SHERWICK Posted May 27, 2011 Author Share Posted May 27, 2011 The remoteness is irrelevent to the principals. If remoteness is irrelevent, what about prior ownership? Anyway, the whole thing is a mess and I can't see any solution to it ever (unless religious goes away some time in the distant future). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 The remoteness is irrelevent to the principals. There are no principles because it'a all a fantasy. Principles can only apply to real people in the real world. Not to imaginary lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 If remoteness is irrelevent, what about prior ownership? Anyway, the whole thing is a mess and I can't see any solution to it ever (unless religious goes away some time in the distant future). Prior ownership is irrelevent too. Why should where my great grandfather lived and did make any difference to where I live or do? Arguments about prior ownership really boil down to accident of birth, and therefore don't make any more sense than the aristocracy claiming that they are fundamentally superior and more deserving. You're spot on about the mess though. As long as there's religion people will treat these things as absolutes, and as long as you get conflicting absolutes you can't have a solution. There are no principles because it'a all a fantasy. Principles can only apply to real people in the real world. Not to imaginary lines. It's not all a fantasy because real people live in the real world in real places, and some of them have kicked others out so that they can live there. Where some other people happen to have drawn some wriggly lines on a map doesn't change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profitofdoom Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 The remoteness is irrelevent to the principals. But we ceded back places such as Rhodesia,Kenya etc but not,for example The Channel Islands. Now whatever political stance you take they must be seen geographically as part of France as is Gibraltar part of Spain.It's rather like France owning the Isle of Wight. So if Germany had conquered Britain in 1940 we would be about to give up on kicking them out because the youngest invaders would be in their 90's and on the verge of no longer existing? Somehow I think not.English patriots would be blowing uo German barracks and setting off bombs in Berlin shopping malls at Christmas and being treated as we did the IRA forty years ago. And to a large proportion of us they would be heroes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted May 27, 2011 Author Share Posted May 27, 2011 [The remoteness is irrelevent to the principals. But we ceded back places such as Rhodesia,Kenya etc but not,for example The Channel Islands. Now whatever political stance you take they must be seen geographically as part of France as is Gibraltar part of Spain.It's rather like France owning the Isle of Wight. So if Germany had conquered Britain in 1940 we would be about to give up on kicking them out because the youngest invaders would be in their 90's and on the verge of no longer existing? Somehow I think not.English patriots would be blowing uo German barracks and setting off bombs in Berlin shopping malls at Christmas and being treated as we did the IRA forty years ago. And to a large proportion of us they would be heroes. But time does matter, otherwise we'd be kicking the French out now for what they did in 1066. Also, our Royal Family is German - they should be kicked out too if time didn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Bear Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 But time does matter, otherwise we'd be kicking the French out now for what they did in 1066. Also, our Royal Family is German - they should be kicked out too if time didn't matter. Don't forget Calais belongs to England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 But we ceded back places such as Rhodesia,Kenya etc but not,for example The Channel Islands. Now whatever political stance you take they must be seen geographically as part of France as is Gibraltar part of Spain.It's rather like France owning the Isle of Wight. We presumably ceded them back because the people living there wanted to run their own affairs. Fair enough. The Channel Islands are independent anyway, just represented by the UK internationally (I think). So if Germany had conquered Britain in 1940 we would be about to give up on kicking them out because the youngest invaders would be in their 90's and on the verge of no longer existing? Somehow I think not.English patriots would be blowing uo German barracks and setting off bombs in Berlin shopping malls at Christmas and being treated as we did the IRA forty years ago. The people living in the country should be the ones who determine how it's run. If the Germans had conquered Britain but the people living here now didn't want to be run by Germany they shouldn't be run by Germany, but there's no justification whatsoever to follow that up by arbitrarily kicking some people out and not others simply based on who their parents happened to be. That's no different from the ridiculous concept of artistocratic privelege. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracle Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Good point. In fact, what if WW2 had happened in 1066? Or what if Germany originally 'had' England in 2000 BC, left it, then 'stole' it back in 1066? well they sort of had it in about 800AD and then the french pinched it off of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.