The British Empire Thread

McArmalite · 07-03-2008 9:18pm

kreuzberger wrote: »

Many years back whilst breakfasting in city centre Belfast my country chums and I reguarly insisted upon asking for " an occupied 6 counties fry" just to annoy people .
Wed never heard a fry referred to as an " Ulster fry" until after travelling up the motorway . Ive lived in the 6 counties most of my life but never actually bought an " ulster fry" untill i went to belfast . The Soda bread and potato bread might differentiate it a little . But its more likely the little artifical makey uppy plastic state desperately needed something uniquely cultural to try and maintain the ridiculous pretence its a country , so insisted on calling a fried breakfast after " ulster" . :rolleyes:

It appears to be partitions least offensive "cultural" icon , but probably more deadly than the rest . The exact same breakfast is sold in numerous Ulster towns as a simple breakfast with no Ulster adjective necessary . Needless to say theyd be majority nationalist .

" an occupied 6 counties fry ". I'll have to remeber that one

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Really, i'm off to top myself then. :rolleyes:

Whats up you lot, always trying to make out we're Brits in some way?
Have the Brits infected our water supply with some type of shoneen serum? :eek: What a dastardly lot they really are!

Tiocfaidh ar lá!
EIRE 32!
Brits out!

I feel better again now.

" Whats up you lot, always trying to make out we're Brits in some way? " Yes, but that's closet unionism for you.:rolleyes::)

brianthebard · 11-03-2008 3:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Gio back far enough and we all descend from African bushmen, natural migration north & west from central Europe. we ALL share the same common ancestory. I'm related to all of you, even mcarmalite!

Yeah thats the point I was trying to make. Thinking about being related to mcarmalite makes me want to believe in creationism though.

11-03-2008 4:06pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Yeah thats the point I was trying to make. Thinking about being related to mcarmalite makes me want to believe in creationism though.

LOL

PDN · 12-03-2008 3:08am

brianthebard wrote: »

Yeah thats the point I was trying to make. Thinking about being related to mcarmalite makes me want to believe in creationism though.

Are trolls and humans from a common ancestor?

Belfast · 05-05-2008 11:36pm

PHB wrote: »

So you think that the British Empire spread democracy across the globe? Oh, you think that the Statute of Westminster was the greatest legislation ever passed? Well let's discuss that, in this thread.

Any off-topic posts in other threads which I don't think should be there will be moved into here, and the poster may well recieve a ban if he/she has been a repeat offender.

[Please note that using this thread as an excuse for personal abuse or racism (in the nationalist sense) will result in a ban.

----

Did the British spread real Democracy or a bad copy that allowed you to chose which thugs could steal your money for the next 4 or 5 years.

06-05-2008 1:35am

Belfast wrote: »

Did the British spread real Democracy or a bad copy that allowed you to chose which thugs could steal your money for the next 4 or 5 years.

very topical, considering that G Brown is now back-peddling (very rapidly) on some of the more unpopular policies as we speak! In the vain hope that the UK voters will forget in a couple of years how he tried to stitch them up!

Fratton Fred · 06-05-2008 9:13am

Belfast wrote: »

Did the British spread real Democracy or a bad copy that allowed you to chose which thugs could steal your money for the next 4 or 5 years.

Lets face it, that's as close to democracy as anyone has come.:D

Belfast · 12-05-2008 12:22am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Lets face it, that's as close to democracy as anyone has come.:D

Quoting from The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people" is a good definition of democracy

Normal for a functioning democracy
1.a written Constitution with positive rights to protect life, liberty, money etc. and protect the people for the power of government and the majority to impose its views on the minority.
2. Separation of powers
3 Term limits
4. Free speech and free media and these days internet

Simply being able to pick what thugs steal you money for the 4 or 5 years is not much of a democracy.

A democracy should be able to stop the government for stealing you money not give you a choice of thieves.

Fratton Fred · 12-05-2008 8:22am

I think Lincoln meant to add "As long as you are a white Christian Male" after the address, at least that's what should hae added.

I think we all know what deocracy is, but people in power misusing public money seems to be pretty consistent around the world.

Belfast · 15-05-2008 3:03am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think Lincoln meant to add "As long as you are a white Christian Male" after the address, at least that's what should hae added.

I think we all know what deocracy is, but people in power misusing public money seems to be pretty consistent around the world.

Abraham Lincoln is great example of a politician that a badly run democracy can elect, but Gettysburg Address was a good speech.

ChocolateSauce · 03-07-2008 11:01am

Ok, time for a pro-empire post.

The British Empire came into existance in 1707, with the act of union merging England and Scotland into Britain. At the time most of the Empire was in the Americas, Spain had a larger Empire but was too poor to properly defend it, and France was the strongest country in Europe. At this time Britain had a parliament with a powerful Lords and a weak commons, elected by the wealthy. The monarch was Anne, the last Monarch to withold royal assent to a bill. Just to put things in context.

At this time, Britain was one of the most democratic countries in the world. The French, who were generally regarded as the most civilised and cultured people in Europe, looked enviously across the channel, where thinkers like John Locke were allowed to publish their revolutionary ideas, and people had unrivalled freedom of expression.

Flash Foward to the mid-1800's. America is now the most democratic country, and the idea had spread to France, causing revolution, republic, and after Napolean, republic again. Britain was terrified it too would succumb to revolution. By this time, commons was the stronger of the two houses, and it was accepted the PM was the most important man in government. Voting rights had been extended to the middle class and the educated, though they still fell far short of those enjoyed in the US. By this stage it was accepted by Torys and Whigs alike that democracy was a good thing, but that only a mature society could enjoy it safely. I agree. You don't let an illiterate man who lives in London but doesn't even know what the Queen does or what France is vote. The ignorance of the then working classes was nothing short of stupendus, and even the dumbed, most ignorant of Americans today would seem sage compared to them.

Britain had an "informal" Empire at this stage. Very few formal colonies (the biggest were South Africa, Canada and Austrialia), but immense infulence over nominally independant kingdoms. Britian controlled about 25% of world trade (this had shrunk to 11-14% by 1914), and was exporting its culture, laws and ideals across the globe. Britain unilarerally decided to end world slavery and went on a crusade against it.

They really believed they were doing good by exporting Empire. The British wanted to end tribal violence, bring medicine and god to the ignorant and violent barbarians. Obviously in many instances this is not what they did, and it is not right to conquer or force religion, but that isn't the point: They believed they were doing good. Of course, some didn't care; they just wanted power and money, but an unnatural alliance of the selfish and the selfless meant both could help one another to acheive their aims.

Do I think it is ok to annex a terriory and impose your own laws when the natives sacrifice humans to gods, eat eachother, treat their women as chattel and otherwise act in a barbaric manner? Not today, but back then I do. BAck then it was worse. Today in these areas (like papua new guinnea, where "witches" are burned on occation) there is a government somewhere who can punish these people, but back then it was the law they had to be burnen, even be it an unwritten one.

1897, widely regarded as the zenith of the British Empire, they have brought education, medicine and law to most of the "uncivilised" world. They did so at the point of a gun, usually, or by marionetting puppet kings. They have also killed thousands in war and in crushed uprisings. How can I defend this?

I can't, and won't try. All I can say is that by the standards of they day, and in their own eyes, they were an overwhelming force for good. Germany wanted to raze Bejiing to the ground in the boxer rebellion, but Britain stopped them, for example. The Belgiens' occupation of Congo was more brutal than the present civil war, so brutal in fact that the Belgien government had to conviscate the colony from the King (who owned it as his personal property). In India, British rule let to an easing of tensions between Hindus and Muslims, it led to the relaxation of the Caste system.

Today, most of Britian's former colonies are sucessful democracies, with advanced legal systems, properly defined and defended human rights, and good international standing. One can only wonder what these areas (would they even be countries?) would be like today without colonialism.

Ireland is famously anti-colonial, for obvious (but often counter-intuitive) reasons. This particular brand of anti-colonialism is unique; most European states are anti-colonial today, but don't criticise the outcomes (only the methods) of the past.

I once heard it argued that is because we were a "second generation" colony. Britain, France, Spain- most of Europe, in fact, are "First generation" colonys, as they were all conquered by the Romans, but Ireland was not (perhaps insultingly, because there was nothing of any worth here).

In summary, there were a great many evils associated with colonialism, partiularly non-British colonialism. If fact, all the overseas European empires except the British and French were barbaric and even genocidal. But on the grand scale, I beleive the British Empire was overall a force for good, and has been the greatest force in shaping the world as it is today since the Romans.

I wonder, would we still be stealing cattle were it not for them?

ejmaztec · 03-07-2008 1:05pm

theozster wrote: »

Ok, time for a pro-empire post.

The British Empire came into existance in 1707, with the act of union merging England and Scotland into Britain. At the time most of the Empire was in the Americas, Spain had a larger Empire but was too poor to properly defend it, and France was the strongest country in Europe. At this time Britain had a parliament with a powerful Lords and a weak commons, elected by the wealthy. The monarch was Anne, the last Monarch to withold royal assent to a bill. Just to put things in context.

At this time, Britain was one of the most democratic countries in the world. The French, who were generally regarded as the most civilised and cultured people in Europe, looked enviously across the channel, where thinkers like John Locke were allowed to publish their revolutionary ideas, and people had unrivalled freedom of expression.

Flash Foward to the mid-1800's. America is now the most democratic country, and the idea had spread to France, causing revolution, republic, and after Napolean, republic again. Britain was terrified it too would succumb to revolution. By this time, commons was the stronger of the two houses, and it was accepted the PM was the most important man in government. Voting rights had been extended to the middle class and the educated, though they still fell far short of those enjoyed in the US. By this stage it was accepted by Torys and Whigs alike that democracy was a good thing, but that only a mature society could enjoy it safely. I agree. You don't let an illiterate man who lives in London but doesn't even know what the Queen does or what France is vote. The ignorance of the then working classes was nothing short of stupendus, and even the dumbed, most ignorant of Americans today would seem sage compared to them.

Britain had an "informal" Empire at this stage. Very few formal colonies (the biggest were South Africa, Canada and Austrialia), but immense infulence over nominally independant kingdoms. Britian controlled about 25% of world trade (this had shrunk to 11-14% by 1914), and was exporting its culture, laws and ideals across the globe. Britain unilarerally decided to end world slavery and went on a crusade against it.

They really believed they were doing good by exporting Empire. The British wanted to end tribal violence, bring medicine and god to the ignorant and violent barbarians. Obviously in many instances this is not what they did, and it is not right to conquer or force religion, but that isn't the point: They believed they were doing good. Of course, some didn't care; they just wanted power and money, but an unnatural alliance of the selfish and the selfless meant both could help one another to acheive their aims.

Do I think it is ok to annex a terriory and impose your own laws when the natives sacrifice humans to gods, eat eachother, treat their women as chattel and otherwise act in a barbaric manner? Not today, but back then I do. BAck then it was worse. Today in these areas (like papua new guinnea, where "witches" are burned on occation) there is a government somewhere who can punish these people, but back then it was the law they had to be burnen, even be it an unwritten one.

1897, widely regarded as the zenith of the British Empire, they have brought education, medicine and law to most of the "uncivilised" world. They did so at the point of a gun, usually, or by marionetting puppet kings. They have also killed thousands in war and in crushed uprisings. How can I defend this?

I can't, and won't try. All I can say is that by the standards of they day, and in their own eyes, they were an overwhelming force for good. Germany wanted to raze Bejiing to the ground in the boxer rebellion, but Britain stopped them, for example. The Belgiens' occupation of Congo was more brutal than the present civil war, so brutal in fact that the Belgien government had to conviscate the colony from the King (who owned it as his personal property). In India, British rule let to an easing of tensions between Hindus and Muslims, it led to the relaxation of the Caste system.

Today, most of Britian's former colonies are sucessful democracies, with advanced legal systems, properly defined and defended human rights, and good international standing. One can only wonder what these areas (would they even be countries?) would be like today without colonialism.

Ireland is famously anti-colonial, for obvious (but often counter-intuitive) reasons. This particular brand of anti-colonialism is unique; most European states are anti-colonial today, but don't criticise the outcomes (only the methods) of the past.

I once heard it argued that is because we were a "second generation" colony. Britain, France, Spain- most of Europe, in fact, are "First generation" colonys, as they were all conquered by the Romans, but Ireland was not (perhaps insultingly, because there was nothing of any worth here).

In summary, there were a great many evils associated with colonialism, partiularly non-British colonialism. If fact, all the overseas European empires except the British and French were barbaric and even genocidal. But on the grand scale, I beleive the British Empire was overall a force for good, and has been the greatest force in shaping the world as it is today since the Romans.

I wonder, would we still be stealing cattle were it not for them?

I'm just stepping into my lead-lined, steel reinforced concrete bunker.............................. I'll come out when the flak has died down.

SpitfireIV · 03-07-2008 7:34pm

Just came across this picture today, might fit in with theozsters post :pac:

Oh! Who would not fight for such a land!

ejmaztec · 03-07-2008 7:57pm

CroppyBoy1798 wrote: »

Just came across this picture today, might fit in with theozsters post :pac:

Oh! Who would not fight for such a land!

Sounds a great place, where do I sign up?:p

junder · 16-07-2008 12:46pm

Its amazing how some people attcak the British for thier misdeeds then go on to justify/lie about IRA atrocitys in which innocent people were murderd in a sectarian murder campaign that did not have the support of the majority of irish people, pot and kettle comes to mind

ejmaztec · 16-07-2008 1:02pm

junder wrote: »

Its amazing how some people attcak the British for thier misdeeds then go on to justify/lie about IRA atrocitys in which innocent people were murderd in a sectarian murder campaign that did not have the support of the majority of irish people, pot and kettle comes to mind

At least none of the parties murdered the English language.

Snickers Man · 13-08-2008 12:27pm

I recently saw a program about the dying out of the British Empire in the years after WW2 and there was a great quote in it by the former Labour Chancellor Dennis Healey.

"When the British Empire finally disappears beneath the waves of history, its only lasting legacies will be the game of Association Football and the word Fu*k."

Haven't heard any better description myself.

Fratton Fred · 13-08-2008 1:02pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

I recently saw a program about the dying out of the British Empire in the years after WW2 and there was a great quote in it by the former Labour Chancellor Dennis Healey.

"When the British Empire finally disappears beneath the waves of history, its only lasting legacies will be the game of Association Football and the word Fu*k."

Haven't heard any better description myself.

surely that should be cricket old boy

ChocolateSauce · 14-08-2008 2:07am

Snickers Man wrote: »

I recently saw a program about the dying out of the British Empire in the years after WW2 and there was a great quote in it by the former Labour Chancellor Dennis Healey.

"When the British Empire finally disappears beneath the waves of history, its only lasting legacies will be the game of Association Football and the word Fu*k."

Haven't heard any better description myself.

Except that that simply isn't true. Because of the Empire the English language and culture has been exported to vast swaths of the world, something that isn't ever going to go away. Rome turned to ash over 1500 years ago but their influence is still seen today across the world.

Snickers Man · 16-08-2008 11:55pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

surely that should be cricket old boy

Even us rugby afficionados would have to acknowledge that soccer (association football) has spread far more widely, and to places far beyond the reach of the Empire, than cricket has.

One thing you have to say for the Brits: they sure know how to spread their games around the world. In a way that the Americans have never been able to do.

ejmaztec · 18-08-2008 10:15am

Snickers Man wrote: »

Even us rugby afficionados would have to acknowledge that soccer (association football) has spread far more widely, and to places far beyond the reach of the Empire, than cricket has.

One thing you have to say for the Brits: they sure know how to spread their games around the world. In a way that the Americans have never been able to do.

Yes, but unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint), the other countries found out how to play their newly imported games better than their teachers.:pac:

Judgement Day · 18-08-2008 11:03am

Would this include Rugby? England won the World Cup in 2003 - the greatest sporting achievement by them since the 1966 Soccer World Cup! They came damn near to a repeat performance in 2007 against the predictions of most of the anti-British pundits. A bit of dubious refereeing didn't help but at least they beat the damn French!!

:):):):)

ejmaztec · 18-08-2008 11:25am

Judgement Day wrote: »

Would this include Rugby? England won the World Cup in 2003 - the greatest sporting achievement by them since the 1966 Soccer World Cup! They came damn near to a repeat performance in 2007 against the predictions of most of the anti-British pundits. A bit of dubious refereeing didn't help but at least they beat the damn French!! :):):):)

A flash in the pan is excluded from the equation. :P

Judgement Day · 18-08-2008 11:34am

How about Cricket then? Widely acknowledged to have been one of the greatest sporting series of all time the 1981 Ashes Series (Botham's Ashes) when England humbled the mighty Aussies! Only a somebody with a major chip on their shoulder could describe British sporting achievements as a flash in the pan!

What about the conquering of Mt.Everest??

:):):)

ejmaztec · 18-08-2008 12:51pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

How about Cricket then? Widely acknowledged to have been one of the greatest sporting series of all time the 1981 Ashes Series (Botham's Ashes) when England humbled the mighty Aussies! Only a somebody with a major chip on their shoulder could describe British sporting achievements as a flash in the pan!

What about the conquering of Mt.Everest??

:):):)

I'm allowed to take the piss out of British sporting achievements, it says so on my British passport.

On the Everest thing, wasn't Sir Edmund a New-Zealander?

Fratton Fred · 18-08-2008 1:08pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'm allowed to take the piss out of British sporting achievements, it says so on my British passport.

On the Everest thing, wasn't Sir Edmund a New-Zealander?

that was my immediate reaction and indeed he was. It was a British expedition though, I guess he could be called a ringer:D

Judgement Day · 18-08-2008 1:23pm

Ok - I give up - I was just trying to stand up for us poor old Brits as there is an element in Ireland that like to denigrate everything British. I was nearly up on the counter down my local as the 'mighty' Aussies and French were despatched by 'God's Chosen People' during the 2007 World Cup - and I live in Wexford!! Incidentally, my passport was issued in the IoM and doesn't say we are allowed to take the piss out of ourselves!!

:):)

guinnessdrinker · 18-08-2008 1:26pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

How about Cricket then? Widely acknowledged to have been one of the greatest sporting series of all time the 1981 Ashes Series (Botham's Ashes) when England humbled the mighty Aussies! Only a somebody with a major chip on their shoulder could describe British sporting achievements as a flash in the pan!

What about the conquering of Mt.Everest??

:):):)

A New Zealander and a Sherpa! But what has that got to do with sport?

Judgement Day · 18-08-2008 1:30pm

I think this qualifies Edmund Hillary as a British subject:

New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy and a Commonwealth Realm, with Queen Elizabeth II as its reigning monarch, since February 6, 1952. As such she is the de jure head of state, though she does hold several powers that are hers alone, while the Governor-General is sometimes referred to as the de facto head of state.
In New Zealand, the Queen's official title is: Elizabeth the Second, By the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. Wikipedia

Judgement Day · 18-08-2008 1:32pm

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

A New Zealander and a Sherpa! But what has that got to do with sport?

Well if climbing is not a sport what is it - stamp collecting??

The British Empire Thread

Comments