Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    What exactly do you mean by oppressive? For the most part the natives were allowed to just get on with it along as they weren’t causing any trouble and where we did try to change things it was for the better, the banning of Indian wife’s being burned alive with there dead husbands for example. While we know in some places the natives were not treated so well this was down to individuals and was not government policy, equally British missionaries, scientists etc were going about the world trying to do good.

    However the Empire was so big that different methods had to be used in different places, the resources gained from Africa for example could not have been had by trade seeing as the Africans didn’t know they were there for a start. India however started out as a private trading enterprise and the government only assumed control when the company failed to deal with several large famines in the area and the French were starting to muscle in on the place. Places like Australia, NZ and Canada where the natives were living Stone Age existences could not have been possible with out invasion and takeover.
    You have failed to answer why could none of these things have been accomplished by peace commerce and democracy.

    Hitler was an ethno-nationalist, while I do not care for race simply the advancement of Britain as a political entity. Hitler’s nationalism was tainted by his ideas on race and the way he treated other races, if I was going to admire one nationalistic continental leader it would be Napoleon.
    But what lengths would you be prepared to go to for the advancement of britian? Would you deny a people their right to rule themselves? Would you force them to obey a group of men and women who make up laws thousands of miles away? What lengths would you go to? Imprisonment? making examples of individuals who wish for freedom? Torture? Death sentence?

    How would you feel if in a few decades Britain was forced to become a subject of a foreign power? Do you think your views on forcing your will upon others would change, when you experience the will of others being forced upon you? Hate breeds hate as we saw with the gradual rejection of our empire.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You have failed to answer why could none of these things have been accomplished by peace commerce and democracy.
    a. people don’t like being told what to do by a foreign power
    b. we did trade for the most part, the empire started as an empire of commerce
    c. democracy was an alien concept to most of the world at this time
    Now you tell me ne how things could have been achieved by peace, commerce and democracy?

    But what lengths would you be prepared to go to for the advancement of britian? Would you deny a people their right to rule themselves? Would you force them to obey a group of men and women who make up laws thousands of miles away? What lengths would you go to? Imprisonment? making examples of individuals who wish for freedom? Torture? Death sentence?
    I am happy with the way we did things. Which I explained in my previous post

    How would you feel if in a few decades Britain was forced to become a subject of a foreign power? Do you think your views on forcing your will upon others would change, when you experience the will of others being forced upon you? Hate breeds hate as we saw with the gradual rejection of our empire.
    No, and our withdrawal from the Empire was rather peaceful and we maintain good relations with many former colonies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)

    I am happy with the way we did things. Which I explained in my previous post


    .

    I am not answering your question until you answer mine. How far would you go to further the advancement of Britain. Where would the line be drawn. Slavery? It is an easy question really.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I am not answering your question until you answer mine. How far would you go to further the advancement of Britain. Where would the line be drawn. Slavery? It is an easy question really.
    It’s not that easy a question to answer really, seeing as situations change. In modern times no I don’t think the slave trade would be right, nor would it advance our interests seeing as we would be ostracised from the international community.

    But we must do what we can, within the limits of international law. For example if we have major business interests in a country which then becomes unstable or being in a government which is unfavourable, then that must be taken care of.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    Why not? Our Monarchy reigns, not rules, and as such the hereditary principle is the best. This is not to say it’s perfect, but is preferable to a presidential system.
    I would prefer an eleceted system to the chance of birth.


    (Original post by Renner)
    The Queen represents the country; the MP represents the constituency and so on all the way down to parish level. You may not have voted for your MP in the same way you may not support the Queen but they still represent. The Queen (and the PM for that matter) are not there to represent your personal interests but that of the country as a whole, same with the MP at a constituency level.
    My point still remains though. While MPs have been voted for, the Queen hasn't and therefore is she really representing the country's interests.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mart123)
    I would prefer an eleceted system to the chance of birth.
    Why? Out of some idealistic view of equality? Do you honestly believe a single mother from Bolton would have any chance of running for President? Or is it more likely to be a couple of bland politicians (probably born into privilege, like the Queen) hurled in front of the electorate? I would much rather have a Head of State trained from birth and beyond the divisive politics of an elected President. There are legitimacies which lie beyond the ballot box.

    What, exactly, would be the objective benefits of an elected system? Other than costing billions to implement. :rolleyes:

    (Original post by mart123)
    My point still remains though. While MPs have been voted for, the Queen hasn't and therefore is she really representing the country's interests.
    Yet, MPs have truly represented the interests of the people?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mart123)
    My point still remains though. While MPs have been voted for, the Queen hasn't and therefore is she really representing the country's interests.
    Erm, yes. We dont elect a whole range of people who represent our country.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moosehead)
    The monarchy is an archaic institution whose members enjoy respect and influence purely by accident of birth.

    Why, in a 21st century 'democracy', do we continue to allow this blatant abuse of our civil liberties? We still have a non-elected House of Lords for crying out loud! We should be out on the streets in our droves, protesting at this continuing injustice. Yet, unfortunately, we sit in our homes playing our Xbox's and Nintendo's
    If you look at the state of electoral issues in Britain you will see that the House of Commons being elected isn't that great either. A party can get 25% of the vote and 3% of the seats, another party can win the most votes in the country and not take office, and voters can vote for the London mayor, not on his policies but as a dissatisfaction of the national Government, especially to those living in the outer suburbs who are less likely to be involved with the Mayor of London than those living more centrally.

    MPs aren't truly representative, as they have party lines to follow, whips and the sort. And I wouldn't bother to protest. If one million protesters were not enough to at least have some second thought about invading Iraq then nothing will. An example of how politics further marginalises the politically active youth. And British politicians wonder why so few youngsters vote? Bad enough with the electoral system, having the age limit of 18, and with all the other **** from happening.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eradicus)
    How very naive, most likely should such a situation ever arise, the Royal family would go into exile (it's very fashionable thing for them to do when their country is in need of them) living out the rest of their lives in some tax-free former colony enjoying a life of luxury, but let's be honest, the chances of such a takeover are slim-to-none. The chances of Royalty saving our bacon in such a circumstance, is unequivocally none.
    It's quite simple. You can't offer loyalties to a demagogue if you have still have them for the monarch. On the agenda of any power-crazed politician will be a desire to install himself as the head of state - naturally requiring the usurpation of the monarchy. Before a politician can even get close to this stage he would find himself engaged in a popularity battle with the sovereign - one which he could very well lose.
    It is likely that a demagogue would not get far if he pledged to abolish the monarchy upon election so that he could install himself as supreme leader.

    On a related note, there is a tendency within this debate to travel to the extremes and begin talking about the prospects of dictators and military juntas and whether the monarch would be able to fight them off. To discuss such unlikely scenarios is to stray away from a much more pertinent contribution of the monarchy - one which is constantly in effect. Namely the symbolic subordination of the political class to some higher force. No one likes politicians. Their trade is a dirty business; full of corruption, collusion, backstabbing, condescension and manipulation. This is what can be naturally expected when the livelihoods of our MPs rely on their positions - at the end of the day, re-election is the only thing they care about. Parliamentary democracy is however a great institution and the elected chamber rightly governs the country. I do not wish however for its constituent members to assume the place at the zenith of society - politicians feed off attention and power; two necessary ingredients for their self-interested augmentation. The political class holds all the power in society yet because of the monarchy they are beautifully divorced from the symbolic headship of the state.

    In a way, the monarch allows us to have a de-politicised society (ie one which is managed but not ruled by politicians).

    Personally I much prefer having a quiet, restrained monarch as my head of state than a loud, power-obsessed politician like Tony Blair or David Cameron - demagogues who patronise us and cover us in slime.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why, in a 21st century 'democracy', do we continue to allow this blatant abuse of our civil liberties? We still have a non-elected House of Lords for crying out loud! We should be out on the streets in our droves, protesting at this continuing injustice. Yet, unfortunately, we sit in our homes playing our Xbox's and Nintendo's
    Abuse of our civil liberties? Injustice? I think that's a bit much. For a start, the House of Commons vets every decision the House of Lords makes - it's subordinate to the Commons. The monarchy has no decision-making capabilities either. I just don't see what the big deal is.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • 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.