User talk:Chris Bennett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, I used to be known as Igor Sklar and was a regular contributor to soc.genealogy.medieval, so it's nice to see a familiar name in Wikipedia. I would like to thank you for helpful additions on Descent from antiquity. When I started that page, I left red links at the end hoping that someone more knowledgable will start the appropriate articles. I hope you know what I mean :) Happy edits, Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Colonial hang-overs, et al 2 Roman calendar 3 Commonwealth realms 4 Independence as a process

[edit] Colonial hang-overs, et al

Thanks for that Chris. I was actually writing something as you were! The whole argument actually stems from the view taken by Gavin (Gbambino) that the monarchy in the Commonwealth is shared, thus any references to the "British monarchy" is wrong. This is of course silly, given the fact that the monarchy is almost always regarded as British. In fact I would argue that's what keeps it alive in the largely British-settled colonies of Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Anyway, the African leaders thing is really part of their overall worldview on gaining independence: they were anti-colonial; Pan-Africanist socialists. It is hard to see how anyone taking such views could see the monarchy as anything other than a colonial hang over! --Lholden 23:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I accept that the monarch is legally speaking shared, but of course what we all know is that it's a British institution. That is what Gbambino is trying to hide. --Lholden 01:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Better than it being a sheep shagging Kiwi one!! 202.136.36.18 06:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman calendar

I had hoped that the link to your website would have allowed any interested party to follow up your line of reasoning for any specific year or issue, though I agree that this could perhaps be made more clear in the introductory paragraph. As far as I can tell yours is by far the most comprehensive and chronologically extensive reconstruction available anywhere, and is certainly the best one I've seen.

The significant events column is really still a work in progress, but my original intention, amongst other things, was to show that the accepted dates given for events in Roman history, such as the births of Caesar and his successors, are not Julian dates, even though this is almost never made clear (check out the Wikipedia articles on Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius for example). This problem extends to all dates from this period, and more of these could easily be added to the table.

However, since the tables are based on your work, I shall not object if you wish to delete them. TharkunColl 07:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion - please feel free to delete the tables if you want. TharkunColl 15:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth realms

Good modification to my edit on the former status of Eritrea. That paragraph needs some additional clean-up, whichever of us can get to it first. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Errm, Australia was independent in foreign policy in 1939-45 and Eire was a Dominion during WW2. Grant65 | Talk 13:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Compare the position of Australia and New Zealand in 1939 with that of India, which had no discretion. Au and NZ did not have independent foreign policies because the government of the day had chosen not to have one (i.e. by not ratifying the Statute), not because they were unable to do so. That is my point. There is nothing wrong with repeating material within and article if it is an important point, which it is. As for Eire, see Dominion: it is a broad term and I defy anyone to show that Eire was not a Dominion before 1949. Grant65 | Talk 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are still missing my point. I don't agree that it is "irrelevant" that the Statute of Westminter empowered Dominion governments, whether or not they chose to exercise that power. Menzies' speech declaring war, while it was technically correct, did not reflect the full range of options that were open to him — options which were not in any way available to the governments of India, Rhodesia or Jamaica.

In regard to Eire, you have mistaken my purpose, which is not to show that Eire definitely was a Dominion before 1949, merely that there is an argument that it was.

By the way, I don't respond well to the kind of approach that you employed in your last reply on my talk page. Please tone it down in future. Grant65 | Talk 03:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The word "Ireland" is ambiguous and controversial because it also includes Northern Ireland. It was even more controversial in 1937-49. That is why the standard practice, at least in other articles, is to use Irish Free State for the period before 1937, "Éire" for 1937-49 and Republic of Ireland thereafter.

I still don't understand why you think Australia and New Zealand's (latent) ability to remain neutral in 1939 is not relevant. Or is it just that you feel it should be mentioned elsewhere in the article? It certainly is not spelled out at present. Thanks. Grant65 | Talk 02:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independence as a process

In your edit summary at Statute of Westminster 1931 you wrote that '"independence between .. dominions .. and the UK" is meaningless'. But independence is a symmetric relationship; that's exactly why it's sought over the asymmetric dependence that precedes it. Regarded as a process, independence is the gradual reduction of dependence, and thus the approach towards relational symmetry. I think this makes more sense in the Commonwealth context than to regard independence as a specific goal achieved at one specific moment. Canada has never "declared independence" from Britain; many different moments mark the process, and dependencies still remain (some even in the reverse direction, e.g. Canadian citizens have the right to vote and stand for office in UK elections, but not British citizens in Canada). (In case you haven't guessed, 131.104.49.53 was me. I'm happy with your most recent edit.) G Colyer 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand my objection to your edit, which was much simpler: the phrase "indpendence between" implied a pre-existing symmtery. Independence wasn't established between Canada, Australia and the UK, because the UK was already a sovreign nation and the others were not. It was established for Canada and Australia and from the UK. What was established between them was equality. As to the method by which independence was established, I agree of course that it was a gradual process and that the choice of date is somewhat arbitrary.--Chris Bennett 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I did misunderstand. I disagree that the phrase "indpendence between" implies a pre-existing symmtery. (I could also quibble about the use of the term "sovereign nation" in the Commonwealth context, and the use of the past tense in the last sentence, but it's not necessary. With what that part of the article itself says now, I'm reasonably happy.) G Colyer 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)