3 ms·
I think you're misunderstanding me. It's my claim that any sufficiently profitable colony sufficiently far away from its mother country will inevitably cease to
by mtowle 13y ago
I think you're misunderstanding me. It's my claim that any sufficiently profitable colony sufficiently far away from its mother country will inevitably cease to be a part of said mother country. The how is irrelevant.
- dkuntz2 13y agoThe how isn't irrelevant, especially when the colony in question ceased being a party of the mother country because of opportunists who thought that it would be fun to start a new country built in whatever manner they pleased. Without our specific set of malcontents the Revolutionary War wouldn't have occurred and the US would have been given a voice in parliament. Your claim is wrong.
- mtowle 13y ago>because of That's how the history is written, yes. And how the history is written...is irrelevant. Where are all these profitable, distant colonies with voices in parliament today? Australia? Canada? Technically not sovereign, but they operate as separate nations. No country in the world fits the description of the U.S. you claim would have otherwise been inevitable, and you don't give this a second thought. The oldest truism is the ephemeral nature of Empire. You let your piecemeal study of history delude you.