Britain, America and China: History's barfiest empires
- Thread starter mayfly13
- Start date
Over here, some Anglos
- yes they are, they flaunt their ancestrydna results in your face every chance they get -
are engaging in another ""Ï'm hollier than you" con-artistry:
"Why does Western Europe give preference to White people -aka Ukrainians- when they rejected brown immigrants?"
"Why did Eastern European countries embrace White refugees after they rejected brown one?
These being the spawns of colinists who used to hunt aboriginals for fun, or of Anglos who consider EE's to be third class accidental/by geography only/ Europeans.
You people disgust me.
- yes they are, they flaunt their ancestrydna results in your face every chance they get -
are engaging in another ""Ï'm hollier than you" con-artistry:
"Why does Western Europe give preference to White people -aka Ukrainians- when they rejected brown immigrants?"
"Why did Eastern European countries embrace White refugees after they rejected brown one?
These being the spawns of colinists who used to hunt aboriginals for fun, or of Anglos who consider EE's to be third class accidental/by geography only/ Europeans.
You people disgust me.
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
Wrong, very wrong.America is not now, nor ever has been an empire.
Fremdschämen
It took over the Philippines by force during the Spanish American war started by an accident to USS Maine that was an internal explosion, not an act of war. Most of its empire is by trade and influence, not an occupation but by making the country subservient to large US corporations who treat the inhabitants badly.
Sounds like English guilt trying to make a false equivalency
in the form of, yeah we were bad, but so were you...
Now, the people we defeated that ceded all sorts of territory to us,
they were colonial empires of oppression just like the English.
I'll bet the Philippines were really glad to see the Empire of Japan take over...
in the form of, yeah we were bad, but so were you...
Now, the people we defeated that ceded all sorts of territory to us,
they were colonial empires of oppression just like the English.
I'll bet the Philippines were really glad to see the Empire of Japan take over...
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
We were nowhere near as bad as you make us out to be. the British Empire treated its citizens far better than any other European empire, of which the Spanish and the Belgians were the worst.
Just as glad as the when the US killed thousands of their people - for what?
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
Not so many. If we were that bad, why did so many voluntarily support us in WW1 and WW2?
The Commonwealth, no longer the British Commonwealth, is a grouping of like-minded countries who were part of the British Empire yet want to retain ties with each other and share British institutions such as their parliament and judiciary. If we were as terrible as you think, the Commonwealth would not exist.
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
No. They supported the UK because they felt affinity with it.
The modern Commonwealth is NOt a military alliance, nor a trading bloc. Individual countries could have agreements with others or the UK, but that is not required for membership. What they have to have are things valued by the West - democracy, free speech and freedom. Those that don't comply such as South Africa with apartheid, were expelled by a majority of Commonwealth nations.
The modern Commonwealth is NOt a military alliance, nor a trading bloc. Individual countries could have agreements with others or the UK, but that is not required for membership. What they have to have are things valued by the West - democracy, free speech and freedom. Those that don't comply such as South Africa with apartheid, were expelled by a majority of Commonwealth nations.
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
China is different. What it is doing to the Uighurs and to Hong Kong, and its growing military threats in the Pacific are threats to Pacific nations, the US and the whole world.
China, like Japan in WW2, is aiming to build an empire by force. The British Empire was created by trade. So is the US's. That is very different.
Last edited:
Rotadom
Satan's Plaything
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2017
- Posts
- 8,647
Typical Republican mantra.
"We didn't invent racism, we just continue to perfect it!"
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
The Royal Navy was used to stop the slave trade which the US still supported.
The Indian rebellion was against the East India Company - not against the British Empire. India has been ruled by company directors. Only after the Rebellion was India ruled by the British government. India was being prepared for independence in the 1930s, and so were many other parts of the British Empire, some of which were already self-governing. WW2 stopped that. Without it, most of the Empire might have been independent in the 1950s - voluntarily and with the new governments chosen by the local citizens.
Indian partition was a disaster but the British killed very few. The local Muslims and Hindus killed millions, tensions which the British had been managing for decades.
Last edited:
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
Even when those Emperors are US presidents?
What have the Romans ever done for us?
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
For Americans. perhaps not much.
For Europe - roads, towns, cities, clean water, sewage, literature and the church.
I read that scene from Life of Brian as reflecting the fact that the Brits are of two minds about their Empire. On the one hand, they really are sorry for all the oppression and exploitation. On the other hand, the Empire really did do a lot of good things for its colonial subjects -- just try to imagine uncolonized India or Africa building railroads and sewers on its own, for instance -- and dammit, they ought to be grateful!
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
They don't have to be grateful. They have a more balanced view of the British Empire, acknowledging what it did that was good, and what it didn't do - more by omission than by deliberate policy.
Many Indian institutions still follow Britsh patterns because they work even in an independent India. The religious tensions still exist and can lead to violence. What the British tried to do for rural India is still a massive work in progress because the task was and is so huge.
India acknowledges its heritage which includes the British and pre British cultures which were at war with each other before the Brits arrived.
What is remarkable is that India has survived intact as a functioning democracy. That was only possible with goodwill and tolerance.
Many Indian institutions still follow Britsh patterns because they work even in an independent India. The religious tensions still exist and can lead to violence. What the British tried to do for rural India is still a massive work in progress because the task was and is so huge.
India acknowledges its heritage which includes the British and pre British cultures which were at war with each other before the Brits arrived.
What is remarkable is that India has survived intact as a functioning democracy. That was only possible with goodwill and tolerance.
Also, for the first time in its very long history, India has a single language of wider communication -- English. Can't build a real nation without that.
I recall Orwell writing that in his day the average Indian peasant's thigh was thinner than an Englishman's arm -- and this was not a racial difference, because well-fed members of both races were physically similar.
I wish I could ask him: What makes you think the average Indian peasant ate any better before his country was colonized -- or would eat better if the British left?
I'm sure they do eat better now -- that's the result of industrialization, which the Brits never allowed when they ruled -- they wanted India to sell Britain raw materials and buy British manufactures, forever.
I wish I could ask him: What makes you think the average Indian peasant ate any better before his country was colonized -- or would eat better if the British left?
I'm sure they do eat better now -- that's the result of industrialization, which the Brits never allowed when they ruled -- they wanted India to sell Britain raw materials and buy British manufactures, forever.
Similar threads
