Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
Was that not an American nationalist response to foreign imperial masters?

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Oct 4th, 2017 at 09:44:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Absolutely. But my point was that this was an example where the founding entities voluntarily joined the resulting polity. And, while New Amsterdam was a Dutch colony it was, by the late 18th century, predominantly English and English speaking. And, in usual usage, they were colonies, not imperial possessions. Imperialism was, when I was in college, reserved for the system that arose in the second half of the 19th century and was largely characterized by European rule over different 'races', as then characterized, by a tiny minority of Europeans.

The founding of the USA was by almost exclusively by descendants and recent arrivals from England and descendants of Dutch colonists who had assimilated into an English speaking population. And that was how they largely saw themselves - as Englishmen who had been badly treated by their country of origin. Rightly or wrongly.

The unacknowledged part of all of this was the ongoing genocide of the Native American population and the uses to which and the treatment of the Africans brought here in chains.    

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Oct 4th, 2017 at 10:33:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I suppose then, plantation charters awarded to those English and Dutch "colonists" has no meaning to you. Ergo, share holders and monarchs seeking specified returns on their investment (GBP STERLING) from those plantation-holders --founding fathers-- is irrelevant in your origin story, 1606 to present.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Oct 9th, 2017 at 07:31:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by Cat on Mon Oct 9th, 2017 at 07:40:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by Cat on Mon Oct 9th, 2017 at 11:22:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The charters granted a legitimacy which was valuable. The grantees benefited from that. The grantors - less so. From a business point of view almost all of these companies on the N. American continent were a disaster, though some, like the Hudson Bay Company, did survive into modern times, being dissolved in 2012. It was a profitable company but I do not know if it ever met the expectations of returns on which the grants were made.

Monarchs wanted to project power and influence within the constrained means of late feudal society. Colonists had their own reasons and supplied the people required. Limited Liability Companies were the most appropriate tool they had available so it was what got used. But they rarely made business sense by present day standards. Not to say the failed companies never benefited the Monarchs and/or at least some of the businessmen. An early version of "Government should be run like a business." The British East India Company was a whole different matter.
 

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Oct 10th, 2017 at 01:34:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series