g_bambino Posted July 3, 2011 Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 We are most certainly not a kingdom. Not only was it rejected by Colonial Office, but parliament is the ultimate authority in Canada. The Queen doesn't even select the Governor General any more. Putting aside the inherently stupid comment about the Queen and the governor general, answer this question: what is the noun used to refer to a country headed by a king or queen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Putting aside the inherently stupid comment about the Queen and the governor general, answer this question: what is the noun used to refer to a country headed by a king or queen? Putting aside your arrogance for a minute, if that's possible, maybe you should go back and re-read what I wrote about the authority of that king or queen to head our country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 The words though, do have a slightly different connotation, I think you'd agree. a dominion seems to be less independent than a kingdom. A dominion is simply an area under someone or something's rule. Canada's remaining dependence on the UK in 1867 may have factored into the decision to reject Macdonald's "kingdom" in favour of "dominion", but I've not heard or read anything mentioning it. Still, it isn't a synonym for "colony", as cybercoma said; in fact, the Fathers of Confederation and the officials in the Foreign and Colonial Office in London at least agreed on the need for a term that expressed the fact that confederated Canada was not just another British colony, it was more. Hence, when other colonies achieved the level of indepenence from Britain that Canada did in 1867, they too came to be known as dominions. It was an elevated status within the Empire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Putting aside your arrogance for a minute, if that's possible, maybe you should go back and re-read what I wrote about the authority of that king or queen to head our country. Can you answer the question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 If the Queen ever exercised authority in Canada, you would see quickly that we are absolutely not a kingdom. The ensuing constitutional crisis would ensue would lead to the Queen being told where to go, demonstrating once and for all the supremacy of the elected Parliament. Seriously, what do you think a kingdom is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Can you answer the question? I already answered your question in the post you were replying to: The Governor General [and therefore the Queen] ... is nothing more than a symbolic formality. If you want to consider Canada a kingdom, then it's a kingdom in the remotest sense imaginable. It's a kingdom with an impotent monarch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 I already answered your question in the post you were replying to: What I responded to (and I made it quite clear) were your words: We are most certainly not a kingdom. There are no degrees of "kingdomhood"; a country either is or isn't a kingdom. As Canada is a fully independent state with a monarch at its head, Canada is, by the very definition of the word, a kingdom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Then again the Governor General is the head of state and he or she, although taking the place of the King or Queen, is appointed by the Prime Minister through Parliament. Moreover, the GG's authority is symbolic only because a Constitutional crisis would ensue if he or she overruled our democratically elected institutions. So, like I said, if we are a kingdom, it is in the remotest sense possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Then again the Governor General is the head of state and he or she, although taking the place of the King or Queen, is appointed by the Prime Minister through Parliament. Moreover, the GG's authority is symbolic only because a Constitutional crisis would ensue if he or she overruled our democratically elected institutions. So, like I said, if we are a kingdom, it is in the remotest sense possible. The Queen is the head of state and is represented by the governor general, who is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the prime minister, with no direct parliamentary involvement. The Queen is constitutionally vested with all executive authority in Canada and lends that power to her cabinet of ministers drawn mostly from the elected House of Commons. That power can be legally withdrawn by the Queen, or her appointed representative, if the advice tendered by the ministers is illegal or threatens the continuity and stability of government. Again, there is no "remote sense" of a kingdom; a kingdom is "a state or government having a king or queen as its head".[1] Canada is a state with a queen at its head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 A symbolic head. We are in no way ruled by a King or Queen, so I think it's fair to say that we are only a kingdom in the remotest sense of the word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 A symbolic head. We are in no way ruled by a King or Queen, so I think it's fair to say that we are only a kingdom in the remotest sense of the word. A legal head. The Queen is the government. There is no such thing as a "remote sense" of a kingdom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 And i'm the ignorant one?Glad you asked. The British destroyed the native traditional political institutions of the people they colonized, & the Brits & the West have tried to impose western liberal democratic political systems that are incompatible with the cultures and political traditions of the native groups, not to mention being unworkable with the economic conditions and weak governance systems left in place. Careful. You are romanticizing tribal systems whose great contribution to the world was brutal inter-tribal warfare, and pirate and other raids on shipping and land couriers of the West. Many of these cultures that you are glorifying were remarkably unproductive. European empires, including the British, ruled via dictatorship/authoritarianism within many former colonies in order to control them, enforced through military coercion. Is it any wonder that so many former colonies are now ruled via dictators and authoritarian regimes often run by the military? This is the type of political system that European empires taught their subjects, not 'democratic parliamentary' systems. It is what many former colonies lived under for a long time, about the only thing they knew/know.Do you think the British invented such tactics. Perhaps these cultures themselves were retrograde and violent.This is certainly not the entire reason for political failure in former colonies, as it is a highly complex issue, and they themselves share some blame of course.We aree here. What exactly constitutes a 'reasonably good start' to you? Stealing their natural resources? Stealing their ancient artifacts? Destroying their pre-colonial cultures and traditional societies? Enslaving many millions of their strongest male workers? Pitting imagined 'ethnic groups' against each other through 'divide & rule' tactics? etc... You also realize that most of these "countries" didn't even exist in the first place until the Brits and other European empires carved them up into artificial borders without their input? The U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand and even Ireland made good use of their British heritage. To a lesser extent so did India. I suspect the tribal underpinnings were too strong elsewhere for a better result.A few words about the distinction between U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand on one hand and most of the African and Asian colonies on the other. The people on the merged land masses of Africa, Asia and Europe all had some immunity to smallpox, bubonic plague and other diseases so the arrival of Europeans did not have a drastic impact on native population numbers. The European militaries butchered only so many people. In the Americas and Australia the story was drastically different. When Ponce de Leon hit the Florida beaches in the 1500's he didn't travel far. His pigs did. By the time the Aztecs were faced by the Spaniards at Tenotichlan there numbers were decimated. One book I read by Mann, 1491 and other scientists upon whom his work was based estimates that between 90 and 98% of the natives fell to smallpox and other diseases without a shot being fired. Thus, subject to intra-European wars in the Americas, their conquest by Europeans was easy and thorough. More on this here, since I thought it deserved its own thread (link). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 And the name of the United States is the United States, not the Republic of the United States. Does that mean they're not a republic? No. It's the United States of America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 ...A few words about the distinction between U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand on one hand and most of the African and Asian colonies on the other. The people on the merged land masses of Africa, Asia and Europe all had some immunity to smallpox, bubonic plague and other diseases so the arrival of Europeans did not have a drastic impact on native population numbers. The European militaries butchered only so many people. Yep...well documented in Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies(J. Diamond). There most certainly were very successful African and Asian societies that predated anything found in Europe by thousands of years, and provided many of the things needed for Europe's success. Great Britain's (and other European) colonial empire is a very recent, short lived event in this context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Yep...well documented in Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies(J. Diamond). There most certainly were very successful African and Asian societies that predated anything found in Europe by thousands of years, and provided many of the things needed for Europe's success. Great Britain's (and other European) colonial empire is a very recent, short lived event in this context. I set up this thread (link) for that topic. This thread celebrates Dominion Day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 And clearly,you've never heared of the colonial Belgians playing tribe off against tribe to get what they really wanted in Rwanda or the Congo(s)??? Pretty much. Though there was never such thing as a 'Tutsi' or 'Hutu' "tribe" before colonialism (or after, really). Tutsi and Hutu as distinct groups were based more on social class/caste than physical genetic features, that is until Europeans brought their racial pseudo-scientific theories to Rwanda, Burundi etc. and categorized the groups by genetic physical features, & favoured the 'more white' Tutsis over the Hutus, creating resentment between them. Prior to colonialism Tutsis were usually those who were more wealthy, owned cattle, and were pastoral. Tutsi and Hutu shared the same language, often inter-married, and had mostly peaceful relations between each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
man Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Yes...Sierra Leone, Ghana, Uganda, Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, Somalia, Sudan, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, Jordan, India, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea etc. etc. all doing well! Wait, you probably meant the white ones? I think he means like the ones with a small population easily conqured with superior arms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
man Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Actually I saw him escaping from the Clarke Institute. Valid questions for a organ of a democratic state. Questions for CSIS Does the Canadian government (federal, provincial or municipal or any other Canadian agency ie. CSIS or RCMP) follow Canadians abroad (in another country) and if yes which agencies are involved? Besides CSIS which other Canadian government agency operates outside Canada? Does CSIS use phycotropic drugs or any other drug in any instance? Does CSIS use a combination of substances that might react as phycotropic drugs or any other drug in any instance? Does any other Canadian government agency or foreign government agency use drugs on Canadian citizens? Does CSIS or any other Canadian government agency divulge private information of Canadians to foreigners or their agents? Does CSIS or any other Canadian government agency spread rumors, spread false information or embellish events about Canadian citizens? Do foreign government or foreign private agencies or foreign organizations harass or influence Canadian Citizens? Does CSIS use private investigators to spy on Canadians? Does any other Canadian government agency use private investigators to spy on Canadians? Do foreign governments or foreign citizens hire Canadian private investigators to spy on Canadians? Do foreign governments of foreign organizations perform intrusive surveillance in Canada? How can an person find out if a security certificate is being used on that person or has been issued by a judge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 I think he means like the ones with a small population easily conqured with superior arms. Maybe... I guess Cetshwayo kaMpande is the exception that proves the rule? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Paranoia on all parts! You can't run around thinking that our intelligent agents are out to get you. Firstly - no agencie that lables itself as intelligent is intelligent. Look at the American CIA - they were so dumb and dishonourable that no one talks to them anymore - the best they can do is bribe people around the world for information - and bought information is rarely accurate. You give to much credit to those that you assume are your superiours - they are not...so relax and concentrate on contributing to a better society. You are only free if you truely and strongly believe you are free. If you believe others control you then you grant them power over you. The worst that secret governmental agents can be is an irritation - the more you concentrate on the rash the more it will itch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 I love this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy MacNab Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 It's not that easy to immigrate to the US. You can't just drive down there and instantly become a permanent resident. Gee, Mexicans are doing it all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy MacNab Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 A legal head. The Queen is the government. There is no such thing as a "remote sense" of a kingdom. Small correction - the Queen is the head of state. Otherwise I agree with almost all of what you've said about Canada. And some dopes don't think there's much to distinguish from the Yanks. Go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Small correction - the Queen is the head of state. The Queen is also where the government draws its power from, though. Edited July 5, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy MacNab Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 A symbolic head. We are in no way ruled by a King or Queen, so I think it's fair to say that we are only a kingdom in the remotest sense of the word. England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland are not ruled by a King or Queen either. So, I'd guess you'd reject the term United Kingdom also? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.