The British Empire Thread

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

What a load of silly, patronising tripe.

The best contribution Ireland made regarding the british empire was in helping to break it up. Cann't say we single handly started it, but we did more than our fair share and that's something the vast majority of Irish people are quiet proud of, apart from our little unionist friends in the north east - like yourself.

why not have a read up on the French empire (You admire Napoleon, look at some of the attorcities commited uner his rule), or take a look at the Spanish one, have you ever wondewred what happened to the natives of South America before the Spanish arrived? maybe you should also take a look at the Portugese as you are so shocked and appaled by the slave trade. i think they traded more slaves then Britian, France and Spain put together.

Here's a bit of news for you. Great empires became great empires by ****ting on people and the irish did their fair share of ****ting, its just ehy did it under the red white and blue of britain rather than the green white and orange of Ireland. Fortunately that means that you and your fellow bar stool republicans can sit and PONTIFICATE (You love that word so i though I would use it, it applies very nicely to you) about Britain, when in reality, your descendants were part of it, in there taking the profit with the rest of them.

The man who orchestrated the Amritsah massacre was irish, as was one of the key players in the attempted genocide of native Americans.

there were significant numbers of Irish regiments in the Boer war, so the Irish were undoubtedly involved in those concentration camps.

Good job the Irish never had an empire of their own, they would have been even worse then those that existed.

ChocolateSauce

McArmalite wrote: »

:rolleyes: Must I have to repeat it again - " well since britian was using concentration camps during the Boer War decades before the Adolf and co., murdering tens of thousands of people in Iraq with posionius gas, they even mangaed to do something the Nazi's couldn't achieve, the extermination of a race of people, the Tasmanian Aborigines."

And not to forget also been among the worst slave traders ( Africa to the West Indies etc ) and drug pushers ( China and the Opium 'trade' ). How would the british empire compare to other colonial powers, well if their's a leaque table they'll surely be the hot favourites to win.

Don't forget that the British, starting in the early 1800's, went on a world wide crusade to abolish slavery.

McArmalite

brianthebard wrote: »

Are you not going to acknowledge the many Irish slave owners in the Caribbean, the soldiers in India, etc, etc?

When did I ever post that Irish people didn't play a role in the british empire ?? If you have the post/thread where I stated that Irish men didn't play a role in probably the worst criminal enterprise in history, the britsh empire, could you post it please.
And as I have often stated before, the vast majority of those who did join the british forces did so out of no alternative in order to survive. It was a case of (A) starving to death ( B ) becoming a priest ( C ) joining the britsh army. The vast majority of them were economic conscripts, hurt and bitterly resentful of the class and government that had impoverished them, and not out of any sense of doing their bit for queen and country etc

McArmalite

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you saying that the British empire was the only one that was bad! :pac:

Anong the worst slave traders; are there any nice slave traders!
You're rants against the British empire could be equally relevant to almost all the other in history.

Look at the legacy those ancient empires left behind: roman roads exist all over europe for example, many european languages have deep roots in latin, the justice system in many countries is based on the Laws of the UK (British empire).

Never said or implied that it was the only one that was bad, just pointing out it was one of the worst. As previously stated - " How would the british empire compare to other colonial powers, well if their's a leaque table they'll surely be the hot favourites to win. "

As for the british justice, well it was once said that british justice is the best justice that money can buy. I agree.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why not have a read up on the French empire (You admire Napoleon, look at some of the attorcities commited uner his rule), or take a look at the Spanish one, have you ever wondewred what happened to the natives of South America before the Spanish arrived? maybe you should also take a look at the Portugese as you are so shocked and appaled by the slave trade. i think they traded more slaves then Britian, France and Spain put together.

Here's a bit of news for you. Great empires became great empires by ****ting on people and the irish did their fair share of ****ting, its just ehy did it under the red white and blue of britain rather than the green white and orange of Ireland. Fortunately that means that you and your fellow bar stool republicans can sit and PONTIFICATE (You love that word so i though I would use it, it applies very nicely to you) about Britain, when in reality, your descendants were part of it, in there taking the profit with the rest of them.

The man who orchestrated the Amritsah massacre was irish, as was one of the key players in the attempted genocide of native Americans.

there were significant numbers of Irish regiments in the Boer war, so the Irish were undoubtedly involved in those concentration camps.

Good job the Irish never had an empire of their own, they would have been even worse then those that existed.

Yes I am aware of the wrongs that the French, Spainish and Portugese empires carried out. However as the title of the thread is about tthe british empire, then I'm addressing the subject matter - the british empire.

" Here's a bit of news for you. Great empires became great empires by ****ting on people and the irish did their fair share of ****ting, " A bit like saying a serial killer wouldn't be much of a serial killer if he didn't go around murdering and disimbowling people etc.

" its just ehy did it under the red white and blue of britain rather than the green white and orange of Ireland. "
Well since 1922, the Irish army haven't gone around the world killing and maiming countless numbers of people have they now. Indeed they have earned themselves a a fair amount of respect in their role under the UN banner in the Congo, Cyprus, Lebannon, East Timour and in Liberia at the moment.

However in the same period the british army have disgraced themseleves endless times and murdered countless numbers of defenceless people throughout the world. Nothing could be more fitting than calling the red white and blue of britain, the butcher's apron.

brianthebard

McArmalite wrote: »

When did I ever post that Irish people didn't play a role in the british empire ?? If you have the post/thread where I stated that Irish men didn't play a role in probably the worst criminal enterprise in history, the britsh empire, could you post it please.

You said;

McArmalite wrote: »

The best contribution Ireland made regarding the british empire was in helping to break it up.

As if they had nothing to do with the building of the empire.

And as I have often stated before, the vast majority of those who did join the british forces did so out of no alternative in order to survive. It was a case of (A) starving to death ( B ) becoming a priest ( C ) joining the britsh army. The vast majority of them were economic conscripts, hurt and bitterly resentful of the class and government that had impoverished them, and not out of any sense of doing their bit for queen and country etc

What about (D) became part of the slave trade and owned slaves in the Caribbean? The vast majority of them actually didn't really give a damn about the flag they fought under.

McArmalite

brianthebard wrote: »

You said;

As if they had nothing to do with the building of the empire.

What about (D) became part of the slave trade and owned slaves in the Caribbean? The vast majority of them actually didn't really give a damn about the flag they fought under.

Because I don't mention something in a reply, you jumped to the conclusion that I denied their role in the running of the empire. By not mentioning an aspect, it doesn't automatically mean that a person denies the events happened. As I explained to you before, when giving a quick reply, I cannot and will not go into every possible aspect, situation, and scenario etc regarding the subject been discussed.

" The vast majority of them actually didn't really give a damn about the flag they fought under " the vast majority of them would rather have never served under the butcher's apron. I would have thought it pretty obvious that a man who has been impoverished by the system and forced to join the army as a last resort would be obviously very resentful of the government and system that brought about his predicament in the first place.

Very few of your postings contain much to add to a discussion, it's generally to insert the little put down to anybody so you can feel smug and clever with yourself. It's your style to hang around like a vulture, then swoop in on a single line or even word and then raise some issue on it, so you can then feel all smug with yourself.

Fratton Fred

Or E) the same reason young men have joined the army throughout history, a sense of adventure and the opportunity to be a soldier. The same reason young men from Ireland are joining the british army to this day.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Well since 1922, the Irish army haven't gone around the world killing and maiming countless numbers of people have they now. Indeed they have earned themselves a a fair amount of respect in their role under the UN banner in the Congo, Cyprus, Lebannon, East Timour and in Liberia at the moment.

However in the same period the british army have disgraced themseleves endless times and murdered countless numbers of defenceless people throughout the world. Nothing could be more fitting than calling the red white and blue of britain, the butcher's apron.

that's the difference between having an interventionust policy and a sit on your hands and hope someone else sorts it out policy. That's also the view of an anti British irish republican ahich is, shall we say, biased.

how's the statue of Sean Russell these days, still got his arms and head has he?

thejamescaird

armalite you need to open your mind here.
There is not a people on earth who have not been oppressed. This includes the English themselves. At the time of the empires height the average man in england was working his guts out in some hell of a pit or mill.
They even had children working to death. The Irish catholics who filled the armies an navy as cannon fodder were probably better off than their english peasant or worker equivalents. even better off than the protestant irish workers in the mills and factories of the industrialised north.
The Irish peasants of the time were not treated any worse than the ordinary people of the rest of the uk in practical terms.
All mankind oppresses and exploits each other. That is life. If the guys on the bottom got to the top they would behave themselves in the same way.
empires are an unavoidable natural progression of human society. Amid all the suffering and exploitation, they also create periods of peace and stability for progress to be made in many fields.
The british empire is no different. Actually most scholars would say that it had less evil than a german or japenese or spanish etc. alternative.
Most of the suffering such as the bengal or irish famine wasn't actually systematically planned, rather a side effect of their greed.

what im trying to say is that in denouncing the british empire you may as well denounce humanity.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or E) the same reason young men have joined the army throughout history, a sense of adventure and the opportunity to be a soldier. The same reason young men from Ireland are joining the british army to this day.

Apart from our unionist firends in the RIR, a few dozen, so don't be getting too excited.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that's the difference between having an interventionust policy and a sit on your hands and hope someone else sorts it out policy. That's also the view of an anti British irish republican ahich is, shall we say, biased.

Ah yes, britian, the always impartial and fair, international policeman of the world. Wise up will ya. Did it ever occur to you, that if your crowd weren't going over there bombing them, they wouldn't be coming to you lot to bomb you ? britian couldn't give a rats ar$e about the welfare of the people out there. They were happy to fund and train these 'terrorists' 20 years ago or so and sell Saddam as much hardware as he could buy.

Maybe if rain becomes an esstenial source or if the Corrib gas field turns out to be huge, we can expect a revisit from our lovely british friends down south , and if we resist we'll be - guess what - terrorists ofcourse ( I wouldn't blame the nationalists in the six counties to sit back and have a good chuckle ). I despise anyone who would join such a group of cowardly scumbags to act like a legalised skanger, which is what they are anyway, so that's why they join the brits.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

how's the statue of Sean Russell these days, still got his arms and head has he?

Well can'nt say it's my first thought in the morning and my last thought at night, though you seem to have a fixation about it.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Apart from our unionist firends in the RIR, a few dozen, so don't be getting too excited.

did you ever go over to the Military forum and share your thoughts with them?

McArmalite wrote: »

Ah yes, britian, the always impartial and fair, international policeman of the world. Wise up will ya. Did it ever occur to you, that if your crowd weren't going over there bombing them, they wouldn't be coming to you lot to bomb you ? britian couldn't give a rats ar$e about the welfare of the people out there. They were happy to fund and train these 'terrorists' 20 years ago or so and sell Saddam as much hardware as he could buy.

interesting. When were Germany over "There" bombing people? they vehemently opposed the war and yet two terrorists were arrested on a plane in Germany last week.

Iraq 2 was done against UN sanction, the current british force there is working under UN sanction, as they are in Afghanistan and Bosnia. is the UN an evil organisation? if so, why are the Irish in Chad?

McArmalite wrote: »

Maybe if rain becomes an esstenial source or if the Corrib gas field turns out to be huge, we can expect a revisit from our lovely british friends down south , and if we resist we'll be - guess what - terrorists ofcourse ( I wouldn't blame the nationalists in the six counties to sit back and have a good chuckle ). I despise anyone who would join such a group of cowardly scumbags to act like a legalised skanger, which is what they are anyway, so that's why they join the brits.

Well can'nt say it's my first thought in the morning and my last thought at night, though you seem to have a fixation about it.

Get over yourself mate. ireland is just a small country off Britain, no one is interested in it.

thejamescaird

McArmalite wrote: »

Apart from our unionist firends in the RIR, a few dozen, so don't be getting too excited.

quote]

well mrarmalite how do you describe the 50000 southern irishmen who joined the british army in ww2 to fight the nazis. west brit stooges i suppose
and dont you count unionists as irishmen at all?
i would have thought a good republican counted all of us as irish or do you only count republicans as irish and everyone else as west brits?

MarchDub

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Don't forget that the British, starting in the early 1800's, went on a world wide crusade to abolish slavery.

This is a misleading statement. The British did not as a whole people do this. Some of them did - very few I might add- but the most outspoken against slavery in the British parliament was the Irishman Daniel O'Connell. When Frederick Douglass went on a tour of the UK his first stop was Ireland and he met with O'Connell as a colleague in abolitionist aspirations.

The British monied class - many of whom held land in the West Indies etc. and had slaves - including most of those in the British parliament, were not easily convinced about the abolition of slavery.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

This is a misleading statement. The British did not as a whole people do this. Some of them did - very few I might add- but the most outspoken against slavery in the British parliament was the Irishman Daniel O'Connell. When Frederick Douglass went on a tour of the UK his first stop was Ireland and he met with O'Connell as a colleague in abolitionist aspirations.

The British monied class - many of whom held land in the West Indies etc. and had slaves - including most of those in the British parliament, were not easily convinced about the abolition of slavery.

Maybe not, but the British government sent the Royal navy to east Africa to actively stop the trade. Hardly the actions of a country reluctant to act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron

brianthebard

Something I've been considering lately is there was an internationalist element to Irish culture during the nineteenth century, that was sorely lacking after independence and has only really started to reappear in the last decade or so, if even. Irish mass movements like Daniel O'Connell's were well known around the continent during his life time. Local papers, such as the Sligo Champion, reported on events in faraway Russia, in a manner that would not be conceivable nowadays, even with changes in technology that would make it easier. Dublin was a city of Europe, although in fairness as the century progressed and the middle classes set up suburbs this changed and it became one of the slums of Europe.

ChocolateSauce

MarchDub wrote: »

This is a misleading statement. The British did not as a whole people do this. Some of them did - very few I might add- but the most outspoken against slavery in the British parliament was the Irishman Daniel O'Connell. When Frederick Douglass went on a tour of the UK his first stop was Ireland and he met with O'Connell as a colleague in abolitionist aspirations.

The British monied class - many of whom held land in the West Indies etc. and had slaves - including most of those in the British parliament, were not easily convinced about the abolition of slavery.

And yet parliament abolished slavery. In 1807 slave trading was abolished and slavery itself was stopped in 1833.

bigeasyeah

END THIS REDUNDANT THREAD

bigeasyeah

END THIS REDUNDANT THREAD.

MarchDub

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

And yet parliament abolished slavery. In 1807 slave trading was abolished and slavery itself was stopped in 1833.

I sent in a reply yesterday but it does not appear to be here. Was the board down? I couldn't even get on for about 24 hours.

I sent in a reply about the slave trade vs slavery itself and why the slave trade was abolished - sometimes at the request of British slave owners who feared that too many slaves would result in revolt or a lessening in market value. The slaves themselves were - through reproduction - producing babies born into slavery. This was sufficient on many estates - no need to keep bringing more in. The trade had become over subscribed so the abolitionists were listened to on this point.

Sorry if the above is a repeat - I can't see my post.

Anyway, to continue. The 1833 act was not a complete abolition of slavery in spite of attempts to claim this from some contemporary historians. Far from it. The British monied classes needed slavery in many places and did not want it entirely abolished and bitterly opposed the bill and so drew the compromises that resulted. And it was to say the least a compromise bill - just as the Catholic Emancipation Bill of 1829 was - the East India Company territories were excluded as was Ceylon and other places of strategic value.

And those territories where slavery was "abolished" were permitted by the Bill to introduce a system of nothing more than forced apprenticeships. Indentured servitude was also permitted and thus began a wave of "owned" servants from Asia being brought to the Caribbean. Black historians in the modern era have done a lot of work on this and exposed it for what it was and are attempting to counteract the myth of sheer altruism and toleration that surrounds the contemporary narrative on the 1833 bill.

McArmalite

MarchDub wrote: »

I sent in a reply yesterday but it does not appear to be here. Was the board down? I couldn't even get on for about 24 hours.

I sent in a reply about the slave trade vs slavery itself and why the slave trade was abolished - sometimes at the request of British slave owners who feared that too many slaves would result in revolt or a lessening in market value. The slaves themselves were - through reproduction - producing babies born into slavery. This was sufficient on many estates - no need to keep bringing more in. The trade had become over subscribed so the abolitionists were listened to on this point.

Sorry if the above is a repeat - I can't see my post.

Anyway, to continue. The 1833 act was not a complete abolition of slavery in spite of attempts to claim this from some contemporary historians. Far from it. The British monied classes needed slavery in many places and did not want it entirely abolished and bitterly opposed the bill and so drew the compromises that resulted. And it was to say the least a compromise bill - just as the Catholic Emancipation Bill of 1829 was - the East India Company territories were excluded as was Ceylon and other places of strategic value.

And those territories where slavery was "abolished" were permitted by the Bill to introduce a system of nothing more than forced apprenticeships. Indentured servitude was also permitted and thus began a wave of "owned" servants from Asia being brought to the Caribbean. Black historians in the modern era have done a lot of work on this and exposed it for what it was and are attempting to counteract the myth of sheer altruism and toleration that surrounds the contemporary narrative on the 1833 bill.

Now this is what a history forum is for. I don't doubt the humanity of the abolitionists in Britian and their great work in bringing about a 'sort of end' of slavery as shown by MarchDub's post. But with because of hidden factors, " The slaves themselves were - through reproduction - producing babies born into slavery " and the risk of successful rebellion etc slavery was alleged to be abolished but substituted to a new form, " a system of nothing more than forced apprenticeships. Indentured servitude was also permitted and thus began a wave of "owned" servants from Asia being brought to the Caribbean. ".

Excellent post.

McArmalite

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Don't forget that the British, starting in the early 1800's, went on a world wide crusade to abolish slavery.

Again repeating that great credit is due to the honest efforts of the abolitionists, it would be nice if some around here could drop their self deception regarding the so called ' ending of slavery ' and the motivations behind it, though doubtless we are in for a round of britian's empire, the benign, benevolent, big brother.....if britain's line is the earth is flat - then it's flat " etc, etc, etc.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

I sent in a reply yesterday but it does not appear to be here. Was the board down? I couldn't even get on for about 24 hours.

I sent in a reply about the slave trade vs slavery itself and why the slave trade was abolished - sometimes at the request of British slave owners who feared that too many slaves would result in revolt or a lessening in market value. The slaves themselves were - through reproduction - producing babies born into slavery. This was sufficient on many estates - no need to keep bringing more in. The trade had become over subscribed so the abolitionists were listened to on this point.

Sorry if the above is a repeat - I can't see my post.

Anyway, to continue. The 1833 act was not a complete abolition of slavery in spite of attempts to claim this from some contemporary historians. Far from it. The British monied classes needed slavery in many places and did not want it entirely abolished and bitterly opposed the bill and so drew the compromises that resulted. And it was to say the least a compromise bill - just as the Catholic Emancipation Bill of 1829 was - the East India Company territories were excluded as was Ceylon and other places of strategic value.

And those territories where slavery was "abolished" were permitted by the Bill to introduce a system of nothing more than forced apprenticeships. Indentured servitude was also permitted and thus began a wave of "owned" servants from Asia being brought to the Caribbean. Black historians in the modern era have done a lot of work on this and exposed it for what it was and are attempting to counteract the myth of sheer altruism and toleration that surrounds the contemporary narrative on the 1833 bill.

That maybe true, I don't doubt it for a minute, but did this apply only to the British colonies or was a similar thing happening around the world? I know the slave rebellion in Haiti helped the abolitionist movement, because it scared a lot of people into acting, but how was this received in Spain, Portugal and the US, who by this time had also become a major slave trading nation?

Honest question, as you appear to have read up on the subject. Was Britain instrumental in ending the Atlantic slave trade? If Britain had not passed the act, would slavery have continued?

Pgibson

brianthebard wrote: »

Something I've been considering lately is there was an internationalist element to Irish culture during the nineteenth century.

"It was the Skibbereen, or West Cork Eagle newspaper, that solemnly told Lord Palmerston that it had “got its eye both upon him and on the Emperor of Russia.” This terrible warning has elevated the little insignificant town of Skibbereen, in the southwest coast of Ireland, quite into a Lilliputian pre-eminence. Beware, beware, ye statesmen, emperors, and thrones, for the Skibbereen Eagle has its eye upon you!"

Hup ya boy ya!

.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That maybe true, I don't doubt it for a minute, but did this apply only to the British colonies or was a similar thing happening around the world? I know the slave rebellion in Haiti helped the abolitionist movement, because it scared a lot of people into acting, but how was this received in Spain, Portugal and the US, who by this time had also become a major slave trading nation?

Honest question, as you appear to have read up on the subject. Was Britain instrumental in ending the atlantic slave trade? If Britain had not passed the act, would slavery have continued?

It would be historically inaccurate to ascribe a leading role to the British. Abolitionists were active in just about all European countries - in France for example, Jacques Brissot organized a society against slavery - Société des Amis des Noirs [Society of the Friends of Blacks ] during the French Revolution and slavery was abolished there in 1795. Napolean however, reinstated it after he became First Consul but within France the abolitionist movement remained strong and they eventually outlawed it in 1848 during the Second Republic. This was a much stronger law than the British law of 1833 because the French state actually paid the slave owners - purchased the slaves in other words - and then freed them.

In the US the abolitionist movement was organized by Quakers and greatly influenced by the writing of Thomas Paine - his article of 1775 on "African Slavery" called for an end to slavery. By 1804 slavery had been outlawed in practically all the northern states. But again this wasn't an airtight situation and New York, for example, really did not see an end to slavery until some years later.

That may be too long winded - but I just want to point out that the issue of abolishing slavery was a world wide one and grew out of the ideas of the Enlightenment - people like Paine, and Voltaire [who denounced Napoleon] rather than any one country or people.

MarchDub

McArmalite wrote: »

Now this is what a history forum is for. I don't doubt the humanity of the abolitionists in Britian and their great work in bringing about a 'sort of end' of slavery as shown by MarchDub's post. But with because of hidden factors, " The slaves themselves were - through reproduction - producing babies born into slavery " and the risk of successful rebellion etc slavery was alleged to be abolished but substituted to a new form, " a system of nothing more than forced apprenticeships. Indentured servitude was also permitted and thus began a wave of "owned" servants from Asia being brought to the Caribbean. ".

Excellent post.

Thanks!

McArmalite

MarchDub wrote: »

It would be historically inaccurate to ascribe a leading role to the British. Abolitionists were active in just about all European countries - in France for example, Jacques Brissot organized a society against slavery - Société des Amis des Noirs [Society of the Friends of Blacks ] during the French Revolution and slavery was abolished there in 1795. Napolean however, reinstated it after he became First Consul but within France the abolitionist movement remained strong and they eventually outlawed it in 1848 during the Second Republic. This was a much stronger law than the British law of 1833 because the French state actually paid the slave owners - purchased the slaves in other words - and then freed them.

In the US the abolitionist movement was organized by Quakers and greatly influenced by the writing of Thomas Paine - his article of 1775 on "African Slavery" called for an end to slavery. By 1804 slavery had been outlawed in practically all the northern states. But again this wasn't an airtight situation and New York, for example, really did not see an end to slavery until some years later.

That may be too long winded - but I just want to point out that the issue of abolishing slavery was a world wide one and grew out of the ideas of the Enlightenment - people like Paine, and Voltaire [who denounced Napoleon] rather than any one country or people.

Good stuff again March. So much for the " britain the champion for freedom, peace and enlightement to the world " etc, etc " mob yet again :rolleyes:.

It should be pointed out that we speak of slavery as a thing of the past, but the oragnisation Anti-Slavery International, http://www.antislavery.org/ says their are millions of people world wide still in slavery in the forms of prostitution, child labour etc.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Was Britain instrumental in ending the Atlantic slave trade? If Britain had not passed the act, would slavery have continued?

britain, the nation that likes to pump itself up with the conceited lies that it alone championed the abolition of slavery. :rolleyes:

( I suppose he'll be saying that I'm " Playing the race card Mac? " now )

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57482142&postcount=330

Pgibson

McArmalite wrote: »

britain, the nation that likes to pump itself up with the conceited lies that it alone championed the abolition of slavery. :rolleyes:

The above statement by McArtillery-Piece is itself pure conceited lies.

.

ChocolateSauce

McArmalite wrote: »

Again repeating that great credit is due to the honest efforts of the abolitionists, it would be nice if some around here could drop their self deception regarding the so called ' ending of slavery ' and the motivations behind it, though doubtless we are in for a round of britian's empire, the benign, benevolent, big brother.....if britain's line is the earth is flat - then it's flat " etc, etc, etc.

No, that would be nationalism.

McArmalite

Oh the empire is finished no foreign lands to steal
But the greedy eyes of England are staring towards the seas
Two hundred miles from Donegal, there's a place that's called Rockall
And the groping hands of Whitehall are grabbing at its walls

Chorus:
Oh rock on Rockall, you'll never fall to Britain's greedy hands
Or you'll meet the same resistance that you did in many lands
May the seagulls rise and pluck your eyes and the water crush your shell,
And the natural gas will burn your ass and blow you all to hell.

For this rock is part of Ireland, for it' s written in folklore
That Fionn MacCumhaill took a sod of grass and he threw it to the fore,
Then he tossed a pebble across the sea, where ever it did fall,
For the sod became the Isle of Man and the pebble's called Rockall.

Now the seas will not be silent, while Britannia stalks the waves
And remember that the Irish will never be your slaves,
And remember that Britannia, well, - you rule the waves no more
So keep your hands off Rockall - it's Irish to the core.


I love the words of it - " no foreign lands to steal......But the greedy eyes of England......the groping hands of Whitehall.......while Britannia stalks the waves....... And the natural gas will burn your ass and blow you all to hell. "