|Problems? Is your data what you think it is?|
Re: Consideration for obscenityby jonadab (Parson)
|on Feb 06, 2007 at 14:34 UTC||Need Help??|
I am aware that I was simplifying, but not that it was one of your pet subjects. In light of that, I'm not prepared to argue it at any great length, although I do have a couple of minor points...
There is a very significant difference between 'the English being in charge' and 'it's ... still the same country'. For example, I think no one would argue that Iraq was part of the United States during the time that the US was directly in control of the country, right?
That's arguable, but the US was not, and did not ever intend to be, in direct control as such for any significant amount of time, but only to effect a change of government. Indeed, even the strongest proponents of what we're doing there look forward to completing the task so that we can leave the government of Iraq to the Iraqi people. Compare to the situation in Panama in 1989. The question of who de facto runs the effective government of a nation is typically complicated like this in times of transition. Who was the government of China in 1947? Even in hindsight this is hard to answer simply. England is entirely a different case, with centuries of actual control, with open borders and free movement within, numerous wars being fought together, widespread intermarriage, and so on and so forth. Rather than Iraq and the US, it's more reasonable to compare to Manchuria and China.
Wales is more complex
Interesting. I would have said Scotland was more complex, what with having had its own royal line that intermingled with the English one at various times and actually ruled all England on a couple of occasions before finally merging altogether.
Despite the power of the British Empire, it was a network of sovereign states, not of provinces - although, again, Britain had a great deal of power/influence in each country under its dominion...
This is totally inconsistent with the way England consistently viewed the matter until at least the nineteenth century, after a number of successful revolutions had divested it of much of its former power. Previously, if any of the colonies asserted local sovereignty, the government of England considered it a civil rebellion to be quashed, and an internal matter, *not* a foreign relations issue. Furthermore, the colonies themselves viewed it as a revolution against the overseas government, *not* a foreign relations issue.
Consider, again, the power wielded by the United States, the influence it has over many other sovereign nations, but one cannot with truth say they are all part of the United States...
Both the US and the other nations involved consider this a matter of foreign relations. Unless you're talking about Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and so on, which are American territories with varying degrees of local autonomy, comparable to pre-2000 Hong Kong. And if Puerto Rico applied for statehood, I wouldn't forsee a problem; they certainly meet the population requirements. (They don't apply, because it wouldn't be to their advantage. They'd gain representation but lose several other advantages they currently enjoy. They're more likely to seek independence at some point, but that too would have disadvantages, not least a reduced ability to rely absolutely on American military protection.)
Wales, as I said, is more complex
I would have said Wales was the simpler case, more straightforwardly a province of England. If my use of the word "province" trips you up, substitute the word "state" or the phrase "political subdivision".
More likely, it is my use of the word "England" that trips you up. When I say "England" I don't mean the province, but the country as a whole, which is officially called something along the lines of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", but that takes entirely too long to say so we just say "England". This is the primary meaning of the word "England" throughout pretty much the entire western hemisphere and much of the rest of the world. We also used the word "Russia" to refer to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics until it disolved, and the word "America", means the United States of America. Sometimes we also use the abbreviations US and UK as synonyms, but those don't have good adjectival forms, so attributives and indications of national origin always come out along the lines of "English" or "American". Thus, Wales is an English province (or an English state, or whatever) in approximately the same way that Hawaii is an American state.