Why wasn't England shown as being a part of the Roman Empire here I wonder? Strange notion of 'democracy' too, what's Magna Carta got to do with democracy and since when was Runnymede in London? .....(ok, ok pedantic I know).
Where was the empire of Bactria or the Mongols in this story? ....nice map though.
It's a nice animation. However, Roman Republic/Empire was not really about democracy, as much as about aristocracy and representation. Also, an important chapter in democracy was the early modern (16th and 17th centuries) state of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which united four peoples (Polish, Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Belorusian) in a democratic way. It was eventually defeated and split apart by the imperialist and autocratic Russian Empire, the German Kingdom of Prussia and the Austrian Habsburg Empire in 18th century.
Agreements and Constitutions of Laws and Freedoms of the Zaporizian Host can be acknowledged as the first European constitution in a modern sense.[1] It was written in 1710 by Pylyp Orlyk, hetman of the Zaporozhian Host. This "Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk" (as it is widely known) was written to establish a free Zaporozhian-Ukrainian Republic, with the support of Charles XII of Sweden. It is notable in that it established a democratic standard for the separation of powers in government between the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches, well before the publication of Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws. This Constitution also limited the executive authority of the hetman, and established a democratically elected Cossack parliament called the General Council. However, Orlyk's project for an independent Ukrainian State never materialized, and his constitution, written in exile, never went into effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution
And the United States of America was NEVER intended to be a DEMOCRACY. It was and to a VERY limited extent is, a Republic with a (supposedly) Representative form of Government. France, immediately after their revolution, WAS a true Democracy. The result was Mob Rule. About the only time there is a truly Democratic election in the USA is for various propositions, proposals or Constitutional Amendments on ballots that the PEOPLE vote on.
That's splitting hairs, in my opinion. There are various kinds of democracy, and while I agree that the reality of the American democracy is far from any ideal, it has always been a part of the ideology. I think claiming that the USA was never INTENDED to be a democracy is going too far. Democracy is not about mob rule - that's ochlocracy. The French Revolution definitely exhibited the worst parts of the latter, of the unbridled populism. Democracy is about the government by the people. It is not so much about the form the government takes, I believe (representative is, obviously, the most common type), as the ability of the people to affect what happens and have their voices heard.
True Representatives are the voice of the people.But when they have a cause of there on voices make little difference.I think The UNited States is becoming more socialist wanting to form government health facility's,and thinking of taking over the Mortgage Company's with are owned by National Banks.
Grass roots politics is gaining ground here in the US.But the young voters are not looking at issues that should make a difference they look at personalty of a candidate,which is dangerous.
Yes, certainly, Obama's personality played a role, but I think the issues and the ability to relate to politics through him is what attracted the youth so massively in 2008. I agree - cults of personality are dangerous, but I don't think anything nearly out of proportion is taking place in Obama's case.
))) He may be a nut - no sane person would run for president in this country :) Seriously, though, I can't agree. Bush's screwup and the state of economy helped him win over McCain (not to mention the age and the Palin factors), but I think that he was able to put together a positive message and a vision for change and for moving this country in a different direction, which is badly needed. So far he has been making good on his promises. All the accusations of his partisanship and dishonest and disingenuous screaming about "socialism" are just powerless Republican tactics to discredit him. Whatever his individual beliefs are, he is smart and he knows that this country can be ruled only from the center. That requires taking it leftward quite a lot, but that is just because of the last 30 years of right-wing madness of privatization, liberalization, and corporate greed.
Very well said. In addition, what some dismiss as "personality" is actually an important ability to clearly and effectively communicate principles, priorities, and proposed policies. Persuasiveness, too, is just as necessary after election as before. In a democratic republic it is a much better tool than deception or the presumption of autocratic authority.
Definitely. Like a chessboard, whoever controls he centreground will be in power. Exactly what Blair did here, and what the conservatives here will likely do if they have any sense.
I do think in terms of 'two wings of the same bird' though... I'm more into the people behind the game.
Why wasn't England shown as being a part of the Roman Empire here I wonder?
AntwortenLöschenStrange notion of 'democracy' too, what's Magna Carta got to do with democracy and since when was Runnymede in London? .....(ok, ok pedantic I know).
Where was the empire of Bactria or the Mongols in this story? ....nice map though.
It's a cool site. There's a great one on religion too
AntwortenLöschenInteresting map. I'm going to have a look at the religion map too.
AntwortenLöschenIt's a nice animation. However, Roman Republic/Empire was not really about democracy, as much as about aristocracy and representation. Also, an important chapter in democracy was the early modern (16th and 17th centuries) state of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which united four peoples (Polish, Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Belorusian) in a democratic way. It was eventually defeated and split apart by the imperialist and autocratic Russian Empire, the German Kingdom of Prussia and the Austrian Habsburg Empire in 18th century.
AntwortenLöschenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth
And the earliest Democratic constitution in Europe was written by the Ukrainian Hetman Pylyp Orlyk in 1710.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Pylyp_Orlyk
Agreements and Constitutions of Laws and Freedoms of the Zaporizian Host can be acknowledged as the first European constitution in a modern sense.[1] It was written in 1710 by Pylyp Orlyk, hetman of the Zaporozhian Host. This "Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk" (as it is widely known) was written to establish a free Zaporozhian-Ukrainian Republic, with the support of Charles XII of Sweden. It is notable in that it established a democratic standard for the separation of powers in government between the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches, well before the publication of Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws. This Constitution also limited the executive authority of the hetman, and established a democratically elected Cossack parliament called the General Council. However, Orlyk's project for an independent Ukrainian State never materialized, and his constitution, written in exile, never went into effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution
I think I agree with this analysis.
AntwortenLöschenAnd the United States of America was NEVER intended to be a DEMOCRACY. It was and to a VERY limited extent is, a Republic with a (supposedly) Representative form of Government. France, immediately after their revolution, WAS a true Democracy. The result was Mob Rule. About the only time there is a truly Democratic election in the USA is for various propositions, proposals or Constitutional Amendments on ballots that the PEOPLE vote on.
AntwortenLöschenThat's splitting hairs, in my opinion. There are various kinds of democracy, and while I agree that the reality of the American democracy is far from any ideal, it has always been a part of the ideology. I think claiming that the USA was never INTENDED to be a democracy is going too far. Democracy is not about mob rule - that's ochlocracy. The French Revolution definitely exhibited the worst parts of the latter, of the unbridled populism. Democracy is about the government by the people. It is not so much about the form the government takes, I believe (representative is, obviously, the most common type), as the ability of the people to affect what happens and have their voices heard.
AntwortenLöschenTrue Representatives are the voice of the people.But when they have a cause of there on voices make little difference.I think The UNited States is becoming more socialist wanting to form government health facility's,and thinking of taking over the Mortgage Company's with are owned by National Banks.
AntwortenLöschenGrass roots politics is gaining ground here in the US.But the young voters are not looking at issues that should make a difference they look at personalty of a candidate,which is dangerous.
AntwortenLöschenYes, certainly, Obama's personality played a role, but I think the issues and the ability to relate to politics through him is what attracted the youth so massively in 2008. I agree - cults of personality are dangerous, but I don't think anything nearly out of proportion is taking place in Obama's case.
AntwortenLöschenYes this is true.But did they vote for him on his ability to govern a country or on his color?
AntwortenLöschenHe was only voted in because he wasn't the other one. I think he's a wing-nut
AntwortenLöschen))) He may be a nut - no sane person would run for president in this country :)
AntwortenLöschenSeriously, though, I can't agree. Bush's screwup and the state of economy helped him win over McCain (not to mention the age and the Palin factors), but I think that he was able to put together a positive message and a vision for change and for moving this country in a different direction, which is badly needed. So far he has been making good on his promises. All the accusations of his partisanship and dishonest and disingenuous screaming about "socialism" are just powerless Republican tactics to discredit him. Whatever his individual beliefs are, he is smart and he knows that this country can be ruled only from the center. That requires taking it leftward quite a lot, but that is just because of the last 30 years of right-wing madness of privatization, liberalization, and corporate greed.
Very well said.
AntwortenLöschenIn addition, what some dismiss as "personality" is actually an important ability to clearly and effectively communicate principles, priorities, and proposed policies. Persuasiveness, too, is just as necessary after election as before. In a democratic republic it is a much better tool than deception or the presumption of autocratic authority.
Definitely. Like a chessboard, whoever controls he centreground will be in power. Exactly what Blair did here, and what the conservatives here will likely do if they have any sense.
AntwortenLöschenI do think in terms of 'two wings of the same bird' though... I'm more into the people behind the game.
I'm going to shoot Chooser an invitation. Any others you know of, feel free
AntwortenLöschen