

                                Where as in Pakistan British General overseeing the Pakistani attack in to Kashmir.

                                Lord Mountbatten had many ADC's. Many Indian among them ( By the way the British Viceroy's Palace had more staff then Palace of Versailles )

                                Future General Sinha was one of them,

                                In his memoirs there is interesting account how Pakistani situation reports were reported to Viceroy.

                                at the same time the Viceroy was reported regularly about Indian situation reports by his Indian staff. Which were not hided but opely displayed on big situation maps.

                                What an Irony ??

                                And

                                Famous British fair Play.

                                Now again British and European politicians are again calling Terrorists " Freedom Fighters " and Indians Occupied Kashmir.

                                Indian Bloggers are now decided to refer to Northern Ireland and Scotland as Occupied Areas,

                                So Sorry but can't help it.
                                Last edited by vikram72; 11 Oct 19, 13:10.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X