BBC considers dropping Rule Brittania from the Proms

“Downsides”... Nice way to describe mass murder.

Union Jack Wearing Bulldog is incensed.

He will now have to consider dropping his annual contribution towards tv licencing revenues from 2021 and ceasing to use the television for anything but replaying vhs & dvds.

But back to the point in hand, I’ve never heard of or seen any African nations take pride in their involvement in slavery, or deem it to be a part of their ‘culture’ to be celebrated?

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/aug/23/bbc-considers-dropping-rule-britannia-from-last-night-of-the-proms

Yet another good reason to defund the BBC.

I know you're trolling for a response and believe me im tempted to reply but i'll leave this ridiculous comment alone.

This absolute quackery on the other hand demands a response. It's ignorance of history, how diseases are spread, international relations and the fact people have invented this marvelous creation called "boats" completely removes any justification for your attempt at a point here. Implying that the colonies wouldnt have ever experienced western diseases if it werent for Britain, absolute rubbish - not least of all because others had discovered the countries first

Apparently not.
Meh it has a decidedly averge history by historical standards, something you have to admit to be true if you werent so blinded by hatred for Britain's history..
Pray tell these 'repercussions' and i want you to show where the empire actually caused them. None of this 'it probably' was to blame nonsense.
Err who says its 'suppressed' anything? I'm perfectly well versed in Britains darker points with the worst clearly being in China. Unlike you though some people are apparently able to view the empire for the shades of grey that it was, without rubbishing the entirety of it and all those who lived within it as not but racist colonial rapists (in the figurative sense).

Mauritania has a thriving slave trade...

Sure, let’s ignore the Boer Concentration camps, Amritsar massacre and Partitioning of India, Indian famines because that’s what suits the best narrative of Britain not having blood on their hands. I think that’s probably for the best...

And that slave trade was able to thrive thanks to French colonisation of Mauritania and the failure of the abolition of slavery thanks to it being based upon European colonial ideology of Africans being exotic, intellectually r*****ed, emotionally sensual, governmentally despotic, culturally passive, and politically penetrable.

Indeed more about the empire definitely should be taught. I have a feeling you mean only its negative aspects should be told though? Given shooting a 'fuzzy wuzzy' is objectively bad whilst 'good' tends to be subjective.
I do find it interesting people tend to skip over all the good it did in terms of advancement of institutions, human rights and so on - after all before the British came to the colonies women were burned alive and sold as nothing more than piece of meat. People were murdered and eaten. Yet all that can be focussed on is something like Amritsar, admittedly a terrible event.
I dont disagree, warts and all should be included. Then again all of the education ministers have been incompetent or faced backlashes when wanting to teach British history.. as opposed to some irrelence in Africa/Asia/etc. which is what certain vocal protesters want for some reason.

No, I don't mean that only negative aspects of it should be taught. It should be taught from a holistic point of view, "warts and all", as you say. But I've been emphasising the negative aspects for two reasons.

The first reason is that from my point of view, the British Empire tends to be portrayed in a disproportionately positive light compared to the reality. In all the history lessons I ever took at school I studied the British Empire for probably no more than a month, in which I was taught about how "great" Britain was in terms of the economy, culture, political and military power etc. and how some places became more "civilised" due to British influence, but almost nothing about the thefts, murders and destruction that brought this about.

The second reason is that I consider the subjugation of others by force to be a fundamentally negative thing. Even if there are positive side-effects, the ends don't justify the means. I believe that the praiseworthiness of an action depends far more on the intent behind it rather than the results. And the intent in this case was not for Britain to help the rest of the world, but to help itself at the rest of the world's expense. We often say with pride for example, that Britain brought railways to India, which sounds great. But when the purpose of those railways was to transport stolen Indian resources to the ports to be shipped to Britain, it doesn't seem like such a noble gesture anymore.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/aug/23/bbc-considers-dropping-rule-britannia-from-last-night-of-the-proms

Yet another good reason to defund the BBC.

That is indeed a problem but one which seems more due to the education system than anything inherent to the empire itself. I mean, whilst not to overly trialise the various atrocities of it, on a relative scale it was more benign than any of the other ones. No intention genocides of note compared to Germany, America, Spain, Portugal, France and the various ones in Africa, Asia etc.
True although that is more a modern interpretation of the matter, no? After all on the subjugation part the empire did not exist to subjugate simply for the sake of it, that can more accurately be described as but an inevitable by product of it. Although, it should be noted many of the proponents behind the empire did do it with the best of intentions (if rather warped by modern interpretation) bringing gods and civilisation to barbarians and savages as it were.

Which half a million was this? I dont recall there being any mass slaughter of such a proportion.. ever.
I would beg to differ. There is clearly a difference. Killing a thousand people is terrible but it is morally incomparable to burning a city to the ground with all inside.
As i said though, no one is expressing pride only in the bad aspects. It is entirely possible to celebrate pur history (we cannot do that without celebrating the empire) whilst acknowledging bad things happened.
We seem to be straying into the sqalid realm of 'presentism' something i personally find to be absurd.

Happily.
Ummm you do know partitioning was wanted by Indians right?
Ah yes, i completely forgot Britain was a weather god, how silly of me.
Who said Britain didn't have blood on its hands?

And you have yet to make a sensible one. Especially as no one is celebrating disease, this is a fiction entirely of your own invention.
Again im still struggling to see how you can blame Britain for importing something they knew not of. They didnt exactly go and inject them with smallpox now did they. As i said, stop trying to attribute malace where none exists. Especially as it would have happened colonialism or no colonialism, as you well know.

And there we have the crux of your 'argument' its not bad that it happened merely that Britain allegedly did it. Although given half of your allegations are spurious at best. Especially blaming a country for the weather, absolutely ridiculus and makes it ever more clear you're blind hatred for the country and trying to pin anything you can on it. Need you really be reminded that famines occur naturally and have been occuring since time immemorial, especially in Bangladesh (where you're referring to I assume) Britains handling of them might of made their effects worse but they didnt cause them. To say otherwise is a bare faced lie.

I still find it amusing you're incapable of acknowledging the good the empire did. Not to mention you glossing over the savagery that was stamped out from incestial relationships, slavery, murder etc. I can only assume from this you approve of burning widows, eating your enemies, cutting up albinos for good luck charms and all manner of other disgusting "native culture" that by rights was stamped out.


Pfft, your coments beg to differ.
And which lies are these? We've already established that each of your accusations has been a fib, such as the amusing one that i apparently said Britain had no blood on its hands

You make it sound like racism didnt exist anyway and wouldnt now? This is demonstrably false. With Africans and Asians being infamously racist to each other irrespective of European meddling on the matter. The fact you're trying to excuse this ongoing attrocity by blaming the Europeans is frankly deceitful.

Indeed they are. Thanks to colonialism Singapore and Hong Kong and thriving metropolises. Australia is no longer a hunter gatherer society (nor the Maoris for that matter) and are thriving. Asia is booming and global culture is all the richer for it. This fiction you are trying to peddle that empires were nothing but evil is quite clearly wrong. Not to mention these supposed innocent colonials had their own empires, they were just weaker. Which brings us back to the main point, your issue cant be with empire merely that the Europeans and especially British did it better...

Ah another crux of your argument, anyone who doesnt agree with you is morally bankrupt, very droll. As for this supposed "institutional racism" pish posh. This isnt America and we dont have racist laws in place.

Again, you are the only one talking about white washing history. I have said on multiple occasions everything on the empire "warts and all" should be taught. You're the one saying it is irredeemably evil with nothing good about it.

As to the articles; the first bases his entire view of British history on it being "built on slavery" evidently wrong. If anything it was built on drugs, slavery being chump change compared to the opium trade - not to mention most slaving was done by the Portuguese, Americans and Spaniards. Simply look at Brazil as a case in point. He also seems to neglect it was the Africans selling many of the slaves. Blame the Europeans for their part in that sin of sins by all means but do stop making it out that it was solely them when it wasnt.
Interesting second one, although a questionable methodology and interpretation of the facts given there was no "India" before the British raj but a collection of warring and venile princely states. To compare them to a modern nation is farcical in every way.

Are you blaming Africans enslaving each other on a foreign country?!?

Yes, the forced migration and millions of deaths were wanted by Indians
(I've responded to that point later)

And you’re still not getting it. You're glorifying exploitation which brought with it diseases that contributed to the deaths of native people, namely 90% of the Native Australian population. They could as well have injected them with small pox for the same effect it brought about. Point in hand, celebrating the deaths of these victims through the empire is inappropriate to say the very least.

No. You again misunderstood what was said. It is not that 'Britain did it'. Disputes over land/property, for example in West Africa, pre-colonisation were short-lived and did not result in the mass casualties arising from Britain's divide and conquer technique through colonisation.
I'd give an example of each and every single one of them, but I'm fairly sure you know that's true.
Err ,when did I blame a country for the weather? As for the Bengal famine, three million people were killed as a result of Churchill's policies. There has been research to show that the famine was not caused by drought, as the region received above-normal precipitation during that time. Economists have shown there to be enough supplies to feed Bengal in 1943. It was Britain's policies that resulted in, and further exacerbated, the millions of deaths in Bengal, and Britain's exploitation of their resources for themselves. And again, I haven't got a hatred for Britain, myself being British, I have a hatred for the altered narrative by certain people like yourself.

Ahh and there we have it! The same Orientalist mindset that British colonisers had during their periods of exploitation. A poor attempt to shift the blame away from themselves and on to natives in their own land. Excusing the murder, rape, torture, enslavement, starvation, deception, theft, invasion, exploitation and destruction caused by Britain, because another country had different beliefs to them? This is a prime example of the saviour complex still seen today, as if Britain felt as though they were duty-bound to "help the savages" by murdering, exploiting and forcing them off their land for no other reason bar self-gain. The same misconception you, along with many other colonisers had, is that prior to Britain swooping in to save them, native people were savages and uncivilised (May I remind you that civilisation certainly wasn't discovered in Europe). Pre-colonisation, Africa was a leading continent in medicine, astronomy, physics, mathematics, architecture and literature. It was certainly not all "burning widows, eating your enemies, cutting up albinos for good luck charms". I also find it funny how your mantra of not judging history by todays standards only seems to apply when Britain is being criticised...Hmm

The lies that I've been replying to above and in all my previous posts...

You asked for how Britain's colonisation had repercussions today. Through colonisation, Britain created the racial hierarchy with white Europeans at the top and Africans and Asians at the bottom. This hierarchy is embedded into almost every institution in the West. I never denied racism between Africans and Asians, I gave an example of the repercussion.

Yes Australia is no longer a hunter gatherer society, at the expense of 190,000 native Australians being killed. Asia is booming at the expense of over 35 million Asians being killed. The British colonialism was perfect!

It's not a case of 'doesn't agree', it's a case of celebrating and taking pride in exploitation, murder, enslavement, etc as to why I questioned your morals. Ah yes, lets trivialise institutional racism 'pish posh'. We don't have racist laws, not that I ever said we did, we have racial injustice which is in force throughout Britain. But again, if you don't experience it, it mustn't exist...Right?

I never suggested the positives not be taught, I said both need to be taught, which in Britain is very much not the case, as the negative is blanketed and white-washed. And upon learning and understanding the true nature of Britain's empire building, should you choose to glorify through song the atrocities made by Britain (not necessarily the empire alone), your moral compass should be brought into question.

Britain was built on the back of free labour and exploitation of resources from resource-rich African nations. Slavery played such a large role in Britain's development that Britain had to spend 40% of it's budget on compensation to slave traders. Slave labour produced the major consumer goods that were the basis of world trade during the 18/19th centuries - coffee, cotton, rum, sugar and tobacco.
As for the second article, international comparisons are appropriate, given that India's economic climate prior to colonial rule was self sufficient and flourishing.

Mauritania has a thriving slave trade...

And that slave trade was able to thrive thanks to French colonisation of Mauritania and the failure of the abolition of slavery thanks to it being based upon European colonial ideology of Africans being exotic, intellectually r*****ed, emotionally sensual, governmentally despotic, culturally passive, and politically penetrable.

The sahels instability could easily be attributed to the effects of the colonial powers and even climate change

I am very tempted to make a comment again.

I see that you are confused further and make a lot of irrelevant conclusions and remarks.

I am very tempted to make a comment again.

I see that you are confused further and make a lot of irrelevant conclusions and remarks.

Someone described you as Mog the Cat with the tendency of not wanting any change...

What rule Britannia and nonsense we are talking about?!

Rule Brittania and God Save the Queen are slogans that are archaic and outdated. They belong to the past!

Monarchy is also an outdated and archaic political system. Together with religion, they have no place in 21st century secular liberal societies.

God save the Queen... As if 'God' is a real entity and as if he can save the Queen. By the way, God and Monarchy are very popular in the right wing circles. Like Brexit for example, another exceptional idea!!!!!

No, I'm blaming the failure of its abolishment on another country which promoted it.

Yes, the forced migration and millions of deaths were wanted by Indians
(I've responded to that point later)