The Republic of London

[scspkr99]

So I agree with the sentiment but you have to distinguish between natural migrations of people over time and colonisation.

And this is a pretty weird tangent essentially about London throwing bouquets at itself.

[Mr Hyde]

So I agree with the sentiment but you have to distinguish between natural migrations of people over time and colonisation.

And this is a pretty weird tangent essentially about London throwing bouquets at itself.

So in the context of what I said you think that Romans/Saxons/Normans/Vikings naturally migrated to Britain, and Europeans naturally migrated to America/Australia etc but British colonised Ireland?

[Lye_Form]

this is far too complex an issue to discuss on a forum really...

[scspkr99]

So in the context of what I said you think that Romans/Saxons/Normans/Vikings naturally migrated to Britain, and Europeans naturally migrated to America/Australia etc but British colonised Ireland?

No but it was different in that the Romans/Saxons/Normans/Vikings didn't plant loads of civilians. Initial emigations to north America weren't state sanctioned attempts to bring a country under imperial rule. And while it may be to their discredit it's not like they considered the impact on the native populations when they did colonise Australiala.

They also weren't specifically designed to form a part of the same kingdom, being part of the same empire/commonwealth isn't equivalent. The US also fought a war of independence. I'd also imagine that any Roman/Saxon/Norman/Viking invaders ancestors would consider themselves English or British to whatever extent those notions existed rather than hailing from their ancestral origins. There being a Norman invasion hardly stopped us going to war with the French.

I'm still not sure of its relevance to London tbh.

[Mr Hyde]

No but it was different in that the Romans/Saxons/Normans/Vikings didn't plant loads of civilians.

They did.

Initial emigations to north America weren't state sanctioned attempts to bring a country under imperial rule.

It was.

And while it may be to their discredit it's not like they considered the impact on the native populations when they did colonise Australiala.

I think once you have pitched battles with the people living there then the impact on native populations is fairly obvious. Shit, the Spanish sent huge armies over to S America to wipe out populations and have the place as part of their empire.

They also weren't specifically designed to form a part of the same kingdom,

They were.

The US also fought a war of independence.

How is that relevant? That isn't a way of just wiping a historical slate clean.

I'm still not sure of its relevance to London tbh.

Because that's what happens with conversations, they evolve rather than sticking to the exact first point....it's fairly obvious by looking back through the thread how talk of independence for London got tied in for independence for anywhere else.

[magma]

No but it was different in that the Romans/Saxons/Normans/Vikings didn't plant loads of civilians. Initial emigations to north America weren't state sanctioned attempts to bring a country under imperial rule. And while it may be to their discredit it's not like they considered the impact on the native populations when they did colonise Australiala.

They also weren't specifically designed to form a part of the same kingdom, being part of the same empire/commonwealth isn't equivalent. The US also fought a war of independence. I'd also imagine that any Roman/Saxon/Norman/Viking invaders ancestors would consider themselves English or British to whatever extent those notions existed rather than hailing from their ancestral origins. There being a Norman invasion hardly stopped us going to war with the French.

The Normans weren't even French themselves really, were they? They were Norman and got handed between their own rulers and French/English rule fairly frequently; but I agree, it's difficult to describe (m)any of the invasions of England/Britain in the same terms as some of our adventures abroad.

When the Romans invaded they sent dignitaries and rich folk to rule over us, but they didn't send boat loads over to turf us out of our homes and colonise us, they just made sure we were making money for them. Same is true for the Normans really - William I needed a kingdom and England, having just beat back a much more violent Viking incursion provided it; aside from scaring the living daylights out of the noble population with massive castles, changing religious rules and the odd skirmish, I don't think the man-on-the-street would've seen much difference between Roman, Norman, Saxon and British rule. As invasions go, they were more like hostile takeovers of a business.

The Vikings, though... they were a conquering force in almost every way. They sent warships of thousands over to settle, they sent raiding parties to islands to massacre people and take their land... the Eastern part of the country was enclaved as "Danelaw" for almost 300 years and laws were enforced to encourage Danish settlement and agriculture for the best part of a century.

We've never experienced anything like America and Australia did though. Those were straight up invasions masked as "taming" a savage land - at the time massacring native peoples was seen as innocuous as massacring wildlife... but it wasn't just us doing it by then, Spain and Portugal committed at least as many sins in South America. The world was going to hell in a hand basket.

I'm not sure any of it matters now really. If you were born in a country, it's your country. If you move abroad and make a life for yourself, that's your country. The events of 50+ years ago or of a previous generation should have no bearing on a person's claim to nationality.

And London will never be conquered OR independent. It'd fail under both conditions... the Romans knew that millennia ago.

[hutyluty]

the normans were basically vikings who had settled in france and become frenchified (they spoke french but weren't vassals of the french king)

tbh the saxons were pretty similar to america australia- apart from scotland, wales and cornwall the native population were essentially wiped out.

[scspkr99]

Because that's what happens with conversations, they evolve rather than sticking to the exact first point....it's fairly obvious by looking back through the thread how talk of independence for London got tied in for independence for anywhere else.

I'm not going to take this point to point if you think the Mayflower was an attempt to colonise North America there's not really much point.

[hutyluty]

For some reason this all reminds me of these books I read as a kid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predator_Cities

No UK anymore, just cities roaming around devouring each other for resources. Personally I wouldn't mind that future since London would clearly fuck everything else up.

i loved those books too. According to that link Peter Jackson has bought the film rights for them too which is kind of exciting

Damn, I didn't even see that. That is exciting. It would be very hard to fuck up too, such a cool concept.

yeah if its peter jackson it'd be big enough budget for it all to work too- medusa versus that german city would be something to see

Also would love to see a character like Hester Shaw in a hollywood film, though they'd probably adapt her a bit... thinking about it, she was incredibly dark for a kids book really.

[scspkr99]

The Normans weren't even French themselves really, were they? They were Norman and got handed between their own rulers and French/English rule fairly frequently; but I agree, it's difficult to describe (m)any of the invasions of England/Britain in the same terms as some of our adventures abroad.

When the Romans invaded they sent dignitaries and rich folk to rule over us, but they didn't send boat loads over to turf us out of our homes and colonise us, they just made sure we were making money for them. Same is true for the Normans really - William I needed a kingdom and England, having just beat back a much more violent Viking incursion provided it; aside from scaring the living daylights out of the noble population with massive castles, changing religious rules and the odd skirmish, I don't think the man-on-the-street would've seen much difference between Roman, Norman, Saxon and British rule. As invasions go, they were more like hostile takeovers of a business.

The Vikings, though... they were a conquering force in almost every way. They sent warships of thousands over to settle, they sent raiding parties to islands to massacre people and take their land... the Eastern part of the country was enclaved as "Danelaw" for almost 300 years and laws were enforced to encourage Danish settlement and agriculture for the best part of a century.

We've never experienced anything like America and Australia did though. Those were straight up invasions masked as "taming" a savage land - at the time massacring native peoples was seen as innocuous as massacring wildlife... but it wasn't just us doing it by then, Spain and Portugal committed at least as many sins in South America. The world was going to hell in a hand basket.

I'm not sure any of it matters now really. If you were born in a country, it's your country. If you move abroad and make a life for yourself, that's your country. The events of 50+ years ago or of a previous generation should have no bearing on a person's claim to nationality.

And London will never be conquered OR independent. It'd fail under both conditions... the Romans knew that millennia ago.

You're right though I'm not sure what the point was Ireland was colonised and brought into the United Kingdom. If the poster wants to suggest other invasions share similar features of the colonisation he may have a point, if he wants to say these shared features mean Ireland wasn't colonised then he's wrong.

I think a persons claim to a nationality is more complicated when we consider the rights of peoples to self determine.

[magma]

You're right though I'm not sure what the point was Ireland was colonised and brought into the United Kingdom. If the poster wants to suggest other invasions share similar features of the colonisation he may have a point, if he wants to say these shared features mean Ireland wasn't colonised then he's wrong.

I think a persons claim to a nationality is more complicated when we consider the rights of peoples to self determine.

Interestingly to me, people like to call Ireland "Celtic" even though there's never really been an identifiable "Celtic" people. The 'original' prehistoric inhabitants of Ireland were colonised by various peoples from Britain, France/Gaul and Spain/Portugal, but all that would've been in the first millennium BC - it seems like that's long enough ago for people to think the Celts are indigenous. There seems to have been pretty heavy Spanish/Portuguese colonisation of Wales too, which seems to be why "Celtic" people are generally slightly darker-featured than the rest of the population.

Self-Determination is a generational concept IMO. If a population currently wants to rule itself, it should be allowed to... we shouldn't hold the wishes/beliefs of previous generations over the heads of currently living people. If the Northern Irish vote popularly for full devolution, they should get it... same for Scotland, Wales or Yorkshire. I think they'd all be pretty mad to leave, tbh, but it should be today's people deciding, not historians or ancestors.

It's much easier for me to talk about self-determination in Ireland than it is Palestine, though.

[scspkr99]

Yeah the Celtic thing seems almost a combination of markers rather than having a clear link to some homogenous celtic peoples.

See in principle I'm good with people having the right to self determination despite it leading to some anachronisms like the Falklands. I also think you're right with regard the population of Northern Ireland, it has to be todays people making the decisions and thankfully it seems like the decisions can be made against a backdrop of peace. But I think the issues arise with more recent colonisations when you have conflicts between groups rights to self determine. Palestine Israel being the most obvious.

[magma]

See in principle I'm good with people having the right to self determination despite it leading to some anachronisms like the Falklands. I also think you're right with regard the population of Northern Ireland, it has to be todays people making the decisions and thankfully it seems like the decisions can be made against a backdrop of peace. But I think the issues arise with more recent colonisations when you have conflicts between groups rights to self determine. Palestine Israel being the most obvious.

Yeah, Palestine and Israel is an ugly one. I think most of the problems still arise from people holding onto the views/precedents of ancestors though - unless you're a proper religious purist who believes that Jews and Muslims should live in single-faith nations, it's difficult to see what the problem with sharing really still is. Israel has expanded its borders to cope with more settlement from the rest of the world than was ever actually "required" after WW2... it's tough to see how that isn't colonisation...

You could move the two populations to two hemispheres of a whole new planet and they'd still feel each other treading on their toes. It's the ancestors' narrative going all the way back to Abraham that perpetuates the conflict rather than the actual land and resources available to today's people.

[dubfordessert]

i own a nice flat in south kensington so i disagree with your idea dub4pudding

ok jwa

[scspkr99]

Yeah, Palestine and Israel is an ugly one. I think most of the problems still arise from people holding onto the views/precedents of ancestors though - unless you're a proper religious purist who believes that Jews and Muslims should live in single-faith nations, it's difficult to see what the problem with sharing really still is. Israel has expanded its borders to cope with more settlement from the rest of the world than was ever actually "required" after WW2... it's tough to see how that isn't colonisation...

You could move the two populations to two hemispheres of a whole new planet and they'd still feel each other treading on their toes. It's the ancestors' narrative going all the way back to Abraham that perpetuates the conflict rather than the actual land and resources available to today's people.

Yeah I generally think that people often get caught up in historical arguments at the expense of understanding the rights of people today. Israel Palestine seems incredibly complex but I don't know that the arguments pre 1948 are relevant now.

[magma]

Yeah, Palestine and Israel is an ugly one. I think most of the problems still arise from people holding onto the views/precedents of ancestors though - unless you're a proper religious purist who believes that Jews and Muslims should live in single-faith nations, it's difficult to see what the problem with sharing really still is. Israel has expanded its borders to cope with more settlement from the rest of the world than was ever actually "required" after WW2... it's tough to see how that isn't colonisation...

You could move the two populations to two hemispheres of a whole new planet and they'd still feel each other treading on their toes. It's the ancestors' narrative going all the way back to Abraham that perpetuates the conflict rather than the actual land and resources available to today's people.

Yeah I generally think that people often get caught up in historical arguments at the expense of understanding the rights of people today. Israel Palestine seems incredibly complex but I don't know that the arguments pre 1948 are relevant now.

Word. There comes a time when no matter how badly it'd make their great grandfathers spin in their graves, people on both sides have to say "can't we all just get along?".

[scspkr99]

yeah and you kinda hope that day has to come.

[magma]

yeah and you kinda hope that day has to come.

FFWD a century and with any luck it'll just be arguments in the stands of Jerusalem United and City.

They'll probably still be shelling each other and achieving nothing for anyone.

[scspkr99]

ha, I tend to think football will remain a bastion of tribalism long after others have faded to dust

[magma]

ha, I tend to think football will remain a bastion of tribalism long after others have faded to dust

This was actually one of the philosophies espoused when Britain and France "exported" international sporting competition as the old empires broke up - people are tribal by nature, you have to give them something to brow-beat about. As long as it stays on the terraces...