The British Empire Thread

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

I disagree. Theres loads of jobs around the country for young people today. Back then there was little jobs. If you had no job, no food, no prospects you'll quickly turn to things that previously you'd never consider. Just take this war in Iraq as an example. Who wants to go out and risk life and limb, when theres plenty of jobs going that you don't need to risk your life as part of your job, and can be with your family. Its well known that recruitment for such wars in America was centred in deprived, often african-american areas. Same as that the Irish were cannon-fodder for the Empire. Deliberately kept poor, so that they'd mostly do what needs must.

What makes the Irish so special? the poor were kept poor to serve the wealthy, if that was cannon fodder then all well and good. It had nothing to do with the fact they were Irish. That sort of thinking is just the republican's spinning a social economic situation into a national one.

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

I disagree. Theres loads of jobs around the country for young people today. Back then there was little jobs. If you had no job, no food, no prospects you'll quickly turn to things that previously you'd never consider. Just take this war in Iraq as an example. Who wants to go out and risk life and limb, when theres plenty of jobs going that you don't need to risk your life as part of your job, and can be with your family. Its well known that recruitment for such wars in America was centred in deprived, often african-american areas. Same as that the Irish were cannon-fodder for the Empire. Deliberately kept poor, so that they'd mostly do what needs must.

Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of poor illiterate peasants from England, Scotland and Wales who joined up for the same reason. I don't think the vast majority of them saw it as an adventure and a chance to travel. They were also controlled in the same way as they were back at home, by the high-ranking uniformed relatives of the landlords who had been working them to death in the fields. The more the Empire expanded, the more peasants there were available to do the dirty work. It was easy to brainwash the uneducated.

As you pointed out, vulnerable people in the US are even now being coerced into joining up to fight in Iraq.

purplengold wrote: »

I don't know what dude means, and of course I am serious. What part of my post is untrue?

dude /dud, dyud/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dood, dyood] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, dud·ed, dud·ing.
–noun
1. a man excessively concerned with his clothes, grooming, and manners.
2. Slang. fellow; chap.
3. a person reared in a large city.
4. Western U.S. an urban Easterner who vacations on a ranch.
—Verb phrase
5. dude up, Informal. to dress in one's fanciest, best, or most stylish clothes; dress up: He got all duded up to go to the dance.

dictionary.com Glad I can be of help, dude.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I wish you would take a leaf out of your fellow republican's book and not only learn to quote properly, but avoid the ranting.

It is much easier to take Erin Go Brath and CSK seriously because they don;t resort to personal insults and mindless ranting. I actually enjoy reading their point of view which, whilst quite often differing from mine, is generally well mannered and carefully constructed. Your posts are hardwork and not just because of the crap you write.

I am not a "fellow republican" of McArmalite or indeed Erin Go brath. I wonder given your other posts who is exactly spinning? Is that to be the level of your argument? Lies and spin?

csk wrote: »

I am not a "fellow republican" of McArmalite or indeed Erin Go brath. I wonder given your other posts who is exactly spinning? Is that to be the level of your argument? Lies and spin?

apologies for making an eroneous assumption:D

I'm not spinning, I'm merely putting my perspective forward for the purpose of discussion.

brianthebard wrote: »

Are there figures that go with this claim? I know that Daniel O'Connell's family agreed with the Act of Union, and I'm sure they weren't alone. Do you really think that everyone in Ireland in 1800 enjoyed the 1798 rebellion?

Of course I do think that everyone in Ireland enjoyed the 1798 Rebellion. All the blood and mayhem, the chaos and the fighting, not to mention the glorious killing. What's not to enjoy? Shurely it goes without saying that everyone was lovin' it? Shure all that killing comes naturally to the Irish. If they weren't killing the British; they were killing for the British. And what's more they were lovin' it.

Shure Fighting was our national sport before them pesky republican's came along and invented Gaa and hynotised us with their fake history. Shure if you don't believe the Irish didn't like killingl(and consequently wouldn't enjoy 1798 Rebellion) why do you think they joined up in droves to the British Army. As Paddy O'Boggeragh put it in a letter home to his mother from a far flung African Colony, "I'm lovin' it".

Wolff

Ignoring McArmalites ravings for a second and getting back to the thread

He seems to think im an Pro UK for some strange reason but his comments are childish to say the least

Since the IRA ceasefire / surrender - Sinn Fein have been knuckling down to work as part of the Empire - how does he feel about that..

I personally dont care a toss about the north - as I think a lot of southern irish people feel as well - its an interesting area the complete apathy I and most of the people I know feel towards the six counties.

I certainly dont want them back - the Brits are welcome to them

I hope they remain part of the empire for a long time to come

The thread started off by asking did the British Empire benefit a lot of the counteries it governed - and the simple answer is yes it did.

Did it terrorise and enslave and murder and destroy - again the answer is yes but when taken in context of the time they were simply follwoing the trend at the time.

As with everything - the victor gets to write the history book not the vanquished and this is what really stick in a lot of Republicans throats

I really love the oul chesnut of the concentration camps though this one is always dragged out to prove how callous the british were

But the truth is it worked - sure the conditions were appalling and women and children died - but they died from neglect and bad administration - they were not murdered as part of offical policy.

The germans had concentration camps too - and again many died from neglect and bad administration especially towards the end of the war - but they also died from brutality and from being worked and starved to death - also from medical and other experiments being carried out - and these were only the concetration camps. Already a big difference from the ones in the boer war

Then we had the extermination camps where the whole purpose was the mass murder of people - so these camps were set up directly from a conserted policy formulated by the government of germany to murder people

The Boer camps were not - they were badly run neglected interment camps

Fratton Fred wrote: »

apologies for making an eroneous assumption:D

I'm not spinning, I'm merely putting my perspective forward for the purpose of discussion.

To be sure, to be sure, dude. Pray tell, what perspective would that be?

Wolff wrote: »

Ignoring McArmalites ravings for a second and getting back to the thread

He seems to think im an Pro UK for some strange reason but his comments are childish to say the least

Since the IRA ceasefire / surrender - Sinn Fein have been knuckling down to work as part of the Empire - how does he feel about that..

I personally dont care a toss about the north - as I think a lot of southern irish people feel as well - its an interesting area the complete apathy I and most of the people I know feel towards the six counties.

I certainly dont want them back - the Brits are welcome to them

I hope they remain part of the empire for a long time to come

The thread started off by asking did the British Empire benefit a lot of the counteries it governed - and the simple answer is yes it did.

Did it terrorise and enslave and murder and destroy - again the answer is yes but when taken in context of the time they were simply follwoing the trend at the time.

As with everything - the victor gets to write the history book not the vanquished and this is what really stick in a lot of Republicans throats

I really love the oul chesnut of the concentration camps though this one is always dragged out to prove how callous the british were

But the truth is it worked - sure the conditions were appalling and women and children died - but they died from neglect and bad administration - they were not murdered as part of offical policy.

The germans had concentration camps too - and again many died from neglect and bad administration especially towards the end of the war - but they also died from brutality and from being worked and starved to death - also from medical and other experiments being carried out - and these were only the concetration camps. Already a big difference from the ones in the boer war

Then we had the extermination camps where the whole purpose was the mass murder of people - so these camps were set up directly from a conserted policy formulated by the government of germany to murder people

The Boer camps were not - they were badly run neglected interment camps

Dude; the British Empire ceased to exist a long time ago. You might want to edit your post. It lends credence to Macarmalite rantings.:)

PHB

McArmalite banned for a week for personal insults.

PDN

ejmaztec wrote: »

Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of poor illiterate peasants from England, Scotland and Wales who joined up for the same reason. I don't think the vast majority of them saw it as an adventure and a chance to travel. They were also controlled in the same way as they were back at home, by the high-ranking uniformed relatives of the landlords who had been working them to death in the fields. The more the Empire expanded, the more peasants there were available to do the dirty work. It was easy to brainwash the uneducated.

As you pointed out, vulnerable people in the US are even now being coerced into joining up to fight in Iraq.

No, that is not acceptable on this board. How dare you suggest that the working classes have suffered at the hands of the landed gentry in other countries?

Don't you understand that debates here operate on the premise that no-one has suffered as much as the Irish, and that the actions of the British are so evil that they cannot bear comparison with any other nation? Anyone who suggests otherwise is a West Brit or a closet unionist.

PDN wrote: »

No, that is not acceptable on this board. How dare you suggest that the working classes have suffered at the hands of the landed gentry in other countries?

Don't you understand that debates here operate on the premise that no-one has suffered as much as the Irish, and that the actions of the British are so evil that they cannot bear comparison with any other nation? Anyone who suggests otherwise is a West Brit or a closet unionist.

Do you believe that marxism is a viable theory then?

PDN wrote: »

No, that is not acceptable on this board. How dare you suggest that the working classes have suffered at the hands of the landed gentry in other countries?

Don't you understand that debates here operate on the premise that no-one has suffered as much as the Irish, and that the actions of the British are so evil that they cannot bear comparison with any other nation? Anyone who suggests otherwise is a West Brit or a closet unionist.

Okay, you caught me telling porkies. There were no poor people in England, Scotland or Wales and still aren't. All of the homelesss were and are members of the Campers Club.:o

csk wrote: »

Do you believe that marxism is a viable theory then?

Karl did his best works in England.

ejmaztec wrote: »

Karl did his best works in England.

and your point is...

csk wrote: »

and your point is...

What better place would there be for a socialist theorist to find inspiration, than a society full of uneducated peasants being led by the nose by their oppressive and exploitative masters.

ejmaztec wrote: »

What better place would there be for a socialist theorist to find inspiration, than a society full of uneducated peasants being led by the nose by their oppressive and exploitative masters.

Of course such rhetoric is purely ironic I take it? and ultimately you have no point let alone any wish to debate anything that doesn't confirm to your own prejudiced cliche?

csk wrote: »

Of course such rhetoric is purely ironic I take it? and ultimately you have no point let alone any wish to debate anything that doesn't confirm to your own prejudiced cliche?

Are you responding to my post, or someone else's? I can see no connection between my post and your reply.

csk wrote: »

To be sure, to be sure, dude. Pray tell, what perspective would that be?

That the British Empire was no worse than any other empire, in fact, it was a lot better than some.

I'll also argue the Irish were no more down trodden or victimised than any other part of the empire, in fact, Ireland benefitted in more ways than most especially the "Pale".

kreuzberger

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Well we're hardly going to jump up and down about the fact. Enough people in this country have been hoodwinked by the media, and UK propagandists (Take a bow Fred, you've done your bit) about Britains atrocities in Ireland. I think its important people realise the truth about these monsters who let over a million of our people die during The Great Famine, amongst the countless other atrocities commited throughout the years.

I think it would be more correct to say caused over a million of our people to die during a potato blight . There was no shortage of food in this country , therefore no famine great or otherwise. The vast majority of the country was preoccupied with agriculture save for the few counties of the north east were Britian had sited its industrial base on the island . Landlords continued to make an absolute fortune from agriculture during that period , therefore there was definitely no famine in the country .

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That the British Empire was no worse than any other empire, in fact, it was a lot better than some.

I'll also argue the Irish were no more down trodden or victimised than any other part of the empire, in fact, Ireland benefitted in more ways than most especially the "Pale".

So what would that make you? If according to your logic I'm a republican?

csk wrote: »

So what would that make you? If according to your logic I'm a republican?

No idea.

certainly not a unionist, I am all for people determining their own future and I believe that ultimately Britain will break up. However, people forget how successful the British Empire was at being an Empire and this was only achieved because all four countries that made up the UK were good together.

Times change and Empires are a thing of the past, as Britain breaks up so the finger of blame gets pointed steadily towards England, but the Scots, Irish and Welsh were out there reaping the rewards every bit as much as the English.

kreuzberger wrote: »

I think it would be more correct to say caused over a million of our people to die during a potato blight . There was no shortage of food in this country , therefore no famine great or otherwise. The vast majority of the country was preoccupied with agriculture save for the few counties of the north east were Britian had sited its industrial base on the island . Landlords continued to make an absolute fortune from agriculture during that period , therefore there was definitely no famine in the country .

so Landlords making a fortune during the famine is the fault of the British, not the landlords?

I heard that production of uinness increased durng the famine years, is Guinness another instrument of British oppression, or just another wealthy family crapping on the poor?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No idea.

certainly not a unionist, I am all for people determining their own future and I believe that ultimately Britain will break up. However, people forget how successful the British Empire was at being an Empire and this was only achieved because all four countries that made up the UK were good together.

Actually most people don't forget anything of the sort. In fact the very reason people bring up the British Empire is, I would imagine, because it was , as you put it such a "success". Most people, however, would not see the British Empire as a "success" in fact the very opposite.

Times change and Empires are a thing of the past, as Britain breaks up so the finger of blame gets pointed steadily towards England, but the Scots, Irish and Welsh were out there reaping the rewards every bit as much as the English.

But those most responsible(perhaps to use your words) those to blame for the Empire saw it as quintessentially "English" they would have been abhorred at the idea that the Irish were getting "credit" for their "success".

The rewards for the Irish seem to be scarce from what I can see. Death, emigration or joining the British Army (to get killed in the backarse of nowhere).Hardly what anyone would regard as rewards.

kreuzberger

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so Landlords making a fortune during the famine is the fault of the British, not the landlords?

I heard that production of uinness increased durng the famine years, is Guinness another instrument of British oppression, or just another wealthy family crapping on the poor?

The British system was geared towards to the landlords who were the political elite of the period . You cannot seperate British rule from the landlords or the landlords from the system of British rule . They were one in the same thing . The poor in Ireland were the Irish , making up the vast base of the population . A french traveller to the country recorded in his diaries that all nations have paupers but untill hed been in Ireland hed never actually witnessed an entire nation of paupers . The rich in Ireland were the British establishment and a smaller contingent of castle catholics with aspirations to be part of the British establishment . If the rich crapped on the poor it was the British crapping on the Irish , simple as .
The guinness family were always very much part of the British establishment in Ireland. Their beer tastes like liquidized snot and for the life of me I cant understand why people drink it .
Guinness production did indeed increase , as did the whiskey distillery industry which made vast profits . This distillation required wheat , barley , hops , grain - no shortage of it whatsoever , therefore no famine .