On a slightly related note, an Arab father named his daughter 'Facebook' "as a memorial to social network bringing down corrupted systems".FamoFunk said:Facebook was originally named TheFaceBook
I must make sure that my sister never finds out about that place.MrRetroSpectacles said:There is a restaurant in Stockholm that only offers all-garlic products. They even have a garlic cheesecake.
I'm a Brit and I think that's dumb.GrimTuesday said:All the dandies needed something to sip over their conversation about their rather unjust revolution *(if you really think about it, the Colonies didn't have that much of a reason for rebellion)
*[Yes I, as an American do think that the grounds for independence were more than a little shaky]
what do you mean by a supreme? as in supreme being(god) supreme court or something elseQitz said:In Texas, one MUST acknowledge a supreme being before being able to hold public office.Segadroid said:snip
Temple Guard said:- According to suicide statistics, Monday is the favored day for self-destruction.
Yeah, been there done that. I had to spend my entire week's salary on weed though...TriggerHappyAngel said:In certain parts of Holland gravity is reversed.
...And as such, 'banana trees' don't technically exist; they're actually shrubs.Meatramen said:The strawberry is not really a berry but citrus fruits and bananas are. ^^
I'm not saying that there were any good reason why Britain should have retained the colonies, I'm just saying that the reasons that were given as to why the revolution was justified were rather shaky. The main reason was because of Taxes. Of course, what many people gloss over is the fact that these taxes were really meant to pay off the debt incurred fighting the French Indian War, which was fought to keep the colonialists safe from the attack French and their Indian allies. Prior to this, the colonies had been taxed fairly little, and to me, the idea that the colonist had to help pay off the debts caused by the British army keeping them safe, seems logical. Of course then people bring up the no taxation without representation thing, which to me seems foolish because logistically it is entirely impractical for the colonists to send their representatives to London because of how far removed they would be from the actual colonies, it would be like having a person who lived in Britain representing you.Treblaine said:I'm a Brit and I think that's dumb.GrimTuesday said:All the dandies needed something to sip over their conversation about their rather unjust revolution *(if you really think about it, the Colonies didn't have that much of a reason for rebellion)
*[Yes I, as an American do think that the grounds for independence were more than a little shaky]
We didn't deserve any of those colonies as most of the Americans wanted to leave, then that is the end of the matter. Canadians wanted to stay so they stayed. Shame we had to have a bloody war to sort it out and it's a DAMN GOOD THING that we didn't have that with India. India also did not have many "good reasons" to leave except for the most important one: they WANTED independence.
It is not a matter of cold legalistic reason, it's a matter of the peoples' choice. That's Self-Determination. That'sThe Chicago WayDemocracy.
Northern Ireland voted on staying part of the UK and (by quite a close margin) voted in favour though the various republican movements fought long and hard for a republican majority.
One thing the Argentinian Junta didn't get was though they had good "reasons" to invade The Falklands they lacked the most important one: the will of the actual people who lived there. Who did NOT want to become subjects of a South American military dictatorship, weirdly enough they wanted to be part of Thatcher's Britain but that was their choice.
Self-Determination has been the guiding principal of the dismantling of the British Empire after the Second World War, after destroying Hitler's attempts at empire building it would have been hypocritical in the extreme to continue ruling from afar places that did not wish to be ruled by Britain. Many chose to stay, but many others peacefully ceded to varying success.
Now the American Civil War, that's a case where arguably the will of the people were ignored, but America at that time was one united country, the will of the people is as a whole. One bay overrun by pirates cannot cede simply because that's where all the pirates are. The South was not some overseas territory ruled from afar, Washington DC was literally only a day's walk away from the Confederate Capital of Richmond VA.
Although the war didn't start over slavery, could that really continue to be tolerated by the North? How can you have self-determination of the people when people are being enslaved by the millions?