Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 108 posts

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#91

Post by squiggleblaz »

jariel wrote: post #39

The article was somewhat misrepresentative of the real nature of the Union proposal, in that it was by far mostly a French initiative, motivated by wartime/panic diplomacy geared to keep some French forces in the fight. I'm an English Canadian living in Quebec, who has lived in France and the UK ... and the very name 'Franco-British Union' has to make any reasonable person laugh out loud ... Right from the outset, th…

Well, the administrative regions we have are mostly the result of a previous invasion. And the cultural regions are based on the movement of people permitted by the previous invasions, and the requirements of the current invaders. France is a unified whole mostly as a fiction. Sometimes those fictions come apart at the seams - as in Scotland and Catalonia. Other times, an alternative administration can really smooth things out - as in contemporary China, France and Germany (deliberately subdivided to prevent the seams from ripping by building patches rather than merely stitching things together).

Britain-France would've had lots of scope. Past monarchs, local loyalties, language differences. If the administration wanted to, they could've succeeded.

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#92

Post by squiggleblaz »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #50
ngcc_hk wrote: post #10

[flagged]

I don't agree with you, but this is the core of Brexit. Brexit is all about English (not British) nationalism.

It's true! After recent events, it seems that everyone from those islands who "corrected" the rest of us for calling their country "England" needs to eat their hat. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is really just England and colonies. Calling them England is a more accurate result for everyone than calling them the Eucay.

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#93

Post by squiggleblaz »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #49
peteretep wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The UK is a country full of hatred, racism and xenophobia Sure. But where else have you lived? I'd argue the UK both has a terrible problem with racism and xenophobia, but is also one of the least racist and xenophobic countries in the world. Both the Chancellor and the Mayor of London are brown men with Muslim roots, we had a Jewish prime minister in the 1800s, nearly 15% of the population were born abroad, and Lo…

totally agree Australia is ashamed of how racist it is. SE Asia is blatantly racist and sees nothing wrong with that. The USA isn't racist per se - it's just that race is a major factor in everything. the UK is pretty non-racist as countries go.

> The USA isn't racist per se - it's just that race is a major factor in everything.

Doesn't that make it racist per se? I mean if the only way you're going to hear your accent and see faces like yours on tv is to listen to separately maintained tv channels, then you have apartheid, defacto or otherwise. If you have congressional divisions deliberately drawn to ensure that a person of a certain race has a viable chance of getting elected, you have a dejure apartheid. The moment you have "separate but equal", you have racism. If Americans were interested in fair equal representation for all American citizens, they could do it. But they refuse. Because racism is a big factor in everything.

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#94

Post by marcus_holmes »

squiggleblaz wrote: post #92
marcus_holmes wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with you, but this is the core of Brexit. Brexit is all about English (not British) nationalism.

It's true! After recent events, it seems that everyone from those islands who "corrected" the rest of us for calling their country "England" needs to eat their hat. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is really just England and colonies. Calling them England is a more accurate result for everyone than calling them the Eucay.

um, no. Scotland is a separate country, only merged into the UK by a coincidence of royal lineage.

And you could try persuading a Welshman that Wales has been part of England for almost a thousand years now, so can they please give up any pretence at being a separate country? but you won't get far.

But England dreamed of Empire and submerged itself into Britain completely. In the wake of Scottish and Welsh nationalism and independence votes, England is emerging again. And if England isn't going to be part of its own Empire, then its not going to be part of anyone else's either.

Brexit is all about English nationalism (not British nationalism, because that's dying - except in Northern Ireland).

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#95

Post by ClumsyPilot »

Merrill wrote: post #54
seisvelas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sincere question here - was it really that lucky? Other colonies that didn't separate seem to have a similar (occasionally even higher) standard of living than the US. Were a lot of really good things caused by the independence of the US? Just off hand, it seems like slavery likely would have ended much sooner and the rise of fascism in Europe could have been greatly abated with a non-independent US. Of course, it's…

The US would not have developed as fast if it had continued to be a British colony. A major cause of the War of Independence was that when Britain took control of the Ohio after the French and Indian War, the crown claimed the right to all negotiations with the Indian tribes and prevented the colonists from buying and/or seizing Indian land in the Ohio River Valley. Recall that Washington had been to the headwaters o…

Seems to indicate the native Indians would have had suffered much less? Maybe it would be less developed, but I am getting the impression the US history would have less suffering?

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#96

Post by ClumsyPilot »

philwelch wrote: post #90
seisvelas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sincere question here - was it really that lucky? Other colonies that didn't separate seem to have a similar (occasionally even higher) standard of living than the US. Were a lot of really good things caused by the independence of the US? Just off hand, it seems like slavery likely would have ended much sooner and the rise of fascism in Europe could have been greatly abated with a non-independent US. Of course, it's…

Britain was only as eager to renounce slavery because they had no colonies that profited from it after American independence. Also, the rise of fascism in Europe was abated pretty effectively with an independent US anyway.

> "was abated pretty effectively"

Ah yes, all of Europe occupied by fascists and a war with 60 million dead, nothing to worry about.

Do you also consider the black plague "a minor public health issue, promptly addressed?"

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#97

Post by mcv »

learc83 wrote: post #60
joaksl wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's even more recent than the norman french from a 1000 years ago. The standard english accent ( King's English ) was intentionally "effeminized" to mimic the french language in the 1800s ( when french was viewed as lingua franca and "cultured"). It's one of the reasons why Standard American accent and Standard British accent diverged. The standard american accent was the way the brits used to speak.

The "Standard American accent" is just vaguely midwestern, and it's not how the British used to speak. There is some support for it being closer than some modern British accents, e.g., they are both rhotic.

I would expect accents from New England to be closest to the original British accent, with more western accents being more strongly influenced by the many other cultures that came to the US.

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#98

Post by Merrill »

sbmthakur wrote: post #86
seisvelas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sincere question here - was it really that lucky? Other colonies that didn't separate seem to have a similar (occasionally even higher) standard of living than the US. Were a lot of really good things caused by the independence of the US? Just off hand, it seems like slavery likely would have ended much sooner and the rise of fascism in Europe could have been greatly abated with a non-independent US. Of course, it's…

Have a look at British rule in India. You will understand the full horrors of colonialism.

One of the reasons the British decided to cut their losses in America was that they had more important opportunities in India, where they were consolidating power after their victory over the French at Plassey.

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#99

Post by mcv »

squiggleblaz wrote: post #87
peteretep wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more interesting transformation is William of Orange leading "the Dutch invasion of Great Britain" vs "The Glorious Revolution" as we now call it.

Well I mean, it's some invasion when it starts because Parliament sends you a letter saying "Hey come invade us, and we'll give you the crown". I mean, who's in charge? Is a country just its prince?

From the Dutch perspective, it doesn't exactly feel like we invaded and conquered England. It was more like our Stadhouder emigrating to another country.

The big victory over England that we remember was the victory at Chatham[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_the_Medway

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#100

Post by ClumsyPilot »

jcranmer wrote: post #72
ShinTakuya wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but I think that's a flippant and lazy reply. The reality is that no other major power had a navy that could rival Britain and France. The Dutch and Spanish might have still helped America, but without French opposition the British navy would have wiped them out.

Foreign and military policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. You can't just wave a wand, change one thing, and expect most of history to play out the same. Navies are big, expensive things to build and maintain, and as such, they are usually designed and planned around various assumptions of potential future war scenarios. Were Britain and France friendly, or even in a union such as the Angevin Empire, their resulting navy…

France and British alliance would be less dominant than NATO, which is >80% of the global military spending. https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2019/02/european....

Also, the original question was specific - was France the only credible major power to assist US? It is silly to answer it by speculating backwards, about events that may or may not have happened centuries prior to it.

Post reply on HN