5 4

What The World Was Before The White Man Took Over

sassygirl3869 9 Sep 26

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


The poster is using the "world" more or less generically, the point is valid. The world was full of a vast number of cultures and civilizations before being conquered by Christian European armies during the "Age of discovery." Who knows what the world would be like if the Europeans had come as explorers, not conquerors.


that is a portion of the world, not the whole world.

it is still an interesting map, though.



And how many of those tribe were constantly warring with one another? Some things never change.


Oh yes... the good old days of tribalism.
Today there are only two tribes left : Bluefeet Liberals and Rednecks Conservatives


Only an American would ever claim that was what "the world" looked like! 😉🙂

Jnei Level 8 Sep 26, 2018

Remember, 'American' includes the whole continent including Canada, Central and S. America. Some of this is still a part of Britain.

@JackPedigo Which ‘some of this’ is still part of Britain? I think Britain needs to know!

@KevinTwining Canada acknowledges the queen. I visit BRITISH Columbia often and the language and many traditions are definitely British. High Tea is a big deal in Victoria. There are a lot of differences but also some things in common as: "Canada is an independent sovereign state, but as the UK and Canada (and New Zealand, Australia etc..) share a head of state, the governments have to agree on certain issues." Canada is far more aligned with GB than the US of S. America.

@JackPedigo You’re talking about cultural and historic links, which the US also shares with Britain. The only thing that isn’t shared is the person who is head of state, the British monarch. I would hazard an educated guess that, along with many other Americans I have interacted with on the matter, you possess their misunderstanding of the role and position of the British monarch.

So, to be clear: The monarch is nothing but a figurehead and a symbol of the state and the British nation, and is the ceremonial Head Of State of the UK, and of any other nation that chooses to retain the monarch as its Head Of State. The monarch has no executive or any other power or authority beyond State Ceremonials in any of the states and nations that retain the Monarch’s role in that regard.

In such states and nations outside the UK, the monarch is represented ‘in situ’ by a Governor General, actually chosen by the institutions of the particular nations, but ceremonially appointed by the monarch.

All of the monarch’s executive power in the UK and beyond was finally and completely transferred to the Prime Minister in the late 19th century. The British Prime Minister and government ceased to have any executive or legislative power beyond the UK (with the exception of a few small ‘protectorate’ territories) when the last nation gained independence from the British Empire, which no longer exists as an entity.

The monarch can neither make any public statements of a political nature, nor any public statements that show any particular political bias. The monarch may not participate in politics in any way over any matter, anywhere, and has no authority over any matters of state whatsoever, beyond a ceremonial role.

The nations that recognise the British monarch as Head Of State, have only the rules, traditions, and precedents. regarding the monarch’s role in common. All other laws, statutes, etc, are purely a matter for the governments and legislature of the nations concerned.

Most if not all of these nations will still have laws ‘on their books’ that predate their independence from Britain, except where they have been altered by domestic legislation. None of them scrapped all of their inherited laws upon independence - that would have resulted in chaos. Where they have changed, it has been an organic and gradual process. Even the US, the one that has changed the most in law and legal procedure, still has some federal and state laws that have barely changed since before independence, and still refers back to English Common Law when there is nowhere else to go.

The other countries’ legal systems are mostly either identical or similar to the British system, usually because there is no point in reinventing the wheel. Again, the US is the most different from the others, mainly in the areas of judicial and court procedures. The basic principles are, however, broadly the same.

High Tea is cultural trivia. The use of English as the official language, or Lingua Franca is shared with the USA. British Columbia is a place that retains its old name - it’s a matter for the provincial government, and is not a requirement (the US State of Hawaii has the British Union Flag in its top left quadrant - a state matter, not an obligation).

None of these countries’ governments have to agree in law on anything, mutual treaties excepted. At all. That they do agree on some is coincidence, and applies to the USA as well.

To a person from Britain, Canada is barely distinguishable from the USA, with the exceptions that Canadian culture is less aggressive, lacks the appaling belief in its own superiority of US culture, and is more polite. It is also a far less violent and dangerous place, the USA being the most violent and dangerous for ordinary people of all the developed, western or western oriented nations. Canadians also appear to know more about the world beyond their borders than Americans do. They certainly are fully aware of the role of the British monarch in their nation, when they give it any thought at all. As are the people of the other nations that share that particular Head Of State.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:187682
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.