• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Jayru (JSnaith's) 3D Trek

Updates:

rSiulaa.jpeg


Lower saucer is done, moving on to the rim later.

More soon.
 
Just to clear things up -

The USS Constitution was launched in 1797 and is still active today. Nicknamed "Old Ironside" the Constitution was built after the War of Independence.

The HMS Victory was launched in 1778 and is the longest-serving naval ship in the world. She served during the War of Independence. She is considered an active ship (as she is constantly crewed) and remains the flagship of the British Fleet.

Now, I don't want to get into the history of 1776, and why the USA is founded on a lie, but I'm going to. The British Empire has been a constitutional monarchy since the late 1600's, with power residing with an elected Parliament, not the monarch. Therefore, the issues the colonists had were with an elected parliament, not a "tyrannical king" - but whatever floats the boats in the USA. A bunch of rich dudes didn't want to pay tax and - well, you know the rest, formed a nation where currently rich dudes don't like paying taxes, lol - a problem countries around the world share.

As for tyrants, we have had tyrannical kings in the UK before Parliament seized power. Charles I was deposed and had his head cut off for being a tyrant, and his son James II had to flee the country, because the same thing was about to befall him. We know how to deal with tyrants in the UK; remove the head. (Charles I and James II were long before the War of Independence. We had a series of civil wars between the elected Parliament and the Crown. The Crown lost obviously, and we've had a living constitution since).

Having grown up in the USA and then moving to the UK to finish my education, I found a lot of history to be an eye-opener. But if we don't know the facts, we don't learn the lessons - and are therefore doomed to repeat them.
 
A bunch of rich dudes didn't want to pay tax
Not quite accurate, it was "no taxation without representation".

I also got this from wikipedia (I know...): "American writers such as Samuel Adams, James Wilson, and Thomas Jefferson argued that Parliament was the legislature of Great Britain only, and that the colonies, which had their own legislatures, were connected to the rest of the empire only through their allegiance to the Crown." Many colonists believed that Parliament no longer had sovereignty over them, but they were still loyal to King George. So I wouldn't say it's a lie, but a difference in interpretation. As the Vorlons say, “Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.”

I can't really debate any further since I'm an engineer, not a historian. I bet my wife would love to go down the rabbit hole with you though! She teaches history, and is well versed in early US history. But unfortunately she's not on this forum.
 
Well, it is a fact that King George III had no actual power, it all resided with Parliament. No monarch has had any legislative power since William III & Mary II. Any laws passed from the UK onto the colonies would have come via Parliament, not the King. Allegiance to the crown is an interesting phrase, but it all boils down to the same facts; the colonists rebelled against an elected Parliament to form a new democracy, which has a similar shape (lower house, upper house, head of state). Was the motives of the Founding Fathers pure? We will never know. History is written by the victors, they say, it's not always cold hard facts. Seeing history from both sides leads to some interesting conclusions, and it's true to say that in the USA kids aren't taught about the fact the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy, with the head of state having no power. The idea of another country even having a constitution baffles some Americans - democracy and constitutions are not American inventions.

Here's another interesting fact: slavery has been illegal in England since 1066. Why? William the Conqueror didn't want the English to muscle in on France's lucrative trade in slaves, so when he took the English Crown he outlawed it in England. It's never been repealed. Hence, no slaves in England, and then the UK since 1066. Hence why I get annoyed when Americans blame the UK for slavery, sorry Oprah, the USA got it from the French, and it was part of the grievance they had with Parliament that they had to outlaw it.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain was formed at the beginning of the 18th century by the joining of the English and Scottish Crowns. Scotland actively wanted this union and signed it into law very quickly. Scotland was not conquered. Rather the opposite if you know how the royal line works, lol. (They technically conquered England, but the Scots do like to moan). Ireland? They petitioned the new UK Parliament to join the Union as well, because it looked like a good thing to them... But we all know what happened there.

Is the UK a perfect country? God no. It's a mess, like most nations. The Constitution is not one document but several that have taken shape over centuries. We've had civil wars, taken over countries we had no right to be in - and ended up with the largest empire seen on this ball of dirt. But... We have also championed good things as well.

History is always a hot mess because of interpretations. But the simple cold facts speak for themselves. History should always be viewed from the outside looking in, not the inside looking out. We should learn from it, and yes - we should let it be a warning of how not to do things. Take pride by all means, but not of the rhetoric, but of the facts.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top