Why do so many Westerners have a "Paris Syndrome" to style's origin country (often laser focused)?

[Rusty B]

In the 1600s CE, the early Americans would be importing silk, tea, sandalwood and porcelain from China, American trade missions were in China in 1784CE. The Americans would export furs and cotton.

The Chinese emperor, starting in the late 1700s, prohibited the importation of opium into the country so happened was that the smuggling trade sprang up and the westerners, with the British in the lead, would bring in increasing quantities of opium. The Chinese smugglers, were paying huge quantities of silver to get opium, and the British and the Americans used that to turn around and purchase Chinese goods. The Americans were earning millions of dollars, the British were earning tens of millions of dollars, and addiction was growing in China. You need to look up Robert Morris, the link between America and China is far stronger than you imagine. It's not all about wars and certainly not all about modern day governments, they will be the history of the future.

You do know what history is right?

Silly me, but this just caught my attention.

You do realize that these were not Americans, right? These were Brits. Americans did not exist in the 1600's. Americans did not exist prior to July 4th, 1776.

Prior to that date, they were Brits. Whatever they did... it was all happening under the British crown.

I think this is where you stop questioning other people's knowledge of history.

 

[skribs]

Not really, India not China has always been the focus of British interactions in Asia, the East India Company for example but at least you have the grace to realise that the US does have a history with China, instead of leaping to conclusions about wars.
This is history, Two Hundred Years of U.S. Trade with China (1784-1984) | Asia for Educators | Columbia University

Where did I say anything about wars?

If you're going to accuse someone of leaping to conclusions, please only accuse them of conclusions they've actually leapt to.

You're proving your superior knowledge of British history to an American. You're kind of proving our point here.

 

[Rusty B]

You know we weren't invaded right? The Battle of Britain wasn't an invasion btw and yes I do know more about it than you obviously do, I an ex RAF and have had the honour to work with several BoB pilots.

LOL, not an invasion? You mean the Brits were the bad guys? The 30K+ British civilian casualties were killed/injured on foreign soil?

Just stop. You look foolish.

Commonwealth countries are sovereign countries with their own citizens, their own governments

and their own passports, why would they be given British passports?

The same was said of the member nations of the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War. But we knew what the real deal was, right?

Well no, American Samoans did not participate in the November 8, 2016, general election because it is a territory and not a state. So no voting for their head of state.

They also don't pay federal taxes - which is a trade-off that many of us envy.

Considering the fact that probably most Americans don't participate in the Democratic process anyway, this is of very negligible consequence. Anyone there who really wanted to vote in the presidential elections only needs to buy a one-way plane ticket to one of the 50 states - and start paying federal taxes. Conversely, anyone in the 50 states who buys a one-way ticket to American Somoa would be giving up that right. And many have. Hell, most probably weren't exercising that right anyway.

Jamaica is an independent country, a poor man can vote for his own government and claim his own passport. It is the Jamaican governments responsibility to look after it's citizens. Government of Jamaica Portal - GOV.JM | Home

Ministries - Jamaica Information Service

And THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is why the Commonwealth of Nations is exactly the way I described it. Again, nominally independent nations whose citizens have no legal entitlement to economic safety nets from the UK!

As well as not understanding context you seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder. How strange. perhaps if you understood history better you wouldn't be so defensive. There isn't 'bad' history, there's just history. As you brought it up not I try this. China Relief Expedition

As for your ideas on 'English' history well that's just amusing.

Your attempts to look intelligent at my expense by repeating "you don't know history" aren't working. We've established that. You may as well stop now.

 

[Rusty B]

By the way, if you are arguing that the Battle of Britain was not an invasion because there was no subsequent occupation; I have stated earlier that there was a difference between invasion and occupation.

However, even if I granted you that occupation is a requirement in order for invasion to have occurred... there's still the 5-year German occupation of the Channel Islands for you to answer for.

 

[jobo]

Silly me, but this just caught my attention.

You do realize that these were not Americans, right? These were Brits. Americans did not exist in the 1600's. Americans did not exist prior to July 4th, 1776.

Prior to that date, they were Brits. Whatever they did... it was all happening under the British crown.

I think this is where you stop questioning other people's knowledge of history.

no, that seems to be a United states perspective that they are the only americans, the united states didn5 exist, your correct.. but america is the whole lot of two continents, it was called THE Americas as a collective noun, therefore any one born or naturalised the was an american, they did latter deviided it in to three, but that doesn't alter the fact th were all america I've talked to americans that are completely obvious to 5he fact that Mexico is in north america

I have a friend of Pakistanigrand parents,who gets very very cross, if he is referred to as Pakistani or Asian, he is he assures me british and therefore European, he gets less cross if he is identified as Indian, his grand parents were Indian when they came here, then became pakistani after partition, it's hard to argue with the logic to be honest

 

[Tez3]

By the way, if you are arguing that the Battle of Britain was not an invasion because there was no subsequent occupation; I have stated earlier that there was a difference between invasion and occupation.

However, even if I granted you that occupation is a requirement in order for invasion to have occurred... there's still the 5-year German occupation of the Channel Islands for you to answer for.

Channel Islands aren't actually part of the UK, and not being German I don't have to answer for it.

The German bombing campaign started in 1940 and went on until 1945 devastating cities, factories, airfields and ports throughout the UK, killing thousands. https://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/med...andsociety/bombing/THE_BOMBING_OF_BRITAIN.pdf


It's very clear that you don't understand history and I think I may have to apologise to the OP, it seems you have proved his premise quite correct after all.

 

[Rusty B]

no, that seems to be a United states perspective that they are the only americans, the united states didn5 exist, your correct.. but america is the whole lot of two continents, it was called THE Americas as a collective noun, therefore any one born or naturalised the was an american, they did latter deviided it in to three, but that doesn't alter the fact th were all american
I have a friend of Pakistanigrand parents,who gets very very cross, if he is referred to as Pakistani or Asian, he is he assures me british and therefore European, he gets less cross if he is identified as Indian, his grand parents were Indian when they came here, then became pakistani after partition, it's hard to argue with the logic to be honest

No, there's North America and South America. We're not the only North Americans, but we're the only Americans.

 

[Tez3]

LOL, not an invasion? You mean the Brits were the bad guys? The 30K+ British civilian casualties were killed/injured on foreign soil?

Just stop. You look foolish.

Son, I think you've said enough. You don't understand very much and you seem intent on proving it.

The same was said of the member nations of the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War. But we knew what the real deal was, right?

Really? Are you that naïve?

And THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is why the Commonwealth of Nations is exactly the way I described it. Again, nominally independent nations whose citizens have no legal entitlement to economic safety nets from the UK!

What planet are you on or are you saying that US citizens should have a right to economic safety nets because the US was once a British colony, you are having a giraffe mate. Why would an sovereign state expect economic help from another country as a right? Honestly, you are either doolally or in need of an education.

and don't think anything you actually have to say has any relevance, it seems you just like to argue for the sake of it, you haven't addressed any points made just taken the hump and got childish. Poor boy.

Just how old are you and is it past your bedtime yet?

 

[jobo]

No, there's North America and South America. We're not the only North Americans, but we're the only Americans.

no Mexico and Canada are also noth americans,the country is the the United states of america, not america

they wernt south americans in the 1600 all just america

 

[Rusty B]

Channel Islands aren't actually part of the UK, and not being German I don't have to answer for it.

The German bombing campaign started in 1940 and went on until 1945 devastating cities, factories, airfields and ports throughout the UK, killing thousands. https://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/med...andsociety/bombing/THE_BOMBING_OF_BRITAIN.pdf


It's very clear that you don't understand history and I think I may have to apologise to the OP, it seems you have proved his premise quite correct after all.

Oh, so the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey aren't part of the UK? You don't know your own country.

 

[Rusty B]

no Mexico and Canada are also noth americans,

they went south americans in the 1600 all just america

Exactly what I said. They're North Americans. Not Americans.

 

[Rusty B]

Son, I think you've said enough. You don't understand very much and you seem intent on proving it.



Really? Are you that naïve?

You know, I don't mind a little ad hominem. I'm a big boy, and I can handle that.

However, when you resort SOLELY to the use of ad hominems and dismissals without attempting to give a rebuttal to what I said, then you've lost.

What planet are you on or are you saying that US citizens should have a right to economic safety nets because the US was once a British colony, you are having a giraffe mate. Why would an sovereign state expect economic help from another country as a right? Honestly, you are either doolally or in need of an education.

More unintelligible non-sequitur. No surprise there.

and don't think anything you actually have to say has any relevance, it seems you just like to argue for the sake of it, you haven't addressed any points made just taken the hump and got childish. Poor boy.

I don't know how things work in your neck of the woods, but over here in the states, "boy" is a racial slur. Watch it.

Just how old are you and is it past your bedtime yet?

I'm 40, and could give two $h¡t$ if you're older than that. If you hadn't already lost by resorting to ad hominems and dismissals without rebuttals, you would right here by attempting to discredit someone else or credit yourself based on age.

 

[jobo]

Oh, so the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey aren't part of the UK? You don't know your own country.

no there not part of the united kingdom of Great Britain and northern Ireland . 5hey are part of the british isles, they are part of Great Britan

 

[jobo]

Exactly what I said. They're North Americans. Not Americans.

8n thematters they were all Americans, north and south didn't exist and nether did the united state or Canada or any of the other countries for that matter

 

[Rusty B]

no there not part of the united kingdom of Great Britain and northern Ireland . 5hey are part of the british isles, they are part of Great Britan

Are they not subject to the same government?

 

[jobo]

Are they not subject to the same government?

different legal and political entries

and no that dont have the same governmstart they have a significant level of autonomy to make there own laws and they dont vote in uk election so the british government is not there govenment, though they are nominally in charge of say invading france, they are subjects of the same queen though, like Australia

 

[Rusty B]

8n thematters they were all Americans, north and south didn't exist and nether did the united state or Canada or any of the other countries for that matter

Regardless, no other country calls itself "America."

There's plenty of:
- The Republic of .....
- The Kingdom of.....

Here, it's "The United States of..."

And, by the way... Mexico is also a "The United States of."

 

[Rusty B]

different legal and political entries

and no that dont have the same governmstart they have a significant level of autonomy to make there own laws and they dont vote in uk election so the british government is not there govenment, though they are nominally in charge of say invading france, they are subjects of the same queen though, like Australia

They're not UN-recognized sovereign nations like Australia.

 

[Rusty B]

The way you're describing the Channel islands seems to be equivalent to Indian Reservations in the US.

They have some autonomy and exemptions from US laws, but are not recognized by the UN as sovereign nations.

And if a human rights violation occurred on an Indian reservation, and the US government did nothing about it, you best believe the world will be letting us know.

 

[Tez3]

The way you're describing the Channel islands seems to be equivalent to Indian Reservations in the US.

They have some autonomy and exemptions from US laws, but are not recognized by the UN as sovereign nations.

And if a human rights violation occurred on an Indian reservation, and the US government did nothing about it, you best believe the world will be letting us know.

You know you are talking BS don't you? The Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey have their own governments and legislature (The basis of the legal systems of both Bailiwicks is Norman customary law (Coutume) rather than the English Common Law) plus they are two of the richest places in the world. Does the idea of people running things themselves disturb you, perhaps a little too much socialism for you?

Look you started all this stuff about the UK, you went on the attack and you don't like it that I responded. Tough, and here 'boy' is a small male child, don't bring your racism here.

They're not UN-recognized sovereign nations like Australia.

So according to you Australia isn't a proper country as it's part of the Commonwealth and now it's a sovereign state? Make your mind up.

More unintelligible non-sequitur. No surprise there.

Ah Mr 'I know two Latin phrases and I'll keep using them' you led us to believe you knew all about the UK and you don't know how we speak, how strange, time to admit you know nought, mate.

I was basing your age on your lack of adult responses which you are still reeling out. it must bother you a lot. it seems to have triggered an odd reaction, it's one of someone who has a big chip on their shoulder and seems to want to take it out on a random person who says something they disagree with. Luckily I have broad shoulders so am not fazed by your attacks, I can easily put you on ignore or just not bother, it's been a lazy day with nothing much to do but you'll forgive me if I don't pay you the attention you want tomorrow as I have things to do, and with that I'm off to bed. Enjoy the rest of your New Year's Day.