Gyroscopic Investing

glennds wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:17 pm I guess we'll all find out together.

It is bizarre though that we would be talking about the birthright citizen status of Native Americans. Talk about paradox.

glennds wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:17 pm I guess we'll all find out together.

It is bizarre though that we would be talking about the birthright citizen status of Native Americans. Talk about paradox.

Xan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 8:05 pm

glennds wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:17 pm I guess we'll all find out together.

It is bizarre though that we would be talking about the birthright citizen status of Native Americans. Talk about paradox.

It might seem normal to us today, but the citizenship situation of Native Americans is far from a slam dunk. What we're talking about is treatment of a conquered people by the conquerors. How many times in history have the conquered people been granted the rights and privileges of citizenship in the conquering nation, merely because they had been conquered? Such a thing is a very new idea.

flyingpylon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 7:17 pm

Dieter wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 5:08 pm

flyingpylon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 1:18 pm Seems like the EO only applies to people who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of the order.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... tizenship/

This one / for now, anyways

Yeah, even this one is an unconstitutional change, but, who knows what the future holds

Whether it’s unconstitutional or not depends on one’s interpretation of the 14th amendment, specifically the part about being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That will likely be decided by the SCOTUS in a couple of years.

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 recognized that American Indians were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States so the 14th amendment didn’t apply to them. Congress needed to enact separate legislation to grant them US citizenship. So the argument is that if the 14th amendment didn’t even apply to American Indians, why would it apply to anyone else not subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

But like you said, who knows…

Xan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 8:05 pm
How many times in history have the conquered people been granted the rights and privileges of citizenship in the conquering nation, merely because they had been conquered? Such a thing is a very new idea.

glennds wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:17 pm It is bizarre though that we would be talking about the birthright citizen status of Native Americans. Talk about paradox.

Xan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 8:05 pm

glennds wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:17 pm I guess we'll all find out together.

It is bizarre though that we would be talking about the birthright citizen status of Native Americans. Talk about paradox.

It might seem normal to us today, but the citizenship situation of Native Americans is far from a slam dunk. What we're talking about is treatment of a conquered people by the conquerors. How many times in history have the conquered people been granted the rights and privileges of citizenship in the conquering nation, merely because they had been conquered? Such a thing is a very new idea.

Xan wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 10:46 am Good points all, I stand corrected!

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 12:02 pm

Xan wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 10:46 am Good points all, I stand corrected!

It was a good question. I have re-framed it in my mind into a variant though - Has it proven to be a better strategy historically for a conquering power to a) subjugate the conquered into a subordinate sub-class, or b) assimilate the conquered into their society with full citizenship rights and privileges?

I have a book somewhere called The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. I seem to recall it talked about this issue. Later today I'll have a look.

dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 6:00 pm I just saw a graphic on PBS Newshour stating that ICE did more deportations in 2024 than in any other year since 2015. So, I guess that should be balanced against what technovelist would call TDS.

dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 8:34 pm Is the A acceptance?

dualstow wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 9:59 am How do you feel about Sen. John Fetterman engaging with Trump? I llike it. I feel like he’s just being practical. Once upon a time, I thought Fetterman was a joke. Now he’s my hero.

Xan wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 12:11 pm

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 12:02 pm
It was a good question. I have re-framed it in my mind into a variant though - Has it proven to be a better strategy historically for a conquering power to a) subjugate the conquered into a subordinate sub-class, or b) assimilate the conquered into their society with full citizenship rights and privileges?

I have a book somewhere called The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. I seem to recall it talked about this issue. Later today I'll have a look.

I look forward to hearing what you find out!

Yes, Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers touches on themes related to the treatment of conquered peoples, though it does not focus heavily on the specific issue of enslavement versus granting citizenship. The book is primarily a macro-historical analysis of how economic, military, and political power shapes the rise and decline of great states from 1500 to the 20th century. However, Kennedy indirectly discusses policies toward conquered peoples in the context of imperial expansion, governance, and resource management. Below are some relevant aspects:

1. Treatment of Conquered Peoples and Economic Management
Kennedy emphasizes the importance of economic efficiency and resource management in maintaining imperial dominance. The treatment of conquered peoples—whether they were exploited (e.g., through slavery or forced labor) or integrated into the economic system—had significant implications for a state's ability to sustain power:

Spain: Kennedy critiques Spain’s reliance on the exploitation of resources and forced labor (e.g., the encomienda system in the Americas). This extractive system enriched Spain in the short term but failed to create a sustainable economic base, ultimately leading to its decline.
Britain: In contrast, the British Empire’s emphasis on trade, economic incentives, and gradual integration of colonies into a larger economic framework (e.g., India) allowed it to maintain dominance for centuries.

2. Rome as a Model of Integration
Kennedy occasionally references the Roman Empire as a historical benchmark for managing conquered peoples. The Roman practice of extending citizenship (especially after Emperor Caracalla's Constitutio Antoniniana) is highlighted by historians as one reason for Rome’s stability and longevity. While Kennedy doesn't analyze this directly, the book's broader themes align with the idea that inclusionary policies often strengthen empires.

3. Exploitation vs. Assimilation in Imperial Decline
Kennedy explores how empires that relied heavily on exploitation of conquered peoples or territories often suffered from:

Economic inefficiencies: Over-reliance on forced labor or tribute systems (e.g., the Spanish Empire) often stunted local economies and hindered technological progress.
Rebellions and instability: Subjugation bred resistance, draining imperial resources (e.g., the Dutch Revolt against Spanish rule or anti-colonial uprisings in the British and French Empires).
Conversely, empires that granted rights or assimilated conquered populations often maintained greater stability. For example:

The British Empire in the 19th century benefited from a relatively decentralized governance model, though it remained far from equitable.
France under Napoleon extended elements of the Napoleonic Code to conquered territories, fostering some degree of loyalty (though also resistance in nationalist areas).

4. Labor Systems in the Age of Empire
Kennedy indirectly addresses systems of labor and their role in the economy:

The reliance on enslaved or subjugated populations in colonial economies (e.g., the Atlantic slave trade or Spanish silver mines in Potosí) is framed as a short-term advantage that often led to overextension and vulnerability.
Empires that created systems encouraging economic participation (e.g., the Netherlands’ commercial model) often achieved longer-term success.
5. Key Takeaway in Kennedy's Framework
Kennedy argues that empires thrive when they manage resources—including human capital—efficiently. Subjugation, particularly through slavery or oppressive systems, may yield short-term economic or military benefits but often leads to instability and rebellion. Meanwhile, policies of integration, such as granting citizenship or creating shared economic incentives, contribute to imperial sustainability.

Broader Context
While The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers does not explicitly analyze the dichotomy of enslavement versus citizenship, it provides a framework for understanding the consequences of these policies:

Empires that over-exploit conquered peoples or territories (e.g., Spain in the Americas) often enjoy short term gains at the expense of long-term decline.
Empires that integrate and incentivize participation (e.g., Rome, Britain in its commercial era) tend to sustain their power longer.