Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

To be British watch

Announcements

    (Original post by John Paul Jones)
    and who's standard are you judging what is civilized by? your own 21st century standard? or the standard of Victorians?
    By the standard of the recognition of systems of law and government, of great buildings (not mud huts), of achievement and some sort of science and technology.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    Alas, France's GDP is slightly higher than ours.
    In 2002 and 2003 it wasn't.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    Do you remember a few years ago, there was a small island of the Comoros which asked France to colonise them again because their country had become a complete mess and I believe a few islands in the Pacific were thinking of doing the same thing with the UK.
    This is true though i cant remember the names of the states. I believe we gave the empire away too quickly - look at what happened in many of the nations wed conquered, simply anarchy. Rather than throw freedom at them as soon as it was demanded a gradual transfer of power should have taken place to ensure that a legitimate regime would replace british rule rather than the corruption which often followed.

    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    In 2002 and 2003 it wasn't.
    I'm not aware that the UK overtook France in GDP in those years. Do you have any links or something?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    To start with, I hate English nationalism, hooliganism, racism so I'm not talking about that kind of British pride. I'm talking about being proud of our history.
    What is starting to annoy me is that this is a UK website and we're getting all these ignorant people ****ging off the British (and even more the English) because it's such a politically correct thing to do.

    Some of you people need to get a bit more of their knowledge from book and maybe more serious sources than Hollywood movies.

    The UK was the most powerful country in the world for over a century. So during that time, they managed to do a lot of things. When you're active on the international scene, you're bound to get involved in events that don't please other nations. It doesn't mean you're more evil than any other country. When Britain were bullying other nations, most other countries were slaugtering eachother but because of the small size of these countries, noone really cared.
    Why don't we ever mention the fact that slavery existed in Cuba until 1896 but still go on about how Britain exploited Indian nationals?

    While most other countries (countries which some of the forum members originate from) were still torturing other countries, chopping each others heads of, while the UK was one of the first countries to have a Parliamentarian monarchy, the first European power to abolish slavery (it's in British colonies that the first free slaves settled), one of the first to give workers rights and is recognized as being probably the most stable and oldest democracy in the world.

    So before ****ging off the UK, think about what this country did and then think about what your own country achieved.
    I am not from your country, but have always had an admiration of it. I found a very long article (on the internet) from Steadfast Magazine, Issue 10 by someone named Robert Henderson that addresses the anti-English propaganda that we hear so often. It's too long to quote the entire article here, so I will just paste the first few paragraphs:

    "The most extraordinary fact of English history is that it happened. On the periphery of Europe, sparsely populated for most of its history, always faced by powerful neighbours, it is barely credible that the English people achieved such a prominent place in history. Rationally England should have been throughout its history a small impoverished backward state, an extra on the European stage. Consider the history of Ireland which was placed in much the same general situation as England. A novelist who created an equivalent fictional history would be laughed out of court on the grounds of utter improbability.

    There is so much that is unusual about England. Not only did she possess the only world empire ever worthy of the name, she produced the one bootstrapped industrial revolution, has displayed a quite unparalleled political stability and a unique political evolution leading to representative government and perhaps most importantly in the long run created a language which for its all-round utility cannot be equalled. England is the cause of the modern world. Let her self-respect rest on that massive fact. The English do not need to invent a mythical past for their self-esteem: the reality with all its warts is splendid and marvellous. But history is more than events and institutions. It is about great and influential personalities. England has many to chose from, I will be indulgent and put forward some of my favourites. Alfred The Great (for his preservation of England), Chaucer, Shakespeare, John Bunyan, Queen Elizabeth, Cromwell, Newton, Locke, Wellington, Darwin. All left a mark on the world which went far beyond these shores. (My choice does not include any person from the twentieth century because I believe it is too soon to judge their significance.)"

    Africa certainly would be in a far better state than it currently is if we took it over again.

    In fact, one could argue that to deny Africa British Imperialism is causing them a great deal of misery. They're clearly not ready for independence (relying upon one's existence on the handouts of other nations is not independence).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    There is so much that is unusual about England. Not only did she possess the only world empire ever worthy of the name, she produced the one bootstrapped industrial revolution, has displayed a quite unparalleled political stability and a unique political evolution leading to representative government and perhaps most importantly in the long run created a language which for its all-round utility cannot be equalled. England is the cause of the modern world. Let her self-respect rest on that massive fact. The English do not need to invent a mythical past for their self-esteem: the reality with all its warts is splendid and marvellous. But history is more than events and institutions. It is about great and influential personalities. England has many to chose from, I will be indulgent and put forward some of my favourites. Alfred The Great (for his preservation of England), Chaucer, Shakespeare, John Bunyan, Queen Elizabeth, Cromwell, Newton, Locke, Wellington, Darwin. All left a mark on the world which went far beyond these shores. (My choice does not include any person from the twentieth century because I believe it is too soon to judge their significance.)"
    How many times must it be said, BRITISH does not equal ENGLISH.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Made in the USA]to chose from, I will be indulgent and put forward some of my favourites. Alfred The Great (for his preservation of England), Chaucer, Shakespeare, John Bunyan, Queen Elizabeth, Cromwell, Newton, Locke, Wellington, Darwin. QUOTE]

    those people don't make England great, Cromwell , Alfred the Great, Darwin?? lol


    come on - at least you didn't list Churchill thank god, none of those people made England great, or really contributed to the formation of what the UK is now at all, i would look a little deeper if i were you


    yes, perhaps Shakespeare and Chaucer did help to contribute to the formation of our language

    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    I am not from your country, but have always had an admiration of it. I found a very long article (on the internet) from Steadfast Magazine, Issue 10 by someone named Robert Henderson that addresses the anti-English propaganda that we hear so often. It's too long to quote the entire article here, so I will just paste the first few paragraphs:

    "The most extraordinary fact of English history is that it happened. On the periphery of Europe, sparsely populated for most of its history, always faced by powerful neighbours, it is barely credible that the English people achieved such a prominent place in history. Rationally England should have been throughout its history a small impoverished backward state, an extra on the European stage. Consider the history of Ireland which was placed in much the same general situation as England. A novelist who created an equivalent fictional history would be laughed out of court on the grounds of utter improbability.

    There is so much that is unusual about England. Not only did she possess the only world empire ever worthy of the name, she produced the one bootstrapped industrial revolution, has displayed a quite unparalleled political stability and a unique political evolution leading to representative government and perhaps most importantly in the long run created a language which for its all-round utility cannot be equalled. England is the cause of the modern world. Let her self-respect rest on that massive fact. The English do not need to invent a mythical past for their self-esteem: the reality with all its warts is splendid and marvellous. But history is more than events and institutions. It is about great and influential personalities. England has many to chose from, I will be indulgent and put forward some of my favourites. Alfred The Great (for his preservation of England), Chaucer, Shakespeare, John Bunyan, Queen Elizabeth, Cromwell, Newton, Locke, Wellington, Darwin. All left a mark on the world which went far beyond these shores. (My choice does not include any person from the twentieth century because I believe it is too soon to judge their significance.)"
    Yes, it is indeed amazing how much those three small tribes, two from Germany (the Angles and Saxons), and one from Denmark (the Jutes) - who united to form the English - and who left their lands 1600 years ago to settle in Britain, have done.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    Africa certainly would be in a far better state than it currently is if we took it over again.

    In fact, one could argue that to deny Africa British Imperialism is causing them a great deal of misery. They're clearly not ready for independence (relying upon one's existence on the handouts of other nations is not independence).
    True,though it would also be in a much better state had the European empires not carved it up and consequently caused most of the problems which have led to its current state.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    By the standard of the recognition of systems of law and government, of great buildings (not mud huts), of achievement and some sort of science and technology.


    hmmm, you really are the epitomy of aristocratic British crassness of the later 19th early 20th century,


    that really is an ignorant view - and you have no understanding of history if you believe that

    (Original post by an Siarach)
    How many times must it be said, BRITISH does not equal ENGLISH.
    At the end of the day the Scots have been very useful and have contributed much, but it is us English who are the primary people of Britain and hence why others see the two as synonymous.

    (Original post by John Paul Jones)
    hmmm, you really are the epitomy of aristocratic British crassness of the later 19th early 20th century,


    that really is an ignorant view - and you have no understanding of history if you believe that
    Well, if you think throwing spears about is equal to Aristotle's works, knock yourself out kid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Isn't this all reflecting on past glory though?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    How many times must it be said, BRITISH does not equal ENGLISH.
    I second that.
    But anti-British sentiment is often linked to anti-English sentiment. Because a lot of countries mix the two up, when a foreigner criticizes British history, a Scot might say: but that was because of the English and because of the confusion, get away with it, despite the fact that Scotland, being part of Britain took part in the formation of the British Empire as much as the rest of the UK did.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    Well, if you think throwing spears about is equal to Aristotle's works, knock yourself out kid.


    pardon? Aristotle wasn't a construct of British Imperialism?? :confused: :confused: lol
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    At the end of the day the Scots have been very useful and have contributed much, but it is us English who are the primary people of Britain and hence why others see the two as synonymous.
    I totally disagree. The English are more numerous, that's all. Scotland has always been a great warrior nation and having Scotland being part of Britain, probably helped British expansion more than it hindered it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    At the end of the day the Scots have been very useful and have contributed much, but it is us English who are the primary people of Britain and hence why others see the two as synonymous.
    This is no excuse for ignorance, why not ignore the entirety of the southern US? for some reason i dont see Americans taking that as casually as they seem to abuse their own history by referring two entirely different states. Englands place as the main power is not what im disputing, what drove me over the line was his referrence to the 'english empire' which is utter nonsense. The British Empire would never have occured were it not for the unification of the thrones under the Scottish royal family(and im not claiming any greatness for scotland here, i believe the union to have been the gateway to greatness for the many many great Scots who followed). It never ceases to amaze me how Americans are so commonly ignorant of simple British history, it is after all also THEIR history.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    I totally disagree. The English are more numerous, that's all. Scotland has always been a great warrior nation and having Scotland being part of Britain, probably helped British expansion more than it hindered it.

    the Scottish did help a lot yes - in term of colonization and a workforce, yes

    (Original post by an Siarach)
    True,though it would also be in a much better state had the European empires not carved it up and consequently caused most of the problems which have led to its current state.
    Well, the Africans were very happy in their mud huts. But we then suddenly gave them civilisation and technology. There was no period of adjustment. The liberals then forced us to leave these poor people and then wonder why it all went wrong.

    Imagine if a foreign people invaded England in 1100, gave us 20th century technology and knowledge, and then just left us. We'd be in bloody chaos.

    We need to go back, take away their weapons, begin to civilise them again, train their leaders etc etc. A period of 300 years should be sufficent. Not that we'd get any thanks, of course.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.