What the fuKk happened to Great Britain ?

24-11-2020 2:36pm

Wibbs wrote: »

That can be worse. The man who is convinced he's right and morally superior is not to be trusted.

indeed

Captain Havoc · 24-11-2020 2:45pm

This is a great video which explains the difference between the UK, GB etc....

In terms of English being a lingua franca, it is a fairly new development in the last 100 years or so.

There is an excellent series on youtube, presented by Melvyn Bragg about the history and development of the English language called Adventures in English. It is also available as a book or an audiobook.

EDit · 24-11-2020 2:46pm

Feisar wrote: »

I thought WW2 was the beginning of the end.

A superpower before the war, not so afterwards.
Principles like self determination don't really congruent with the idea of an empire.
The death of industry.

i think the rot set in (in terms of the Empire and “superpower” status) with WW1. As far as i know, it virtually bankrupted the country.

sbsquarepants · 24-11-2020 2:48pm

Wibbs wrote: »

All imperial powers do this. We're better, they're barbarians in need of civilising into the [insert empire here] way. .

Frankie Boyle has a great line about the war in Afghanistan, how it's purpose is to bring peace and democracy to the area...and the best way to teach people about peace and democracy, obviously being to have a prince shoot them from a helicopter!

Graces7 · 24-11-2020 2:54pm

_Brian wrote: »

Britain was never “great”

It was an empire built on slaves and the pillaging of countries they subjugated. Once these actions became unacceptable the British were left to their own devices and realised they have nothing to offer to themselves.

sorely tempted but...no :eek:

Stihl waters · 24-11-2020 2:55pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Their ultimate problem is that they've never had to confront their own history. Their only really shown WW2 as something that they won with some vague references to keep calm and carry on/stiff upper lip.

.

Hitler's massive mistake in turning his attention to the Eastern front did massive favours to the British and the Japanese attacking pearl harbour brought the yanks into play, I think there's too much credit given to the British over ww2, a few events happened to work in there favour but for which we could all be fluent German speakers

Billgirlylegs · 24-11-2020 3:26pm

EDit wrote: »

i think the rot set in (in terms of the Empire and “superpower” status) with WW1. As far as i know, it virtually bankrupted the country.

I am no historian, but I believe this this point has been made that WW1 essentially shaped the world today and damaged/dismantled several empires.
Austro Hungarian, Ottoman, Prussian German, Russian Empires were reduced and the British Empire went from profits into debt.

Unresolved "issues" rumbled on for years until prompting WW11.
So British Empire decline reaches back over 100 years.

Their troubles really started when those pesky Irish secured independence.
Steep decline since they left India, to what is now The Commonwealth.
All that is is some second rate olympic themed get together.

24-11-2020 3:34pm

EDit wrote: »

i think the rot set in (in terms of the Empire and “superpower” status) with WW1. As far as i know, it virtually bankrupted the country.

They ran out of countries to rob,really

Their industrial revolution,while notable,left uk with a smaller econmic output than ruhr valley by 1912.....industrial revolution was their peak,and inflated massively by asset stripping their colonies and running them.into the ground simutaneously......

India,when taken over was the richest country in the world,by 1947 the average male life expectancy was 27,no country who left the british empire ever looked back

Hyperbollix · 24-11-2020 3:48pm

Loss of empire, globalisation and the rise of jingoistic populism turbocharged by social media. In that order.

24-11-2020 3:54pm

nothing to do with changing standards and the rise of democracy I suppose :rolleyes:

The ending of empires was just a natural progression of us as a species.

Hamsterchops · 24-11-2020 4:09pm

Great Britain, still Great and still Britain in all its geographical glory, as per Europe's largest island.

Still Greater in size than .....
In its historical context.

The 6th or 7th largest economy on the planet, and we're next door.

_Brian · 24-11-2020 4:45pm

Graces7 wrote: »

sorely tempted but...no :eek:

Feel free to..

The British never really acheived anything without destroying other countries and their native society...

All plundered, abused and pillaged to feed "wealth" into the empire.. but it was stolen wealth leaving countries and their citizens broke if not destitute as a result... Almost all these countries have flourished since the british left or were driven out..

Britian have invaded and stolen wealth from something like 180 of the 200 nations worldwide... Most british people dont know their own colonial past because its conveniently sanatised out of their taught history.. From india alone they have stolen something like £30 trillion.

What were seeing with the likes of Brexit is the last wealthy families throwing a whole nation under the bus to protect their off shore money from taxation.. How uniquely british is that

Wibbs · 24-11-2020 6:06pm

_Brian wrote: »

What were seeing with the likes of Brexit is the last wealthy families throwing a whole nation under the bus to protect their off shore money from taxation.. How uniquely british is that

I'd largely agree B, but for one part; not British, but English and a tiny minority of same mostly clustered around London and the Home Counties and it was pretty much always thus and from the time the first Norsemen shot Harold in the face with an arrow, for the craic like. The reason the English Normans got an attack of the vapours over the Irish Normans becoming "more Irish than the Irish themselves" was because this was not done. It took a couple of centuries before the Norman English kings even bothered to learn the local language and that was under duress. That oh so "English" king Richard the Lionheart could barely speak a word of the language and spent as little time in England as he could manage. The Scots were always seen as a dangerous rabble and in the end they cleared much of the land of them. The Welsh barely figured in much of anything until they needed and took their coal. The Irish were a confusing horror to them.

With a few notable exceptions* their royalty were a bunch of inbred morons, figureheads for the cash and to keep the rabble in awe and in check. Of course this was the case for much of European "royalty", the Hapsburg line being so inbred they became horrors to look at. The French had the right idea when they brought out the head chopper. The Russians took their time, but got there in the end. That this never happened in England has long surprised me. The English peasant had enough grievances to get to sharpening blades.

Save for a brief blip where Cromwell thought sod this bollocks and chopped the head off that fey spaniel haired eejit, after which what in essence was a Dutch/Germanic takeover of the place, it's been the same old story. They even treated their own stout English yeomen appallingly when it suited. Worked to death bullet stoppers to fuel their coffers that had to tug the forelock. Pin a medal on his coffin, that'll do it(the Victoria cross a good example. Medals had previously been awarded to the scions of landed gentry, the bullet and spear stoppers got nought, the Viccie Cross was largely a sop to those poor working class bastards). That they treated those of a darker hue more abominably should not come as much of a shock to anyone.

So there is a long history of a tiny minority making squillions off the backs of their own, which they then extended overseas, while keeping the peasant stock convinced that this social order was right and godly. That it is still in play to some degree is again not much of a shock.

*I'd personally give Lizzie 1 and the sequel Lizzie 2 the nod for being the best of them(actually Lizzies da was a nice man, though was never meant to be king. His older brother was a weak moron). Victoria was a neurotic peeve, her son a dissolute wreck, others were actually mad as march hares, Henry the 8th a fat drunken boor.

24-11-2020 6:09pm

I'd personally listen to a wibbs history podcast comprised of five minute snippets like the above tbh

24-11-2020 6:18pm

_Brian wrote: »

Feel free to..

The British never really acheived anything without destroying other countries and their native society..

Nope, nothing at all.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to put my telephone down so I can turn on the light and read up on vaccines using my computer plugged in to the internet.

rapul · 24-11-2020 6:23pm

Aegir wrote: »

Nope, nothing at all.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to put my telephone down so I can turn on the light and read up on vaccines using my computer plugged in to the internet.

Great comeback to an excellent few posts above. Also second about Wibbs podcast!

ByTheSea2019 · 24-11-2020 6:37pm

They're conflicted. What was "great", colonising other countries to create an empire, would be regarded as evil by todays standards, so it's a bit difficult to express national pride in it directly. What you get in their national narrative are endless references to how wonderful they are carefully avoiding delving into why.

They did contribute a lot to the word in terms of science and inventions. They did that using wealth of other countries that they had suppressed.

ExMachina1000 · 24-11-2020 6:44pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'd personally listen to a wibbs history podcast comprised of five minute snippets like the above tbh

I'd rather a current affairs podcast from him. Always excellent. Rarely see anyone try and "debate " him. They tend to disappear

_Brian · 24-11-2020 6:45pm

Aegir wrote: »

Nope, nothing at all.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to put my telephone down so I can turn on the light and read up on vaccines using my computer plugged in to the internet.

All built on an infrastructure of stolen wealth and broken societies.

That stain contaminated every corner of Britain. It’s a legacy to be ashamed of and so it’s not taught in their history.

24-11-2020 6:52pm

_Brian wrote: »

All built on an infrastructure of stolen wealth and broken societies.

That stain contaminated every corner of Britain. It’s a legacy to be ashamed of and so it’s not taught in their history.

The British know their history as well as the Irish know theirs to be honest. It’s all about telling a palatable story as Wibbs demonstrates above.

The history of the human race is that you either crap on people, or they crap on you. Even when you look at countries like India, the British didn’t “conquer it as such, they just made allies and those allies won. It could just as easily have been French and a different set of local rulers.

For a large part, the Irish were quite happy to jump on board as well when it suited them and loved to engage in a bit of crapping in the natives themselves. That doesn’t suit the narrative though.

Markcheese · 24-11-2020 7:06pm

I was listening to a discussion on brexit last year , and they had a political analyst in London and a technocrat in Brussels along with show host ,
Anywho the analyst was asked about her take on brexit for Britain , , *Britain's been in slow decline for the last 200 years ,since the end of the napoleonic wars , that's going to continue ... There may be a positive decade here and there , but the decline will continue . No hysterics ,no drama just coldly delivered .

Montage of Feck · 24-11-2020 7:13pm

They are planning on increased military spending in the coming years with the aim of having the greatest navy in Europe once again, along with a new aerospace and nuclear deterent program too boot. Just delusional, expect the poppy mania to get much worse.

24-11-2020 7:19pm

Montage of Feck wrote: »

They are planning on increased military spending in the coming years with the aim of having the greatest navy in Europe once again, along with a new aerospace and nuclear deterent program too boot. Just delusional, expect the poppy mania to get much worse.

What’s delusional about that? Bringing the navy back up to strength isn’t a bad thing and the UK has a nuclear deterrent and an aerospace industry.

The nuclear deterrent is due for modernizing as is the Typhoon.

24-11-2020 7:21pm

Markcheese wrote: »

I was listening to a discussion on brexit last year , and they had a political analyst in London and a technocrat in Brussels along with show host ,
Anywho the analyst was asked about her take on brexit for Britain , , *Britain's been in slow decline for the last 200 years ,since the end of the napoleonic wars , that's going to continue ... There may be a positive decade here and there , but the decline will continue . No hysterics ,no drama just coldly delivered .

All the European empires have been declining for the last 200 years, if they weren’t then there would be no European Union in the first place.

ancapailldorcha · 24-11-2020 7:33pm

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd largely agree B, but for one part; not British, but English and a tiny minority of same mostly clustered around London and the Home Counties and it was pretty much always thus and from the time the first Norsemen shot Harold in the face with an arrow, for the craic like. The reason the English Normans got an attack of the vapours over the Irish Normans becoming "more Irish than the Irish themselves" was because this was not done. It took a couple of centuries before the Norman English kings even bothered to learn the local language and that was under duress. That oh so "English" king Richard the Lionheart could barely speak a word of the language and spent as little time in England as he could manage. The Scots were always seen as a dangerous rabble and in the end they cleared much of the land of them. The Welsh barely figured in much of anything until they needed and took their coal. The Irish were a confusing horror to them.

A lot of those who voted for Brexit were based in the north of England and Wales. In the former, some of the poverty is just shocking. Never been to Wales so can't comment there but I did spend about 18 months in Manchester. Cracking city, great locals and all but only if you had a bit more than the bare minimum wage like.

The only remaining true "Britons" would be the Welsh who were displaced westwards following the invasion of Europe by Germanic tribes fleeing Attila and the Huns and the Bretons of northwestern France so you have a divided between Angles, Saxons, Danes, Jutes, Norse, Celts and Scots. At least. The Welsh, Scots and Irish served the same purpose as most of the English, fodder for wars and hands for farms though I would make a special exemption for the Welsh due to their notable ferocity with a (Sicilian Yew) longbow and the thorough job Edward I did in subjugating them. His son & heir was Prince of Wales, the origin of this custom.

Wibbs wrote: »

With a few notable exceptions* their royalty were a bunch of inbred morons, figureheads for the cash and to keep the rabble in awe and in check. Of course this was the case for much of European "royalty", the Hapsburg line being so inbred they became horrors to look at. The French had the right idea when they brought out the head chopper. The Russians took their time, but got there in the end. That this never happened in England has long surprised me. The English peasant had enough grievances to get to sharpening blades.

Save for a brief blip where Cromwell thought sod this bollocks and chopped the head off that fey spaniel haired eejit, after which what in essence was a Dutch/Germanic takeover of the place, it's been the same old story. They even treated their own stout English yeomen appallingly when it suited. Worked to death bullet stoppers to fuel their coffers that had to tug the forelock. Pin a medal on his coffin, that'll do it(the Victoria cross a good example. Medals had previously been awarded to the scions of landed gentry, the bullet and spear stoppers got nought, the Viccie Cross was largely a sop to those poor working class bastards). That they treated those of a darker hue more abominably should not come as much of a shock to anyone.

So there is a long history of a tiny minority making squillions off the backs of their own, which they then extended overseas, while keeping the peasant stock convinced that this social order was right and godly. That it is still in play to some degree is again not much of a shock.

Every time a royal is born, God rolls a die. They might be decent, woeful, self-indulgent, cold, calculating, insane or all of the above. I think they endured because, relative to the continent the English enjoyed centuries of peace with a few notable disruptions such as the Wars of the Roses, the Civil War, the 1381 Peasants Revolt led by Wat Tyler, the 1450 Jack Cade Rebellion, the 1549 Kett Rebellion, etc... Compared to the Thirty Years War, the Terror of the Revolution, the French Wars of Religion, the Dutch revolts, Ottoman invasions, etc I think England would have historically been one of the quieter parts of Europe.

A lot of it comes down to advisors. To be honest, a lot of the reasons certain monarchs are viewed better or worse is the talent they can call upon and utilise in their associates, friends and advisors. Elizabeth I was particularly fortunate in this regard given the plethora of plots against her for her religious settlement. She had Walsingham, Cecil, Dudley, etc. Walsingham in particular would have been critical for her survival alone.

Wibbs · 24-11-2020 7:34pm

Aegir wrote: »

The history of the human race is that you either crap on people, or they crap on you. Even when you look at countries like India, the British didn’t “conquer it as such, they just made allies and those allies won. It could just as easily have been French and a different set of local rulers.

This pretty much. They went in and threw money at various indecently wealthy and powerful maharajas who would support then and used them as vassal rulers over a peasantry that were piss poor and weighed down by a couple of thousand years of an inbuilt caste system, one of the most vigorous on earth. If the English hadn't gone in, or the French, those peasants would have been still piss poor lorded over by a tiny elite of immensely wealthy bloodsuckers. The swapping out of the occasional flag did little to change their daily lives. India is still a land of the wealth and social gap, with multibillionaires at one end and many millions of the great unwashed who have to be pleaded with to stop sh1tting in the streets.

There's revisionism all over the place and Europeans have the horn for it for various reasons, but in the majority of cases these were not lands inhabited by a bunch of noble savages in shangri la. It doesn't mean it was right to rock up and exploit them, but the European powers were just in a long line of those who had gone before.

It's like the slavery debate. Oh the Europeans were such monsters etc. The problem with that was Europe was one of the first places to ban the practice internally. The European atlantic slave trade was running for what two hundred years? A terrible thing to be sure, but who then went and banned it? Oh that would be Europeans again.

Meanwhile back in the Muslim world... They were slavers from the get go. Their primary religious texts have plenty of instructions about who you can enslave and how you treat them(Christianity oddly says nothing on the matter, yet Jesus would have certainly known and seen slaves in Roman Judea). They ran a large chunk of the African slave trade before and long after the palefaces showed up. And then you have the local Africans themselves. Slavery is still going on in places there. Nigeria was known as the slave coast and the locals made billions from it and were still selling slaves well into the 20th century. There are Nigerians alive today whose grandfathers were slavers. But that's different cos.... well the usual bullsh1te. [Insert oppressed group here] are always agentless victims, [Insert oppressor group here] are always to blame. Rinse and repeat.

Wibbs · 24-11-2020 7:44pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

England would have historically been one of the quieter parts of Europe.

True and you see that in the siting of towns. Go around Europe and you see a lot of towns that were built on top of defensible hills and this went on for centuries, because of the back and forth of various armies and nutters de jour, whereas in Britain(and here) you don't see that to nearly the same degree. You do see it in the iron age and onwards up to much later when the Normans first show up, but pretty soon they know they have their heels on the locals, don't fear invasion because of the English channel moat and so relax the kaks. Whereas in somewhere like Poland... Christ Felicks we're being invaded!! What day is it? Tuesday. That'll be the bastard Franks again. Get me sabre and wings out of the press, I'll be late for tea.

Wibbs · 24-11-2020 8:06pm

Aegir wrote: »

All the European empires have been declining for the last 200 years, if they weren’t then there would be no European Union in the first place.

Well it's long been my impression that Europe at some deep level wants "Rome" back. And there's been a long list of various boyos and the occasional lass who've had a go. Hitler's European tour 39-45 being one of the latest in that long list. When they found they couldn't do it locally, because well the locals next door wouldn't be too happy if you tried(though some still had a go) they looked further afield to build Rome elsewhere.

Americans being Greek and Italian.

Temple to their fallen hero.

pixels.sh_visitors-to-the-lincoln-memorial-at-night_mydccool-via-crowdriff.jpg

One could argue that the EU is yet another run at that cherry.

dxhound2005 · 24-11-2020 8:25pm

What is so wrong with France that thousands are willing to risk drowning or suffocation to get to the hell hole that is England?

Feisar · 24-11-2020 8:31pm

dxhound2005 wrote: »

What is so wrong with France that thousands are willing to risk drowning or suffocation to get to the hell hole that is England?

Something to do with cake.

You'd want to look at ourselves, geographically we should have zero refugees.

What the fuKk happened to Great Britain ?

Comments