Well, this is certainly news to me! Just read the following link on the ever reliable BBC News Website.
Gist of it is, Britain plans to drill for oil off the shore of the Falkland Islands (which are our's) and once again, Argentina are about to throw the toys from the pram, claiming the Islands are their's (which they aren't. They are our's.)
So it seems the Scum Newspaper claims a taskforce is enroute, which has been denied, but there is definitely an Oil Rig hoving in on the Falklands, and at least one ship carrying drilling equipment has been 'detained' by Argentine officials.
Wonder where this is going to go? A second Falklands War, or is just Argentina desperately rattling it's sabre, before letting us go about our lawful business?
Actually its theirs. There's at least a few thousand miles between the UK and Argentina. But I won't say anything if you won't (unless of course Obama invokes the Monroe Doctrine, which well he should actually and the US Navy re-enacts the Dutch naval flotilla up the Thames thing).
Internationally recognised as being part of British Sovereignty. Like Gibraltar, the inhabitants of the Falklands wish to remain this way, ergo Argentina can go and get stuffed. Or simply shut up and stop being such a big bairn.
The Argentinians can shout and bawl all they want the Falklands are British overseas territories and are going to stay that way.
Popular opinion in Argentina says that the populace may well see the Falklands/Islas Malvinas as theirs but they have no wish to get into another conflict over them.
When the initial conflict kicked off in 82 there was only a token garrison on the island, now there are at least 1000 personel, an RAF squadron and, if the reports in the Scum are to be believed, at least 3 war ships. In short we are well prepared to hold the Falklands (and the surrounding territories).
I can't see this going beyond posturing, if it did kick off I would happily re-join as it's always nice to go to interesting places, meet intersting people and then shoot them.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Internationally recognised as being part of British Sovereignty. Like Gibraltar, the inhabitants of the Falklands wish to remain this way, ergo Argentina can go and get stuffed. Or simply shut up and stop being such a big bairn.
Imperialist Dog! Sorry, always wanted to say that. Epic Well the "itnernatonal community" may agree with you, but face facts, thats Argentina.
IIRC its interesting that Britain was the only nation allowed to retain a possession in the Americas.
But yea I'd give even money on a motivated Argentina. At least you wouldn't be facing Brazil. You'd lose to Brazil. They are a power rising in the West. But none of that will happen. Both sides will just slant drill each other.
I'd be open to it being settled in gentlemanly fashion though with a dawn match of... FOOTBALL!!!
Argentina is just showing Brittain that they can not do whatever they want. Brittain will send some warships. Then they both flex their muscles a bit. And after that they will come to a mutual understandment where argentina gets compensation for the Brittish ships sailing trough their territorial water.
Grtz
L.D.
Ps: Frazzled the dutch also have retained severall of their possesions in the america's. Some have the status "aparate" becoming a different nation within the Kindom the netherlands. where others voted for closer links with the netherlands Link
And if that doesn't work, we shall kidnap Frazz, and tell him that it's not the Falklands, but his lawn....
Yea, but then you'd have to answer to the UN. The use of Frazzled in an international trade dispute is an official "crime against humanity" under UN Resolution 227.
Upon further "research" evidently football might not work. It seems the Argentinians have already prepared for this continency with a speacial team that has some sort of secret secret powers.
Sexual Favours = Massive Empire. You start with advanced foreplay, strictly on the movers and shakers, and once that's done, you feth the entire country five ways from Friday!
I'm actually currently studying the issue at university right now. The Argentinians won't touch the Falklands. Why?
Well, would you believe anything the Sun reports?
To cut a long story short, the Argentinians are obssessed with the Falklands(or as they call them, the Malvinas). They've had multiple generations of brainwashing and indoctrination in their schools in which the imperialistic colonial white forces of the UK stole what was rightfully theirs, and refuses to return it. It's actually a feature of their mindset to a degree which we can't understand. To us, it's a couple of windswept rocks with sheep on, and a few farmers. Nothing worth squabbling over. To them, its something their patriotic pride and national identity rests on.
When they initially invaded last time, it was because they seriously believed the British wouldn't fight for them. The government thought it could sail in, plonk down a flag, and distract the entire populace from its serious economic problems with a symbolic victory over a 'colonial' power. Throughtout the entire journey of the British fleet there, they believed it was one giant bluff.
Finally, the day before the British fleet was due to arrive and engage, the American Embassy basically went up to the Argentinian President and said, 'Look. The British are serious. Tomorrow, they are going to attack, and they are going to win. You are going to lose. Get out whilst you still can'. The Argentinian President finally realised that we meant business, and tried to persuade the Argentine Armed forces to withdraw, but they refused.
Last time, when they invaded, there was a handful of marines defending South Georgia and the Falklands. Even then, they put up a phenomenal level of resistance against overwhelming force. For example, the case of the twenty three marines in Grytviken. The Argentine officer in charge said after the fighting was over, ' You took on two ships, 500 marines, and three helicopters! There are no kamikazes left in Japan-they're all here!' The fact remains though that compared to what was there then, and what is there today is of such vast difference, that the Argentines will probably never try anything again. They will posture, and occasionally muscle flex, such as with this oil issue, but the issue has been resolved.
By right of history, self-determination, and conquest, the Falklands is British territory. They need to wake up and deal with it.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Anyways, we'll just offer them work Visas, and watch them jump ship! Shortly before we sink said ship. Submarines FTW!
The irony of that whole event was that the ship in question, The General Belgrano, used to belong to the USA (it was formerly the USS Pheonix) and was called the luckiest ship in the fleet as it was the only ship to escape Pearl Harbour completely unscathed. It is also the only war ship to have ever been sunk by a British submarine
Whilst it's a war we'd easily win, I hope it's one that doesn't happen. We've only just passed the Falklands casualty count in Afghanistan and the latter conflict has lasted years. The Falklands only lasted a couple of months but was a lot bloodier.
All to keep Thatcher in power for another five years.
Ketara wrote:I'm actually currently studying the issue at university right now. The Argentinians won't touch the Falklands. Why?
Well, would you believe anything the Sun reports?
To cut a long story short, the Argentinians are obssessed with the Falklands(or as they call them, the Malvinas). They've had multiple generations of brainwashing and indoctrination in their schools in which the imperialistic colonial white forces of the UK stole what was rightfully theirs, and refuses to return it. It's actually a feature of their mindset to a degree which we can't understand. To us, it's a couple of windswept rocks with sheep on, and a few farmers. Nothing worth squabbling over. To them, its something their patriotic pride and national identity rests on.
When they initially invaded last time, it was because they seriously believed the British wouldn't fight for them. The government thought it could sail in, plonk down a flag, and distract the entire populace from its serious economic problems with a symbolic victory over a 'colonial' power. Throughtout the entire journey of the British fleet there, they believed it was one giant bluff.
Finally, the day before the British fleet was due to arrive and engage, the American Embassy basically went up to the Argentinian President and said, 'Look. The British are serious. Tomorrow, they are going to attack, and they are going to win. You are going to lose. Get out whilst you still can'. The Argentinian President finally realised that we meant business, and tried to persuade the Argentine Armed forces to withdraw, but they refused.
Last time, when they invaded, there was a handful of marines defending South Georgia and the Falklands. Even then, they put up a phenomenal level of resistance against overwhelming force. For example, the case of the twenty three marines in Grytviken. The Argentine officer in charge said after the fighting was over, ' You took on two ships, 500 marines, and three helicopters! There are no kamikazes left in Japan-they're all here!' The fact remains though that compared to what was there then, and what is there today is of such vast difference, that the Argentines will probably never try anything again. They will posture, and occasionally muscle flex, such as with this oil issue, but the issue has been resolved.
By right of history, self-determination, and conquest, the Falklands is British territory. They need to wake up and deal with it.
Frazzled wrote:But yea I'd give even money on a motivated Argentina.
You might also want to give even money on several airstrikes on the Argentine mainland ending any potential conflict within days. It was considered last time (Ketara?), and I don't think the UK would hesitate the second time around. Gotta love force projection.
At least you wouldn't be facing Brazil. You'd lose to Brazil.
See above. We wouldn't be attempting to occupy Argentina or Brazil, just deterring them from attacking our territory.
Frazzled wrote:IIRC its interesting that Britain was the only nation allowed to retain a possession in the Americas.
Depends when from. We had Belize for a while IIRC.
Ketara wrote:By right of history, self-determination, and conquest, the Falklands is British territory. They need to wake up and deal with it.
Exactly.
@Squilverine - mattyrm has been talking about rejoining the Marines on Facebook today!
Frazzled wrote:But yea I'd give even money on a motivated Argentina.
You might also want to give even money on several airstrikes on the Argentine mainland ending any potential conflict within days. It was considered last time (Ketara?), and I don't think the UK would hesitate the second time around. Gotta love force projection.
At least you wouldn't be facing Brazil. You'd lose to Brazil.
See above. We wouldn't be attempting to occupy Argentina or Brazil, just deterring them from attacking our territory.
Frazzled wrote:IIRC its interesting that Britain was the only nation allowed to retain a possession in the Americas.
Depends when from. We had Belize for a while IIRC.
Ketara wrote:By right of history, self-determination, and conquest, the Falklands is British territory. They need to wake up and deal with it.
Exactly.
@Squilverine - mattyrm has been talking about rejoining the Marines on Facebook today!
Careful now, under the Monroe Doctrine we are obligated to stop that sort of nonsense. Remember, this isn't 1883. Brazil and Argentina are completely different animals (especially Brazil). Its one thing to get in a minor tiff over somegodforsaken island (how come no one gets in a fight over some idyllic place? Its always lets final the crappiest locale in a thousand miles and get pushy shovey, I mean come on!), its another to start attacking the mainland. The US would get involved. Thats why this nonsense won't happen. People will happily slant drill away.
Besides, I'd thought we'd already decided this is more appropriately battled on the soccer, er football field?
The Falklands are a territory of the United Kingdom.
There were no indigenous people dwelling on the islands when they were claimed. The original claim to the islands was contested between the Spanish and the British. The Brits claimed it solidly BEFORE there was an independent Argentinian nation.
They have sweet feth all claim to the islands.
If they try it on again, we are fully justified in tearing them a new arsehole...again.
Argentine claims on ships travelling through 'their waters' are due to them submitting a claim to the waters encircling the islands, which is frankly ludicrous. If they really want to be this stupid and assume that our nation lacks the stomach for conflict due to our involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are really not grasping how the British mindset works, the islands are ours. We will not tolerate yet another act of stupidity from the argies.
Now that I think about it I'd be leery if I were Argentina. The UK has a history of conquering other countries that have superior culinary styles to add to their menu. Anyone who's had Argentinian beef and other entrees knows what I am talking about here. Frankly the Brits might be getting tired of curries and may be laying about for a new menu right about now...
Outcome of war = the Argentinians get theri poor latin asses whooped by the Britts, then we all point fingers at the fools in Bueons Aries for a while and, all goes back to normal.
Frazzled wrote:
Now that I think about it I'd be leery if I were Argentina. The UK has a history of conquering other countries that have superior culinary styles to add to their menu. Anyone who's had Argentinian beef and other entrees knows what I am talking about here. Frankly the Brits might be getting tired of curries and may be laying about for a new menu right about now...
Frazzled wrote:Its one thing to get in a minor tiff over somegodforsaken island (how come no one gets in a fight over some idyllic place? Its always lets final the crappiest locale in a thousand miles and get pushy shovey, I mean come on!), its another to start attacking the mainland.
So the oil doesn't matter then? It's irrelevant anyway, The Falklands is British Territory - even if there was nothing there, the people want to be British.
So, America would act against it's closest and most powerful ally, if that ally responded in kind to an attack on it's sovereign territory? I find that hard to believe. Besides, it's a little bit of a hypocritical attitude considering that neither Afghanistan or Iraq directly attacked the USA. But then, this is you we're talking about...
Regardless, there are 4 Eurofighter Typhoons stationed in the South Atlantic - the attack would be over before the US would be able to stop it.
Frazzled wrote:But yea I'd give even money on a motivated Argentina.
You might also want to give even money on several airstrikes on the Argentine mainland ending any potential conflict within days. It was considered last time (Ketara?), and I don't think the UK would hesitate the second time around. Gotta love force projection.
Are you referring to ludicrous claim the RAF made that they could provide air cover and attack the Argentine mainland from bases in South Africa?
MeanGreenStompa wrote:The Falklands are a territory of the United Kingdom.
There were no indigenous people dwelling on the islands when they were claimed. The original claim to the islands was contested between the Spanish and the British. The Brits claimed it solidly BEFORE there was an independent Argentinian nation.
They have sweet feth all claim to the islands.
If they try it on again, we are fully justified in tearing them a new arsehole...again.
It was actually a Dutchman who first plotted the position of the isles in 1600, although there are claims that the British navigator John Davis sighted the island earlier in 1592. Technically, the islands belonged to the Spanish originally according to the Treat of Tordesillas in 1492 between Portugal and Spain which granted all lands to Spain within a certain territory. The first recorded landing on the isles was by Captain John Strong of Plymouth in 1690. He called the islands 'Falkland's Sound', after Lord Falkland, the commissioner of the Admiralty. He was succeeded by a large number of Frenchmen who called the islands the Iles Malouines( which later evolved the to Spanish 'Malvinas'. The islands were first secretly settled by a French nobleman in 1764, who called their settlement Port Louis. In 1765, Captain John Mcbride showed up, and under the order of the British government, were to settle the place and remove any other settlers. The French, when told to leave or swear allegiance, refused. Captain Anthony Hunt and a small force of marines were left behind to settle the place whilst the French settlement was reported back to England.
The French had actually sold their colony to the Spanish already though, to help cement relations. The Spanish and the British argued over who owned the place for a while, until in 1770, the Spanish sent a fleet of five ships to expel the British settlement. War between the two seemed inevitable until Spain backed down and formally restored Port Egmont(the British settlement) in 1771. The British later abandoned their settlement in 1774.
In 1816, a patchwork of independent republics in South America declared independence from Spain, and later became Argentina. The new nation immediately laid claim to all former Spanish territories, including the Falklands. In 1820, an Argentinian frigate took formal possession of the islands, 1823, the first Argentinian governor was appointed, and in 1826, ninety colonists were landed in Port Louis(now Puerto de la Soledad) under Louis Vernet. However, in 1831, after claiming all the waters around the Falklands, he arrested two American boats for fishing and sealing in what he proclaimed was his territory. The American corvette Lexington sailed to Port Louis, razed all fortifications, took prisoners, and declared the islands free of government.
The British sloop Clio showed up in 1833 then turned up at the Falklands, weighed anchor, and raised the Union Jack, claiming them for Britain, and establishing a new settlement. Argentina protested, saying the islands were theirs under the following premises:-
-Argentina inherited Spains former territory
-Spain, purchased the islands from France, had acquired the right of prior occupation.
-Britain had abandoned its settlement already.
-They were just suffering a temporary setback when the Americans torched the place, and regardless of what the Americans thought, it was still theirs.
Lord Palmerston then responded basically with two fingers and said that it could not expect Britain to 'permit any other state to exercise a right derived from Spain which Great Britain had deprived to Spain herself'(referring to the earlier backing down of Spain over the issue). Argentina then protested for the next 150 years, because they were sore losers.
Hmmm, no Corn beef, No wipe-out series 3 and a temporary [till we sink another of their out dated vessels and give them a sound thrashing] ban on going to gouchos for account meeting lunches?
This could get a bit dicey fellas but it will take some effort, right do as i do.
Chanting;
Must forget Diana, [face changing] Must forget Diana, [face changing must concentrate] Must forget Diana, Must forget Diana [lip stiffening], Must forget Diana, who the feck is Diana? [stiff upper lip acheived, 80's tash at full bristle!].
Down a can of premiun strength lager.
Oi Argies, Your gunna get your fackin' eds kicked in, Your gunna get your fackin' eds kicked in, Your gunna get your fackin' eds kicked in!
I am now ready to resolve our differances in the traditional manner. Now while i'm doing this if someone could stop the Frenchies from selling them missiles that would be appreciated [I'm looking at you Yankie].
The famous picture of Corporal Peter Robinson and the story of the Royal Marines epic yomp across the falklands while smashing the Argies all the while is probably the thing that got me to join the corps in the first place...
But anyway, my two cents, if any person claims to hold "freedom" dear they should listen to "the people"
If the people of The Falklands want to remain British, then who the hell are the Argies to tell them otherwise?
I dont care where the place is Geographically. I care about other human beings.
If the people of the Falkland Islands are as patriotically British as i have been led to believe they are, the Argies can lick my balls.
Screw it, if it actually comes to a war, which i doubt very much, ill join back up and march across the Falklands kicking ass just like my predecessors.
This is actually an attitude that was prevalent across all of Britain at the time of the Falklands war. The Marines and Paras had huge numbers of retired personnel suddenly volunteering to rejoin so that they could go. There was a 72 year old Gurkha who stowed away on one of the warships just so he could come along! To quote one Marine Officer, 'Like hell are we surrendering to some fething so and so !'.
I appreciate it was a quote and the intent wasn't to offend, but if we could avoid certain terms, even in circumstances like this, it'd be for the best. Ta.
Frazzled wrote:Actually its theirs. There's at least a few thousand miles between the UK and Argentina. But I won't say anything if you won't (unless of course Obama invokes the Monroe Doctrine, which well he should actually and the US Navy re-enacts the Dutch naval flotilla up the Thames thing).
So you also belive that the US should hand over Guam to Mirconesia, the Virgin Islands to Dominica, Navassa to Haiti and so forth?
As to the situation, saw the news two days ago and rolled my eyes, couldn't believe the Argies where even considering to turn down that path again.
Hopefully they'll see sense and drop it right quick, that place is an equivilent holy ground to the Marines now, they don't want to be proding that hornets nest.
Argentina is less likely to go to war with Britain than they are to top the medals table at the winter olympics. Haven't this government brought us into enough wars ffs.
Frazzled wrote:Actually its theirs. There's at least a few thousand miles between the UK and Argentina. But I won't say anything if you won't (unless of course Obama invokes the Monroe Doctrine, which well he should actually and the US Navy re-enacts the Dutch naval flotilla up the Thames thing).
So you also belive that the US should hand over Guam to Mirconesia, the Virgin Islands to Dominica, Navassa to Haiti and so forth?
We really should. I can't remember all those islands.
Everywhere i went in the marines peoples seemed to be very happy to see us.
In Sierra Leone, a country that once had a great numeracy and literacy rates, and now has the worst mortality rate in the world, the few old people you saw kinda had the "thank god you guys are back to take over again!" attitude.
My grandad used to live in Rhodesia, he had some staff, they all got along well, they were all happy. Now look at Zimbabwe.
Sure, they did some stuff im not proud of, a few bad apples and all that. But i think they did many great things, as did the Romans for us dirty tribesmen back in the day!
Empire is awesome. Dont throw that bloody spear at me.. chocks away.. pip pip bosh the hun and then back in time for crumpets with the king. Tally ho!
Yeh but in a lot of cases the reason many former british colonies are in ruin now is because britain pulled out a lot of the wealth before the territory was handed over.
whatwhat wrote:Yeh but in a lot of cases the reason many former British colonies are in ruin now is because Britain pulled out a lot of the wealth before the territory was handed over.
Egypt, Hong Kong, India, Belize, Jamaica, South Africa, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand seem to be doing just fine....
whatwhat wrote:Yeh but in a lot of cases the reason many former British colonies are in ruin now is because Britain pulled out a lot of the wealth before the territory was handed over.
Egypt, Hong Kong, India, Belize, Jamaica, South Africa, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand seem to be doing just fine....
Er, I'd strike a few there.
Egypt is a hole that relies on billions in US aid (second only to Israel but don't tell the terrorists)
Jamaica is extremely poor
South Africa-serious crime and unemployment issues. But in comparison to its neighboring countries its striking.
new Zealand's fine as long as they keep the killer sheep problem under wraps...
JEB_Stuart wrote:Egypt, Hong Kong, India, Belize, Jamaica, South Africa, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand seem to be doing just fine....
Egypt has a lot of internal problems with government succession, and terrorist violence; primarily as a result of active US support for what is essentially a tyrannical regime. Their economy isn't too bad though.
Roughly half the people living in South Africa live below the poverty line.
Jamaica has improved a great deal since the founding of CARICOM, but still has a long way to go; with ~20% of its population below the poverty line, and 10-15% unemployment.
Whatwhat wrote:Sorry to say it for all you patriotic fokes, but rape is a fairly good metaphor for what the British Empire did.
Two words: 'Client Kingdom'.
Don't buy the 'rape and pillage' stuff TOO heavily - it's too simplistic a view.
I DO however see a pattern: The British leave - the country goes to gak (in many cases). That says more about them than it does about us, the Yanks seem to be getting on just fine. (tongue ever-so-slightly in cheek)
I wonder how many third-world hell-holes would welcome us back with open arms? - I watched a documentary in which a Jamaican radio station was deluged with callers saying they wanted to rejoin The Empire. True (and weird) story.
Whatwhat wrote:Sorry to say it for all you patriotic fokes, but rape is a fairly good metaphor for what the British Empire did.
I DO however see a pattern: The British leave - the country goes to gak (in many cases). That says more about them than it does about us,
It does if you ignore my point that the reason many of them went to gak was because the british emprie raped them of their wealth. India and south africa are the two standout examples.
The problem comes mainly from the way we pulled out, and a lack of concern about tribal borders. But yes, lets get back to chest beating about the stupid Argies.
modquisition on.
Watch the attacks on other countries. Direct attacks on Argentina and Argentinians are not permitted on this site, just as attacks on the UK are generally verbotten.
Whatwhat wrote:Sorry to say it for all you patriotic fokes, but rape is a fairly good metaphor for what the British Empire did.
I DO however see a pattern: The British leave - the country goes to gak (in many cases). That says more about them than it does about us,
It does if you ignore my point that the reason many of them went to gak was because the british emprie raped them of their wealth. India and south africa are the two standout examples.
Far too simplistic view. When speaking of how we have 'pillaged their wealth', in the case of Africa, there was no 'wealth to pillage'. What you have to remember is that before the place was conquered, the Africans were at the technological level of cavemen. They hadn't even invented the wheel yet. A cow hide shield was the most spanking new innovation. The British Empire opened the mines and the like to be exploited in the first place. They created the roads, the railways, the cities. If you go to Zimbabwe now, you'll notice a road hasn't been built since we left.
In the case of Africa, the reason it goes to hell is because Africans are incapable of governing themselves. Why? Because they all get tied up in intertribal feuds, and end up oppressing each other. And before anyone jumps up and down playing the racist card, it doesn't make it any less true. Look at what the Shona did the Ndebele as a perfect example. There are many more all across Africa. The place has something along the lines of 280 different languages and cultures, and every tribe still has a 300 year old feud with another. They simply had to put them only hold whilst the British were there. The second the British left, the place dissolved into tribalism again, and an extension thereof. Now the 'leaders' of these countries siphon off all the money, provide for them and their own, and let the rest of the country go to pot. They have no interest in scientific progress or democracy, all they want to do is be left to continue raping their own personal fiefdoms. That's where all the money goes. All the talk of the British having stolen everything not nailed down is nothing more than a load of bullgak.
When Britain hit India, again, India was split into different fiefdoms, with the various Sultans and Rajahs, and whatnot. However, to be perfectly honest, India hasn't done too badly for itself. It's managed to reach nuclear status, which goes to show that there are the building blocks of a better societal structure there. I wouldn't be able to comment about the British Empire there, because I simply don't know enough about it, but if you've a similar level of research on India as you clearly did Africa, then I have a feeling things aren't as clear cut as you've put them.
Whatwhat wrote:Sorry to say it for all you patriotic fokes, but rape is a fairly good metaphor for what the British Empire did.
I DO however see a pattern: The British leave - the country goes to gak (in many cases). That says more about them than it does about us,
It does if you ignore my point that the reason many of them went to gak was because the british emprie raped them of their wealth. India and south africa are the two standout examples.
Far too simplistic view. When speaking of how we have 'pillaged their wealth', in the case of Africa, there was no 'wealth to pillage'. What you have to remember is that before the place was conquered, the Africans were at the technological level of cavemen. They hadn't even invented the wheel yet. A cow hide shield was the most spanking new innovation. The British Empire opened the mines and the like to be exploited in the first place. They created the roads, the railways, the cities. If you go to Zimbabwe now, you'll notice a road hasn't been built since we left.
Well if you read back my point was that the British Emprie took the wealth out of many countries when they left. I didn't claim it was there in the first place. And in any case just because the British Empire "opened the mines" does not mean they can lay claim to them and ship all the wealth it gains back to Britain.
Also for the record when europe first began to colonise africa the technological gap between the two continents was nowehrre near as substantial as you are making it out to be. Both still used iron age technology.
In the case of Africa, the reason it goes to hell is because Africans are incapable of governing themselves. Why? Because they all get tied up in intertribal feuds, and end up oppressing each other. And before anyone jumps up and down playing the racist card, it doesn't make it any less true. Look at what the Shona did the Ndebele as a perfect example. There are many more all across Africa. The place has something along the lines of 280 different languages and cultures, and every tribe still has a 300 year old feud with another. They simply had to put them only hold whilst the British were there. The second the British left, the place dissolved into tribalism again, and an extension thereof. Now the 'leaders' of these countries siphon off all the money, provide for them and their own, and let the rest of the country go to pot. They have no interest in scientific progress or democracy, all they want to do is be left to continue raping their own personal fiefdoms. That's where all the money goes. All the talk of the British having stolen everything not nailed down is nothing more than a load of bullgak.
There's a lot of ignorance in that. Before the european empires conquered africa it was a borderless continent ran by tribes. We basically gave them borders, national flags, governments etc. The fueding in africa before then was no different to the fueding of european states, just on a smaller tribe to tribe scale. The act of Europeans bunching them together would be like literally dividing europe up today with no respect to it's current borders, imagine the mess that would cause.
When Britain hit India, again, India was split into different fiefdoms, with the various Sultans and Rajahs, and whatnot. However, to be perfectly honest, India hasn't done too badly for itself. It's managed to reach nuclear status, which goes to show that there are the building blocks of a better societal structure there. I wouldn't be able to comment about the British Empire there, because I simply don't know enough about it, but if you've a similar level of research on India as you clearly did Africa, then I have a feeling things aren't as clear cut as you've put them.
You forget the fifty years between when India left the british empire and now which endured about three ehtiopia scale famines. The state of India today is nothing like what it was when Britain left it. If anything the only good thing the british did leave behind was the english langauge, which has allowed India to develop better in the past two decades.
And of course we haven't even mentioned that for two hundred years five percent of the british economy came from the slave trade.
Ketara wrote:but if you've a similar level of research on India as you clearly did Africa, then I have a feeling things aren't as clear cut as you've put them.
and if you had researched your points to a similar level of your belief in them, then that statement wouldn't seem so ironic.
squilverine wrote:The irony of that whole event was that the ship in question, The General Belgrano, used to belong to the USA (it was formerly the USS Pheonix) and was called the luckiest ship in the fleet as it was the only ship to escape Pearl Harbour completely unscathed. It is also the only war ship to have ever been sunk by a British submarine
It's the only warship sunk by a nuclear powered submarine. It isn't the only warship sunk by a British submarine.
I saw the news on the third page of the Sun today, certainly made me chuckle. They even did a force comparison, comparing the task force to that of the ENTIRE Argentinian armed forces. Well, here's to another war to look forward to, I'm sure my British friends will be feeding me the updates as they come along.
whatwhat wrote:
the reason many of them went to gak was because the british emprie raped them of their wealth.
Yeah because there are no diamonds in Sierra Leone, no oil in the Middle East or Nigeria - plus Brazil, India, North America, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are all completely destitute. Oh, wait - none of that is actually true. My mistake.
whatwhat wrote:
Well if you read back my point was that the British Emprie took the wealth out of many countries when they left. I didn't claim it was there in the first place. And in any case just because the British Empire "opened the mines" does not mean they can lay claim to them and ship all the wealth it gains back to Britain.
Errr...what?And if we hadn't been there to open the mines, then they would have stayed closed, and the Africans wouldn't have got the use of them either . So how is that related to the current poverty in Africa? And its kind of impossible to take a diamond mine with you when you go. They're still there you know. If you're seriously telling me that the current poverty in Africa is a result of the British making use of natural resources when it was still their territory, you've clearly never looked at the finances of most African governments.
Also for the record when europe first began to colonise africa the technological gap between the two continents was nowehrre near as substantial as you are making it out to be. Both still used iron age technology.
It was actually. We had guns, ships, trains, roads, commerce, systems of government, philosophy, smelting, etc. They had cow-hide shields, and lived in mud and straw huts. They had yet to invent the wheel. This is a fact.
There's a lot of ignorance in that. Before the european empires conquered africa it was a borderless continent ran by tribes. We basically gave them borders, national flags, governments etc. The fueding in africa before then was no different to the fueding of european states, just on a smaller tribe to tribe scale. The act of Europeans bunching them together would be like literally dividing europe up today with no respect to it's current borders, imagine the mess that would cause.
I would say there is considerable difference between a nation waging war, and tribesmen stealing each others cattle. The differences are as follows:-
-'war' in the traditional sense, is a clash between two unified powers. It implies one system of government meeting another. If there aren't governments to declare 'war' on each other, then its just unformalised scrapping
-Scale. What's the difference between a skirmish and a battle? A battle and a war? A feud is usually something conducted between members of a small faction. A war is something a large group of people have to participate in.
I would suggest Von Clausewitz's Vom Krieg for more discussion on the nature of war.
My point here is that feuding in Africa is different to 'feuding' in Europe at the time, because 'feuding' is incorrect terminology to apply to nations of such size, technological advancement, and power. And to be honest, looked out into the streets recently? Lot of Poles walking about. Whilst some stupid people might be nasty to them, there's no move to oppress them.
You forget the fifty years between when India left the british empire and now which endured about three ehtiopia scale famines. The state of India today is nothing like what it was when Britain left it. If anything the only good thing the british did leave behind was the english langauge, which has allowed India to develop better in the past two decades.
Errr.... So where did the harvest go? I'm pretty sure we didn't steal all the fertile soil. If it was productive under us, why did it suddenly become unproductive? The ground, resources, and workforce are still there. That's like blaming the Romans for the Saxon invasion.
And of course we haven't even mentioned that for two hundred years five percent of the british economy came from the slave trade.
Of which we were the first to outlaw. And how does selling someone grandpa equal economic failure two hundred years later? The slave trade was abolished long before we left Africa. Africa still did well under the British in the succeeding period. Riddle me this.
How does the British selling slaves a long time before independence equal economic failure and a reversion to tribalism in a much later period?
Answer: It really doesn't. I don't even understand why you raised the issue.
and if you had researched your points to a similar level of your belief in them, then that statement wouldn't seem so ironic.
On war, I'm actually a degree level student studying the topic right now. I lived in Africa for five years, and are far more familiar with local genocide and tribalism, corrupt government, and the societal structure then most people. Unlike many, I have actually lived it, rather than getting it out of a textbook. So I think my research is perfectly adequate. Which results in reverse irony here.
If a similar thing like this happened to the USA, would they stand for it? Like, an island a couple of miles away from their coastland claimed by another country with a garrison of military weaponry?
And I'm talking like if, say, *Russia* had a whole bunch of weapons stationed a few miles away from the US.......
If a similar thing like this happened to the USA, would they stand for it? Like, an island a couple of miles away from their coastland claimed by another country with a garrison of military weaponry?
And I'm talking like if, say, *Russia* had a whole bunch of weapons stationed a few miles away from the US.......
France doesn't seem to be making any attempt to invade England, and they're even closer together than the US and Cuba. Which is also a different situation, given that we're discussing English territory on the one hand, and Cuban territory under Soviet influence on the other.
That said, sovereign territory often changed hands before the current political era. Its all a question of relative value, and threat.
whatwhat wrote:
Well if you read back my point was that the British Emprie took the wealth out of many countries when they left. I didn't claim it was there in the first place. And in any case just because the British Empire "opened the mines" does not mean they can lay claim to them and ship all the wealth it gains back to Britain.
Errr...what?And if we hadn't been there to open the mines, then they would have stayed closed, and the Africans wouldn't have got the use of them either . So how is that related to the current poverty in Africa? And its kind of impossible to take a diamond mine with you when you go. They're still there you know. If you're seriously telling me that the current poverty in Africa is a result of the British making use of natural resources when it was still their territory, you've clearly never looked at the finances of most African governments.
Seriously, read back my point. It was in response to someone claiming that some countries went to ruin after the british empire left. My point was that the british empire took a lot of the wealth out of the former country before it handed over the teritory. For example, look at the amount of spending in Hong Kong in the lead up to 97. Or how south africa was one of the wealthiest countries on earth before the it became a republic. I never claimed "that the current poverty in Africa is a result of the British making use of natural resources", it was taking the profit from said resources out of the country that caused much of the former british empire to go to ruin. Is it really a sruprise that a functional state goes to ruin when much of the wealth is pulled out of the country in a small time period?
Also for the record when europe first began to colonise africa the technological gap between the two continents was nowehrre near as substantial as you are making it out to be. Both still used iron age technology.
It was actually. We had guns, ships, trains, roads, commerce, systems of government, philosophy, smelting, etc. They had cow-hide shields, and lived in mud and straw huts. They had yet to invent the wheel. This is a fact.
Plain ignorance. If you would do more research, perhaps into Waltyer Rodney's studies, you would find that the only major advantage europe had was their naval capability. Africa did have commerce, philosophy, smelting and systems of government, though different to our own. + neither had trains or guns for another few centuries. Just because they wore loin cloths, it doesn't make them stupid.
There's a lot of ignorance in that. Before the european empires conquered africa it was a borderless continent ran by tribes. We basically gave them borders, national flags, governments etc. The fueding in africa before then was no different to the fueding of european states, just on a smaller tribe to tribe scale. The act of Europeans bunching them together would be like literally dividing europe up today with no respect to it's current borders, imagine the mess that would cause.
I would say there is considerable difference between a nation waging war, and tribesmen stealing each others cattle. The differences are as follows:-
-'war' in the traditional sense, is a clash between two unified powers. It implies one system of government meeting another. If there aren't governments to declare 'war' on each other, then its just unformalised scrapping
-Scale. What's the difference between a skirmish and a battle? A battle and a war? A feud is usually something conducted between members of a small faction. A war is something a large group of people have to participate in.
I would suggest Von Clausewitz's Vom Krieg for more discussion on the nature of war.
My point here is that feuding in Africa is different to 'feuding' in Europe at the time, because 'feuding' is incorrect terminology to apply to nations of such size, technological advancement, and power. And to be honest, looked out into the streets recently? Lot of Poles walking about. Whilst some stupid people might be nasty to them, there's no move to oppress them.
You've missed/ignored my point. You seem to believe that the problems in africa come down to it being inherent to thei inabiliaty to get along, mony hording governments etc. My point was that the european empires caused most of this through the carving of borders with no respect to the tribal territories/language etc. Imagine if an army came two your town put a border through it and paired you up with several other places with entirely different langauges then put someone they bleieved should be in charge (i.e. no someone the people believe should be in charge) in rule.
You forget the fifty years between when India left the british empire and now which endured about three ehtiopia scale famines. The state of India today is nothing like what it was when Britain left it. If anything the only good thing the british did leave behind was the english langauge, which has allowed India to develop better in the past two decades.
Errr.... So where did the harvest go? I'm pretty sure we didn't steal all the fertile soil. If it was productive under us, why did it suddenly become unproductive? The ground, resources, and workforce are still there. That's like blaming the Romans for the Saxon invasion.
What are you talking about? India has never had an abundance of fertile soil. It is only because of intensive farming methods founded in the last few decades they were able to pull themselves out of famine.
And of course we haven't even mentioned that for two hundred years five percent of the british economy came from the slave trade.
Of which we were the first to outlaw. And how does selling someone grandpa equal economic failure two hundred years later? The slave trade was abolished long before we left Africa. Africa still did well under the British in the succeeding period. Riddle me this.
How does the British selling slaves a long time before independence equal economic failure and a reversion to tribalism in a much later period?
Answer: It really doesn't. I don't even understand why you raised the issue.
My point about slavery was a point to the wrongdoings of the British Empire. I wasn't claiming any of what you just made me out to be.
and if you had researched your points to a similar level of your belief in them, then that statement wouldn't seem so ironic.
On war, I'm actually a degree level student studying the topic right now. I lived in Africa for five years, and are far more familiar with local genocide and tribalism, corrupt government, and the societal structure then most people. Unlike many, I have actually lived it, rather than getting it out of a textbook. So I think my research is perfectly adequate. Which results in reverse irony here.
whatwhat wrote:
What are you talking about? India has never had an abundance of fertile soil. It is only because of intensive farming methods founded in the last few decades they were able to pull themselves out of famine.
India has plenty of arable land, roughly 50% of the country. The technological and structural problems you're referencing have relatively little to do with the quality of the soil, but the efficiency of using it.
Also, a lot of people here appear quite ignorant about what British Colonial rule in Africa was really like. You have to understand that rule over the African colonies was very different to rule over Australia or Canada. The simple fact is that locals were excluded from governance of their own countries, and a middle class was prevented from developing through trading policies that favoured white moneyed interests with power in London over the local populations, or explicitly racist policies (less an issue with the British than other European powers, but a significant issue none the less).
The tensions that developed were frequently redirected by the ruling European powers towards other ethnic groups. For the most part the tribal violence we see today simply didn't exist before colonisation.
The sheer size of India, coupled with Indians being given greater credit in the racial theories of the age, allowed them greater access into positions of authority. As a result India handled its post-colonial status far better (the British also withdrew far more slowly, and much credit should also be placed with some exceptional Indian figures such as Nehra).
Colonialism is not the sum total of everything that's wrong with Africa today but it is a major part, and it seems people in this thread have little idea what colonialism was really like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Im a brazen imperialist. Heres why.
Everywhere i went in the marines peoples seemed to be very happy to see us.
You think there's much of a parallel between a peacekeeping operation and colonial rule?
My grandad used to live in Rhodesia, he had some staff, they all got along well, they were all happy. Now look at Zimbabwe.
@Sebster: Your point is very true in most regards. One thing that people are failing to realize, or point out, is that a massive player in the ongoing crisis in Africa is its massive population burst. Western nations were more capable of handling the burst after WWII because of stronger governments, and a more developed infrastructure. Africa was not, and may still not be, equipped to deal with such a thing, that is still ongoing. Until they can curb their rising population numbers, I fear things will only get worse...
sebster wrote:Is the Sun the one with the topless girls?
One of many.
JEB_Stuart wrote:@Sebster: Your point is very true in most regards. One thing that people are failing to realize, or point out, is that a massive player in the ongoing crisis in Africa is its massive population burst.
Their failing to point it out because it's got little to do with either sebsters point or indeed with the issue of the problems Africa has inherited from colonialism.
whatwhat wrote:Arable land does not equal fertile soil, and yes it is in the effeciency of using it. Ketara brought farming up.
Arable land is land which contains fertile soil, among other things. If land is to be considered arable, its soil must be fertile, or have been fertile recently.
Though it is difficult to determine exactly how much of India's land was arable under the Raj, it must also be said that several of the famines had as much to do with spoilage, and pricing due to centralized ownership, as it did with raw yield. Which also happens to support your indictment of the British Empire.
whatwhat wrote:Arable land does not equal fertile soil, and yes it is in the effeciency of using it. Ketara brought farming up.
Arable land is land which contains fertile soil, among other things. If land is to be considered arable, its soil must be fertile, or have been fertile recently.
Though it is difficult to determine exactly how much of India's land was arable under the Raj, it must also be said that several of the famines had as much to do with spoilage, and pricing due to centralized ownership, as it did with raw yield.
Incorect, soil fertility is not a requsite of arable farming. Indias so called "green revolution" was only possible with inovation in irigation and ferterlization which made farming on once infertile land possible.
dogma wrote:Though it is difficult to determine exactly how much of India's land was arable under the Raj, it must also be said that several of the famines had as much to do with spoilage, and pricing due to centralized ownership, as it did with raw yield. Which also happens to support your indictment of the British Empire.
which is what I was getting at in the first place. ketara brought up farming, as i told you.
Well we ain't got no Muerto Negro no more
troops in Afghanistan
Daring Class destroyers not yet in service
now would be a good time :(
Since when was proximity 9/10's of international law
and as pointed out by MGStompa the islands are already occupied by people who have been there for generations, with no desire to be Argentines.
Whatever else their wishes should be respected
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If a similar thing like this happened to the USA, would they stand for it? Like, an island a couple of miles away from their coastland claimed by another country with a garrison of military weaponry?
oo the temptations are almost irrisistable, but i won't mention Iraq and Afghanistan Like, if there was an effective military garrison on the Falklands first time round there would have been no invasion.
And like look at it this way. If a country invaded a protectorate of the USA that was "close" to a country on the other side of the world, you would say fair cop guv and roll over?
like that is gonna happen.
Again, there are people on the islands. They don't wish to be Argentine subjects.
whatwhat wrote:
the reason many of them went to gak was because the british emprie raped them of their wealth.
Yeah because there are no diamonds in Sierra Leone, no oil in the Middle East or Nigeria - plus Brazil, India, North America, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are all completely destitute. Oh, wait - none of that is actually true. My mistake.
Dude Brazil's on another continent and the British never got near it.
I wouldn't bring up the Middle East (looks at the horror show of the broken up Ottoman Empire).
And you brought sheep to New Zealand. Nowe they are mutating. Even the zombie overlords are nervous at what is happening in New Zealand.
Seriously, read back my point. It was in response to someone claiming that some countries went to ruin after the british empire left. My point was that the british empire took a lot of the wealth out of the former country before it handed over the teritory. For example, look at the amount of spending in Hong Kong in the lead up to 97. Or how south africa was one of the wealthiest countries on earth before the it became a republic. I never claimed "that the current poverty in Africa is a result of the British making use of natural resources", it was taking the profit from said resources out of the country that caused much of the former british empire to go to ruin. Is it really a sruprise that a functional state goes to ruin when much of the wealth is pulled out of the country in a small time period?
I refute your claim Britain somehow magically 'took a lot of the wealth' out of the countries, and that their terrible economic situation is all the fault of the British. The manpower, soil, and mines are all still there.The British cannot cart off a diamond mine. Even after the British left, Rhodesia was still a productive nation under Ian Smith. It was commonly referred to as the 'breadbasket of Africa'. Yet now that Robert Mugabes lot have taken over, the place has fallen into poverty and decline. Believe it or not, I've heard many Zimbabweans bemoaning the leaving of the British because, to put it in their words, 'at least people had something to eat and a roof over their heads then'.
The wealth is still there to be tapped, because resources cannot be magically transferred from one country to another. A tin mine cannot be flown from one nation to another. It is the result of gross mismanagement, a reversion to tribalism, and corruption that the place has collapsed.
Plain ignorance. If you would do more research, perhaps into Waltyer Rodney's studies, you would find that the only major advantage europe had was their naval capability. Africa did have commerce, philosophy, smelting and systems of government, though different to our own. + neither had trains or guns for another few centuries. Just because they wore loin cloths, it doesn't make them stupid.
I'm sorry? Who said they were stupid? I'm just saying that from a technological standpoint, they were completely primitive. If the only advantage we'd had over them was naval capability, we'd never have conquered the place. We had guns. They did not. We could build cities, roads, factories, etc. They could not. We had modern military tactics and artillery. They did not. From a societal and technological viewpoint, they were primitive compared to the Europeans.
You seem to believe that the problems in africa come down to it being inherent to thei inabiliaty to get along, mony hording governments etc. My point was that the european empires caused most of this through the carving of borders with no respect to the tribal territories/language etc. Imagine if an army came two your town put a border through it and paired you up with several other places with entirely different langauges then put someone they bleieved should be in charge (i.e. no someone the people believe should be in charge) in rule.
Inability to get along (so the reversion to tribalism), and money hoarding governments(so oppressive corrupt regimes) sums it up about right. Riddle me this:
How do the European borders established over the course of 150 years result in economic failure? Answer: only if without the Europeans there to maintain the border, the people are incapable of getting along. AKA, a reversion to tribalism. If the African tribes insist on reverting back to their pre-colonial settings, then this is no fault of the British. It's the fault of the people there. Thank you for making my point.
My point about slavery was a point to the wrongdoings of the British Empire.
Which are......completely irrelevant for discussing the reasons for the economic failures and shortcomings of the African nations.....
I suggest you "live it" more then.
*applauds*
Well done sir! Quite the wittiest of statements. I positively sat here with my brain boggling at your masterful timing, and comedic use of quote marks!
/sarcasm off
Let's clear things up here rather than bantering back and forth by stating exactly what we're saying here, and then providing a bit more detail.
I am responding to your assertion that 'many former british colonies are in ruin now is because britain pulled out a lot of the wealth before the territory was handed over'.
I believe that the resources were, and still are there to be tapped, because one cannot remove a gold mine, or fertile soil(or at least, without a lot of effort one would think). I postulate here, that the reason for the economic decline of the African nations is due to the corruption of their governments, and the seeming reversion to tribalism after the British left. Their economic failings, are not the responsibility of the British Empire.
Saying that 'many of them went to gak was because the british emprie raped them of their wealth' is inaccurate. The British exploited the wealth of these places whilst they were in charge, but the wealth still remains to be exploited now that we have left. The inability of those there to do so is nothing to do with us.
If you disagree with this analysis, please cite examples and sources rather than just making gross generalisations.
Arent we a bit off topic here? I think the clear overwhelming point it that some people (usually right of centre people like myself) think that Empire's did more good than bad, and some people (usually left of centre like whatwhat there, the ying to my yang) think it was overwhelmingly negative.
I dont think there is any "right" answer, it seems like people can make pretty convincing arguments for both sides.
On topic, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that the Argies will do anything. But as i said 3 pages back, to me, the be all and end all is that the people that actually live there, want to be British. End of.
Oh but i have to concur with Ketara, well said as always. Makes perfect logical sense, and trying to force elections and western democratic systems on entirely tribal areas has never and will never work. But hand wringing self loathing white people dont want logic. They want to blame themselves.
mattyrm wrote:Oh but i have to concur with Ketara, well said as always. Makes perfect logical sense, and trying to force elections and western democratic systems on entirely tribal areas has never and will never work. But hand wringing self loathing white people dont want logic. They want to blame themselves.
Not me baby. Save the drama for your mama whiny emo boys.
Ah, missed your point Frazz, you said 'got near it' and I was showing we were very near it for quite a while. Just over the garden fence really.
Onto something else.
Feth 'white man's shame'. It irritates the 7 shades of gak out of me.
ALL people are capable of cruelty and conquest. I do wonder what the world would have looked like if Shaka's Zulu nation had had a transcontinental empire. As it was, they committed genocides that eradicated other tribes quite without European interference.
The British Empire was created by an advanced and (then) dynamic nation. It was built, it was not 'an evil'. More powerful people conquered less powerful people. As empires go, it was frankly a paradise in comparison to those that had gone before it and some of it's lesser European peers (read up on the Belgian Congo for example of hell on earth).
The territories we conquered cannot be said to have 'flourished' but we didn't exactly plunge the world into darkness either.
And, in a 'What have the Romans ever done for us' style.
Railways
Education
Medical Care
Scientific Advancement
Judicial Principals
Democracy
English language
Industrialisation
Housing
I watched a documentary only a few weeks back where a reporter had been smuggled into Zimbabwe, he asked the elders of the village sheltering him what could be done to sort out the problems there. The group of elderly greybeards all nodded and said they wanted the British to come and save them from Mugabe, they wanted Rhodesia back in the Empire, because it was a fair system for them.
I wouldn't go that far. It was better than Mugabe, but apartheid under Smith was a still a horrid system. But as I said before, I guess the sentiment there these days is 'at least we had something to eat, and a roof over our heads'.
trying to force elections and western democratic systems on entirely tribal areas has never and will never work
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The British Empire was created by an advanced and (then) dynamic nation. It was built, it was not 'an evil'. More powerful people conquered less powerful people. As empires go, it was frankly a paradise in comparison to those that had gone before it and some of it's lesser European peers (read up on the Belgian Congo for example of hell on earth).
I don't see how its shameful to admit that the collapse of British Empire caused a lot of transitional problems for the rest of the world. Whenever a governing authority is removed, chaos results from the power vacuum, and financial loss.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I watched a documentary only a few weeks back where a reporter had been smuggled into Zimbabwe, he asked the elders of the village sheltering him what could be done to sort out the problems there. The group of elderly greybeards all nodded and said they wanted the British to come and save them from Mugabe, they wanted Rhodesia back in the Empire, because it was a fair system for them.
Of course they would like that, life under the British was better than life under Mugabe. That doesn't change the fact that British rule was the only force keeping the cultural forces of colonization, which the British largely created, in check.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The British Empire was created by an advanced and (then) dynamic nation. It was built, it was not 'an evil'. More powerful people conquered less powerful people. As empires go, it was frankly a paradise in comparison to those that had gone before it and some of it's lesser European peers (read up on the Belgian Congo for example of hell on earth).
I don't see how its shameful to admit that the collapse of British Empire caused a lot of transitional problems for the rest of the world. Whenever a governing authority is removed, chaos results from the power vacuum, and financial loss.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I watched a documentary only a few weeks back where a reporter had been smuggled into Zimbabwe, he asked the elders of the village sheltering him what could be done to sort out the problems there. The group of elderly greybeards all nodded and said they wanted the British to come and save them from Mugabe, they wanted Rhodesia back in the Empire, because it was a fair system for them.
Of course they would like that, life under the British was better than life under Mugabe. That doesn't change the fact that British rule was the only force keeping the cultural forces of colonization, which the British largely created, in check.
I can agree with everything you're saying there dogma.
However, just because a more powerful authority stops a group of people fighting for two hundred years, is it the fault of that authority when the two sides immediately start squabbling again the second it turns it's back?
No, but there's a difference between admitting to fault by necessity, or negligence, and considering yourself in someway bound to atone for that fault.
The colonies are no longer British territory, and therefore the British are not financially, militarily, or otherwise liable for their actions when it was their territory.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The British Empire was created by an advanced and (then) dynamic nation. It was built, it was not 'an evil'. More powerful people conquered less powerful people. As empires go, it was frankly a paradise in comparison to those that had gone before it and some of it's lesser European peers (read up on the Belgian Congo for example of hell on earth).
I don't see how its shameful to admit that the collapse of British Empire caused a lot of transitional problems for the rest of the world. Whenever a governing authority is removed, chaos results from the power vacuum, and financial loss.
I can agree with everything you're saying there dogma.
oh so you acknowledge there was financial loss when the British Empire pulled out now?
As for your earlier post, you've missed my point three times now. Your ignorant belief that africa simply reverted back to "tribalism" once the empire left with no acknowledgment that european enforced borders had anything to do with the state africa is in today can go on as long as you want it to. I'm not making my point again or arguing with you any further.
JEB_Stuart wrote:@Sebster: Your point is very true in most regards. One thing that people are failing to realize, or point out, is that a massive player in the ongoing crisis in Africa is its massive population burst. Western nations were more capable of handling the burst after WWII because of stronger governments, and a more developed infrastructure. Africa was not, and may still not be, equipped to deal with such a thing, that is still ongoing. Until they can curb their rising population numbers, I fear things will only get worse...
True, but it has to be remembered that population growth is a function of poverty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Oh but i have to concur with Ketara, well said as always. Makes perfect logical sense, and trying to force elections and western democratic systems on entirely tribal areas has never and will never work. But hand wringing self loathing white people dont want logic. They want to blame themselves.
Yes, because savages can only function with brutal rulers to command them.
It could never possibly be a function of former foreign government excluding the local population from government and business.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:ALL people are capable of cruelty and conquest. I do wonder what the world would have looked like if Shaka's Zulu nation had had a transcontinental empire. As it was, they committed genocides that eradicated other tribes quite without European interference.
The British Empire was created by an advanced and (then) dynamic nation. It was built, it was not 'an evil'. More powerful people conquered less powerful people. As empires go, it was frankly a paradise in comparison to those that had gone before it and some of it's lesser European peers (read up on the Belgian Congo for example of hell on earth).
The territories we conquered cannot be said to have 'flourished' but we didn't exactly plunge the world into darkness either.
I don't get this defence at all. Yes, other governments have also conquered, and yes many were much, much worse than the European colonies. And yes, Britain was better than most of the other European nations, and a hell of a lot better than Belgium. But how is any of that an argument against the idea that colonisation was a nasty, nasty business, which still affects Africa today?
Just... read about what actually went on. Just think for a minute about the racist thoughts that were prevalent at the time, and what those ideas meant for integrating a local black population into government, and how capable they'll be to take over government when the foreign power doesn't want to be there anymore. It really isn't that hard to understand.
My point is, so many people piss me off these days.
The people that seem to get offended by absolutely everything, the people that ram political correctness down everyones throats when its fair to say that 90% of the people in the world are sick to the back teeth of hearing it. The people that get offended on behalf of everybody else, even though everybody else isnt actually offended.
I do not see why, in 2010, i should feel bad because maybe there is a slim chance that one of my great great great grandparents did something that we now view as being expansionist or aggressive. Not just because the moral zietgeist has changed, or any other deep and meaningful reason. But because of the extremely obvious fact that its been to long to hold anyone living accountable.
For example, when i was serving in Northern Ireland, i would meet some militant "anti Brit" thug on the streets of Crossmaglen, who would bleat and whine and hurl missles/abuse at me for things that occured years ago. I find this ironic as my Grandfather was from Ireland, and i suppose its entirely possible that said thug might have an English ancestor! For this reason ive always found the whole idea of apologising for things that happened hundereds of years ago to be entirely absurd.
Basically i dont think that people who have never ever suffered theft, rape, looting or been slaves, should expect an apology from someone who has never ever stole, raped, looted or owned a slave! And going on about it all the time like these hand wringing mincers do constantly just seems to keep everyone at each others throats and stop us all from.. you know.. getting over it?
You dont see me whinging at the Italians or the Spanish of the Scandinavians because they might have done something bad to an ancestor of mine. I really think that people just need to get a life and move on.
mattyrm wrote:Arent we a bit off topic here? I think the clear overwhelming point it that some people (usually right of centre people like myself) think that Empire's did more good than bad, and some people (usually left of centre like whatwhat there, the ying to my yang) think it was overwhelmingly negative.
Yeah, sure. It's a left an right thing.
I think it's more to do with people who cling on to patriotism in order to gain pride tend to ignore/deny and chiefly diminish the wrongdoings of the British Empire when using it as a bragging point in arguments with foreigners.
Whatwhat, it must be a left/right thing, because i have never ever considered myself patriotic.
Define the word? What does it mean to you?
Im not patriotic. I dont think the idea makes any sense. I like certain individuals from every country on earth, but i dislike much more people than i like. I dont even understand how people feel "proud" when someone who happens to have been born somewhere near your house does something impressive.. i mean, whats that got to do with you?
I think the whole empire thing dragged people up rather than forced them down. Just like the Romans did for us back in the day. Thats why i think it was good. Also, as a soldier, you have to admire the effort! Its got nothing to do with "Patriotism".
Basically Britain is just like every other country. It has far too many people in it that are like you, and i cant possibly see how i have anything in common with them, or have any reason at all to like them.
Im pretty proud of Middlesbrough though, i get on with a higher percentage of the population around here. The rest of the UK, i really dont care too much for.
Not wanting to be an apologist for the British Empire, however it should be recognised that some of our moves into Africa followed prior waves of colonisation by other powers.
For instance, we got involved in Egypt because we were fighting the French, who supplanted the Ottomans.
We got involved in South Africa in pursuit of the Dutch Afrikaaners.
A lot of our other African possessions were grabbed during the "Scramble For Africa" in the late 19th century. If we hadn't grabbed them another European power would have.
We picked up Tanganyika because it was a German colony before the First World War.
If the Empire did any good, it may have been in the sense of being "less worse" than what was already happening. True, none of it was done without concern for British self interest.
mattyrm wrote:Whatwhat, it must be a left/right thing, because i have never ever considered myself patriotic.
Oh iI see, in that case it must be a left right thing then.
Define the word? What does it mean to you?
Patriotism, where someone who has achieved little themselves to take pride in they fulfill that gap by taking pride in the actions of others, their countrymen, who in most cases achieved said action with no prior thoughts that it was to the benefit of their country. It is actively encouraged by governments worldwide through media, sport etc. in order to keep a sense of unity in it's own people. Patriotism is the greatest form of propaganda.
oh so you acknowledge there was financial loss when the British Empire pulled out now?
As for your earlier post, you've missed my point three times now. Your ignorant belief that africa simply reverted back to "tribalism" once the empire left with no acknowledgment that european enforced borders had anything to do with the state africa is in today can go on as long as you want it to. I'm not making my point again or arguing with you any further.
I fully acknowledge that there would have been financial loss when the British pulled out. Why? Because the Empire brought trade to the region, and concentrated on production. Without the British, these things fell apart. However then surely the argument should be for the British to have stayed?
What I do not acknowledge is this absurd idea that Britain somehow 'ran away' with all the countries resources leaving them poor as a result. The resources were and still are there to be exploited, its just that as a result of a reversion to what I believe is advanced tribalism, and corrupt governments prevents them from doing so. These two things are not the fault of the British, they're the result of Africans seeming inability to govern themselves fairly and effectively.
Kilkrazy wrote:Not wanting to be an apologist for the British Empire, however it should be recognised that some of our moves into Africa followed prior waves of colonisation by other powers.
I don't buy that the Empire needs to 'apologised for'. It was a historical event that occurred a long time back. Any apology made would be as meaningless as one for slavery. The people from that era are no longer alive, and judging them by modern morals is pointless. What they did what completely acceptable at the time internationally, and whilst we may judge it wrong, we weren't alive then. It's as meaningless as me demanding an apology from the Queen now over Richard the Thirds butchering of Jews in York.
whatwhat wrote:
Patriotism, where someone who has achieved little themselves to take pride in they fulfill that gap by taking pride in the actions of others, their countrymen, who in most cases achieved said action with no prior thoughts that it was to the benefit of their country. It is actively encouraged by governments worldwide through media, sport etc. in order to keep a sense of unity in it's own people. Patriotism is the greatest form of propaganda.
So patriotism can only be held by someone of little achievement? I'm pretty sure Winston Churchill would disagree with you there, along with many other great historical figures. I would say that calling patriotism propaganda is far too simplistic. I can be a patriot in the sense that I am proud of the cultural roots that I originate from without any help from the government whatsoever. I don't need to be brainwashed into that. Conversely, would I lay down my life to protect Gordon Brown, for the good of the nation? In a word, no.
mattyrm wrote:My point is, so many people piss me off these days.
The people that seem to get offended by absolutely everything, the people that ram political correctness down everyones throats when its fair to say that 90% of the people in the world are sick to the back teeth of hearing it. The people that get offended on behalf of everybody else, even though everybody else isnt actually offended.
I do not see why, in 2010, i should feel bad because maybe there is a slim chance that one of my great great great grandparents did something that we now view as being expansionist or aggressive. Not just because the moral zietgeist has changed, or any other deep and meaningful reason. But because of the extremely obvious fact that its been to long to hold anyone living accountable.
For example, when i was serving in Northern Ireland, i would meet some militant "anti Brit" thug on the streets of Crossmaglen, who would bleat and whine and hurl missles/abuse at me for things that occured years ago. I find this ironic as my Grandfather was from Ireland, and i suppose its entirely possible that said thug might have an English ancestor! For this reason ive always found the whole idea of apologising for things that happened hundereds of years ago to be entirely absurd.
Basically i dont think that people who have never ever suffered theft, rape, looting or been slaves, should expect an apology from someone who has never ever stole, raped, looted or owned a slave! And going on about it all the time like these hand wringing mincers do constantly just seems to keep everyone at each others throats and stop us all from.. you know.. getting over it?
You dont see me whinging at the Italians or the Spanish of the Scandinavians because they might have done something bad to an ancestor of mine. I really think that people just need to get a life and move on.
Your mistake is taking this on a personal level. Recognising that there were some really screwed up notions of race surrounding the colonisation of Africa, and that those reasons along with basic economic motivations, left the former colonies in very weak positions to develop their own governments is nothing you personally have to be ashamed about, because you didn't do it.
But it's still true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: I think the whole empire thing dragged people up rather than forced them down. Just like the Romans did for us back in the day. Thats why i think it was good. Also, as a soldier, you have to admire the effort! Its got nothing to do with "Patriotism".
The motivations and policies behind Roman expansion and European colonisation were completely different.
Kilkrazy wrote:You a Texan, should know your glorious history!
Indeed I do. As I said, what about Mexico? Thats never been a present or former colony of the US.
The process by which Texas was formed out of a previously Mexican province and later incorporated into the USA is very similar to the British annexation of much of South Africa.
Argentina is trying some sabre rattling now because they see a weak link. Gordon Brown is a spineless jellyfish.
However with an election coming up he cannot afford to be as spineless as usual and must present an illusion of backbone.
Orlanth wrote:Argentina is trying some sabre rattling now because they see a weak link. Gordon Brown is a spineless jellyfish.
However with an election coming up he cannot afford to be as spineless as usual and must present an illusion of backbone.
And Miss Kichner is trying to distract the Argentinians while she and her husband raid the (central) bank again to pay for the enormous deficit Argentina has to face. BTWIIRC 2010 is election year in Argentina.
I would just like to point out Including Brazil in a list of British Colonies was incorrect - I must have gotten mixed up with the anti-slavery blockades. Crossed wires. Also, the Dutch had some invlovement there - I thought it might have been a similar situation to the East India Company...
Oh, well. My point still stands - the middle east is still swimming in oil, so the British couldn't have taken it with them when they left. Whether or not that part of the world is a total gak hole, is neither here nor there.
I wonder how many third-world hell-holes would welcome us back with open arms? - I watched a documentary in which a Jamaican radio station was deluged with callers saying they wanted to rejoin The Empire. True (and weird) story.
Not well known story.
There was a buzz in the Foreign office because Sierra Leone asked exactly that, IIRC about 2000. Yes they actually asked to rejoin the 'Empire'. Blair said no, mostly because the current dogma is Empire = evil as a prerequisite to the dogma that old British = evil, multicultural British = good. As New Labour harneses much of its strength from this principle the idea that some might not find our old past to be so bad is anathema to the current government.
Kilkrazy wrote:You a Texan, should know your glorious history!
Indeed I do. As I said, what about Mexico? Thats never been a present or former colony of the US.
The process by which Texas was formed out of a previously Mexican province and later incorporated into the USA is very similar to the British annexation of much of South Africa.
Thats joyously wrong.
1. Santa Anna seized power. At least three provinces/territories whatever they were called rebelled. One of them was Tejas. Tejas just happened to be the one to successfully rebel. Rebellions continue to this day with successful and unsuccessful revolutions and rebellions.
2. The indepenedent nation of Texas continued to have border disputes with Santa Anna's military dictatorship covering not only its independence, but the amount of territory Texas actually comprised.
3. Texas decided to join the US by treaty (and can still legally secede).
4. The military dictatorship controlling mexico ocontinue to dispute the souterhn border.
5. The military dictatorship controlling Mexico made the cardinal error of taking an army into that disputed region-sovereign US land.
The cardinal error was invading the country of a nation that had never lost a war. Shenanigans ensue, ending with Mexico City now belonging to the US army, care of Lee, Grant, Longstreet, Picket and some other guys who would play only minor roles in US history later.
Yeah KK i went to Sierra Leone as a fresh faced young lad when i had just passed out of basic.
It wasnt very nice. It was the first time i ever saw a body with a burnt tyre round its neck. Its common during feuds, a nice local custom known as "necklacing"
There was also lots of people with limbs missing.
Needless to say, i think that might be another reason i dont think that the whole empire thing was so bad. We certainly kept a lid on gak like that!
You are looking at the formation of Texas from Mexican lands. Here it is from a longer historical perspective.
pre-1500 AD native Americans move into the area of Central America.
1520
Spanish conquistadors overthrow the native states and set up a colony which is ruled by Spain until
1821
The colonists overthrow Spanish control, setting up Mexico.
1800 onwards, settlers from the USA move into the area which is to become Texas.
1835-6
Texan settlers secede and win independence from Mexico.
1845
Texas annexed to the USA.
1848 Mexican-American War.
South Africa
Native Africans move into the area and eventually various empires are created.
1652 onwards, the Boers colonise the area, overthrowing the native states where necessary and possible.
1835
Angered by British colonists arriving in the Cape Area, many Boers up sticks and move across into the Eastern Cape area, setting up the new republics of the Transvaal and Orange Free State.
British settlers follow them and are eventually used as an excuse by the British government to annex the regions, leading to the Boer Wars.
In both cases there is a pattern of the original inhabitants being ousted or cowed by European settlers, who are ousted by a later wave of European settlement.
Kilkrazy wrote:You a Texan, should know your glorious history!
Indeed I do. As I said, what about Mexico? Thats never been a present or former colony of the US.
The process by which Texas was formed out of a previously Mexican province and later incorporated into the USA is very similar to the British annexation of much of South Africa.
Thats joyously wrong.
1. Santa Anna seized power. At least three provinces/territories whatever they were called rebelled. One of them was Tejas. Tejas just happened to be the one to successfully rebel. Rebellions continue to this day with successful and unsuccessful revolutions and rebellions.
2. The indepenedent nation of Texas continued to have border disputes with Santa Anna's military dictatorship covering not only its independence, but the amount of territory Texas actually comprised.
3. Texas decided to join the US by treaty (and can still legally secede).
4. The military dictatorship controlling mexico ocontinue to dispute the souterhn border.
5. The military dictatorship controlling Mexico made the cardinal error of taking an army into that disputed region-sovereign US land.
The cardinal error was invading the country of a nation that had never lost a war. Shenanigans ensue, ending with Mexico City now belonging to the US army, care of Lee, Grant, Longstreet, Picket and some other guys who would play only minor roles in US history later.
To paraphrase, Mexico let people settle in their land, the squatters then decided to take the land because they were dirty land thieves. Then, what do you expect from Americans? Find land, take land from others, talk about how awesome you are. My god we are just awful awful people. With land.
Historical question for our Colonial Cousins... how did you buggers manage to get away with grabbing Hawaii? Isn't that sort of carry on totally against the principles that the US was founded on. Or am I missing something?
@KK: Your timeline of Texas history is horribly simplistic and misleading. The Texas settlers weren't squatters, nor were they there illegally. Rather they were invited and encouraged by the MEXICAN government to settle Tejas because it was so sparsely populated. Stephen Austin led the settlers there in the hope of building a new life in Mexico. Problems, and not just in Texas, occurred when Santa Ana abolished the Constitution of 1824 and began his dictatorship. This eventually led to a revolt by the Texans, and other regions, in response to their sudden loss of freedom and rights. The Texans were originally fighting to restore the Mexican Constitution of 1824, but as it became apparent that this wasn't going to happen, they began to fight for independence. After they became their own independent country, many countries, including the UK, recognized Texas and even set up embassies there. I think that should provide a more clear perspective on Texas and its fight for independence. Trying to compare it to South Africa is just plain wrong.
I know they were invited. However, it was still the case that one set of European 'invaders' supplanted another set of European 'invaders' who had previously supplanted the original natives.
This argument is not about the details of Texan or Orange Free State constitutional history, it is about the effects of imperialism on the indigenes.
Orlanth wrote:Blair said no, mostly because the current dogma is Empire = evil as a prerequisite to the dogma that old British = evil, multicultural British = good.
But what could be more multicultural than owning and administering foreign colonies?
Dogma wrote:What resources would Sierra Leone provide in order to justify that cost?
Diamonds, Cocoa, Coffee, Palm Oil, livestock and 'minerals'. Apparently. Oh, and people.
True enough, the strong will always rule the weak. Im sure if Scotland or Ireland or Wales had the strength that England had back in the day they would have been invading their neighbours with equal gusto. Humans like to fight, and barring some particularly heroic effort, generally speaking the side with the most men and sharpest weapons tend to win.
It's not about apologising for it. It's about how some people have of it as if the british empire was some remarkable achievement of our country which we should be proud of. That's the issue. The excuse of 'It was what they did at the time' doesn't warrant anyone holding it up as a great achievement.
And yet the Empire did lead to a great many advancements in terms of social, medical and scientific. Is it necessarily acceptable to have taken the route we did? I dunno. Six of one, half a dozen of the other if you ask me.
Frazzled wrote:Actually its theirs. There's at least a few thousand miles between the UK and Argentina. But I won't say anything if you won't (unless of course Obama invokes the Monroe Doctrine, which well he should actually and the US Navy re-enacts the Dutch naval flotilla up the Thames thing).
Brilliant Idea. . . . , the Monroe Doctrine/Roosevelt Corollary is so underused
and for as for US Navy sailing up the Thames
I don't Argentina is going to do anything about it, just saber-rattling
whatwhat wrote:This nation wouldn't be where it was today if we hadn't abused the rest of the world, that's your point? Doesn't make me very proud.
I would once again direct attention to the classic 'What have the Romans ever done for us' sketch. It did some bad stuff, and it did some good stuff. The bad stuff does not cancel out the good it did, the same way the good does not cancel out the bad. Simply put, morals are subject to change over protracted periods of time, so what comprises good and bad is also subject to change. Not only that, as morals are subjective to begin with, attempting to judge stuff long past is at best, completely pointless.
Wolfstan wrote:Historical question for our Colonial Cousins... how did you buggers manage to get away with grabbing Hawaii? Isn't that sort of carry on totally against the principles that the US was founded on. Or am I missing something?
nah the settlers(Dole Company) of Hawaii took over the island, and asked the US to govern the island
also Jeb has it right on about texas, the texans were asked to settle there.
whatwhat wrote:This nation wouldn't be where it was today if we hadn't abused the rest of the world, that's your point? Doesn't make me very proud.
I would once again direct attention to the classic 'What have the Romans ever done for us' sketch. It did some bad stuff, and it did some good stuff. The bad stuff does not cancel out the good it did, the same way the good does not cancel out the bad. Simply put, morals are subject to change over protracted periods of time, so what comprises good and bad is also subject to change. Not only that, as morals are subjective to begin with, attempting to judge stuff long past is at best, completely pointless.
It does when certain peoples in the world are living a lower quality of life thanks to the british empire, while we enjoy a higher one because of it.
whatwhat wrote:This nation wouldn't be where it was today if we hadn't abused the rest of the world, that's your point? Doesn't make me very proud.
I would once again direct attention to the classic 'What have the Romans ever done for us' sketch. It did some bad stuff, and it did some good stuff. The bad stuff does not cancel out the good it did, the same way the good does not cancel out the bad. Simply put, morals are subject to change over protracted periods of time, so what comprises good and bad is also subject to change. Not only that, as morals are subjective to begin with, attempting to judge stuff long past is at best, completely pointless.
It does when certain peoples in the world are living a lower quality of life thanks to the british empire, while we enjoy a higher one because of it.
I somehow doubt that the government still has money in its coffers from that period. All money this government spends now comes from the taxpayer. Money made 150 years ago no longer has an effect on current finances. Not unless they have a really big Barclays savings account that's a century old.
As I've said already, I refuse to buy that we are responsible for African poverty. The withdrawal of the British Empire would have caused temporary financial loss, but it was more than possible for them to get back on their feet economically by this stage of the game. That they have not done so is now of little fault of our own. I direct you to Australia as a good example as to how an ex-colonial possession can turn into a democratically run economically productive nation.
And even if what you were saying was true, I would still believe it pointless to judge events 150 years back. Why? Because I might as well start attempting to sue the Egyptians for the slavery and persecution of my people over the last 3000 years if we were getting into things like that. As far as I'm concerned, once it's passed long out of living memory, any attempt to judge past behaviour is ridiculous, and pointless. It is not the place of historians to judge, only to record as objectively as possible.
Actually, thanks to the Trade Routes set up during the Empire, Britain gains significant wealth. A stupid proportion of goods goes through British ports to this day.
At least thats what I heard. Cannot remember the source.
Ketara wrote:I somehow doubt that the government still has money in its coffers from that period. All money this government spends now comes from the taxpayer. Money made 150 years ago no longer has an effect on current finances. Not unless they have a really big Barclays savings account that's a century old.
Ketara wrote:I somehow doubt that the government still has money in its coffers from that period. All money this government spends now comes from the taxpayer. Money made 150 years ago no longer has an effect on current finances. Not unless they have a really big Barclays savings account that's a century old.
ffs. please. Go tire someone else.
I'm sorry, but every statement you've ever made on this topic has been generalised, unsubstantiated, and judgmental. Don't get irritated when people dissect arguments you cannot be bothered to support.
I'm also pretty sure I must be doing something vaguely right here historically speaking, or dogma, sebster, and JEB_Stuart would have landed on me with both feet by now.
And you wonder why people flame you? Seriously, why are you so rude in pretty much every thread? It wouldn't be so bad, but you always start playing the victim when people respond.
Ketara wrote:I somehow doubt that the government still has money in its coffers from that period. All money this government spends now comes from the taxpayer. Money made 150 years ago no longer has an effect on current finances. Not unless they have a really big Barclays savings account that's a century old.
ffs. please. Go tire someone else.
I'm sorry, but every statement you've ever made on this topic has been generalised, unsubstantiated, and judgmental. Don't get irritated when people dissect arguments you cannot be bothered to support.
I'm irritated because your statement is just a complete failure. I'd feel like a primary school teacher were I to respond to that.
Albatross wrote:
whatwhat wrote:ffs. please. Go tire someone else.
And you wonder why people flame you? Seriously, why are you so rude in pretty much every thread? It wouldn't be so bad, but you always start playing the victim when people respond.
Ketara wrote:I somehow doubt that the government still has money in its coffers from that period. All money this government spends now comes from the taxpayer. Money made 150 years ago no longer has an effect on current finances. Not unless they have a really big Barclays savings account that's a century old.
ffs. please. Go tire someone else.
I'm sorry, but every statement you've ever made on this topic has been generalised, unsubstantiated, and judgmental. Don't get irritated when people dissect arguments you cannot be bothered to support.
I'm irritated because your statement is just a complete failure. I'd feel like a primary school teacher were I to respond to that.
Albatross wrote:
whatwhat wrote:ffs. please. Go tire someone else.
And you wonder why people flame you? Seriously, why are you so rude in pretty much every thread? It wouldn't be so bad, but you always start playing the victim when people respond.
Get over yourself.
So in other words, because you are apparantly so smart and ahead of us, you have to resort to ad hominems? Very slick. I am overwhelmed by your capacity for intellectual debate. What are you going to do next, compare the Empire to Hitler?
No. It is not. I'm attacking your style of argument, not you personally. I suggest you look up the definition.
*yawns*
I tire of trading meaningless banter with some fellow on the other end of the internet. I choose to ignore all unsubstantiated generalised posts you make from now on. Good day to you sir.
Ketara wrote:*yawns*
I tire of trading meaningless banter with some fellow on the other end of the internet. I choose to ignore all unsubstantiated generalised posts you make from now on. Good day to you sir.
So in other words, because you are apparantly so smart and ahead of us, you have to resort to ad hominems?
Ketara wrote:No. It is not. I'm attacking your style of argument, not you personally. I suggest you look up the definition.
Just as I was commenting on the absurdity of your statement, why don't you look it up. Making out that I believe I am "so smart and ahead of us" is certainly making an argument at me personally.
Ketara wrote:*yawns*
I tire of trading meaningless banter with some fellow on the other end of the internet. I choose to ignore all unsubstantiated generalised posts you make from now on. Good day to you sir.
So in other words, because you are apparantly so smart and ahead of us, you have to resort to ad hominems?
Ketara wrote:No. It is not. I'm attacking your style of argument, not you personally. I suggest you look up the definition.
Just as I was commenting on the absurdity of your statement, why don't you look it up. Making out that I believe I am "so smart and ahead of us" is certainly making an argument at me personally.
Ketara wrote:I'm also pretty sure I must be doing something vaguely right here historically speaking, or dogma, sebster, and JEB_Stuart would have landed on me with both feet by now.
yes because they are the wise old heads of the off topic forum who know everything right? ftr Sebster has made several point in this topic which have contradicted your own. Considering you've also missed my main point a whole host of times I'm starting to think you don't really read what people are saying properly.
whatwhat wrote:
It does when certain peoples in the world are living a lower quality of life thanks to the british empire, while we enjoy a higher one because of it.
Here's the thing Whatwahat. They are living a much higher standard of life then they would be if not for the British Empire. None of the colonies would be better off now if another nation had been in charge and the former colonies which are a mess are generally a mess because of things that they did to themselves following the empire, not during the empire.
Well I'll go back to my point which I have been trying to get through to Ketara all the way through this topic.
The ill respect paid towards tribal borders by European empires when carving nations in Africa has negatively effected them to the extent is a major reason Africa is in the state it is in today. As have past racial prejudeces of white government in africa which if you read back Sebsters posts, he has made good points on. I believe africa would be in a better state today were it not for the British empire, and the Dutch, French etc. for that matter.
On the other hand, you could agree with Ketara's idea, who said he believes Africans have an inherent inability to get along. Then claimed my arguments were generalised, unsubstantiated and judgmental. Oh the irony.
whatwhat, i stunned at your ludicrous reply to ketara. And then you accuse him of an ad hom attack (it wasnt, see below for a proper one) when your reply to him disagreeing with you was basically 'feth off and dont post here anymore' your like a serial mugger who complains when a victim finally fights back. Ive seen you cry numerous times in arguments with many people on here, and you usally start them. You are a staggering hypocrite. Please PM me so i can fling the abuse at you that you entirely deserve you spineless little bully.
Kilkrazy wrote:I'm glad people are getting back onto the topic.
almost.
@matyrm, quite taking me so seriously. I'd challenge you to find anything personal I have ever said on this forum. As my good old friend dogma puts it...
This is a text-based forum, you would be wise to remember that the 'tone' of a post is very likely the result of your own mood, rather than that of the poster.
You can also cite one time i've "cried" in an argument which wasn't with dogma. And as for him, you should see my pm inbox.
@whatwhat - I thought your point was that the British pulled out all of the wealth from colonies before they left, and that this is a major reason for their current predicament? I could quote you if you like.
Yeh but in a lot of cases the reason many former british colonies are in ruin now is because britain pulled out a lot of the wealth before the territory was handed over.
Since that you seem to have shifted your opinion to something which is easier to defend.
Plus you constantly flame-bait. You did it in a thread about australia, so I called you a 'tosser'. You then went down the route of 'why's everybody always picking on me? '
I've seen you act like that in nearly every thread I've read that you've posted on. Either stop flamebaiting - or stop acting like a girl when Dogma/Shuma/Me/mattyrm/Ketara slaps you in return. Simple.
Albatross wrote:@whatwhat - I thought your point was that the British pulled out all of the wealth from colonies before they left, and that this is a major reason for their current predicament? I could quote you if you like.
Yes, still stand by that. Never said it was a "major" reason though.
Plus you constantly flame-bait. You did it in a thread about australia, so I called you a 'tosser'.
I made a tongue in cheek joke and you called me a tosser.
You then went down the route of 'why's everybody always picking on me? '
No i didn't.
I've seen you act like that in nearly every thread I've read that you've posted on. Either stop flamebaiting - or stop acting like a girl when Dogma/Shuma/Me/mattyrm/Ketara slaps you in return. Simple.
Seriously, get over yourself. Perhaps you can quote me "acitng like a girl".
WW, i thought you might take my point seriously considering you and I were not in this thread, and have not once, had what people might call "an argument"
Im not trying to take anyones side in this virtual debate, im just saying that i have to concur with Albatross, you do get into some quite heated debates with people, and then you seem to act upset when they retort. To be fair you dont always start being rude, and yes some people go too far sometimes, but you sometimes do, and i feel its a tad unfair to make yourself out to be the victim when you argue just as passionately as everyone else!
Anyway.. lets try and drag it back on topic.
On topic, the Argies wont invade anywhere. You should start a thread entitled "Was the British Empire a negative influence on the world?" instead!
whatwhat wrote:This nation wouldn't be where it was today if we hadn't abused the rest of the world, that's your point? Doesn't make me very proud.
I would once again direct attention to the classic 'What have the Romans ever done for us' sketch. It did some bad stuff, and it did some good stuff. The bad stuff does not cancel out the good it did, the same way the good does not cancel out the bad. Simply put, morals are subject to change over protracted periods of time, so what comprises good and bad is also subject to change. Not only that, as morals are subjective to begin with, attempting to judge stuff long past is at best, completely pointless.
It does when certain peoples in the world are living a lower quality of life thanks to the british empire, while we enjoy a higher one because of it.
The british empire alone is not responsible for the current day plight of south america, east asia, and africa. There are plenty of modern day problems that can just as easily be blamed.
...in reply to a perfectly reasonable statement makes you sound like a hormonal 14 year old girl. How do I need to get over myself? Perhaps YOU should get over yourself, especially when you post things like:
I'm irritated because your statement is just a complete failure. I'd feel like a primary school teacher were I to respond to that.
...which is pretty arrogant considering your usual levels of spelling and punctuation.
...in reply to a perfectly reasonable statement makes you sound like a hormonal 14 year old girl. How do I need to get over myself? Perhaps YOU should get over yourself, especially when you post things like:
I'm responding to your seeming high opinion of yourself, which is evident by you passing judgement on me when you hardly know me. Saying I act like a girl and whining flamebaiter while accusing me of acting like a victim, which I can't see I have.
I'm irritated because your statement is just a complete failure. I'd feel like a primary school teacher were I to respond to that.
...which is pretty arrogant considering your usual levels of spelling and punctuation.
Sure feel free to judge me by my spelling aswell, by all means.
hole that relies on billions in US aid (second only to Israel but don't tell the terrorists)
'