Independance Day:- A Black Day for Brits?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Millane
JD i think its better if i pm you because this thread will just get closed otherwise....

Don't bother if you can't say anytning constructive other than to say how "intolerable" you find Americans and stuff.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Baby-K
How exactly? Didn't do much for us - we still fought 2 bloody wars (ever heard of the Anglo-Boer wars?)....

Oh, good point. I'm sorry, I forgot all about that. My appologies, Baby-K. I'd like to know more about S.A.'s independence. Would you post it?

Originally posted by Coney
I've never met a Brit who cared one way or the other

Me neither, but I guess we were both wrong. And I've never really cared about any Brittish holidays either, whatever they may be. It could be because my heritage does not lie there, though I don't know any Americans that care either. But my family always carried on French traditions and French-Canadian traditions as well.

Originally posted by Radagast
And yet it is an honour to serve her.

That's interesting that you say this. I've met a few Brits here and most will openly tell me that they are disgusted (their word not mine) that part of their taxes go to support the Queen and her lazy, priviledged family (again, their words not mine). Why do you feel it an honor to serve someone because of what family they were born into?

[Radagast]

Originally posted by Ruinel

That's interesting that you say this. I've met a few Brits here and most will openly tell me that they are disgusted (their word not mine) that part of their taxes go to support the Queen and her lazy, priviledged family (again, their words not mine). Why do you feel it an honor to serve someone because of what family they were born into?

Oh yes? Part of their taxes, eh? It costs the average British family 1p a week to support all the Royal Family and their variously affiliated nobles. That works out at less than a cent (don't know the exchange rate) per head of British population.

Why do I feel it is an honour? Because I think that the Monarchy are so inexplicably a part of our heritage- they represent everything that is continual, unchanging in British life. Will all this modern hustle and bustle, we still have a monarch, just as we did, say, 600 years ago. Isn't that something special?

I feel almost a sense of wonder and awe at the splendour of a coronation for example. Have you never heard a particularly stirring patriotic song and felt a prickling of pride that yes, this is my country. It's almost the same thing.

I hope I have been enlightening. I know that sometimes the concept of a priveliged nobility and royalty can sometimes be hard for Americans to justify to themselves (correct me if I'm wrong).

But...then again, I am an absurdly sentimental old hat.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Radagast
Oh yes? Part of their taxes, eh? It costs the average British family 1p a week to support all the Royal Family and their variously affiliated nobles. That works out at less than a cent (don't know the exchange rate) per head of British population.

Don't you feel that this money could be used better? Seems such a waste of tax payers money, is all I'm saying. There are so many that go hungry everyday in this world and to put it into the pocket of a figure head, is just... wasteful, IMO.

Why do I feel it is an honour? Because I think that the Monarchy are so inexplicably a part of our heritage- they represent everything that is continual, unchanging in British life. Will all this modern hustle and bustle, we still have a monarch, just as we did, say, 600 years ago. Isn't that something special?

hmmm... no, actually I think if the shoe were on the other foot and it was the US that had a monarch I'd be embarrassed to pieces, humiliated, really. I admire the Russians and the French that made their decision quite final, not that I admire the methods that they used. But perhaps that was the only way for them to go. Otherwise, their monarchy would have tried to weasle back into power as yours did many, many years ago.

I hope I have been enlightening. I know that sometimes the concept of a priveliged nobility and royalty can sometimes be hard for Americans to justify to themselves (correct me if I'm wrong).
But...then again, I am an absurdly sentimental old hat.

I think you are right, it is a concept quite foreign to us, at least to me. Though, Americans can be quite sentimental and patriotic also, as well as defensive of our beloved country. *eyes a certain NJ'an who shall remain nameless *

[Hemel]

I'm a Brit (English, actually ) and I think it's great too that we have a monarch. I'm not that impressed by some of the queen's children but I do believe that the queen herself genuinely tries to fulfil the responsibilities of her role. Also I believe that her work and those of other members of the family, is very important in terms of ambassadorship and also maybe too in terms of generating trade.

I've met Prince Charles, btw, and ever since I've been a great fan of his ...

[Radagast]

You met Prince Charles? Wow, that is impressive. I met the Queen once, when my father recieved his credentials as an Ambassador.

[jerseydevil]

I for one like the British having a monarchy. I think it would be terrible if it went away. I however am glad that the US doesn't and that we broke away.

I don't like the "class system" of Britain - and it still exists to some extent - all though it is a lot better than it was.

Originally posted by Ruinel
hmmm... no, actually I think if the shoe were on the other foot and it was the US that had a monarch I'd be embarrassed to pieces, humiliated, really. I admire the Russians and the French that made their decision quite final, not that I admire the methods that they used. But perhaps that was the only way for them to go.

The way the french and russians dealt with their situation was terrible. The US REFUSED to help France in their revolution because of the senseless bloodshed of the whole thing.

As for Russia - that was a tragedy. You should read Nicholas and Alexandra. I also have The Last Tsar: The Life and Death of Nicholas II

Otherwise, their monarchy would have tried to weasle back into power as yours did many, many years ago.

English Monarchy didn't "weasle back" - they were returned to power. I also don't think it is necessary to kill the King and Queen the way Russia did or France - especially Russia. If you read the books I recommended - I can guarantee you will not be so fligant about killing them off like you are.

I think you are right, it is a concept quite foreign to us, at least to me. Though, Americans can be quite sentimental and patriotic also, as well as defensive of our beloved country. *eyes a certain NJ'an who shall remain nameless *

It's not foreign to me about the British who like the monarchy or their heritage and traditions. What is foreign to me is when people have no sense of country or don't care about their country or don't even know anything about their country - yet complain. That to me is like not caring about your home, your family, your town.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The way the french and russians dealt with their situation was terrible. The US REFUSED to help France in their revolution because of the senseless bloodshed of the whole thing.

damn... I am a misunderstood Elf.
I said not that I admire the methods that they used. Sheesh! I'm only saying that perhaps it was the only way to go. Monarchs dead = no future problems. Again, not that I approve of what happened. I'm just saying.

English Monarchy didn't "weasle back" - they were returned to power.

If the monarchs had not been killed in France and Russia, it would have given them another option when things went wrong at the birth of their new nation. And instead, they grew from that. Even after their first mistakes, they didn't faulter back upon a Monarchy again, they pushed forward and adjusted.

EDIT: ok, it's been pointed out to me by JD that I really shouldn't criticize England for their choice to keep a monarchy. So, I appologize to all the Brits if I offended anyone.

[Radagast]

Originally posted by Ruinel
:
EDIT: ok, it's been pointed out to me by JD that I really shouldn't criticize England for their choice to keep a monarchy. So, I appologize to all the Brits if I offended anyone.

I enjoy the debate, and although I am a staunch Royalist, no offence taken.

[GrayMouser]

A few random comments:

from JD

I just said that I didn't want to be like Australia, Canada, or New Zealand and the many other commonwealth countries which only have partial independence.

NOT Canada, since 1982, anyway.

From Ruinel

Millane, the United States of America is not in any way shape or form controlled by the Brits. And we do not pay them taxes. However, I know that Canada (not sure about Australia and NZ) pay taxes to the Queen. Why do they tollerate it? I have no idea.

We do? We pay her expenses when she visits, and some traditional tribute in the form of furs (STILL cannot track this down); we certainly don't pay any taxes to Britain.

We tolerate it because she is the Queen of Canada, and our head of state- why do you tolerate paying for Air Force One?

From Radagast

Speaking as a U.K. subject [or citizen, whatever floats your boat ] and a great patriot at that, I am forced to concede that the British Empire, in any way shape, form or fashion, no longer exists.

Really? Tell that to Argentina...

From JD

No - Britain had no intention of sending criminals to America. America was mostly founded by religious people escaping persecution - such as the Pilgrims and Calvanists, Quakers, etc.

Partly founded- a lot of people were just looking for a better life, esp. in the Middle colonies and the South.

However, the American colonies were used as a dumping ground for British prisons. The Australian penal colony at Botany Bay was established for precisely that reason, as an alternative after the War of Independence.

From Baby-K

How exactly? Didn't do much for us - we still fought 2 bloody wars (ever heard of the Anglo-Boer wars?). Guess it's just all the mampoer all the old 'toppies' were drinking that made them wanna fight fight fight

A little different- the Boers were regarded as a conquered people who hadn't been assimilated into the Empire yet.

Once they had been thoroughly beaten, burned out, and starved to death in concentration camps to teach them the benefits of Imperial rule, the self-determination process could begin to unfold.



From Ruinel

EDIT: ok, it's been pointed out to me by JD that I really shouldn't criticize England for their choice to keep a monarchy. So, I appologize to all the Brits if I offended anyone.

Nonsense- of course you should criticize them, and us Canadians, and the Aussies, Kiwis, Japanese, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, Danes, Saudi Arabians, Spaniards etc.- the idea of a hereditary monarchy is a barbarous relic that should be relegated to the trash heap of history.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
We tolerate it because she is the Queen of Canada, and our head of state- why do you tolerate paying for Air Force One?

You're comparing Air Force One with the Queen? You obviously have NO IDEA what Air Force One is. Air Force One is a 747 that the president travels in and conducts business. It is like saying - how can Americans tolerate the oval Office. Your statement makes NO senses.

Also - the only reason it is called Air Force One - is because the plane is handled by the Air Force. When the President flies on a Marine aircraft it is called Marine One, when he flies on a Navy aircraft it is known as Navy One, etc. This is because of an indident which happened in the 60's when there were two planes coming in for a landing with the same call numbers - one being the plane the president was traveling on. After that - any plane that the president rides on changes it's name to ????? One so there is no confustion that it is the presidents plane and he is on board. If the president isn't on board - then it just goes by it's call numbers.

It used to be that each president got a new plane - this is not the case. Air Force One is no different than the White House. What do you expect - the president of the US to fly commercial? Wouldn't terrorists love that one.

Partly founded- a lot of people were just looking for a better life, esp. in the Middle colonies and the South.

I agree they were looking for a better life. Not necessarily in the south though. Most people traveled to New England or the Middle Colonies. The south was not that populated - except by slaves.

However, the American colonies were used as a dumping ground for British prisons. The Australian penal colony at Botany Bay was established for precisely that reason, as an alternative after the War of Independence.

Can you please provide evidence of this? Especially since there were very few jails and low crime and poverty in colonial America. It had never been reported by eye-witnesses from England that America was a dumping ground for criminals. Also - don't you think with the MANY complaints the colonists had with Britain that was put into the Declaration of Independence - that being used as a dumping ground for British criminals would have been near the the top of the list?

Nonsense- of course you should criticize them, and us Canadians, and the Aussies, Kiwis, Japanese, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, Danes, Saudi Arabians, Spaniards etc.- the idea of a hereditary monarchy is a barbarous relic that should be relegated to the trash heap of history.

I was saying that if England is happy with their monarchy - what business is it of an outsiders. I don't care that Britain has a monarch and I however think it would be a great lose if they lost the monarchy. And what makes the Monarchy a "barbarous relic"? It seems like when the royal family visits Canada there is a HUGE celebration and everything. Your country seemed to have no problems in celebrating her birthday and the 50th anniversary of her coronation.

The Monarchy does a lot more for Britain than it does to hurt it. Britain would suffer tourism dollars without the monarchy. One of the reasons many Americans and many other people around the world go to Britain is to see Buckingham Palace - hoping the Queens flag will be flying indicating she is at the palace or going to Windsor Castle. As for what the Monarchy does for Canada, etc - it does nothing. Except obviously gets free trips around the world.

Also - my complaint with what ruinel was saying - was that she had not studied the Romanov's and tragic deaths. Nor does she know British history. It's the same complaint I have when outsiders criticise America without them even studying our history or understanding our government. I did not however tell her to apologise or anything. i just pointed out to her that she was in no position to really JUDGE Britain on whether they have a monarchy or not - anymore than it is an outsiders busines of whether we have national health care, "the right to bear arms" or the death penalty.

As for Canada - whether you have the monarchy is also your business, yet you are NOT entirely free of Britain. If you were you would NOT have the queen on your money - you would NOT be paying for her expenses when she visits. We don't pay for the Queens visits or any of the royal familys or foreign dignataries. You can not say that you are fully independent and then say the Queen is the Head of State or that she is YOUR Queen. Either you are fully seperated and independent with NO ties to Britain or you are not.

If you want to be considered a fully independent country - then BECOME a fully independent country with NO ties to the British Crown. This goes for New Zealand, Australia and all the other countries tied to Britain.

[jerseydevil]

By the way - here is additional information on airforce one...

Mission
The mission of the VC-25A aircraft -- Air Force One -- is to provide air transport for the president of the United States.

Features
The presidential air transport fleet consists of two specially configured Boeing 747-200B's -- tail numbers 28000 and 29000 -- with the Air Force designation VC-25A. When the president is aboard either aircraft, or any Air Force aircraft, the radio call sign is "Air Force One."

MORE...

AIR FORCE ONE

In 1944 President Franklin D. Roosevelt called for the creation of the Presidential Pilot Office's to provide air transportation to the President and his staff.

For most of the next 20 years, various four-engine propeller-driven aircraft were used for presidential air travel.

In 1962, the first jet aircraft, a Boeing 707, was purchased for use as Air Force One.
MORE...

Air Force One is a prominent symbol of the United States in general and the office of the presidency in particular. Whenever the president travels overseas or across the country, he takes his high-tech deluxe jumbo jet with him. On September 11th, the president's plane showed that it was much more than an executive jet -- it became a mobile bunker when all ground positions seemed vulnerable to attack.

In this edition of HowStuffWorks, we'll see what sets Air Force One apart from other planes, and we'll find out what it takes to send the president around the world. With all of the things that Air Force One carries, it's no wonder the media calls it the "flying White House."

What is Air Force One?
Most people have a general idea that the president's plane is a flying office with all sorts of high-tech equipment. But there are two essential facts about Air Force One that the general public isn't aware of.

1. "Air Force One" isn't technically a plane: It's simply the radio call name for any U.S. Air Force plane carrying the president of the United States. As soon as the president steps aboard an Air Force plane, that plane is referred to as Air Force One by the crew and all air traffic controllers, in order to avoid confusion with any other planes in the area. If the president rides on an Army aircraft, that aircraft is Army One, and whenever he boards his specialized helicopter, that craft is Marine One. Civilians generally refer to the physical plane itself as Air Force One, of course, and we will in this article too.

....
Special features
.....
The plane has a lot of technology in its onboard medical facility. The medical room has an extensive pharmacy, loads of emergency room equipment and even a fold-out operating table. ...a staff doctor, who travels with the president wherever he goes. ...

...The plane also has its own baggage-loader. With these additions, the plane never has to depend on an airport's facilities, which could be a security risk.

...The phone system is set up for normal air to ground connections and secure lines. The president and his staff can reach just about anybody in the world while cruising tens of thousands of feet in the air.

The onboard electronics include about 238 miles of wiring... Heavy shielding is tough enough to protect the wiring and crucial electronics from the electromagnetic pulse associated with a nuclear blast.

...in-flight refueling gives Air Force One the ability to stay up in the air indefinitely, which could be crucial in an emergency situation.

...it's advanced avionics and defenses -- are classified....the two planes are definitely military aircraft, designed to withstand an air attack...the plane is outfitted with electronic counter measures (ECM) to jam enemy radar. ..can also eject flares to throw heat-seeking missiles off course.

MORE...

National Geographic - Air Force One

Overall I think it is much better that the President of the United States of America has his OWN plane - just like he has his OWN cars, and doesn't get his security detail from "Security-R-Us". So to answer your question - YES I think that the expense of Air Force One is worth the protection of the head of our government (as well as what many refer to as the Leader of the Free World).

Graymouser - do you REALLY think the US President should fly commercial? Also - when you made your statement comparing the Queen to Air Force One - did you know ANYTHING about Air Force One and it's function and role?

By the way - Air Force One comes out of the military budget.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Radagast
I enjoy the debate, and although I am a staunch Royalist, no offence taken.

Ok, I'm glad.

Originally posted by Gray Mouser
We do (pay taxes to the Queen)? We pay her expenses when she visits, and some traditional tribute in the form of furs (STILL cannot track this down); we certainly don't pay any taxes to Britain.

Sorry, this is just what I was told by my relatives in Canada.

(I think JD answered the Air Force One question - damn, JD, your posts are getting longer and longer.... sheesh! .)

Nonsense- of course you should criticize them, and us Canadians, and the Aussies, Kiwis, Japanese, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, Danes, Saudi Arabians, Spaniards etc.- the idea of a hereditary monarchy is a barbarous relic that should be relegated to the trash heap of history.

Yes, I understand and agree, but I was pretty much shamed into apologizing. Really, I can not post here, putting down someone else's country if I do not live there and experience what it is like. Just like I would not want others to put down the US without living here and really knowing my country. And JD was right, I was wrong to say those things.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
(I think JD answered the Air Force One question - damn, JD, your posts are getting longer and longer.... sheesh! .)

They were longer a year ago during the height of the anti-americanism.

Yes, I understand and agree, but I was pretty much shamed into apologizing.

It was YOUR decision to apologise. I just stated to you that you couldn't judge them having a monarchy since you don't live there. I'm not going to judge them for having a monarchy or not having one. However - as I stated - I think it would be a terrible loss to Britain to not have the Monarchy.

I will say I would not like for the US to be like a country nor for me to even live in a country because of certain things they do- but those are the decisions of those countries and really doesn't concern me too much unless I actually live there. I like the fact that the US does NOT have a monarchy - but it is up to Sweden, Japan, Britain, etc - what they do. Hopefully they won't go the route of bringing them to a room in a basement, executing them in front of a fire squad and then pouring acid on them.

The Last Imperial Family of Russia

The day is July 17th...
The year is 1918...
The place is a big house surrounded by a tall wooden fence, on the town of Yekaterinburg, in the middle of Siberia.
The hour is about midnight.

A family of father, mother and five children, along with three servants and a doctor, are suddenly awakened and told to get dressed. Then, they are led through the house to a small basement and aligned against a wall. They were told they were going to be photographed, for the welfare of family and friends. Instead, a bearded man enters the room together with some soldiers, takes a small paper in his hand and with the reading of a few cold phrases, he condemnes these eleven people to death.

The execution begins. Minutes later, the guns have made their job and eleven people, full of life minutes earlier, laided dead by the floor on a pool of blood. The bodies are taken outside the house and put on the back of a truck.

Following orders from the same bearded man, the truck sets voyage outside town and into the forest. First, the bodies are thrown inside an abandoned mine shaft but, with fear of undesirable discovery, the bodies are taken deeper inside the woods and buried in a simple and shallow mass grave, where every evidence of the burial site is concealed by all means, with the intention of never again to be found.

A family was cowardly massacred, without help, warning or trial.

This family was the Romanov family, the last ruling Imperial Family of Russia. The father was the last Tsar, Nicholas II, the mother was his wife, Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna, and finally their children: the daughters, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia, and the son, Tsarevitch Alexis.

The Tsarevitch Alexis was the youngest - 14 years old - murdered at the hands of Lenin. As I said - 70 years of represive communism reigned over Russia from that moment.

I seriously doubt if Britain decided to get rid of the Monarchy - that they would perform the same heinous acts as France and Russia.

Really, I can not post here, putting down someone else's country if I do not live there and experience what it is like. Just like I would not want others to put down the US without living here and really knowing my country. And JD was right, I was wrong to say those things.

I just didn't like the flippant way you were basically saying "off with their heads and make it permanent so there is no weasling back in".

I studied the last ruling family - Nicholas Romanov and the whole situation is tragic. In some respects hemophilia is what brought down the Russian monarchy. I'm not saying the monarchy of the czars was good BEFORE Nicholas - but I do think that Nicholas wanted to be an understanding ruler and be fair.

What Russia ended up with after the death of the royal family was about 70 years of Communism and poverty. Far more poverty than was suffered under the royal family not to mention the wholesale slaughter under Stalin.

If you don't want to read the book of Nicholas and Alexandra you can always get the movie. The book is obviously better though - but the movie does follow the book very closely.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It was YOUR decision to apologise. I just stated to you that you couldn't judge them having a monarchy since you don't live there. I'm not going to judge them for having a monarchy or not having one.

Ok, before this gets out of hand. Here's what I meant to say... is that JD and I discussed my post, he pointed out a few things, and I was pretty ashamed at what I posted. It was unfair of me to judge another country's ways and government. After all, I do not live there, I've never even visited England. So, really, I have no right to criticize. Hope this clears things up.

[Baby-K]

OK, brief history of SA (for Ruinel, Ru - I'll do a bit more detail on the independence etc if you like at a later stage, just very busy right now)

1488 - Portuguese sailors are first to set foot upon SA soil
1652 - First formal settlement in SA (Jan van Riebeeck) when the Dutch East India Co decided to use the Cape of Good Hope as a provision station en route between the East & West.
Ensuing decades French Huguenots, Dutch and German people settle in the Cape to form the basis of what is known as the Afrikaner nation today.
1779 - Establishment has reached up to the Great Fish River & first frontier wars are fought between the Dutch & Xhosa people.
At the end of the 18th century the British gained control of the Cape (Cape to Cairo dream of British rule) & their rule was the start of a long & bitter strife between Afrikaners & English.
1836 - Beginning of the 'Groot Trek' (Great Trek) where Afrikaners decided to move North due to British rule & the abolition of slavery (the slaves were mostly Cape Malays who worked on the wine farms & Kompanjie estates)
The Trek brought the Boers into conflict with African groups in the area (notably the Zulus under rule of Shaka who in his time had ensured that the Zulus rule most of the now KwaZulu Natal area, from the Drakensberg [midlands] to the coast).
1828 - Shaka is assasinated & replaced by his half brother Dingane.
1838 - Dec 16 Battle of Blood River where 464 Boers under Andries Pretorius defeated a Zulu army of more than 10 000 warriors (ultimate defeat of Dingane, however the Zulus remained a powerful force who defeated the British in the historic battle of Isandhlwana before finally being conquered in 1879)
1852 & 1854 - Independent Boer Republics of Transvaal (ZAR - Zuid Afrikaanse Republic) and Orange Free State are created - relations with British Government is strained.
1870 - Discovery of diamons in Kimberley (bit of trivia re a SA diamond in British Crown Jewels)

The Cullinan

The icy blue-white Cullinan diamond is both the largest gem-quality diamond ever discovered, and also the purest of the large diamonds. In the rough, it weighed a whopping 3 106 carats, equivalent to 0.6 kg, and measured 11 cm by 6 cm. It was found in 1905 at the Premier mines in South Africa by a labourer, who pointed it out to Frederick Wells, a mine superintendent. Wells was awarded £2 000 for his find, then named after the mine's owner, Sir Thomas Cullinan.

The Transvaal Government bought the diamond for £150 000, and presented it to King Edward VII on his 66th birthday in November 1907. The diamond rough -- insured for £750 000 -- sent to Asscher Brothers in Amsterdam to be cut (they had successfully cut the Excelsior, previously the largest diamond). The huge uncut stone was studied for months.

On February 10, 1908, Mr. Asscher stuck the steel cleaver«s blade to make the first cut. The blade broke -- while the diamond remained intact. On the second attempt, it split exactly as planned. It was reported that after the second cut, Mr. Asscher fainted. Further cuts produced three principal parts, and these in turn were cut into 9 major gems, 96 smaller brilliants, and 9.5 carats of unpolished pieces.

The Cullinan I -- a pear-shaped stone of 530.2 carats -- was the largest gem produced from the rough, and is the world's largest cut diamond. The Cullinan I -- renamed the 'Great Star of Africa' by King Edward, is now in the head of the royal scepter in the British crown jewels. The second largest cut diamond, the Cullinan II, is a cushion-shaped stone weighing 317.4 carats, and is set in the British crown.

There are seven other major stones in the British royal collection. During the Second World War, the collection was placed in jam jars and buried in a potato field near Windsor Castle, while the crown jewels were placed in old hat boxes and hidden in a secret passage in the castle. They are all currently on display at the Tower of London.

1886 - Discovery of gold in Witwatersrand area (Johannesburg area in Transvaal republic) (South Africa remains the world's largest gold producer followed by Australia, USA, Canada & Indonesia)
The discovery of the above lead to an influx of foreign (mostly British) settlers and migrant black workers from rural areas & countries like Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe & Zambia respectively to the South & North), Mozambique and Swaziland etc.

[Baby-K]

*A side note - while the Free State & Transvaal had proclaimed themselves independent republics the Cape & Natal colonies were firmly under British rule & the Brits were making no secret of it that they would not rest until the whole of SA [and in fact the whole Africa] was under their rule. This caused a lot of tension in the 'republics', especially with the number of British settling in the mining areas - because they had so much money they were able to buy a lot of the rich mnes, which made the boers resent them as they felt that they were being 'bought out' of their own land*

1880 - 1881 - Transvaal war of Independence fought between Boers (of Transvaal with volunteers from Free State) & Brits First Boer War 1880 -1881

1899 - 1902 - Second Boer War (during this war the British used larger forces & employed devious & undermining tactics, such as a burnt earth policy [burning down Boer farms to ensure that they'd have no provisions & thereby 'starving' the Boer Forces] and also concentration camps, where they effectively killed more than 26 000 Boer women and children and more than 14 000 natives). The British claimed that mismanagement caused the deaths of the people & not intentional genocide, however their 'mismanagement' included things like not feeding the children, letting sick people go without food, sanitized water and medical attention, as well as leaving the women & children to sleep in freezing cold with little or no shelter to speak of). It is rather ironic that British rulers so conveniently forgot about their own concentration camp policies when condemning Hitler for his practices not so long after, during WWII. The following countries were involved in the 2nd Anglo Boer War : England, with Australia, Canada, India and New Zeeland against the Boer republics (note that no governments officially supported the Boer cause, but the individuals from the following countries formed part of the Foreign Volunteer Units) German Commando, Dutch Corps, Irish Brigade, American Scouts, Russian Corps and Austrian Unit of Scouts) (British & Imperial forces totalled roughly 450 000 according to reports)Second Boer War

After the Second Boer War the British, with their larger army finally succeeded in incorporting the two Boer republics into the British Empire.

1910 - The four provinces of SA (Cape, Natal, OFS & Transvaal) are bound as one self-governing union / dominion of British empire. All power centered in hands of whites.
1912 - SA Native National council formed in Bloemfontein (now known as ANC) - fighting for freedom of black people.
1948 - NP (national Party) won the all-white election & passed laws to enfore & strengthen white oppression of black people. (birth of 'aparteheid regime')
1960's - uprisings, Sharpville etc - ANC & PAC banned, Nelson mandela & other declared communists & enemies of the state. Convicted of treason & sent to Robben Island Max Security prsion.
1961 - May - SA relinquishes dominion status & declares itself a Republic, free of British influence. Withdraws from Commonwealth.
1984 - Colourds (in SA people of mixed heritage are known as colourd) and Asians are given limited power in government decisions.
1990 - President FW de Klerk (of NP) declares unbanning of ANC & PAC - Nelson Mandela released from prison two weeks later.
1991 - Group Areas Act (last pillars of Apartheid) abolished.
1993 - New constitution
1994 - First democratic elections in SA - ANC voted into power & Nelson Mandela president.

Graymouser:

A little different- the Boers were regarded as a conquered people who hadn't been assimilated into the Empire yet.

Once they had been thoroughly beaten, burned out, and starved to death in concentration camps to teach them the benefits of Imperial rule, the self-determination process could begin to unfold.

Not really - the British took control of the Cape thereby putting the Boers under their rule. The Great Trek was a peaceful movement to get away from British rule. The First Boer War was fought after the British annexed the Transvaal (mostly due to the riches of gold) to get out from under British opression and the second war was fought basically because Britain wanted to regain power.

[Sween]

You us Brits have done some pretty s***y things down the years

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You're comparing Air Force One with the Queen? You obviously have NO IDEA what Air Force One is. Air Force One is a 747 that the president travels in and conducts business. It is like saying - how can Americans tolerate the oval Office. Your statement makes NO senses.

.

No, Air Force One is much bigger, somewhat heavier, and much more airworthy. I'm fully aware what Air Force One is (but thanks for the pretty picture). I also already knew what Marine One is, too.

It's admittedly difficult to find an exact counterpart because, unlike most countries, the US does not have separate heads of state and government.

Air Force One is a prominent symbol of the United States in general and the office of the presidency in particular. Whenever the president travels overseas or across the country, he takes his high-tech deluxe jumbo jet with him. On September 11th, the president's plane showed that it was much more than an executive jet -- it became a mobile bunker when all ground positions seemed vulnerable to attack.

"Air Force One is a prominent symbol ..." : in this sense, the symbol is that of head of state, and by paying for it, the US taxpayers are doing exactly the same as the Canadians do when they pay for the Queen's transportation.

The other function, that of keeping the President in contact with the rest of the government relates to his functions as head of government- as when Canadians pay for the expenses of their Prime Minister.

Here's a better example- when the US President appears at a state ceremonial function (welcoming an ambassador, honouring a citizen, dedicating a national park etc. etc.), and the voters pay for it, that is the same as Canadians paying for the Queen's visits.

The Monarchy does a lot more for Britain than it does to hurt it. Britain would suffer tourism dollars without the monarchy. One of the reasons many Americans and many other people around the world go to Britain is to see Buckingham Palace - hoping the Queens flag will be flying indicating she is at the palace or going to Windsor Castle. As for what the Monarchy does for Canada, etc - it does nothing. Except obviously gets free trips around the world.

As I've posted before, have you ever been to Victoria, B.C.? It's simply one of the more extreme examples of Canadian tourist spots playing up the Royal connection to suck out tourist dollars from American and Japanese visitors- there are plenty of other examples in Ontario and the Maritimes. We get much more out of this than it costs for the odd Royal visit.

[Baby-K]

Originally posted by Sween
You us Brits have done some pretty s***y things down the years

You've done some pretty amazing things too, besides I think the British rule as in many cases added distinction to nationalities. Besides, if it eren't Britain it could have been any other nation that annexed colonies - like Kaizer Wilhelm I of Germany who was a great threat to Britain & a big factor in their race to own the earth.