Unit Presentation Commitment Form - Old Colony Council: Fill & Download for Free

It is not at all evident that it would have needed to break free sometime later. An ex-colony can gain its independence by gradual means, and negotiations with the colonial power. In fact, that is what the Commonwealth is largely about.This question asks, what would have happened if the Revolutionary War had not occurred? This is a type of Uchronia, where we theorize about alternative time lines. It isn't likely that the British would have wanted to remain in North America simply by the application of brute force, which, if nothing else, was very expensive for them. Perhaps, in this timeline King George is mentally well. Instead of pursuing a war, he agrees to some negotiation and compromises. Perhaps they would have addressed enough grievances, that separatist sentiment would have fallen below the threshold of resorting to rebellion.No Revolution, So No USAI think the American rebels had a limited “time slot” to initiate a widespread rebellion against Britain. Britain itself was maturing politically. In what became Canada, this made Britain rather more responsive to reforms in the colonial legislatures. They permitted Representative Government, (The following article is the property of the Canadian Encyclopedia.) Representative Government, and then Responsible Government: Responsible Government. The colonial governments were moving towards democracy. A similar process in the American colonies might have created enough contentment to function in an orderly way with Britain.What if, say around 1773, Britain had said to each of the American colonies, that is the way we are going to go? The people (At least those who were allowed to vote.) will elect their legislatures on the basis of what in, the colonies that became Canada was called, “Rep By Pop”: Rep by Pop | The Canadian Encyclopedia. Then, in Canada, as in the developing British parliamentary system, the members of the provincial legislatures become responsible for selecting a Prime Minister or Premier.The American Revolution pushed the various colonies into uniting and creating a new nation. Without that impetus, the development of an common American identity, deserving of political union, might have been a lot less.In this alternative timeline, it probably would eventually have made sense for at least some of the colonies to form a confederation. This would have served economic expansion by means of an economic union, provided a prouder, “We Are Great” identity, and provided a blue print for the shared goal of expanding west. Also, it is very likely that Britain would not wanted to take an ongoing responsibility, for the total defence of a very large region, with two exposed seacoasts. If anything, the British might have encouraged the Americans to create a united militia, and then formal armed forces. In the new Dominion of Canada, Britain retained some control for a few decades, but moved towards allowing the colonies their own central command.Without the American revolution, Britain might not have seen any need to defend the development of pre-Canadian colonies, from that of the American ones. There would not have been United Empire Loyalists to fill up parts of Eastern Canada, with a resentful, anti-American population. In fact, the loyalists, not having been forced out of Canada, might have been a stabilizing force in the pre-American colonial legislatures. They would have favoured orderly, friendly relations with the mother country. Many would have been supporters of the Church of England, and not especially friendly to the Baptists and evangelical Christians who have become such a force in the, our timeline, USA.Rather, southern Ontario, and the Atlantic Provinces might have developed with similar social structures and mentalities to New England and upstate New York, without feeling much if any separate identity. There wasn't any scope for plantation agriculture or much need for slaves. Rather, the arable parts of the colonies that would, in our timeline, be the core of English-speaking Canada, would have filled up with with small, free-holding farmers. Likely, they would have become members of the alternative timeline, loyal to Britain, colonial union.But, what about the South? Without the American Revolution, would they have become part of a common union with the expanded group of northern colonies? The Industrial Revolution was starting, and the northern colonies would have developed some common economic characteristics with Britain, and then, the search for reforms to mitigate some of the worst results. But, the South would have been in a different economic and social world. The institution of slavery was becoming more odious to the British people. Slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1833: Slavery Abolition Act 1833 - Wikipedia. I don't think Britain would have permitted the southern colonies the same autonomy it would have granted to the northern ones. The southern colonies, one by one, would each have had to present plans to end slavery, or else they would have languished as a sort of cotton-producing backwater, much to weak to rebel against Britain, and not permitted to unite with each other.And, what about Quebec? In our timeline, the American Revolution pushed some loyalists into parts of Quebec, creating local two language, two ethnicity, regions. However, in the alternative timeline, the loyalists would have remained where they were. It is quite probable that Britain would have permitted a separate, Dominion of Quebec. (In our timeline they permitted the creation of a Dominion of Newfoundland and Labrador, not a part of the Dominion of Canada until 1949.)The Dominion of North America Gets Very Great IndeedThe British North America Act, an act of the British Parliament, was necessary to establish the Dominion of Canada. It still would have been necessary, in order to establish the Dominion of North America. Britain had made some commitments to protect the indigenous peoples of North America. But, they didn't honour them in Canada, nor would they have in the Dominion of North America. Rather, settlement would have rolled forward on a massive front. I think Britain, strongly committed to North America, and seeing immense business opportunities, would have enforced something similar to the Louisiana, Gadsen and Alaska purchases. They probably would have forced Mexico south of the Rio Grande, and maybe also purchased Cuba and what became the Dominican Republic from the declining Spanish Empire. (In effect, so, you want a protective alliance with us, give us them.)In short, there would be a massive Dominion of North America, extending from New York City to Nome, but the Southern colonies would still be colonized and controlled units, at the whim of British Empire markets. Maybe, maybe, at some point, if they had completely abolished slavery, and become more economically diverse, the Southern colonies would have been permitted to form their own union, or, each one, would have been allowed, to apply cap in hand, to enter the Dominion of North America.Doesn't The DNA Get Restless?Surely the DNA would get restless, now being huge, but still somewhat subservient to Britain?I don't think so. Think of a country, encompassing most of what became the USA, and with substantial northern additions, not having any Declaration of Independence, no revolutionary constitution, no Fourth of July, no Yankee Doodle Dandy, and no Battle of New Orleans. What if, in that alternative timeline, the British North America Act, as in our timeline, called for peace, order and good government? What if it created British Parliamentary type federal and state legislatures, with a representative of the Crown figure-heading each? What if each one was passing legislation and carrying out its jurisdiction in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, in Right of the Dominion of North America, or the province of Massachusetts, or Illinois, or Florida, or California? (This is what happens in Canada. The monarch reigns directly over Canada, as a separate realm.)Canada proceeded to independence in a series of steps, with British approval, the Statutes of Westminster, in 1931:https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/statute-of-westminster, the creation of Canadian citizenship in 1947, making the Supreme Court of Canada the final court of appeal, in 1949, rather than the British Privy Council, and then, the enactment of a, made in Canada constitution, in 1982. The “Dominion” term finally dropped out, and, Canada, became, just, Canada.The Dominion of North America would not have had anything like the identity and nationalism that was created by the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. In all likelihood, it would not have had the South to give it a little bit of an extreme tinge. I think that, as a result, there might have been a Canadian type march to independence, starting somewhat earlier, because by the mid-1800's the northern USA was already economically big, and moving along a bit faster. Maybe, by 1900, the whole works would have been done, the term Dominion dropped, and some name like the United Provinces of America, might have been adopted.The ties with Britain would still have been affectionate and warm. Military cooperation with Britain would have been a massive boost to a Commonwealth Monroe Doctrine, supported by the British and American navies, suitable for both. In all likelihood this very powerful alliance would have assisted Britain in giving at least one of its mainland European enemies a massive hiding, or so intimidated them, that none one dare start trouble. The British could have unrolled their massive, developing world empire, (India, British Africa, etc.) with the UPA watching their back, and the Americans graciously being permitted to look for profits there.Tail Wag The Dog?So, in this alternative timeline, there likely would have been a massive, capitalist, democratic country where the USA would have been, and its citizens having all the British freedoms, with no taint from slavery. The old Dominion of North America might have had different immigration policies, or enforcement ones (The constitutional requirement for order and good government means that employers will get punished for hiring undocumented workers.) So, maybe the population makeup would have been somewhat different (When the Dominion of Canada ran out of British settlers for the West, it turned to Eastern Europe, not Germany.)Maybe the world outside might have been different. We can't be sure what a British-American hegemony in the world, starting around 1900, what have done to other countries. But, being a citizen of the UPA would have felt very good.What would the United Kingdom have made of all of this? Maybe, a lot of pride in a successfully-raised, still loyal child? I am not sure that alternative timeline Britain would have sought entry to the UPA, but the relationship would probably have been strong enough to permit a European Union type free movement of trade, business and people.Even without a full union with the UPA, Britain could have fulfilled their innate desire to have nothing special to do with those people across the channel, no Brexit, no nothing. Instead, their special relationship with the UPA, would have assisted both of them to dominate a lot of the world, and intimidate a whole bunch of other countries that neither liked.Martin Levine

It is well documented that the CIA had its hand in the April 21st 1967 coup in Greece. The putsch came as a response to mounting unrest during the heavy handed years which followed Greece’s Civil War. The man pulling strings behind the scene during the military dictatorship was fascist Brigadier D. Ioannidis, head of the Military Police which acted as the regime’s praetorian guard.Below, Demetrios Ioannidis the man who orchestrated 2 coups in Greece and one in Cyprus, during his trial for treason in 1975. He died in jail in 2010.In 1967, Makarios forced the dictators to remove most of the Greek troops as well as EOKA chief Grivas from Cyprus. Nevertheless, the CIA and Ioannidis were convinced that Makarios was a communist sympathizer. During the following 6 years Ioannidis replaced most Greek officers still present in Cyprus with fascists. In order to undermine Makarios, these officers made sure that some entire units of the 10000 strong Cypriot National Guard were also like minded and “properly indoctrinated”.In 1973, as the Athens junta installed a puppet civilian government to rule Greece, protests erupted demanding free elections. Ioannidis organized another coup which crushed the protests with heavy loss of life. Following these events, Ioannidis who had already secretly sent Grivas back to Cyprus in 1971, started preparations to remove Makarios, with the obvious approval of the US government.Being part of the “5 eyes” intelligence community, undoubtedly British MI-6 were aware of the coup build up and obviously didn’t or couldn’t object.In March 1974 Major-General Ioannidis the Greek dictator invited to his office shipping magnate Aristotelis Onassis. He told him, according to one of the very close associates of Onassis, “Aristotelis, everything is fine with foreign policy. The Americans told me to get rid of the priest (Archbishop Makarios, President of Cyprus) and they will give us the island” (Cyprus to be united with Greece). Ioannidis was a mad man and the only thing Onassis could think of saying to him was “And why they don’t do it themselves?”. Such a question was not enough to make Ioannidis think, let alone deter him from what he was already planning.Three declassified documents show that the U.S. and NATO planned the assassination of President Makarios:May 1974 “You will proceed to the final cure of the Archbishop Makarios. The final cure is a Decision of the National Security Council/PRM-42. Follow the special directions”June 1974 “Clean the table of our ambassador in Cyprus, the cleaning is a decision of the National Security Council/PM-36 Follow the program directly, Kissinger”July 1974 “The Assistant Undersecretary of State Sisco's visit to the Alliance showed support for the decision of the American government to finish the Cyprus problem.” “We agreed with Mr. Sisco for supporting the Turkish army during the landing, as well as in the violent expulsion of Makarios.”On the 2nd of July 1974, Makarios wrote an open letter to Greece’s acting President General Gizikis complaining bluntly that “cadres of the Greek military regime support and direct the activities of the 'EOKA-B' terrorist organisation”. He also demanded that Greece removes some 600 Greek officers affected to the Cypriot National Guard from Cyprus. Ioannidis’ immediate reaction was to order the go-ahead for the coup. On July 15th 1974 sections of the Cypriot National Guard led by its Greek officers, overthrew the government. The coup was executed pretty much like the one which occurred one year earlier in Chile. A telegram was sent on the same day to warn Ioannidis not to change the status quo in Cyprus. This telegram was signed by Henry Kissinger and the message was delivered to Ioannidis by CIA agents in Athens.Unlike Allende, Makarios narrowly escaped death in the attack and with the help of the police managed to reach Paphos from where he sent a public radio message of resistance before fleeing to Malta and onto London with the help of the British government.Subsequently the military installed far right ultra nationalist MP, Nikos Sampson at the head of the new regime in Nicosia. During the coup, the Sampson regime took over radio stations and declared that Makarios had been killed; but Makarios, safe in London, was soon able to counteract these reports.During the coup itself, 91 Greek Cypriots were killed. Turkish-Cypriots were not immediately affected by the coup against Makarios; since Ioannidis did not want to provoke a Turkish reaction. Apparently later, the same CNG units involved in the coup, assisted by EOKA-B terrorists, having realized that the coup had failed and a Turkish intervention was imminent, committed Crimes Against Humanity by conducting massacres of unarmed Turkish Cypriots civilians.In response to the coup, US Secretary of State Kissinger sent Joseph Sisco to mediate the conflict. Turkey issued a list of demands to Greece via the US negotiator. These demands included the immediate removal of Nikos Sampson, the withdrawal of 650 Greek officers from the Cypriot National Guard (what Makarios also demanded), the admission of Turkish troops to protect their population, equal rights for both populations, and access to the sea from the northern coast for Turkish Cypriots.However it is now known that Ioannidis after failing to have Makarios assassinated (meaning that his coup had failed), miscalculated by believing that Turkey wouldn’t intervene and rejected Ecevit’s demands, as revealed by notes -now declassified- between the US Athens embassy and Joseph Sisco.Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit, then applied to the UK as a signatory of the Treaty of Guarantee to take action to return Cyprus to its neutral status. The UK declined this offer and refused to let Turkey use its bases on Cyprus as part of the operation. Britain's then foreign secretary James Callaghan later disclosed that H. Kissinger "vetoed" British military action to pre-empt the Turkish landing. From this we can then assume that there were divergences between the British Labor government and its intelligence services.In an interview old TMT commander Arif Hasan Tahsin, claimed that the Soviet Union, by supplying large amounts of fuel to the Turkish military for the operation, approved of the intervention under the proviso that the entire island wouldn’t be affected .It was the opposite attitude to the one Nikita Khrushchev had adopted in 1964. Then, warned by Makarios’s envoy Vassos Lyssaridis (the Cypriot socialist leader) who had met him personally at his southern resort, had send a strong message to US President Lyndon Johnson explaining that a Turkish plan to invade the island would be unacceptable for the Soviet Union. Johnson sent a letter (published since) to the Turkish leader Inonu, telling him to cancel the invasion plans.To conclude, it appears that non only the CIA and MI-6 had direct knowledge and manipulated the coup against Makarios, but the KGB had its hand in it as well…White House 1974 Cyprus Meeting: Kissinger Backed Turkey Over Greece - The National Heraldhttps://www.cairn.info/revue-les-cahiers-irice-2013-1-page-123.htm#Reply

Very little idea about France, but here I present some of the atrocities committed by the Portuguese, upon the Indians.Goa InquisitionBackgroundThe Goa Inquisition was the office of the Portuguese Inquisition acting in Portuguese India, and in the rest of the Portuguese Empire in Asia. It was established in 1560, briefly suppressed from 1774–1778, and finally abolished in 1812.The Inquisition was established to punish apostate New Christians — Jews and Muslims who converted to Catholicism, as well as their descendants—who were now suspected of practicing their ancestral religion in secret.In Goa, the Inquisition also turned its attention to Indian converts from Hinduism or Islam who were thought to have returned to their original ways. In addition, the Inquisition prosecuted non-converts who broke prohibitions against the observance of Hindu or Muslim rites or interfered with Portuguese attempts to convert non-Christians to Catholicism.While its ostensible aim was to preserve the Catholic faith, the Inquisition was used against Indian Catholics and Hindus and also against Portuguese settlers from Europe (mostly New Christians and Jews but also Old Christians) as an instrument of social control, as well as a method of confiscating property and enriching the Inquisitors.Persecution and AftermathPersecution of Hindus: In 1567, the campaign of destroying temples in Bardez met with success. At the end of it 300 Hindu temples were destroyed. Enacting laws, prohibition was laid from 4 December 1567 on rituals of Hindu marriages, sacred thread wearing and cremation.All the persons above 15 years of age were compelled to listen to Christian preaching, failing which they were punished. In 1583 Hindu temples at Assolna and Cuncolim were destroyed through army action.In 1620, an order was passed to prohibit the Hindus from performing their marriage rituals.Persecution of Goan Catholics: The main object of the Inquisition was the eradication of heresy. Consequently, the authorities of the Inquisition also dealt severely with the converted Catholics who observed their former Hindu customs, than with the Hindus and Muslims. They declared that observance of former customs after conversion was un-Christian and heretical.However, many Goan Catholics were tenaciously attached to some of their old Hindu customs. Those who refused to give up their ancient Hindu practices were declared apostates and heretics and condemned to death. Such circumstances forced many to leave Goa and settle in the neighboring kingdoms, of which a minority went to the Deccan and the vast majority went to Canara.Historian Severine Silva reasons that the fact that these Catholics who fled the Inquisition did not abandon their Christian faith was because they simply wanted to observe their traditional Hindu customs along with their new-found Catholic practices.These migrations laid the foundations for two distinct Konkani Catholic communities in Canara—the Karwari Catholics of North Canara and the Mangalorean Catholics of South Canara, respectively.Suppression of Konkani: Urged by the Franciscans, the Portuguese viceroy forbade the use of Konkani on 27 June 1684 and decreed that within three years, the local people in general would speak the Portuguese tongue. They were to be required to use it in all their contacts and contracts made in Portuguese territories. The penalties for violation would be imprisonment. The decree was confirmed by the king on 17 March 1687.Because of the language issue, the colonial government expelled the Jesuits in 1761, as they had been proponents of using Konkani to communicate with the native peoples. In 1812, the Archbishop decreed that children were to be prohibited from speaking Konkani in schools and in 1847, this was extended to seminaries. In 1869, Konkani was completely banned in schools.As a result, Goans did not develop a literature in Konkani, nor could the language unite the population, as several scripts (including Roman, Devanagari and Kannada) were used to write it.Since India annexed Goa in 1961, Konkani has become the cement that binds all Goans across caste, religion and class; it is affectionately termed Konkani Mai (Mother Konkani).Persecution of Syrian Christians: In 1599 under, the Catholic Synod (council) of Diamper (Udayamperoor in Kerala) forcefully converted the Syrian Christians or Nasranis of Kerala to the Roman Catholic Church. The common prayer book was not spared. Every known item of literature was burnt, and any priest professing independence was imprisoned. Some altars were pulled down to make way for altars conforming to Catholic criteria.The Nasranis resented over these acts later swore the Coonan Cross Oath, severing relations with the Catholic Church. Most of them came back to Catholic Church years later owing to the mediation efforts of Carmelite missionaries sent from Rome. Those who did not come back to Catholic Church came to be known as Jacobites, who sought the assistance of the Syriac Orthodox Church.Voltaire writes about the Goan Inquisition "Goa is sadly famous for its inquisition, equally contrary to humanity and commerce. The Portuguese monks made us believe that the people worshiped the devil, and it is they who have served him."EDIT:Sources:Dellon's Account of the Inquisition at GoaPage on Deccanherald'Goa Inquisition was most merciless and cruel'Inquisition Goa