Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piggysqueak)
    Isn't this all reflecting on past glory though?
    no because if you've ever been abroad, you might get comments like "The English (when they often mean the British) they think they rule the world, they're oppressive, evil, tortured every nation on earth blablabla".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    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.

    you just get worse and worse - forced us to leave? you mean our own imcompetent administration and ineptitude forced us to leave

    you have a worrying view on 'history'

    (Original post by John Paul Jones)
    pardon? Aristotle wasn't a construct of British Imperialism?? :confused: :confused: lol
    I was judging African native culture by Western civilised standards. Grecian civilisation is part of our common European heritage.

    We were once barbarians. But we then embraced civilisation. But you would deny the poor Africans the same thing.
    Offline

    13
    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.
    It certainly didnt hinder it by any stretch of the imagination. Had it not been for the union England would have had a much smaller empire than was gained by the British state, and imo i can simply see the French gaining the ascendancy we enjoyed as a British nation.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    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.
    I hope we don't make the same mistake in Iraq by suddenly throwing freedom at people instead of a gradual transfer of power.
    When I learned about Gandhi and his influence on Martin Luther King back when I was still in school, we didn't devote much time to discussing some of the negative results of India's independance. Later, I met many Indians that told me that they have mixed feelings about Gandhi because many feel that they would have had better lives when they were still under control of the British Empire. It's a side of the story you will never hear much about in the textbooks in schools.

    (Original post by John Paul Jones)
    you just get worse and worse - forced us to leave? you mean our own imcompetent administration and ineptitude forced us to leave

    you have a worrying view on 'history'
    Um John, it was the liberal body politic than decided to abandon Africa - the pressure came from within the borders of the Kingdom, not from the African people who were never in any state to threaten the Empire.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    I was judging African native culture by Western civilised standards. Grecian civilisation is part of our common European heritage.

    We were once barbarians. But we then embraced civilisation. But you would deny the poor Africans the same thing.


    Westerners are that civilized?? forgive me- but weren't the Nazis western?

    (Original post by John Paul Jones)
    Westerners are that civilized?? forgive me- but weren't the Nazis western?
    Nazism - like all socialist movements - was anti-Western.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    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.
    What you say is absolutely true, i merely point out that they were quite happy in their primitive lives before we gave them advances (i wouldnt say we gave them civilisation, it can only be developed not recieved imo otherwise Africa would be a mostly negro replica of Europe surely?)and that we are responsible for the continents current state. As you say we left too hastily, imo we should only be leaving now after a 50+ year period of preparing them for self government.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    Um John, it was the liberal body politic than decided to abandon Africa - the pressure came from within the borders of the Kingdom, not from the people who were never in any state to threaten the Empire.

    not at all - do you know of the post world war 2 debt? and the ineptitude at which we were managing the colonies was unbelievable - Bartol Frere/Theophilus Shepstone etc.....the colonial administrations were pathetic, it's suprising there was only one indian mutiny during the whole time
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    Nazism - like all socialist movements - was anti-Western.


    the Nazis were not socialist, they used that take in a vain attempt to legitimize their own disgusting views,

    if you knew anything about socialism, you'd realize that they were as far removed from that particular political philosophy as ever
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    I hope we don't make the same mistake in Iraq by suddenly throwing freedom at people instead of a gradual transfer of power.
    When I learned about Gandhi and his influence on Martin Luther King back when I was still in school, we didn't devote much time to discussing some of the negative results of India's independance. Later, I met many Indians that told me that they have mixed feelings about Gandhi because many feel that they would have had better lives when they were still under control of the British Empire. It's a side of the story you will never hear much about in the textbooks in schools.
    Gandhi was a great man undoubtedly, but as you say his greatness was quite possibly a negative in the long run for the indian nation. In terms of Iraq it will be very difficult for the US to allow a gradual return of power - hold democratic elections too soon and the anti western backlash would lead to anti democratic fundementalists gaining power whereas if we stay there any longer the violence will only increase and our domestic press will only moan further(although the coalition administration has been so poor post war im unsure if a continuation would achieve much at all.)

    (Original post by an Siarach)
    It certainly didnt hinder it by any stretch of the imagination. Had it not been for the union England would have had a much smaller empire than was gained by the British state, and imo i can simply see the French gaining the ascendancy we enjoyed as a British nation.
    Indeed. If the Scots were not part of the union a good portion of our resources would've been wasted in maintaining forces on England's northern border, allowing the Frogs to ascend.

    By uniting the two kingdoms into one we not only were able to devote our resources totally on external threats but also we had the added might of the Scot warrior.

    But the fact does remain the Scots only number a few million and so we cant be too hasty in condemning others for thinking "British" is simply another term for "English".

    (Original post by John Paul Jones)
    the Nazis were not socialist, they used that take in a vain attempt to legitimize their own disgusting views,

    if you knew anything about socialism, you'd realize that they were as far removed from that particular political philosophy as ever
    The National Socialists were not socialist. Mmmmmmm
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    The National Socialists were not socialist. Mmmmmmm

    no, they weren't - don't you understand?

    (Original post by John Paul Jones)
    no, they weren't - don't you understand?
    Actually the National Socialist were socialists (their name is a bit of a give away if you think about it). Hitler was a nationalist and a socialist. He believed in the German State, in the State's control of the economy. He was hardly a fan of capitalism, which he saw as a Jewish thing.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    But the fact does remain the Scots only number a few million and so we cant be too hasty in condemning others for thinking "British" is simply another term for "English".
    If this mistake was merely made by the chinese or bulgarians or some similiar people without intimate connection to the British nation it would be understandable, but what infuriates me is that Americans always make this mistake which is i consider unacceptable because, as ive stated before, British history is also THEIR history. You would think that with so many of them eagerly claiming scots/irish heritage they would hesitate before insulting their ancestors by calling them English.

    (Original post by an Siarach)
    If this mistake was merely made by the chinese or bulgarians or some similiar people without intimate connection to the British nation it would be understandable, but what infuriates me is that Americans always make this mistake which is i consider unacceptable because, as ive stated before, British history is also THEIR history. You would think that with so many of them eagerly claiming scots/irish heritage they would hesitate before insulting their ancestors by calling them English.
    Most white Americans also bizzarly claim they have Native American blood .

    Our American friends are generally just ignorant, rather than malicious. They are innocent, even in their wickedness.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    How many times must it be said, BRITISH does not equal ENGLISH.
    I'm assuming that this sentence from the section you quoted is bothering you:
    "The English do not need to invent a mythical past for their self-esteem.."
    Those were the author's words that you quoted, not mine.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    Actually the National Socialist were socialists (their name is a bit of a give away if you think about it). Hitler was a nationalist and a socialist. He believed in the German State, in the State's control of the economy. He was hardly a fan of capitalism, which he saw as a Jewish thing.


    not at all, Nazi ideology drew on the racist doctrines of the comte de Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, on the nationalism of Heinrich von Treitschke, and on the hero-cult of Friedrich Nietzsche, often transforming the ideas of these thinkers. Nazi dogma, partly articulated by Hitler in Mein Kampf, was elaborated by the fanatical Alfred Rosenberg. Vague and mystical, it was not a system of well-defined principles but rather a glorification of prejudice and myth with elements of nihilism. Its mainstays were the doctrines of racial inequality and of adherence to the leader, its onlyconstant theme was nationalist expansion.

    Nazis did nationalize businesses after gaining power, particularly under the duress of war. But I don't think the Nazis necessarily were grounded in any particular economic philosophy.



    Hitler also allowed a lot of private businesses to continue - e.g Volkswagen and shops selling privately - socialism is well thought out philosophy and to associate it with nazism is ludicrous
 
 
 
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?
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.