I had a friend who lived in England. We would talk about political issues of the day and I learned quite a bit about how things are done over there. Perhaps the most striking difference between their system and the one we have is the degree to which common people participate. It doesn't take much to get people riled up to the point where they will be marching in the streets. Yes, we do that too but only in desperation. The members of Parliament are fairly sensitive to the protestors, or at least more so than what I've seen in Washington. One really odd practice had to do with the time leading up to an election. Apparently the candidates for office are not allowed to pontificate on anything other than the issues. Personal attacks as we see here are not allowed. The weird thing is that they follow that rule. The other interesting aspect of British government is the way the Prime Minister is selected. People vote for their party more than for a candidate. The party with the majority of votes picks the Prime Minister from within their ranks. We do the same for Speaker of the House and Majority Senate leader, but not for president. The advantage in the British system is that should the president not make good decisions, the Parliament establishes a "vote of confidence." The PM must step down if s/he loses that vote. Overall the people are more interested in what the government is doing, but they really don't have a lot more say than we do. The rules are similar but there is less corruption because the natives get restless otherwise.
We know there is an European Union, but it seemed doomed from its inception. Each country there is sovereign and they cannot wrap their heads around the idea of cooperation as we have done here with our states. I don't think we made a mistake, but I do think it might be time to split this place into more like minded segments. You know, the people on the west coast don't think like the people on the east coast, as an example. So, why not have two separate countries? Or three? Or four? Four would be about the limit.
The USA System was the driving force behind the concept of developing the EU.
Like all of our states are unified under the federal government, but each state still stands alone pretty much.
They wanted to bring the individual countries together and get the unified while still standing alone.
The biggest problem they had was unlike the USA which adopted the federal government ahead of most of the states.
The EU had to deal with the individual countries well established and grounded solidly in their ways.
There really was no way they could unify such diverse governmental systems under one umbrella.
The way we looked at it from this side of the pond was another political trick to get money for the poly-tick-ians with some countries burdened with the heaviest load. Also as a way for one country to utilize the resources of another country more freely. The UK took the brunt of it all, just like the USA did with the UN, I don't blame them for getting out.
Also, there is no possible way a One World Government could possibly work.
At best they would only create one war after another until they have killed everybody off.
On the other side of the coin, being a US citizen and understanding how our country works.
It does seem a little silly for each of those little tiny countries to protect their own little countries.
We think nothing of hopping in a car and driving across the USA.
Not something that can be done very easily in Europe.
We may not like what the poly-tick-ians in DC are doing, and should vote out those who are not doing what the people want. But no state should be allowed to enact laws contrary to the Constitution they agreed to uphold when they joined the Union.
The point that could not be reconciled in the European Union is the concept behind the "union." We in the USA have a short history compared to Europe. Each state was more like a neighborhood than an independent sovereign country. It was only natural for us to unite under a common flag because all the interests of the states were similar. Not so in Europe. There is little incentive to form an alliance with somebody who has been your enemy for 700 years.
They tried to establish a constitution for the EU which tied the sovereign nations together by their common interests. For example there was an attempt to create a European military force that would act something like NATO. If one was attacked they all would respond. That didn't go over very well. Then there was the attempt at creating a common currency, but the Brits and a few others would have nothing to do with it. The purpose for all of this unification came out of the old Common Market which was a trade bloc of countries that had more leverage united than they did separately. The Common Market died and was replaced by the EU, but the bugs were never worked out. In the past few years there has been mass attempts at reestablishing nationalism, which ended up in a global trade war that is still in progress.
I don't see a global government being possible either unless it's run by some aliens who invade us from another planet. However, the idea of economic cooperation is the glue that holds the planet together. Ever since people decided globalism was bad the world has been going to hell in a handbasket.
European history is a most interesting study.
We have family records dating all the way back to the Holy Roman Empire, and before many countries were borne.
How the Duchies changed with each generation, is exactly why we should never have a global government.
As countries did develop they fought to gain landmass, and the wars back and forth between them never gained them landmass, it just moved the boundary line back and forth is about all it did.
We are blessed that our countries founders knew and understood all the problems in both Europe and England at the time.
England was the most stable, but still a monarchy with historic generational problems.
They also understood the destructiveness of a pure democracy, which is why and how the US became a republic.
All of the original colonies as they became states accepted and ratified the constitution and became republics themselves.
Unfortunately, the federal government was weak, very weak, and borrowed itself into debt it could not repay to fight the revolutionary war.
There was as big argument as to whether the US was a republic or a representational democracy. Many leaders of the day preferred the term representational democracy. However, it conflicted with the Articles of Confederation, even though justices claimed the opposite. The new government was failing miserably.
It wasn't until a perpetual union was established and an abashment of states following British Law that the fullness of the Constitution became fully realized and we became an American Republic.
Just be glad the Burgess form of government used by a few of the original states was quelled!
As a Republic, democracy could prevail without turning into mob rule due to the checks and balances established as a republic.
European history is indeed interesting and complicated. It explains a lot about what is going on in today's world. The bulk of the world's population, however, is not in Europe nor North America. I know virtually nothing about Asian history but India and China are massively large. It must be just as intriguing. The lesson to be learned from history is that going it alone doesn't work. As the world becomes more and more developed economically the importance of cooperation becomes critical. Reverting back to nationalism and isolationism is doomed to fail. Albeit a single world governing body doesn't seem likely, an institution such as the United Nations is necessary. All the diverse cultures of the world need a common forum in which to sit down and work out their differences. I suppose that could be considered a government by consensus. The record will show that the great experiment constructed in America is the most successful of its kind in all of history. I guess that explains why some sore losers want to tear it down.
I did study some of the Asian histories, unfortunately, what data you really need was never rewritten in English.
A lot of their history is, but when you start looking for a particular topic regarding something, forget it.
Now India is a great study too, and a lot of info is available. How accurate it is leaves much to be desired.
If it were not for our own family records, some of the things in those letters, although they can be proved accurate if you dig deep enough, do not appear in the normal histories of an area. It seems they skip over some ruling parties when an area is divided temporarily for some reason.
You don't find much about the regional wars that caused my ancestors to move in the manner in which they moved from place to place. Or why they did not accept a higher paying job, until you study the religions of the area, then it all becomes fairly clear why they went that a way and that a way, hi hi.
I gave my son a copy of one of the family books I was working on, and his son took it to school for his history teacher to look over. When he saw it, he first said no that can't be right, but let me look into a little further. About a week later the teacher came up with the supporting documentation that not only was it correct, it was dead on for that region at that time. He was supposed to mail me a copy of what the teacher gave him but never did. No matter, all of my stuff is going to him anyhow. He has taken more interest in the families history than my son has.
To be frank, history was always a boring topic for me. There was too much detail in what I was forced to read, and that was merely text book history. As you point out it gets worse in reality. My mind works best in terms of concepts and generalizations which is something that becomes apparent only after you read an encyclopedia length history of a given region. In your instance where documenting the family history is the goal, all that detail is desirable. It gives the reader some insight into your family's roots. But is it history or is it more like journalism? The former doesn't contain the detail as does the latter, or such is how I see it.
The common perception is that history is important because it tells us what to avoid. When somebody first told me that, I knew immediately history is an intellectual study at best and not practical in importance. My first history teacher was probably the one who enlightened me that way. LOL Does the fact that your grandparents seven generations back were Christian or Jewish or Buddhist have any relevance to the way you live your life today in 2020? I'd be surprised if you said, yes. It certainly is good to know what they did back then because it gives you a sense of identity. I just don't see how it could be practical knowledge.
Take that to a larger scale and look into world history. There is a lot of detail about how the world got to be where it is today. Is anybody making decisions based on that knowledge? Hardly. So, if you have an intellectual curiosity, then history could be a rewarding study. For guys like me it's filled with trivia and not much more. The challenge is to survive to the end of the day. This day. Here and in the present. Knowing how somebody did it 500 years ago has little bearing on my life today.
So, if you look back in history and see every country who tried Socialism or Communism failed miserably, you just ignore that fact and decide it will work if we do it this way instead?
We may not have a perfect system, but it is better than any other country I've ever studied.
Or should I say used to be?
Communist driven colleges have totally brainwashed the younger generations!
Well, think about it. The leaders of our country must know something about history. They must know what was born in 1776 grew and prospered better than any other system in recorded history. Yet, today we have an authoritarian president dismantling every part of the democratic republic government he can put his hands on. It may not technically be a Fascist take over, but it looks that way in many respects. Regardless, change is in the making for good or for evil. History doesn't seem to have any impact at all on the executive branch, the legislative branch, or the judiciary. It's not just me my friend.
I for one am glad he is undoing what Obummer did!
And that he blocks those ridiculous bills with dangerous riders they keep adding.
I'm not blind my friend. I see most of what he is doing as being GREAT for our Country.
While everything I saw Obama do was Disastrous for our Country.
As you said, we have totally different view of how our country should be run.
But I don't see how any sane person wants FREE Abortion on Demand, which will soon lead to Kill Off the Old Folks too!
Somebody has to PAY for FREE FREE FREE everything, and that my friend will never succeed. It only works until the money runs out, then what? Total chaos!
Just look at every democrat controlled city and compare it to major republican controlled cities.
Sure, some democrat cities have several great things, but that was all done eons ago when the democrats were still smart.
Now, most democratic controlled cities are nothing but hell holes with the highest crime rates in the nation.
And they keep wanting to make it worse by abolishing our Constitution.
The very thing that made us the greatest country in the world, democrats want to abandon for Socialism which only leads to Communism. Always has and always will!
Trumpism, and the former Republican party he has confiscated, certainly holds all the political power. There is no doubt they relish what they are doing while they rape America of it's traditional values. It would serve no useful purpose to counter your remarks. That's about all I will say for now.
Today's democratic party is nothing at all like prior to the Kennedy era.
They want Open Borders, FREE Everything, Socialism, No guns for anyone, as a major step toward pure communism.
Just listen to the candidates, all they want to do is destroy the U.S., it is their only goal.
And they are not afraid to admit it.
Trump has done more good for this country in three years, as any democrat has done in a lifetime.
