Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Scotland had colonies of it's own.

whatwhat wrote:

Ketara wrote:

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.

ffs. please. Go tire someone else.

whatwhat wrote:

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.

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:

whatwhat wrote:

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.

whatwhat wrote:

Ketara wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

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's just your statement as it happens.

ad hominems? Isn't that whayt you're doing right now?

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.

Refer to previous post, and leave it there please. Wouldn't want this thread locked to the detriment of other users.

whatwhat wrote:

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.

I'm glad people are getting back onto the topic.

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!

I still don't see where I'm making myself out to be a victim?

whatwhat wrote:

Ketara wrote:

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.

Never said it was.

@whatwhat - Well, posting...

Get over yourself.

...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.

Albatross wrote:@whatwhat - Well, posting...

Get over yourself.

...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.

If people can't keep the thread on topic I'm locking it.

There is a separate thread about oil in the Falklands.