But then again, by that standard has there ever been a nation that was a democracy? The US follows a fairly similar system (democratically elected Senate / Legislature, electoral college for Executives) but certainly isn't 100% entirely governed by popular vote. So one claiming that the USA is a democracy should technically phrase it as either a "representative democracy" or "democratic republic".

I figure Rome (ruled by Senate) was pretty close to being a "democracy", comparable to any modern country that we label as such. Which makes one think that it isn't a half bad idea for all of us to keep a watchful eye out for the next person who would aspire to be Caesar...

*edit: Very notable that a much smaller percentage of the total population of Rome actually got to vote for their Senators as compared to an average modern "democracy". So the argument could be made that if the USA is a "representative democracy", Rome (while the Senate ruled) was a "representative oligarchy".>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Wait, an elected body ruled over Rome... but, this guy says later, since it had 300 that ruled it became a democracy? Um, wasn't it still a republic? I mean, democracy would be if everyone voted and I don't recall Rome being a nation of 300...

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Wait, an elected body ruled over Rome... but, this guy says later, since it had 300 that ruled it became a democracy? Um, wasn't it still a republic? I mean, democracy would be if everyone voted and I don't recall Rome being a nation of 300...

I think that's where the "Horible Histories" title comes in.

>> ^rychan:

>> ^littledragon_79:
Interesting to see all the imperial territories, many of which are still messed up...this is why I like to blame Britain for a lot of the crap in the world today. And unfortunately it seems empires that screw up the world have former colonies that screw up the world.
We learned it from watching you!

Well, to be fair, many ex-colonies are in fantastic shape. Canada, the U.S., New Zealand, Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore all have very high standards of living. India and South Africa seem to be in reasonable shape, with respect to their neighbors, at least. I'm sure historians have done better comparisons of colonized versus un-colonized nations. I would bet that colonization is a long term win. I'm not saying that morally justifies it, though.


Yes, committing essentially genocide and replacing the native populations with your own does wonders for the economy. Colonization is definitely a long term win, just not for the people you colonize.

I think it would be more accurate to say that those countries are doing well in spite of the colonization. Also, it depends who you're talking about in those countries... Native Americans in the U.S. and Canada, Maori in New Zealand, and Aborigines in Australia all had their cultures completely or nearly completely destroyed by colonization. A lot of those populations still live in poverty or are marginalized. I doubt they'd share your opinion about colonization's benefits.

>> ^rychan:

Well, to be fair, many ex-colonies are in fantastic shape. Canada, the U.S., New Zealand, Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore all have very high standards of living. India and South Africa seem to be in reasonable shape, with respect to their neighbors, at least. I'm sure historians have done better comparisons of colonized versus un-colonized nations. I would bet that colonization is a long term win. I'm not saying that morally justifies it, though.

>> ^littledragon_79:

Interesting to see all the imperial territories, many of which are still messed up...this is why I like to blame Britain for a lot of the crap in the world today. And unfortunately it seems empires that screw up the world have former colonies that screw up the world.
We learned it from watching you!


Well, to be fair, many ex-colonies are in fantastic shape. Canada, the U.S., New Zealand, Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore all have very high standards of living. India and South Africa seem to be in reasonable shape, with respect to their neighbors, at least. I'm sure historians have done better comparisons of colonized versus un-colonized nations. I would bet that colonization is a long term win. I'm not saying that morally justifies it, though.

>> ^rasch187:

pip pip, old chap. Have this recommendation² on the house. Now, who's up for a game of cricket? Jolly good times are to be had.


Why donts you talk some real english boy? That way I'd be able to understand you!