Russia

[Big Fish]

The funniest part of the 'hate' against Russia was that it was because of the newest discovered government that we have it and it was because of very few people that it started. So what I am trying to say is that the current russian depresian is because of only the few ranking people

[Dauphin]

[Miznia]

The funniest part of the 'hate' against Russia was that it was because of the newest discovered government that we have it and it was because of very few people that it started. So what I am trying to say is that the current russian depresian is because of only the few ranking people

I *think* I understand what you're trying to say, but you left a bit off at the end, I think (been drinking?). I don't think we're *jealous* of Russia, if that's what you mean; I think Americans, at any rate, also have half a notion that they invented democracy, in some sense.

I can't agree with your second thesis. I think Russia would be in pretty rough shape with or without the ranking people. How Russia would be without the Soviet history is pretty hard to guess.

Regards,

Miznia

(P.S. I am a Warlord now, thanks to this message)

[Serb]

Big Fish,
I suppose only russian could understand what are you talking about
You are talking about Yeltsin, Berezovskii and company? Right?

Ili ya to zhe che to ne ponial?

Ili ty govorish pro bolshevicov, Ilicha i communism?

I cheto pravda ne dogonyau.

[Miznia]

Ya dumayu chto on pil vodku, ne mozhet pisat

Moi ruskii yazyk ochen' ploxoi!

Miznia

[Jaguar]

somehow this thread has lost me...

[Purple]

Originally posted by Miznia
Moi ruskii yazyk ochen' ploxoi!

Ne tak plokho pishesh'.

Pozdravlyayu tebya s perevodom na "Warlord"!

[Spiffor]

It's at times like this that I understand why I always was motivated to learn foreign languages

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Miznia
I think Americans, at any rate, also have half a notion that they invented democracy, in some sense.

Actually, rediscovered it. The "founding fathers" had read Greek history and their failure to create a lasting Republic. For hundreds of years, it was assumed that people could not govern themselves. After all, democracy had been tried and it had failed.

The founders modified the Republic with the principle of balance-of-power, incorporating the basic corrupt nature of human society, and created a workable system.

[Dauphin]

Was Britain not a democracy before the US was created then? How can the US claim rediscovery of an idea already being practiced in the UK? Contrary to popular belief the King (George III) was not the decision maker in the British political system in the late 18th Century. It was the Prime Ministers.

The only major political change the US made was reduce the restrictions on who were the eligble voters.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Was Britain not a democracy before the US was created then? How can the US claim rediscovery of an idea already being practiced in the UK? Contrary to popular belief the King (George III) was not the decision maker in the British political system in the late 18th Century. It was the Prime Ministers.

The only major political change the US made was reduce the restrictions on who were the eligble voters.

Most historians would agree that the U.S. Constitution was a landmark document, and a huge innovation in government. The British made many innovations in representative government, as well; but the British clung to the idea that a king was a necessary component of government. The Americans discovered otherwise, and based their new government on “the consent of the governed."

BRITANNICA
in England, the rise of Parliament introduced a republican, if not a democratic, element into the workings of one of Europe's oldest kingdoms.

[Dauphin]

The system of government has not changed in the UK since the time of Cromwell. The only thing to have significantly changed is who has voting rights.

I would agree that the US was pretty much the first to define their nation's democratic views and rights in the constition, but I think many component ideas were already in practice in the UK.

but the British clung to the idea that a king was a necessary component of government

The fact that Britain still has a monarchy could lead you to the same conclusion. Doesn't mean that Britain is not democratic in nature, even if not strictly a democracy in classification. In the US it wasn't until the 1920s that more than 50% of the adult population was eligible to vote. Would that mean they weren't a democracy until the 1920s?

I guess the whole idea comes down to what defines a democracy. Different nations' peoples no doubt have different views on what defines a democracy.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
The system of government has not changed in the UK since the time of Cromwell. The only thing to have significantly changed is who has voting rights.

I wouldn't say that the British government hasn't changed since then, but you are right that the basic concept of a partnership between royalty and parliament was established at that time. Indeed, the American colonialists were just trying to assert their rights as British subjects; subjects, not citizens.

But once pushed into revolution by the British government, the Americans established a completely new form of government without a king or inherited royalty; with citizens, not subjects.

(Certainly Britain is a democracy today, as the Queen is politically irrelevant. By comparison, George III had great, inherited power.)

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zachriel
(Certainly Britain is a democracy today, as the Queen is politically irrelevant. By comparison, George III had great, inherited power.)

But not culturally irrelevant! Kinda like a really cool heirloom. An icon of British national freedom.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Zachriel


(Certainly Britain is a democracy today, as the Queen is politically irrelevant. By comparison, George III had great, inherited power.)

I think perhaps you're confusing the constitutional monarchy of Great Britain with the absolutist monarchies of Continental Europe- certainly the old cliched image of the tyrant George III is no longer applicable. For instance, George could not of his own accord have someone thrown into prison without reason-

'THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT: The English common law practice and procedure respecting Habeas Corpus was codified by Parliament in 1679 by enactment of the Habeas Corpus Act. This historic act of the English Parliament empowered English courts to issue Writs of Habeas Corpus even during periods when the court was not in session and provided significant penalties to the judge, personally, who disobeyed the statute. And while great hypocrisy surrounded the practice of the Habeas Corpus Act in the late 17th century, Habeas Corpus was nevertheless establishing itself as the primary means by which individual liberty was empowered at the expense of the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. During the 19th century the Writ of Habeas Corpus was further expanded to include those held by a purely private process other than that of the state. '

whereas in France we have:

'...lettre de cachet , formerly in French law, private, sealed document, issued as a communication from the king. Such a letter could order imprisonment or exile for an individual without recourse to courts of law. Of very early origin, the lettre de cachet came into common use in the 17th cent. as an instrument of the new monarchy. Although its actual use was restrained, the issuance to local officials of lettres de cachet with the space for the name left blank inspired great fear. The occasional invocation of them against leaders of opinion, including Voltaire, became a symbol of arbitrary royal power and tyranny. They were abolished by the Constituent Assembly in the French Revolution. Napoleon I briefly renewed use of the lettres de cachet.'

True democracy was thwarted in Cromwell's time by the landed gentry, such as Cromwell and Ireton, who opposed the democratic movement of the Levellers (as seen in the Putney Debates, October 1647):

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/Classes/Sources/Clarke.Putney.html

and:

http://www.mindspring.com/~strecorsoc/docs/agreement.html

Their radicalism was based upon the bitter lessons of the Civil Wars and the Bishops War and the war between the kingdoms- the poor, male and female, had fought for the removal of tyranny just as much as had the well-off gentry, so why should they not also have a stake in deciding who should rule?

You also have the Bill of Rights from 1689:

http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/rights.html