Pages of history. Democracy in English. Democracy in English What is democracy in English

...Are we dealing with intelligent monkeys or with very underdeveloped people?
Oldfield, 1865
The only reasonable and logical solution regarding the inferior race is its destruction.
H. G. Wells, 1902

One of the most shameful pages in the history of English colonial expansion is the extermination of the native population of the island. Tasmania.,

British settlers in Australia, and especially Tasmania, systematically destroyed the indigenous population and undermined their livelihoods for the sake of their own prosperity. The British “needed” all the lands of the natives with favorable climatic conditions. “Europeans can hope to prosper because... the blacks will soon disappear...

If the natives are shot in the same way as crows are shot in some countries, the [native] population must in course of time be greatly reduced,” wrote Robert Knox in his “philosophical study of the influence of race.” Alan Moorehead described the fatal changes that befell Australia: “In Sydney the savage tribes were killed. In Tasmania, they were completely exterminated... by settlers... and convicts... they were all hungry for land, and none of them was going to let the blacks stop it.

However, those gentle and kind-hearted people whom Cook visited half a century earlier turned out to be not as submissive as on the mainland.” After farmers took the land from the indigenous people (primarily in Tasmania, where the climate was colder), the natives, with spears in their hands, tried to resist the newcomers armed with firearms. In response, the British organized a real hunt for them. In Tasmania, such a hunt for people took place with the sanction of the British authorities: “Final extermination on a large scale could only be carried out with the help of justice and the armed forces ... The soldiers of the fortieth regiment drove the natives between two stone blocks and shot

all the men, and then pulled women and children out of rock crevices to blow their brains out” (ISSO). If the natives were “unaccommodating [unaccommodating],” the British concluded that the only way out of the situation was to destroy them. The natives were “hunted incessantly and hunted down like deer.” Those who were caught were taken away. In 1835, the last surviving local resident was removed. Moreover, these measures were not secret, no one was ashamed of them, and the government supported this policy.

“So the hunt for people began, and as time went on it became more and more brutal. In 1830, Tasmania was placed under martial law; a chain of armed men was built across the island, trying to drive the Aborigines into a trap. The indigenous inhabitants managed to get through the cordon, but the will to live left the hearts of the savages, fear was stronger than despair...” Felix Maynard, a doctor on a French whaling ship, recalled systematic roundups of natives. “The Tasmanians were useless and [now] all dead,” Hammond believed.
* Hammond John Lawrence Le Breton (1872-1949) - historian and journalist.

Europeans found the island quite densely populated. R. Pöch believes that about 6,000 natives could exist in Tasmania on the products of hunting and gathering. Wars between the Aborigines did not go beyond minor inter-tribal feuds. Apparently there were no hunger strikes; at least the Europeans did not find the natives exhausted.

The first Europeans were greeted by the Tasmanians with the greatest friendliness. According to Cook, the Tasmanians, of all the “savages” he saw, were the most good-natured and trusting people. “They did not have a fierce appearance, but seemed kind and cheerful without distrust of strangers.”

When in 1803 the first English settlement was founded on the island; the Tasmanians also treated the colonists without any hostility. Only the violence and cruelty of Europeans forced the Tasmanians to change their attitude towards whites. In the sources we find numerous colorful examples of these violences and cruelties. “Someone named Carrots,” says H. Parker, “killed a native whose wife he wanted to take away, cut off his head, hung it like a toy around the neck of the murdered man and forced the woman to follow him.” The same author reports on the exploits of one seal hunter, who “captured 15 native women and settled them on the islets of Bass Strait so that they would catch seals for him. If, by the time of his arrival, the women did not have time to prepare the required number of skins, he would punish them by tying the perpetrators to trees for 24-36 hours straight, and from time to time he would flog them with rods.”

In the early 1820s, Tasmanians attempted organized armed resistance to European rapists and murderers. The so-called “black war” begins, which soon turned into a simple hunt by the British for Tasmanians, completely defenseless against white firearms.

H. Hull directly says that “hunting for blacks was the favorite sport of the colonists. They chose a day and invited neighbors and their families to a picnic... after lunch, the gentlemen took guns and dogs and, accompanied by 2-3 exiled servants, went into the forest to look for Tasmanians. The hunters returned in triumph if they managed to shoot a woman or 1-2 men.

“One European colonist,” says Ling Roth, “had a jar in which he kept the ears of the people he killed as hunting trophies.”

Pictured: Tasmania's last Aboriginal people

“Many blacks with women and children gathered in a ravine near the city... the men were sitting around a large fire, while the women were busy preparing food for dinner. The natives were taken by surprise by a detachment of soldiers who, without warning, opened fire on them and then rushed to finish off the wounded. One soldier bayoneted a child crawling near his dead mother and threw him into the fire.” This soldier himself spoke about his “feat” to the traveler Hull, and when the latter expressed indignation at his cruelty, he exclaimed with sincere surprise: “It was only a child!”

In 1834 everything was finished. “On December 28,” says E. Reclus, “the last natives, pursued like wild animals, were driven to the tip of one elevated cape, and this event was celebrated with triumph. The happy hunter, Robinson, received an estate of 400 hectares and a significant amount of money as a reward from the government.

The prisoners were first transferred from island to island, and then all the Tasmanians, numbering two hundred, were imprisoned in one swampy valley on the island. Flinders. Within 10 years, 3/4 of the exiles died.

In 1869, William Lanny, the last Tasmanian, died on the shores of Oyster Bay, near Hobart.

In 1860 there were only eleven Tasmanians left. In 1876, the last Tasmanian woman, Truganini, died, and the island turned out to be, in the words of English official documents, completely “cleared” of natives, except for an insignificant number of Europeanized mestizos of Anglo-Tasmanian origin.

“Charles Darwin visited Tasmania during the Holocaust. He wrote: “I am afraid there is no doubt that the evil happening here and its consequences are the result of the shameless behavior of some of our fellow countrymen.” This is putting it mildly. It was a monstrous, unforgivable crime... The Aborigines had only two alternatives: either resist and die, or submit and become a parody of themselves,” wrote Alan Moorehead. Polish traveler Count Strzelecki,

(* Strzelecki Edmund Pawel (1796-1873) - Polish naturalist, geographer and geologist, explorer of America, Oceania and Australia) who arrived in Australia in the late 1830s, could not help but express horror at what he saw: “Humiliated, depressed, confused... emaciated and covered with dirty rags, they - [once] the natural owners of this land - [now] are more like ghosts of the past than living people; they vegetate here in their melancholy existence, awaiting an even more melancholic end.” Strzelecki also mentioned “the examination of a corpse by one race by another - with the verdict: “She died overtaken by God’s punishment.” The extermination of the natives could be considered as hunting, as a sport, because they seemed to have no souls.
True, Christian missionaries opposed the idea of ​​the “lack of soul” among the “aboriginals” and saved the lives of a considerable number of the last indigenous inhabitants of Australia. However
However, the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, which was in force already in the post-war years, ordered (Article 127) “not to take into account the Aborigines” when calculating the population of individual states. Thus, the constitution rejected their participation in the human race. After all, as early as 1865, Europeans faced with indigenous peoples were not sure whether they were dealing with “clever apes or very inferior humans.”

Caring for “these beast people” is “a crime against our own blood,” Heinrich Himmler recalled in 1943, speaking of the Russians who should have been subjugated to the Nordic master race.
The British, who were doing “unheard of things in colonization” in Australia (according to Adolf Hitler), did not need this kind of instruction. Thus, one message for 1885 reads:
“To calm the niggas down, they were given something amazing. The food [that was distributed to them] consisted half of strychnine - and no one escaped his fate... The owner of Long Lagoon, using this trick, destroyed more than a hundred blacks.” “In the old days in New South Wales it was useless to ensure that those who invited blacks as guests and gave them poisoned meat received the punishment they deserved.” Некий Винсент Лесина еще в 1901 г. заявил в австралийском парламенте: «Ниггер должен исчезнуть с пути развития белого человека» — так «гласит закон эволюции». “We did not realize that by killing blacks we were breaking the law... because it used to be practiced everywhere,” was the main argument of the British, who killed twenty-eight “friendly” (i.e., peaceful) natives in 1838. Until this massacre at Myell Creek, all actions to exterminate the indigenous people of Australia remained unpunished. Only in the second year of Queen Victoria's reign were seven Englishmen (from the lower strata) hanged for such a crime as an exception.

However, in Queensland (northern Australia) at the end of the 19th century. невинной забавой считалось загнать целую семью «ниггеров» -мужа, жену и детей — в воду к крокодилам… Во время своего пребывания в Северном Квинсленде в 1880—1884 гг., норвежец Карл Лумхольц(*Лумхольц Карл Софус (1851—1922) — норвежский traveler, naturalist and ethnographer, explorer of Australia, Mexico, Indonesia) heard the following statements: “You can only shoot blacks - you cannot treat them differently.” One of the colonists noted that this was a “hard... but... necessary principle.” He himself shot all the men he met in his pastures, “because they are slaughterers, women - because they give birth to slaughterers, and children - because they [will] still be slaughterers. They don’t want to work and therefore are not good for anything except getting shot,” the colonists complained to Lumholtz.

After reading the contents Topeka (Essays) on the topic "Great Britain" We advise each of you note for additional materials. Most of our topics contain additional questions according to the text and most interesting words text describing their meaning. By answering simple questions about the text, you will be able to comprehend the content as much as possible. Topeka (Essays) and if you need to write your own Essay on the topic " Great Britain"You will have minimal difficulties.

If you have questions arise After reading individual words, you can double-click on the word you don’t understand and in the lower left corner in translation form separate button which will allow you to hear directly pronunciation of the word. Or you can also go to the section Rules for Reading English and find the answer to your question.

Democracy in Great Britain (1)

Great importance is attached in Britain to human rights. Respect for individual freedoms forms a cornerstone of Britain's democratic system. British public opinion is concerned about violations of human rights throughout the world. The British Government regards the observation of human rights and their protection as an important element of its foreign policy.
These rights and freedoms are listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. They include the right to: work; an adequate standard of living; social security; education; the highest attainable health care standards; form and join trade unions; participate in cultural life.
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness , disability, widowhood, old age.
The social security system aims to provide financial assistance to people who are elderly, sick, disabled, unemployed, widowed or bringing up children.
The system includes contributory national insurance benefits covering sickness, disability, unemployment, widowhood and retirement. There is also statutory sick pay and maternity pay paid for their employees by employers.
Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups.
The National Health Service (NHS) provides comprehensive health care to all residents. Treatment is based on medical priority regardless of patients" income and is financed mainly out of general taxation.
Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Democracy in Great Britain (1)

The UK takes human rights very seriously. Attention to individual freedoms is a cornerstone of the British democratic system. The UK public is concerned about human rights violations around the world. The British government considers the respect and protection of human rights to be an important element of its foreign policy.
These rights and freedoms are listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. This is the right to work, an adequate standard of living, social security, education, a high level of healthcare, the creation and participation in trade unions, and participation in cultural life.
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of work, to fair and suitable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate to ensure the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care, as well as the right to assistance from social services in cases of unemployment, illness, disability, widowhood and old age.
The objectives of the social security system are to provide financial assistance to the elderly, sick, disabled, unemployed, widowed and those raising children.
The system includes insurance payments in case of illness, disability, unemployment, widowhood and retirement. The law establishes the payment of sick leave and maternity leave to employees by their employers.
Everyone has the right to education. Education - primary and secondary - should be free. Primary education is compulsory. Technical and vocational training should be made generally available, and higher education should be available to all who can learn.
Education should promote personal development and respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights. Education should promote mutual understanding, tolerance and friendship between representatives of different nationalities, races and religious groups.
The National Health Service provides medical services to the entire population. Treatment is provided for medical reasons regardless of the patient's income and is financed primarily by taxes.
Everyone has the right to create trade unions and participate in them to protect their interests.

What Is Democracy?

Government of the People

Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships alike have attempted to claim popular support by pinning democratic labels upon themselves. Yet the power of the democratic idea has also evoked some of history's most profound and moving expressions of human will and intellect: from Pericles in ancient Athens to Vaclav Havel(Vaclav Havel) in the modern Czech Republic, from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence in 1776 to Andrei Sakharov's last speeches in 1989.

In the dictionary definition, democracy "is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably(interchangeable), but the two are not synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles about freedom, but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded through a long, often tortuous history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom. For this reason, it is possible to identify the time-tested fundamentals of constitutional government, human rights, and equality before the law that any society must possess to be properly called democratic.

Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens, without the intermediary(mediator) of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions. Such a system is clearly only practical with relatively small numbers of people--in a community organization or tribal council, for example, or the local unit of a labor union, where members can meet in a single room to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Ancient Athens, the world's first democracy, managed to practice direct democracy with an assembly that may have numbered as many as 5,000 to 6,000 persons--perhaps the maximum number that can physically gather in one place and practice direct democracy.

Modern society, with its size and complexity, offers few opportunities for direct democracy. Even in the northeastern United States, where the New England town meeting(town meeting) is a hallowed tradition, most communities have grown too large for all the residents to gather in a single location and vote directly on issues that affect their lives.

Today, the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or nations of 50 million, is representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good(public good). In the name of the people, such officials can deliberate on complex public issues in a thoughtful and systematic manner that requires an investment of time and energy that is often impractical for the vast majority of private citizens.

How such officials are elected can vary enormously. On the national level, for example, legislators can be chosen from districts that each elect a single representative. Alternatively, under a system of proportional representation, each political party is represented in the legislature according to its percentage of the total vote national. Provincial and local elections can mirror these national models, or choose their representatives more informally through group consensus instead of elections. Whatever the method used, public officials in a representative democracy hold office in the name of the people and remain accountable to the people for their actions.

Majority Rule and Minority Rights

All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule(the principle of subordination of the minority to the majority). But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic: No one, for example, would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities--whether ethnic, religious, or political, or simply the losers in the debate over a piece of controversial legislation. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.

Diane Ravitch, scholar, author, and a former assistant U.S. Secretary of education, wrote in a paper for an educational seminar in Poland: "When a representative democracy operates in accordance with a constitution that limits the powers of the government and guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens, this form of government is a constitutional democracy. In such a society, the majority rules, and the rights of minorities are protected by law and through the institutionalization of law."

These elements define the fundamental elements of all modern democracies, no matter how varied in history, culture, and economy. Despite their enormous differences as nations and societies, the essential elements of constitutional government--majority rule coupled with individual and minority rights, and the rule of law--can be found in Canada and Costa Rica, France and Botswana, Japan and India.

Democratic Society

Democracy is more than a set of constitutional rules and procedures that determine how a government functions. In a democracy, government is only one element coexisting in a social fabric of many and varied institutions, political parties, organizations, and associations. This diversity is called pluralism, and it assumes that the many organized groups and institutions in a democratic society do not depend upon government for their existence, legitimacy, or authority.

Thousands of private organizations operate in a democratic society, some local, some national. Many of them serve a mediating role between individuals and the complex social and governmental institutions of which they are a part, filling roles not given to the government and offering individuals opportunities to exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens of a democracy.

These groups represent the interests of their members in a variety of ways--by supporting candidates for public office, debating issues, and trying to influence policy decisions. Through such groups, individuals have an avenue for meaningful participation both in government and in their own communities. The examples are many and varied: charitable organizations and churches, environmental and neighborhood groups, business associations and labor unions.

In an authoritarian society, virtually all such organizations would be controlled, licensed, watched, or otherwise accountable to the government. In a democracy, the powers of the government are, by law, clearly defined and sharply limited. As a result, private organizations are free of government control; on the contrary, many of them lobby the government and seek to hold it accountable for its actions. Other groups, concerned with the arts, the practice of religious faith, scholarly research, or other interests, may choose to have little or no contact with the government at all.

In this busy private realm of democratic society, citizens can explore the possibilities of freedom and the responsibilities of self-government—unpressured by the potentially heavy hand of the state.

THE PILLARS(pillars, supports) OF DEMOCRACY
- Sovereignty of the people.
- Government based upon consent of the governed.
- Majority rule.
- Minority rights.
- Guarantee of basic human rights.
- Free and fair elections.
- Equality before the law.
- Due process of law.
- Constitutional limits on government.
- Social, economic, and political pluralism.
- Values ​​of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.

Russian-English translation DEMOCRACY

wives democracy constitutional democracy - constitutional democracy

democracy: n. democracy

Large Russian-English dictionary. New big Russian-English dictionary. 2012