Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue Heart)
    and then what ... opting out of the EU will make us vulnerable in the market.
    who would want to be based in the UK when they could be in EU?

    This is probably why I am not currently PM.

    Thing is, there are benefits from being part of the EU, granted. However, there are also huge problems - to mention a couple, the fact that due to people from the EU coming to live and work in the UK, we now have more people than housing etc can cope with. Because of this increased demand the UK, house prices are driven up, and more are planned to be built upon greenbelt land.

    Not that I'm saying everyone who comes into the country is useless - they're not, they contribute a huge amount to our economy, but with every benefit comes a cost.

    Again, my other real gripe is the lack of power of UK government over new legislation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    We are also more free, more liberal, more moral.

    Yes, I think that does make our version of government superior. I don't buy into this moral relativism crap: there is a difference between right and wrong, and broadly speaking we fall far more into the former side of that dichotomy than most.
    Well are we talking about the English government or the people?
    Because over-generalisation seems to be on the agenda in this forum.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by L i b)
    There's nothing morally wrong with extending dominion over as broad an area as possible - actually, if you believe in the goodness of your system of government, it's an inherently charitable act.
    extending dominion” is a euphemism, I presume, to
    1) To take upon oneself the notion of forcing their beliefs/language/currency/culture on another.
    2)To do so without the consent of the weaker party.

    As far as I am concerned, that is a crime – and will always be and to give an example the atrocities committed to Aboriginal families in the 1930s. I would recommend watching Rabbit Proof Fence. So I would thing again wether it was morally wrong.
    I am afraid to grasp how the goodness of any system can be claimed when we consider what it’s based on – nothing more than the pain inflicted upon the poor & vulnerable victims and sheer arrogance, that only the British way is the right way and that we (the British) will rule you.

    I am not sure if it would be considered as a charitable cause by the Aborigines or the Iraqis of today?! You seem to?

    (Original post by L i b)
    I remind you that every state in history has been largely crafted through the consolidation of power by a certain group or individual.
    And your point is ...
    I think you placed it there to somehow justify the atrocities committed by the British Empire.

    (Original post by L i b)
    As for Britain's history, most of it is noble. It's certainly not any more shameful than almost every other nation's.
    I consider some of Britain’s history as absolutely barbaric and shameful. Naturally, people usually seem to overlook the darker parts of British history.

    (Original post by L i b)
    Indeed, I'd rather have made some mistakes than relax in isolationist fantasy as some countries have.
    isolated fantasy ... indeed some live in a self-induced state of delusion.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Davetherave)
    It's been stable and by and large free from corruption for decades?

    That already puts it pretty much in the top 20.
    Free from corruption ... ha ha ha ... naive ... two modern examples that come to mind are BAE Al Yamamah incident and cash for honours affair. Research them at your will.
    What does stability have to do with anything, one could say most countries have had stable governments ...
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by L i b)
    We are also more free, more liberal, more moral.

    Yes, I think that does make our version of government superior. I don't buy into this moral relativism crap: there is a difference between right and wrong, and broadly speaking we fall far more into the former side of that dichotomy than most.
    ha ha ha ... surely you don't refer to the modern Britain ... I am not sure if you noticed, but people don't think very highly of England's participation in Iraq.

    In fact, people (myself included) consider it immoral, as opposed to moral.
    So I question what you actually mean by saying "there is a difference between right and wrong" ... its quite unnerving

    But yes I can see how free we (assuming both the government and/or the people) are to go to war -- does that really makes us superior?!?!?!?!?!?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    I think it is interesting that we view Irish, Scottish or French pride and think it's good(Who thinks it's offensive to see the tricolore waved? On the contrary, it's seen as charming), but somehow English pride is obnoxious or offensive to us. Maybe we could learn something from the Americans about patriotism.
    Learn what happens when patriotism goes a little too far maybe?

    (Original post by WoWZa)
    On a bit of a side note, I love Americans! Example: I had just arrived in our condo in Florida and these two girls were throwing a base ball to one another. I walked past and one of them was like "Hi there" in a really friendly manner. I should have asked to join them! If any American girls are reading this you're more than welcome to contact me!
    I like Americans too.

    (Original post by L i b)
    To be frank, I think that - despite the national pastime of putting ourselves down - most of the world do still have a reasonable degree of respect for the British and our institutions.
    That's my impression, we're generally quite well liked by almost every country I've come into contact with on the web.

    (Original post by flugestuge)
    The English are mildly despised I guess.
    Not really hated, just looked down upon as effete and pseudo-sophisticated poor people.
    (Original post by flugestuge)
    The UK is rather poor compared to the US.
    Just look at the slums of East London.
    This just makes you sound like a snob? Who cares how much money your rich have, or that 50% of your wealth is owned by 2% of your people or some such, or that your social mobility is lower than most anywhere in Europe, you can keep your wealth, to be frank, if it's just going to end up moving upwards, who cares? Happiness is better than wealth any day.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue Heart)
    extending dominion” is a euphemism, I presume, to
    1) To take upon oneself the notion of forcing their beliefs/language/currency/culture on another.
    2)To do so without the consent of the weaker party.
    Nope. No more force need be implied than that inherent in the existence of any state. No euphemism whatsoever.

    As far as I am concerned, that is a crime – and will always be and to give an example the atrocities committed to Aboriginal families in the 1930s. I would recommend watching Rabbit Proof Fence. So I would thing again wether it was morally wrong.
    Of course that was morally wrong (and wasn't anything to do with British people at that point either) - I don't see what that has to do with anything.

    If you think expanding territory is a crime, then every state on earth is guilty of it and you must be an Anarchist.

    I am afraid to grasp how the goodness of any system can be claimed when we consider what it’s based on – nothing more than the pain inflicted upon the poor & vulnerable victims and sheer arrogance, that only the British way is the right way and that we (the British) will rule you.
    It's not based on anything of the sort, and to claim it is based on 'nothing more' than that is just hysterical nonsense.

    ----
    (Original post by Blue Heart)
    ha ha ha ... surely you don't refer to the modern Britain ... I am not sure if you noticed, but people don't think very highly of England's participation in Iraq.
    I don't care what people thought of it, it was done with a high moral basis - regardless of how it turned out, or whether it was the best course of action.

    Equally, to take one action and somehow transfer it to the character of a nation is simply daft.

    So I question what you actually mean by saying "there is a difference between right and wrong" ... its quite unnerving
    Yes, it doesn't surprise me that you think that way. Makes life a whole lot easier when you can justify anything, eh?

    But yes I can see how free we (assuming both the government and/or the people) are to go to war -- does that really makes us superior?!?!?!?!?!?!
    Um, no it doesn't. Declaring war has nothing to do with freedom. Well done, you've twisted the English language to make a completely nonsensical point. I'm overwhelmed.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sidhe)
    Learn what happens when patriotism goes a little too far maybe?
    Because jingoism is unique to the US? A lot about jingoism can be learned by looking within the UK.

    That's my impression, we're generally quite well liked by almost every country I've come into contact with on the web.
    Web experiences may not be indicative of the general attitude of a state. For example, Americans or Germans who I meet on TSR are hardly going to be representative of the American or German population as a whole, for more than one reason. The fact that this site explicitly sells itself to students and prospective students certainly gives us a very limited insight into the attitudes of a country. An 18-year old TSR member from Germany isn't going to reflect the attitudes of NPD voters, for example, let alone Germany as a whole. Even if I visit a bunch of different forums and websites, I'm still limiting myself to those people who visit those sites. It's clearly selective in nature. You'd need to do some sort of national survey until you can even really start guessing what the general attitude is.

    This just makes you sound like a snob? Who cares how much money your rich have, or that 50% of your wealth is owned by 2% of your people or some such, or that your social mobility is lower than most anywhere in Europe, you can keep your wealth, to be frank, if it's just going to end up moving upwards, who cares? Happiness is better than wealth any day.
    You make it sound as if the concentration of wealth isn't a problem in the UK.

    Happiness is better than wealth any day? What about those living in poverty? I'd think they'd be pretty happy with some extra wealth. It might be fine for us to say "you can keep your wealth", but economic prosperity is certainly a very important contributor to someone's happiness. A good quality of life comes at a cost, and a lot of that cost is financial in nature.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue Heart)
    Free from corruption ... ha ha ha ... naive ... two modern examples that come to mind are BAE Al Yamamah incident and cash for honours affair. Research them at your will.
    What does stability have to do with anything, one could say most countries have had stable governments ...
    I don't need to research your examples, corruption in this country is not at a point where it completely stifles business and the work of public sector bodies as it does across large parts of the world.

    One could not stay most countries have had stable governments, and stability is important (see Weimar Republic, Latin America et al.).

    ha ha ha...retarded
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MGT_90)
    Because jingoism is unique to the US? A lot about jingoism can be learned by looking within the UK.
    I fail to see what that has to do with what I said.


    Web experiences may not be indicative of the general attitude of a state. For example, Americans or Germans who I meet on TSR are hardly going to be representative of the American or German population as a whole, for more than one reason. The fact that this site explicitly sells itself to students and prospective students certainly gives us a very limited insight into the attitudes of a country. An 18-year old TSR member from Germany isn't going to reflect the attitudes of NPD voters, for example, let alone Germany as a whole. Even if I visit a bunch of different forums and websites, I'm still limiting myself to those people who visit those sites. It's clearly selective in nature. You'd need to do some sort of national survey until you can even really start guessing what the general attitude is.
    I have met hundreds of people from all over the globe all over the web. I have also met many different cultures in person too, and I can tell you generally we are well liked.


    You make it sound as if the concentration of wealth isn't a problem in the UK.

    Happiness is better than wealth any day? What about those living in poverty? I'd think they'd be pretty happy with some extra wealth. It might be fine for us to say "you can keep your wealth", but economic prosperity is certainly a very important contributor to someone's happiness. A good quality of life comes at a cost, and a lot of that cost is financial in nature.
    Well considering the US has a greater problem and its populace was voted 28 in worlds most happiest country according to Scientific American with the UK in 3rd place, I say without reservation, you can stick your unfair distribution of wealth where the sun does nay shine. Couldn't care less meself, if you have a few more dollars, I'd rather more people had the chance to become wealthy than having the lower classes have very little chance of pulling themselves up. We are headed that way ourselves, but the day we get to where America is, is the day I give up on this government completely and utterly.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Davetherave)
    One could not stay most countries have had stable governments, and stability is important (see Weimar Republic, Latin America et al.).

    ha ha ha...retarded
    well ... I am sure it was assumed we were dealing with countries in modern times. And yes Pakistan and Latin American have had a fair share or instability - but there aren't many besides. So to base it on stability is a bit pointless, also I would compare to countries of similar characteristics, e.g. religion or economic wealth.

    Although we may disagree, your last comment was quite funny and made me laugh.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by L i b)
    Nope. No more force need be implied than that inherent in the existence of any state. No euphemism whatsoever.
    Oh yes ... of course I am sure they asked the Ireland if they wanted to be controlled by the UK – and I am sure they said “yeah ... sure” – no force was exerted ... Clearly wasn’t the situation and took over with force.

    (Original post by L i b)
    Of course that was morally wrong (and wasn't anything to do with British people at that point either) - I don't see what that has to do with anything.
    Australian government was a member of the British colonies ????? ... et voici


    (Original post by L i b)
    If you think expanding territory is a crime, then every state on earth is guilty of it and you must be an Anarchist.
    I am a person who doesn’t believe in forcing people off their land – which is expanding territory – if the land is free then I am more than happy – but if it is occupied then it is a crime ... so what is your point? You accuse me of twisting your words ...


    (Original post by L i b)
    I don't care what people thought of it, it was done with a high moral basis - regardless of how it turned out, or whether it was the best course of action.
    Well evidently it wasn’t the best course of action but more worryingly is the we “don’t care” approach which is stamped in the blood of British history.




    (Original post by L i b)
    Yes, it doesn't surprise me that you think that way. Makes life a whole lot easier when you can justify anything, eh?
    I am not justifying – au contraire – I think you need to reread my posts!

    (Original post by L i b)
    Declaring war has nothing to do with freedom. Well done, you've twisted the English language to make a completely nonsensical point.
    That is the problem – the freedom of the victims – and the notion it has no significance!
    Dear God

    (Original post by L i b)
    I'm overwhelmed.
    I always appreciate complements.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue Heart)
    OK ... are you going to substantiate these claims?
    And in any case, I fail to see how "wealth" of a nation makes it liked or disliked?

    I presume the last comment was meant to be funny?
    Relatively speaking, the UK is very wealthy. I thought that was common knowledge. I wasn't talking about whether the UK is liked or disliked, I was referring to the comment about Americans thinking of the English as being "poor". And the last comment was a joke - not supposed to be hilarious, just gentle ribbing. I thought this was obvious. Calm down!

    When I met Americans in Europe the vast majority of them thought I was Australian, despite my having a fairly quintessential English accent ...

    [... though the Australians all seemed to think I was Canadian ... maybe I just speak weirdly.]
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sidhe)
    Learn what happens when patriotism goes a little too far maybe?
    .
    No learn what happens when the people in a country actually respect it instead of being uneducated about it and thinking it's a ****hole.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Jelkin)
    Relatively speaking, the UK is very wealthy. I thought that was common knowledge. I wasn't talking about whether the UK is liked or disliked, I was referring to the comment about Americans thinking of the English as being "poor". And the last comment was a joke - not supposed to be hilarious, just gentle ribbing. I thought this was obvious. Calm down!
    well ... ok ... given that out of many of the countries of the world, the UK is quite high up in the economic wealth region - but with the developed countries we need more clarification as to where we stand.

    I must have come across as a bit sharp; it’s because of Lib's comments. Your joke is somewhat well placed from an objective perspective. So apologies if I appeared to take it out on you. friends ? :dancing:

    I am calm, but doubt will remain to be so when lib returns.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue Heart)
    Oh yes ... of course I am sure they asked the Ireland if they wanted to be controlled by the UK – and I am sure they said “yeah ... sure” – no force was exerted ... Clearly wasn’t the situation and took over with force.
    Well actually it wasn't. The Parliament of 'the Ireland' petitioned Great Britain on countless occasions for unification. Indeed, even on the day GB was formed in 1707, a letter imploring Queen Anne to bring the British Isles together. This happened with a vote of both the Parliaments of Ireland and Great Britain in 1801.

    Moreover, Ireland was never part of the British Empire, but rather an integral part of the United Kingdom.

    Australian government was a member of the British colonies ????? ... et voici
    In the 1930s, Australia was not a 'colony', it was a dominion with its own government.

    I am a person who doesn’t believe in forcing people off their land – which is expanding territory – if the land is free then I am more than happy – but if it is occupied then it is a crime ... so what is your point? You accuse me of twisting your words ...
    Which is a ridiculous view to take. Every state has expanded its territory, every tribe has entered into conflict. If we were to take your view, no countries would or could exist, and we would be left with an Anarchistic world.

    Expanding territory does not have to involve forcing anyone off any land. Britain took control of India largely by treaty. It's not like we came in, killed off all the foreign-looking types and sent out a bunch of chaps from Somerset to replace them.

    Well evidently it wasn’t the best course of action but more worryingly is the we “don’t care” approach which is stamped in the blood of British history.
    ...and indeed, the history of every other group of people since the dawn of time.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by L i b)
    Expanding territory does not have to involve forcing anyone off any land. Britain took control of India largely by treaty. It's not like we came in, killed off all the foreign-looking types and sent out a bunch of chaps from Somerset to replace them.
    Very well -- let’s attempt to strike the core of the issue -- do answer my 2 questions:

    What gave the England the notion that they are superior and can plunder the world an rob the people of their culture and identity?
    Is it not the sheer arrogance and state of supremacy is what makes people dislike the British?


    Your ham handed attempt at discrediting my view

    (Original post by L i b)
    Expanding territory does not have to involve forcing anyone off any land. Britain took control of India largely by treaty. It's not like we came in, killed off all the foreign-looking types and sent out a bunch of chaps from Somerset to replace them.
    Let’s have a look at what happened – and then in light of those facts – I once again beg to ask my underlined question above.

    The British took control in 1760s and set up laws and practices that outraged the Indians; such as being forced to pay high taxes, the promotion of Christianity, the seizure of the ancestry land
    A perfect example is the Salt Act 1882 – which prohibited Indians from making their own salt and that they had to buy it from the British who set a high tax on it.

    Revolts resulted from the changes made by the British Army, needless to say events like the 1919-Amritsar Massacre would never have happened!!

    So it is important not to draw a rosy painted image of England’s history but a more realistic and truthful one and in doing so we may get a little closer to appreciating our horrible history.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue Heart)
    Very well -- let’s attempt to strike the core of the issue -- do answer my 2 questions:

    [U]What gave the England the notion that they are superior and can plunder the world an rob the people of their culture and identity?
    To suggest the British Empire robbed the world of its culture and identity is absolutely ludicrous - if anything, the Empire robbed the UK of its native culture and brought in huge numbers of foreign influences.

    But yes, you cannot rob culture - culture is entirely fluid, it can never be grasped. What isn't invented and artificial is generally imposed.

    What made the UK think it was superior? Well, we've discussed this already have we not? Good and just government, morality, law, a developed standard of living etc. I'm sure there's a theory which describes this: but we were the most powerful; some might argue that in itself demonstrates our superiority.

    Is it not the sheer arrogance and state of supremacy is what makes people dislike the British?
    Quite probably, but it's lonely on top.

    The British took control in 1760s and set up laws and practices that outraged the Indians; such as being forced to pay high taxes, the promotion of Christianity, the seizure of the ancestry land
    A perfect example is the Salt Act 1882 – which prohibited Indians from making their own salt and that they had to buy it from the British who set a high tax on it.
    People always complain about their governments. If they're foreign, it simply adds the extra nationalist/racist dimension to things.

    Over that period, I could name considerably greater issues brought about by the British Government in the UK - yet you're suggesting that one was legitimate and one was not? Why?

    So it is important not to draw a rosy painted image of England’s history but a more realistic and truthful one and in doing so we may get a little closer to appreciating our horrible history.
    I don't attempt anything of the sort. However you've already exposed your extremely daft biases. Britain's history is not remotely 'horrible' - it's just like any other nation's, full of things that we can classify as morally positive or negative.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)

    What made the UK think it was superior? Well, we've discussed this already have we not? Good and just government, morality, law, a developed standard of living etc. I'm sure there's a theory which describes this: but we were the most powerful; some might argue that in itself demonstrates our superiority.
    Human rights and freedom too. Luckily we don't torture people here, or conduct intimidating interrogations of celebs who criticise government. (I thought America was supposed to be the most free country there was?)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    conduct intimidating interrogations of celebs who criticise government. (I thought America was supposed to be the most free country there was?)
    Are you thinking of some case in particular there?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you have any savings?
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.