- This topic has 7 voices and 46 replies.
-
Posts
-
The book is quite different in many ways. So too is Wicked (the book by Macguire) but good and gave me a new apprciation for the little green gal. 😉
Agreed with WallyI'd would say since the Acts of Union in 1707 which joined the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland into the Kingdom of Great Britain. Even if the quest for new territories started long time before when King Henry VII commissioned John Cabot to lead a voyage to discover a route to Asia via the North Atlantic in 1496.At least, once united, no internal threat would endanger their expansion.
If the kingdoms were united what other kingdoms did they rule over thus fulfilling the idea that they were an Empire sans Emperor?
No need to have an Emperor to rule an Empire. Empire is closely related to Imperialism : "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." France had an emperor once but its imperialism lasted more than Napoleon himself.A question of semantic ?
.... Empire is closely related to Imperialism : "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." France had an emperor once but its imperialism lasted more than Napoleon himself.A question of semantic ?
Agreed.
Do you go along with the theory that the book was an allegory about the gold standard?
Never heard that one... but no.
No need to have an Emperor to rule an Empire. Empire is closely related to Imperialism : "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." France had an emperor once but its imperialism lasted more than Napoleon himself.A question of semantic ?Perhaps it is one use as a noun another as an adjective ORThe fact that the word has varied defininitions.So then the USA is an Empire?
No need to have an Emperor to rule an Empire. Empire is closely related to Imperialism : "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." France had an emperor once but its imperialism lasted more than Napoleon himself.A question of semantic ?Perhaps it is one use as a noun another as an adjective ORThe fact that the word has varied defininitions.So then the USA is an Empire?
Yes it is.Does it have to do about ethics ?
Yes it is.Does it have to do about ethics ?
Or wishful thinking (on my part) as I believe that even though most folks were caught up in the Manifest Destiny idea it was not so much the Imperialistic mode, for most, as the shinning city on the hill mentality.
Or wishful thinking (on my part) as I believe that even though most folks were caught up in the Manifest Destiny idea it was not so much the Imperialistic mode, for most, as the shinning city on the hill mentality.I agree that "some" might have been so inclined, but I have perhaps a less optimistic view of human naturewhich is based both on experience as well as lots of reading. John Calvin and the Catholic church both got it right in my opinion--we are essentially not good people--back to the killer ape idea where the Id rules.
So is there an actual answer to this trivia question about the beginning of the British Empire? Or are you just going to leave us all hanging? (or did I just miss it? 😮 )
No hard date but sometime around the end of the 16th century when England essentially ran the Portuguese out of India and got serious about planting overseas colonies or trading enterprises. I would date it to the reign of Elizabeth I. It is not as if one day England was not an imperial power and the next day was. It was kind of a gradual thing, like the sunrise.
