BBC considers dropping Rule Brittania from the Proms

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#41
Report 4 weeks ago
#41
(Original post by epicnm)
“Downsides”... Nice way to describe mass murder.
I know you're trolling for a response and believe me im tempted to reply but i'll leave this ridiculous comment alone.
Had Britain not exploited it’s colonies, would colonies be exposed to foreign diseases?
It’s more the fact colonisation resulted in horrific consequences for natives of the land.
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 :rolleyes:
I’m well aware of those who succeeded from
the empire, despite the several struggles as a result of Britain’s colonisation, but British colonisation has a very disturbing, brutal history. I have never had a hatred of British history, I have a hatred of the tendency in Britain to blanket their own history to paint Britain as a historically heroic country, as if the several terrible actions of Britain in the past still aren’t having repercussions today. And had Britain not blanket or suppress the atrocities that Britain has historically done, Britons wouldn’t take pride in something like Rule Britannia which glorifies the exploitation of other nations by Britain.
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).
0
Ramipril
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#42
Report 4 weeks ago
#42
(Original post by londonmyst)
Union Jack Wearing Bulldog is incensed. :mob:
Attachment 947430
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. :eviltongue:
The BBC and TV licence are both a joke.
2
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#43
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by epicnm)
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?
Mauritania has a thriving slave trade...
0
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#44
Report 4 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
https://www.theguardian.com/music/20...t-of-the-proms

Yet another good reason to defund the BBC.
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!!!!!
0
epicnm
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#45
Report 4 weeks ago
#45
(Original post by Napp)
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 :rolleyes:

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).
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...

You’ve missed the point again. Western diseases arising from British colonialism isn’t something to be celebrated. I never denied the existence of other foreign diseases which threatened populations, I said the horrific consequences of British colonisation on colonies like diseases wiping out 90% of the Australian native population, isn’t something to be glorified or celebrated.

As for Britain’s colonial history, it was through exploitation, invasion, theft, division, murder, slavery, famine, rape, torture deception and destruction that Britain was able to build it’s large empire, and as for historical standards, compared to the colonies who were victim to Britain’s exploiting, was far worse than any internal disputes that colonies had suffered within their own nations, albeit some exceptions.
Again, I haven’t got a hatred of British history, I have a hatred of ignorant lies that several British people tell themselves (or were taught through an education system which blankets the atrocities Britain has made) to justify what was essentially as you said colonial rape, as if Britain had politely asked for colonies to move out of their own land and they willingly submitted to Britain’s request.
As for the repercussions of British colonialism, read these:
http://theguardian.com/commentisfree...avery-windrush
https://theconversation.com/amp/the-...-britain-67429
The repercussions today of European colonialism today is a whole other story, with racism arising from the divide and conquer techniques of colonial powers embedded into almost every institution in the West today.
Assuming you didn’t approve of Britain’s methods and consequences of colonisation, as a morally decent person wouldn’t, you’d have no reason to glorify or praise it today. That doesn’t mean it should be ignored or erased from history, it means the horrific truth shouldn’t be blanketed or suppressed to appease a fallacy of what some British people like yourself wish to hear.
0
epicnm
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#46
Report 4 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
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.
0
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#47
Report 4 weeks ago
#47
(Original post by epicnm)
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...
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?
You’ve missed the point again. Western diseases arising from British colonialism isn’t something to be celebrated. I never denied the existence of other foreign diseases which threatened populations, I said the horrific consequences of British colonisation on colonies like diseases wiping out 90% of the Australian native population, isn’t something to be glorified or celebrated.
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.
As for Britain’s colonial history, it was through exploitation, invasion, theft, division, murder, slavery, famine, rape, torture deception and destruction that Britain was able to build it’s large empire, and as for historical standards, compared to the colonies who were victim to Britain’s exploiting, was far worse than any internal disputes that colonies had suffered within their own nations, albeit some exceptions.
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.

Again, I haven’t got a hatred of British history, I have a hatred of ignorant lies that several British people tell themselves (or were taught through an education system which blankets the atrocities Britain has made) to justify what was essentially as you said colonial rape, as if Britain had politely asked for colonies to move out of their own land and they willingly submitted to Britain’s request.
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 :rolleyes:
As for the repercussions of British colonialism, read these:
http://theguardian.com/commentisfree...avery-windrush
https://theconversation.com/amp/the-...-britain-67429
The repercussions today of European colonialism today is a whole other story, with racism arising from the divide and conquer techniques of colonial powers embedded into almost every institution in the West today.
Assuming you didn’t approve of Britain’s methods and consequences of colonisation, as a morally decent person wouldn’t, you’d have no reason to glorify or praise it today. That doesn’t mean it should be ignored or erased from history, it means the horrific truth shouldn’t be blanketed or suppressed to appease a fallacy of what some British people like yourself wish to hear.
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.
0
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#48
Report 4 weeks ago
#48
(Original post by epicnm)
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.
Are you blaming Africans enslaving each other on a foreign country?!?
0
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#49
Report 4 weeks ago
#49
(Original post by Napp)
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.

Again i see no particular reason to feel "shame" for our history, not least of all because it is obviously a shining beacon on the hill compared to the holocaust (your comparison, not mine).
Of course the British Empire's atrocities are smaller than the atrocity of the Holocaust; there's obviously a difference between killing about half a million people versus killing over six million people for example. But an atrocity is still an atrocity. In both cases, as I said, I wouldn't want to "erase history" and pretend none of this happened. But it seems to me to be in extremely poor taste for either Britain or Germany to express pride in either of these aspects of their history - effectively "kudos to me because I used to be the biggest bully in the playground". It should be recognised as something fundamentally immoral rather than something to be proud of.

So you dont think the fact that our culture, language, way of life and general greatness of the small island nation should be celebrated?
Of course they should be celebrated. I'm very proud to be part of a country that has such a great culture, which has been shared with the rest of the world and also absorbed many aspects from the rest of the world, as has our language. I'm also very proud to share a country with some of the world's best (past and present) mathematicians, scientists, writers, artists, musicians, sportspeople and much more. I'm proud of everything good about this country. But that does not mean I should also be proud of something about this country's history which is bad.

Here is a question for you, would you rather the practice of burning women alive, as a matter of course, continued but be free to do as you please or that the country be part of an Empire and such barbarism be banned?

It depends on what sort of Empire it is. If they intervene in another country's affairs purely on humanitarian grounds, to save the lives of those being unjustly killed in this way, then I'd prefer they do that. But if it's an Empire that interferes in another country's affairs primarily for its own ends and kills hundreds of thousands of people in their efforts to seize control, then the fact that they save a few lives by banning such practises probably won't make it worth the rest of the death and destruction they've caused.

But it seems like a false choice anyway, since "an Empire" is not a prerequisite for the rest of the world intervening to help to solve a humanitarian issue.
0
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#50
Report 4 weeks ago
#50
(Original post by tazarooni89)
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.
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.
The use of 'stole' is an interesting one though, it gives an impression that people simply went there to pick pockets as opposed to war booty (a perfectly common and acceptable practice then) and it rather ignores the fact much of this "stolen" stuff was indeed paid for, if practically stolen given the awful exchange rates. After all, the empire was a commercial endeavour first and formost not simply a bunch of robber barrons. People were paid for their wears be it silk, drugs etc. And as for material removal (like mining) that is a rather more complex issue than simple 'theft'. Although your point stands to a degree.


Of course the British Empire's atrocities are smaller than the atrocity of the Holocaust; there's obviously a difference between killing about half a million people versus killing over six million people for example. But an atrocity is still an atrocity. In both cases, as I said, I wouldn't want to "erase history" and pretend none of this happened. But it seems to me to be in extremely poor taste for either Britain or Germany to express pride in either of these aspects of their history - effectively "kudos to me because I used to be the biggest bully in the playground". It should be recognised as something fundamentally immoral rather than something to be proud of.
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.

Of course they should be celebrated. I'm very proud to be part of a country that has such a great culture, which has been shared with the rest of the world and also absorbed many aspects from the rest of the world, as has our language. I'm also very proud to share a country with some of the world's best (past and present) mathematicians, scientists, writers, artists, musicians, sportspeople and much more. I'm proud of everything good about this country. But that does not mean I should also be proud of something about this country's history which is bad.
Yes but the fact remains the empire in of itself was not inherently bad... there was many good, as well as bad, aspects to it which is my point. After all many of these people you claim to praise were undoubtedly imperialists and scoundrels, does that mean you are forbidden to praise them now?
It depends on what sort of Empire it is. If they intervene in another country's affairs purely on humanitarian grounds, to save the lives of those being unjustly killed in this way, then I'd prefer they do that. But if it's an Empire that interferes in another country's affairs primarily for its own ends and kills hundreds of thousands of people in their efforts to seize control, then the fact that they save a few lives by banning such practises probably won't make it worth the rest of the death and destruction they've caused.

But it seems like a false choice anyway, since "an Empire" is not a prerequisite for the rest of the world intervening to help to solve a humanitarian issue.
An empire is an empire, it exists to conquor. Not to intervene to help on humanitarian grounds. I know of no such unicorn to have existed in human history - depsite the risible claims by America to do it on humanitarian grounds. It is an impossibility in foreign conquest to do it solely to help anyone else. If it is a byproduct much the better but it is never a sole aim in its own right.

So, every empire to ever have existed then?
No but it does make a moral point - again though i know of no British engagement that killed 'hundreds of thousands' to seize control outside of the battlefield. Even on the battlefield for that matter.

Indeed not, i would contend it is an oxymoron. then again i know of few countries ever to have intervened solely on humanitarian grounds in the realms of conquest.
0
IbeIC123
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#51
Report 4 weeks ago
#51
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
https://www.theguardian.com/music/20...t-of-the-proms

Yet another good reason to defund the BBC.
Snowflake
0
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#52
Report 4 weeks ago
#52
(Original post by Napp)
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.
I'm not really sure why it's relevant that the British Empire's atrocities were more benign than various others or if they killed fewer people than the Germans etc. It just seems like an argument from whataboutery. An Empire is still an Empire, and by definition it still involves the subjugation of others by force, which is an immoral thing in and of itself. I don't see why we should deserve a pat on the back just because our Empire was not as bad as someone else's.

Yes but the fact remains the empire in of itself was not inherently bad... there was many good, as well as bad, aspects to it which is my point.
I'd disagree with this. In my view, the whole concept of "an Empire" (i.e. the subjugation of others by force) is inherently a bad thing. To say that there were both positive and negative consequences is a separate issue. In theory one could say that rape might have positive aspects to it, e.g. if it results in the conception of a child who turns out to be a great person. One could say that dictatorship might have positive aspects to it, e.g. Hilter benefitted the German economy in many ways. But rape is still rape, dictatorship is still dictatorship, and imperialism is still imperialism; both things which are inherently immoral, done without consent, and nothing at all to be proud of, regardless of any positive outcomes. The ends don't justify the means.

After all many of these people you claim to praise were undoubtedly imperialists and scoundrels, does that mean you are forbidden to praise them now?
Of course not. I'd praise them for whatever achievements they had, and criticise them for being imperialists and scoundrels, insofar as the two are separate things. However I wouldn't praise them for anything they achieved as a direct result of being imperialists and scoundrels.

An empire is an empire, it exists to conquor. Not to intervene to help on humanitarian grounds. I know of no such unicorn to have existed in human history - depsite the risible claims by America to do it on humanitarian grounds. It is an impossibility in foreign conquest to do it solely to help anyone else. If it is a byproduct much the better but it is never a sole aim in its own right.

So, every empire to ever have existed then?
No but it does make a moral point - again though i know of no British engagement that killed 'hundreds of thousands' to seize control outside of the battlefield. Even on the battlefield for that matter.

Indeed not, i would contend it is an oxymoron. then again i know of few countries ever to have intervened solely on humanitarian grounds in the realms of conquest.

In that case, to answer your question, I would prefer that the barbaric practice is not solved by imperialists taking over the country and banning it. There are better ways for it to be handled. If we found a country which routinely burnt women today, I doubt any country's first thought would be "great, let's add them to our Empire".
0
epicnm
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#53
Report 4 weeks ago
#53
(Original post by Napp)
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 :rolleyes:

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.
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! :bebored:

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.
0
epicnm
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#54
Report 4 weeks ago
#54
(Original post by Napp)
Are you blaming Africans enslaving each other on a foreign country?!?
No, I'm blaming the failure of its abolishment on another country which promoted it.
0
IbeIC123
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#55
Report 4 weeks ago
#55
(Original post by epicnm)
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! :bebored:

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.
100% of Tasmanian aboriginals
0
IbeIC123
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#56
Report 4 weeks ago
#56
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Mauritania has a thriving slave trade...
The sahels instability could easily be attributed to the effects of the colonial powers and even climate change
0
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#57
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#57
(Original post by epicnm)
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.
”Slavery being acceptable in Mauritania and legal is down to French colonisation”. Never mind that slavery was commonplace in the Arab world (which Mauritania is part of) long before French colonisation or that France passed laws to stamp out slavery.
(Original post by IbeIC123)
The sahels instability could easily be attributed to the effects of the colonial powers and even climate change
Excuse me? The Mauritanian government choosing to only outlaw slavery in 2007 is not down to colonialism or climate change.
0
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#58
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#58
(Original post by Lucifer323)
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.
More personal attacks.
Someone described you as Mog the Cat with the tendency of not wanting any change...
Is this someone your imaginary friend? Either way it's nice to know what kind of books are at your reading level.
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!
How is being patriotic ”archaic and outdated”?
Monarchy is also an outdated and archaic political system. Together with religion, they have no place in 21st century secular liberal societies.
I'm a royalist mainly because I think the concept of a non-partisan monarch who has the power to intervene if things go tits up is an important fail safe in our democracy, and because I'd rather be ruled by the House of Windsor than by President Blair.
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!!!!!
More typical drivel.
Last edited by Iñigo de Loyola; 4 weeks ago
0
imlikeahermit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#59
Report 4 weeks ago
#59
(Original post by Lucifer323)
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!!!!!
Honest to god I wish you’d just put the keyboard down. Please, take a break.
0
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#60
Report 4 weeks ago
#60
(Original post by epicnm)
No, I'm blaming the failure of its abolishment on another country which promoted it.
Seems rather like ignoring the true cause of it and trying to shift the blame.
(Original post by epicnm)
Yes, the forced migration and millions of deaths were wanted by Indians
(I've responded to that point later)
Stop trolling.
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.
You keep saying this yet you have yet to make a single point actually worthy of real consideration :lol: Never mind the outrageous lie that anyone is celebrating any deaths.
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.
No this is you typing twaddle again.
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.
Go for it...
You should pay attention to what you wrote. You accused Britain of causing faminines, this is clearly rubbish.
Again, we have all seen your innumerable posts of British history and your hatred for it.
ahahaha :rofl: and what exactly has one 'altered' every accusation you've tried to level at me has been a demonstrable lie.
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
So you deny this occured? Thats certain an amusingly bent interpretation of history.
Who said it was discovered by Europeans? It being a decidedly Indian, Iraqi and Chinese affair.
Thats clearly not true now is it :lol: A centre of higher learning indeed :lol:
Apparently your grasp of history is still rather low though so i'll enlighten you as to those three references. The first is to India (entirely true) and second is to the Fijian cannibal isles (go on, argue that this isnt true as well) and the third is a common practice in Africa to this day. Only someone of your limited grasp of the facts could deny these events though.
The lies that I've been replying to above and in all my previous posts...
:rofl: good joke.
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.
You have yet to give an example of 'embedded racism' one lonely mans opinion not withstanding.
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! :bebored:
Bingo, now you're getting it
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?
Same as above
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.
No you have outright denied the positives exist, hence why i question your limited grasp of history. Or your deliberate corruption of the facts to suit your anti British agenda. something i still find it risible you try and say isnt true :rolleyes:
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.
No Britiain was built on the back of the opium trade, if we're going for pure monetary value. Go on, look it up.
Ah we're back to you taking umbrage at compensation again. Remind me what that has to do with a debate on the merits and pitfalls of empire?
No they arent especially when they're complete claptrap to begin with. Which bit of there being no country known as India did you miss?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you confident you could find support for your mental health if you needed it in COVID-19?

Yes (77)
21.63%
No (279)
78.37%

Watched Threads

View All