Empire, Imperialism and other geo-political naughtiness

Surprised to hear that law is taken that easily in the Netherlands. I know that in England and much of Latin America that law is very selective and usually only the best get to do law.
 
Heh, we don't call it law either, we call it "rights". We're very Dutch.
There's more than one level of this, though, and we do have tougher Law studies than "Rights", but most people just do Rights, and the other ones aren't taken that seriously either.

I know this Brazilian guy, he was very proud of going to Law School, so I laughed at him.

I think of all Dutch studies the hardest are Technical Science and Technical Chemistry (both in Delft, a university world-renowned for it's quality in both these subjects). The most pointless would be Historical Anthropology (in Amsterdam)
 
You insensitive fellow.

Actually in Brazil everyone has to take an exam called the restibula (or something) which basically says where you can go for college.

Law is up there with medicine as top fields for study.
 
Actually I would like to hear your thoughts about the idea of communities built over the internet, and if we are changing, through globalization, to a system in which nations don't matter as much as networks of communication.

In a strange way, what you have here is an example of that community. We have people sharing ideas, in someways influencing each others opinions, as well as exchanging notes on technical issues of some sophistication.
 
Relatively old thread, but it was one of my favorites, so I'll reply now.

1) Kharn, what are you studying(If anything)....

2) No relation of "rechten"(Translation: rights) with "Jura"(Which is originally Latin(I think, and if so, probably from the Greeks before that(Romans were copying people, unimaginative ;)), not German.

3) There is an international community forming, and it's forming with mainly the younger people, the young will own the world, so I'd say that this is probably a prelude of what will happen later on. If the current trend continues, governments will be forced to be more open, and allow more liberties to the people, due to the extensive exchange of information over the internet. China, North-Korea and other isolationist countries will eventually come out of their isolation and accept these new ways of communications, or they will probably die out. Countries will also get more and more critique on what they are doing, this is, for instance, evident in the heavy critique on recent wars, due to the accessiblilty of information , everyone is able to have an informed opinion, and people will criticise governments more than they did in the past. This will probably force governments to be more and more moderate to partially satisfy people.
However, all of the previous things are assuming that countries will remain to exist the way they are existing today.
In the far future, I think that there will eventually be two possibilities, the first being (partial) world destruction, a lot of counties are arming themselves with nuclear weapons, and other devices of mass destruction, and that will probably not stop unless those weapons are used to destroy, or everyone disarms them at the same time(Or if a good defense is in existance). Because every country who wants to be a world-power will need nuclear weapons for means of intimidation(And defense), and every country already a world power will need them to counter the possible threat of the other countries, disarming will probably not happen, and eventually, some lunatic will get a access to a nuclear device, and use it, I don't know when, but it's, my firm belief that it will happen.
The final possibility that MAY happen SOME day is that the entire world will fall under one government, but I seriously doubt that this will happen in the foreseeable future. People like their own countries too much, culture is still in the way(Even though the internet and other means are slowly tearing down boundaries), language barriers and differences in opinion, as well as the difficulty of establishing priorities(Will we help the poor parts, shall we do something about diseases, shall we smack down on rebellions(Another problem), will we enrich the rich parts, will we choose communism, socialism, democracy or whatnot?). It is improbable that that will happen.
Generally, I am pessimistic about the future of the current human race, and I think that there is a circle that will repeat itself, the survivors will go back to a very low level of technology, they will grow, get into wars, fight amongst eachother, go further in technological advances, and will probably come to the same point where we are now.

EDIT: The more abstract products(Music, movies, books etc.) will have to go through a major market change because of file-sharing, and the availability of it. I think it's a good thing, prices will probably drop, and agreements with file-sharing and downloading services will have to be made if the companies realise that file-sharing isn't a menace, but a potential source of profit.
 
Sander said:
1) Kharn, what are you studying(If anything)....
Click to expand...

Nothing yet. I'm taking a break between High School and University. Like I said a million times, probably gonna work in Cuba for a bit.

I have no idea what I WILL study. I had a very board profile on High School (N&T and N&G both, plus History-II), meaning I can study anything from Sociology to Technical Science...
 
I think Sander raises some interesting ideas (and this thread is not THAT old) but I want to raise an issue coming off the Iraq- North Korea discussion.

Is the world likely to be a better place with a France led EU countering US power? SHould France lead the EU and if not, what can be done? WHat about other powers- China, Japan?

Frankly, I am a bit worried. While the US's history is not without its big mistakes or general flaws, I can't say that a world order led by the same folks who gave us Imperialism Inc. is such a great idea. Let's be honest, a lot of the problems of the Third World today are partially traceable to the consequences of European colonialism.

(and before the Euros get pissy- yes the US had its colonies and yes, the US did its share of whoop ass on its spread Westward.)
 
The way I can currently see the EU is more a general governing board, however, the EU is slowly getting more power and I think that we will eventually go towards a state/government way like the USA has now, we're not quite there yet. Also, I think that France/GB/Germany are attributing most power to themselves, however, the forming of this will probably go different from the forming of previous unions.
IN any case, the attribution of power to the "greater" powers is being heavily protested against by the smaller powers(INcluding our small country), so I think that there will be different arrangements in the end. Although I'm not certain.
 
welsh said:
Is the world likely to be a better place with a France led EU countering US power? SHould France lead the EU and if not, what can be done? WHat about other powers- China, Japan?
Click to expand...

EU isn't led by France, it's led by Germany and France.It WOULD also be led by the UK, but they're too attached to America to be important in the EU. If Russia joins, they'd be important too.

Also, you know I believe strongly in the quick fall of the Western culture, so I don't think the EU will be that significant, even if it does hold together.

Frankly, I am a bit worried. While the US's history is not without its big mistakes or general flaws, I can't say that a world order led by the same folks who gave us Imperialism Inc. is such a great idea. Let's be honest, a lot of the problems of the Third World today are partially traceable to the consequences of European colonialism.
Click to expand...

This is rediculous. You shouldn't judge France by their past acts. That'd be like condemning Germany for fascism, Russians for communism or Americans for...being Americans.

Seriously, you should look at how France/the EU is acting NOW, not how it was acting.

PS: Sander, we're not officially "small". We're "middle-sized". Luxembourg is small.
 
No, luxembourg is minute. We are small :P

We have three times as many inhabitants as Norway, though.

Western culture fall=I agree.
 
Kharn said:
EU isn't led by France, it's led by Germany and France.It WOULD also be led by the UK, but they're too attached to America to be important in the EU. If Russia joins, they'd be important too.
Click to expand...

Great sounds like a bunch of fat cats deciding what they should do with the smaller ones. Split up the spoils for themselves and if so, what proportion each gets.

Also, you know I believe strongly in the quick fall of the Western culture, so I don't think the EU will be that significant, even if it does hold together.
Click to expand...

And that's the big problem isn't it. What if the EU doesn't hold together. Twice in once century world wars have begun out of power imbalances in Europe.

This is rediculous. You shouldn't judge France by their past acts. That'd be like condemning Germany for fascism, Russians for communism or Americans for...being Americans.
PS: Sander, we're not officially "small". We're "middle-sized". Luxembourg is small.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But I think if you look at the more recent record of French relationships in Africa, one might find that things have not changed that signficantly.

I think it was fairly recent that Chirac went to Africa and told some folks there, "Well you're not really ready for democracy yet."

The types of agreements that France signed with many of its former colonies reflect many of the same issues that Ancient pointed out. Foreign policy driven by profit. Now while the US isn't immune from that, I think you got to wonder about a country that will blow up a boat full of environmental activists because they are making you nuclear tests in the South Pacific a bit more difficult. I also vagually recall Chirac not being too receptive when folks out that way thought that maybe his atmospheric tests were not such a good idea.
 
Fat cats: That's what it is. BUT the new and old smaller countries aren't taking it, and ARE opposing it, pretty heavily as well. Most countries, besides UK, France and Germany want equal votes for every country, non-inhabitant/size related.
 
welsh said:
Great sounds like a bunch of fat cats deciding what they should do with the smaller ones. Split up the spoils for themselves and if so, what proportion each gets.
Click to expand...

And so the situations lies. Maybe it'll change when the constitution is made, probably not.

And that's the big problem isn't it. What if the EU doesn't hold together. Twice in once century world wars have begun out of power imbalances in Europe.
Click to expand...

Yip, and we might have a third one on our hands then, with Russia on the French/German side and the US on the UK side. Bye-bye, world.

However, I don't think it'll come to that (though they said the same thing before WW 1 AND 2). Even if war breaks out, it'll just be civil war and not anybody else's business...

Fair enough. But I think if you look at the more recent record of French relationships in Africa, one might find that things have not changed that signficantly.

I think it was fairly recent that Chirac went to Africa and told some folks there, "Well you're not really ready for democracy yet."

The types of agreements that France signed with many of its former colonies reflect many of the same issues that Ancient pointed out. Foreign policy driven by profit. Now while the US isn't immune from that, I think you got to wonder about a country that will blow up a boat full of environmental activists because they are making you nuclear tests in the South Pacific a bit more difficult. I also vagually recall Chirac not being too receptive when folks out that way thought that maybe his atmospheric tests were not such a good idea.
Click to expand...

Well we're kind of talking Chirac here.

As mentioned before, Chirac is a first-class a-hole. I don't know if you followed the last French elections, but because of the flaws in their system, they had to choose between Chirac and a fascist. If this weren't so, Chirac definitely wouldn't have become Prez again...But believe me, the other choice was worse.

Chirac'll hopefully be gone before the events we're speaking of. Also, Schroder isn't that bad, and Blair is a lying twit and a lap-dog, but otherwise ok. Berlusconi, meanwhile, is a real frikkin' a-hole...If Russia joins...well, Poetin is alright.
 
The creation of the EU will take a generation, and by then your descendants would have gotten to their senses and realized that giving up the idea of the nation state is idiotic, particularly the most diverse area on the planet.
Putin is a fascist who never gave up the KGB ways. His movements away from democracy are intolerable.
Blair is my idol. A leftist with a neo-con strain. Yummy. I would not really call him a lap-dog either, if he was he would be a Torri.
 
I think that the problem for the EU is actually one of identity.

Do Europeans define them selves as Euros or on their national identity? The Economist used to make some rather bold arguments that Europe was in fact a head of the US in this issue of identity and interests. Essentially while the US was still a modern state, Europe was going through a post-modern period, in which individual identities transcended borders.

Pretty bold stuff. The history of the US political order is one in which the notion of state sovereignty has generally given way to federal sovereignty, but the notion of federalism is firmly engrained in the Constitution. Where 150 years ago, a fellow from Virginia might identify himself as a Virginian first, an American second, now that order is switched. Most would probably label themselves Americans and then Virginians. Much of this also is a consequence of the rather free movement of labor within the US.

THis actually ties in with the discussion on constructed identities earlier.

Key thing here though, if the Europeans define themselves as Europeans first and then Italians, Dutch, Germans, French, Hungarians, or whatever second, then you might be at a point where power imbalances don't lead to the kind of contentious politics of the last century, but more peaceful constitutional crises of a more stable order.

But that won't mean that civil wars will not occur.
 
That argument has it's truth, and it's odd points. In 1780, America was for the most part a nation state, with similar culture across all the states. While true that a Northerner had more in common with a Canadian in most repsects than with a Georgian, one could walk North to South and still be speaking the same langauge. And by the time America became a multicultural society with the annexation of the West, Europe was in no condition to be called in a "post-modern condition". Le Doctrine, the Jacobians and other groups had taken Europe back a good few hundred years. Look at Russia. The Peterian period was long over, and the Tsars where clearly becoming Right Wing Nationalists, as well as the Prussians.
So, that period of the Enlightenment only lasted from about 1750-1794. Timeframe sound familiar?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top