thoughts on this?
Bonnie and I have recently been talking...and I've said alot about the European View of America post WW2.
Now THIS video gives an entirely different account....in the first two moments, the author has said that it was wrong to join England to defeat the USSR, That the Bombs dropped on Japan were due to British Influence and that those Japanese were "innocent"
The only thing I aggree with is...that the President of the United States should NOT be pledging allegience to the British Crown...not unless he intends to return the thirteen collonies of course....He has to remember that despite the war of independance...the vast majoirity of States NEVER fell under British Rule...we only ever had the East Coast thirteen. :laugh:
I'd love to know if you think she is a nut....or if this sort of belief really is a prevelent belief of the Republican Christian Right :huh:
I certainly have never heard anyone blame England for Hiroshima before...I'd love to know just how much persuasion those in the British Government really did...ive always been led to believe that we were empty and powerless after the war mand that any notion or lead came from the US Government.
Wow, I don't know what to think of that video. I've never heard anyone claim that the US is still owned by Britain. That just sounds too crazy for me to comment on right now and I would have a hard time believing that the average American would take that claim seriously at all.
There are a few things I can comment on. Barack Obama has no business taking credit for the death of Osama bin Laden. Absolutely none. If he had served in the military, he would understand this. It's never one person who gets credit for these operations and when Obama tries to take credit he's really just making himself look like a fool in the eyes of everyone who has served this country. He's trying to use it to score political points, which is disgraceful.
Besides, if George W. Bush had given the order for that operation, there would be Americans screaming for him to be brought up on war crime charges and revising history to portray Osama as an innocent victim of American imperialism. At the very least, covering up Osama's crimes against humanity, similar to what's happened with Saddam Hussein. In fact, I'm sure many young kids think of Saddam Hussein as an innocent victim of the Bush Administration and have no clue just how evil the former leader of Iraq truly was. The "lies" told by the Bush Administration to get us into the war pale in comparison to Saddam's (and his sons') crimes against humanity.
Secondly, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to end WW2. The Allied forces were estimating over 1 million dead Allied soldiers just to gain a foothold on mainland Japan. That's not counting the Japanese deaths or the number of lives lost trying to actually hold those positions on Japanese soil. So, the atomic bombs dropped on Japan saved at least 10 times more lives than they took.
Also, just read about the colonization of Korea and China by the Japanese in the early 20th century. The Japanese people were not innocent victims any more than the citizens of Nazi Germany were innocent of the Holocaust. In fact, the atrocities committed by the Japanese government and military before and during WW2 were so bad that many Koreans still hate Japan to this day. You can read about some of what happened in this link:
Noone wanted to distroy Japan...but she didnt leave anyone a choice. Germany had fallen, there was ZERO need for her to continue, and yet, for shytes and giggles on she went. I honnestly dont think that Bombing her was a British Idea forced upon the Americans. I think it was an idea backed by the entire planet, minus Germany and Italy, and that we all contributed and all aggreed upon. The US did it because they were the only military left capable of doing so, and went with British Blessings of course, but in no way were they compelled to do that.
I'd like to know what you think about the Soviets...It IS True that prior to Nazi Germany, the British Empire was still a force to be reckoned with, damaged during the Great War, but by no means dead. It IS True that the British were very much an Imperial Force also, In the Traditional Sence, and that obviously a lot of the Lands had either been originally collonized by us a top a primative civilization...such as The Americas ...where we claimed the land as free from the Natives, the rest being done litterally by conquest, one supposes very much like Hitler. You launch a Ground Invasion and then rule over the land, India for example.
Its not hard to see, I suppose, how IF your President, the one who joined the war, had stopped Hitler, he may then launch his own version of "war on Terror" where he then states other Imperial Forces which should be disbanded also....The British DID certainly inspire the Cold War attitude by claiming EXACTLY THAT of the Russians. Remember during the War Russia was Friends with the US...and certainly there WAS a worry that the political system of the Russians, Communism, was spreading and seen, however wrongly, as a form of imperialism. Winston Churchill DID go to the Americans and talk about an Iron Fist and a Curtain moving across the shattered remains of Europe.
I have always thought that was because Europe lay broken, and that Russia and the United States both had money and arms...and it was a matter of who was going to rebuild Europe...America, via investment financially with the same political system, or Russia via land invasion and a very alien style of politics...and Winston was worried if the Americans didnt help him, Russia would gain control of Europe.
I suppose you could say that Winston doing that, allowed the Americans to see Russia as an Imperial Threat...and thus completely pushes the Imperial Focus away from England....the major issue with this, is that I honnestly dont think we were an Imperial Forces by the end of the war. IF we were, why did we then start dishing out independance to all the Empire, and forming the commonwealth instead? I've always assumed that the United States realized from the end of the war that England had a wealth of influence, but relatively no power left whatsoever, and therefore no ability to control her Empire which then began to fragment.
Which Version of events do you think is closer to the truth? Which do Americans generally believe? I mean...to suggest the British Government might exert control or influence on Washington is one thing...but HM The Queen doesnt even really control England, so how can she, personally, control America? She's a Figure Head...and has been since The Glorious Revolution about 150 years ago.
Also...Why would she want anymore of America then the British first had? When England got the thirteen Collonial outposts on the Eastern Seaboard of North America....they didnt really make for any rapid expansion westwards. Dont forget that France actually owned more of the United States then anyone else...and yet the Americans never celebrate independance from France, or Spain, or the Dutch...I guess it if you freely give up your collonies, the Americans bearly remember you were ever there...whilst, if you fight for what you believe is yours, they will never forget beating you for it :laugh:
BTW..as we are talking about Obama pledging allegience to the Queen...How come the State Government of Virginia still process in behind a Mace? I only ask...because a Mace is a symbol of authority given by a Monarch...think of it like a stamp of approval. Why...if you hated the Monarch, would you still process in behind her stamp of approval to your authority....and more over....do you know how much that Mace is probably worth??? do you guys realize, that effectively that Mace is Property Of The Crown? Do you know that Richmond in Virginia even sets out to have like Victorian Style Architecture and stuff, mock classical, like up-market England around the time of American Independance.
I think if they ever claimed independance from the Union, Her Majesty would probably ask them to join the Commonwealth of Nations...and even bestow upon them a brand new Mace :laugh:
By the time the US entered WW1, it had been over a century since England had attempted any serious takeover of the Colonies. During that century, America had fought a massive Civil War and the evils of slavery really started to overshadow any faint memories left over of British control.
By WW2, there weren't even any Civil War survivors left alive (if they were, they would have been too young to really remember anything about the Civil War), and the atrocities of Great Britian were long forgotten and easily overshadowed by the threat of Nazism and then Communism.
At that point, Britain could no longer exert any control whatsoever over the US and could only attempt to influence us by appealing to our sense of justice and morality. Kind of like an aging parent asking for help from a rebellious child. :laugh:
Also, I think you will find that Americans don't put nearly as much stock in symbolism as the British do. There might still be a Mace in Virginia, but I'm sure no one there sees he/she/it (?) as anything more than a tradition with no real power.
What exactly is a "Mace" anyway? Because when I think of a mace, I think of this...
...and it's funny to think of some politician in Virginia waving this around every time he or she speaks. :laugh:
2) :laugh: I think that has to do with age also. Symbols need time to become great. I'm sure when the first mace was bestowed, noone really cared, but when thousands of years later, the same tradition was performed in Virginia, I am certain that those who received it felt valued, and felt like they were now fit to Rule because they had the certified stamp of approval, it gave them legitamacy in a world where everything was so new, there was no way of claiming rights via appeal to a higher source.
But...its not true in all sences...The Americans DO understand Pragmatic Symbols...After all, think of the American Standard, and how it is viewed as nigh on sacred by Americans, who get a real sence of Pride from flying it outside their house, or being the family member to receive it at a military funneral.
I suspect you are right, the Virginian State Government has probably always processed behind the Mace, and thus, always will do-its just the way they have always done it, and is meaningless in terms of its original concept. But, for those who understand the symbolism, its FAR more a pledge to the British Crown, then some flip-flop who raises a glass out of courtesy...somehow, what cant be denied is where that Mace came from and Why
Now...let me tell you what a Mace is. A Mace is a type of Virge. A Virge is a long Metal Pole which is held at an angle forward of the individual when carried. The Virge is a sign of authority. It is given to someone as a token to mark the fact they are viewed as important by the authority that grants it. It may also symbolize the very authority itself. So, when the Virginians carry the Mace inside their Chambre, they do so to represent Her Britannic Majesty...IF she were present, they would have to cover the Mace, because her authority superceeds theres, as she gave the gift of political power to them. Do you follow?
Virge also appear in churches, and have a purely practical function, they stick out at the start of processions to clear the way for those following. This mattered when you had to travel through the streets, or through a mob, or throng of onlookers...you could use the pole to push them out of the way :laugh: again...not really important now...but totally practical at the time...if the Virginians processed to their Chambre, and there were protestors intent on stopping them by blocking the way, the Mace could be used to push them out the way...I suspect thats where the Mace has morphed into a weapon...used to knock people out the way...but thats a modification. Note...how they are technically the same...each a stick with some knob on the top hahahaha
Mace are still in use today...one such Mace belongs to The Lord Mayor of London. look at 44 second mark of this video
that Golden heavy object carried by the guy who comes out of the coach after the first man who nearly falls down the steps....THAT object is The Mace :w00t: I imagine if he swung that at someone, it would hurt them lol. following that comes a third person with a Pearl Sword...which was what the Monarchs gave to mark Independance of the City of London. So these two objects show that this person is marked as important by the crown, and whatever he owns is independant of the crown.
Technically speaking London is Independant of England.
Parliament also has Mace...if you look at this film, look at the long desk between the two sides, lying on the table you can see the their is a Mace lying on a stand...I believe that there are at least two Mace kicking around the commons at various times...One for the House, One for the Speaker usually...I think they move around the table also...like I've seen two much larger that run the long length of the table sometimes...it can get really complex as to what Mace belongs to who and what exactly it symbolizes :laugh:
Bear in mind that without the Mace, these Governments have no authority :laugh: if you were to steal the Mace of a Government, it would pass as being EXACTLY the same as stealing the Standard of a Roman Legion. There is no authority without the Mace...infact, it could be seen as quite the opposite...meeting without the mace to discuss politics could be viewed as contempt for the authority who granted it. High Treason.
btw...all of our collonies had Mace...wherever there was an important person deemed so by Royal Authority...or a Provincial Government...you had a Mace.
I present to you the Australian House of Representative.
Fancy giving a Mace to what was initially intended to be a Penal Collony :laugh:
OOOO BTW...the weapon might have come first of course...I suppose that if you were a King and you were in a procession, you would want someone at the head of the procession who could defend you?
Think of it like an armed escort of the medieval world.
A Weapon that maybe became a token...so if you were important enough to have an armed escort, you were given the Mace, whether you needed defence or not, and slowly it became purely ceremonial?
I dont know which way round these things developed...but there is more of a connection between the two then you may have thought when first presenting the idea of a politician waving around a mace like that :laugh:
:laugh: The Sacred Cod of Massachusetts :laugh: Its not a Mace...but they wished it was :laugh:
Okay...so I did a little research...it appears that the Americans kept using their Mace from prior to Independance, and that a Mace...one presumes it was given to the Convention Governments that eventually thought up independance, became the House of Representatives Mace...until the British claimed it back by distroying it when they attacked Washington in 1812 :laugh:
BUT The Americans built their own Mace!!! YES their is currently a Mace for the Speaker of The House of Representatives, and its NOT British, its seemingly self created...I suppose that in theory, now the President of The United States is a law unto himself, He now has the authority to grant authority to others in his Land...I suspect that just like in England, all your State Governments probably have Mace...but I suspect that only a handful, like Virginia, still use the original British Mace...I imagine thats because, most of the States NEVER had a British Mace, and most that did probably did either give them back, or, probably smashed and broke them up in a sign of defiance against England...as thats what the Protestants did with the Statues in the Roman Catholic Cathedrals...they beheaded them all :laugh:
The Sacred Cod of Massachusetts, known simply as the Sacred Cod and officially as the Representation of a codfish, is a carving of a codfish that hangs in the House of Representatives chamber of the Massachusetts State House in Boston. The Sacred Cod measures 4 feet 11 inches (1.50 m) long, is carved out of a solid piece of pine, and symbolizes the importance of the fishing industry to Massachusetts. Around 1840, this industry employed 12,000 people in roughly 1,300 vessels in coastal Massachusetts and supported many related businesses. There have been a total of three Sacred Cods, the first was created early in the 18th century and destroyed by a fire in the Old State House in 1747. The second was created between 1748 and 1773 and subsequently went missing early in the American Revolution during the British occupation of Boston. The current fish was carved in 1784 and presented to the House later that year by the Boston merchant John Rowe.
The Sacred Cod was stolen as a practical joke in 1933 by students from Harvard University, causing the Massachusetts State Police to dredge the Charles River and search a plane in Newark, New Jersey for the fish. It was recovered two days later. It was stolen again by students from the newly founded University of Massachusetts Boston in 1968 as a protest. The cod was found three days later behind a door in the House chamber. There is also a brass casting of a fish incorporated into the central chandelier of the Massachusetts Senate chamber known as the Holy Mackerel.
The Real Question you should be asking yourself is...Where is the Second Sacred Cod now? Stolen by the British??? I wonder where that could have gone?? Is it locked in the Tower for treason??? was it hanged at Tyburn?? oh Where is my Codfish, Oh where is my codfish, oh where, oh where, oh where, oh where, oh where...is my codfish?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtHr7gluh08 sing along now!
That was just an a-mace-ing story Dave , I live in Virginia and never knew that part of my states' history. Thanks !
|All times are GMT. The time now is 04:06 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.