Countries That Should not be Countries? page 2

132 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Ivan62300:

This thread has gotten way out of hand. If you want to discuss secession, please do it somewhere else. This thread is not about countries that don’t exist that should exist, this thread is about countries that do exist that shouldn’t exist.

we turned a questionable topic into an interesting one. i wouldn’t complain.

i’d also argue that secession makes a country not fully exist the way it used to. so i don’t think it’s off topic anyway.

 
Flag Post

It’s his thread.

 
Flag Post

oh, right. this website uses the principle of thread-ownership. but that’s a bad format for serious discussion.

 
Flag Post

No, but it’s bad form to contradict an OP’s stated intentions for the thread. Make a secession thread if you want.

 
Flag Post

btu the only replies within his intention are one word replies. his intentions doesn’t offer any discussion, just a lifeless thread.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

btu the only replies within his intention are one word replies. his intentions doesn’t offer any discussion, just a lifeless thread.

I agree, it might as well be in off-topic if where not going to have a proper discussion about it. Though if we tried we could actually discuss the answers and that would make the threads OP viable.

 
Flag Post

I don’t like the branching off-topic, but I dislike the one-word and non-well-thought-out answers just as much. I set forth a semi-paragraphical format in which to state what and why, but they refused to follow it. If you don’t have any good response to my thread, then don’t respond at all. I’d rather have this thread die than be dishonored.

 
Flag Post

I have a friend that is from Belguim, he owns and runs a bar focused on international beer…well anyway to get to the point, he keeps telling me that his country is not a country as well, which I’ve asked him to explain…he kind of just says “It’s bullshit, just bullshit. We are not a country” – in quite a cool accent I must add.
I’m confused as to his reasonings…mostly because I don’t remember then after getting a lock in at the bar.

 
Flag Post

Ok… next… Singapore.

 
Flag Post

Before we get to Singapore…could I throw in Taiwan? I think that possilbly is a country that shouldn’t be.

 
Flag Post

United States of America

 
Flag Post

Australia… too if us of a is in…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NintenCROW:

United States of America

we were talking about countries that shouldn’t exist. there’s no such country by that name. it’s not in its base legislated as a country. it’s a sovereign territory.

 
Flag Post

Countries, sovereign territories, etc. Whatever functions as a country is game here. And would you all please stop it with the single-sentence answers. This is discussion, not Q/A.

 
Flag Post

The United States of America.

Those criminals STOLE their land from the british, french, and spanish who had stolen it from the native americans.

Its like double stealing so all americans are criminals.

 
Flag Post

Well, can we really call it stealing in many cases?
So let’s go with all the various land expansions of the US.

First came the second (possibly third) biggest land expansion of the United States. Of course, I mean the War of Independence. If it’s worth mentioning, the land the colonies were built on was also stolen from the previous civilizations that had died out or fought back against settlers with the meager portions of their populations that were left after smallpox. Wars of Independence had happened before, and it all depends on your personal opinion whether or not they are a legal way of declaring land yours. If the original thirteen colonies are not rightfully owned by the United States, then no country that has ever risen from a War of Independence can rightfully call its land its own.

Next came the flooding of Americans into the space east of the Mississippi. Some of this land was already settled by Americans, but I will agree that it was rightfully under control of the British and the various tribes living there. This is definitely a theft of land.

Second came The Louisiana Purchase. The Louisiana Purchase was a perfectly legal attainment of lands, but the lands were not truly France’s to begin with. At this time, Spain was a puppet government led under Napoleon’s brother, so the French Emperor could do as he wished with much of what was in that area. The Louisiana Purchase was an incredibly vague land sale of land that France had only minor trading posts in. Thus, France was selling land that they did not rightfully own, and not specifying what they were actually selling. On the American side, this did not lead to land theft until James K. Polk, and later the settling of the Last West. As Jefferson saw it, the US was receiving New Orleans, rights to the Mississippi River, and whatever was not currently owned by whatever other nations were out there. Until the abomination of Manifest Destiny, nothing wrong was being done.

Later came the Florida Cession, Webster-Ashburton Treaty, and the infamous Andrew Jackson Indian Policy. The Florida Cession was a rightful purchase of Florida from Spain, and Florida was actually one of the few Spanish territories that were settled peacefully. The Webster-Ashburton Treaty was actually enacted to prevent either side from stealing any land in minor border skirmishes. Finally, the Andrew Jackson Indian Policy was enacted to solidify American control of various states still majorly occupied by natives, and an attempt at mining a bunch of gold. That last one was definitely a theft of land, and so adds America’s definite land thefts up to two.

After all that came the establishment of the Oregon border, the annexation of Texas, and the Mexican Cession. The Oregon Territory was jointly occupied by American and British settlers at the time, and the agreement offered by the US was very generous. I do not believe that this could qualify as theft of land at all. Then the annexation of Texas. Depending on the way you look at Wars of Independence again, this could or could not be land theft. People in a country were being oppressed, so they declared independence, and were then absorbed by a nearby greater power. The Mexican Cession was a peace agreement for the Mexican-American War where the US payed $15 million for the pieces of land that later became those states that hate Mexicans. The War itself was provoked by Polk and was horribly unjustified. The peace agreement was incredibly kind, considering forced annexation of Mexico was an option, but that doesn’t hide the fact that the entire war was wrongfully pursued, so this is an unjustified theft of land as well.

Later came the Gadsden Purchase, where the US payed $10 million for a little tract of land for Railroad development. This was an incredibly kind offer, especially when the US could have just terrified Mexico into handing the land over. Thus, this was not a theft of land.

Then the last establishment of a permanent, solid piece of US territory is Seward’s Ice Box… Alaska. I don’t pretend to know much about what Russia had done there before, but we bought it, and it became ours. End of story.

Later came the imperialist policies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I don’t really feel like getting into that, but most of it is land theft, so just think what you want about it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Aneslayer:

Israel…

Right on.

 
Flag Post

If the original thirteen colonies are not rightfully owned by the United States, then no country that has ever risen from a War of Independence can rightfully call its land its own.

This is true. Most of Europe from Portugal to Turkey is made up of countries that used to be owned by entirely different tribes of people. Look at England: settled by the Celts (who came there and displaced an earlier civilization), conquered by the Romans, who left a few hundred years later, overrun by saxons, angles and jutes, who eventually created the first four english kingdoms, then half-conquered by the Danes, who were later driven out, then finally conquered by the Normans.

What we call ‘land theft’ is just a 20th century euphemism for something we’ve been doing for thousands of years – and probably longer.

 
Flag Post

still over half the genetic heritage of British people is from the original aborigines. displacement didn’t include nearly complete genocide and repopulation. it’s just a cultural and leadership replacement.

the difference with the USA situation is that the displaced owners are still there. the indigenous people haven’t been genetically or culturally absorbed into hybrid populations, and the previous, displaced conquerers still exist.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by LukeMann:
Originally posted by Aneslayer:

Israel…

So brave.

So true

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

still over half the genetic heritage of British people is from the original aborigines. displacement didn’t include nearly complete genocide and repopulation. it’s just a cultural and leadership replacement.

HUH? Got ANY proof to back that up? Because unless you think the ‘original inhabitants’ were saxons, it’s utter bullshit.

 
Flag Post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people#English_ethnicity

 
Flag Post

a) That’s a revisionist view that Wikipedia doesn’t actually back up. There was definitely some mixing of celt and saxon, just like there was mixing of europeans and native americans, but there’s little substantial evidence that the saxons treated the celts in the same manner that the Normans treated the saxons (ie. merely cultural assimilation instead of outright displacement).
b) The Celts weren’t the original inhabitants either. They arrived from mainland Europe.

In any case, it was just an example. You can see the same population displacement / land theft in Spain, France, Turkey, even Denmark. The difference is that it happened long enough ago that we don’t care – we can’t afford to care because so many nation-states are built on the assumption (including England) that theirs was the best of possible outcomes.

And I think that assumption isn’t far from the truth, either. The tribes of peoples that invaded and lasted, lasted because they were able to unify or assimilate the rest. There’s a reason the jutes and the Frisians don’t have much to do with England anymore, even though they were right there with the saxons…they weren’t strong enough. And it’s perhaps a good thing they weren’t or England would either resemble Bosnia / Kosovo (until recently) with its patchwork of different peoples, all fighting against each other…or it wouldn’t be England at all because a more powerful tribe (like the Danes) would have taken the advantage and conquered them.

 
Flag Post

well, what evidence is there of such displacement?

also, lets take a look at what you’re saying. the term “displacement” would literally mean relocating the natives, which most likely didn’t happen. i haven’t heard of massive slave-selling by the Anglo-Saxons to other locations, and i have no idea where these natives would have resettled. so, clearly this is simply a eufemism for genocide.

however, is this likely? or is it rather much more likely they simply killed the leaders and raped the women?

one option is very difficult and costly to pull off, and would lead to massive amount of corpses laying around that i don’t think anyone is willing to bury, so this would lead to plagues and just outright…ugh.
the other option is much easier and much more lucrative. now you have a lot of people to control, and you can keep the infrastructure (like irrigation of land and all that) working.

also, if they had opted for genocide, and then still were this succesdful at repopulating, they would have needed to have massive, massive reproduction. with whom? how many women did they take with them on their conquests?

no. this may have been the initial assumption, but i’d say the initial assumption is stupid. yes, that’s what happened in North America. however, that seems to be the exception is history. and this colonisation of the Americas was very exceptional, and the dominant genetic heritage is not the original conquerers.

the Romans assimilated. the Mongols assimilated. Carthage assimilated. Egypt assimilated. Ottomans assimilated. Napoleon assimilated. but, somehow, Saxons are just assumed to have “displaced”.

stupid. very stupid.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Aneslayer:

Israel…

Ouch. Ninja’d.