Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Onasander · 41-45, M
It's part of the legacy of Richard Hakylut. He was the most important philosopher in the last 500 years. It was his idea for England to found a imperial empire like the Portugese and Spanish did, and he argued it on the basis of England's medieval experience of constantly being invaded and colonized itself. At first the invasions suck, but after a while people settle down and new concepts and cultural ideals spread and everyone benefits in a stronger commonwealth, once the nation is unified.
You got in this period the Virginia Colony and East Indian Colony established within 6 years of each other. The United States of America wouldn't exist without him, nor a Republic of India (Hindus and Muslims were having a eternal tit for tat, hard to say which dynasty and religion would have sway over the indian subcontinent right now, other than it being fragmented and bloody).
This ideology of conservative looking back at a earlier pluralism was never forgotten, but the lure for riches and empire in emulation of Spain and Portugual wasn't forgotten either and the two ideals clashed up to the present. His ideals were pretty much rehashed by a 20th ce tury and philosopher from South Africa, who was also Prime Minister (of South Africa) Jan Smuts, who started off as a Boer Rebel and switched sides. He was for a long time a racist but then broke rank with his past with his philosophy of Holism, which put effort into making a place for everyone and making the priorities of a unified pan empire paramount, not some caste, race, nationality or local interest group.
In the English language, we usually dodge conflict, adopt aboriginal place names for centuries, idealize the noble savage in lampoons and menippean satire as better than us, and try to find compromise when conflict arises, or allies when we face overwhelming odds (most rural, isloated forts had autonomous networks to other forts who provided mutual aid without imperial imput).
In the modern english speaking world, where english is the majority language, we all have a slightly different take on how this multiculturalism vs state rights and coercive force works. Everyone thinks their system is best (especially delusional Canadians). Countries with some English have worst issues, like South Africa where everyone speaks a bunch of languages, or India where the bulk of the people barely sleak english and have endless militant insurgencies going on all over the place.
English sleaking lands put a high value on getting to know one another and getting along. Not always historically (slaves in American south), but in general this gets resolved. The US has done quite well, and the English Commonwealth has actually expanded since the collapse of the British Empire into formally French and Portugese speaking lands because they see the benefits of English and the coordination in trade and defense the thinking in the language promotes.
Other language groups, especially with the redent collaose of the francophone world the last few years, shows a very different outlook on how the French mindset should think. It was Universal France first. Didn't really work in exploited former colonies. They left en masse and joined Russia.
So the nebulous, dodgy behavior of English in seeming to have no identifiable, consistent emotion is more by design. It was set in motion from the start. It created bith really good and really bad things, but more good than bad. It forces people to exchange ideas, blame, incentives change and social contact between opposing groups, encouraging them to get along. It's not a surprise the commonlaw system with juries co-evolved with it (UK itself if moving away from the Jury system in pace with the disintergration of the UK).
You got in this period the Virginia Colony and East Indian Colony established within 6 years of each other. The United States of America wouldn't exist without him, nor a Republic of India (Hindus and Muslims were having a eternal tit for tat, hard to say which dynasty and religion would have sway over the indian subcontinent right now, other than it being fragmented and bloody).
This ideology of conservative looking back at a earlier pluralism was never forgotten, but the lure for riches and empire in emulation of Spain and Portugual wasn't forgotten either and the two ideals clashed up to the present. His ideals were pretty much rehashed by a 20th ce tury and philosopher from South Africa, who was also Prime Minister (of South Africa) Jan Smuts, who started off as a Boer Rebel and switched sides. He was for a long time a racist but then broke rank with his past with his philosophy of Holism, which put effort into making a place for everyone and making the priorities of a unified pan empire paramount, not some caste, race, nationality or local interest group.
In the English language, we usually dodge conflict, adopt aboriginal place names for centuries, idealize the noble savage in lampoons and menippean satire as better than us, and try to find compromise when conflict arises, or allies when we face overwhelming odds (most rural, isloated forts had autonomous networks to other forts who provided mutual aid without imperial imput).
In the modern english speaking world, where english is the majority language, we all have a slightly different take on how this multiculturalism vs state rights and coercive force works. Everyone thinks their system is best (especially delusional Canadians). Countries with some English have worst issues, like South Africa where everyone speaks a bunch of languages, or India where the bulk of the people barely sleak english and have endless militant insurgencies going on all over the place.
English sleaking lands put a high value on getting to know one another and getting along. Not always historically (slaves in American south), but in general this gets resolved. The US has done quite well, and the English Commonwealth has actually expanded since the collapse of the British Empire into formally French and Portugese speaking lands because they see the benefits of English and the coordination in trade and defense the thinking in the language promotes.
Other language groups, especially with the redent collaose of the francophone world the last few years, shows a very different outlook on how the French mindset should think. It was Universal France first. Didn't really work in exploited former colonies. They left en masse and joined Russia.
So the nebulous, dodgy behavior of English in seeming to have no identifiable, consistent emotion is more by design. It was set in motion from the start. It created bith really good and really bad things, but more good than bad. It forces people to exchange ideas, blame, incentives change and social contact between opposing groups, encouraging them to get along. It's not a surprise the commonlaw system with juries co-evolved with it (UK itself if moving away from the Jury system in pace with the disintergration of the UK).
rinkydinkydoink · M
We're a very cold species. Trying to understand us would be an exercise in futility.
🤣
🤣
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment