Shortforbob

What would the USA look like today if the English had won?

Recommended Posts

Spin off from the History thread,

What would the USA look like today if you'd lost the war of independence?

Much smaller?

in 1783, 

Treaty of Paris, 1783

Would you be more like Canada or Australia? 

Would Australia even be part of the commonwealth..or would we be speaking french?

For that matter, what would the whole world look like?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can tell, the British DID win.

Who would want this fucking place now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting though. Would England have been quite as expansionist? Risking a war at home and abroad with France and spain over spanish and french held territory?

Slavery would have been abolished earlier too...or never even been a big thing in British America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

England has nothing to do with it.. it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. A large percentage of the troops were Scottish and Irish..

I suspect the Spanish section of that map, would have been a lot smaller. The UK was still in an expansionist mode back then and the Spanish spent a lot of the time as number one enemy. Most of the orange in that map was only nominally Spanish, and was for a large part still belonging to the locals.. 

You wouldn't have been like Canada... You almost certainly would have been Canada. The United States of Canada..

Both world wars would have been shorter as both times the USC would have joined in at the start and not two years late..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Spin off from the History thread,

What would the USA look like today if you'd lost the war of independence?

Much smaller?

in 1783, 

Treaty of Paris, 1783

Would you be more like Canada or Australia? 

Would Australia even be part of the commonwealth..or would we be speaking french?

For that matter, what would the whole world look like?

 

 

i tend to take the 'psychohistorical' view on this - the Americas were simply too large and both too far and too close from Europe to manage indefinitely with the technology of the day.  If the revolutionary war failed, another revolutionary war would have been fought until ultimately it succeeded.  America was a release valve that would have blown, no matter what.  Similar to how the 'Jesus Christ' of common knowledge was just one of many prophets (and one of the least successful of the day in truth) that achieved some level of notoriety around Judea at the time.

The concept is fun to ponder and I do tend to fret over a world without release valves.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

 

i tend to take the 'psychohistorical' view on this - the Americas were simply too large and both too far and too close from Europe to manage indefinitely with the technology of the day.  If the revolutionary war failed, another revolutionary war would have been fought until ultimately it succeeded.  America was a release valve that would have blown, no matter what.  Similar to how the 'Jesus Christ' of common knowledge was just one of many prophets (and one of the least successful of the day in truth) that achieved some level of notoriety around Judea at the time.

The concept is fun to ponder and I do tend to fret over a world without release valves.  

 

India is quite large and we managed to control that - with the consent of  the population - for  quite along tiime. Canada was quite large - we managed to control that with the consent of the population. The canadians never had a  revolutionary war - and America was far from united in opposition to the British. I am not convinced that they would  have come back for a  second crack.

 

As for the  first and second world  wars  -  if America had been under Uk control then Britain would have had the resources of America to help fight it.  In ww2 america produced more planes, ships and tanks than the Germans could ever destroy - a liberty ship a day....astonishing productivity.

Shermans were not good tanks - but they just keep  rolling off the ships until the Germans ran out of ammo. American grasp of  logistics was astonishing.

I live in east anglia  - there are war memorials to American airmen  all over this region - wonderful young men - most younger than my son - the tour of duty  was 25 missions and they had a 10 per cent loss on most  missions. Those men knew the odds....

utterly humbling.

My dad was a artillary man at El alamein and fought his way up through Italy fighting side by side with Americans - he always held them in the highest regard. When I went to America he had a list of his former colleagues for me to visit - they treated me like I was their own son.

We Brits owe the Mercans big time.

D

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dylan winter said:

India is quite large and we managed to control that - with the consent of  the population - for  quite along tiime. Canada was quite large - we managed to control that with the consent of the population. The canadians never had a  revolutionary war - and America was far from united in opposition to the British. I am not convinced that they would  have come back for a  second crack.

 

As for the  first and second world  wars  -  if America had been under Uk control then Britain would have had the resources of America to help fight it.  In ww2 america produced more planes, ships and tanks than the Germans could ever destroy - a liberty ship a day....astonishing productivity.

Shermans were not good tanks - but they just keep  rolling off the ships until the Germans ran out of ammo. American grasp of  logistics was astonishing.

I live in east anglia  - there are war memorials to American airmen  all over this region - wonderful young men - most younger than my son - the tour of duty  was 25 missions and they had a 10 per cent loss on most  missions. Those men knew the odds....

utterly humbling.

My dad was a artillary man at El alamein and fought his way up through Italy fighting side by side with Americans - he always held them in the highest regard. When I went to America he had a list of his former colleagues for me to visit - they treated me like I was their own son.

We Brits owe the Mercans big time.

D

 

I think you would find a lot of Americans are different today, if the age of Trump...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cmilliken said:

 

i tend to take the 'psychohistorical' view on this - the Americas were simply too large and both too far and too close from Europe to manage indefinitely with the technology of the day.  If the revolutionary war failed, another revolutionary war would have been fought until ultimately it succeeded.  America was a release valve that would have blown, no matter what.  Similar to how the 'Jesus Christ' of common knowledge was just one of many prophets (and one of the least successful of the day in truth) that achieved some level of notoriety around Judea at the time.

The concept is fun to ponder and I do tend to fret over a world without release valves.  

 

Why? Australia was larger, further and there were 52 nations on the goldfields. The closest we ever came to revolution was a short lived mutiny by a bunch of greedy officers (The Rum Rebellion) and a little rebellion about a mining tax. (Eureka)

I think the only difference was the way we were settled. Organised . no wild frontier stuff.

OTOH. Maybe the Brit's learned something from your revolution and trod more lightly on our necks.

But Canada was settled in much the same way as North America..multiple countries claiming bits and the occupation just as disorganized...I think. Why didn't Canadians break away? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world would be VERY different and it would have likely been a disaster.

On the good side - Imagine Canada writ large. Kind of a big friendly place with a small military and free health care plus maple syrup. Indians would have perhaps been a lot better off or at least got a lot better deals.

WW I might have had a very different outcome with the resources of all of North America in the fight from day 1 and might not have even happened.

On the bad side - North America might have remained split up between various European powers with a French and Russian area, chunks maybe of independent Indian nations, and a larger Mexico. Texas and California maybe Mexican or maybe independent countries. The likely result of that would be various wars in North American over local issues and if that didn't happen, VERY likely WW 1, WW 2, or both of them would have included North America with parts of it on either side. Also if you want to game it out, the UK loses because of not getting the might of a united industrialized USA on their side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

BCB073BE-6654-4D34-9BF7-14B964D8044A.jpeg

 

That's the real MAGA, and pining for the good old days!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Why? Australia was larger, further and there were 52 nations on the goldfields. The closest we ever came to revolution was a short lived mutiny by a bunch of greedy officers (The Rum Rebellion) and a little rebellion about a mining tax. (Eureka)

I think the only difference was the way we were settled. Organised . no wild frontier stuff.

OTOH. Maybe the Brit's learned something from your revolution and trod more lightly on our necks.

But Canada was settled in much the same way as North America..multiple countries claiming bits and the occupation just as disorganized...I think. Why didn't Canadians break away? 

In the late 1700s Canada inherited a good chunk of people from farther south that wanted to remain subjects of the king. I am also assuming the British government learned a thing or two from events just south of Canada and took some efforts to be nice to Canadians.

Besides for that, the first years of the USA were such a cluster-fuck the Canadians probably took one look and said "Thanks but no thanks" and by the time we were a world power we were good friends with Canada and Canada was hardly oppressed by the UK so there was really no point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Q said:

England has nothing to do with it.. it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. A large percentage of the troops were Scottish and Irish..

I suspect the Spanish section of that map, would have been a lot smaller. The UK was still in an expansionist mode back then and the Spanish spent a lot of the time as number one enemy. Most of the orange in that map was only nominally Spanish, and was for a large part still belonging to the locals.. 

You wouldn't have been like Canada... You almost certainly would have been Canada. The United States of Canada..

Both world wars would have been shorter as both times the USC would have joined in at the start and not two years late..

Would England (we're talking about the crown here) have risked fighting spain over the Spanish bits ..you have to remember they already had just ended the 7 years war. Spain and France were always palling up. It's one thing to send troops across the Atlantic at the northern bit but more difficult to try to take the spanish bits ..with Spain and France just across the road biting your bum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

The world would be VERY different and it would have likely been a disaster.

On the good side - Imagine Canada writ large. Kind of a big friendly place with a small military and free health care plus maple syrup. Indians would have perhaps been a lot better off or at least got a lot better deals.

WW I might have had a very different outcome with the resources of all of North America in the fight from day 1 and might not have even happened.

On the bad side - North America might have remained split up between various European powers with a French and Russian area, chunks maybe of independent Indian nations, and a larger Mexico. Texas and California maybe Mexican or maybe independent countries. The likely result of that would be various wars in North American over local issues and if that didn't happen, VERY likely WW 1, WW 2, or both of them would have included North America with parts of it on either side. Also if you want to game it out, the UK loses because of not getting the might of a united industrialized USA on their side.

Yeah, but bad for who? Those small "new " countries would surely have fought locally, much the same as Europe did. But the end result 200 years later?..can you imagine a AEU  (prolly not the best time to bring it up but there's been peace between all european countries for 80 years now,.Doesn't matter if the UK ultimately lost if you ended up with no civil war, no Black/white conflict and I hesitate to mention, no American Constitution.

No Vietnam war, No Iraq, No Korea and as you mention. much shorter 1st and 2nd WW..if they even happened at all.

Spain, UK and France would be wealthier and even the French Revolution might not have happened if France and Spain had somewhere like australia to send their troublesome peasants.

I'm not arguing it would be better, but would it be worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dylan winter said:

India is quite large and we managed to control that - with the consent of  the population - for  quite along tiime.

You & the BEIC managed to control it for quite a long time without the consent of the population too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Yeah, but bad for who? Those small "new " countries would surely have fought locally, much the same as Europe did. But the end result 200 years later?..can you imagine a AEU  (prolly not the best time to bring it up but there's been peace between all european countries for 80 years now,.Doesn't matter if the UK ultimately lost if you ended up with no civil war, no Black/white conflict and I hesitate to mention, no American Constitution.

No Vietnam war, No Iraq, No Korea and as you mention. much shorter 1st and 2nd WW..if they even happened at all.

Spain, UK and France would be wealthier and even the French Revolution might not have happened if France and Spain had somewhere like australia to send their troublesome peasants.

I'm not arguing it would be better, but would it be worse?

The Vietnamese would have had their war, but there is a good chance North Americans would not have been over there unless France still owned parts of it. So instead of "Americans" fighting in Vietnam it would have been "French Americans". Korea would still have been a war, but maybe without the USA the North would have won and the entire place would be a giant prison camp instead of just half of it.

I am also 100% sure the various Middle Eastern countries will have wars with or without outside help :rolleyes:

* do keep in mind Europe was pretty much in a state of continual war from the fall of the Roman Empire to the end of WW II. Absent the total destruction of WW I and WW II, we could be looking at endless wars. The whole EU project might never have happened.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

The Vietnamese would have had their war, but there is a good chance North Americans would not have been over there unless France still owned parts of it. So instead of "Americans" fighting in Vietnam it would have been "French Americans". Korea would still have been a war, but maybe without the USA the North would have won and the entire place would be a giant prison camp instead of just half of it.

Not necessarily , The continued "ceasfire/Stalemate, sanctions and American troops based permanently in the south could have something to do with North korea's shitholyness. Vietnam;s doing OK, why not a united Korea? 

I am also 100% sure the various Middle Eastern countries will have wars with or without outside help :rolleyes:

Once again, lotsa small tribal wars probably, but would Israel even exist if WW2 had ended before it really began and without the support of the USA, Would countries in the ME have gone a completely different route without the USA continually supporting this place or that for oil supply?

* do keep in mind Europe was pretty much in a state of continual war from the fall of the Roman Empire to the end of WW II. Absent the total destruction of WW I and WW II, we could be looking at endless wars. The whole EU project might never have happened.

That's true too, but it's outside the hypothesis :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not outside - all these things connect. Maybe if WW I doesn't happen the Ottoman Empire doesn't fall and they keep the various shitheads in the ME under control. Absent WW II maybe Jewish migration to Palestine is much slower and doesn't cause a lot of strife.

Or maybe the various European powers fight WW I, II, III, IV, and V over North American resources. Maybe Japan has no unified opponent and takes over Australia and you end up having to learn kanji to work in the local Co-Prosperity library.

Maybe the various Indian tribes are too valuable as troops for the various chunks of North America controlled by various powers to piss off and become integrated into their various countries and colonies or maybe they get smart enough to keep the palefaces killing each other while they watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Not outside - all these things connect. Maybe if WW I doesn't happen the Ottoman Empire doesn't fall and they keep the various shitheads in the ME under control. Absent WW II maybe Jewish migration to Palestine is much slower and doesn't cause a lot of strife.

Or maybe the various European powers fight WW I, II, III, IV, and V over North American resources. Maybe Japan has no unified opponent and takes over Australia and you end up having to learn kanji to work in the local Co-Prosperity library.

Maybe the various Indian tribes are too valuable as troops for the various chunks of North America controlled by various powers to piss off and become integrated into their various countries and colonies or maybe they get smart enough to keep the palefaces killing each other while they watch.

yeah fascinating posibilities all....but remember, Australia would probably not be "Australia" as we know it anyway, and as for Japan..well there wouldn't have been any Perry expedition  Gunboat diplomacy and the shogun might still be running the place in isolation. :P No Pearl Harbor, No Hiroshima.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin ...

5 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

BCB073BE-6654-4D34-9BF7-14B964D8044A.jpeg

Roosevelt was no lapdog! Those were the good ol' days that we all hold dear to our postmodern, collectivist, marxist, panty pissing and virtue signaling hearts.  :lol:

Quote

 

"If I give (Stalin) everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige,he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy." - Franklin D. Roosevelt 

 

Quote

Prior to the fall of the USSR and the archival revelations, some historians estimated that the numbers killed by Stalin's regime were 20 million or higher.  Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

It's interesting though. Would England have been quite as expansionist? Risking a war at home and abroad with France and spain over spanish and french held territory?

Slavery would have been abolished earlier too...or never even been a big thing in British America.

Would England have been as expansionist?   Think about why they were in the 1st place, and what constrained them - from what I've read, it wasn't desire - it was manpower and resources.  If they'd had access to more of each, do you think they'd have constrained their colonial adventurism, or expanded it?    As to slavery being abolished earlier?  I don't know that that's the case, either - it was convenient for them to get rid of it at home ( still had indentured servitude, though ) and I suspect that the opposition to it during the war of 1812 was more a military tactic then a firmly held opposition to the practice.   

What the world map would have looked like is indeed an interesting academic exercise, but, I'm inclined to consider that the differences might be what you're thinking they'd have been. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Slavery was a big moneymaker. Would Britain have been opposed to it if the profits were still coming to them?

Britain was still a dominant force in the slave trade when they outlawed said trade in 1807.

w/o the American revolution it's interesting to speculate what form the French Revolution might have taken if it occurred at all.  Things might have liberalized in Europe more quickly w/o the reactionaryism to the excesses of the revolution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raz'r said:

From what I can tell, the British DID win.

Who would want this fucking place now?

I do! I'm here by choice. You can leave any time you like. 

It really must suck to be you. Stuck in a country that offers opportunity to anyone willing to take it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Slavery was a big moneymaker. Would Britain have been opposed to it if the profits were still coming to them?

Was american cotton big in 1780?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

I do! I'm here by choice. You can leave any time you like. 

It really must suck to be you. Stuck in a country that offers opportunity to anyone willing to take it. 

aye, there's the rub.:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at this the other way:

What would the Empire have looked like if America had remained?

American oak makes superior ships (old ironsides), so the british navy would have been even more unbeatable.

All the potential revolutionaries from the UK migrated to the USA to escape british rule. If they had not been able to escape british rule, they may have stayed and fought to overthrow the aristocracy like they did in France.

50/50 The british Empire would have been ruled by classic liberals, not the norman aristocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

aye, there's the rub.:rolleyes:

What rub? Do you think everything in life should be given? 

The US unlike my home country (Australia) still the land of opportunity and yes you have to work for it and claim your place. Nothing wrong with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Movable Ballast said:

What rub? Do you think everything in life should be given? 

The US unlike my home country (Australia) still the land of opportunity and yes you have to work for it and claim your place. Nothing wrong with that. 

that's better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Was american cotton big in 1780?

there was kind of a war going on then which disrupted things...   but exports picked up the next decade. useless trivia - the 2nd US consulate ever opened was in Calcutta (1792). Tobacco was the big export early on. It was the growth of the English mills and their voracious need for fiber that pushed cotton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rice was big and could not be grown without the expertise of slaves and usually a slave had real authority over the operation. Rice died after the Civil War because rice planters couldn't pay the ex-slaves enough to hang around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... A giant orthodontists waiting room.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dylan winter said:

India is quite large and we managed to control that - with the consent of  the population - for  quite along tiime. Canada was quite large - we managed to control that with the consent of the population. The canadians never had a  revolutionary war - and America was far from united in opposition to the British. I am not convinced that they would  have come back for a  second crack.

 

As for the  first and second world  wars  -  if America had been under Uk control then Britain would have had the resources of America to help fight it.  In ww2 america produced more planes, ships and tanks than the Germans could ever destroy - a liberty ship a day....astonishing productivity.

Shermans were not good tanks - but they just keep  rolling off the ships until the Germans ran out of ammo. American grasp of  logistics was astonishing.

I live in east anglia  - there are war memorials to American airmen  all over this region - wonderful young men - most younger than my son - the tour of duty  was 25 missions and they had a 10 per cent loss on most  missions. Those men knew the odds....

utterly humbling.

My dad was a artillary man at El alamein and fought his way up through Italy fighting side by side with Americans - he always held them in the highest regard. When I went to America he had a list of his former colleagues for me to visit - they treated me like I was their own son.

We Brits owe the Mercans big time.

D

You guys backed off and gave Canadians more respect so they wouldn't compare themselves to their southern neighbor.  The ingrained assumed superiority of people born on an island to the right families relaxed some.   @cmilliken I think has a point.   The British would have been distracted by their huge empire, and for various reasons were unlikely to buy property from France or Russia.   I do not see the lower American colonies being in a position to provide the industrial capacity or vast fighting force an independent America could by 1917.   The British empire may have been much larger, but far weaker then the combined British and American forces were by 1917 and especially 1944.   Southern Canada after all lagged beyond the rust belt cities of America in industrial development more then can be explained by being on the northern side of the lakes.    They lagged despite America tearing itself apart with a civil war.   They had to make do with almost entirely British immigrants.   We had the world.    Eastern Europe would have been rather different if so many high energy hard working Germans and Slavs hadn't moved to America.   Our anti immigration stance is foolish today, the achievers and risk takers leave home.  For every Trump there is an Einstein.   

If we had never rebelled our development would have been slower.   British wars of conquest might have replaced the purchases and Mexican and Spanish American wars.   The British Empire might have still gained much of the territory we ended up with, but been slower to develop it.  The Philippines would still have gone the way of India.   Canada didn't send any ships to the Falklands, the British islanders had to do the heavy lifting.   The disintegration of the empire would still have occurred, just differently.

If we rebelled and failed the punitive reprisals would have placed all the colonies under even stricter rule, with development curtailed for generations.   

@kent_island_sailorThe Royal Navy ironically was the world's social justice warrior when it came to slavery.   Maybe because they and had such a labor shortage, they realized they could treat other races just as they did British subjects (with abject contempt) and they still made fine seamen.   The British certainly did a lot to end the slave trade.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dylan winter said:

India is quite large and we managed to control that - with the consent of  the population - for  quite along tiime. Canada was quite large - we managed to control that with the consent of the population. The canadians never had a  revolutionary war - and America was far from united in opposition to the British. I am not convinced that they would  have come back for a  second crack.

 

Didn't your guys come back for another crack in 1812?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, nolatom said:

We would like our beer warm, and our women cold?

 

 

;-)

We've given up on warm beer years ago,  as for the women, we're still working on it.. :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Q said:

We've given up on warm beer years ago,  as for the women, we're still working on it.. :wub:

Cold women?   Not IMHO - most of the British women I was lucky enough to associate with when I was working over there were a ball.    I have no intimate knowledge, of course, but, I enjoyed their company.   Mebbe you should switch soap?   :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Cold women?   Not IMHO - most of the British women I was lucky enough to associate with when I was working over there were a ball.    I have no intimate knowledge, of course, but, I enjoyed their company.   Mebbe you should switch soap?   :P

The yanks, over sexed,  over paid , and over here.. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

I do! I'm here by choice. You can leave any time you like. 

It really must suck to be you. Stuck in a country that offers opportunity to anyone willing to take it. 

Unless you're poor, brown, a refugee, or ill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Q said:

The yanks, over sexed,  over paid , and over here.. 

I'll cop to being a yank - but, not a Damn Yank - I *did* go home.  In all sincerity - I really enjoyed my time in the UK.  Folks were generally quite nice and friendly, and seemed to enjoy sharing what made their place special to them.  Have a motorcycling buddy in London, and he'd lend me a bike on occasional weekends, which in late March meant for some brisk but fun exploring.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'll cop to being a yank - but, not a Damn Yank - I *did* go home.  In all sincerity - I really enjoyed my time in the UK.  Folks were generally quite nice and friendly, and seemed to enjoy sharing what made their place special to them.  Have a motorcycling buddy in London, and he'd lend me a bike on occasional weekends, which in late March meant for some brisk but fun exploring.  

Having worked with yanks in the RAF( on  NATO posting from the USAF), with civilian yanks  in Saudi,  and now in the UK for  a US company. You'll notice,  I missed out the Damn... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Unless you're poor, brown, a refugee, or ill.

Bullshit racist response.  

There are too many examples people of all colors, creeds and faiths coming to this country and succeeding through hard work. I came here with $700 to my name. 

This country offers more opportunity than anywhere else on the planet. I don't understand how you people lucky enough to be born here complain about your situation in life and how unfair the US is. 

It's not. What stupid thing to say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Unless you're poor, brown, a refugee, or ill.

Explains why border patrol is so bored down in Texas, no one is dumb enough to try and break into our racist hell-hole :rolleyes:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Why? Australia was larger, further and there were 52 nations on the goldfields. The closest we ever came to revolution was a short lived mutiny by a bunch of greedy officers (The Rum Rebellion) and a little rebellion about a mining tax. (Eureka)

I think the only difference was the way we were settled. Organised . no wild frontier stuff.

OTOH. Maybe the Brit's learned something from your revolution and trod more lightly on our necks.

But Canada was settled in much the same way as North America..multiple countries claiming bits and the occupation just as disorganized...I think. Why didn't Canadians break away? 

Australia isn't really larger in the Colonial sense, just the the geologic sense. The lack of water and inland trading essentially makes Australia a ring of islands around a dry inland ocean ... oh, and you can get coal out of that ocean instead of fish. The lack of economy and distance from Britain made Australia more dependent on colonialism, rather than less.

To answer your question, look at Haiti.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Why? Australia was larger, further and there were 52 nations on the goldfields. The closest we ever came to revolution was a short lived mutiny by a bunch of greedy officers (The Rum Rebellion) and a little rebellion about a mining tax. (Eureka)

I think the only difference was the way we were settled. Organised . no wild frontier stuff.

OTOH. Maybe the Brit's learned something from your revolution and trod more lightly on our necks.

But Canada was settled in much the same way as North America..multiple countries claiming bits and the occupation just as disorganized...I think. Why didn't Canadians break away? 

 

11 hours ago, dylan winter said:

India is quite large and we managed to control that - with the consent of  the population - for  quite along tiime. Canada was quite large - we managed to control that with the consent of the population. The canadians never had a  revolutionary war - and America was far from united in opposition to the British. I am not convinced that they would  have come back for a  second crack.

 

As for the  first and second world  wars  -  if America had been under Uk control then Britain would have had the resources of America to help fight it.  In ww2 america produced more planes, ships and tanks than the Germans could ever destroy - a liberty ship a day....astonishing productivity.

Shermans were not good tanks - but they just keep  rolling off the ships until the Germans ran out of ammo. American grasp of  logistics was astonishing.

I live in east anglia  - there are war memorials to American airmen  all over this region - wonderful young men - most younger than my son - the tour of duty  was 25 missions and they had a 10 per cent loss on most  missions. Those men knew the odds....

utterly humbling.

My dad was a artillary man at El alamein and fought his way up through Italy fighting side by side with Americans - he always held them in the highest regard. When I went to America he had a list of his former colleagues for me to visit - they treated me like I was their own son.

We Brits owe the Mercans big time.

D

 

Technology of the day compared to geography of the day.

By too close, I mean that malcontents from Europe could go back and forth to America in 6-8 weeks with decent weather.  "Transporation" and the original intent of the word and all that.  Proximity allowed people like Fredrick von Stubin to show up at a critical time.  By 'too far', I mean that by the time the shit hit the fan, the issue was already over and moving on to the NEXT issue before the King could respond to the first issue.  The crown was always playing catch up.

The India system of kingdoms with their overlaying caste system was easier to control by a small group of people from the top.  The Americans were hodge-podge of rift raft, not nearly a functioning hierarchy.  I think the reason for American success was somewhat luck. 

I also don't discount the tendency of the French to get involved.  In all deference , America doesn't win freedom without the French Navy and we were conveniently located so that the French could fight a battle and still sail home if things went badly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

Bullshit racist response.  

There are too many examples people of all colors, creeds and faiths coming to this country and succeeding through hard work. I came here with $700 to my name. 

This country offers more opportunity than anywhere else on the planet. I don't understand how you people lucky enough to be born here complain about your situation in life and how unfair the US is. 

It's not. What stupid thing to say. 

If you were trying to get in now, with your $700, the CBP and INS would laugh your ass right back to where ever it is that you slithered from, no matter how lily white you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Raz'r said:

From what I can tell, the British DID win.

Who would want this fucking place now?

Then get the fuck out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

If you were trying to get in now, with your $700, the CBP and INS would laugh your ass right back to where ever it is that you slithered from, no matter how lily white you are.

Bullshit. Cite please. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I pretty much think the plains Indians were screwed for the same reason.  They were too close to the east coast - close enough that the settlers could show up in essentially never ending waves year after year, while they were far enough away that the atrocities could get glossed over in the east coast papers because it was 'way out there' where only savages and criminals live.  Geography + technology just coincides sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Bullshit. Cite please. 

Go ahead.... Give it a try....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Bullshit. Cite please. 

 

7 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Go ahead.... Give it a try....

I'm sure that by now you've looked up that you need to have at least  (verifiable) access to 5-10K just to get a tourist visa..... So you gonna double down on your BS about arriving from "Australia" with $700 to your name? When was this, 1972?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Was american cotton big in 1780?

We were still pretty busy in that trade right up until 1833 at least and probably a few years after I’m sure. 

7 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Slavery was a big moneymaker. Would Britain have been opposed to it if the profits were still coming to them?

If it could be kept quietly offshore and out of the press??   Hell yes, of course they would. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

 

I'm sure that by now you've looked up that you need to have at least  (verifiable) access to 5-10K just to get a tourist visa..... So you gonna double down on your BS about arriving from "Australia" with $700 to your name? When was this, 1972?

My instance is immaterial to your racist statement that anyone who is colored (Brown),  poor (my situation) or a refugee has no opportunity in the US. Simply not true and a racist statement. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

Bullshit racist response.  

There are too many examples people of all colors, creeds and faiths coming to this country and succeeding through hard work. I came here with $700 to my name. 

This country offers more opportunity than anywhere else on the planet. I don't understand how you people lucky enough to be born here complain about your situation in life and how unfair the US wis. 

It's not. What stupid thing to say. 

Once this was true.   Can you defend your statement in this century?   When it comes to opportunity not related to parents’ wealth, the United States is closer to Slovenia and Chile then New Zealand or Canada.   The trope of my grandparents died with them.   

Edit.   To stay on thread, this is one thing we have in common with Formerly Great Britain, so it didn’t change because of our insurrection,  

D2A3D5C0-A25A-4AD4-AFFE-D22AAF402F66.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Successful Immigrants are a bit like ex smokers ...or vegans.  :rolleyes:

and how much is that $700 in today's terms?

My parents Came to Oz with $500 australian dollars too. all four of their kids are "wealthy" ...do I win a prize?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Movable Ballast said:

My instance is immaterial to your racist statement that anyone who is colored (Brown),  poor (my situation) or a refugee has no opportunity in the US. Simply not true and a racist statement. 

 

You are full of movable bowel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Successful Immigrants are a bit like ex smokers ...or vegans.  :rolleyes:

and how much is that $700 in today's terms?

My parents Came to Oz with $500 australian dollars too. all four of their kids are "wealthy" ...do I win a prize?

Australia in 1970 is not the USA in 2019.

 No you don't win a prize. You are the prize!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Australia in 1970 is not the USA in 2019.

 No you don't win a prize. You are the prize!

When did you arrive in the USA? You say you are poor. Would you be poor if you'd stayed in Australia?

Most immigrants that arrived in Oz from asian countries or southern Europe in the 80's now have university educated kids, own their own home ....and all of them even now have access to reasonable priced health services and education and employment. The two biggest factors for success...so why are you poor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

When did you arrive in the USA? You say you are poor. Would you be poor if you'd stayed in Australia?

Most immigrants that arrived in Oz from asian countries or southern Europe in the 80's now have university educated kids, own their own home ....and all of them even now have access to reasonable priced health services and education and employment. The two biggest factors for success...so why are you poor?

First off Mel..... I arrived in the USA on April 1, 1961, and I was not yet able to obtain a bank account, being freshly born.

 Second, I never said I was "poor".

 And thirdly, I've never even been to Australia, much less left there.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

First off Mel..... I arrived in the USA on April 1, 1961, and I was not yet able to obtain a bank account, being freshly born.

 Second, I never said I was "poor".

 And thirdly, I've never even been to Australia, much less left there.....

not you ya dill. Sorry, I thought it was Moveable Ballast I was quoting. my bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

not you ya dill. Sorry, I thought it was Moveable Ballast I was quoting. my bad.

You are forgiven!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Spin off from the History thread,

What would the USA look like today if you'd lost the war of independence?

Much smaller?

in 1783, 

Treaty of Paris, 1783

Would you be more like Canada or Australia? 

Would Australia even be part of the commonwealth..or would we be speaking french?

For that matter, what would the whole world look like?

 

French is very unlikely, Napoleon was smart enough to know France could never defend their holdings here and it was just a matter of time before they were taken away. It would have been awkward to sell it to the British but he was selling cheap, so there probably would have been a way. 

 I think under Brit management the Canadians still ran all their natives off whatever land the whites wanted, so the same thing would have happened here. I see nothing in the British character which would  have prevented this place becoming as industrialized as it could in the late 19th century, so probably about the same,  with socialized medicine and without those gawd-awful AFLAC commercials...and Bill Belichek would be coaching the "Redcoats".     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mark K said:

French is very unlikely, Napoleon was smart enough to know France could never defend their holdings here and it was just a matter of time before they were taken away. It would have been awkward to sell it to the British but he was selling cheap, so there probably would have been a way. 

 I think under Brit management the Canadians still ran all their natives off whatever land the whites wanted, so the same thing would have happened here. I see nothing in the British character which would  have prevented this place becoming as industrialized as it could in the late 19th century, so probably about the same,  with socialized medicine and without those gawd-awful AFLAC commercials...and Bill Belichek would be coaching the "Redcoats".     

and with Canada's cost of getting a degree pretty similar to Oz, and your "socialised" health care..that's two of the big factors in a countries development covered. It's ALL about health and education.

If The USA had lost the war, it's likely they would have eventually followed ALL other British dominated erstwhile colonies. I'll posit that If thery'd lost, they'd be a lot like Canada, Australia and gawd help us..NZ :D

Being a hypothetical, there's no hard evidence for this but given the character of the other 3 is remarkable similar, why not?

The character of the colonists? I don't see they were much different from them, take away their puritans and our convicts, most were simply entrepreneurial types with the guts and hardyness to survive a wilderness.No difference except the rule of law.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

and with Canada's cost of getting a degree pretty similar to Oz, and your "socialised" health care..that's two of the big factors in a countries development covered. It's ALL about health and education.

If The USA had lost the war, it's likely they would have eventually followed ALL other British dominated erstwhile colonies. I'll posit that If thery'd lost, they'd be a lot like Canada, Australia and gawd help us..NZ :D

Being a hypothetical, there's no hard evidence for this but given the character of the other 3 is remarkable similar, why not?

The character of the colonists? I don't see they were much different from them, take away their puritans and our convicts, most were simply entrepreneurial types with the guts and hardyness to survive a wilderness.No difference except the rule of law.

 

What percent of 1947 (arbitrary ending of the British empire) Australians or New Zealanders couldn’t trace their ancestry to the British Aisles?    Canada was mostly settled by Irish (before the first half became independent), overwhelming first people and French.    By contrast, Minnesota was full of Norwegians,   Ohio was full of Germans and Slavs.   The third largest German population center by 1870 was Little Germany in New York.    Now you guys are the diverse people, but at the ending of the British Empire it was us.   Surely you are seeing an impact on your society.  If we remained British, with or without slaves, and didn’t have settlers from the rest of Europe, China, then Central and South America we might have ended up like 1947 Canada.   We would also have been half empty and long dependent on foreign industry.   Canada needed tariffs to achieve its limited pre WW I industrialization.   It sure wasn’t building battleships or inventing aircraft and electrical devices.   Nor was Australia.   New Zealand was just reacting two million people in 1940.    The colonies were still somewhat backwater compared to the states and Europe.   The biggest strides came as the empire dissolved and you charted your own prosperous paths.   

You do pose an interesting question,   Did our Puritan prudish roots taint is all these centuries later?    How were they not assimilated with all the other groups?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Lark said:

What percent of 1947 (arbitrary ending of the British empire) Australians or New Zealanders couldn’t trace their ancestry to the British Aisles?  
 Canada was mostly settled by Irish (before the first half became independent), overwhelming first people and French.    By contrast, Minnesota was full of Norwegians,   Ohio was full of Germans and Slavs.   The third largest German population center by 1870 was Little Germany in New York.    Now you guys are the diverse people, but at the ending of the British Empire it was us.   Surely you are seeing an impact on your society.  If we remained British, with or without slaves, and didn’t have settlers from the rest of Europe, China, then Central and South America we might have ended up like 1947 Canada.   We would also have been half empty and long dependent on foreign industry.   Canada needed tariffs to achieve its limited pre WW I industrialization.   It sure wasn’t building battleships or inventing aircraft and electrical devices.   Nor was Australia.   New Zealand was just reacting two million people in 1940.    The colonies were still somewhat backwater compared to the states and Europe.   The biggest strides came as the empire dissolved and you charted your own prosperous paths.   

You do pose an interesting question,   Did our Puritan prudish roots taint is all these centuries later?    How were they not assimilated with all the other groups?   

Irish formed about 25 per cent of the European Australian population in the nineteenth century.[11] Germans formed the largest non-British community for most of the 19th century.

I think you might be surprised at how many australians post WW2 came from southern europe.

dunno about 1947, but 1954 only 47% of the population were from the UK

Table 2 Top 10 countries of birth, 1901, 1954, 2001 and 2016

Country Population Share (%)   Country Population Share (%)
1901 Census   1954 Census
1. United Kingdom (a) 495 504 58.1   1. United Kingdom 616 532 47.9
2. Ireland 184 085 21.6   2. Italy 119 897 9.3
3. Germany 38 352 4.5   3. Germany 65 422 5.1
4. China 29 907 3.5   4. Poland 56 594 4.4
5. New Zealand 25 788 3.0   5. Netherlands 52 035 4.0
6. Sweden/Norway 9 863 1.2   6. Ireland 47 673 3.7
7. South Sea Islands 9 128 1.1   7. New Zealand 43 350 3.4
8. British India 7 637 0.9   8. Greece 25 862 2.0
9. USA 7 448 0.9   9. Yugoslavia 22 856 1.8
10. Denmark 6 281 0.7   10. Malta 19 988 1.6
Top ten total 810 113 95.5   Top ten total 1 070 209 83.2
Other 47 463 4.5   Other 215 589 16.8
Total overseas born 852 373 100   Total overseas born 1 285 789 100.0
Total population 3,788,123     Total population 8 986 530  
% of Australian born overseas 22.6   % of Australian born overseas 14.3
             
Country Population Share (%)   Country Population Share (%)
2001 Census   2016 Census
1. United Kingdom 1 036 242 25.5   1. United Kingdom 1 087 756 17.7
2. New Zealand 355 765 8.8   2. New Zealand 518 462 8.4
3. Italy 218 718 5.4   3. China 509 558 8.3
4. Viet Nam 154 830 3.8   4. India 455 385 7.4
5. China 142 781 3.5   5. Philippines 232 391 3.8
6. Greece 116 430 2.9   6. Viet Nam 219 351 3.6
7. Germany 108 219 2.7   7. Italy 174 042 2.8
8. Philippines 103 942 2.6   8. South Africa 162 450 2.6
9. India 95 455 2.3   9. Malaysia 138 363 2.2
10. Netherlands Netherlands 83 324 2.1   10. Sri Lanka 109 850 1.8
Top ten total 2 415 706 59.4   Top ten total 3 607 608 58.7
Other 1 648 248 40.6   Other 2 542 443 41.3
Total overseas born 4 063 954 100.0   Total overseas born 6 150 051 100.0
Total population 18 769 228     Total population 23 401 891  
% of Australian born overseas 21.7   % of Australian born overseas 26.3

 

We aren't so different.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1819/Quick_Guides/PopulationStatistics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lark said:

 

You do pose an interesting question,   Did our Puritan prudish roots taint is all these centuries later?    How were they not assimilated with all the other groups?   

The USA has *never* had assimilation into a grey blob of identical people. What did happen is the hard core Puritans were such assholes that smart people and rich people bailed out of their towns for more freedom. It wasn't all that long before hard core Puritans were gone but their influence spread widely in good and bad ways. Much of what is good with the "American Work Ethic" and much of what is bad with the ongoing fear of someone having sex for fun both have become significant parts of WASP culture and thus a major influence on the country to this day.

My ancestors were part of all this and none of us are remotely like 17th century Puritans now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, you demonstrate my point.   In 1901 your immigrants were over 84% British Empire relocations and transfers.   Ireland was still British controlled.    I had actually expected it to be higher.   7500 people were from the States interestingly.    You had taken in 800,000 people but only 130,000 were not born in your empire.   Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand, etc had just achieved Dominion Status, allowing increased autonomy.

For comparison, the USA had 2.7 million German born alone in 1900 (25% of our foreign born population).    We took in as many people from Norway and Sweden as you took in, another 11% of our foreign born population.    In that year we also had a lot of British subjects, especially Irish and Canadian, but even 7000 Australians.   Our foreign born population also consisted of nearly 200,000 non Indian Asians that year.    https://www.gilderlehrman.org/content/map-foreign-born-population-united-states-1900.   We were 13% foreign born, similar to 2017.    This is why we were so slow to take sides in WW I.  

Canada had rules against accepting people outside the empire, so it only took in about 150,000 Germans over a 35 year period straddling this time period.   http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/immigration/history-ethnic-cultural/Pages/german.aspx

Your data supports my claim.    Australia became diverse as the British empire ended.   Your assimilating foreign peoples has more then caught up with ours.    Your country went from a backwater colony to its present recession resistant prosperity at the same time.   The shared values of the former recent colonies of New Zealand, Canada and Australia have yet to drift far apart.   

Our countries are still similar as well.   People are very similar, no matter what their ethnicity.   Our democracy was influenced by the Magna Carta, as well as historic British failings.    We speak similar languages.   Many of our differences relate not to different people, but different government and the corruption of money in our politics preventing us from shaking off dead weight.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy

The term White Australia policy was widely used to encapsulate a set of historical policies that aimed to forbid people of non-European ethnic origin, especially Asians (primarily Chinese) and Pacific Islanders from immigrating to Australia. Governments progressively dismantled such policies between 1949 and 1973.[3]

One of the plot points of an Australian soap opera my wife watches is the abuse of Chinese labour in the town in the 1800s and how many/most of them were sent back willing or not. Not sure how accurate it is, but it apparently resonates in Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

The USA has *never* had assimilation into a grey blob of identical people. What did happen is the hard core Puritans were such assholes that smart people and rich people bailed out of their towns for more freedom. It wasn't all that long before hard core Puritans were gone but their influence spread widely in good and bad ways. Much of what is good with the "American Work Ethic" and much of what is bad with the ongoing fear of someone having sex for fun both have become significant parts of WASP culture and thus a major influence on the country to this day.

My ancestors were part of all this and none of us are remotely like 17th century Puritans now.

I was married in a Congregational Christian Church.   The organization traces its roots to the Salem witch trials.   My experiences bias me.   

Assimilation is a questionable word choice, it makes me think of the Borg on Star Trek.    What we have is a cafeteria of many options from many cultures.   Sometimes viewpoints are similarly varied, but aside from white supremacy Protestant groups that self select for nut jobs that look similar, it is hard to match our views to our mixed ethnicity,   They more closely match income, education and population densities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this assimilation of which you speak? I think you mean multiculturalism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

What is this assimilation of which you speak? I think you mean multiculturalism.

 

Do you guys have fusion restaurants? That is getting dangerously close to assimilation.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

What is this assimilation of which you speak? I think you mean multiculturalism.

 

We have both in various degrees. I have some Irish friends - as in ancestors from Ireland at some point - that are REALLY into being Irish. I know others that are as bog-standard generic USAian as they come and have no affinity for Irish cultural tropes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean as official government policy..Assimilation V multiculturalism.

old aussie ad

 

That was an official government Ad.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lark said:

Do you guys have fusion restaurants? That is getting dangerously close to assimilation.  :D

abomination. If I want pineapple on my Pizza ...! ;D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

We have both in various degrees. I have some Irish friends - as in ancestors from Ireland at some point - that are REALLY into being Irish. I know others that are as bog-standard generic USAian as they come and have no affinity for Irish cultural tropes.

As an interesting tangent to this tangent, I heard an interview of an immigrant’s daughter, now mature, who tried to touch base with her genetic culture.    Her parents and their friends had not adapted much to America, their homes were still old country.   I think it was Asian?   She discovered her parents were a time capsule, no longer speaking like or acting like their country of today.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites