I can deduce what you understand by the way in which you are writing. It seems to me that you view history through a very narrow and not very accurate lens. First, to conceive of either the US or the ROI as "former British areas" is problematic. For instance, I live in a state, Florida, that was under British rule for only 10 short years, but was Spanish for several hundred prior to that. Much of the US was never British legally or culturally. Lots of it was Mexico! The relationship between the ROI and the British state is much easier to discuss than the relationship between that territory and its culture, as I'm sure you know. Just because it was owned by the British doesn't make it British.
The fact is, things are NOT black and white. Maps are constructions, but they do not reflect reality. I don't think sovereign Native American territories should be left off our maps either. Cornwall was actually demarcated as a separate nation on British maps until the Tudor era and it even had its own native legal system until the 19th century.
And the history is not irrelevant in Cornwall, or anywhere else in Europe where nationalist/regionalist/separatist movements are happening. It is a response to long, long periods of social, political and economic marginalism, frequently rooted in cultural difference and territorial integrity (both of which Cornwall has). In my view, the reductions you make for your convenience do very little to educate people about the nature of modern Europe, and that is a problem.
I lived in Boston, which is a very ex-British area. cf "The British Are Coming!" (or the regulars are coming or whatever he actually said). Both that area and the ROI are areas formally controlled by the British, which is what I said. I'm also aware of how much of California was taken from Mexico, for example. Really don't need a geography lesson.
Not every complication and aspect of history can be represented in a snapshot of the current state of any part of the world, otherwise maps would be so full of information that is no help whatsoever to be utterly useless.
We obviously don't agree, we're obviously not going to agree. Ergo, continuing this conversation is pointless. Have a nice life.
Boston, yeah, of course, but that's really a very small part of our country. And it wasn't just California... Everything you say reinforces my point about your blinkered perspectives, but obviously you have your own reasons for not wanting to consider different perspectives, and it's not like I haven't run into them before.
And I will have a nice life, thanks. I do, in fact!
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-15 04:44 pm (UTC)The fact is, things are NOT black and white. Maps are constructions, but they do not reflect reality. I don't think sovereign Native American territories should be left off our maps either. Cornwall was actually demarcated as a separate nation on British maps until the Tudor era and it even had its own native legal system until the 19th century.
And the history is not irrelevant in Cornwall, or anywhere else in Europe where nationalist/regionalist/separatist movements are happening. It is a response to long, long periods of social, political and economic marginalism, frequently rooted in cultural difference and territorial integrity (both of which Cornwall has). In my view, the reductions you make for your convenience do very little to educate people about the nature of modern Europe, and that is a problem.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-15 06:18 pm (UTC)Not every complication and aspect of history can be represented in a snapshot of the current state of any part of the world, otherwise maps would be so full of information that is no help whatsoever to be utterly useless.
We obviously don't agree, we're obviously not going to agree. Ergo, continuing this conversation is pointless. Have a nice life.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-15 06:26 pm (UTC)And I will have a nice life, thanks. I do, in fact!
Kernow Bys Vykken.