The British Empire Thread

getz

yes thats good mcarmlite its a pity you have proved that you are a racist . i will no no longer go on any of the treads you are on

RSF Cill Dara

getz wrote: »

yes thats good mcarmlite its a pity you have proved that you are a racist . i will no no longer go on any of the treads you are on

a racist? how so? i see no racism in any of his posts ?

getz

getz wrote: »

yes thats good mcarmlite its a pity you have proved that you are a racist . i will no no longer go on any of the treads you are on

The word you're looking for is bigot

Pgibson

Deleted User wrote: »

The word you're looking for is bigot

Worse than that.

Any geezer who names himself after a lethal weapon is "Damaged".

.

Pgibson

P.S.

The Faroe Islands have undisputed claim to Rockall.

Move over you pretenders UK, Ireland and Iceland.

I know that Magnus Magnussun (Icelandic Mastermind himself) dismissed them as "Just 30,000 blondes".

But they own the rights.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroe_Islands )

The Wolfe Tones will have to learn a different tune.


.

mountainyman

The British Empire was highly effective.
The English conducted the only successful genocide in history.

Yay England!!!

ChocolateSauce

mountainyman wrote: »

The British Empire was highly effective.
The English conducted the only successful genocide in history.

Yay England!!!

That's a very unusual definition of effective you've got there.

Pgibson

mountainyman wrote: »

The British Empire was highly effective.
The English conducted the only successful genocide in history.

Yay England!!!

Many people say it was a "Scottish Empire".
See:
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/uk/the-complete-guide-to-the-scottish-empire-407924.html

As the word "Scot" really means "Irish" we can conclude that the "British Empire" was really the "Irish Empire".

(Shame on us.)

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

Quote:
"Scotia was never one fixed place in the Middle Ages. It was a way of saying "Land of the Gaels"; compare Angli, Anglia; Franci, Francia; Romani, Romania; etc. Hence, it once could be used to mean Ireland, as when Isidore of Seville says "Scotia eadem et Hibernia, "Scotland and Ireland are the same country" (Isidore, lib. xii. c. 6)", but the connotation is still ethnic. This is how it is used, for instance, by King Robert I of Scotland and Domhnall Ua Neill during the Scottish Wars of Independence, when Ireland was called Scotia Major, and Scotland Scotia Minor."

.

Fratton Fred

mountainyman wrote: »

The British Empire was highly effective.
The English conducted the only successful genocide in history.

Yay England!!!

where was that then?

Hookey

mountainyman wrote: »

The British Empire was highly effective.
The English conducted the only successful genocide in history.

Yay England!!!

Hmm. Fascinating. Not true of course, but fascinating. There have been plenty of successful genocides, going back to the fall of Carthage.

RSF Cill Dara

Fratton Fred wrote: »

where was that then?

the famine

ilkhanid

"Two hundred miles from Donegal, there's a place that's called Rockall
And the groping hands of Whitehall are grabbing at its walls"

Oh, the fiends! Is there no end to the wickedness of Perfidious Albion?:D

RSF Cill Dara

-Number of Iraqis Slaughtered In War and Occupation of Iraq 1,284,105

-The British caused the deaths of almost 10 million people in India over 10 years beginning in 1857.

-British “foreign policy” and occupation of Ireland was a direct cause of starvation during the “famine”. The halving of our population over the centuries through murder and famine. The British continuing presence in our country an embarassment to our government.

-Britain’s own young soldiers are also victims of British foreign policy; they are not heroes but fools.

-Millions of slaves who died being transported on British ships

-Millions have died in the mid-East, murdered by the British or as a result of their divisive foreign policy

-5 million killed in the Crusades with individual massacres of 70,000 Mslims and 30,000 Jews.

-Many thousands of British civilians have also died as a response to British foreign policy.

These are only a fraction of the 100’s of millions of people who have died as a consequence of British military campaigns. Why are they all forgotten?

MAY THEY ALL REST IN PEACE

Hookey

Wow, those Brits are badasses aren't they? Somebody should do something! And the Crusades? Seriously? Apart from the fact that Britain didn't exist then, England was hardly involved other than in the Third and Ninth Crusades, (maybe you should stop taking history lessons from Hollywood). As for all the rest, well I could dispute every figure, but what's the point? Just get it out of your system and go and have a nice lie down.

ChocolateSauce

RSF Cill Dara wrote: »

-Number of Iraqis Slaughtered In War and Occupation of Iraq 1,284,105

-The British caused the deaths of almost 10 million people in India over 10 years beginning in 1857.

-British “foreign policy” and occupation of Ireland was a direct cause of starvation during the “famine”. The halving of our population over the centuries through murder and famine. The British continuing presence in our country an embarassment to our government.

-Britain’s own young soldiers are also victims of British foreign policy; they are not heroes but fools.

-Millions of slaves who died being transported on British ships

-Millions have died in the mid-East, murdered by the British or as a result of their divisive foreign policy

-5 million killed in the Crusades with individual massacres of 70,000 Mslims and 30,000 Jews.

-Many thousands of British civilians have also died as a response to British foreign policy.

These are only a fraction of the 100’s of millions of people who have died as a consequence of British military campaigns. Why are they all forgotten?

MAY THEY ALL REST IN PEACE

Britain didn't exist during the crusades. Now, can you supply sources for those figures?

ilkhanid

Hey...how can we forget the British role in the starting of the French Revolution,the First World War ,the spread of the plague in the 14th century and the fall of the Roman Empire? And sure it's well known that the dastardy brits murdered JFK,Gandhi and Pancho Villa..the monsters!:p

getz

the british did not cause the death of millions of slaves on ships it was the ship owners who would conduct there trade under the british and other flags , when the slave trade was outlawed in britian they traded under other flags of convenience .--the crusades was was by request of the pope and the roman catholic church .all four crusades ,as for india the british united the country into one by beating off the french and russians-most people in india remember the british fondly and took on the culture,with the building of railways ,govement . check your history-my indian pall always says [queen victoria very good king] for the british part we ended up with trade .sports .and and many new words in the english language ,also a lot of british people stayed on and intergrated by marrying indians

ejmaztec

ilkhanid wrote: »

Hey...how can we forget the British role in the starting of the French Revolution,the First World War ,the spread of the plague in the 14th century and the fall of the Roman Empire? And sure it's well known that the dastardy brits murdered JFK,Gandhi and Pancho Villa..the monsters!:p

I can see that you got one of those $10 history degrees off the internet - worth every cent professor. :pac:

McArmalite

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Britain didn't exist during the crusades. Now, can you supply sources for those figures?

Since your the one disputing what RSF Cill Dara has stated, you should be the one producing figures to the contary, not him. You may not find figures to exactly concur with what RSF Cill Dara has stated, but apart from the crusades his general line of arguement is in the right direction.

It should also be pointed out that many Irishmen were invovled in these terrible atorcities and events, mainly thru a conscription policy of join the brits or die of malnutrition, and not out of a sense of pride in Queen and country, etc. One of the many good reasons for rejecting the notion that the british empire was a glorious and honourable perversion.

Hookey

McArmalite wrote: »

Since your the one disputing what RSF Cill Dara has stated, you should be the one producing figures to the contary, not him.

Oh yeah, because that's how debate works. I say the rise in Somalian piracy is down to increased Flying Spaghetti Monster worship. Supply figures to the contrary.

meganj

Somalian piracy is down 40% Pastafarianism however continues to grow

In other news, we can't really just sit here and go "boo hoo Britain was mean to us and the rest of the world" true, for the most part, they were mean and fupping baxtards for most of our history, as anyone that went to school knows.

But the whole Empire thing, at the end of the day they were all at it, Spain, Portugal, France all competing to be the best and the most powerful. It just happens that Britain won the battle and while i do not under any cirumstances defend the horrible atrocities in their history, and ours, it doesn't change the fact that England was not the only country with colonies. Look at the Portugese they destroyed the Incas for gods sake! Imagine what our world would be like with all their futuristic technology, like chocolate... think how cheap chocolate would be.



mmmmmmmmmmmm....

ChocolateSauce

meganj wrote: »

think how cheap chocolate would be.

But I like being rich.

T runner

getz wrote: »

the british did not cause the death of millions of slaves on ships it was the ship owners who would conduct there trade under the british and other flags , when the slave trade was outlawed in britian they traded under other flags of convenience .--the crusades was was by request of the pope and the roman catholic church .all four crusades ,as for india the british united the country into one by beating off the french and russians-most people in india remember the british fondly and took on the culture,with the building of railways ,govement . check your history-my indian pall always says [queen victoria very good king] for the british part we ended up with trade .sports .and and many new words in the english language ,also a lot of british people stayed on and intergrated by marrying indians

I believe, India was partitioned after the British left.
Divisions that were fostered by a British divide and rule startegy.
Most Indians wanted the Brits out. Maybe the fond memories was of them leaving the country?
It was called the jewel in the crown. Maybe the Indians liked the British so much they gave then all their riches as gifts?

No, I think the British (and the French's) activities in that area were selfish
in the extreme. They were both acting the maggot big time.

Indians are a serene people and dont hold grudges. Your friend was just being nice.

T runner

T runner wrote: »

I believe, India was partitioned after the British left.
Divisions that were fostered by a British divide and rule startegy.
.

India was divided up before intependance as it proved impossible to form a unity government
The whole region was a large number of independant states before the Empire, Britain unified them into one colony.

ilkhanid

Exactly! India was a score of different principalities and petty kingdoms. It seems perverse and daft to blame Britain for finding India divided into twenty states and leaving it as two. To be sure divide and rule was the common practice, as with any large state,but Britain didn't need to manufacture differences, they existed already.After all we don't blame Spain for the fact that South and Central America is over a dozen countries or Austria for the fact that Croatia, Hungary,Slovenia,the Czech republic and Slovakia exist.
Anyway, while there is no denying that Britain's role in India had its share of cruelties and shortcomings, it was certainly no worse and probably a lot better than the existing style of government before the advent of the British. The decaying last Mughals, Rajputs and the other Rajahs were not know for their care for the common people.Also, surely Britain deserves credit for getting rid of Sutee and the Thugs. The Indians are easygoing about the surviving relics of British rule and made no attempt to destroy colonial monuments such as the Viceroys house in New Delhi and Mumbai's 'gateway to India' and they have kept the English language as a lingua franca. If the British were monstrous oppressors and savage tyrants, I could hardly imagine this happening.

McArmalite

Deleted User wrote: »

The word you're looking for is bigot

Well I wouldn't say I was a bigot, but I have to admit that when going on a few days holidays abroad I take a good supply of Tayto crisps, Jacobs biscuits, tins of Guinness and my favorite CD, Faith of our Fathers ( classic religious anthems of Ireland ) with me just in case those heathen foreigners might dilute the charcter of a good Catholic Irish boy like myself.

MarchDub

ilkhanid wrote: »

Exactly! India was a score of different principalities and petty kingdoms. It seems perverse and daft to blame Britain for finding India divided into twenty states and leaving it as two. To be sure divide and rule was the common practice, as with any large state,but Britain didn't need to manufacture differences, they existed already.After all we don't blame Spain for the fact that South and Central America is over a dozen countries or Austria for the fact that Croatia, Hungary,Slovenia,the Czech republic and Slovakia exist.
Anyway, while there is no denying that Britain's role in India had its share of cruelties and shortcomings, it was certainly no worse and probably a lot beter than the existing style of government before the advent of the British. The decaying last Mughals, Rajputs and the other Rajahs were not know for their care for the common people.Also, surely Britain deserves credit for getting rid of Sutee and the Thugs. The Indians are easy going about the surviving relics of British rule and made no attempt to destroy colonial monuments such as the Viceroys house in New Delhi and Mumbai's 'gateway to India' and they have kept the English language as a lingua franca. If the British were monstrous oppressors and savage tyrants, I could hardly imagine this happening.

Invading another territory and holding it by military force - which was the hallmark of all the European imperial powers IS oppressive and savage. Ergo the British were "monstrous oppressors and savage tyrants". Using the levelling argument about what went before or after or whether they were as bad as others is a false hypothesis. Only revisionists do this to support their own agenda of denial of the historic record.

The reaction of the Indians - or the Irish for that matter - AFTER the withdrawal of the British tells us more about the Indians and the Irish than anything the British did during their various reigns of terror. And check the record - terror it frequently was.

MarchDub

McArmalite wrote: »

Well I wouldn't say I was a bigot, but I have to admit that when going on a few days holidays abroad I take a good supply of Tayto crisps, Jacobs biscuits, tins of Guinness and my favorite CD, Faith of our Fathers ( classic religious anthems of Ireland ) with me just in case those heathen foreigners might dilute the charcter of a good Catholic Irish boy like myself.

Jacobs? Surely you mean Bolands biscuits.

getz

MarchDub wrote: »

Invading another territory and holding it by military force - which was the hallmark of all the European imperial powers IS oppressive and savage. Ergo the British were "monstrous oppressors and savage tyrants". Using the levelling argument about what went before or after or whether they were as bad as others is a false hypothesis. Only revisionists do this to support their own agenda of denial of the historic record.

The reaction of the Indians - or the Irish for that matter - AFTER the withdrawal of the British tells us more about the Indians and the Irish than anything the British did during their various reigns of terror. And check the record - terror it frequently was.

lets take this to the next step-- europeans countrys invading ; america [north and south]canada ,australia ,south africa,ect ect- ho yes just remember your ancesters invaded ireland from mainland europe

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Invading another territory and holding it by military force - which was the hallmark of all the European imperial powers IS oppressive and savage. Ergo the British were "monstrous oppressors and savage tyrants". Using the levelling argument about what went before or after or whether they were as bad as others is a false hypothesis. Only revisionists do this to support their own agenda of denial of the historic record.

The reaction of the Indians - or the Irish for that matter - AFTER the withdrawal of the British tells us more about the Indians and the Irish than anything the British did during their various reigns of terror. And check the record - terror it frequently was.

that's very true, but you will find people who like to blame all of India's problems on British rule (The same as someone here recently who tried blaming the Irish civil war on Britain).

If you look at the former Yugoslavia, while there was a strong dictator in charge, there was relative peace, it wasn't until that fell apart that war broke out. That is not an excuse for imperialism btw, that is merely pointing out a fact.