[Posh Portia Kabine]

Ugh. Dirty. I might join just to be ironic

[Carl]

I'm going to invite CHEN327 to this soc. He can suck on my arrogance

[cookieman]

Society is now up and running! click here to show your rememberance/support for the great british empire.

Click here to join.

[ßlαcksωαn]

I wanna join because I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the great British empire ;yes;

[TRB]

Only the British Empire could fill a continent with convicts and produce a rather begrudgingly sexy country.

[creak]

(Original post by Lib North)
Only because you're an enemy of all that is good in the world: cricket, the Queen, the Daily Telegraph, Christianity and kedgeree.

Guilty (except kedgeree).

Anyway, quick question to everyone; the furore recently over whether Blair should apologise for slavery on the 200th anniversary of the trade being banned raised many arguments that it was meaningless for him to do so as the current generation had no part in the trade, held no responsibility for the actions of our ancestors and so are essentially absolved of any blame. So how is it fitting, on the other hand, to celerate the 'achievements' and 'success' of the Empire when only these same, apparently rather tenuous links exist?

[L i b]

(Original post by creak)
Guilty (except kedgeree).

Anyway, quick question to everyone; the furore recently over whether Blair should apologise for slavery on the 200th anniversary of the trade being banned raised many arguments that it was meaningless for him to do so as the current generation had no part in the trade, held no responsibility for the actions of our ancestors and so are essentially absolved of any blame. So how is it fitting, on the other hand, to celerate the 'achievements' and 'success' of the Empire when only these same, apparently rather tenuous links exist?

You see, I don't think celebrating something demonstrates personal responsibility for it. I went to a dinner to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the Union that created the United Kingdom this year; but I certainly don't think the creation of that document or the associated politics were anything to do with me. Looking back fondly and admiring the achievements of those who came before us and shared some of our ideals is not the same.

I do think it's rather odd when people talk about what their nation has "invented" - I live in Scotland, I hear it quite a lot - that seems to me to be doing as you suggest. For that reason, I don't partake in that sort of thing.

[Richy_Boi]

I suggest admirers/criticisers alike should read some of the work by Niall Ferguson.

Harvard professor and excellent author.

[Tory Dan]

(Original post by blackswan)
I wanna join because I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the great British empire ;yes;

See isn't that great, I think the Tories should offer to all Commonwealth states if they would like to strengthen their relationship and become part of the Empire again, I would expect a lot of African countries and Caribbean islands would jump at the chance of increasing their trade into the EU and the power we will exert diplomatically.

[Richy_Boi]

The Americans would never allow such a great idea.

As you probably know, they're the reason we don't have an empire now.

[CorpusNinja]

(Original post by Richy_Boi)
The Americans would never allow such a great idea.

As you probably know, they're the reason we don't have an empire now.

Aside from...you know...freedom movements?!

[Collingwood]

Arguably the Empire was finally destroyed when Britain lost Suez as a direct result of Eisenhower threatening to devalue the Pound.

[Richy_Boi]

(Original post by biggie-n)
Aside from...you know...freedom movements?!

Pah, after the 1900s we didn't need India anyway.

The other colonies/dominions are enough to support our mighty Empire.

Did you know that Canada, under British rule, had a much higher rate of growth (GDP) than the United States at any time. Only after WW2 did it shrink lower....

Furthermore the gap between rich and poor nations has increased massively under the current dominant hedgemony.

It makes me smile looking at my australian currency and seeing Her Royal Highness smiling back.

*Wishes he was back in the imperial days of glory and exploration.*

[CorpusNinja]

(Original post by Collingwood)
Arguably the Empire was finally destroyed when Britain lost Suez as a direct result of Eisenhower threatening to devalue the Pound.

Yes but arguably, the process of decline had already begun, and the Suez crisis merely accelerated it. The intervention was right anyway.

[JonD]

(Original post by biggie-n)
Yes but arguably, the process of decline had already begun, and the Suez crisis merely accelerated it. The intervention was right anyway.

The intervention to protect their oil interests? It wasn't some act of anti-imperialism, the opposite actually.

[Collingwood]

(Original post by biggie-n)
Yes but arguably, the process of decline had already begun, and the Suez crisis merely accelerated it. The intervention was right anyway.

The complete disappearance of the British Empire was not widely thought inevitable before Suez.

[CorpusNinja]

(Original post by JonD)
The intervention to protect their oil interests? It wasn't some act of anti-imperialism, the opposite actually.

Britain's oil interests underpinned the crisis.

[JonD]

(Original post by biggie-n)
Britain's oil interests underpinned the crisis.

If by "The intervention was right anyway" you mean the American intervention in the affair was morally justified, it was actually matter of Americans protecting their interests at the expense of Britain, France and Israel. There was no moral high ground.

[CorpusNinja]

(Original post by Collingwood)
The complete disappearance of the British Empire was not widely thought inevitable before Suez.

By whom? The Suez crisis merely exposed Britain's misperception of itself being a superpower in the new world order. Are you suggesting a good portion of Africa would not have eventually been freed following 1956? Keep in mind many of them had long running campaigns.

[CorpusNinja]

(Original post by JonD)
If by "The intervention was right anyway" you mean the American intervention in the affair was morally justified, it was actually matter of Americans protecting their interests at the expense of Britain, France and Israel. There was no moral high ground.

I was referring to Egypt's property rights over the canal. And in respect to making Britain and France realise their lack of power in world affairs.